5267 GI/2016

(5193)

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- 48]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 20—uoEcj 26] 2016] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 29—vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

No. 48]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 20—NOVEMBER 26, 2016, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 29—AGRAHAYANA 5, 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)

भारतीय रज़व ब क

भारतीय रज़व ब क

भारतीय रज़व ब क

भारतीय रज़व ब क

मुंबई, 23 िसतबर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 2256

2256

2256

2256.—राीय आवास बक अिधिनयम, 1987 (1987 का सं. 53) क धारा 6(2) के साथ पठत धारा 6 के ख!ड

(घ) क उपधारा (i) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय रज़व* बक डॉ. ऊ.जत पटेल के 2थान पर एतद्3ारा 4ी आर. गाँधी, उप-गवन*र, भारतीय

रज़व* बक को राीय आवास बक के िनदेशक मंडल मे बक के नािमती िनदेशक के :प म' नािमत करता है।

[अिधसूचना सं. बिविव.एपीपीटी. एनएचबी. 3652/08.21.006/2016-17]

सुदश*न सेन, काय*पालक िनदेशक

5194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Mumbai, the 23rd September, 2016

S.O. 2256.—In pursuance of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with Section 6(2) of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (No.53 of 1987), Reserve Bank of India hereby nominates Shri R. Gandhi, Deputy Governor,

Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, as the Bank’s Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of the National Housing

Bank vice Dr. Urjit R. Patel.

[Notification No. DBR.Appt.NHB.3652/08.21.006/2016-17]

SUDARSHAN SEN, Executive Director

उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता मामले

मामले

मामले

मामले, , , , खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता मामले िवभाग

मामले िवभाग

मामले िवभाग

मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक  यू

भारतीय मानक  यू

भारतीय मानक  यू

भारतीय मानक  यूरो

रोरो

रो)

नई @दA ली, 17 अB तूबर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 2257

2257

2257

2257.—भारतीय मानक D यूरो (Eमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय

मानक D यूरो एतद्3ारा अिधसूिचत करता है @क िजन लाइस'सH के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म' @दए गए ह, वे 2 वीकृत कर @दए गए ह:-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

Kम

संL या

लाइस'स संL या

2 वीकृत करने

क ितिथ

लाइस'सधारी का नाम

व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीष*क

भा मा

भाग

अनु

वष*

1.

एल-

9512352716

11.05.2016

मै0 जय दुगN Oेडस*,

झQ जर रोड, हनुमान मं@दर के

पास, गॉव धौर, तRसील

बैरी,

िजला झQ जर - 124103,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव* ढिलत कंKट

D लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

2.

एल-

9512352522

13.05.2016

मै0 कैलाश Qवैलरी हाउस,

1 डी/14, बी पी, 1-2 चौक,

एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हरयाणा

2 वण*

एवं

2 वण*

िम4धातुएं

आभूषण/िशA पकारी

शुUता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

1999

3.

एल-

9512352615

13 05.2016

मै0 कैलाश Qवैलरी हाउस,

1 डी/14, बी पी, 1-2 चौक,

एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हरयाणा

चVदी

एवं

चVदी

िम4धातुएं

आभूषण/िशA पकारी

शुUता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

-

-

2014

4.

एल-

9512352817

18.05.2016

मै0 जे ए!ड जी Oांसाफाम*र

कपनी,

13 के एम, पटौदी

गुडगावँ रोड,

बाहय

–

रंग

तेल

इ मेस*ड

िवतरण

Oांसफाम*र

2500

kVA, 33 kV

1180

01

-

2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5195

गॉव – धौरका,

िजला गुडगावँ

हरयाणा

5.

एल-

9512352918

26.05.2016

मै0 मु2कान बैवरेिजस

इंटरEाइिसस,

तोशाम रोड, वी पी ओ

बपोरा,

िजला िभवानी,

हरयाणा

पैकेजबX द पेय जल

(पैकेजबX द

Eाकृितक

िमनरल

जल

के

अलावा)

14543

-

-

2004

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

जय पाल Yसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2016

S.O. 2257.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

IS

No.

Part

Sec.

Year

1.

L-

9512352716

11.05.2016

M/s Jai Durge Traders,

Jhajjar Road, Near

Hanuman Mandir,

Village Dhaur,

Tehsil Beri,

Distt : Jhajjar – 124103,

Haryana

Precast Concrete Blocks

for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

2.

L-

9512352522

13.05.2016

M/s Kailash Jewellery

House,

1 D/14, B.P., 1-2 Chowk,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Gold & Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

1417

-

-

1999

3.

L-

9512352615

13.05.2016

M/s Kailash Jewellery

House,

1 D/14, B.P., 1-2 Chowk,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Silver & Silver Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

-

-

2014

4.

L-

9512352817

18.05.2016

M/s J&G Transformer

Company

13 KM, Pataudi Gurgaon

Road, Vill.- Dhorka,

Distt. Gurgaon

Haryana

Outdoor type oil

immersed distribution

transformers up to

including 2500 kVA, 33

kV

1180

01

-

2014

5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

L-

9512352918

26.05.2016

M/s Muskan Beverages

Enterprises,

Tosham Road, V.P.O.

Bapora,

Distt. Bhiwani,

Haryana

Packaged drinking water

(Other than Natural

Mineral Water)

14543

-

-

2004

[No.CMD/13:11]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

नई @दA ली, 17 अB तूबर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 2258

2258

2258

2258.— भारतीय मानक D यूरो (Eमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म'

भारतीय मानक D यूरो एतद्3ारा अिधसूिचत करता है @क िन न िववरण वाले लाइस'सH को उनके आगे दशा*यी गई तारीख से रद् /2 थिगत

कर @दया गया है :-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

Kम

लाइस'स संL या

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व प[ा

लाइस'स के अX तग*त व2 तु/EKम

रद करने क ितिथ

संL या

सीएम/एल

स बU भारतीय मानक का शीष*क

----शूX य----

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

जय पाल Yसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2016

S.O. 2258.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Name & Address

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

No.

No. CM/L-

of the Licensee

Indian Standards covered by

Cancellation

the licence cancelled/suspension

-- NIL –

[No.CMD/13:13]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

नई @दA ली, 17 अB तूबर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 2259

2259

2259

2259.—भारतीय मानक D यूरो (Eमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म'

भारतीय मानक D यूरो एतद्3ारा अिधसूिचत करता है @क िजन लाइस'सH के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म' @दए गए ह, वे 2 वीकृत कर @दए गए

ह:-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

Kम

संL या

लाइस'स संL या

2 वीकृत करने

क ितिथ

लाइस'सधारी का नाम

व प[ा

भारतीय मानक का

शीष*क

भा मा

भाग

अनु

वष*

1.

एल -

9512352219

07.04.2016

मै0 डयूरा िबA ड केयर Eा0

िल0,

\ लॉट नं0 2376,

मॉडन* इ! ड2 Oीयल इ2 टेट,

िसरैिमक टाइA स और

प] चीकारी म' EयुB त

असंजक

15477

-

-

2004

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5197

पाट* बी,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झQ जर - 124507,

हरयाणा

2.

एल -

9512352118

13.04.2016

,मै0 अमौर इि!डया,

जीएफ - 21, गोA ड सूक,

सुशांत लोक - 1,

िजला गुड़गVव – 122002,

हरयाणा

2 वण* एवं 2 वण*

िम4धातुएं

आभूषण/िशA पकारी

शुUता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

1999

3.

एल-

9512352320

18.04.2016

मै0 2 वाि2तक पाइ\ स िल0, ,

41 केएम, @दA ली रोहतक

रोड,

वीपीओ असौदा,

िजला झQ जर,

हरयाणा

िवधुत सं2 थापनH के

िलए निलका`

भाग 2 - ठोस इ2 पात

निलका`

9537

02

-

1981

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

जय पाल Yसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2016

S.O. 2259.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

which are given in the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

IS

No.

Part

Sec.

Year

2.

L-

9512352219

07.04.2016

M/s. Dura Build Care

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.2376,

Modern Industrial Estate,

Part B,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507,

Haryana

Adhesives for Use With

Ceramic Tiles and

Mosaics

15477

-

-

2004

2.

L-

9512352118

13.04.2016

M/s. Amour India,

GF-21, Gold Souk,

Sushant Lok-1,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122002,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

1417

-

-

1999

3.

L-

9512352320

18.04.2016

M/s. Swastik Pipes

Limited.

41 Km, Delhi Rohtak

Road, VPO Asaudah,

Distt : Jhajjar

Haryana

Conduits for Electrical

Installations Part 2 –

Rigid Steel Conduits

9537

02

-

1981

[No.CMD/13:11]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

5198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई @दA ली, 17 अB तूबर, 2016

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 2260

2260

2260

2260.—भारतीय मानक D यूरो (Eमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म'

भारतीय मानक D यूरो एतद3ारा अिधसूिचत करता है @क िन न िववरण वाले लाइस'सH को उनके आगे दशा*यी गई तारीख से रद् /2 थिगत

कर @दया गया है/:-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

Kम

संL या

लाइस'स संL या

सीएम/एल

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व प[ा

लाइस'स के अX तग*त व2 तु/EKम

स बU भारतीय मानक का

शीष*क

रद करने क ितिथ

1.

एल-2713249

मै0 लवली Qवैलस*,

मेन बाजार,

बादशाहपुर गॉव,

सोRना रौड,

िजला गुडगावँ – 122001,

हरयाणा

2 वण* एवं 2 वण* िम4धातुएं

आभूषण/िशA पकारी

शुUता एवं मुहरांकन

06.05.2016

2.

एल-9512341113

मै0 एस आर एस Qवैलस,

(ए युिनट ऑफ एस आर एस

िल0),

कमेटी चौक,

देवी मं@दर के पास,

पलवल,

हरयाणा

2 वण* एवं 2 वण* िम4धातुएं

आभूषण/िशA पकारी

शुUता एवं मुहरांकन

12.05.2016

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

जय पाल Yसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2016

S.O. 2260.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No. CM/L

Name & Address

of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Indian Standards covered by

the licence cancelled/suspension

Date of Cancellation

1.

L-2713249

M/s. Lovely Jewellers,

Main Bazar,

Badshahpur Village

Sohna Road,

Distt. Gurgaon –

122001,

Gold & Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

06.05.2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5199

Haryana

2.

L-9512341113

M/s. SRS Jewells

(A Unit of SRS

Limited),

Committee Chowck

Near Devi Mandir,

Palwal,

Haryana

Gold & Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

12.05.2016

[No. CMD/13:13]

JAI PAL SINGH, Section Officer

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2261-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 322@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@29@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 322/2004) 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

11.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/29/2000-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, 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 19^th September 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 322/2004

1.

The Group General Manager(P),

ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Chandkheda,Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2.

M/s. Parishram Labour Co.,

Opp. Society Ltd., Shahibaugh,Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

3.

M/s. Industrial Security Services,

Parichay Shopping Centre, Near ‘O’ Cabin,

5200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IOC Road, Post New Railway 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 K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

:

Kum. Santoshben

AWARD

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

30012/29/2000-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 the Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, Ahmedabad to declare that the arrangement

through which Shri Parmar Kalidas Ramabhai employed as Driver 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 then to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

1.

The reference dates back to 18.08.2000. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 10 on 18.10.2002

and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 12 on 22.12.2003. Since then both the parties have been absent.

Therefore on 24.12.2010, the tribunal issued notice to the second party to appear and lead evidence but to no result.

First party advocate sometimes appeared in the court on 20.12.2011, 07.03.2012, 13.09.2012, 17.04.2013, 22.07.2013,

18.11.2013, 10.02.2014 and 29.12.2015 but second party or his advocate never appeared in the tribunal for leading

evidence. Thus it appears that second party is not inclined to prosecute the case. Therefore, the tribunal has no option

but to dispose of the reference in the absence of the second party.

