5596 GI/2016

(5601)

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- 51]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 11—fnlEcj 17] 2016] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 20—vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

No. 51]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 11—DECEMBER 17, 2016, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 20—AGRAHAYANA 26, 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, 16 नव बर, 2016

का

का.आ. 2388

2388

2388.— रा ीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970/1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग) #ारा द$ शि'य

का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) म0 िविन1द2 3ि' को उ' सारणी के कालम (2) म0

िविन1द2 3ि' के थान पर कालम (1) म0 िविन1द2 इंिडयन बक म0 त7काल भाव से और अगले आदेश तक, िनदेशक नािमत करती

हैः-

म सं.

बक का नाम

वतमान िनदेशक का नाम

तािवत ि का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

इंिडयन ब क

ी बी. पी. िवजे,

पीसीजीएम, िनरीण िवभाग

ी जे.के. दास, मुय महा बंधक एवं े#ीय िनदेशक, भारतीय %र”kव& ब क,

पो(ट बॉ+स नं. 1, आम रोड, अहमदाबाद-380014 A

[फा.सं.6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

5602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2016

S.O. 2388.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of

The Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the person specified in column (3) of the table below as Director of Indian Bank specified in column

(1) thereof in place of the person specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:-

Sl. No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing Director

Name of the Persons proposed

(1)

(2)

(3)

Indian Bank

Shri B.P. Vijayendra, PCGM,

Inspection Department

Shri J.K. Dash, CGM and Regional

Director, Reserve Bank of India, P.B.No.1,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 014.

[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO. I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 6 दस बर, 2016

का

का.आ. 2389

2389

2389.—रा ीयकृत बक (बंध एवं कण उपबंध) कम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

का योग करते *ए, के-.ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) म0 िविन1द2 3ि' को त7काल भाव से और अगले

आदेश तक, उ' सारणी के कालम (2) म0 िविन1द2 3ि' के थान पर कालम (1) म0 िविन1द2 इलाहाबाद बक के िनदेशक के पद पर

नािमत करती हैः-

म सं.

बक का नाम

वतमान िनदेशक का नाम

तािवत 3ि' का नाम

इलाहाबाद बक

@ी ए. उदगाता

@ी िववेक दीप, AेBीय िनदेशक, कानपुर, भारतीय र”kव

बक, पोट बॉEस नं.82 एवं 142, महा7मा गांधी माग,

कानपुर-208001

[फा.सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2016

S.O. 2389.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The

Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of

The Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the person specified in column (3) of the table below as Director of Allahabad Bank specified in

column (1) thereof in place of the person specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further

orders:-

Sl. No.

Name of the Bank

Name of the Existing Director

Name of the Persons proposed

(1)

(2)

(3)

Allahabad Bank

Shri A. Udgata

Shri

Vivek

Deep,

Regional

Director,

Kanpur, Reserve Bank of India, P.B.No.82

and 142, Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Kanpur-

208001.

[F.No. 6/3/2011-BO. I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5603

(O;; foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2390-—dsaæh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40)

dh /kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, uhps dh lkkj.kh ds LraHk (1) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkjh dks] tks ljdkj dk ,d

jktif=kr vf/dkjh gS] mDr vf/fu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, laink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS] tks mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk (2) esa rRLFkkuh

izfof"V esa fofu£n"V ljdkjh LFkkuksa dh ckcr vf/dkfjrk dh LFkkuh; ifjlhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vf/fu;e }kjk ;k mlds v/hu laink

vf/dkjh dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj ml ij vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsxk A

lkj.kh

vf/dkjh dk uke

ljdkjh LFkkuksa ds izoxZ vkSj vf/dkfjrk dh

LFkkuh; ifjlhek,a

(1)

(2)

ofj"B mi&egkys[kkdkj (iz'kklu) ;k ml n'kk esa tgka ,slk

iz/ku egkys[kkdkj (ys[kkijh{kk)] >kj[kaM] jkaph

dksbZ ofj"B mi&egkys[kkdkj fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k gS] ogka

ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k ds v/hu ljdkjh LFkku

ofj"B mi&egkys[kkdkj (iz'kklu)] iz/ku egkys[kkdkj

dk;kZy; (ys[kkijh{kk)] >kj[kaM] jkaph

¹iQk- la- ,&11013@12@2016&LFkk-iz'kk-º

gfj fd'kksj] voj lfpo

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 9th December, 2016

S.O. 2390.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in

column (1) of the table below, being a gazetted officer of the Government to be the estate officer for the purpose of the

said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said

Act, within the local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in corresponding entry in column

(2) of the said table.

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categories of the public premises and local

limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Senior Deputy Accountant General (Administration)

or in case where no Senior Deputy Accountant

General is so appointed, Deputy Accountant

General (Administration), office of the Principal

Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Public Premises under the Administrative

Control of Principal Accountant General

(Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi.

[F.No. A-11013/12/2016-EG]

HARI KISHORE, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2391-—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

5604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] tík esa Jh lyeku vgen] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

6 fnlEcj] 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)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2016

S.O. 2391.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Jeddah to perform the Consular

services with effect from 6th December, 2016.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=kky;

(okf.kT; foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2392-—dsaæh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40)

dh /kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=kky; (okf.kT; foHkkx) dh vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk-

2744] rkjh[k 2 tqykbZ] 1983 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu lkj.kh ds LraHk 1 esa] ¶fo'ks"k drZO; vf/dkjh (mfpr lsok,a&1 vkSj foi.ku)¸ 'kCnksa vkSj

dks"Bdksa ds LFkku ij ¶foÙkh; lykgdkj vkSj eq[; ys[kk vf/dkjh¸ 'kCn j[ks tk,axs A

¹iQk- la- 1(1)@2006&Vh-ih-º

fot; ,u- dksBkjh] funs'kd

fVIi.k % ewy fu;e] Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa la- dk-vk- 2744(v) rkjh[k 2 tqykbZ] 1983 }kjk izdkf'kr fd, x, Fks vkSj rRi'pkr~

vf/lwpuk la- dk-vk- 2913(v) rkjh[k 7 flrEcj] 2012 }kjk la'kks/u fd;k x;k A

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2016

S.O. 2392.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby makes the following further

amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce (Department of Commerce)

number S.O. 2744 dated the 2^nd July, 1983, namely :—

In the Table appended to the said notification, in column 1, for the word, letters and brackets “Officer on

Special Duty (Fair Services-1 and Marketing)”, the words “Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer” shall be

substituted.

[F.No. 1(1)/2006-TP]

VIJAY N. KOTHARI, Director

Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide number S.O. 2744, dated the 2^nd July,

1983 and last amended vide notification number S.O. 2913 dated the 7^th September, 2012.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5605

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2393-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fdjhcq: vk;ju vksj ekbu vkWiQ lsy ds çcaèkra=k ds laca¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@2@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine of SAIL and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-26012/2/2000-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 18/2007

Date of Passing Award – 16^th September, 2016

Between:

The General Manager,

Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine of SAIL,

P.O. Meghahatuburu,

Dist. Singhbhum, Jharkhand

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

NMDC Mine Workers Union,

At. Rajbhawan, Po. Jhinkpani,

Dist. Singhbhum, Jharkhand

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri B.B. Tripathy, Legal Asst. RMD, SAIL

…For the 1^st Party-Management.

M/s. B.C. Basita, Advocate

…For the 2^nd Party- Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employer in relation to the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines of SAIL and their workman in exercise of the

5606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide

its letter No. L-26012/2/2000 – IR (M) dated 31.05.2000 in respect of the following matter.

