5471 GI/2016

(5549)

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- 50]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 4—fnlEcj 10] 2016] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 13—vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

No. 50]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 4—DECEMBER 10, 2016, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 13—AGRAHAYANA 19, 1938

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय

िवीय

िवीय सेवाएं

सेवाएं

सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 4 नव बर, 2016

का

का.आ. 2362

2362

2362.—िवीय आितय का ितभूितकरण एवं पुनगठन तथा ितभूित िहत का वतन अिधिनयम, 2002 (2002

का 54) क धारा 21 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द शि य का योग करते "ए, के%&ीय सरकार, एत'ारा, (ी वीन कुमार शमा,

महा बंधक, भारतीय टेट ब/क को पदभार 0हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अिधव7षता क आयु ा8 करने

तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, 65000-78000 9पए के वेतनमान म: भारतीय ितभूितकरण प;रसंपि पुन7नमाण

और ितभूित व=व क के%&ीय रिज?ी (सीईआरएसएआई) के रिज?ार तथा बंध िनदेशक एवं मुBय कायकारी अिधकारी (के%&ीय

रिज?ी) के पद पर िनयु करती है।

[फा.सं. 03/2/2016-रकवरी/डीआरटी]

वी. वी. एस. खड़ायत, अवर सिचव

5550

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

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 4th November, 2016

S.O. 2362.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), the Central

Government hereby appoints Shri Praveen Kumar Sharma, General Manager, State Bank of India, as Registrar and

Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer (Central Registrar), Central Registry of Securitisation Assets

Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI), in the pay scale 65000-78000/-, for a period of 3 (three) years

or till he attains the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 03/02/2016-Recovery/DRT]

V. V. S. KHARAYAT, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2363-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] ¯dxLVu esa Jh ekdZ ukeFkuxze] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

24 uoEcj] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2016

S.O. 2363.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mark Ngamthangrum,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Kingston to perform the

Consular services with effect from 24th November, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2364-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] jckr esa Jh rq"kkj ykdjk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

29 uoEcj] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2364.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Tushar Lakra,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5551

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Rabat to perform the Consular services

with effect from 29th November, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2365-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] lsafV;kxks esa Jh egs'k 'kekZ] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

29 uoEcj] 2016 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2365.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mahesh Sharma,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Santiago to perform the Consular services

with effect from 29th November, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

भारी उोग और लोक उम मंालय

(भारी उोग िवभाग)

(एईआई अनुभाग

एईआई अनुभाग

एईआई अनुभाग)

आदेश

नई दली, 5 दसबर, 2016

का

का.आ. 2366

2366

2366.—िवकास परषद् (यामक) िनयमावली, 1952 के िनयम 2,3,4 और 5 के साथ पठत

औ ोिगक (िवकास एवं िविनयमन) अिधिनयम, 1951 (1951 का 65) क( धारा 6 के *ारा द+ शि-य. का योग करते

/ए के01 सरकार, ऑटोमोबाइल और संब5 उ ोग िवकास परषद (डीसीएएआई) के िन9िलिखत ;ि-य. को इस आदेश के

सरकारी राजप= म> कािशत होने क( तारीख से दो वष@ क( अविध के िलए एतAारा सदBय के Cप म> िनयु- करती है, यथा:-

सिचव,

भारी उ ोग िवभाग,

भारी उ ोग एवं लोक उ म मं=ालय

अFयG

सिचव,

वािणIय िवभाग,

उ ोग भवन, नई दली

सदBय

सिचव,

सड़क परवहन और राजमाग@ मं=ालय,

परवहन भवन, नई दली

सदBय

5552

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

सिचव,

पेKोिलयम एवं ाकृितक गैस मं=ालय,

शाNी भवन, नई दली

सदBय

सिचव,

राजBव िवभाग, िव+ मं=ालय,

नॉथ@ Pलॉक, नई दली

सदBय

अपर सिचव और िव+ीय सलाहकार,

भारी उ ोग िवभाग,

भारी उ ोग एवं लोक उ म मं=ालय

सदBय

मुRय काय@कारी अिधकारी एवं परयोजना िनदेशक,

राSीय ऑटोमोटव परीGण और अनुसंधान एवं

िवकास अवसंरचना परयोजना (नेKप), नई दली

सदBय

िनदेशक,

भारतीय ऑटोमोटव रसच@ एसोिसएशन ऑफ इंिडया,

पुणे, महाराS

सदBय

अFयG,

भारतीय ऑटोमोबाइल मै0युफैVचरस@ सोसायटी,

कोर 4-बी, ज़ोन-IV, 5वW मंिजल,

इंिडया हैिबटेट स>टर, लोधी रोड, नई दली-3

सदBय

10.

अFयG,

ऑटोमोटव कंपोन>ट मै0युफैVचरस@ एसोिसएशन,

कैिपटल कोट@, छठा तल, ओलोफ़ पामे माग@,

मुनीरका, नई दली-67

सदBय

11.

अFयG,

KैVटर मै0युफैVचरस@ एसोिसएशन,

23-26, इंBटीXूशनल एरया, लोधी रोड, नई दली

सदBय

12.

Zी आर सी भाग@व, अFयG,

मा[ित सुजुक( इंिडया िलिमटेड,

\लॉट नं. 1, नेसन मंडेला रोड,

वसंत कुंज, नई दली-110070

सदBय

13.

Zी गुंथर बुटचेक,

बंध िनदेशक,

टाटा मोटस@ िलिमटेड

सदBय

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5553

बॉबे हाउस, 24, होमी मोदी BKीट,

/तामा चौक, मुंबई - 400 001

14.

Zी पवन मुंजाल,

बंध िनदेशक एवं मुRय काय@कारी अिधकारी

हीरो मोटो कॉप_रेशन िलिमटेड,

34, सामुदाियक के01, बसंत लोक,

वसंत िवहार, नई दली

सदBय

15.

Zी पवन गोय0का,

अFयG (ऑटो सेVटर),

म`ह1ा एंड म`ह1ा िलिमटेड,

गेटवे िब`डग, अपोलो बंडर,

मुंबई - 400 001

सदBय

16.

Zी िवम कल_Bकर, उपाFयG,

टोयोटा कल_Bकर मोटर ाइवेट िलिमटेड,

एबेसी Bटार, 8, पैलेस रोड,

वसंतनगर, ब>गलुC-560 052

सदBय

17.

Zी िनशांत आय@,

काय@कारी िनदेशक,

जेबीएम ऑटो िलिमटेड,

\लॉट सं. 9, सेVटर-44 इंBटीXूशनल एरया

गु[aाम - 122 003

सदBय

18.

सुZी मिलका Zीिनवासन,

अFयG एवं मुRय काय@कारी अिधकारी

KैVटर एंड फाम@ इbपम>ट िलिमटेड,

77, नुंगमबcम हाई रोड,

नुंगमबcम, चेdई - 600 034

सदBय

19.

सुZी सुलाजा फरोदया मोटवानी,

उपाFयG,

काइनेटक इंजीिनयeरग,

डी-1 Pलॉक, \लॉट सं.18/2 एमआईडीसी, `चचवाड़,

पुणे – 411 019

सदBय

5554

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

20.

Zी रोनाड फोगर, बंध िनदेशक एवं मुRय काय@कारी अिधकारी,

मfसडीज ब>ज इंिडया ा. िलिमटेड,

ई-3, एमआईडीसी चाकन, फेज़-III,

चाकन औ ोिगक Gे=, पुणे – 410 501

सदBय

21.

मुRय काय@कारी अिधकारी,

ऑटोमोबाइल कौशल िवकास परषद,

1/6 सीरी इंिBटXूशनल एरया, खेल गांव,

नई दली - 49

सदBय

22.

23.

महासिचव

फेडरेशन ऑफ ऑटोमोबाइल डीलस@ एसोिसएशन

805, सूय@ करण, 19, कBतूरबा गांधी माग@

नई दली - 110 001

अपर सिचव (ऑटोमोबाइल के भारी),

भारी उ ोग िवभाग,

उ ोग भवन, नई दली

सदBय

सदBय सिचव

िवकास परषद् (यामक) िनयमावली, 1952 के िनयम 2 खंड (ग) के अनुसरण म>, के01 सरकार एतAारा उ-

िवकास परषद के सिचव के कायl को िनmपादत करने के िलए ऑटो सेVटर, भारी उ ोग िवभाग, भारी उ ोग और लोक

उ म मं=ालय, नई दली के भारी अपर सिचव को िनयु- करती है।

[फा.सं. 7(6)/2007-एईआई(3888)]

अंशु काश, अपर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

(AEI SECTION)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2366.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Industries (Development & Regulation)

Act, 1951 (65 of 1951) read with rules 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the Development Council (Procedural) Rules 1952 the Central

Government hereby appoints, for a period of two years from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette,

the following persons to be Members of the Development Council for Automobiles and Allied Industries (DCAAI)

namely:-

Secretary,

Department of Heavy Industry

Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises

New Delhi.

Chairman

Secretary,

Department of Commerce,

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.

Member

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5555

Secretary,

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,

Transport Bhavan, New Delhi.

Member

Secretary,

Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,

Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

Member

Secretary,

Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,

North Block, New Delhi

Member

Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor

Department of Heavy Industry,

Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises,

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.

Member

Chief Executive Officer and Project Director,

National Automotive Testing and R&D Infrastructure Project, (NATRIP),

New Delhi,

Member

Director,

Automotive Research Association of India,

Pune, Maharashtra.

Member

President,

Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers,

Core 4-B, Zone-IV, 5^th Floor

India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.

Member

President

Automotive Component Manufacturers Association,

Capital Court, 6^th Floor, Old Palme Marg,

Munirka, New Delhi -67.

Member

President.

Tractor Manufacturers Association.

23-26. Institutional Area. Lodhi Road. New Delhi.

Member

Shri R. C. Bhargava, Chairman,

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070.

Member

Shri Guenter Butchek, Managing Director

Tata Motors Limited.

Bombay House. 24. Homi Mody Street,

Hutatma Chowk, Mumnbai – 400 001

Member

Shri Pawan Munjal, Managing Director & CEO

Hero Moto Corp. Ltd.,

34, Community Centre, Basant Lok,

Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

Member

Shri Pawan Goenka, President (Auto Sector),

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder,

Mumbai - 400 001.

Member

Shri Vikram Kirloskar, Vice Chairman,

M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.,

Embassy Star, 8, Palace Road,

Vasanthnagar. Bangalore-560 052

Member

5556

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

Shri Nishant Arya, Executive Director,

JBM Auto Ltd,

Plot No : 9, Sector – 44 Institutional Area

Gurgaon, 122 003.

Member

Ms. Mallika Srinivasan, Chairman & CEO,

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited,

77, Nungambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

Member

Ms. Sullaja Firodia Motwani, Vice Chairperson,

Kinetic Engineering,

D1 Block, Plot No.18/2 MIDC, Chinchwad,

Pune – 411019.

Member

Mr. Roland Folger, Managing Director & CEO

Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.

E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase –III,

Chakan Industrial Area,

Pune - 410501

Member

Chief Executive Officer,

Automobile Skill Development Council,

1/6, Siri Institutional Area, Khel Gaon,

New Delhi – 49

Member

Secretary General

Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations

805, Surya Kiran, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi 110 001

Member

Additional Secretary (in-charge of Automobiles),

Department of Heavy Industry,

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi

Member

Secretary

In pursuance of clause (c) of rule 2 of the Development Council (Procedural) Rules, 1952, the Central

Government hereby appoints the Additional Secretary, in charge of Auto Sector, Department of Heavy Industry,

Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, New Delhi to carry on the functions of the Secretary to the said

Development Council.

[F. No. 7(6)/2007-AEI(3888)]

ANSHU PRAKASH, Addl. Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

( वा य

य

य एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क याण िवभाग)

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 29 नव बर, 2016

का.आ.

का.आ. 2367

2367

2367.— जबEक भारतीय आयु7वFान प;रषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (1)

के ावधान के अनुसरण म:, के% & सरकार ने Eदनांक 09.01.2014 और 15.01.2014 क अिधसूचना ारा भारतीय आयु7वFान प;रषद

के सद य म: से नातको= तर िचEक= सा िशMा सिमित का गठन Eकया है।

और जबEक भारतीय आयु7वFान प;रषद अिधिनयम, 1956 क धारा 7(3) म: िनिहत ावधान के अनुसरण म:, भारतीय

आयु7वFान प;रषद क नातको= तर सिमित म: के% & सरकार के नािमितय म: से एक नािमती डॉ. िसलवानो सी.ए. डायस सैपेको का नाम

गोवा िवS विवTालय के ितिनिध के Uप म: Eदनांक 28.06.2016 को अिधसूचना से हटा Eदया गया था।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5557

और जबEक अिधिनयम क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (2) के ावधान के अनुसरण म:, के% & सरकार ारा डॉ. भानु काश दूबे,

डीन, एल.एन. मेिडकल कॉलेज, भोपाल को भारतीय आयु7वFान प;रषद के सद य म: से नातको= तर िचEक= सा िशMा सिमित के एक

सद य के Uप म: नािमत Eकया गया है।

अब, इसिलए, अिधिनयम क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (3) के ावधान के अनुसरण म:, क:& सरकार एत'ारा भारत सरकार,

वा W य और प;रवार कX याण मंYालय क Eदनांक 09.01.2014 क अिधसूचना म: आगे िनZ निलिखत संशोधन करती है, नामत:

के

के सरकार ारा नािमत

सरकार ारा नािमत

(1)

डॉ. भानु काश दूबे,

डीन, एल.एन. मेिडकल कॉलेज,

भोपाल

[सं. वी.11013/05/2013-एमईपी (भाग)]

अिमत िबo वास, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2367.—Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government has constituted a Post-Graduate Medical Education

Committee from among the members of the Medical Council of India vide notification dated 09.01.2014 and

15.01.2014.

And whereas the name of one of the nominees of the Central Government in the Post-graduate Committee of

the Medical Council of India, Dr. Silvano C.A. Dias Sapeco was de-notified on 28.06.2016 as representative of Goa

University in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 7(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, Dr. Bhanu Prakash

Dubey, Dean, L.N. Medical College, Bhopal has been nominated by the Central Government from amongst the

members to be a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee of the Medical Council of India.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, the Central

Government makes the following further amendment in the notification dated 09.01.2014 of the Government of India,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, namely:-

NOMINATED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

(1)

Dr. Bhanu Prakash Dubey,

Dean, L.N. Medical College,

Bhopal

[No. V.11013/05/2013-MEP(Pt.)]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ च

उ च

उ चतर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग)

नई EदX ली, 30 नवZ बर, 2016

का

का.आ. 2368

2368

2368.—के% &ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप

िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म:, मानव संसाधन िवकास मंYालय ( कूल िशMा एवं साMरता िवभाग) के अंतगत िनZ निलिखत कायालय को, ऐसे

कायालय के Uप म:, िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमचारी-वृ% द ने िह% दी का कायसाधक Fान ा^ त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है :-

5558

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

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय मंडी, िहमाचल देश - 175124

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय घरोटा, जZ मू – I, जZ मू व कS मीर - 181122

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय सांबा, जZ मू व कS मीर - 184121

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय जालंधर, पंजाब - 144625

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय कपूरथला, पंजाब - 144628

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय प;टयाला, पंजाब - 147103

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय सुरे% &नगर, गुजरात - 363310

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय बुलढाणा, महारा_ ? - 444203

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय जालना, महारा_ ? - 431501

10.