2.

Therefore, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party and the reference is

decided in negative as being not contested by the second party by adducing evidence.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2262-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 757@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@4@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 757/2004) 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

11.11.2016.

[No. L-30011/4/2002-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5201

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st September 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 757/2004

1. M/s. New Industrial Security Services,

103,113, Omkar Chambers, 1^st Floor,

Opp. Railway Station, Surat (Gujarat)

2. The Executive Director,

ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009

…First Party

V/s.

The Legal Secretary,

Bharatiya Karmachari Sangh,

Vishwakarma Shram Sadhna Trust, 101, Shirali Complex,

Kothi Char Rasta,AnustuTekri,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second party

For the First Party

:

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

:

Shri S. Shah

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/4/2002-

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 action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda in terminating the services of

S/Sh.(1)BhimaBhilla Chaudhary (2) ChandubhaiDhulabhaiParmar (3) Sakharam K. Shinde (4) BhikamSuram

Valmiki, Security Guards w.e.f. 15.01.1997 through its Contractor M/s Singh Security Services is legal,

proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?” AND “Whether the demand of the union to treat S/Sh. (1) BhimaBhilla Chaudhary

(2) ChandubhaiDhulabhaiParmar (3) Sakharam K. Shinde and (4) BhikamSuram Valmiki as regular and

permanent employees of ONGC Ltd., is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1.

The reference dates back to 03.01.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 8 and first party

also submitted the written statement on 13.01.2008. Since then, despite giving last opportunity on 04.01.2016, the

second party did not appear and is also not leading evidence. Thus it appears that second party does not want to

prosecute the case. Hence the reference is decided in affirmative.

2.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2263-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

5202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 773@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@113@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 773/2004) 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. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11.11.2016.

[No. L-30011/113/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, 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 19^th September 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 773/2004

The Executive Director,

Gujarat Refinery, IOCL Ltd.,

P.O. Jawaharnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 391320

…First Party

V/s.

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Refinery Kamdar Sangh,

6/5, Refinery Township, P.O. Jawaharnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) - 391320

…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-

30011/113/2001-IR(M) dated 22.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Gujarat Refinery, IOCL, Baroda in terminating the services of Shri

R.H. Dave, Shri K.M. Bhrambhatt and Smt. Hiraben S. Solanki w.e.f. 30.05.1996, 06.03.1999 and 13.12.1995

respectively is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned three workmen are entitled to

and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1.

The reference dates back to 22.04.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 6 on

07.05.2003 and first party submitted the written statement on 10.02.2003. Since then both the parties have been absent.

Therefore the tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in non-prosecution of the case by both the parties and

the reference is in affirmative as being not contested by the second party.

2.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5203

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2264-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vohok ykbZiQ ba';ksjsal da- bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@29@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.11.2016.

[No. L-17012/29/2012-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 3/2013

No. L-17012/29/2012-IR (M), dated 11.01.2013

Date of Passing Order – 26^th July, 2016

Between:

The Manager, HR,

Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited,

Aditya Plaza Building, Unit-4,

Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Smt. Madhumita Dash,

A.V. Residency, Plot No. 14,

Opp. Indian Overseas Bank, Kalarangha,

Patia, Bhubaneswar

…2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

Shri Ashwini Kr. Biswal,

…

For the 1^st Party-Management

Manager (HR)

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Authorized representative for both the 1^st Party-Management is present. None is found present for the 2^nd party-

workman on repeated calls. Perusal of the case record reveals that the 2^nd party-workman has filed its statement of

claim on 13.06.2013, whereas the 1^st Party-Management on being noticed filed its written statement on 16.12.2013. On

the pleadings of the parties issues were settled on 12.02.2014. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence of the 2^nd

party-workman from time to time. But the 2^nd party-workman is not attending the court since 17.9.2014 and not

5204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adducing any evidence inspite of notice being issued to her on 25.1.2016. The authorized representative for the 1^st

Party-Management submits that the reference be returned to the Government unanswered in view of not attending the

court by the 2^nd party-workman for the last several dates. Heard the representative of the 1^st Party-Management. As

the 2^nd party-workman is continuously not attending the court for the last several dates it is presumed that she is not

interested to prosecute her dispute and there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute order and accordingly a no-

dispute order is passed in the case.

2.

Accordingly the reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2265-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 354@2001] 383@200] 18@2008] 17@2008)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@29@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)]

la- ,y&30011@11@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 354/2201, 383/2001, 18/2008, 17/2008) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 11.11.2016.

[No. L-30011/29/2000-IR (M),

No. L-30011/11/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 354/2001

Between:

IBP Division, Talcher,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Talcher

…1^st Party-Management

-Versus-

The Joint Secretary, Federation of Unions of

All India IBP Employees, Talcher Branch,

At./Po. Deulbera Colliery, Angul

…2^nd Party-Union

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 383/2001

Between:

IBP Division, Talcher,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Talcher

…1^st Party-Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5205

-Versus-

The Joint Secretary, Federation of Unions of

All India IBP Employees, Talcher Branch,

At./Po. Deulbera Colliery, Angul

…2^nd Party-Union

I.D. Misc. Case No. 18/2008

Between:

Shri Diptendra Mishra,

S/o. Himansu Bhusan Mishra,

At./Via Remua, Po. Talcher,

Dist. Angul, Orissa-759 100

…Applicant

-Versus-

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., At. Indian Oil Bhawan,

G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Narg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051.

2. The Dy. General Manager (HR-E), Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., IBP Division, 34-A Nirmal Chandra

Street, Kolkatta – 700 013.

3. The Manager (SMS), Undian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

IBP Division, SMS Explosives Support Plant, Talcher,

213, Koilanagar, Po. Balanda, Dist. Angul, Orissa.

…Opp. Parties

I.D. Misc Case No. 17/2008

Between:

Shri Ajay Choudhury,

S/o. Kesav Ram Choudhury,

South Balanda Colony, Qr. No. J2A/2,

Po. South Balanda, Dist. Angul – 759 116

…Applicant

-Versus-

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., At. Indian Oil Bhawan,

G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Narg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051.

2. The Dy. General Manager (HR-E), Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., IBP Division, 34-A Nirmal Chandra

Street, Kolkatta – 700 013.

The Manager (SMS), Undian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

IBP Division, SMS Explosives Support Plant, Talcher,

213, Koilanagar, Po. Balanda, Dist. Angul, Orissa.

…Opp. Parties

Date of Passing Award – 19^th August, 2016

Appearances:

M/s. B.C. Bastia, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party- Management

Shri A.K.Mishra, Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party- Union

AWARD

This common award is directed against the I.D. Case No. 354/2001 and 383/2001, and Misc. Case No. 17/2008

and 18/2008 since all the above cases have been registered out of a dispute in respect to the regularization of services of

workman Shri Dipendra Mishra and Shri Ajay Choudhury in the establishment of the Management IBP Co. which is

subsequently merged with Indian Oil Corporation Limited and disputes arising out of refusal of employment and

termination of service of the above noted workmen during pendency of the reference cases.

2.

I.D. Case No. 354/2001 and 383/2001 arise out of the references made by the Government of India Ministry of

Labour exercising its powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

5206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide its letters No. L-30011/29/2000/IR(M), dated 26.05.2000 L-30011/11/2001/IR(M),

dated 22.03.2001 respectively. The schedules of reference are as follows:-

“Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of Shri Dipendra Mishra, Shri Binod Kumar sahoo and

Shri Ajay Choudhury is justified? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date?’

“Whether the refusal of employment of S/Shri D. Mishra, A. Choudhury & B.K. Sahu from 16.3.2000 to

23.3.2000 by the management of IBP Co. Ltd., (Talcher Branch) is justified? If not, what relief they are

entitled to?”

3.

Misc. Case No. 17/2008 and 18/2008 have been registered under section 33-A of the I.D. Act at the instance of

the applicant-workman as their services are alleged to have been terminated during pendency of the above reference

cases.

4.

Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the references as emerging from the statements submitted by the parties are as

follows:-

I.B.P., which is presently merged with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, had established a S.M.S. Support Plant at

Talcher to provide S.M.S. explosives to the mines of Mahanadi Coal Field Limited. The disputant workmen Shri

Diptendra Kumar Mishra and Shri Ajay Choudhury were temporarily appointed as Field Assistant and Electrician-cum-

Process Assistant appointed for a period from 7.3.1993 to 28.11.1993 and 1.1.1995 to 31.3.1995 respectively. Their

services were renewed subsequently from time to time. Initially, Shri Mishra was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.

2200/- per month towards his wage and after November, 1996 the said wage was enhanced to Rs. 2500/- per month and

in December, 1998 his basic was fixed at Rs. 2510/- with V.D.A. of 82.9 percentage of basic with Nil F.D.A and

H.R.A. at the rate of 5% of the basic. In the case of Shri Choudhury his wage was fixed initially at Rs. 1800/- per

month and the same was increased to Rs. 2500/- per month from December, 1996 to November, 1998 and December,

1998 onwards he was paid in basic scale of Rs. 2408/- with V.D.A 82.9 percentage of the basic, with Nil F.D.A. and

H.R.A. at the rate of 5 % of the basic. Both of them continued in their respective posts with renewals from time to time

without being permanently absorbed. They raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for

regularization of their services through the 2^nd party-Union when the 1^st Party-Management did not consider their

demands in that respect. It has been contended that both of them worked continuously and uninterruptedly for more

than ten years. According to the 2^nd party-Union as per terms and conditions of 3(1)(a) of the Certified Standing Order

of the 1^st Party-Management applicable to S.M.S. Plant, Talcher any temporary workman completing 240 days

attendance in a year succeeding to his date of employment shall also be deemed to be a permanent workman. In that

view of the matter both Shri Mishra and Shri Choudhury were deemed to be workmen of the 1^st Party-Management

though, their initial appointments were on temporary basis. In view of such position in the Standing Order benefits

extended to the regular employee out of settlement is supposed to be extended to Shri Mishra and to Shri Choudhury on

account of they being deemed permanent workmen. Accordingly, claim has been made for regularization of service of

Shri Mishra and Shri Choudhury as against the posts of Field Assistant in Grade-IV posts having scale of Rs. 2,510-

75/4-2810-85/8-3490-95/9-4345-110/4-4785 and against the post of S.S. Operator (Processman) Grade-IIIhaving scale

of Rs. 2,408-60/4-2648-75/8-3248-85/8-3928-90/5-4378 respectively. It has also been prayed that both of them shall be

extended all other service benefits as extended to other regular employees with effect from the date on which they are

getting regular pay. It is also pertinent to mention here that while references made by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour are pending in this Tribunal for adjudication the services of the applicant-workman Shri D. Mishra

and Shri Ajay Choudhury were terminated with effect from 31.3.2008 on the alleged ground of closure of S.M.S. Unit

of the 1^st Party-Management at Talcher. The above noted workmen were offered with compensation along with one

month pay in lieu of notice, which they refused to accept, when their services were terminated. Since the applicant-

workmen were removed from services without prior permission of this Tribunal in the event of pendency of a prior

dispute, applications under section 33-A of the I.D. Act were preferred vide Misc. Cases under reference for declaring

the action of the Management in dismissing the applicants-workmen as illegal and for their reinstatement with all

service benefits including back wages.

5.