“Whether the demand raised by NMDC Mine Workers Union against the management of Kiribur Iron Ore Mine

for reinstatement of Shri B.B. Paul, Electrician in service is justified? If yes to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

Background facts giving rise to the present reference may be stated, in short, as follows:-

The workman Shri B.B. Paul joined at Kiribur Mines Limited on 28.4.1967 when the said mine was under the

control of the National Mineral Development Corporation (in short NMDC). As per the stand of the 1^st Party-

Management the workman Shri Paul submitted an attestation form duly signed by him wherein he disclosed his date of

birth as 2.1.1939 and he read up to Class VIII in Barakalapal M.E. School and while joining in the mines he went for a

medical test for ascertaining his fitness to join in the post wherein he declared his age as 22 years. However, in other

relevant service record such as B-Form Register, gradation/senior list maintained by the 1^st Party-Management, Pay

slips and service book the date of birth of the workman was shown as 1.1.1947. The Kiribur Mines came to the control

of the 1^st Party-Management SAIL and as such all service records maintained by NMDC for all its employees/workmen

were handed-over to the custody of the Management i.e. SAIL. A gradation/seniority list was prepared and maintained

by SAIL after such transfer of the mines wherein date of birth of Shri Paul was shown as 01.01.1947.

Having regard to the entry made in the attestation form submitted by the workman and date of birth shown in

other records the Management issued a letter on 2.11.1991 along with a reminder on 2.1.1993 to Shri Paul to produce

documents like birth certificate/school leaving certificate in original in support of his age. When he did not file any

document in support of his date of birth and instead requested the Management to record his date of birth as

01.01.1947, he was directed to report before Medical Officer for determination of his age keeping in view the

provisions enumerated in the circular/rules regarding determination of date of birth of the Management. According to

the Management the workman Shri Paul failed to appear before the Medical Officer for determination of his age. The

Rules of the Management with regard to determination of age of an employee/workman provides that, when date of

birth of an employee is in dispute or found to be not identical in various records/documents, the highest age shown in

the document or the age determined by the Medical Board is to be accepted by the Management. Keeping in view the

above provisions the Management accepted the date of birth as 2.1.1939, which was reflected in the attestation form

submitted at the time of joining and issued memorandum vide No. K.P-8(35)/67Admit/1004/1705, dated 26.8.1996

towards superannuation of the workman Shri Paul on 31.1.1997. Hence, the workman produced a duplicate school

leaving certificate issued by Headmaster of Barakalapala M.E. School before the authority and made a prayer for

acceptance of his date of birth as 01.01.1947. Since the workman produced such school leaving certificate at the fag

end of his service despite being noticed earlier and taking the date of birth shown in the attestation form submitted by

the workman at the time of his joining into consideration, the Management superannuated/discharged the workman on

31.1.1997. Being aggrieved, the workman raised a dispute through the Union before the labour machinery resulting the

reference as mentioned in supra.

The 1^st Party-Management has also challenged the maintainability of the reference and pleaded that no relief can

be granted to the workman in view of the term and condition of the reference which does not mandate the Tribunal to

determine the actual date of birth of the workman to be accepted by the Management for the purpose of his

superannuation.

On the pleadings of the parties the points for determination are:-

Whether retrenchment/discharge/superannuation of the workman Shri B.B. Paul on 31.1.1997 was legal and

justified (ii) Whether the reference is maintainable in view of term and condition of the reference and to what

relief and (iii) to what relief the workman Shri Paul is entitled to?