जवाहर नवोदय िवTालय परभनी, महारा_ ? - 431402

[सं.11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर `सह संधु, संयुa त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2368.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

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

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

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Mandi, Himachal Pradesh - 175124

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Gharota Jammu-I, Jammu & Kashmir - 181122

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samba, Jammu & Kashmir - 184121

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Jallandhar, Punjab - 144625

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Kapurthala, Punjab - 144628

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Patiala, Punjab - 147103

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Surendranagar, Gujarat - 363310

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Buldana, Maharashtra - 444203

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Jalna, Maharashtra - 431501

10.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Parbhani, Maharashtra - 431402

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

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5559

कोयला मंालय

नई EदX ली, 7 EदसZबर, 2016

का

का.आ. . . . 2369

2369

2369.—कोयला धारक MेY (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात्

उa त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपY, असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii),

तारीख 4 अa तूबर, 2016 म: कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंYालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. संB यांक 3142(अ), तारीख 3

अa तूबर, 2016 के काशन पर उa त अिधसूचना से संलc न अनुसूची म: वdणत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम, (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात् उa त

भूिम कहा गया है), म: के सभी अिधकार, उa त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िवX लंगम से मुa त होकर,

आ= यंितक Uप म: के%&ीय सरकार म: िनिहत हो गए थे ;

और, के% &ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, Eक साउथ ई टन कोलफX hस िलिमटेड, सीपत रोड, पोस् ट बाa स संB या

60, िजला िबलासपुर-495 006 (छ= तीसगढ़) (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात् उa त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन और शतj

का, जो के% &ीय सरकार इस िनिम= त अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ;

अत:, अब, के% &ीय सरकार, उa त अिधिनयम क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द= त शिa तय का योग करते "ए, यह

िनदेश देती है, Eक इस कार उa त भूिम और उ भूिम म: या उस पर के सभी अिधकार तारीख 4 अa तूबर, 2016 से के% &ीय सरकार म:

इस कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, िनम् निलिखत िनबंधन और शतj के अधीन रहते "ए, सरकारी कंपनी म: िनिहत हो जाkगे, अथात् :-

1. सरकारी कंपनी, उa त अिधिनयम के उपबंध के अधीन यथा अवधा;रत ितकर, l याज, नुकसािनय और वैसी ही मद क बाबत

Eकए गए संदाय क के% &ीय सरकार को ितपू7त करेगी ;

2. शत (1) के अधीन सरकारी कZ पनी ारा के% &ीय सरकार को संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के योजन के िलए उa त अिधिनयम

क धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन Eकया जाएगा और Eकसी ऐसे अिधकरण और अिधकरण क सहायता के िलए

िनयुa त m यिa तय के संबंध म: उपगत सभी m यय, सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन Eकए जाkगे और इस कार िनिहत उa त भूिम म: या

उस पर के अिधकार के िलए या उनके संबंध म: अपील आEद जैसी सभी िविधक कायवािहय क बाबत उपगत, सभी m यय भी,

सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन Eकए जाएंगे ;

3. सरकारी कंपनी, के% &ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा;रय क, ऐसे Eकसी अ% य m यय के संबंध म: Mितपू7त करेगी, जो इस कार िनिहत

उa त भूिम म: या उस पर के अिधकार के बार: म:, के% &ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा;रय ारा या उनके िव9n Eक% हo कायवािहय के

संबंध म: आवS यक हो ;

4. सरकारी कंपनी को के% &ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना उa त भूिम का Eकसी अ% य m यिa त को अंतरण करने क शिa त नहo

होगी ; और

5. सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश और शतj का पालन करेगी, जो के% &ीय सरकार ारा उa त भूिम के िविश_ ट MेY के िलए जब कभी

आवS यक हो, Eदए जाएं या अिधरोिपत Eकए जाएं ।

[फा.सं. 43015/23/2016–पीआरआईडl X यू-I]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2016

S.O. 2369.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S. O. 3142(E), dated the 3^rd October, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4^th October, 2016, issued under Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing

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

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

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

of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

P.B. No. 60, District Bilaspur-495 006 (Chhattisgarh) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing

to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

5560

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

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

Central Government hereby direct, that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect

from the 4^th October, 2016 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government

Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :-

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

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

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

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

expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal

shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal

proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vesting,

shall also be borne by the Government Company;

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

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

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

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

prior approval of the Central Government ; and

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

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

[F. No. 43015/23/2016-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई EदX ली, 7 EदसZबर, 2016

का

का.आ. . . . 2370

2370

2370.—कोयला धारक MेY (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात्

उa त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपY, असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड

(ii), तारीख 27 जुलाई, 2016 म: कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंYालय क अिधसूचना का. आ. संB यांक 2550(अ), तारीख 26

जुलाई, 2016 के काशन पर उa त अिधसूचना से संलc न अनुसूची म: वdणत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम, (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात् उa त भूिम

कहा गया है), म: के सभी अिधकार, उa त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िवX लंगम से मुa त होकर, आ= यंितक

Uप म: के% &ीय सरकार म: िनिहत हो गए ह/;

और, के% &ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, Eक ई टन कोलफX hस िलिमटेड, संकतोिड़या, डाकघर – Eदशेरगढ़, िजला

बnवान- 713 333 (पिS चम बंगाल) (िजसे इसम: इसके पS चात् उa त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन और शतj का, जो

के% &ीय सरकार इस िनिम= त अिधरोिपत करना ठीक समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है;

िनदेश देती है, Eक इस कार िनिहत उa त भूिम म: या उस पर के सभी अिधकार तारीख 27 जुलाई, 2016 से के% &ीय सरकार म: इस

कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, िनZ निलिखत िनबंधन और शतj के अधीन रहते "ए, सरकारी कंपनी म: िनिहत हो जाkगे, अथात् :-

(1)

सरकारी कंपनी, उa त अिधिनयम के उपबंध के अधीन यथा अवधा;रत ितकर, l याज, नुकसािनय और वैसी ही मद क

बाबत Eकए गए सभी संदाय क के% &ीय सरकार को ितपू7त करेगी ;

(2)

शत (1) के अधीन सरकारी कZ पनी ारा के% &ीय सरकार को संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के योजन के िलए उa त

अिधिनयम क धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन Eकया जाएगा और Eकसी ऐसे अिधकरण और अिधकरण क

सहायता के िलए िनयुa त m यिa तय के संबंध म: उपगत सभी m यय, सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन Eकए जाkगे और इस कार

िनिहत उa त भूिम म: या उस पर के अिधकार के िलए या उनके संबंध म: अपील आEद जैसी सभी िविधक कायवािहय क

बाबत उपगत, सभी m यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन Eकए जाएंगे ;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5561

(3)

सरकारी कंपनी, के% &ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा;रय क, ऐसे Eकसी अ% य m यय के संबंध म: Mितपू7त करेगी, जो इस कार

िनिहत उa त भूिम म: या उस पर के अिधकार के बार: म:, के% &ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा;रय ारा या उनके िवUn Eक% हo

कायवािहय के संबंध म: आवS यक हो ;

(4)

सरकारी कंपनी को के% &ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना उa त भूिम और भूिम म: या उस पर के इस कार िनिहत

अिधकार को Eकसी अ% य m यिa त को अंत;रत करने क शिa त नहo होगी ; और

(5)

सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश और शतj का पालन करेगी, जो के% &ीय सरकार ारा, जब कभी आवS यक हो, उa त भूिम के

िविश_ ट MेY के िलए Eदए जाएं या अिधरोिपत Eकए जाएं ।

[फा.सं. 43015/22/2016–पीआरआईडl X यू-I]

सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2016

S.O. 2370.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S. O. 2550(E), dated the 26^th July, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 27^th July, 2016, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

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

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

Act ;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post-

Dishergarh, District – Burdwan-713333 (West Bengal) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing

to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

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

Central Government hereby direct, that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect

from 27^th July, 2016 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government

Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :-

(1)

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

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

(2)

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

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

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

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

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

the Government Company;

(3)

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

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

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

(4)

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

approval of the Central Government ; and

(5)

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

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

[F. No. 43015/22/2016-PRIW-I]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

5562

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

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2371-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 160@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@418@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2016

S.O. 2371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.10.2016.

[No. L-22012/418/1991-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/160/95

Dy.General Secretary,

National Colliery Workers Federation,

Post Kotma colliery,

Distt. Shahdol

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Jamuna and Kotma Area of SECL,

Post Jamuna colliery,

Distt. Shahdol

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of August 2016

As per letter dated 29-8-95 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

22012/418/91-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Jamuna and Kotma area of SECL in not regularizing twelve tyndal

mazdoors on company roll and payment of wages to these workers according to National Coal Wage Agreement

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

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at Page

6/1 to 6/8. Case of Ist party Union is it is registered under Trade Union Act. The Union is affiliated to National Labour

Organisation. Ist party further submits that 12 tyndal mazdoors connected with the dispute were continuously working

in Regional Stores of J& K Area, SECL since 1982. Their services are covered by NCWA. They are entitled for

regularization in service. it is alleged that to deprive status of permanent employee, they are not regularized. That those

12 tyndal mazdoors were deployed in various jobs in regional stores as well as other places of the mine as per direction

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5563

given by Depot Officer, Regional Stores. They were honestly performing their duties since 1984 onwards, without any

break. They are performing work of moving engineering items and stocks from the stores, drums of oil and grease and

also engaged for erection, dismantling of structures, installation and withdrawal of machineries. They were also

deployed for loading and unloading of the store items like pipes, iron and steel materials, plant and cement from one

place to another in mines in the company’s truck. They were also employed for loading of timbers form company’s

track to Private tracks, loading unloading of the store materials. As per job nomenclature under Central Wage Board,

they are performing job of tyndal in Cat-IV.

Ist party Union further submits that despite the claimants were doing job of tyndal workers, they were not paid

wages of said category. They were not paid wages of Category I employees. They are working since past 16 years as

tyndal mazdoors. Their services are not regularized amounts to unfair labour practice. That all those claimants are not

paid wages as per NCWA. They are discriminated by paying less wages and denying regularization it is further

submitted that wage structure and other service conditions of service including fringe benefits of employees are

covered under recommendations of Central Wages Board is accepted by Government w.e.f 15-8-67, 3^rd Coal Wage

Agreement from 1-1-1983. It is reiterated that despite of continuous 16 years service, those above tyndal workers are

not regularized in job. Management has engaged in unfair labour practice. Union further submits that their wages have

been paid on the basis of slips issued by various Unions in name of tyndal mazdoor Mannu. Shri Mannu himself is a

worker who is also performing the same job of tyndal. Mannu cannot become contractor unless he has been duly

licenced by the Labour Department. It is submitted that paper arrangement made by the management is illegal.

Management adopted illegal method and procedure in distribution of wages. The entire wages of workman after

calculation were given to Mannu who used to distribute amount equally among above 12 tyndal workers. Union has

raised dispute. Ist party submits that 2^nd party has engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 10. It is prayed that all

12 tyndal mazdoors are entitled to difference of wages and all other fringe benefits as per NCWA.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Union. 2^nd party submits that the order of reference is illegal

and vague. Reference is not tenable. The word regularizing the tyndal mazdoors used in the term of reference is

absolutely illegal. Question of regularizing is used only when there is appointment of claimants. 2^nd party denied

engagement of the claimants. Preliminary objection is submitted that management had filed application for better

particulars. The particulars were not supplied. The reference cannot be adjudicated. That during pendency of decision

on the application, appropriate Government vide corrigendum dated 13-12-06 sent list of claimants. The full names of

the claimants, their date of birth, permanent address, present address, qualification, particulars of appointment, period

of working, place and nature of work are not given. Identical marks of the claimants are not given. Applications were

rejected vide order dated 15-11-07.

2^nd party further submits that Union has no locus standi to raise dispute as the claimants are not employed in coal

industry, claimants are not covered as workman under section 2(s) of ID Act. The appointment in coal industry is

governed by certain statutory rules and regulations. A person seeking employment in the coal industry has to go

through the entire procedure prescribed for getting appointment. As per direction of Central Government, employment

has to go through procedure prescribed. As per direction of Central Government, employment of lower cadre is made

only through Employment Exchange. SECL is covered by public employment guaranteed under Article 16. The

claimants are not seeking employment through Employment Exchange. Their names were not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Their regularization will be violative of Article 16 of the constitution.

2^nd party further submits that management is entitled to get miscellaneous casual job executed through contractor

workers employed by said contractors are not employees of SECL. Work awarded by contractor is not permanent. Such

type of work which require minimum diverse and involvement of money is very less given to local contractors. In

central stores and other nit of area, departmental permanent workers are engaged for loading unloading of the

consignment received from the railway transporting agency. Sometimes local contractors are awarded transportation of

store materials such as timbers, cements, lime, dolomite powerder etc. The loading unloading of materials were in it

for compliance of the terms of unloading the material by the contractor. That the loading unloading charges were paid

to such labours by the driver of the contractors. In the case of loading unloading of materials which were transported by

departmental trucks from different places like railway station/ transporting agency and other areas of the company

etc., the derivers of the truck or staff who were deputed for the job used to draw the advance from the accounts

department and paid the loading unloading charges to the private mazdoors at both the end.

2^nd party reiterates that all 12 claimants were not engaged for loading unloading work. They are not employee of

SECL. They are not entitled for regularization. Claimants have not completed 240 days continuous service. local

contractors were given casual nature of work which are executed by himself as such contractors get money under

contract payment of remuneration to the persons engaged by him is as per understanding. On such contentions, 2^nd

party prays for rejection of claim.

5564

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

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Jamuna and Kotma area of SECL in not

regularizing twelve tyndal mazdoors on company

roll and payment of wages to these workers

according to National Coal Wage Agreement is

legal and justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization of 12 tyndal mazdoors i.e. claimants. The application

for better particulars submitted by 2^nd party was rejected after names of claimants were sent by Central Government

along with letter dated 13-12-06. Management had denied engagement of all those claimants. Isat party Union filed

affidavit of evidence of Sheikh Hadis, Pratipal Singh, Vidyasaghar Singh and Arun kanti Dasgupta. Mr. Sheikh Hadis

in his affidavit stated that he was working in stores as tyndal mazdoor from 1982 along with other 11 claimants. They

were kept in Category I. the work of loading unloading engineering materials from truck, loading unloading of

timber,oil and grease drums etc. was taken from them. Additional work of unloading explosive was also done by them.

In 1989, some workers completing 240 days were regularized. Thereafter the dispute was raised through Union.

Government refused to make reference after order by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 2542/92, the dispute is

referred. During pendency of reference, his services are terminated on 30-12-95 in violation of Section 33-A of ID Act.

That their wages were paid to tyndal mazdoor Mannu shoing him as contractor. Work of loading unloading was done

by them within the boundary of central store of the colliery. After completion of 240 days, he was not regularized.

Management has engaged in unfair labor practice.

10.

Shri Sheikh Hadis in his cross examination says he is member of the Union from 1982. There was no

advertisement for recruitment in 1982. He did not remember how many days he had worked in a month. He was unable

to tell his working days during 1982 to 85. He has no knowledge about violation of legal provisions. The materials

were brought in truck to the stores. He was remaining present. He was assigned work of loading unloading of materials

in stores. He denied that he was working under contractor and he also denied that contractor was paying wages to him.

He was paid wages on daily wage basis Rs. 8 to 9000 per month. Pay slip was not given to him. His signature was

obtained on paper, store officer was making payments. Sometimes officer Mr. Saxena or Depot Officer used to make

payments. He was unable to tell name of Depot Manager. The evidence of Sheikh Hadis that he was working in store,

loading unloading materials is not shattered in his cross.