So far the references are concerned the 1^st party-Management has resisted the claim of the 2^nd party-Union taking

a stand that the Management established the S.M.S. Support Plant at Talcher to provide S.M.S. explosives to the mines

of Mahanadi Coal Field Limited. As such operation of the Plant was depending upon the requirements of various

mines of M.C.L. The Plant being a factory was registered under the Factories Act was established in the land owned by

the M.C.L. The Plant being a Factory and separate Unit of I.B.P. & Co. presently I.O.C.L. is an independent

establishment and the same is not being managed as an Undertaking of Central Government. As such, the Central

Government is not an appropriate authority to make any reference to adjudicate the dispute between the employer and

the employee, as a result of which the reference is not maintainable. It has also disowned the relationship of ”employer

and employee” between the parties taking a stand that the workman Shri Mishra and Shri Choudhury were engaged

purely on temporarily and contract basis to meet the contingent and casual requirement of the S.M.S. Unit at Talcher.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5207

They having not been appointed against any sanctioned post and through due process of recruitment cannot claim

regularization of their service. It has been further pleaded that on personal request and approach of Shri Mishra and

Shri Choudhury, the then Manager of the Plant engaged them on purely temporarily and contract basis on a

consolidated wage. Their qualification was not verified or examined while they being appointed. The S.M.S. Plant at

Talcher runs intermittently subject to allocation of work by various mines of the M.C.L. through tender. There are other

competitors to the Management like, I.D.L. ORECA, and Nav Bharat Explosives who participate in the tender bidding

and get allocation of work. As such operation of Plant of the 1^st Party-Management at Talcher was shut down in 2001

and in between 2005 to 2008. Since the plant was closed in between 2006 to 2008 the temporary workmen were

disengaged with payment of all statutory benefits as provided in the I.D. Act. As such regularizations of their service

as claimed in the dispute is not maintainable in the eye of law factually as well as legally on account of they being

never appointed against any sanctioned post through a legally recruitment process.

6.

In Misc. Cases registered at the instances of the aggrieved applicant-workmen have been resisted with a stand

that provisions of the Section 33 of the I.D. Act is not applicable to the present situation on account of the employment

of the workmen was purely on temporary and intermittent basis and they were engaged taking into the need of the Unit

during the relevant period. The applicants were not permanent or temporary employee of the 1^st Party-Management and

their engagement was like a contract worker exclusively engaged for the S.M.S. Plant at Talcher. Such engagement

being contractual and purely temporary in nature is terminable at any point of time, more so when the S.M.S. Plant at

Talcher was closed due to want of sufficient work order. Since the engagement of the applicants were linked to a

specific project i.e. S.M.S. Unit at Talcher, the closure of the Project resulted in disengagement of the applicants. As

such the provision of Section 33 of the I.D. Act is not attractable in the instant case.

7.

In the light of above pleadings and contentions raised by the parties to the reference I.D. Cases and Misc. Cases,

the issues that are to be determined are as follows:-

I S S U E S

1.

Whether the references made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as well as Misc. Cases filed

by the disputant-workmen are maintainable in the eye of law?

2.

Whether the demand of regularization of service of the workmen Shri D. Mishra and A. Choudhury is legal

and justified and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to give necessary direction in that regard?

3.

Whether the termination of the above named workmen during pendency of the references is not legal and

justified and violation to the provision of Section 33-1(A)?

4.

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?

8.

The parties have adopted almost same set of evidences in all the four cases. The 2^nd party-Union have examined

disputant workmen namely Shri Diptendra Mishra and Shri Ajay Choudhury in I.D. Case No. 354/2001, and Shri

Diptendra Mishra in I.D. Case No. 383/2001 and Shri Diptendra Mishra in Misc. Case No. 18/2008 and relied upon

documents like xerox copy of his appointment letters dated 20.10.1998, 29.8.1994 and 23.12.1994, xerox copy of the

letter dated 8.3.1995 to Plant Manager to Shri Diptendra Mishra, xerox copy of termination letter of Shri D. Mishra

dated 18.3.2008, xerox copy of appointment letter of Shri Ajay Choudhury, dated 23.12.1994. xerox copy of letter

dated 8.3.1995 of Plant Manager to Shri Ajay Choudhury, xerox copy of letter dated 18.3.2008 of termination order to

Shri Ajay Choudhury, xerox copy of Pamplet of I.B.P. Calcutta News letter October-December, 1998, xerox copy of

letter dated 8.11.1993 to Shri D. Mishra, xerox copy of letter of Shri D. Mishra dated 19.3.2008 addressed to D.G.M.

(HR), xerox copy of leave application of Shri D. Mishra from 3.6.1996 to 4.6.1996, xerox copy of letter dated

31.7.2008 of Coal India Contract to IOCL, xerox copy of allocation letter dated 01.09.2008 addressed to C.M. (B&C),

Indian Oil Corporation (IBP Division), xerox copy of Certified Standing Order of I.B.P., xerox copy of letter dated

30.4.2007 of Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Company Affairs, xerox copy of agreement dated

27.5.1994 between the IBP & MCL, xerox copy of running contract dated 18.5.2005 of Coal India Limited, xerox copy

of 94^th Annual Report of I.B.P., xerox copy of registration certificate for Dealers liable to pay value added tax w.e.f.

01.04.2005, xerox copy of letter dated 21.4.2007 of Dy. Manager (SMS) IBP Co. Ltd., xerox copy of letter dated

7.10.1998 of Sr. Manager, MCL, SMS Talcher, xerox copy of Factory License dated 6.12.2006, xerox copy of

information manual of IOCL, xerox copy of information manual of IBP Co. Ltd., and xerox copy of long term

settlement dated 27.1.1995. in I.D. Case No. 383/2001 and Ext.-1 to 20 in Misc. Case No. 18/2008

9.

To rebut the case of the 2^nd Party-Union the 1^st Party-Management have examined one witness at the stage of

deciding preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the reference case and Shri Debkinkar Baidya, Manager, In-

charge of S.M.S. Plant at Talcher as M.W.-2 and exhibited documents like original copy of letter dated 9.8.2010 of

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, xerox copy of the Factory Registration Certificate, xerox copy of renewal license with

5208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the forwarding letter and appointment letter issued by the Plant Manager SMS Plant, Talcher in case No. I.D. 354/2001

and relied upon those documents in other cases also.

F I N D I N G S

ISSUE NO. 2

10.

This issue being the crux of all disputes between the parties is taken for consideration first for the sake of

convenience. The main contention of the 1^st Party-Management is that the disputant-workmen were appointed

temporarily/casually on term basis without following due procedure of recruitment. The appointments were not against

any regular/permanent posts and qualification of the disputant workmen were not taken into consideration while giving

appointment to them. Such appointments being illegal and an entry through back door cannot be regularized keeping in

view the principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka – Versus- Uma Devi

(3 2006 II LLJ 722 SC) and other reported cases. It has been contended that the Certified Standing Orders cannot

prevail over Uma Devi’s case or Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore, the concerned workmen cannot

seek regularization of their service basing upon the provisions of Certified Standing Orders. The Certified Standing

Orders can only confer a right to consider the regularization of service and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give

necessary direction to the Management for regularization of their services.

11.

Refuting the above contentions the learned counsel appearing for the disputant workmen and 2^nd party-Union

have strenuously argued that the case of Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory

power to order permanency of the worker who have been victims of unfair labour practices on the part of employer

where the posts on which they have been working exists. No principle has been propounded in the case over-riding the

powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under the Act, once unfair labour practice on

the part of the employer under Item No. 6 of Schedule-IV is established. The Tribunal has the authority and

jurisdiction to take affirmative action against erring employer practicing unfair labour practice and can give direction

for regularization of service. According to the learned counsel in absence of specific pleading that the initial

appointment not being in conformity to the rules of recruitment adopted by the 1^st Party-Management was illegal and

the said appointment order not being issued by a person having authority and the Management being not a Government,

the appointment in the case in hand cannot be termed as illegal and as such, principles propounded in the case of Uma

Devi are not applicable to the present case.

12.

Undisputedly the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 10 of the Act has referred the

existing industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the 1^st Party-Management to this Tribunal for proper

adjudication. The contention advanced on behalf of the Management that the Tribunal has no power to pass such an

award compelling the Management to regularize the service of the concerned workmen is wholly untenable in law and

the said contention is contrary to the legal position. In the case between O.N.G.C. Ltd. –Appellant –versus Petroleum

Coal Labour Union & Ors. And in the case between U.P. Power Corporation –versus- Bizli Mazdoor Sangha and

Others and in catena of other cases it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the question as regards to the effect

of the industrial adjudicators power was not directly an issue in Uma Devi case. But the fundamental logic in Uma

Devi case is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though the industrial adjudicator can vary the terms of

contract of the employment, it cannot do something which is violative of the Article 14. If the case is one which is

covered by the concept of regularization, the same cannot be viewed differently.

13.

In the case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union & Others –Versus- Food Corporation of India & Others in Civil

Appeal No. 10856 of 2014 the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-35 of its judgement have observed in the following

manner:-

“35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and

the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance

of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made

regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme.

36. Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read

with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of

unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they

have been working exist. Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have over ridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour

Courts in passing appropriate order under section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on

the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established”.

Further, in the case of ONGC Ltd., -Versus- Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others passed in Civil Appeal

No. 3727 of 2015 the Hon’ble Apex Court have pronounced that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and

the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Uma

Devi’s case. The issue pertaining unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was it

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5209

decided in Uma Devi’s case. The powers of an Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial

disputes on the points of disputes referred to it by the appropriate Government have been well established by

legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases. No specific principle has been set out

by the Hon’ble Apex Court that dispute relating to regularization of service of a workman whether appointed in

back door method or in due process of recruitment cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal/Court or the Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to give any award for such regularization of service. The above issue was also under

consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Pal Singh –versus- Haryana Warehousing

Corporation in Civil Appeal No. 6327/2014 decided on 9^th July, 2014. In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court

have clearly pronounced that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial Tribunal

and Labours Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case. The issue pertaining

to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was decided in Uma Devi’s case. The

Hon’ble Court have further pronounced in the case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union that the Act is made for

settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour

practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period

without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees. The Hon’ble Apex Court have quoted as

follows:-

“22. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer is entitled to benefit under said provision if the employer retrenches workman. Such a

workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for

the period of the notice apart from compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. It also mandates the employer

to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette.

If any part of the provisions of Section 25-F is violated and the employer thereby, resorts to unfair trade practice

with the object to deprive the workman with the privilege as provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify

such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was in violation of Articles 14 of the

Constitution of India.

23. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act relates to re-employment of retrenched workmen. Retrenched

workmen shall be given preference over other persons if the employee proposes to employ any person.

24. We have held that provisions of Section 25-H are in conformity with the Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India, though the aforesaid provisions (Article 14 and 16) are not attracted in the matter of re-

employment of retrenched workmen in a private industrial establishment and undertaking. Without giving any

specific reason to that effect at the time of retrenchment, it is not open to the employer of a public industrial

establishment and undertaking to take a plea that initial appointment of such workman was made in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or the workman was a back-door appointee.

25. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment” on the ground that the initial

appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in

accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment on such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted and

thereby workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year.”

14.

In the Umadevi case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that appointments made without following the due process of

the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption,

regularization or re-engagement nor make their service permanent. It has been further held that a temporary,

contractual/casual or a daily wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been

appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, the Hon’ble

Apex Court made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below:-

53. “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal

appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1997 (1) SCR 12) : (AIR 1967 SC 1071) R.N. Nanjundappa

(1972 (1) SCC 409) AIR 1972 SC 1767) and B.N. Nagarajan (1979 (4) SCC 507) (AIR 1979 SC 1676) and

referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and

the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention or orders of the courts or

of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on

merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this

judgement. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take

5210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten

years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under covr of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further

ensure that regular recruitment are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in

cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion

within six months from the date.”

15.