The 2^nd party-Union has examined the workman Shri Paul and exhibited documents like school leaving certificate

of Shri Paul, xerox copy of medical book-page 652 dated 18.11.1994, xerox copy of circular of Kiriburu Iron Ore

Mines dated 15.7.1978, xerox copy of petition submitted by Shri B.B. Paul to the Manager, Personnel/Admn. Kiriburu,

xerox copy of order in the case No. K.T.S. 11/96, xerox copy of the notice of initial/periodical medical examination of

Shri B.B. Paul, xerox copy of order sheet of C.W.J.C. 1820/97 ® dated 29.10.1998, xerox copy of pay slips of different

months, xerox copy of memorandum dated 23.9.1993 in support of its stand whereas the Management has examined its

Assistant Manager, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Mukherjee and relied upon documents like copy of letter dated 26.3.1967 to

Shri B.B. Paul regarding appointment, medical certificate of Shri B.B. Paul, attestation form of Shri B.B. Paul,

workman, memorandum dated 2.11.1991 to Shri B.B. Paul, memorandum dated 1.1.1993 to ShriB.B. Paul,

memorandum dated 20.09.1993 to Shri B.B. Paul, circular of SAIL dated 17.3.1994 with enclosures, memo dated

22.7.1996 to Shri B.B. Paul to refute the stand taken by the 2^nd party-Union to refute the stand taken by the 2^nd Party-

Union.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5607

FINDINGS

As it emerges from the pleadings of the parties that there is no serious dispute to the fact that in various records of

the 1^st Party-Management in particularly seniority list prepared by the Management (Ext.-W/3) and pay slips issued in

favour of the workman Shri Paul (Ext.-8), the date of birth of the workman Shri Paul is shown as on 1.1.1947. Besides,

Management witness No. 1 has admitted in his cross examination that Form-B register is being maintained by the

Management for the employees working inside the mines. In Form-B register maintained by NMDC vide Ext.-10

reveals the age of the workman 22 years at the time of his employment on 28.3.1967. Had the same been taken into

consideration the workman was supposed to be superannuated on 31.7.2003. Admittedly the attestation form on the

basis of which the workman was superannuated was submitted before the NMDC authority and as such the present

Management witness is not expected to say about the authenticity of the entries made in the said attestation form. It

cannot be over-sighted that that the workman Shri Paul has denied to have submitted the said attestation form (Ext.-

M/3) while being confronted by the Management during his cross examination. He has also claimed the signature

available on the said attestation form does not belong to him. It cannot be over-looked the said attestation form was

filled up in different inks and in different hand-writings which is visible in the naked eye. On bare comparison of the

signature available on the said form and the admitted signature of the 2^nd party-workman available in other documents

of the case record are not identical. When the 2^nd party-workman disowns the signature on the attestation form, the

Management could have taken steps to prove that the same belonged to the workman. In the above back-drops entry

with regard to the date of birth in the attestation form cannot be accepted or cannot be taken into reliance for

ascertaining/determining the age of the workman.

At the same time it cannot be over-sighted that the Management had admitted that in B-Form register prepared at

the time of joining of the workman reveals his age a 22 years. It is not disputed that the workman joined in the mines

on 28.3.1967 and if the age shown in B-Form register is taken into consideration the date of birth of the workman was

likely on 28.3.1945. There is no serious dispute to the claim of the Management that notice and a reminder was issued

to the workman in the year 1991 and 1993 respectively to produce documents in support of his date of birth. The

evidence adduced by the workman vide copy of the letter addressed to the Management reveals that the workman

informed the Management that he lost his school leaving certificate for which he has applied for a duplicate certificate.

It is not also disputed by the Management that before issue of order of superannuation, the workman produced a

duplicate school leaving certificate (Ext.-W/1). According to the Management the said certificate was not taken into

consideration as the same was produced at the fag end of service carrear of the workman and there was discrepancies

between the name of the school mentioned in the attestation form and the name of the school which issued the

certificate. When the entries in the attestation form are found to be in different ink and in different hand writings and

there is no credible evidence that the said form was submitted by the workman duly signed by him, the discrepancies in

regard to the name of the high school mentioned in the attestation form has no consequence. Undoubtedly, as a settled

principle of law prayer for changing date of birth in service records should not be entertained at the fag end of service

of an employee. The said principle is not applicable in the present case in view of some of the official records of the