11.

Shri Pratipal Singh his in affidavit of evidence says that he was working as Asstt. Store Keeper in regional

stores, J&K Area during 1977 to 1986. He was promoted to Store Keeper Grade I. he retired in 2011. He has also

supported evidence of Sheikh Hadis that Mannu and other workers were doing work of loading unloading of timber,oil

and grease drums etc during the period 1982 to December 95. They were terminated on 38-12-95. Shri Vidyasagar in

his affidavit of evidence says he was magazine store incharge in 1979. He was acquainted with Mannu and 11 others.

They were working in magazine store in Category I General Mazdoor. They were doing work of loading unloading till

year 1995. Pratipal Singh in his cross says he is member of INTUC Union, he was not office bearer of said Union. He

claimed ignorance who was Appointing authority for General Mazdoor. His appointment as clerk was from sports

quota. Appointment letter was not given to him. He was directly appointed. In 1971 mine was private. During said

period, he was appointed. General Mazdoor are appointed calling names from Employment Exchange and interview.

He claims ignorance how the claimants were appointed. He reiterates that he personally knows the claimants. He had

not appointed any of the claimants. When the materials were taken by truck to the store, claimants used to be called for

unloading. He was unable to tell at what rate the claimants were paid. The evidence of Pratipal Singh was also

employee working in the store is not shattered that claimants were doing the work of loading unloading in the store.

12.

Shri Vidyasagar in his cross-examination says in 2002, he was retired from post of magazine incharge. Office of

magazine incharge is in forest. He was member of INTUC Union. Any of the claimants were not appointed by him. All

the claimants were engaged by Store Incharge Shri D.Mishra. He was unable to tell the working days of the claimants.

From where the materials from store were transported, he could not tell. In magazine office, work relates to explosive.

He doesnot know about other work. The work of storing explosive was done by labours from stores who were regular

employees. There is no suggestion in cross-examination of Sheikh Hadis, Pratipal Singh, and Vidyasaghar Singh that

claimants had not done work of loading unloading materials in the store.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5565

13.

Affidavit of Arun Kanti Dasgupta is that the dispute was raised by Union NCWF. Said Union is merged with

South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress. His affidavit is further devoted on the point that claimants Mannu and others

referred in the list along with terms of reference were deployed in various jobs in Regional Stores as well as other

places of mines as well as depots of Regional Store. Since 1981, they were honestly doing their work without break.

Management not absorbed them in service. Job description and nomenclature of coal workers envisages by Central

Coal Wage Board for mines. The tyndal workers are performing job of Category IV. The nature of job performed by

the claimant and workers who are regularized is identical. The claimants are discriminated by not regularizing their

services after completion of 240 days. In his cross-examination, Arun Kanti Dasgupta says present dispute was raised

by NCWF. Said Union is merged in INTUC. Document in that regard is not produced on record. He claims ignorance

about the proceeding filed by Industrial Court, Raipur in the matter of merger of Union. At the time dispute was raised,

he was working in Regional Stores, J&K Area. He was appointed as General Mazdoor, store clerk by order in writing.

He claims ignorance that who ever is appointed by management, written order is issued. He denies that he being office

bearer of Union was not doing any office work and used to remain absent. He has no knowledge of appointment of all

the claimants but they all were working in the stores. The claimants were engaged by depot Officer Shri D.Mishra and

Mr. Sinha. The claimants were paid daily wages. He doesnot know the rate of wages paid. He admits that in stores,

dolomite timber cement are transported. He denies that transporters were taking materials to Regional Stores and the

claimants were paid by the drivers of the truck. He was unable to tell whether the amount was reimbursed to the Driver.

How many General Mazdoors were regularized in J&K Area, he could not tell the figure. He denies that claimants

were not paid wages by management. He denies that claimants were not members of NCWF Union. He retired 2 years

back.

14.

2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh. His affidavit is devoted on the point that

appointment in coal industry is covered by certain statutory rules. The employees who are regularly appointed

following procedure only are regular employees. That work in central stores units of area, departmental permanent

workers are employed for loading, unloading of consignment received from the Railway Transporting Agency. In

normal practice exercised by contractors that the driver of such contractors were engaging labours who could be

regularly available for loading unloading. The charges were paid to local labours by drivers of the contractors. In case

of loading unloading materials which were transported by departmental trucks from different places like Railway

Station/ transporting agencies and other areas of the company etc. the drivers of the truck or staff who were deputed for

the job used to draw the advance from the accounts department and paid the loading and unloading charges to the

private mazdoors. Claimants were never engaged by management of SECL. In his cross-examination, management’s

witness says he was working in Regional Store during 1982 to 1989. He doensot know the claimants related with the

dispute. The mines under control of 2^nd party are Kotma, Govinda, Badra spread over 10 KM area. Steel , wooden

articles are supplied to underground mine from Regional Godown. About 25 to 30 labours were working in Regional

godown. They were employees of SECL. They were doing work of loading unloading steel, wooden articles, 4-5

vehicles were used for such work. The labours were coming from the unit. No contractor was engaged in Regional

Stores. He admits that huge wooden logs were transported to the Regional godown. The labours were taking wooden

logs to saw mill. He claimed ignorance that the claimants were unloading wooden logs from truck. He claims ignorance

that claimants were paid by Store keeper Shri S.P.Sharma. Shri S.P.Sharma and G.N.Mishra were working as store

keeper. He is not acquainted with Vidyasagar. In Regional godown, steel, cement, heavy machines dolomite used to be

stored. He claims ignorance that loading unloading work was done by the claimants during 1981 to 1989, he was

working in other department and he has no knowledge about who had done loading unloading of materials. He admits

that the material received in Regional Office belong to the company. The driver was employee of the management.

Management’s witness admits that any licenced contractor was not engaged for loading unloading work. He claimed

ignorance that claimants are still residing in the quarters of the company. If evidence of the witnesses of Ist party is

carefully considered with the evidence of management’s witness, in cross-examination of all witnesses of Ist party,

there is no suggestion that claimants were not doing loading unloading work. Management’s witness admits that there

was no licenced contractor engaged in Regional Stores. Any driver who was paying amount of loading unloading

charges is not examined. The documents about payment of advance and reimbursement are not produced. Therefore I

donot find reason to disbelieve evidence of Shri Sheikh Hadis, Pratipal Singh, Vidyasaghar Singh and Arun kanti

Dasgupta that the claimants were doing the work of loading unloading materials in Regional godown since 1982 to

1995.

15.

2^nd party has raised objection that claimants are not covered as workman. The pleadings and evidence of Ist party

is clear that the claimants were doing work of loading unloading materials in Regional godown. On the point, learned

counsel for Ist party relies on ratio held in case of

Hussain Bhai versus Alath Factory, Tezhilali Union and others reported in 1978-LAB-I.C-1264. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 2(s),(G) of ID Act held where a worker or group of workers to produce goods or services

are for the business of another that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the workers

subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually laid off.

5566

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

The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex

contractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing

employment, it is found, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the

management, not the immediate contractor.

In present case, evidence of witnesses of Ist party is clear that claimants were doing work of loading unloading

i.e. manual work. 2^nd party has not produced documents w.r.t. contractors engaged for such work, payment of advance

and reimbursement. Evidence on record clearly shows as claimants were doing manual work of loading unloading, they

are covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. In absence of any evidence about the contractors engaged, 2^nd

party is the employer. Evidence of Ist party is clear that the claimants were doing the work of loading unloading

materials from 1982 to 1995.

16.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri S.K.Rao relies on ratio held in case between-

Umrala Gram Panchayat versus Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others reported in 2015-AIR-SCC-

2240. Their Lordship dealing with safai kamdars of Panchayat served more than 240 days. Work done by them

and their working hours were same as that of permanent workmen. Their working hours are same as that of

permanent workman, discrepancy in payment of wages between permanent and non-permanent workmen is

unfair labour practice.

17.

Shri A.K.Shashi learned counsel for 2^nd party submits that burden to prove 240 days working of complainant lies

on Ist party is not discharged. The valuation of Section 25-F is not established in support of his argument, he relies on

ratio held in case of-

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others versus Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and another reported in

2014(16)SCC-130. Their Lordship dealing with ownus of proof held for order of termination to be held illegal

on account of non payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to prove that he was in

continuous service of employer for 240 days. Burden to prove such continuous service lies on the workman.

In present case, evidence of witnesses of Ist party about claimants doing work of loading unloading during 1982

to 1995 is not shattered in their cross-examination. Evidence of Ist party is sufficient to hold that Ist party claimants

worked more than 240 days. Term of reference pertains to denial of regularization and not legality of termination of

service therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Next reliance is placed in case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon and

Bharat Lal and another reported in 2011-I-LLJ-321(SC). Their Lordship dealing with Section 2(13), 3(3) and

65(3) of MP Industrial Relations Act 1960 held finding that security guard direct employee of cotton mills and

not of contractor was not sustainable observing that the person concerned had suppressed material facts

disentitling to any relief.

In present case, though management has alleged that local contractor was engaged and local labours were

engaged by the contractor, no cogent evidence on the point is adduced by management. Therefore ratio held in above

case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Reliance is also placed on case between Post Master General Kolkata and others versus Tutu Das(Dutta0 reported

in 2007(5)SCC 317. Their Lordship dealing with irregular appointees- State Government’s power with respect to

circular directing regularization in contravention of statutory rules. Impermissibility no regularization is

permissible in exercise of executive power under Article 162 of the constitution if the appointments have been

made in contravention of the statutory rules.

In present case, evidence on record is clear appointment others were not issued to workman. However they were

continuously doing work of loading unloading in Regional store from 1982 to 1995 is covered under Item 10 Schedule

V. its verbatim is reproduced-

To employ workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of

depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen is unfair labour practice.

Despite of Ist party claimants engaged for loading unloading work from 982 to 1995, their services were not

regularized.

Ratio held in case between State of UP versus Labour Court, Haldwani and others reported in 999 LLR 439.

That the engagement on day to day basis and as such refusal to appoint him did not amount to retrenchment cannot be

applied to case at hand as workman was engaged for loading unloading work for 16 years are denied regularization. For

reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

18.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 action of management in denying regularization of Ist party

claimants is illegal, question remains for consideration is whether Ist party claimants are entitled for regularization with

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5567

backwages. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that services of claimants were terminated. Their

claim for regularization is not tenable. In support of above argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in

Oshiar Prasad and others versus employers in relation to management of Sudamdih coal washery of BCCL,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in 2015-I-LLJ-513(SC). Their Lordship in para 26, 27 held services of and those

at whose instance the reference was made were terminated long back prior to making of the reference. These

workers were therefore not in the services of either contractor or and BCCL on the date of making the reference

in question. Therefore there was no industrial dispute that existed or apprehended in relation to appellants

absorption in the services of the BCCL on the date of making the reference.

Since the appellant’s services were discontinued or / and retrenched long back, the question of their absorption/

regularization in the services of BCCL as claimed by them did not arise and nor this issue could have been gone

into on its merits for the reason that it was not legally possible to give any direction to absorb regularize the

appellants.

Ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied to case at hand as order of reference was issued on 29-8-95. In

statement of claim and Written Statement of 2^nd party, there is no clear pleading about termination of services of

claimants. In affidavit of witness Sheikh Hadis, Pratipal Singh, Vidyasaghar Singh, it is stated that services of

claimants were terminated on 30-12-95. Evidence on above point remained unchallenged. Thus services of claimants

are terminated during pendency of reference.

Section 33 of ID Act provides-

During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any

proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial

dispute, no employer shall,

(a) in regard to any matter connected with 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;

or…..

As such termination of Ist party claimants is in violation of Section 33 (1)(a) of ID Act is illegal.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between

Jaipur Development Authority versus Ramsahai and another reported in 2006(110SCC-684. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25 G,H of ID Act held irregular appointment of daily wager on seasonal work. Nothing to

show that when his services were terminated any person junior to him had been retained. In a case as the present

one it would not be proper to direct reinstatement with back wages, compensation Rs.75000 was awarded.

In case between Sr. Superintendent Telegraph Traffic, Bhopal versus Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in

2010(6)SCC 773. Their Lordship dealing with violation of Section 25-F of ID Act held relief by way

reinstatement with backwages when shouldnot be granted. The appellant employers were directed to pay

monetary compensation of Rs. 40,000 to each of the workmen.

In case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd versus Bhola singh reported in AIR-2005-SC-790. Their Lordship dealing

with daily wager claim for regularization of services held completion of 240 days continuous service in a year be

itself ground for directing regularization of services particularly in case when workman had not been appointed

in accordance with extant rules.

Next it is argued by Shri A.K.Shashi that particulars of the claimants are not supplied despite the application

submitted by management. The identity of claimants is not established therefore claim for regularization cannot be

allowed. Except Sheikh Hadis , other claimants have not filed their evidence. In the list of workman received along

with letter dated 13-12-06, age, address of Ist party claimants are not disclosed. Shri Sheikh Hadis has filed his affidavit

of evidence, his age is shown 50 years on 28-5-12. Detailed address is also given therefore regularization cannot be

denied to Shri Sheikh Hadis. As other claimants have not adduced evidence, evidence about their age is not available,

claim for regularization would not be justified. Considering the other claimants had done work of loading unloading for

16 years, compensation Rs. One Lakh would be appropriate whereas Shri Sheikh Hadis deserves to be absorbed in

service.

19.

Ist party workmen were not issued appointment letters, however they were not regularized even after 16 years is

unfair labour practice under Item 10, Schedule V. however for different reasons, regularization except Shri Sheikh

Hadis is not justified. Evidence about the claimants working as tyndal labours is not acceptable. Provisions of central

coal wage board are not produced in the matter. However they were doing work of loading unloading, evidence of the

witnesses of Ist party Vidyasagar claimants were working in Magazine store as General Mazdoor Category I is

5568

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

unchallenged. I hold that Sheikh deserves to be absorbed in service in General Mazdoor Category- I. Accordingly I

record my finding in point No.2.

20.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in not regularizing 12 claimants as Cotegory I Mazdoors on company roll is

illegal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to regularize/ absorb Shri Sheikh Hadis in General Mazdoor Category I with 50 % back

wages from the date of order of reference i.e. 29-8-95. 2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.One

Lakh to claimants Shri Mannu, S/o Raghubeer, Shri Sekh Sattar S/o Sekh Jabbar, Shri Mohan S/o Tularam,

Shri Raj Kumar S/o Mahabeer, Shri Pratap S/o Deshraj, Shri Shreepal S/o Dharamraj, Shri Ranjeet S/o

Motilal, Shri Deeraj S/o Dasarath, Shri Materli S/o Ramgopal, Shri Ram singh S/o Prahlad & Shri Manuwa

S/o Sidhoo.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vDrwcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2372-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

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; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22011@57@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2016

S.O. 2372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.10.2016.

[No. L-22011/57/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 56/2014

The General Secretary,

FCI Shramik Sangh, Uttarakhand,

32, Chakrata Road, Dehradun,

Dehradun

…Workmen

Vs.

1. The Chairman,

Food Corporation of India,

16-B, 12 Khamba Lane, New Delhi

2. The Senior Regional Manager

FCI 5/6 Habibullah Estate,

Hazratganj, Lucknow,

Lucknow

3. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Haldwani, Nainital,

Nainital

…Managements

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5569

AWARD

A reference was received from the Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-22011/57/2010-IR(CM-II) dated

24.03.2011 under sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), terms of which

are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of eight workers(list enclosed)

without complying with provisions of 25F, G and H of the ID Act is legal and unjustified? To what relief they

are entitled to?’