Keeping in view the above principles and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi

and other decisions as referred supra it can be safely said that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the Management that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give necessary direction to the Management for

regularization of service of aggrieved workmen has no substantial force. The Hon’ble Apex court in the a large number

of decisions in the matter of grant of relief as claimed in the present one distinguished between a daily wager who does

not hold a post and a permanent employee. The definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act is wide

and takes within its embrace all categories of workmen specified therein. The Act prohibits unfair labour practice on

the part of the employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period without giving

them status and privileges of permanent employees if their initial appointment is not illegal and violative to the

provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act is made for settlement of Industrial Disputes and for certain other

purposes as mentioned therein including the dispute raised in the present reference as to the regularization of services

of the disputant workmen. It cannot be over-sighted that Section 25-F of the Act stipulates conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen and a workman employed in any industry continuously for more than 240 days in a year

preceding to his retrenchment is entitled to the benefits as provided in the Section and violation of any provision of the

Section resorts to unfair trade practice and the employer cannot justify such an action of retrenchment/termination of

service by taking a plea that the initial employment of the employee was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. Similarly Section 25-H of the Act relates to re-employment of retrenched workmen. Retrenched workmen

shall be given preference over other persons if the employee proposed to employ any person. Section 33-1 of the Act

mandates that there should not be any change of condition of service under certain circumstances during pendency of

the proceedings and no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the pending dispute, alter, to the

prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before

the commencement of such proceeding. It is well settled that it is always open to the employer to issue an order of

retrenchment on the ground that the initial appointment of the workmen was not in conformity with the Article 14 and

16 of the Constitution or in accordance with the rules. Even for retrenchment on such ground, unfair labour practice

cannot be resorted to and thereby workmen cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice pay and other benefits

as provided in Section 25-F of the Act. In view of the above settled positions of law and settled principles this Tribunal

can take up the reference for adjudication and can pass appropriate award, if the facts and circumstances emerging from

the pleadings and evidence of the parties go to indicate that appointment of the disputant workmen was not illegal and

violation to the Article 14 and 16 and if their irregular only. Similarly the Tribunal can pass award within its

jurisdiction if it is established that termination or retrenchment of the disputant workmen is a violation to the provision

of Section 33(1) of the Act in a matter of an application under section 33-A. In the above back-drops now it is to be

examined whether the claim of the disputant workmen for regularization of service in the instant case is just and legal

and if termination of their services during pendency of the reference in I.D. Case No. 354/2001 and 383/2001 is illegal

and unlawful.

16.

As it emerges from the pleadings and contentions raised by the parties as well as the documents relied upon by

them that there is no serious dispute to the fact that S.M.S. Plant at Talcher is one of several Units established by the

I.B.P. Co. In the event of the merger of I.B.P Co. with I.O.C.L. such S.M.S. Units including the Unit at Talcher are

being managed by the I.O.C.L. Similarly there is no serious dispute to the claim of the applicants-workmen that they

had been engaged as Filed Assistant/Administrative Assistant and Pump Operator in the S.M.S. Unit at Talcher.

Undisputedly their engagement was purely on temporary basis for a period of three months with a consolidated wage

when initial appointment letters were issued to them. It is not also disputed that their appointment/engagement was

renewed from time to time and in this regard letters were issued by the Manager of the S.M.S. Unit at Talcher from

time to time. In the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties on the above aspects goes to show

that Shri Diptendra Mishra was appointed as Field Assistant by the Manager, S.M.S. Support Plant, Talcher, of I.B.P.

Co. Limited with effect from 7.9.1993. His initial appointment was for the period of three months. But he was issued

with the orders of extension subsequently from time to time till March, 1995 and thereafter he was allowed to continue

in his service with change of his designation as Administrative Assistant till his service was terminated as alleged

earlier with effect from 31.3.2008. Similarly the workman Shri Ajay Choudhury was initially appointed as Electrician-

cum-Process Assistant for a period of three months with consolidated pay of Rs. 1800/- and such engagement was

extended from time to time. Though no order of extension was issued after March, 1995 he was allowed to continue as

Electrician with entrustment of work of process and boiler operations till his service was terminated with effect from

31.3.2008. Thus, both the disputant workmen were found employed for more than 10 years in the S.M.S. Plant of the

1^st Party-Management at Talcher temporarily without any break of service between the date of their initial appointment

and date of their retrenchment.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5211

17.

Though the 1^st Party-Management has pleaded that the engagement of Shri Mishra and Shri Choudhury was

purely on temporary and on need basis of the S.M.S. Plant at Talcher and their appointment being made by the

Manager of the said Unit is a contractual one, no specific stand has been taken by the Management of I.O.C.L. that no

sanctioned post of Field Assistant or Electrician and Process Assistant are available in any S.M.S. Units established

else-where than the Unit at Talcher. It has not been pleaded by them that initial appointments given by the Manager of

Talcher Unit was illegal and the same is not in conformity with the recruitment rules or procedure for such

appointments. No evidence either in shape of oral or documentary has been advanced in the cases to establish that there

was any rule or procedure or guidelines of the Management to fill up such posts of Field Assistant and Electrician and

Process Assistant in S.M.S. Plant and the initial appointment was made in violation to such rules and procedure and the

Manager of the S.M.S. Plant had no authority to issue such initial appointment letters including the letters of extension

of appointment of the workmen in a particular pay structure. It cannot be also over-sighed that retrenchment letters of

Shri Mishra and Choudhury do not suggest that retrenchment was made as the initial appointment was in violation of

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution or violation to the procedure or rule adopted by the Management for appointment

to such posts. The termination/retrenchment is apparently on the ground of closure of the S.M.S. Unit at Talcher. But,

it is emerging from the cross-examination of M.W.-1 that Manager and other regular staff posted at S.M.S. Plant at

Talcher were adjusted in other similar Units of the 1^st Party-Management during the closure of the Plant. The disputant

workmen while being examined as W.W.-1 has categorically stated that “other workmen like him posted in other

S.M.S. Units have been regularized in service and the same has not been denied by the Management. Rather M.W.-2

admits that as per IBP policy the workers of an Unit is interchangeable. The Management has not seriously challenged

such oral and documentary evidence to the fact that similar temporary workmen were regularized in other units. It has

been categorically stated by W.W-1 that those workmen were junior to them and the Management has not denied the

above version. It is also emerging from the oral evidence that the Plant was re-opened after its closure and functioned

for five years till its closure in the year 2013. Had it been so, the disputant workmen could have been reemployed in the

Plant for those period on preference basis pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. There is also no

specific pleadings and evidence on the part of the 1^st Party-Management to show that posts held by the disputant

workmen were not available in other Units of 1^st Party-Management though 50 such Units being run by the 1^st Party-

Management as admitted by M.W.-1. Similarly, no evidences have been adduced on behalf of the 1st Party-

Management to establish that certain qualifications have been prescribed for holding such posts and the disputant

workmen are not possessing such qualification for appointment to such posts. Admittedly there is no specific Certified

Standing Order for the Plant at Talcher. But the documents relied upon by the disputant workmen clearly suggests that

the Standing Order applicable to IBP is applicable to the workmen of the Plant at Talcher. Provisions of 3 of the said

Standing Order provides that any temporary workmen who completed 240 days attendance in a year succeeding of his

date of employment shall also be deemed to be a permanent workman. In view of such specific provisions in the

Standing Order the disputant workmen having served for more than 10 years continuously cannot be presumed to be a

daily wager or employed casually for a term of specific period in a specific project. Had it been so the appointment

letters would have been indicated the same. In that view of the matter the pleadings of the Management that the

disputant workmen were engaged as a daily wager or as a casual worker exclusively for the Unit at Talcher for specific

project cannot be accepted.

18.

In the case of Gujarat Agricultural University –Versus- Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others reported in AIR

2001 SC 706, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as follow:-

“If work is taken by the employer continuously from daily wage workers for a long number of years without

considering their regularization for its financially gain as against employees legitimately claim, it is an unfair

labour practice. Taking work, from daily wage worker or ad hoc appointee is always viewed to be only for a short

period or as a stop gap arrangement, but we find new culture is growing to continue with it for a long time, either

for financial gain or for controlling its workers from effectively with sword of Damocles hanging over their heads

or to continue with favoured one”.

19.

In the State of Karnatak and others –Versus- M.L. Kesari and others reported in AIR-2010 SC 2587, their

Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-7 & 11 have held as follows:-

“It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularization’

enunciated in Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806: 2006 AIR SCW 1991), if the following conditions are fulfilled (i)

The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or

protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its

instrumentality should have employed and employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously

for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the

appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess

the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person

employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been

5212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be

irregular.”

“The object behind the said direction in Para 53 of Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806 2006 AIR SCW 1991, para 44)

is two fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the

protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (2006 AIR SCW

1991) was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the

departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ad hoc/casual

for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten

years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The

true effect of the direct is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of

decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or Tribunal, in vacant posts,

possessing the requisite qualification, re entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer

has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such

exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be

considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.”

20.

Keeping in view the above settled principles and facts and circumstances emerging from the pleadings of the

parties as discussed in supra the initial appointments of the disputant workmen cannot be termed as illegal and in

violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. At best, their appointment may be termed as irregular. It cannot be

over-looked that both the disputant workmen had worked for more than ten years or more without the benefit or

protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal. As per the principle laid down in the case of Umadevi a duty

was cast upon the Management for taking steps to regularize the services of the disputant workmen whose

appointments might be irregular as a one time measure. Besides, in view of admission of M.W.-1 that the Plant at

Talcher was re-activated for some period in between 2008 to 2013, the retrenched workmen could have been offered

employment. That apart the Management having other such units in different places could have employed the disputant

workmen in any of its Unit other than at Talcher on accounts of its closure and their services could have been

regularized. In the above back-drums it can be accepted that there was unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st Party-

Management for not regularizing the services of the disputant workmen in conformity to the provisions of its Certified

Standing Order. Therefore, the claim for regularization of services of the disputant workmen appears to be justified.

Issue No. 3

21.

Coming to the dispute of retrenchment/termination of service of the disputant workmen it is seen that the

disputant workmen were offered compensation and notice pay while they were retrenched. They refused to accept such

compensation and notice pay. It is the contention of the Management that such termination or retrenchment cannot be a

violation of Section 33(1) of the Act in view of closure of the S.M.S. Plant at Talcher due to insufficient work order

and in the event of offer of compensation and notice pay to the workmen as contemplated under section 25-F of the

Act, though acceptance of such compensation and notice pay was refused by the workmen. Undisputedly

termination/retrenchment was made on the above contention during the pendency of the references such as I.D. Case

No. 354/2001 and 383/2001. Section 33 of the Act provides “During the pendency of any proceeding before a

Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute no employer shall:-

“In regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such

dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such

proceedings.”

Thus, there is a clear prohibition in Section 33-1(a) against altering conditions of service by the employer under

the circumstances specified except with the written permission of the Tribunal or other authority therein described. In

order to attract Section 33-1(a) it is required to be established that (i) there is a proceeding in respect of an industrial

dispute pending before the Tribunal, (ii) Conditions of service of the workmen applicable immediately before the

commencement of the Tribunal proceeding are alter, (iii) alternation of the conditions of service is in regard to matter

connected with the pending industrial dispute (iv) the workmen whose conditions of service are altered are concerned

in the pending industrial dispute and lastly (v) the alternation of the conditions of service is to the prejudice of the

workman. The first feature is admittedly present in this case since action has been taken by the employer/the

Management in retrenching the disputant workmen during the pendency of a proceeding before the Tribunal arising out

of a reference under section 10 of the Act wherein dispute was in respect to regularization of service of the disputant

workmen. The regularization of service of the disputant workmen having been a point of dispute in the pending

reference and such interest being involved in the said proceeding, there should not be any alteration of conditions of

their service without prior permission of the Tribunal. Having been retrenched either with the compliance of provisions

of section 25-F or without the same there is an alteration of condition of service during the pendency of such reference.