Management support the stand of the employee that his date of birth is 1.1.1947. The seniority list and the pay slips are

the records belonging to the Management and it has presumptive value on account of the same being prepared by the

Management itself. The only contention raised by the Management is that in view of the provisions enumerated in the

Standing Order that when separate entries are found to be made in official records in respect to date of birth of an

employee, the Management is to accept the highest age found in official records. As it emerges from the pleadings and

evidence of the parties as discussed above that the highest age shown in the official record does not seem to have been

entered/made by the workman himself. No credible evidence or material is laid before this Tribunal to suggest that

such entry of highest age was made at the instance of the workman.

Pleading and argument has been advanced on behalf of the Management that keeping in view the provisions of

the Certified Standing Order, the workman was issued with notice to appear before Medical Officer for determination

of his age, when it was detected that separate date of birth are found in the official records. But the workman did not

appear before the Medical Officer and as such he cannot take advantage of his age as shown in school leaving

certificate. Undisputedly as per the as per the provisions of the Certified Standing Order a workman is bound to appear

before a Medical Officer for determination of his age if he raises dispute to his date of birth and fails to produce the

documents like school leaving certificate or birth certificate. It is claimed by the Management that workman was

issued with notice for his appearance before the Medical Officer but, he did not appear. The workman does not

challenge the fact so far issue of notice to him for his appearance before the Medical Officer. According to him he had

appeared before the Medical Officer and undergone for a medical examination for the purpose of determination of his

age. It has been contended on behalf of the workman that the report of the Medical Officer is not produced by the

Management and that the contention of the Management that he did not appear before the Medical Officer is not

correct. In view of the stand taken by the workman, a heavy burden was cast upon the Management to prove that the

workman did not appear before the Medical Officer. No Medical Officer of the Management has been examined in this

regard so also register of hospital or dispensary was produced to refute the stand taken by the workman.

5608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

As per the settled principles, enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases/decisions, unless a clear

case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, the court or the Tribunal should not issue a

direction for change of date of birth of a government employee more particularly at the fag end of his service. Coming

to the present case as discussed in supra it is worthy to note here that in some of the records of the Management the

date of birth of the workman is shown as 1.1.1947. Moreover, he sought time to produce school leaving certificate

after being issued with memorandum of superannuation. He also produced duplicate school leaving certificate wherein

his date of birth is shown as on 1.1.1947. Besides, the Management has failed to establish the genunnity of the

attestation form as well as the fact that the said attestation form was submitted by the workman by himself after duly

signed by him. On the other hand the said attestation form is found to be filled up by different inks and in different

hand writings and the so-called signature of the workman does not tally with the admitted signature of the workman. In

that view of the matter the conclusion drawn by the Management about the date of birth of the workman does not seem

to be correct and as such order of his superannuation on 31.3.1997 cannot be held legal and justified. In view of

discussions made above and the documents relied upon by the 2^nd party-Union, it can be safely concluded that the date

of birth of the workman is 1.1.1947.

11.

It has been contended on behalf of the Management that term of the reference is “whether the demand raised by

NMDC Mine Workers Union against the management of Kiribur Iron Ore Mine for reinstatement of Shri B.B. Paul, in

service is legal and justified and as a settled principle of law the Tribunal should not go beyond the scope of reference

and determine the date of birth of the workman to be accepted by the Management for the purpose of his

superannuation. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has no scope to pronounce that retrenchment of workman is

illegal and unjustified. The present dispute giving rise to the reference is apparently out of superannuation of the

workman which amounts to discharge and such discharge of the workman was due to acceptance of date of birth shown

in the attestation form allegedly submitted at the time of joining by the workman. As such, the Tribunal cannot

determine whether the demand of the Union for reinstatement of Shri Paul is justified and legal unless it gives a finding

whether the discharge of Shri Paul was legal and justified and unless it ascertains the actual date of birth of the

workman to be accepted by the employer. In the instant case the Management having made the workman retired

determining his date of birth as 2.1.1939 without any proper verification despite some of its record speak otherwise.