Briefly, it is alleged in the statement of claim that S/Shri Ruchir Sinha,Yogeshwar Kumar, Mahender Pal Singh,

Rajesh Kumar, Mahender Singh, Naoni Ram, Jamuna Prasad and Kala Ram (hereinafter referred to as the workmen)

were appointed as watchman/guard by the management in 1984-85 and were posted at different places, i.e. Shankar

Rice Mill, Aggarwal Modern Rice Mill, Shakti Rice Mill and other godowns of FCI situated at Bilaspur, District

Rampur under the management and control of Food Corporation of India Haldwani, Rspondent No.3. In fact FCI has

taken the aforesaid rice mills on rent and converted the same to godowns, which were under the control of management

of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred as the management). Claimant has worked with the management for

more than 2 ½ years without any break in their service and completed in a calendar year. The workmen performed

their duties honestly, sincerely and with full devotion and without chance of complaint. Though the workmen were

performing their duties regularly, but were not being paid wages as per the Government normal norms nor other legal

benefits like PF, ESI, Dearness Allowance. TA etc. were being paid to the workmen. The workmen were being paid

Rs.400.00 per month while other similarly placed workmen doing the same nature of work in the management were

getting Rs.1200.00 per month, which is against the norms of equal pay for equal work. Workmen raised their voice

against the management against this, as a result of which the workmen were thrown out of job. Thereafter, workmen

filed writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through Bhartiya Kranti Nigam

Mazdoor Sangh, Lucknow against the management wherein interim stay was granted on 16.09.1987 directing the

management not to terminate services of the workmen till further orders. Management intentionally disobeyed the

directions of the High Court and terminated services of the workmen on 07.10.1987 without any notice. Workmen also

informed the police but no step was taken for implementation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Claimant visited

premises of the management on 21.10.1987 but they were told that their services were no longer required and entry of

the claimant was banned. Claimant also wrote to the local SHO, Bilaspur, but in vain.

Thereafter, claimant moved contempt application before the Hon’ble High Court and in the meantime the counsel

for the workmen expired and due to bifurcation of State of Uttar Pradesh into two States, this matter was transferred to

Uttarakhand High Court for adjudication and it was decided on 25.11.2009 wherein Hon’ble High Court observed that

in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, factual aspect of the case cannot be examined and the petitioners can

move the appropriate authority for relief. Incompliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, workmen approached

the Regional Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand and the same was transferred to Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for

proper adjudication. Though oral assurance was given by the management to the workman to retain their services, but

of no use. Services of the workmen have been terminated wrongly, illegally and in an arbitrary manner. Same is also

against principles of natural justice as well as provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Workmen have been made a

scapegoat as they were demanding statutory entitlements under the law. This order of termination is totally bad in law.

Prayer has been finally made to direct the management to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits.

Reference was contested by the management who filed reply thereto and took various preliminary objections. It

was alleged on merits that the claimant herein are workers of contractors, namely Moradabad Security Company was to

exercise unassailable administrative control over the security guards, who made payment to them directly. Moreover,

workmen were never issued appointment letters by the management and they were engaged and deployed by the

contractor. It has been admitted in para 7 of the written statement that the workmen worked for the management

through the contractor but they were neither appointed by management nor they were on the pay roll of the

management. Workmen were not regular workers of FCI and they were engaged as security guard through contractor

on the basis of requirement. They were removed when there was no requirement. Consolidated contract amount was

paid to the contractor and thereafter wages of the workman were paid by the contractor and not by FCI. These

workmen were never under the direct administrative control of Food Corporation of India as such, reference is liable to

be answered against the workman.

Workman filed replication to the written statement filed by the management and reasserted the stand taken in the

statement of claim and denied the material averments contained in the written statement.

It is clear from order dated 10.10.2012 passed by my learned predecessor that no specific issue were framed in

the above reference as it was observed that that the terms raised in the reference is enough and same is required to be

answered.

Thereafter, workman in order to prove the claim against the management examined Shri S/Shri, Yogeshwar

Kumar, Mahender Pal Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Mahender Singh, Naoni Ram, Prem Pal, Jamuna Prasad, Kala Ram and

5570

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

Ruchir Sinha, whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/52 .

Affidavits of Mahender Pal Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Mahender Singh, Naoni Ram, Prem Pal, Jamuna Prasad, Kala Ram

and Ruchir Sinha are Ex.WW2/A to Ex.8/A respectively. They relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/52.

Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Mrinal, Area Manager as MW1, whose affidavit

is Ex.MW1/A. He tendered in evidence documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/6.

It is clear from matrix of the case that the claimant herein have come with the specific plea that they were

engaged in the year 1984-85 by the management at Aggarwal Rice Mill, Bilaspur, which was under supervision and

control of the management of FCI and they have worked for more than 240 days. Admittedly. Services of the workmen

herein were terminated without any show cause notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice. Plea has been taken

by the management in its written statement that the workmen herein were not in the employment of FCI and they were

workers of the contractor, M/s Moradabad Security Company, who exercised full administrative control over them and

they were directly in the pay roll of the contractor. However, in Para 7 it stands admitted by the management that the

workmen were working for the FCI management through the contractor and in Para 8 it is alleged that the workmen

were not regular workers of the management and payment of wages was made directly by the contractor to the

workmen. The workmen have filed a number of documents, Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/52 to prove that they were

appointed as watchmen/security guard. Perusal of all these documents shows that there were other co-workers who

were performing duties at Aggarwal Rice Mills at Bilaspur. In Ex.WW1/42 to 49, there is clear mention of the names

of the claimants, whose rank is mentioned as Guard. Similarly in Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11 again the names of the

claimants have been mentioned in the extract of attendance. It further shows that the workman were working for 8

hours. Similarly in the other documents also, name of the workmen is mentioned. A careful appraisal of Ex.WW1/4 to

Ex.WW1/49 that the workman were in the employment of FCI at Bilaspur. It is also mentioned that Shankar Rice Mill,

Aggarwal Modern Rice Mill, Shakti Rice Mill and other godowns of FCI situated at Bilaspur, District Rampur were

storing depots and they were engaged as watchman/guard.

Since the management has come in the present case with specific plea that the workmen herein were not directly

in the employment of FCI and they were engaged by Moradabad Security Company to provide security guards on

contract basis to FCI, who was making payment to the above company/contractor, who was further making payments

to the workmen. Shri Mrinal, Manager, while appearing as MW1 tried to prove the stand taken by the management in

the written statement. However, careful examination of his statement would show that the management of FCI have

failed to prove the stand taken in its pleadings. This witness is not aware whether any letter of request was sent to the

contractor to provide security guard/watchman at the given depots. No such letter has been filed or proved by the

management so as to prove its stand. There is also no list filed as to the number of persons deployed by the said

security agency for the management. Further, there is no document on the file to show that Moradabad Security

Company was asked to provide security personnel to the management. He has further admitted that letter Ex.MW1/1 is

regarding misbehavior of Malkhan Singh and letter Ex.MW1/2 does not reflect payment of wages to the workmen.

Management of FCI was directly making payments to the security company. However, there is no letter or document

filed by the management so as to show that during the relevant period from 1984 to 1987 how much payment was

made by FCI to the above security agency as payment of wages which the contractor was required to disburse to the

workman. This witness is also not aware whether such record is available in the office of the management or not. He is

not even aware whether Rs.400.00 was being paid to each workman. He has specifically admitted that normally

management maintains record in respect of permanent employees and no record in respect of daily wage employees

engaged through Moradabad Security Company is available in the office of the management. Only attendance sheet is

kept in the office. He has denied the suggestion that the workman herein was an employee of the management or not.

He has feigned ignorance regarding order passed by the Allahabad High Court. He is no aware whether any amount

towards provident fund was being paid to the workmen. He has made a vital submission that the documents

Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/52 is correct. He further admitted that the workmen herein worked with the management upto

1987. Thus, overall examination of the statement of this witness clearly shows that the claimant herein have worked

with the management till 1987, which is also the case of the workmen herein as per the pleadings contained in their

statement of claim.

10.

In the present case, it was incumbent upon the management of FCI to have filed contract documents vide which

the contractor regarding engagement of the contract workers, i.e. Workmen herein was given to the Moradabad

Security Company. In Section 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970, every principal employer,

I.e. FCI in the present case, is required to register itself by making an application to the Registering Officer in the

prescribed manner for registration of the establishment. Before awarding of contract to any private contractor, it is

required under Section 13 of the said CLRA Act that such contractor has to obtain license before executing any work

through contract labour in the manner prescribed under the law. Before grant of such licence, the Licensing Officer

may make such investigation in respect of application filed by the contractor and if any violation of the terms and

conditions of the contract is made out, under Section 14, the Licencing Officer has powers to suspend or revoke the

license granted in favour of such contractor. In the case in hand, management has not taken pains either to file copy of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5571

registration of its establishment in terms of Section 7 of the Act and copy of the license granted in favour of the private

agency, i.e Moradabad Moradabad Security Company, whose services were hired by the management of FCI as per the

stand taken in the pleadings. Since no such document has been filed by the management of FCI, only reasonable

inference that can be drawn is that the so called contractor was not at all licensed. There is no documentary evidence

filed so as to show what were the payments being made to the contractor for disbursing the said amounts to the workers

employed by the contractor. In such a situation, it can be claimed that the workmen herein were not in fact working

under the supervision of the contractor and they were working under the direct management of FCI. It is pertinent to

mention here that under Section 21 of the CLRA Act, 1970, it is the duty of every principal employer to nominate a

representative who is required to be present at the time of disbursement of disbursement of wages by the contractor.

Further, the principal employer is also required to take all steps for the welfare of the workers regarding which there are

various provisions under the Act as well as the rules. Management has also not examined any such contractor so as to

legally prove its stand that during the year 1984-85 till 1987, the said contractor has deployed the workmen herein as

watchman/guard and payments were also being made to such workmen directly by the contractors. In the absence of

any such evidence, both oral as well as documentary, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the management

has badly failed to prove its case, as required under the law.

11.

There is nothing on record to suggest that an notice before terminating services of the workmen herein was

served upon them as required under Section 25F of the Act, as there is no evidence that one month notice or salary in

lieu of such notice was paid to the workmen herein. Thus, examining the matter on the principles of natural justice as

well as provisions of the law, it is held that the workmen herein were in the employment of the management of FCI and

termination of their services is neither legal nor justified under the law.

12.

Now, the residual question is as to what relief the workmen herein are entitled to. It was urged on behalf of the

workmen that they are unemployed since the time of their termination, as such, workman should be reinstated with full

back wages whereas the management has strongly urged that there is no question of reinstatement at such a belated

stage and FCI is now not employing such casual or daily wage workers , which was the practice earlier.. As such, at

the most, they can be granted reasonable retrenchment compensation. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL Vs.

Bhurumal (2014 AIR SCW 528), while dealing with the question as to whether reinstatement with back wages should

be granted as a matter of course and it was held as under:

‘The ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be

illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a

regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair

labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the

termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which

will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. Reasons for denying the relief

of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal

because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section

25-F , even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee

by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and

even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization.’

13.

Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MP Administration vs Tribhuvan, Jagbir

Singh vs HP Agricultural marketing (2009 (15) SCC 327), Nagar Mahapalika vs State of U.P. (Civil appeal No.2411

of 2006 decided on 02.05.2006) and Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban (Civil Appeal No.1817 of 2007

decided on 05.04.2007). I have gone through the ratio of law enunciated in the above authorities and perusal of the

same clearly suggests that reinstatement of a workman whose services have been terminated wrongly and illegally is

not to be done in a routine manner and as a matter of course by Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to take a number of

factors into consideration, such as, whether the post in question from which the workman was terminated was a

sanctioned post or selection was made in accordance with rules and regulations by inviting applications, whether there

is delay in making reference to the Tribunal by the workman was engaged as a daily wager etc. Since in the case in

hand, there is no sanctioned posts of such casual or daily wage workers and there is considerable lapse of time after

1987, as such at this belated stage reinstatement cannot be granted, as such, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is in

the larger interest of justice that a reasonable amount of compensation is paid to the workmen instead of reinstating

them. Hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, including

length of service etc., an amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 appears to be just and reasonable, which is awarded to the

workman. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

October 5, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

5572

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

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2373-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 100@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@12@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/12/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 100 of 2014

Between :

Sri Shiv Shanker son of Sri Mohar Singh,

Village Nagla Shivaji,

Post Krishna Nagar,

District Mathura, U.P.

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/12/2014-IR (M) dated 28.08.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s Gogi

Enterprises,Mathura in terminating the services of Sri Shiv Shanker son of Sh Mohar Singh workman w.e.f. August

2011 is just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court, Kanpur,

whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5573

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2374-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 102@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@14@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 102/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/14/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 2014

Between :

Sri Nand Kishore son of Sri Tej Pal,

Village and Post Baad,

District Agra, U.P.

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/14/2014-IR (M) dated 27.08.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s Pooja

Contractor, Mathura, in terminating the services of Sri Nand Kishore son of Sh Tej Pal workman w.e.f. April 2010 is

just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

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

case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

5574

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

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2375-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 103@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@13@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/13/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 103 of 2014

Between :

Sri Heera Singh son of Sri Gopal Singh,

Village and Post Baad,

District Mathura, U.P.

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/13/2014-IR (M) dated 28.08.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. Manish

Contractor, in terminating the services of Sri Heera Singh son of Sh Gopal Singh workman w.e.f. August 2011 is just

fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

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

case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5575

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2376-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 121@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@25@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/25/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 121 of 2014

Between :

Sri Chhagan Lal Singh son of Sri Kundan Singh,

Village Pacca Koyala Post Baad,

District Mathura

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No. L-30012/25/2014-IR (M) dated 29.10.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. Balaji

Services, New Delhi, in terminating the services of Sri Chhagan Lal son of Sh Kundan Singh workman w.e.f. April

2010 is just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

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

case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

5576

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

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2377-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 123@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@27@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/27/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 123 of 2014

Between :

Sri Satish Chand son of Sri Narpat Singh,

Village Dharampura,

Post Dhana Jeevna,

District Mathura

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/27/2014-IR (M) dated 29.10.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. Balaji

Services, New Delhi, in terminating the services of Sri Satish Chand son of Sh. Narpat Singh workman w.e.f. April

2010 is just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

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

case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5577

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2378-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 124@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@28@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 124/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur 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 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30012/28/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 124 of 2014

Between :

Sri Omkar Singh son of Sri Bankey Lal,

Village and Post Ral,

District Mathura, U.P.

And

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/28/2014-IR (M) dated 29.10.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. G.S.

Travels, Mathura, in terminating the services of Sri Omkar Singh son of Sh Bankey Lal workman w.e.f. April, 2010 is

just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

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

case.

On 07.10.2016, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

5578

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

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2379-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ nh

vksfj,.Vy ba';kjsal 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;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 81@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17011@2@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.11.2016.

[No. L-17011/2/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 81/2013

Shri Anurag Verma,

C/o General Insurance Employees Association (North Zone)

15-16, Scindhia House, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Regional Office – 1, 10^th Floor,

Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110 010

…Management

AWARD

Background facts giving rise to the filing of the present case are that a reference was received under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) by this

Tribunal to decide the reference, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi in imposing penalty

of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in the time scale as applicable to Assistant (T) , i./e. reduction of

17 increments and his suspension period not counted for service of workman, Shri Anurag Verma, is legal and

justified?’