Thus, all features of Section 33(1) are present in the instant case. It is well settled that retrenchment may not, ordinarily,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5213

under all circumstances, amounts to alteration of condition of service. For example when a dispute for revision of wage

is pending before the Tribunal and on account of closure of the said industry the worker therein have to be retrenched

by the employer, such retrenchment cannot amount to alteration of conditions of service. But in the present case the

subject-matter of the dispute involving regularization of service is directly connected with the dispute pending before

the Tribunal and tampering with the status-quo anti of these disputant workmen is a clear alteration of conditions of

their service. Their service condition during the pendency of the proceeding before this Tribunal is supposed to

continue. If the employer/Management wanted to effect a change of their system or condition of service, it was

incumbent upon the Management to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal while making change of conditions of

service of the disputant workmen i.e. prior permission is required to be taken from the Tribunal while retrenching or

terminating the above workmen even though they are stated to be in temporary employment. The character of the

temporary employment of the workmen being a direct issue in the Tribunal, that condition of employment, however

insecure, must subsists during pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and it cannot be altered to the prejudice of

the workmen by putting an end to their temporary condition. This could have been done only with the express

permission of the Tribunal. It is well settled in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University and All Gujarat Kamdar

Karmachari Union in Civil Appeal No. 7358 of 2000 that the expression “conditions of service” is of wide range and

relates to the workmen who may be temporary, ad hoc, daily rated, permanent, semi permanent or otherwise. In view

of such settled positions of law and principles, even it is accepted that the disputant workmen were casual worker and

the Unit was required to be closed for want of sufficient work, the Management was required to take the Tribunal into

confidence before terminating/retrenching the workmen as contemplated under Section 33-1(a) of the Act. Having

failed to comply the above provisions the termination/retrenchment can be safely said to be illegal and unjust.

Accordingly this issue is answered against the 1^st Party-Management.

Issue No. 1

22.

So far as the Issue of maintainability is concerned it is pertinent to mention here that such issue being heard

preliminarily and disposed of vide order of this Tribunal dated 14.05.2010 in favour of the 2^nd party-Union and the

Civil Writ preferred against such order by the Management having been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa

in W.P.(C) No. 14121/2010 there needs no further elaboration and discussion on the said issue. That apart there is no

serious dispute to the fact that the I.B.P. Company has been merged with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited which has

been established by the Central Government. The S.M.S. Plant in question at Talcher having been established by the

I.B.P. is undisputedly being presently managed by the Management of I.O.C.L. Section 2(a)(1) of the I.D. Act defines

the “appropriate Government” it is an inclusive definition which provides that in relation to any industrial dispute

concerning any Industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by railway company etc.,

the Central Government is the appropriate Government. The Hon’ble High Court in its order under reference have

categorically observed that the findings arrived by this Tribunal to the effect that the Management-company is under

the control of the Central Government and the Central Government, therefore is the appropriate Government. In that

view of the matter the issue of maintainability having been answered positively in favour of the 2^nd party-Union needs

no further answer/finding.

Issue No. 4

23.

Law is well settled that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of

service is found to be invalid. At the same time it has been now well settled that despite a wide discretionary power

conferred upon the industrial courts under Section 11-A of the Act, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages

should not be granted automatically because the termination or retrenchment was illegal. Grant of relief depends on the

facts and circumstances emerging in each case. In the case at hand the Management has not seriously refuted the claim

of the disputant workmen that workmen junior to them and in similar situations were regularized in service in other

S.M.S. Units. Their services were terminated without prior permission of the Tribunal while a reference arising out of a

dispute for regarding regularization of their service is pending in this Tribunal. Having regard to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and the fact that the disputant workmen did not render any service to the Management after

their termination it would be fair and reasonable to direct the 1^st Party-Management to reinstate the disputant workmen

to their posts either in the S.M.S. Unit at Talcher or in case of its closure in other Units established in other places and

to consider regularization of their service. Besides the disputant workmen are entitled to receive their 75% of the wage

which they were receiving at the time of termination and they are also entitled to the benefits of continuity of service.

24. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

5214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2266-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

LVhy vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM (lsy) ,o vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 113@2015) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&27011@7@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 11.11.2016.

[No. L-27011/7/2015-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 22^nd September, 2016

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 113/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of SAIL Refractory Company Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

:

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhir Sangam

Arabic College Building, Vellakkalpatti

Salem-636012

AND

1.

The Chief Operating Officer

:

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

SAIL Refractory Co. Ltd.

Salem-636005

2.

M/s. KRSS Manpower Services

:

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Contractor, Sengaradu

Thatiengarpatty (PO)

Salem-636012

3.

M/s. RRT Enterprises

:

2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

Contractor, Senaigoundanoor

Moongilpalia (PO)

Salem-636012

4.

M/s. SMV Enterprises

:

2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

Contractor, Senaigoundnoor

Moongilpali (PO)

Salem-636012

5.

M/s. Rajarajeshwari Enterprises

:

2^nd Party/5^th Respondent

Contractor, Senaigoundnoor

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5215

Moongilpali (PO)

Salem-636012

6.

M/s. Iyyanarappan Enterprises

:

2^nd Party/6^th Respondent

Contractor, M/s Avvamperumalpatty

Palayur

Salem

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

:

M/s. A. Nagarathinam, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

:

M/s. A. Ilango, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd to 6^th Respondent :

M/s. M. Nallathambi (Set Ex-parte)

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-27011/7/2015-IR (M) dated

14.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of SRCL and their Contractors regarding denial of 16.33% bonus to

their workers is justifiable or not? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 113/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. The petitioner and First Respondent had entered appearance through their counsel and have filed Claim and

Counter Statement respectively. Respondents 2 to 6 remained ex-parte.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner Union in brief are these:

The petitioner is a registered Trade Union formed for the welfare of its members who are working in the

Magnesite industries. The First Respondent is manufacturing Magnesite Fire Bricks. Respondents 2 to 6 are

Contractors having works contract with the First Respondent. The First Respondent is in the practice of deducting

bonus amount every month from the monthly bill of the Contractors. The amount is kept under a separate fund and will

be paid directly to the workers by the First Respondent. The First Respondent has paid bonus @ 12% for the year 2010-

2011. During discussion regarding bonus for the year 2011-2012 the petitioner union had demanded bonus @ 16.33%

and the previous management had agreed to deduct amount @ 16.33% towards bonus from the bills of the Contractors.

Even after change of Management, with the First Respondent in Management, deduction was being made @ 16.33%

from 16.12.2011 to 31.03.2012. The First Respondent has to release the deducted amount of 16.33% and pay the same

to the contract labourers towards bonus for the year 2011-2012. But the First Respondent has not made payment. The

workers had to go on strike on 08.11.2012 on the issue of bonus for the year 2011-2012. Subsequently, the First

Respondent issued a letter on 09.11.2012 stating that bonus applicable in respect of contract labourers under different

Contractors will be disbursed by the Contractors from 09.11.2012. The Petitioner Union raised Industrial Dispute

regarding payment of bonus @ 16.33% and the First Respondent agreed to disburse bonus @ 12% so the contract

workers resumed duty on 14.11.2012. It is the duty of the First Respondent to disburse the deducted amount of 16.33%

and to pay the same to the contract labourers towards bonus for the year 2011-2012. An award may be passed directing

the Respondents to disburse the deducted amount of bonus @ 16.33% from the bills of the Contractors for the year

2011-2012 to the members of the Petitioner Union.

4.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner has no locus-standi to raise the dispute against the First Respondent. there is no employer-

employee relationship between the members of the Petitioner Union and the First Respondent. The petitioner is

representing the contract workers engaged by Respondents 2 to 6 who are the Contractors. The First Respondent is not

the employer within the meaning of Section-2(14) of the Payment of Bonus Act. No Industrial Dispute exists within the

meaning of Section-2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. So the reference itself is erroneous and illegal.

5.

The First Respondent is a subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and is engaged in the mining of Magnesite

and manufacturing of various refractory products. Earlier the Company was owned by Burn Standard Co. Ld. The

Company had turned sick and it was taken over by the Government of India. During the year 2011-2012 the Company

had functioned under two different Managements, initially under Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and subsequently from

16.12.2011 to 31.03.2012 under the Management of Sail Refractory Company. The First Respondent is engaging

Contractors in Mines for carrying out various contractual jobs. During the Accounting Year 2011-2012, 21 Contractors

were awarded contracts for doing various contract jobs in the Mines. As per the conditions of the Contract it is the

responsibility and liability of the Contractors to fulfill the various obligations imposed under the Labour Welfare

5216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Legislations including Payment of Bonus. So it is the liability of the Contractors to pay bonus to the contract workers

engaged by them. Employer-Employee relationship subsists only between the Contractors and the members of the

Petitioner Union. The Contractors were maintaining a Welfare Fund account for depositing the amount pertaining to

the various liabilities including bonus. The First Respondent used to deduct only the Income Tax amount from the bill

amount payable to the Contractors. Amount was not deducted towards bonus as alleged by the petitioner. In the year

2011-2012, the 21 Contractors of the year had authorized two Contractors to operate the account maintained as Welfare

Fund of the workers. The First Respondent is not connected with this. The First Respondent never paid bonus directly

to the workers as alleged. The First Respondent never agreed to deduct 16.33% from the bills of the Contractors

towards bonus. No such amount was deducted also at any time. It is not true that the First Respondent has paid 12%

bonus for the year 2010-2011 as stated in the Claim Statement. Bonus was paid by Respondents 2 to 6. The petitioner is

not entitled to any relief against the First Respondent.

6.

Respondents 2 to 6 have remained ex-parte.

7.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W8 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M84.

8.

The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the First Respondent is liable to pay bonus @ 16.33% to the workers of the Petitioner Union for

the year 2011-2012.

(ii) What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled

The Points

9.

The members of the petitioner union are working under Respondents 2 to 6 who have undertaken various

contract jobs with the First Respondent during the year 2011-2012. During this Financial Year the First Respondent

was under two Managements. Initially it was under the Management of Burn Standard Co. The First Respondent

Company had become sick and was taken over by the Government of India and made a subsidiary of Steel Authority of

India. Thus for the period from 16.12.2011 to 31.03.2012 the Management was with the First Respondent.

10.

The Petitioner has claimed that its members who are workmen under Respondents 2 to 6 are entitled to bonus

@ 16.33% during the year 2011-2012. According the petitioner there was a discussion with the earlier Management of

the First Respondent and it has agreed to deduct amount @ 16.33% from the bills of the Contractors for the payment of

bonus. They have deducted the amount also. This deduction was continued even after the First Respondent came to be

in Management. According to the petitioner, the amount so deducted for the purpose of payment of bonus for the year

2011-2012 is retained by the First Respondent. After the workmen had gone on strike 8.33% was released as bonus.

However, the balance amount has not been paid. The dispute is raised claiming that the First Respondent is liable to

release the balance amount also to the concerned workmen.

11.

The First Respondent has raised a preliminary objection in its counter statement that the dispute is not

maintainable against it. This was considered as a Preliminary Issue and a finding has been already entered.

12.

The very basis of the claim of the petitioner is that the First Respondent has been deducting @ 16.33% from the

bills of the Contractors as bonus amount and this is retained by them. So the initial question to be considered is whether

such deduction has been made by the First Respondent at all. The evidence of WW1, General Secretary of the

Petitioner Union and MW1, an Officer of the First Respondent and also the documents produced make it clear that no

such deduction was made by the First Respondent. During cross-examination WW1 has admitted that he did not

produce any document to show that the First Respondent has agreed to pay bonus @ 16.33% for the year 2011-2012.