Hence the Tribunal is duty bound to entertain pleadings and evidence to give a finding on the date of birth of the

workman for the purpose of official record and to pronounce whether discharge of the workman on 31.1.1997 was

illegal and unjustified. Hence the contentions advanced by the Management have no legal force in the context of real

dispute between the parties.

12.

The next issue crucial to the reference is the relief to which the workman is entitled to on account of his untimely

superannuation on 31.1.1997. It may be mentioned here that the age of superannuation was 58 years when the workman

joined in the service and it has been enhanced to 60 years in the meanwhile. Had he continued in the service treating

his date of birth as on 1.1.1947 he could be superannuated on 1.1.2007 since the upper age limit of superannuation was

declared 60 years prior to the year 2005. Further, it cannot be over-looked that the workman did not render any service

to the Management during the period from 31.1.1997 to 31.1.2007. Having regard to the above facts it would be just

and appropriate to hold that the workman is entitled to 50% of the wages only to which he was entitled to, if he had

continued in service on account of acceptance of his date of birth as on 1.1.1947. However, the period of untimely

superannuation will be taken into consideration for calculation of other retirement/superannuation benefits.

13.

Hence ordered that:-

The Management is directed to compensate the workman keeping in view the observation made in supra since

no order of reinstatement can be passed in the instant case as the workman Shri Paul has already attained the age of

superannuation in the meanwhile.

14.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2394-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fcljk LVksu ykbZe dEiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@71@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5609

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2394.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Bisra Stone Lime Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-29011/71/2004-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 5/2005

No. L-29011/71/2004-IR (M), dated 27.01.2005

Date of Passing Award – 5^th October, 2016

Between :

The General Manager,

Bisra Stone Lime Company Limited,

At./Po. Birmitrapur, Orissa

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The President,

Birmitrapur Mazdoor Munch,

At./Po. Birmitrapur, Orissa,

Sundargarh

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

For the 1^st Party-Management

…

None

For the 2^nd Party-Union

…

None

ORDER

None of the parties are found present on repeated calls. It is seen from the record that after filing of Statement of

claim the 2^nd party-Union failed to attend the proceeding despite repeated notice. The 1^st Party-Management has already

submitted its written statement. The reference is lingering only due to non-attendance of the 2^nd party-Union. As the

Union failed to attend the proceeding as well as adduced any evidence in addition to its claim there is no alternative

than to pass a no-dispute award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2395-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

cksykuh vksj ekbUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 07@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-

11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@33@1997&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

5610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Bolani Ore Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

30.11.2016.

[No. L-26012/33/1997-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 7/2005

Date of Passing Award – 9^th September, 2016

Between:

The Deputy General Manager,

Bolani Ore Mines,

Raw Materials Division, SAIL,

At./Po. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar,

Orissa

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

Bolani Shramik Sangh,

At./Po. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar,

Orissa

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri B.B. Tripathy, Legal Asst. RMD, SAIL

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

M/s. B.C. Basita, Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bolani Ores Mines, Raw Materials Division, Steel Authority of India

Limited, Keonjhar and their workman represented through Bolani Shramik Sangh in exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act vide its letter No. L-

26012/33/97 – IR (M) dated 04.02.2005 in respect of the following matter.