It is clear from the statement of claim that Shri Anurag Verma, the workman herein joined the Oriental Insurance

Company, i.e.the management on 07.04.1995 at Beawar branch, Rajasthan. In the year 1999, workman was posted in

Vigilance Cell, Regional Office I, New Delhi and thereafter in the year 2000, he was posted in Accounts Department at

Regional Office I, 88 Janpath, New Delhi. It is also alleged that throughout his career, workman was hardworking,

dedicated and sincere in his professional duties. In 17 years of his career, he has not had even a single complaint

regarding work or his conduct and behavior with his colleagues.

In the year 2005, workman was posted as Assistant (T) Eng. NRO I and his basic pay was Rs.6245 with gross

salary of Rs.10,273.00. There were also other staff working in the office and one of the staff member was Shri Ashok

Kumar, who was posted as sub staff in the office. Shri Ashok Kumar was a alcoholic and a drug addict, whose

unexpected behavioral tantrums was being unbearable to the other staff members He was living life of debauchery and

had complete disregard for his fell staff members. On several occasions, he was found under the influence of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5579

alcohol and narcotic drugs during office hours. He was picking un-required altercation with his fellow staff members

and he has virtually become unbearable nuisance for the rest of the staff members. There were written complaints from

other workers against him.

It is the case of the workman that on 23.03.2005, he reached office in the morning and during the day time he

also visited another branch of his office situated at Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi. When he came back, he was

shocked to see his glass table top shattered to pieces. Broken pieces of glass were also spread on the table, making it

difficult to sit and walk. When enquiry was made, workman was apprised that a serious altercation had taken place

between Ashok Kumar and a lady officer, Ms.Parvinder Kaur, AAO. Shri Ashok Kumar went to the extent of

physically manhandling the fellow lady staff member and even threw a bottle of water at her. He also hurled filthy

abuses upon the other members of staff. In the altercation, table top of the workman was also broken. Thereafter, Shri

Ashok Kumar left the office premises immediately on that day and did not return back for eight days. No leave was

sanctioned to him.

A formal complaint was lodged by Ms.Parminder Kaur, AAO and six other officer members regarding the above

incident and copy of the said complaint is Annexure W1-2.

There are also averments in the statement of claim that on 01.04.2005, workman herein called Shri Ashok Kumar

to enquire about the incident of 23.03.2005 which had taken place in the absence of the workman herein and regarding

breakage of glass top etc. However, Shri Ashok Kumar reacted in a fit of anger and started abusing the workman using

unsavory remarks. He was advised by the workman to behave properly. Upon this, Shri Ashok Kumar became very

violent held the workman from collar of his shirt, as a result of which a scuffle stared between the two. Shri Ashok

Kumar with a view to escape culpability, on the advice of SC/ST Union made a complaint against the workman, which

is W-3. Thereafter, management conducted a preliminary inquiry into the complaint of Ms.Parvinder Kaur and very

team took notice of the complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar and conducted enquiry into the aforesaid incident at the back

of the workman. The said team had no authority to hold a preliminary inquiry into the alleged incident of misconduct

against the workman. Members of the said inquiry committee prepared a complaint against the workman and directed

employees of Class III and IV with undue influence, to sign the said complaint. Explanation of the workman was

sought by the Inquiry Committee and the workman explained the circumstances which led to the above incident.

However, the fact finding committee held the workman responsible without examining the witness Ms.Beena and

others who were eye witnesses to the incident.

Workman had also made a complaint against Shri Ashok Kumar. However, no action was taken by the

management on the said complaint, copy of which is W-6. Later on, workman was placed under suspension in the

same day.

There are also allegations in Para 14 of the statement of claim that the workman was charge sheeted on

19.04.2005. However, he was not supplied copy of the complaint and statement of the witnesses so as to prepare his

defence. When workman had asked for the same he was told that as per Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, he

was not entitled to get copy of the same. Later on, during conduct of enquiry, documents were supplied to

him. Workman did not get adequate time to prepare his defence. Article of Charges and Imputation of lapses did not

mention which un-parliamentary words were used by the workman against Shri Ashok Kumar. Workman replied the

said charge sheet vide letter dated 16.05.2005. Under the pressure of rival union of the complainant, enquiry was

initiated against the workman and the same continued for three years wherein six witnesses were examined. Neither

the complainant was examined nor the complaint exhibited. On 03.02.2006 at the time of start of the domestic enquiry,

workman was supplied with copy of the complaint and statements of witness to be examined against the

workman. There was no adequate time to prepare defence by the workman. Workman could not join the enquiry

proceedings on 03.08.2006 due to illness of one of his relatives. However, statement of witness were still recorded.

Enquiry Officer on 08.09.2006 allowed the Presenting officer to cross examine the witness though statement of

defence of the workman was yet to be recorded. Presenting Officer sought opinion of the witness as to who was guilty

in their opinion instead of seeking corroboration of the incident. Thereafter, the Enquiry officer submitted his report on

24.02.2009 and concluded that the workman herein is guilty of misconduct and charges against the workman was

found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority on 30.07.2009 on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer and

representation of the workman imposed penalty of ‘reduction of basic pay to the lowest state in the time scale of pay as

applicable to the workman’ Workman at that time was getting basic pay of Rs.12,003 and total salary was

Rs.19,917.00. He was reverted to the basic salary of Rs.4,995. Thereafter, workman filed an appeal before the

Appellate Authority, which was also rejected. Workman thereafter submitted memorandum dated 25.03.2010 to the

Chairman and Managing Director but no action was taken on it. Thereafter, workman approached the union and made

a representation through the union to the management on 19.12.2000 who espoused the cause of the workman.

Finally the workman challenged the validity of the enquiry and charge sheet being vague and unintelligible,

workman not being supplied with the documents at the time of service of charge sheet etc. and enquiry being conducted

5580

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

in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Finally, workman has prayed that the said enquiry be set aside and

hold the workman entitled to remain in service with back wages. Statement of claim is supported by affidavit.

10.

Management has contested the averments made in the statement of claim by filing written statement taking

preliminary objections inter alia non maintainability, jurisdiction etc. On merits, management denied most of the

averments made by the workman herein. It is alleged that the workman has cast aspersions on the character of a person

who has expired years ago. Workman without any authority enquired into the problem with the complainant, Shri

Ashok Kumar and picked up quarrel with him when Ashok Kumar was going to sign the attendance register. It is

denied that the management was working under pressure of any union. Action taken by the management is just, fair and

proper and enquiry has been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. Misconduct of the workman

was display of disorderly and unruly behavior subversive of office discipline and unbecoming of a public

servant. Finally it has been averred that the workman is not entitled for any kind of relief.

11.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 23.08.2013 following issues were framed:

Whether claimant is clothed with status of a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

ii.

Whether enquiry conducted by the management was just, fair and proper?

iii.

Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

iv.

As in terms of reference.

12.

Issue No.1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issue and the parties were asked to adduce evidence on the above

issues.

13.

I have heard Shri H.S. Thukral, learned A/R for the claimant and Shri Rahul Ranjan Verma, learned A/R for the

management.

14.

At the outset, the management herein has contended that Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable upon them. As

such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. No doubt, Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Prakash

Sharma and Others vs. Union of India & Others (2001 (5) SCC 212) has discussed provisions of General Insurance

Business (nationalized in 1972) and it was in the context of the provisions of the Act that reference was also made to

provisions of Section 16 and 17A of the Act. Management has heavily relied on para 27 of the above judgement,

which in fact deals with revision of pay-scales, allowances etc. for betterment of the employees. No doubt, powers have

been conferred on the Central Government to frame any scheme for betterment of employees but observation in the

above para only relates to exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Act so far as question of bipartite settlement is

concerned. It nowhere says that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, in entirety, would not be applicable on the

management. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the above judgement does not exclude jurisdiction of this Tribunal so

as to decide the reference/fate of the domestic enquiry.

Issue No.1

15.

So far as the question of as to whether workman herein falls within the definition of workman as defined in

section 2(s) of the Act is concerned, no specific arguments were advanced on behalf of the management. It is clear

from pleadings of the parties that the workman herein was initially the workman joined as Assistant in the year 1995.

There is no evidence on record to show that he was performing duties of supervisory or managerial in nature. Simply

because salary of the workman is more than Rs.10,000.00 per month would not take such workman outside the ambit

and scope of ‘workman’ as defined under the Section.

16. It is well settled that in order to find out as to whether a person was performing the work of supervisory or

managerial in nature, the dominant purpose of the employment of the person concerned should be taken into

consideration and certain additional duties performed by him should be ignored while determining the status and

character of the person. Since the objection regarding the status of the workman being employed in supervisory

capacity has been taken by the management as such the onus to prove this fact is upon the management. It was

imperative for the management to adduce cogent evidence to prove the specific nature of duty regarding supervisory or

managerial work. In order to find out whether the workman herein falls within the definition of workman as defined in

section 2(s) of the Act. It would be expedient to have a glance on definition of the term ‘workman’, contained in

section 2(s) of the Act. For sake of convenience, definition of term ‘workman’ is reproduced thus:

“2(s) Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5581

with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i)

Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii)

Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or

(iii) Who is, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”.

17. The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term ‘workman’. This part of the definition

determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an “industry” to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines what a

“workman” means. The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes. By this

part of the definition, person (i) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial

dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the purpose of any

proceeding under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition of “workman”. This

part gives extended connotation to the expression “workman”. The third part specifically excluded the categories of

persons specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of this sub section. The third part connotes that even if a person satisfies the

requirements of any of the first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be

excluded from the definition of ‘workman’. Not only the persons who are actually employed in an industry but also

those who have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial

dispute, and whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would fall within the ambit of the

definition. In other words, the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the

definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other

purposes. Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that

day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because

subsequently the workman ceases to be workman.

18. For an employee in an industry to be a workman under this definition, it is manifest hat he must be employed to

do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an

employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman. The specification of the four types of work obviously is

intended to law down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those

types, while there may be employees who, not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the word ‘workman’,

without having resort to the exceptions. It cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to be a workman

except those mentioned in the four exceptions as in the case these four classifications need not have been mentioned in

the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he

was covered by one of the exceptions.

19. In cases where an employee is employed to do purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory work or

technical work or clerical work there would be no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the appropriate

classification. Frequently, however, an employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it would

be necessary to determine under which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out whether he does not go

out of the definition of ‘workman’ under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled that, for this purpose, a

workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required to do even though he may

incidentally doing other type of work.

20.

In view of the legal position discussed above, it cannot be held that the workman herein does not fall within the

ambit and scope of the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Hence the issue is decided

accordingly.

Issue No.2

21.

The claimant, in support of his case to assail validity of the enquiry, examined himself as WW1 and tendered in

evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/46. Management in order to rebut the case of the workman and to prove

validity of the enquiry examined Shri P.K. Gupta, Sub Divisional Manager, as MW1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A.,

which is on the same lines as the stand taken in the written statement. It is pertinent to note that Shri P.K. Gupta is not

a witness to the above incident regarding which the workman herein has been charge sheet nor he is aware of another

incident which took place with Shri Ashok Kumar, the complainant or any complaint being made by other staff

members against Ashok Kumar as is clear from his statement. He has clarified that he was present in the office on the

5582

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

day of the incident but he is not a witness to the incident as he was not near to the place of incident. He came to know

of the incident half an hour later. Admittedly, Shri Gupta was appointed as Enquiry officer and Shri Balwant Singh

conducted preliminary enquiry alongwith two other officials. He admitted that direction was given by him by him to

supply documents to the workman and enquiry in the present case started on 20.01.2006. He further made a vital

admission that the complainant was neither examined in the preliminary inquiry by the management nor during the

regular enquiry which is subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal. To a court question he has replied that he has

supplied all the requested documents to the workman on 02.02.2006. It is clear from the charge sheet Ex.WW1/10 that

documents were not supplied to the workman at the time of serving of charge sheet. It is also clear from perusal of

Ex.WW1/10 that the Disciplinary Authority has Annexure I and II with the Article of Charges alongwith list of

witnesses and documents vide which the above Article of Charges is proposed to be sustained. Workman was given 15

days time to file reply to the charge sheet, i.e. either admit or deny the Article of Charges specifically.

22.

During the course of arguments, learned authorized representative for the workman strenuously urged that non-

supply of the documents alongwith the charge sheet has caused serious prejudice to the workman, who was not in a

position even to prepare reply to the above charge sheet properly and these documents were supplied much later when

workman insisted for the same during the course of enquiry. Learned authorized representative for the workman also

urged that non-examination of the claimant or persons who were witness to the incident as mentioned in the charge

sheet is also fatal as there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that the claimant has misbehaved with

Shri Ashok Kumar.

23.

Reply dated 16.05.2005 Ex.WW1/13 filed by the workmen in the present case to the domestic enquiry clearly

shows that the workman has denied the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet regarding the incident on

01.04.2005. It is pertinent to note that the workman has mentioned the name of Ms.Parvinder Kaur, AAO, Accounts

Department, who had told the workman herein that Shri Ashok Kumar has broken the glass top of his table on

23.03.2005. It was on account of this reason that on 01.04.2005 he questioned Shri Ashok Kumar, who heroically said

‘I have done it. You can do whatever you like’. Order Ex.WW1/14 also shows that on 30.06.2005, the workman

herein was placed under suspension with effect from 01.04.2005 in connection with usage of unparliamentary language

against Shri Ashok Kumar, sub-staff in Legal Department. Further letter Ex.WW1/15 shows that Shri P.K. Gupta,

MW1 was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 13.01.2006 and Shri S.S. Jaggi, AAO was appointed as

Presenting Officer in the above departmental enquiry, as is clear from order Ex.WW1/16. Proceedings conducted on

the above date also shows that the workman is stated to be not present till evening. On being enquired, it was found that

notice of preliminary inquiry has not been served on the workman. Workman has also named Shir Lokesh Dewan as his

defence assistant, as is clear from letter Ex.WW1/19.

24.

It is clear from the enquiry proceedings as well as evidence adduced before this Tribunal and the domestic

enquiry that Enquiry Officer, Shri P.K. Gupta, MW1 primarily based his findings on the preliminary report, i.e.

findings of enquiry conducted prior to the present domestic enquiry by the management. Further, record also shows that

no action was taken by the management on the complaint filed by the workman against Shri Ashok Kumar. Not only

this, even this Ms.Parvinder Kaur had also lodged complaint against the behavior of Shri Ashok Kumar and there is

nothing on record to show that the management has conducted any formal enquiry regarding compliant filed by the

workman herein or Ms.Parvinder Kaur, who were working at the relevant time in the same office.

25.

It was strongly contended on behalf of the workman that enquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner to take

action on the complaint filed by Shri Ashok Kumar, whereas no action has been taken on the complaint of the

workman herein and other employees. Learned A/R for the workman also pointed various anomalies in recording of

evidence of the witnesses by Shri P.K. Gupta, MW1, who was the Enquiry Officer. It was also pointed out that when

charge sheet was issued to the workman herein, there was no list of documents as well as names of witness to be

examined by the management in support of the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Learned A/R for the claimant

also relied upon various judgements in support of his submissions and I would be discussing ratio of the same while

drawing my conclusions.

26.