According to the petitioner a separate account was being maintained by the First Respondent in which the deducted

amount was deposited for payment of bonus to the workers. WW1 has stated during his cross-examination that he did

not produce any document to show that any such account is maintained by the 1^st Respondent also. There is no

documentary evidence on the part of the petitioner to show that amount @ 16.33% was deducted by the First

Respondent form the bills of the Contractors for payment towards bonus.

13.

The First Respondent has produced documents to show that amount was not deducted from the bills of the

Contractors as claimed by the petitioner. The statement regarding payments made to the different Contractors and the

deduction effected from the Contractors are produced by the First Respondent. The Work Orders given to Respondents

2 to 6 also are produced. These Work Orders are Ext.M1 to Ext.M9. Ext.M11 is the statement of payment and

deduction effected in respect of the Second Respondent. Ext.M12 & Ext.M15 are the copies of the bill submitted by the

Second Respondent. Ext.M13, Ext.M16 and Ext.M19 are certificates under Form-16A of the Income Tax Act for

payment of TDS for the Second Respondent. These statements would show that only tax that is to be deducted at

source as per law was deducted by the First Respondent from the bill of the Second Respondent. Similar documents in

respect of the Respondents 3 to 6 are also produced by the First Respondent. The Form -16A certificates and other

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5217

documents in respect of different Contractors would reveal that the First Respondents did not make any deduction other

than Tax at Source from the bills of Respondents 2 to 6 who are the Contractors.

14.

The claim of the Petitioner Union for bonus from the First Respondent seemed to be on the basis of Ext.W8

also. Though this document is described as a circular of the First Respondent, this is in fact only a recommendation

made by an Officer of the First Respondent regarding recovery to be made from the Contractors towards statutory and

other dues to the workmen. As seen from this, the earlier practice was to deduct various amount including Provident

Fund, etc. from the Contractors’ bill by the Management of the Principal Employer. Subsequently, this practice was

stopped and a Contract Workers Welfare Fund was created. This is the fund that is referred to in the Counter Statement

of the First Respondent. In Ext.W8 letter, MW1 who has issued this letter has suggested that the old practice of

recovery of amount from the Contractors’ bill and retaining the amount in the custody of Company Management

should be restored. However, there is nothing to show that this recommendation was accepted by the Management or

that it has restored the practice of deducting amount towards bonus, etc. from the bills of the Contractors. So Ext.W8 is

not of any use in establishing the case of the petitioner that the First Respondent has been deducting amount from the

bills of the Contractors and retaining the amount with it.

15.

It is admitted by the petitioner that 8.33% has been received by the workmen as bonus for the year 2011-2012.

Ext.W3 is the circular issued by the First Respondent stating that the bonus payable is being disbursed by the respective

Contractors in Red Hills Mines from 09.11.2012 onwards. It is admitted by WW1 that this bonus was paid by the

Contractors themselves. If amount was retained by the First Respondent there was no necessity for the Contractors to

make the payment it should have been done by the First Respondent.

16.

The First Respondent is not the employer of the concerned workmen as per the Payment of Bonus Act. The

First Respondent was not paying wages to the workmen who are members of the Petitioner Union. On the other hand,

they were receiving wages from the respective Contractors only. So the claim of the petitioner for bonus from the First

Respondent has no basis. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of my discussion above the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed

accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 22^nd September, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

:

WW1, Sri M.P. Sadasivam

For the 2^nd Party/Management

:

MW1, Sri S. Sridharan

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

17.08.2012

Petition filed by the Petitioner Union

Ext.W2

09.11.2012

Strike Notice given by the Petitioner Union

Ext.W3

09.11.2012

Circular issued by the Respondent Management

Ext.W4

10.11.2012

Submission made by the Petitioner Union

Ext.W5

14.11.2012

Letter submitted by the Petitioner Union

Ext.W6

18.02.2013

Submission of list of contract workers under the Respondents 2 to 6

Ext.W7

14.07.2015

Order of reference by the Government of India

Ext.W8

04.11.2011

Circular issued by the Respondent Management

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

02.07.2011

Work order issued to the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M2

02.07.2011

Work order issued to the 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M3

02.07.2011

Work order issued to the 4^th Respondent

5218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M4

02.07.2011

Work order issued to the 5^th Respondent

Ext.M5

27.09.2011

Work order issued to the 6^th Respondent

Ext.M6

03.10.2011

Work order issued to the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M7

03.10.2011

Work order issued to the 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M8

03.10.2011

Work order issued to the 4^th Respondent

Ext.M9

03.10.2011

Work order issued to the 5^th Respondent

Ext.M10

Nil

Terms and Conditions and General conditions and Special Conditions given alongwith

work order as Annexure “A”, “B” & “C”

Ext.M11

Nil

Statement of payments made and deduction effected for 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M12

04.05.2011

Copy of Bill submitted by 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M13

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M14

07.05.2011

Payment made to the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M15

02.08.2011

Four Bills submitted by 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M16

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M17

06.08.2011

Two payments made to 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M18

02.12.2011

Four Bills submitted by 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M19

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M20

05.12.2011

Payment made to 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M21

14.12.2011

Payment made to 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M22

Nil

Statement of payments made and deduction effected for 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M23

05.05.2011

Bill submitted by 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M24

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M25

09.05.2011

Payment made to 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M26

04.11.2011

Bill submitted by 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M27

02.12.2011

Bill submitted by 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M28

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M29

07.12.2011

Payment made to 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M30

14.03.2012

Bill submitted by 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M31

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M32

14.03.2012

Payment made to 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M33

20.03.2012

Payment made to 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M34

Nil

Statement of payments made and deduction effected for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M35

05.05.2011

Bill submitted by 4^th Respondent

Ext.M36

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M37

07.05.2011

Payment made to 4^th Respondent

Ext.M38

05.08.2011

Bill submitted by 4^th Respondent

Ext.M39

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M40

09.08.2011

Payment made to 4^th Respondent

Ext.M41

05.12.2011

Two bills submitted by 4^th Respondent

Ext.M42

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M43

07.12.2011

Payment made to 4^th Respondent

Ext.M44

13.03.2012

Bill submitted by 4^th Respondent

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5219

Ext.M45

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M46

14.03.2012

Payment made to 4^th Respondent

Ext.M47

20.03.2012

Payment made to 4^th Respondent

Ext.M48

Nil

Statement of payments made and deduction effected for 5^th Respondent

Ext.M49

04.08.2011

Bill submitted by 5^th Respondent

Ext.M50

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 5^th Respondent

Ext.M51

09.08.2011

Payment made to 5^th Respondent

Ext.M52

02.12.2011

Bill submitted by 5^th Respondent

Ext.M53

05.12.2011

Bill submitted by 5^th Respondent

Ext.M54

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 4^th Respondent

Ext.M55

07.12.2011

Payment made to 5^th Respondent

Ext.M56

13.03.2012

Bill submitted by 5^th Respondent

Ext.M57

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 5^th Respondent

Ext.M58

14.03.2012

Payment made to 5^th Respondent

Ext.M59

20.03.2012

Payment made to 5^th Respondent

Ext.M60

Nil

Statement of payments made and deduction effected for 6^th Respondent

Ext.M61

05.05.2011

Seven Bills submitted by 6^th Respondent

Ext.M62

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 6^th Respondent

Ext.M63

07.05.2011

Payment made to 6^th Respondent

Ext.M64

04.08.2011

Seven Bills submitted by 6^th Respondent

Ext.M65

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 6^th Respondent

Ext.M66

06.08.2011

Payment made to 6^th Respondent

Ext.M67

30.11.2011

Five Bills submitted by 6^th Respondent

Ext.M68

05.12.2011

Five Bills submitted by 6^th Respondent

Ext.M69

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 6^th Respondent

Ext.M70

06.12.2011

Payment made to 6^th Respondent

Ext.M71

03.02.2012

Three bills submitted by 6^th Respondent

Ext.M72

-

Form 16A Certificate for payment of TDS for 6^th Respondent

Ext.M73

13.03.2012

Payment made to 6^th Respondent

Ext.M74

08.11.2012

Complaint given by the First Respondent to Inspector of Police, Salem-5 seeking

police protection

Ext.M75

09.11.2012

Letter sent by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (C) Chennai to the First Respondent

Ext.M76

09.11.2012

Circular issued by the First Respondent

Ext.M77

06.05.2012

Reply submitted to the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (C) Chennai

Ext.M78

19.02.2016

Letter sent by the First Respondent to the United Bank of India

Ext.M79

20.02.2016

Reply letter sent by the United Bank of India to the First Respondent

Ext.M80

-

Acquittance given by contract workers for Receipt of Bonus amount from

Respondent-2 for 2011-2012

Ext.M81

-

Acquittance given by contract workers for Receipt of Bonus amount from

Respondent-3 for 2011-2012

Ext.M82

-

Acquittance given by contract workers for Receipt of Bonus amount from

Respondent-4 for 2011-2012

Ext.M83

-

Acquittance given by contract workers for Receipt of Bonus amount from

Respondent-5 for 2011-2012

5220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M84

-

Acquittance given by contract workers for Receipt of Bonus amount from

Respondent-6 for 2011-2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2267-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dqæseq[k vk;ju vksj daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 11-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@2@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.11.2016.

[No. L-26012/2/2007-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

19/09/2016

PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 92/2007

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Chairman & Managing

Karnataka Coffee Curing &

Director, K I O C L,

General Workers Union,

II Block, Koramangala,

(AITUC) Tamil Colony,

Bangalore – 560 034

Chikckmagalur, Karnataka

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide Order No. L-26012/2/2007-IR(M) dated 16.07.2007 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., in not regularising the

services of the workers mentioned in the list enclosed is legal and correct? If not, to what relief they are

entitled?”

1)

In the course of proceeding a joint memo dated 08.08.2016 has been filed and in the concluding Paras

namely 08, 09, 10, 11 it is specifically stated as follows:....

“8.

The 1^st party Union and the workmen involved in the above case also agree that the amounts

received by the workman is in full and final settlement of all their claims and no issue is outstanding

between the parties.

9.

The 1st Party hereby submits that the Management of KIOCL Ltd., has paid the amount as per

Annexures 2 & 3 and no dues are pending.

10.

In view of the above, the 1^st Party Union and the individual workmen agree that all the claims raised

in this reference are fully settled and no further claims will be made against the II party Company.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5221

11.

The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the above reference CR No.92/2007 as settled out

of Court in terms of the Joint Memo and without costs, in the interest of Justice.”

2)

Further, on 19.09.2016 (today) 2^nd party has filed the list of documents mentioning the full details and also

particulars. The said material records copies have been received by Counsel for the 1^st Party. No tenable

objection has been made on behalf of 1^st Party to record the said terms of settlement filed by both parties

dated 08.08.2016. Accordingly, as per the terms mentioned in the Joint Memo of Settlement dated

08.08.2016 all the claims raised in the present reference are fully settled.

3)

Today in the Open Court the following persons also present in Person:

Sh S. Rajendra (9731244885) – General Manager (HR)

Sh Chetan Kumar Shetty (9480501658) – Manager (HR) and

Sh Subramanya Bhat (9902581461) – Manager(Law) present on behalf of 2^nd Party.

Also Sh K P Chandrakeshava (9480016654), Sh H G Rudresh (8762926335) and Sh M B Subhasha

(9481213854) workmen present

AWARD

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present reference is disposed of, as settled out of Court, in

terms of the joint Memo dated 08.08.2016. The terms and conditions mentioned in Joint Memo dated 08.08.2016 and

also list of document filed on behalf of 2nd Party dated 19.09.2016 are to form part and parcel of todays Award passed

by this Tribunal. The said records are bulky in nature and they are kept along with the case bundle.