Per contra, Shri Rahul Ranjan Verma appearing on behalf of the management urged that conduct of the workman

herein was very disorderly on the day of the incident. He has hurled abuses and misbehaved with Shri Ashok Kumar,

sub staff posted at Legal Department on the day of the incident, i.e. 01.04.2005. Learned A/R for the management, in

all fairness, admitted that manner of recording of evidence was not strictly as per established practice as well as

requirement of law. But, no prejudice has been caused to the workman by such mode of examination. Workman , in

submission of the learned A/R for the management was afforded ample opportunity to rebut the case. Finally, learned

A/R for the management urged that findings rendered in the Enquiry Report, Ex.MW1/1 is based upon proper

appreciation of evidence on record; as such, it does not require any indulgence by this Tribunal. Learned A/R for the

management also relied upon the case of Muriadih colliery of Bharat Colliery Coal Ltd. Vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union (2005 3 SCC 331) wherein it has been held that act of violence on the part of an employee is considered to be an

act of gross misconduct calling for stringent punishment.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5583

27.

Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions raised on behalf of either of the parties, it

is necessary to mention the allegations contained in the charge sheet dated 19.04.2005 Ex.MW1/1 served on the

workman herein, which is as under:

Article of Charge

On the morning of April 1, 2005, he caught hold of Shri Ashok Kumar, Sub-staff, RO-1, 88 Janpath, New

Delhi and hit him with his fist and beat him with kicks and vitiated office atmosphere.

Statement of Imputation of Misconduct

On the morning of April 1, 2005, he confronted Shri Ashok Kumar, Sub-staff posted in Legal Department at

RO-1, 88 Janpath, New Delhi, when the latter was entering the office from the rear side door and called him.

Shri Ashok Kumar, sub-staff refused saying that he would come to him (Shri Anurag Verma) after signing the

muster. Upon hearing this, without any provocation, Shri Anurag Verma got furious and used

unparliamentary language against him and hit Shri Ashok Kumar with his fist and beat him with kicks in front

of other staff. In this incident, Shri Ashok Kumar suffered minor injuries on his waist and his clothes got torn.

Further, his acts vitiated the office atmosphere.

28.

There is list of witness alongwith names of six witnesses as well as list of documents. However, it is clear from

the record of the domestic enquiry that the workman was not supplied with list of documents as well as lilst of

witnesses when the above charge sheet was served. It is further clear from the reply filed by the workman herein on

16.05.2005 that he has denied the allegations contained in the charge sheet. It is pertinent to note here that the workman

has specifically referred to Ms.Parvinder Kaur, AAO, Accounts Deparment, who had told the workman that the glass

top of his table was broken by Shri Ashok Kumar on 23.03.2005 and that on 01.04.2005, the workman questioned Shri

Ashok Kumar and thereafter the incident ensued.

29.

During the conduct of the domestic enquiry, complainant Shri Ashok Kumar was not at all examined by the

management in support of the allegations contained in his complaint nor any reason has been assigned by the

Presenting Officer or the Enquiry Officer in his report for non-examination of the complainant. Management examined

four other witnesses, S/Shri Chander Pal, Ashok Kumar, Madan Prasad, Basant Kathane, Zile Singh and Ramesh

Chand. It is clear from overall examination of mode or recording of statements of the witnesses that neither the

Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer Shri Jaggi was at all conversant with the established norms of recording

statement of material witnesses in a narrative form. An overall examination of the statement of the various witnesses

would show that answers have been put in the mouth of the witnesses and all the material questions have been asked in

a leading form. Law is fairly settled that examination in chief of a witness is to be in narrative form and normally

leading questions cannot be asked by the party, who has called such witnesses in the examination in chief of such

witnesses. For example, in examination in chief of Shri Chander Pal, leading questions were put in the following

manner:

Presenting Officer :

Did Anurag hit Ashok on 01.04.2005?

Shri Chander Pal

Yes.

Presenting Officer :

Was Ashok at fault at the time of the incidence?

Shri Chander Pal

No, not in the particular incidence and I am unaware otherwise

30.

It was thereafter that cross examination of the witness was conducted by the workman herein. It is necessary to

mention here that Shri Chander Prakash has admitted in his cross examination that he came to know regarding

misbehavior of Shri Ashok Kumar with Ms.Parvinder Kaur, AAO and at that time he was under the influence of drugs.

He came to know about the incident on the next day. To one of the questions, as under, reply given by Shri Chander

Prakash, witness is material and the same is reproduced:

Ashok picked up tube light and shoe to hit whom?

Naturally, to hit Anurag.

Did Anurag has anything in his hands?

No, there was nothing in his hands.

31.

The presenting officer during the course of cross examination was referring to the statements given by these

witnesses at the time of fact finding enquiry. He has specifically denied writing of any such statement during the

course of preliminary inquiry as he could not write in English. Thus, he has clarified that even his statement before the

Enquiry Officer is in fact not his statement.

5584

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

32.

Management, during domestic enquiry, examined one Shri Ashok Kumar Sub staff and the questions put to him

by the Presenting Officer are in leading form and his opinion has been taken as to who was at fault in the above

incident and he has told that Shri Anurag was at fault. It is further clear from his cross examination that he was not

aware of the date of the incident nor clear about its timing. He has also averred that Shri Ashok Kumar was in the habit

of taking narcotic drugs and remained under the influence of drugs. He has further admitted that he came to know that

there was an altercation between Ms.Parminder Kaur and Shri Ashok Kumar. There is nothing in the statement of this

witness regarding genesis of the incident.

33.

The other witness examined during the domestic enquiry was Shri Madan Prasad, PW3 and to a question put to

him in his examination in chief, which was also in a leading form, i.e. ‘Did you see Ashok hitting Ashok in the morning

of 01.04.20015?’ and the answer was ‘Yes’. He has no idea regarding the date and time when the incident took place

and at the time of the incident he was sitting with his boss Shri Ajay Gupta in his cabin. This clearly shows that this

witness has also not seen the incident nor the manner in which the incident took place. He further clarified that there

was shouting from both sides and both Shri Anurag and Shri Ashok were using bad words and he reached at the end of

the incident. An overall examination of statement of this witness would show that there are a lot of inconsistencies in

his statement.

34.

Lastly, management examined Shri Zile Singh as PW5 whose statement is also recorded in the same manner. In

fact, statement of the witnesses were pre-recorded and the same were not recorded during the course of domestic

enquiry and he was simply asked whether he agrees with his statement of 02.04.2005 given before the Fact Finding

committee, to which his reply was ‘Yes’.

35.

The Tribunal is constrained to observe that the manner in which statement of the various witnesses were recorded

by the Enquiry Officer during the course of domestic enquiry leaves much to be desired. It is clear that questions were

put to the witnesses in leading form so as to seek answers in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, which is not legally permissible. This is not

in respect of one witness, but all the witnesses have been subject to examination in the same manner. It is really strange

that neither the Presenting Officer nor the Enquiry Officer has tried to ascertain the manner in which the statement of

the witnesses is required to be recorded. Not only this, the Presenting Officer, Shri S.S. Jaggi has already brought the

pre-recorded statement recorded during the course of fact finding enquiry and put the same to the witnesses, which is

highly illegal and not permissible under the law. The mode and manner of recording statement of witnesses by the

Enquiry Officer is clearly suggestive of the fact that he has conducted the enquiry in a pre-conceived manner so as to

ensure that the workman is held guilty. This approach of the Enquiry Officer is totally against principles of natural

justice and the same is not warranted under the law.

36.

In fact, proceedings conducted during the course of fact finding enquiry or the preliminary inquiry regarding the

above incident has completely swayed the mind of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. It is now well

settled law that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used in a departmental enquiry as substantive

evidence in which no opportunity of cross examination is available to the delinquent employee. Purpose of holding a

preliminary inquiry is only to take a prima facie view as to whether there could be some substance in the allegations

made against the employee, which may warrant regular enquiry. Evidence recorded in a preliminary enquiry cannot be

used in a regular enquiry as the delinquent employee is not associated with it nor an opportunity to cross examine the

witness is available to him during conduct of the preliminary inquiry. Use of such evidence would be in violation of

principles of natural justice. I find support to the above from the case of Nirmala J Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 4

SCC 301)

37.

There is another aspect of the case which cannot be totally ignored. As discussed above, complainant has not

been examined during the course of domestic enquiry. He has made a submission during the fact finding enquiry, as is

clear from the enquiry proceedings. But as discussed above, statement of the complainant recorded during the fact

finding enquiry, which is ex-parte in nature and cannot be taken into consideration as substantive evidence under the

law. Even during the course of proceedings before this Tribunal no steps were taken to examine the complainant nor

any explanation given for his non examination was given by the management. To my mind, non-examination of the

complainant both during the domestic enquiry as well as before this Tribunal has dealt a crippling blow to the case of

the management so as to prove misconduct against the workman.

38.

I find support to this view of mine from the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on

27.10.1999 wherein Supreme Court has dealt with the question of non-examination of material witness, including the

complainant and it was held that non-examination of such vital witness has prejudiced the case of the charged

employee and their examination would have revealed regarding the true nature of the incident as such

witness/complainant was the best person to speak regarding veracity of the incident. Rule of best evidence envisages

that as far as possible a Department should adduce best possible evidence to prove the case against the opposite

party/workman.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5585

39.

Learned A/R for the claimant also laid emphasis upon the fact that non-supply of documents has also caused

prejudice to the workman and management from the very inception was acting in a biased manner. Reliance was placed

on Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Madan Lal (2015 Lab.I.C. 3757) wherein a Field Supervisor of the

bank was charge sheeted for having committed misconduct and departmental enquiry was conducted against him.

Finally the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of ‘removal from service’. It was contended on behalf of the

workman that at the time of service of the charge sheet, list of documents and witnesses were not supplied, as a result

of which the delinquent employee was not in a position to put forward his case, including reply in a proper manner. It

was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that though during the course of enquiry, required documents were supplied

but non-supply of the same at the time of service of the charge sheet to the delinquent employee is really fatal to the

case of the department. In the case on hand also, it is clear from the record of the domestic enquiry that list of

documents and witness was not supplied to the workman herein, who has later on asked for supply of the documents

and during the course of enquiry proceedings on 14.03.2006 there is mention of the fact that the charged employee has

been delivered with the requisite documents.

40.

Lastly, there is considerable merit in the submission of the workman that management was acting in a biased

manner so as to hold the workman guilty from the very inception. As discussed above, there is ample evidence on

record that prior to the present incident. Shri Ashok Kumar picked up a quarrel and misbehaved with Ms.Parvinder

Kaur, who has also lodged a complaint against him. Not only this, even the workman herein has also filed a written

complaint against him regarding misbehavior with the workman, but no action appears to have been taken on the basis

of the said complaint by the management. There is also ample evidence on record to suggest that Shri Ashok Kumar

was in the habit of taking narcotics/smack etc. This fact has even been admitted by the witnesses examined by the

management during the course of domestic enquiry. Even in the reply dated 16.05.2007 there is mention of this fact by

the workman in his reply. However, no action appears to have been taken by the management on the complaint filed

by the workman herein or by Ms.Parminder Kaur, AAO, Accounts Department regarding misbehavior of Shri Ashok

Kumar with these persons. This clearly shows the biased approach of the management towards the workman. It has

been held in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna (AIR 2001 SCC 343) that enquiry is required to be conducted by the

Enquiry Officer in a manner so as to show fair and reasonable approach without any element or malice or malafide.

Various questions, as discussed above, put to other witnesses at the start of their examination clearly shows that the

Enquiry Officer has acted in a biased manner. It was further held that proceedings on record suggest that the

disciplinary authority had a closed and biased mind even at the time of service of the charge sheet as well as

subsequently. In that eventuality, enquiry cannot be held to be fair or in consonance with law. I have carefully gone

through the ratio of law in the Muriadih colliery of Bharat Colliery Coal Ltd. case (supra) relied upon by the

management. There is hardly any dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the above ruling but the question of

applicability of the ratio of the ruling would arise only when it is proved on record that the domestic enquiry has been

held in accordance with law and the same has been found to be valid. Not only this, management is also required to

prove gravity of the offense as well as charges contained in the charge sheet. Thereafter only, question of imposing/

severity of the punishment would arise. In view of these reasons, I am constrained to conclude that the enquiry

conducted by the bank against the claimant cannot be held to be fair and proper being in violation of principles of

natural justice and having been conducted in an unfair manner. Hence, preliminary Issue No.2 pertaining to fairness of

enquiry is also answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.

Issue No. 3

41.

In fact, there is no legal requirement to give any findings on Issue No.3, which is ‘Whether the punishment

awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?’, since this Tribunal, while rendering findings on Issue No.1

and 2 has held vide order dated 30.08.2016 that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is unfair and

against principles of natural justice; as such, Issue No.3 has now become redundant. Question of giving findings on

Issue No.3 would arise only if the Tribunal has found that the domestic enquiry to be valid and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, no finding is required to be rendered on the question whether punishment awarded to the claimant

commensurate with the gravity misconduct, when no misconduct is found to have been proved against the workman.

42.

It is pertinent to mention here that the management has not reserved its right to adduce evidence on merits before

this Tribunal in case the domestic enquiry is ultimately found to be unfair and against the principles of natural justice

nor any application was moved by the management at the earliest, seeking permission from this Tribunal to adduce

evidence on merits qua misconduct alleged to have been committed by the workman. In such a situation, this Tribunal

is of the considered view that no opportunity can be accorded to the management to adduce evidence on merits.

43.

As a sequel to my above discussion, Issue No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the workman and against the

management and it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is unfair and in violation of

principles of natural justice. Action of the management in imposing penalty of reduction in basic pay to the lowest

stage in the time scale as applicable to Assistant (T), i.e. reduction of 17 increments, including non-counting of his

suspension period for services of Shri Anurag Verma , the workman herein, is held to be neither legal nor justified. An

5586

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

award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

October 3, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2380-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lsUVªy os;jgkmQ¯lx dkiksZjs'ku 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;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 115@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@2@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

Government on 23.11.2016.

[No. L-42011/2/2016-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 115/2016

The General Secretary,

Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union (Reg.)

D-2/24, Sultanpuri,

New Delhi -110086

…Workman

Versus

1. The Management of Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar,

Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi - 110096

2. M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD, Near Ghazipur Village,

Patparganj,

New Delhi- 110096

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/2/2016-IR(M) dated 12/04/2016, referred the following

industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the managements in reducing the rates of wages from minimum wages for semi-skilled

workers to minimum wages for unskilled workers per day is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief

they are entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file

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

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

dispute. Despite directions so given, no statement of claim has been filed on behalf of claimant union with the tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5587

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant union as well as the managements. Neither

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

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

served upon the claimant union. Despite service of the notice, claimant union opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant union has neither put in their appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove

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

award. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : October 6, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2381-—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 187@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@63@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 187/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.11.2016.

[No. L-30011/63/2004-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 187/2011

The General Secretary,

Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees Congress,

Vandana Building, 1, Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi-110 001

…Workman

Versus

The Senior Plant Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Shakur Basti Terminal,

New Delhi-110 056

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-30011/63/2004-

IR(M) dated 09.11.2004 with the following terms of reference:

Whether the demand of the Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees Congress, New Delhi relating to

regularization of service of the contract labourers mentioned below in the establishment of Indian Oil

Corporation, Shakurbasti Terminal Delhi-110034 is just, fair and legal? If yes, to what relief these workmen

5588

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

are entitled and from which date? S/Shri Baljeet Singh, Bheem Singh, Shiv Shankar, Budh Ram, Moti Lal,

Rajendra Singh, Om Prakash I, Om Prakash Jha II, Laxman Mishra, Parmanand Jha and Ravinder Singh.

It is clear from the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workmen that the claimants have been engaged

primarily for the work of supply of mobil containers from store and putting back filled mobil containers/tins in depots

at Shakurbasti by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(in short the management).through its different agencies. Claimants

have been working continuously for the last two decades for the management. Case of the workmen was also espoused

by the union. In fact, the management engaged workmen ostensively on papers through different agencies/contractors.

Aforesaid agents/contractors are merely name lenders with no control over workers/claimants regarding their terms and

conditions. Engagement of these claimants through contractors appears to be camouflage and if the veil is lifted, it

would show that there is direct relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimants.

Contractors have been acting as only agents of the management . Services of the claimant herein were without any

break in spite of change of agency/contractors. It is also alleged that the power to terminate the workmen from service

as well a payment of wages, leave, assigning duties etc. are also determined by the management. Workers, in fact,

were paid wages by the management.

Management is not registered under the provisions of Contract Labour Regulations Act, 1970(in short CLRA)

and rules made therein nor the contractors have obtained licence under the said Act. The appropriate Government has

already abolished engagement of contract labour by issuing notification under Section 10 of CLRA vide notification

dated 20.01.1997. The job performed by the claimant is permanent and perennial in nature. As per clause 10 of the V

Schedule of the Act, employing workmen as badlis, casuals and temporaries for years together amounts to unfair trade

practice. Management ought to have regularized services of the claimant instead of exploiting them by engaging them

through different contractors.

It is also the contention of the claimants that in 1995, they were covered by notification dated 20.04.1987 issued

by the Delhi Government. Claimants also filed a civil writ petition bearing No.4579/1995 before Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi for regularization of their services with the aforesaid management. During pendency of the writ petition,

notification dated 20.04.1987 was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court on 01.10.1996 on the grounds of jurisdiction.

However, during pendency of the said petition, fresh notification dated 21.10.1997 was issued by the appropriate

Government prohibiting inter alia the work done by the claimants herein under Section of the CLRA. After issuance of

the above notification, claimants were entitled for regularization of their services by the management. After disposal

of the above writ petition, claimants called a meeting of the workers, wherein it was resolved on 10.01.2003 to raise an

industrial dispute. Hence, the present reference.

Claim of the workmen was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto my taking several

preliminary objections, including the fact that the present case cannot be treated as an industrial dispute under section

2(k) of the Act. There was also reference to the earlier writ petition as well as issuance of notification dated 20.04.1987

by the appropriate Government. It is alleged that the claimants, in their earlier writ petition, changed their stand from

time to time and abandoned the same conveniently when notification dated 20.04.1987 was quashed vide order dated

01.10.1994 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, claimants changed their stand that they were covered by

the second notification dated 21.10.1997 issued under Section 10 of the Act. It has been alleged that M/s. Shakti

Cleaning Agency was a general haulage contractor for providing the following services:

(i)

Transportation and distribution of lube oil in Delhi and other outlets

(ii)

Transportation of lube oils and greaze drums from Delhi, New Delhi and Nangloi Station

(iii)

Transportation of mechanical pumps, motors, starters and other store material if and when required

(iv)

Transportation and handling of steel plates, stocking and de-stocking stesl pipes from one place to another

(v)

Providing of courier service

(vi)

Binding of voucher

(vii)

Stacking and de-stacking of cement bags

(viii) Loading and unloading of stationery items

(ix)

Maintenance of lawns and gardens

(x)

Outdoor jobs for providing liaison work with bank, post office, octroi, railway, excise, telegraphs,

electricity office etc.

(xi)

Grass cutting

(xii)

Clearing of oil water separator, cleaning of line strainers, tank cleaning and other miscellaneous jobs

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5589

The above jobs were being executed through contractors who have engaged labour and was having supervision

and control over such labour. Management had entered into valid contract for getting services. It has been denied that

the claimants are working for the last 20 years under the management. It is also denied that the claimants were engaged

for supply of mobil containers from stores. The claimants had earlier claimed that they were engaged for LPG cylinder

work and allied activities. Management also denied other material averments contained in the statement of claim. It

has been alleged that it is the discretion of the contractor to retain the workers.

The claimant filed rejoinder in support of the stand taken in the statement of claim and denied the material

averments contained therein.

Claimant, in support of their case examined Shri Om Prakash as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He

tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/18.

Cross examination of Shri Om Prakash, WW1 concluded on 05.11.2007. Thereafter, the case was transferred

from Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.2 to this Tribunal vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-

IR (C-II) dated 30.03.2010.

10.

Claimants examined Shri Jagdish Prasad as WW2, whose affidavit is Ex.WW2/A. His cross examination was

conducted partly and thereafter several opportunities were granted for remaining cross examination of Shri Jagdish

Prasad, but the he failed to put in his appearance on one pretext or the other. Hence, claimants were proceeded ex-parte

under Rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 vide order dated 17.04.2013. On 17.04.2013 itself,

affidavit of Shri Vishal, Manager(Employee Relations) on behalf of the management, besides documents, were taken

on record and the case was listed for an award.

11.

On 14.08.2014, an application was received on behalf of the claimants for setting aside order dated 17.04.2016

vide which they were proceeded ex-parte, which order was set aside vide order 01.11.2013 and opportunity was again

granted to the claimants for adducing remaining evidence on their behalf.

12.

It is clear from perusal of record that on several dates of hearing, i.e. 01.07.2014, 06.08.2014, 16.09.2014,

22.10.2014, 09.12.2014, 20.01.2015, 11.03.2015, 14.05.2015. 13.07.2015 and 03.09.2015 none appeared on behalf of

the claimant union. In fact, examination of Shri Jagdish Prasad, witness of the claimant union was to be done by the

management, when neither the claimants nor any authorized representative on behalf of the claimant union appeared

so as to assist the court. Resultantly, evidence of the claimant was closed vide order 11.03.2015. When matter was

listed for evidence of the management, an application was filed by the A/R for the management for

rectification/correction of the clerical errors which had emerged in the cross examination of Shri Om Prakash, WW1,

the said application was to be considered at the time of final hearing of the main claim petition so as to consider merits

of the application alongwith the main case. Management, in fact has not examined any witness due to the reason that

evidence of the claimant was closed midway.

13.

Since none appeared on behalf of the claimant on several dates of hearing, as discussed above, nor the claimants

put up their appearance so as to pursue their case before this Tribunal, as such, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that it is a fit case where ‘no claim/dispute’ award deserves to be passed. An award is accordingly passed. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : October 20, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-

,l-vkbZ- vLirky 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;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15011@1@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2016

S.O. 2382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

5590

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

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ESI Hospital and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2016.

[No. L-15011/1/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM

NO.33, BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 24/2014

General Secretary,

Rastriya Rajdhani Shetra Engg. &

Gen. Maz. Union (Regd.), C-139, Karampura,

New Delhi-110015

…Workman

Versus

1. The Manager

M/s ESI Hospital

Sector-15, Rohini,

New Delhi-85

2. The Manager,

M/s. Vishakha Enterprises

30/42. Street No.8, Main Road,

Opp. Andhra bank, Vishwas Nagar,

Shahdara, Delhi-32

…Managements

AWARD

Reference No. L-15011/1/2013-IR(M) dated 17.02.2014 issued by ministry of Labour received in this tribunal on

18.03.2014.

On the basis of which ID. Case No 24 of 2014 was registered and notices were issued to parties for 30.04.2014

calling upon workman to file her claim/statement.

In schedule of reference following questions of determination are mentioned:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Vishakha Enterprises in terminating the services of Smt. Asha E-

House Keeper w.e.f 13.01.2013 is justified or not? If not, what relief will be givern to the workman and from

which date?”

On the basis of which workman/claimant Smt. Asha filed claim/statement on 30.04.2014 wherein she mentioned

that she is working as House Keeper in management No. 1 through contractor management No. 2 since June 2006 since

her illegal termination on 13.01.2013.

She alleged that she worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year since June 2006 till 13.01.2013.

Although she admitted this fact she is contractual employee she prayed for her reinstatement alongwith full back wages

etc.

Respondent No. 2 filed its written statement on 28.07.2014.

Wherein it derived the allegation of workman and prayed for dismissal of claim/statement as it is false and

frivolous.

On 15.10.2014 workman filed his rejoinder. Wherein he reaffirmed the contents of claim/statement.

On 04.12.2014 management No. 1 filed its reply affidavit wherein its alleged as follows its preliminary

submissions and parawise reply:-

That the answering respondent is a Hospital established under the provisions of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 and is engaged in providing medical benefits to the employees and there beneficiaries

covered under the provisions of the said Act.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5591

II.

That the respondent No. 2 is the contractor engaged by the answering respondent to provide house keeping

services to its purely on contractual basis.

III.

That as per the said contract the respondent No. 2 was to provide house keeping services to the answering

respondent and thereafter the said contractor stands concluded and terminated and presently the services are

provided by some other agency.

IV.

That as per the terms of the said contact, it is for the contractor to provide specified number of employees at

the hospital at the particular given point of time. The person so engaged shall be purely at the violation of

the contractor and the answering respondent has no right whatsoever to dictate as to who is to be employed

where. It is for the supervisors employed by the respondent No. 2 to decide on a given day as to which

workmen shall be deputed where and also as to there shifts etc. The answering respondents have absolutely

no say either in engagement or in dismissal of any of employees/ workmen of M/s. Vishakha Facility

Management and the present dispute is between M/s. Vishakha Facility Management and its workmen. The

answering respondent is neither necessary nor proper party to the present dispute and seeks discharge from

the present claim accordingly on this ground itself.

That it is also pertinent to mention herein that no complaint has ever been received by the answering

respondents from the claimant herein or any of the persons engaged by the respondent No. 2 at the premises

of answering respondent with respect to non payment of minimum wages or violation of any other labour

laws whatsoever.

PARAWISE REPLY:

1-18. Para 1 to 18 of the claim petition as far as are in contrary to the record and preliminary submissions above

are wrong and denied. The contents of the preliminary submissions may also be read in reply to these Paras as the same

are not repeated herein for sake of brevity.

In view of the submissions made above this Hon’ble authority may be please to dismiss the present claim petition

being devoid of any merit, in favour of the respondents and against the claimant.

On 04.12.2014 I framed following Issues:-

Whether the action of management of M/s. Vishaka Enterprises in terminating the services of Smt. Asha,

E-House Keeper w.e.f. 13.01.2013 is justified or not? If so, its effect?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

Fixed 16.01.2015 for workman evidence

On 16.01.2015 Ld. A/R for workman sought adjournment. Which was allowed and case was adjourned to

23.03.2015 for workman evidence.

On 23.03.2015 workman filed her affidavit in her evidence.

On 18.01.2016 workman tendered her affidavit and her cross-examination deferred to 07.03.2016.

On 07.03.2016 case adjourned to 26.04.2016 as last opportunity to cross-examination WW1.

On 26.04.2016 case was adjourned to 30.05.2016 for last opportunity to cross-examine WW1.

On 30.05.2016 none turn up to cross-examine WW1 hence right of cross-examine of management has been

closed and 09.06.2016 was fixed for management evidence.

On 09.06.2016, 01.08.2016 was fixed for management evidence.

On 01.08.2016, 22.08.2016 was fixed for management evidence.

When management adopted dormancy in adducing its evidence this management evidence has been closed on

22.08.2016 and fixed 14.09.2016 for argument.

On 14.09.2016 Ld. A/R for workman filed written arguments. Then I reserved the Award with liberty to

management to file written arguments or oral argument but its failed.

In the light of claim statement of Ld. A/R for workman I perused the pleadings and evidence on regard. Which

shows that workman was contractual employees and last contract between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has

already come to end on 30.06.2014.

This tribunal is not empowered to extend the prefixed period of contract between parties i.e. respondent No. 1

and respondent No. 2 (contractor).

5592

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

Due to which claimant/workman can not be deemed in contracted services of respondent No. 2 for respondent

No. 1. So there is no cause of action to workman against any management So far wage for December, 2012 of

workman is concern he has received it on the basis of compromise. So his claim is barred by principle of estoppels.

Hence there is no need and justification to determine question of determinism mentioned in Schedule of

reference.

Reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of managements. Which is accordingly decided

and claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 05/10/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2383-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZvkbZ

,.M ,llh,y 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@239@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (I.D. No. 83 of 2000) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. II & SCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-20012/239/2000-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 83 OF 2000

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Rajendra Path, Dhanbad

Vs.

The Asstt.General Manager,

Chasnalla Colliery ISP of IISCO

PO : Chasnalla, Dhanbad -828135

Order No. L-20012/239/2000-(C-I) dt.24.07.2000.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. N.G. Arun, Ld. Representative

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4^th July, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

20012/239/2000-(C-I) dt. 24.07.2000.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5593

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the Management of , Chasnalla Colliery

of IISCO for benefits of Life Cover Scheme in lieu of EDIL under C.M.P.F. Act under Sub-Clause 10.2.1 of

the NCWA-II is legal and justified?”

None either from Union/workmen appeared on date nor produce the workman for evidence rolling over since

24.022014 covering more than ten adjournments. No further breakthrough is reported on the issue .Though three formal

notices were sent to the Union on the address referred in the Order of the Reference itself but all went in vain. Contrary

to it, Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Counsel for the Management is present not for this time but all along since its inception.

From the perusal of the case record, one thing prima facie appears to be absolutely clear that the way

Union/workmen walk with proceedings of the case, they seem to be in no hurry to get evidence of the workman

completed nor did bother to assign reasons for so much adjournments on their part. The status of the case is crawling

over evidence of the workman since 24.06.2005 after having consumed more than ten adjournments. Though sufficient

opportunities have been provided to the Union/workmen as well but they miserably failed to do so .This shows the real

issue no longer holds merits at least, as of now. It usually does not seem proper and just in the natural interest to keep it

alive and to drag it, and post dates for further hearing owning to sheer disinterestedness of the workman. Under these

circumstances the case is closed and a ‘No Industrial Dispute Award’ is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@180@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (I.D. No. 06 of 2005) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-20012/180/2004-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 06 OF 2005

PARTIES

The Regional Secretary,

BCKU, PO: Kedla, Distt: Hazaribagh,

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Parej East OCP of M/s. CCL, PO: Ghatotand,

Distt: Hazaribagh

Order No. L-20012/180/2004-IR(C-I) dt.15.12.2004.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate .

5594

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

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4^th July, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

20012/180/2004-IR(C-I) dt.15.12.2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to regularize the service of Shri Kartik Behra as Drill Operator Gr.III “D” with

all consequential benefits is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”

Neither the workman/petitioner or the Representative appeared on date nor did file the long due substitution

petition before the Court despite giving final chance since 18.2.2014. However since then several adjournments took

place with posting of dates but no further headway in filing the substitution petition or appearance in wake of the

workman as reported dead . Whereas Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management registered his presence on

date. The case relates to demand of the Union for regularization of the workman as Drill Operator with consequential

benefits from retrospective date,

By going through the file & materials available on the case records, it transpires to dispel the doubts that after

reported ‘death’ of the workman, as fact reflected in the order- sheet neither the Sponsored Union nor his kin seem to

be not in hurry to get the case to finality through adjudication as no further step reported advanced despite more than

ten adjournments. It shows to reflect the fact the real issue indeed ceases to exist in fact owing to utter reluctance on

the part of the workman /union. It does not matter to set the case rolling for further dates rather wraps it up for final

closure presuming no more issue, as of now. Moreover this definitely points out to sheer reluctance and unwillingness

on the part of the workman/union to put the case for final adjudication but help add up to piling pendency of cases.

Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to keep the case alive further in the interest of natural justice. So the

case is closed as “No Industrial Dispute”. Accordingly an order of ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2385-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhlh,y

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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@56@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (I.D. No. 91 of 2005) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-20012/56/2005-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 91 OF 2005

PARTIES

The Area Secretary,

Coal Field Mazdoor Union Tapin

PO: Tapin, Distt: Hazaribagh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5595

Vs.

The Project Officer,

Tapin Project of M/s C.C.L.

PO: Tapin, Distt: Hazaribagh.

Order No. L-20012/56/2005-IR (C-I) dt..13.09.2005

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. B.B. Pandey, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19^th July, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/56/2005-IR (C-I) dt..13.09.2005.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Coal Fields Mazdoor Union from the Management of Tapin Project of M/s

Central Coalfields Ltd., for regularization of Shri Tulsi Mahato Time Rated Category-II workman to the post

of Magazine Clerk is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what

date?”

Neither the Sponsoring Union nor the workman reported to be present on date nor did produce the workman for

evidence as last chance on their part. The fate of the case hangs in balance staggering over evidence of the workman

but they repeatedly proved failure to close the chapter .Pertinent to it, two Regd. Notices dtt. 6.9.2007 and 4.3.2015

were sent to the Sponsoring Union’s address but they did not respond either by appearing or getting evidence of the

workman closed .Though earlier the Case was come up before the Lok Adalat but bounced back to regular

adjudication due to failure of conciliation that did not yield the desired result .So far the OP/Management. Ld.

Advocate Mr.D.K.Verma, registered his presence. The case is about regularization of the workman to the post of the

Magazine Clerk in Tapin Project of M/s CCL.

On emphatically scrutinizing the case record and materials available on record , there is no misconception that

the Union /petitioner concerned seems to be obsessed with taking frequent adjournment rather to ensure proper step

being followed getting the case to finality through adjudication .It shows the workman is no longer interested to

contest the case as sufficient opportunity was provided to the workman who proved failure even for closure of the

chapter of evidence of the workman hanging since 22.05.2008 .As of now. the case seems to has lost its merits due to

sheer disinterestedness as reflected from workman. Accordingly the ‘move ‘will not be unfair and unjust if the case is

wrapped as ‘No Dispute Award’. Accordingly an Award of “No Dispute Award” is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2386-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,-vkj-

,vjost izkbZosV 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi (filed under Section 2-A in the matter of I.D. No. 69 of 2014) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute

5596

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

between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. A.R. Airways Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-20013/2/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 69/2014

Shri Pramod Kumar, S/o Late Shri Balbir Singh,

R/o 8/163, Mehram Nagar,

Palam Airport, New Delhi 110 037

C/o Indian Juris,

777/1, Paschimpuri

New Delhi 110 063

…Workman

Versus

A.R. Airways Pvt. Ltd.

8/23, Mehram Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the claimant Shri Pramod Kumar, the workman herein, has

alleged that he was working on permanent basis with A.R. Airways, management, as electrician with effect from

06.12.2010 and his last drawn salary was Rs.8600.00 per month. He has been performing his duties honestly and

without any complaint whatsoever from the management. In fact, Shri Shreshtha Dev Burman, Manager(HR) wanted

to keep her own electrician in place of the claimant as a result of which he was nursing a grudge against the

workman. Services of the workman was orally terminated on 23.03.2013 and a new workman was engaged in place of

the workman herein in violation of provisions of Section 25N, F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short

the Act).

Claimant has worked for more than 240 days continuously with the management and management has issued

letter dated 25.03.2013 simply stating that services of the claimant are terminated with effect from 19.03.2013. the

above letter is illegal, unjustified and in violation of mandatory provision s of the Act as well principles of natural

justice. Even otherwise, juniors to the claimant were retained and only claimant was singled out for termination of the

job. Claimant has sent demand notice on 25.03.2013. However, management has not responded to it. Claim was also

filed before the Conciliation Officer. However, management did not show any signs of conciliation, as a result of

which conciliation failed. A prayer has been finally made for reinstatement of the claimant with full back wages,

alongwith consequential benefits and declaring the termination of the service of the claimant as illegal and unjustified.

Claim was resisted by the management who filed written statement. In the preliminary objections, it has been

alleged that the act of the management in terminating services of the workman are by way of punishment as

disciplinary action was taken against the claimant. Therefore, such termination is outside the scope of section 2(oo) of

the Act, which defines retrenchment. Therefore none of the provisions contained in Section 25N, F, G and H would

apply in the instant case. Management has not violated provisions of the Act. On merits, it is admitted that the

workman was employed as electrician vide appointment letter dated 06.12.2010 and his gross salary was Rs.6500.00

and lastly he was drawing Rs.8600.00 on 19.03.2013 when his services were terminated. He was not working on

permanent post of electrician and his wages were only Rs.4300.00 and the remaining amount was pertaining to other

allowances and entitlements. It is also denied that claimant was working continuously with the management. There

were several complaints against the workman right from 2011 to 2013 as claimant was known for unruly and rude

behavior. He was also disobedient, abusive and in-disciplined. Most of the time he was having dishonest behavior and

he has offered apologies also. He was given warning by the management on 25.05.2011 and claimant has submitted

written apology to the management on 27.05.2011. There was also complaints made by Shri Vinod Kumar, Supervisor

of the management on 12.03.2012. conduct of the claimant. Another complaint was made by Shri Bipin Dubey on

26.06.2012 and one more complaint was also made by the Security Supervision on 01.09.2012 regarding unruly and

rude and abusive behavior of the claimant. It was because of these reasons that the management decided to terminate

his services with effect from 31.10.2012 and the above termination letter was also signed but could not be handed over

to the workman who pleaded guilty and also apologized for his misconduct. Claimant also filed representation to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5597

CEO, giving an undertaking that in future he would not be unruly, rude, disobedient, indisciplined and abusive in his

behavior and would perform his duties honestly and maintain discipline in discharge of his duties. Management has

denied other averments contained in the statement of claim. Management has admitted the demand notice dated

25.03.2013 sent by the claimant to the management as well as failure of proceedings before the Conciliation

Officer. Management has denied the other averments contained in the statement of claim.

Against this factual background, this Tribunal vide a order dated 11.08.2015, framed the following issues and

thereafter case was listed for evidence of the workman:

(1)

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages alongwith consequential benefits,

as alleged?

(2)

Whether the management is rightly terminated services of the workman without conducting enquiry?

None appeared on behalf of the management to purify testimony of the claimant by an ordeal of cross

examination, as such management was proceeded ex-parte on 20.07.2016.

Workman, in support of his averments made in the claim, examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence

documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5. Since none was there for the management, hence no opportunity could be

granted to them to carry out cross examination of the claimant. The claimant had closed his evidence. No witness was

adduced on behalf of the AIIMS to rebut facts proved by the claimant.

Arguments were advanced at the bar by Shri Neeraj Chaudhary, authorized representative for the

workman. None appeared on behalf of the management to advance arguments.

I have given my careful consideration to the material available on record and arguments advanced at the bar on

behalf of the workman. My findings are as under:

Issue No.1 and 2

Since issue No.1 and 2 are interconnected, as such, they are being taken up together for the purpose of

discussion. It is clear from the pleadings on record as well as perusal of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which remained

unrebbutted, that the workman herein was engaged as electrician by the management on 06.12.2010. There is reference

to Shri Shreshtha Dev Burman, Manager(HR) who wanted to keep some other person in place of the workman herein,

as a result of which Shri Shreshtha Dev Burman terminated services of the claimant on 23.03.2013 and employed

another workmen, which is totally in violation of provisions of Section 25 N, F, G and H of the Act. Management has

also served letter dated 25.03.2013 terminating services of the workman herein.

10.

During the course of arguments, attention of the court was invited by the learned authorized representative for the

claimant to letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1, which clearly shows that A.R. Airways, i.e. management herein has

issued letter of appointment in favour of the workman and it is clear from perusal of the letter that employment of the

claimant would commence from 06.12.2010 and has gross salary initially would be Rs.6500.00. Workman would be

on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of appointment and after completion of probation period, offer of

employment can further be extended. There is also another letter Ex.WW1/2 dated 25.03.2013 which shows that

service of the workman herein was terminated with effect from 19.03.2013 and the same has been issued by Shri

Shreshtha Dev Burman, Manager(HR). There is yet another letter dated 09.03.2013 Ex.WW1/3 which in fact is

termination letter. Perusal of the letter shows that the workman herein has been found on numerous occasions not

performing his duties satisfactorily and warning was also issued to the claimant. He was also not obeying instructions

of his superiors and used to argue with them. It was on account of this that his services appear to have been

terminated. Claimant has also tendered in evidence his claim filed before the Conciliation officer vide

Ex.WW1/4. Admittedly, conciliation proceedings failed and since no reference was made within the stipulated period

of 45 days, as required under section 2A of the Act, workman herein availed statutory provisions and directly filed

statement of claim.

11.

Shri Neeraj Chaudhary, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the workman urged that in the present

case there is complete violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act as well as provisions of Section 25 N, G and H

of the act. Learned A/R for the workman proceeded to argue that relationship of employer and employee between the

parties stands fairly admitted from the stand taken by the management in their written statement. It is further clear

from perusal of letter of appointment letter dated 06.12.2010 Ex.WW1/1 that the claimant herein was engaged as

electrician by the management on a gross salary of Rs.6500.00. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was

any break in service in the employment of the workman after the above date. Management has not filed any document

so as to show or prove that behavior of the claimant herein was very rude and he was not performing his duties

efficiently. The management has not proved any show cause notice /memo or charge sheet so as to ascertain the nature

5598

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

of allegations/misconduct against the workman. The management has also not adduced any evidence or conducted any

kind of enquiry so as o to prove misconduct on the part of the workman in the discharge of his official duties.

12.

Admittedly, in the present case neither one month notice as required under Section 25F of the Act was served

before issuance of letter of termination Ex.WW1/3 nor the claimant was paid one month wages in lieu of such notice,

as required under clause (a) of Section 25F of the Act. It is now well settled position in law that services of the

workman who has completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months is required to be served with one month notice,

in writing, communicating the reasons for his termination or retrenchment or payment of one month notice in lieu of

such notice. In case there is any violation of the above provisions, then action of the management would be null, void

and non-est in the eyes of law. Even provisions of 25F of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance of the same

would render order of retrenchment as void ab initio as well as against principles of natural justice. As discussed above,

relationship of employer and Employee between the management and the claimant stands fairly proved from the

pleadings on record as well as documentary evidence after appointment of the claimant on 06.10.2012 vide Ex.WW1/1

and non-compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act by the management has now rendered order of

termination to be illegal, void and non-est in the eyes of law.

13.

Now, the residual question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Since the

management in the instant case has not turned up to adduce any evidence so as to impeach the credit of the evidence led

by the workman, this Tribunal is of the view that action of the management is totally illegal and cannot be held to be

valid in the eyes of law. So far as question of reinstatement is concerned, Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases has

taken a consistent view that when the management has passed order of termination against an employee totally in

derogation of established norms and provisions of law, in that eventuality when there is no fault of the workman, he is

liable to be reinstated with back wages. Moreover, this Tribunal cannot ignore that there is no evidence worth the name

adduced by the management so as to prove anything against the workman herein. In such a peculiar circumstances, this

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claimant is liable to be reinstated with full back wages.

14.

As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that termination of services of the claimant is totally void and

illegal and he is liable to be reinstated with full back wages from the date of his termination. An award is, accordingly,

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

Act, 1947, for publication.

September 28, 2016

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2387-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@115@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2016

S.O. 2387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (I.D. No. 39 of 2013) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-20012/115/2012-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 39 OF 2013

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 10] 2016@vxzgk;.k 19] 1938

5599

PARTIES

The Jt.Gen.Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union,

Mines Rescue Station, Dhansar

PO: Dhansar, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J.Area of M/s BCCL

PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/115/2012-IR (CM-I) dt..11.02.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. R.R. Ram, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19^th July, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/115/2012-IR (CM-I) dt..11.02.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Sudamdih Incline Mine of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Bhagirath

Rajwar, M/Loader from the services of the Company vide order dated 28.07.2004 is fair and justified? To

what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/115/2012-IR (CM-I) dt..11.02.2013 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 39 of 2013 was registered on 11.03.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The Union

and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels respective appeared respectively, and contested the case.

Here is an another case of dismissal from service in respect of the workman Bhagirath Rajwar ,a designated

M/Loader was a permanent workman at Sudamidh Incline Miner under EJ Area of M/s BCCL. The workman is

reportedly chagesheeted over his alleged absentism from duty since 14.02.2003.As explained by the Sponsoring Union

on behalf of the workman in the W.S. that the workman had been absenting from his duty since 14.0.2003 as he left

for his native place where he was engulfed in a property row with nearest kin of his family as cited reasons behind

workman’s alleged absentism but he admitted to having replied to the charge sheet. The workman further added of

passing on the alleged information of his absentism through his colleague to apprise of the Management of the

situation, but only verbally not in written as being ignorant of the rules and regulations of the said Company. Though

Management did not record of it. On return back from native home the workman went straight to resume duty but he

was not allowed nor did heard his requests .Later on by slapping charge sheet upon the workman the Management

dismissed the workman from service. So the whole of act of the Management is to be termed as malice, unfairly and

unjustified declaring even the enquiry proceedings also unfair and imporper. The alleged act of dismissal is to be

termed violation of the natural justice. The workman sniffed foul play behind the alleged action and cries for

restoration of his original job as being no other source of income for sustaining livelihood of his family members.

Contrary to it,the O.P./Management. asserted categorically denying all the charges brought upon against it that

the absentism of the workman was not singled out to one incident engulfing therein he was forced to remain for

prolonged leave. The workman concerned turned it into the habitual much earlier despite Management all along took

lenient view, time and again, upon the workman but the workman kept on indulging in nefarious game. The past track

records of his service corroborated to the fact. Minding nothing , he again started absenting without prior information

and permission of the Management for which he was slapped with charge sheet .On not being found satisfactory to

reply against the chargehseet, the Management went on to constitute domestic enquiry with presence of the delinquent

workman. The worker concerned was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and holding him responsible as

5600

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

suggestions came out of the Enquiry Report submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Competent Authority issued

Second Show Cause Notice upon the workman along with copy of the enquiry report before dismissing the workman

from service and taking into counts his past history track records of absentism .So the conduct and manner in which

enquiry was held was fair and proper and nothing sort of injustice pointed out from any quarter as full opportunity

was provided to come out in his defence At last the dismissal is legal and justified which the workman deserves for.

Though arguments and counter arguments by each other and vice-versa with logic continue to haunt in best

possible way to suit the interest of the party concerned .Though job of Coal Mazdoor obviously an arduous and

tedious in nature which needs a hale and hearty structure of health all the time and more physical labour particularly in

underground Mines shrouding very odds unhygienic atmosphere, overall venturing into life risks .However, there is

nothing unusual on the part of the workman proceeding on prolonged leave even on a single call of urgency, to avoid

venturing out in the Mines for work. This occasionally proves fatal and forces them to expose casualty keeping of

lives at stake despite best mechanism of safety norms in place. Though the workman has set the logics very candidly.

The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman to the misconduct, he committed, however does not stand

proportionate and may be termed harsher as he was robbed off his bread and butter with no means of alternative

livelihood.

Hence the Tribunal is of the view that the move will not be termed wrong and improper if the workman

concerned be provided a little bit breather by way of employment as fresher in Cat.-I as General Mazdoor. Thus it is

ordered for fresh employment of the workman concerned as fresher as Cat.-I with probation rolling over up to 2 years.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed by ALOK

KUMAR

Date: 2017.01.07

11:11:38 +05'30'