Reference is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 19^th September, 2016)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2268-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1255@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@324@1996&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1255/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12012/324/1996-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1255/2004

5222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Zonal Office, South Gujarat Zone,

P.B. No. 2, Dutch Road, Nanpura,

Surat

…First Party

v/s.

Shri Manilal P. Rathod,

c/o P.F. Baxi, Advocate,

Dhariya Mahal, 11/2029, Surat

…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-12012/324/96-

IR(B-II) dated 11.08.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in not terminating/discontinuing/refusing giving

employment/duties to Shri Manilal P. Rathod is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is

entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 11.08.1997. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 7 on 28.11.1997

and first party submitted the written statement Ext. 14 on 08.03.1999. Since then the second party did not prefer to lead

his evidence. Thus, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

2.

Therefore, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2269-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbZVsM

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1474@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@107@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1474/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 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 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12011/107/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th October, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5223

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1474/2004

The General Manager,

United Bank of India, Head Office, 16,

Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001

…First Party

V/s.

The Joint Secretary,

United Bank of India Sramik Karmachari Samity,

C/o United Bank of India, Lal Darwaja,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

For the Second Party

:

AWARD

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

12011/107/2004-IR(B-II) dated 20.10.2004 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 United Bank of India in declining the allowance like Travelling

Allowance, Halting allowance and Special Leave to serving Bank employees who act as defence witness are

justified in view of I.B.A. ‘s guidelines? If not, what relief the employees are entitled to?”

1.

The reference dates back to 20.10.2004. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on

20.01.2005 and the first party submitted their vakalatpatra Ext. 5 and written statement Ext. 6 on 03.12.2008

respectively. Since then the second party has been absent and has also not been leading evidence. In the said

circumstances, the tribunal issued a fresh notice Ext.7 to the second party for leading evidence on 14.03.2012. Even

after a lapse of 4 years, second party has been absent and refrained to lead evidence.

2.

Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to close the evidence of the second party and to dispose of the

reference against the second party in the absence of his evidence.

3.

Thus in the aforesaid circumstances, the tribunal decides that the action of the management of United Bank of

India in declining the allowance like Travelling Allowance, Halting allowance and Special Leave to serving Bank

employees who act as defence witness are justified in view of I.B.A. ‘s guidelines.

4.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2270-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 706@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@2@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 706/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12011/2/2000-IR (B-II)]

5224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 706/2004

The Chief Regional Manager,

Bank of India, Vadodara Region,

Bank of India Building, ElloraPrk, Subhanpura

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390007

…First Party

V/s.

The Deputy General Secretary,

Bank of India Employees Union,

Bank of India Building, Raopura,

P.B. No. 132, Baroda (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

:

Shri D.C. Gandhi, Advocate

For the Second Party

:

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/2/2000-

IR(B-II) dated 16.06.2000 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 the union for absorption/regularisation of 8 Budlee Sepoys i.e. S/Shri (1) Gopalbhai

Jashbhai Rana (2) Babubhai Kalidas (3) Jitubhai Shanabhai Veghela (4) Babubhai Bhathibhai Parmar

(5) Maganbhai Bhulabhai Makwana (6) Ahmedbhai Rahimbhai Khalifa (7) Masoodmiya M. Malek &

(8) Vinodbhai Hathibhai Purabia, as ‘Guard/Sepoy’ in the bank is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief

these 8 Budlee Sepoys are entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?”

1.

The reference dates back to 16.06.2000. Both the parties submitted the Vakalatatpatra Ext. 3 and Ext. 4 of their

respective advocates on 19.01.2001 and 17.04.2001. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 11 on

22.08.2003. First party, Bank of India also filed the written statement Ext. 16 on 09.08.2005. But second party, since

then, did not prefer to give his evidence. Thus it appears that second party is not willing to prosecute/proceed with the

reference.

2.

Thus, in the light of the above, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the reference by the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2271-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbZVsM

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1254@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@08@1996&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5225

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1254/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 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 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12012/08/1996-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1254/2004

The Manager,

United Bank of India,

Trade Road, Ring Road,

Surat – 395002

…First Party

V/s.

The Joint Secretary,

United Bank of India,

Shramik Karmachari Sangh C/o United Bank of India,

Manik Chowk, 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-12012/08/96-IR(B-II)

dated 04.04.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India, Surat in not making the payment of 100%

subsistence allowance to Shri N.M. Patel, Cash-cum-General Clerk for the period from 10.07.1984 to

07.03.1995 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 04.04.1997. Second party submitted the statement of claim Ext.3 on 04.08.1997 and

the first party submitted the written statement Ext. 10 on 30.12.1997. Since then the second party did not prefer to lead

his evidence. Thus, it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

2.

Therefore, the case is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2272-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 65@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

5226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 65/2005

Shri Ashwinbhai Jayantibhai Patel,

19-A, Jaydip Co-operative Housing Society,

Near Kabir Ashram, Manjalpur,

Vadodara – 390001

…Complainant/Applicant

V/s.

The Chief Manager/Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Bank of India Building, 1^st Floor,

Ellora Park, Subhanpura, Vadodara

…Respondent/Opponent

For the Complainant

:

Shri M.S. Mansuri

For the Opponent

:

Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates

ORDER

1.

This is a complaint moved by the complainant under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying to

quash and set aside the order dated 16.09.2003 regarding the dismissal of the complainant by the opposite party and

also to declare the aforesaid order as invalid, inoperative and void ab initio and also to direct the opposite party to treat

the complaint in a continuous service. Opposite party submitted the written statement / reply Ext. 8 on

06.03.2006/13.04.2006. Both the parties also submitted the number of documents.

2.

The case was instituted on 21.03.2005 and written statement was filed on 13.04.2006 but since then

complainant has been absent and has also not been leading evidence despite even giving opportunities to lead his

evidence even in his absence on the earlier dates. Thus, it appears that the complainant has not been intending to

prosecute the case.

3.

Thus, the case is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the complainant.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2273-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 78@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&33025@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5227

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Maritime University, East Coast Road and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-33025/01/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 28^th June, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 78/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Maritime University and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

:

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

National Maritime Academy Employees Union

Regn.No. 2129/1991-92, East Coast Road

Uthandi

Chennai-600119

AND

1.

The Vice Chancellor

:

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Indian Maritime University, East Coast Road

Uthandi

Chennai-600119

2.

The Registrar

:

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Indian Maritime University, East Coast Road

Uthandi

Chennai-600119

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

:

M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Respondent

:

M/s. M. R. Raghavan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-39025/01/2015-IR (B-II)

dated 18.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Maritime University, Chennai regarding stopping of

deduction of Union Subscription from the salary of employee is justified or not? If not so, to what relief the

Union is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 78/2015 and issued notice to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

3.

The Petitiioner has filed Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination on 15.03.2016. Thereafter the matter has

been repeatedly posted for appearance of the witness for his examination. However, he never presented himself before

this Court. His continuous absence alongwith the absence of his counsel would show the petitioner is not interested in

5228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

prosecuting the matter. In the absence of any material in favour of the petitioner this tribunal could not consider the

case on merits. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day

the 28^th June, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

:

None

For the 2^nd Party/1^st and 2^nd Management

:

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s & Managements’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2274-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dslj

V£euy ,aM bUizQkLVªdpj fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@38@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12012/38/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd June, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 72/2014

The General Manager,

Operation, Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Terminal No. 1, Near Oil Jetty, Old Kandla,

Kutch(Gujarat) – 370210

…First Party

v/s.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5229

Shri D. Nomeshwar Rao,

B-86, Khatri Colony, Maheshwari Society,

New Kandla,

Kandla(Kutch)

….Second Party

For the First Party

:

None

For the Second Party

:

Mr. Ishwar Saran

AWARD

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

12012/38/2014-IR(B-II) dated 23.07.2014 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. Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd., Old Kandla in

terminating the services of Shri D.N. Rao forcefully and without giving an opportunity of being heard is

justified?What relief the workman, Shri D.N. Rao is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 23.07.2014. The second party’s workman Danyya Nomeshwar Rao has moved an

application Ext. 4 for withdrawal of the Industrial Dispute stating that matter has been amicably settled between the

parties without any pressure or compulsion.

Thus, the application Ext. 4 is allowed and the reference is dismissed as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2275-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 34@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@54@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Bank of Baroda, Baroda Region and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12012/54/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th July, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 34/2013

5230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Baroda Region, Suraj Plaza – III, 5^th Floor,

Sayajiganj, Baroda – 390005.

2. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Gujarat Operations, Vigilance Deptt.,

Zonal Office, Bank of Baroda Towers, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbrdige,

Ahemdabad – 380006.

3. The Managing Director,

Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre,

Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai

…First Party

V/s

Shri M.N. Patel,

B/39, Madina Park Society,

Nr. Madhuram Society, Tandelja Road,

Baroda

…Second Party

For the First Party

:

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

:

None

AWARD

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

12012/54/2012-IR (B-II) dated 08.02.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Baroda through its officers by imposing the

capital punishment of ‘Removal from Bank’s Service vide order dated 05.05.2009 upon Shri M.N. Shaikh, Ex-

Subordinate Staff is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman Shri M.N. Shaikh is entitled to?”

1.

The reference dates back to 08.02.2013. Both the parties were served by registered post on 09.02.2015. First

party submitted the vakalatpatra Ext. 7 of his advocate K.V. Gadhia Assoicates on 23.02.2015. Since then second party

has been absent and has not preferred to submit the statement of claim. Thus, it appears that the second party are not

willing to prosecute the case.

2.

Thus, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

vksojlht cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 84@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2016 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@28@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank, IR Department and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-12012/28/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5231

Friday, the 29^th June, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 84/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Smt. G. Anbukili

:

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Manager

:

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank, IR Department

P.B. No. 3765, 763 Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

:

M/s Revathi Ganesh, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

:

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/28/2015-IR (B-II)

dated 22.05.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the dismissal of Smt. G. Anbukili, by the Management of Indian Overseas Bank is justified or not? If

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

2.

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 84/2015 and issued notice to both sides.

Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are these:

The husband of the petitioner has been working as Head Clerk in the Respondent Bank. After his death during

service, the petitioner was given appointment as a Messenger in the Bank on compassionate grounds. She was posted at

Pon Pudupatti Branch on 08.01.1994. She had been working in the same branch for 19 years. On 22.03.2013 a Charge

Memo was served on her alleging that she had submitted bogus certificate regarding her educational qualification and

that she has violated Clauses-5j and 5m of the Memorandum of Settlement. The father and brother of the petitioner had

gone to the school and collected her school certificate. She had no intention to do anything against the rules and

regulations of the Bank. In spite of explanation given by the petitioner to the Charge Memo, an enquiry was ordered.

The petitioner has participated in the enquiry held thereafter. The petitioner had requested the Respondent to examine

the authenticity of the certificate submitted by her. Without heeding to this, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge

against the petitioner is proved. Based on the enquiry report the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated

28.04.2014. The Respondent had not followed the principles of natural justice right from the issue of the Charge

Memo to the dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. An order may be passed

directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages and other attendant benefits.

4.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner was appointed as Messenger on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband who was an

employee of the Bank. In the application for employment the petitioner has declared that if the particulars given by her

in the form are found to be incorrect she shall be liable to be disqualified and in case of appointment the Appointment

Order is liable to be cancelled. In her application for appointment she had claimed that she has passed 8^th standard. She

submitted record sheet purported to have been signed by the Headmaster of Panchayat Union Higher Elementary

School, Poolankurichi. In June 2012 a complaint was received from Central Bureau of Investigation in which it was

stated that the petitioner has studied only upto 2^nd standard and that she has obtained a bogus certificate showing that

she has studied upto 8^th standard. On verification from the school from which record sheet was purported to have been

issued it was found that the petitioner had not studied in the school for the period mentioned in the certificate. A

charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for producing bogus educational certificate and she was asked to show cause

why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. Her explanation was not satisfactory and an enquiry was

conducted. The Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. After

5232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

personal hearing the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing her from service on 28.04.2014. The petitioner

had not stated that she studied in the concerned school during the relevant period. So the fact that the certificate

produced by her was not genuine is not in dispute. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M29.

6.

The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether there is any justification in the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the Respondent?

(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

7.

The petitioner was appointed in the Respondent Bank as Messenger in 1994 on compassionate grounds

consequent to the death of her husband who was an employee in the Clerical Cadre of the Bank. She was working at

Pon Pudupatti Branch until she was dismissed from service by the Bank by order dated 28.04.2014. The Bank had

issued a Charge Memo dated 22.03.2013 on her alleging that she has submitted bogus certificate regarding her

educational qualification to get appointment in the Bank. An enquiry was conducted, and her dismissal from service

was consequent to the report of the enquiry. The dispute is raised challenging the dismissal of the petitioner from

service.

8.

Ext.M18 is Charge Sheet dated 22.03.2013 issued to the petitioner. In this it is stated that in the application

form for getting employment she has stated that she had passed 8^th standard in the year 1985 and had submitted a

record sheet purportedly issued on 31.05.1976 with Admission No. 336 in support of her educational qualification, that

she was given appointment based on this certificate and her assertion of her qualification, that on verification of the

certificate it was found that it is not genuine and she has gained employment in the Bank by producing bogus

certificate. Thus she has alleged to have done acts prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and knowingly made false

statement in the document in connection with her employment in the Bank. The Charge Sheet stated that she has

committed offences under Clause-5(j) and 5(m) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.

9.

Ext.M19 is the reply given by the petitioner to Ext.M18-Charge Sheet. She has stated in the explanation that the

record sheet given by her is genuine. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted by the Bank. During

the enquiry she has denied the charges made against her. The Management had marked documents including a letter

obtained from the then Head Master of Poolankurichi Elementary School, Karaikudi with her consent. Before the

Enquiry Officer what she has stated regarding the Record Sheet is that consequent to the death of her husband she was

in mourning and her father and brother had gone to the school where she had studied and obtained the certificate and

submitted the same to the Bank. Ext.M17 is the letter from the Headmaster of the concerned school. The record sheet

submitted by the petitioner seems to have been sent to the school for verification. It was in reply to this Ext.M17 has

been sent by the Headmaster. In the Record Sheet submitted by the petitioner for getting appointment and marked as

Ext.M12 the Admission Number of the petitioner is shown as 336. In Ext.M17 the Headmaster has informed that no

one with the name Anbukili with Admission No. 336 had studied in the school during the period from 10.06.1968 to

01.06.1975.

10.

No doubt the Respondent Bank had not examined the concerned Headmaster in the enquiry proceedings to

prove that the petitioner had not studied in the school and that the certificate produced by her is a bogus one. However,

there is the fact that the petitioner had never specifically stated in the enquiry proceedings that the certificate is a

genuine one and that she was a student at the school. On the other hand she was trying to excuse herself from the

responsibility regarding the Record Sheet stating that she had nothing to do with it but her father and brother had gone

and fetched the document from the school. Once the Management had marked the letter from the school Headmaster

without any objection it was upon the petitioner to give some rebuttal evidence regarding the genuineness if any of the

Record Sheet produced by her. However, she has marely stated in the enquiry proceedings as well as before the

Disciplinary Authority that she is the breadwinner of the family and she would be in difficulty if she is sent out of

service. No attempt was made on her part to get the certificate from the school.

11.

Before this Tribunal also, though petitioner had the opportunity, she did not make any attempt to show that the

document produced by her is genuine. On the other hand in the Claim Statement itself she has repeated that her father

and brother had gone to school and collected the certificate from the school authorities. If the petitioner had actually

studied in the concerned school upto 8^th standard it would have been easy for her to establish it. The allegation made

against the petitioner being that she has obtained job by producing bogus certificate is a very severe one and the

petitioner could have taken steps to produce the real certificate if any was available. On the other hand, she has closed

her evidence merely detailing her difficulties because of her non-employment. Even during her examination what she

has stated is that the certificate was obtained by her father and brother. She has not stated even in the affidavit that she

has studied in the concerned school during the relevant period and that the certificate is a genuine one. On the other

hand her affidavit is only an attempt of evasion. No doubt, the Respondent has the burden to establish that the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5233

certificate is not genuine. This burden was sufficiently discharged by marking the documents in the enquiry

proceedings. Alongwith is the version of the petitioner justifying the case of the Management. There is no reason to

find fault with the report of the enquiry. Having obtained job using a bogus document dismissal was the

natural consequence. Any lesser punishment is out of question in the circumstances also. the petitioner is not entitled to

any relief.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day

the 29^th June, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

:

WW1, Smt. G. Anbukili

For the 2^nd Party/Management

:

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

10.04.2002

Memorandum of Settlement

Ext.M2

09.04.2013

Notice of Enquiry issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent (IC/IR/213/1222/25555013-14) –

fixing enquiry on 23.04.2013

Ext.M3

01.06.2013

Notice of Enquiry – fixing enquiry on 13.06.2013

Ext.M4

22.07.2013

Hearing held on 13.06.2013 – Enquiry to be held on 28.06.2013 postponed at Petitioner’s

request – fixing enquiry on 03.08.2013

Ext.M5

-

Letter of Petitioner – acknowledging the notice of 22.07.2013 – Union Representative

could not come on 3/8 – praying time to adjourn the enquiry

Ext.M6

29.07.2013

Enquiry to be held on 03.08.2013 adjourned at Petitioner’s request – Notice posting

enquiry on 12.08.2013

Ext.M7

07.08.2013

Letter from Petitioner – AIOBE Union not cooperating – to seek assistance of some other

prayed time e.g. 12.08.2013 hearing

Ext.M8

19.08.2013

Notice of Enquiry’s posting enquiry on 30.08.2013

Ext.M9

13.06.2013

Proceedings of Enquiry

30.08.2013

Ext.M10

13.04.1994

Application from submitted by the Petitioner for Employment

Ext.M11

-

Undated Record Sheet issued by Head Master, Poolankurichi

Ext.M12

31.05.1976

Certificate issued by H.M – Higher Primary School, Poolankurichi – with regard to

attendance, progress and conduct

Ext.M13

13.04.1994

Petitioner’s declaration that she had passed 8^th standard

Ext.M14

13.04.1994

Memo No. 073 by Pudupatti Branch addressed to P.A.D. forwarding CSE’s Service

Sheet, application form, photocopy of educational qualification, etc.

Ext.M15

08.01.1994

Appointment Order issued to the Petitioner by R.O. Karaikudi

Ext.M16

08.02.2013

Letter from R.O. Karaikudi to Chief Manager, I.R.D., Chennai forwarding MEX-7 to

Central Office on complaint by Mr. V. Dharmalingam

Ext.M17

11.01.2013

Letter from H.M. Poolankurichi Higher Primary School to B.M., R.O., Karaikudi

Ext.M18

22.03.2013

Charge Sheet in English issued to the petitioner and its Tamil version furnished to the petitioner

5234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 26, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 5, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

18A

Ext.M19

06.04.2013

Petitioner’s reply to the Charge Sheet dated 22.03.2013

Ext.M20

22.01.2014

Report of the Enquiry Officer and its Tamil version

And

20A

Ext.M21

23.01.2014

Letter from Respondent forwarding E.O.’s Report calling for her representation on the

findings of the E.O,

Ext.M22

05.03.2014

Letter from IOB Pudupatti Branch to D.A. enclosing letter of the petitioner dated nil on

the findings of the Enquiry Officer and enclosing letter of the petitioner dated 22.02.2014

Ext.M23

10.03.2014

Second Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondent proposing punishment of dismissal

and informing personal hearing upon request and with Tamil version of the Show Cause

Notice

Ext.M24

24.03.2014

Letter from Respondent to the Petitioner advising to give her reply the show cause notice

within a week and Tamil version of the letter

Ext.M25

25.03.2014

Letter from the Petitioner to the E.O. requesting to give her a personal hearing

Ext.M26

27.03.2014

Notice of personal hearing – posting personal hearing on 07.04.2014

Ext.M27

-

Proceedings of personal hearing before the D.A.

Ext.M28

28.04.2014

Dismissal order issued to the petitioner

Ext.M29

June/2014

Statement of Account of G. Anbukili.

Oct./2015

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj pSUubZ 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@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&33011@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chennai Port

Trust, Rajaji Salai and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2016.

[No. L-330011/01/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 4^th July, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 43/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Chennai Port Trust and their workman)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 26] 2016@vxzgk;.k 5] 1938

5235

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

:

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

The Madras Port & Dock Employees Union

New No. 55, Old No. 26, Moore Street (1^st Floor)

Mannady

Chennai-600001

AND

The Chairman

:

2^nd Party/Respondent

Chennai Port Trust

Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

:

M/s K.C. Karl Marx, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

:

Sri P. Srinivasan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/01/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 20.03.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Chennai Port Trust regarding stopping of fixed OT, relieving OT

for the employees of Marine Department is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the notice, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 43/2013 and issued notices to both sides. Both

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

3.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner is a recognized Trade Union espousing the cause of the workers and employees working under

the Respondent. A Special Allowance has been paid for Marine Crew from 01.11.1978 to 13.11.1992. This was

subsequently replaced by 1 hour fixed OT at Single Hourly Rate as recommended by the Mishra Committee during the

year 1992. Thus from 01.07.1992, one hour fixed overtime at single hourly rate was paid to the Marine Workers of

Pilotage Section, Mooring Section, Signal Station and Yard and Service Station. In case of Pilotage and Mooring

Section crew who are working in 8 hours shift, if and when they are detained beyond the scheduled duty hours they will

be paid normal overtime in addition to the one hour fixed overtime at single Hourly Rate as referred to earlier. Now

the Respondent has issued notice under Section-19(2) of the ID Act to terminate the settlement to MPT Railways Men

Union as it is party to the settlement. The Petitioner Union being the second largest union and having sizeable members

from the Marine Department ought to have been considered before issuing such notice. There is no justification for the

Respondent in stopping the fixed OT paid at the single rate in lieu of Special Allowance. An award may be passed

directing the Respondent to pay the fixed OT as recommended by the Mishra Committee.

4.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

Overtime Allowance has to be paid to the employees for work done in excess of the prescribed hours of work

on any working day and it includes work done on Sundays or any other holidays. In determining whether the employee

has worked OT, only those hours he actually worked will be considered. In compliance with the orders of National

Green Tribunal, Madras handling of dusty cargos like Coal and Iron Ore were banned in Chennai Port. The Chennai

Port Trust is facing financial crisis on account of this and incurred huge revenue loss. The expert committee appointed

by the Ministry to improve the Port had suggested that overtime granted to the employees shall be stopped. The NIT

Award says that the system of grant of relieving overtime is an unfair labour practice. The petitioner is also a party to

the decision arrived at in NIT. A decision was taken in the Board Meeting for curtailing the enormous overtime granted

to the employees to curb the wasteful expenditure. Accordingly, a notification has been issued on 20.03.2013 under

Section-19(2) of the ID Act stating that no fixed overtime or relieving overtime or any other overtime shall be paid

without actually performing the work beyond the stipulated time. The settlement overtime has been stopped from July,

2014. However, need based overtime is being paid to the employees. Consequent to the settlement reached between the

Madras Port Trust Railway Mens Union under Section-18(1) of the ID Act, 1 hour overtime at Single Hourly Rate in