“Whether the action of the management of Bolani Ore Mines of Raw Materials of SAIL in not accepting the date

of birth of the workman Shri Keshab Chandra Sasmal as 19.5.1943 and retiring him from service w.e.f. 30^th

April, 1995 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Shorn off unnecessary details facts giving rise to the above reference are that the workman Shri Keshab Chandra

Sasmal joined in Bolani Ores Private Limited under the Management of SAIL on 04.04.1961. According to the 1^st

Party-Management Shri Sasmal could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his date of birth and as

such, age shown in his medical certificate was taken into consideration and his date of birth was shown/entered as

21.4.1936 for all purposes of official record including the entry made in B-Form register. But, in the identity card

issued by C.I.S.F. (Central Industrial Security Force) for the purpose of scrutiny/safety date of birth of Shri Sasmal was

shown as 19.5.1943 inadvertently by the CISF agency. When the original B-Form register was not traceable, duplicate

B-Form register was prepared in the year 1994 and during inspection of such service record when it was found that the

date of the 2^nd party-workman was 21.4.1936 and the said entry in the B-Form register found interpolated by another

entry with date 19.5.1943, order was passed on 28.4.1995 towards superannuation of the workman with effect from

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5611

30.4.1994 and he was released from the services of the company vide Office Order dated 4.5.1995 with effect from

30.4.1995. Being aggrieved by such order of superannuation the workman preferred a Writ vide O.J.C. 3392/1995

challenging his superannuation order. The Hon’ble High Court, while disposing of the said writ, gave a direction to the

Management to hold an enquiry after giving prior notice to the petitioner and to take a decision on merit as to whether

the date of birth of the petitioner is 19.5.1943 as alleged by him or 21.4.1936 as contended by the Management.

It is the claim of the 1^st Party-Management that an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble

High Court and claim of the workman was rejected. The 2^nd party-workman raised an industrial dispute before the

labour machinery resulting in the present reference. As per his claim statement he had submitted documentary evidence

like school leaving certificate towards proof of his age at the time of his joining in the 1^st Party-Management. As per

school leaving certificate his date of birth was 19.5.1943 which was maintained in B-Form register of the Management.

Basing upon such entry Identity card was issued to him wherein his date of birth was recorded as 19.5.1943. It is his

further claim that a medical fitness certificate was required at the time of joining in service in which the Medical

Officer mentioned his age apparently 25 years as on the date of issue of the certificate i.e. 21.4.1961 and the said

certificate was not meant for ascertaining his age except giving a certificate whether the applicant was mentally and

physically fit and free from communicable diseases to discharge his duty in the service. Taking advantage of such

mention in the medical fitness certificate, the Management gave him premature retirement with effect from 4.5.1995

and such action being illegal and unjustified his discharge or disengagement should be declared illegal and he should be

treated to have been reinstated for the purpose of all service benefits including wages for the period for which he could

have continued till the date of superannuation to be calculated on the basis of date of birth as 19.5.1943.

Keeping in view the pleadings advanced by the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of

the dispute between the parties.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the date of birth of the workman Shri Keshab Chandra Sasmal as recorded in the Service Book

(21.4.1936) was correct?

3. If not correct, whether the action of the management in retiring the said workman on the basis of above

date of birth was justified?

4. To what relief the workman is entitled?

The 2^nd party-Union has examined the workman Shri Keshab Chandra Sasmal and exhibited documents like

xerox copy of retirement order dated 4.5.1995, xerox copy of orders of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. No.

3392/1995 dated 4.11.1996, xerox copy of the letter of workman Shri Keshab Chandra Sasmal, dated 6.1.1997, xerox

copy of another letter of the workman dated 2.1.1997 with postal receipt, xerox copy of the circular dated 9.6.1982 of

the Management, copy of the school leaving certificate of the workman, xerox copy of the identity card issued by the

Management to the workman, xerox copy of the birth certificate issued to the elder brother of the workman, xerox copy

of the birth certificate issued to the workman by the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, xerox copy of the birth

certificate issued to the workman by the village Sarpanch, whereas the Management has examined its Manager,

(Personnel) Shri Parameswar Bhukta and relied upon documents like xerox copy of the Standing Order, xerox copy of

the letter of the workman dated 4.4.1961, xerox copy of the medical report dated 21.4.1961 of Shri Sasmal, xerox copy

of the service record of the workman Shri Sasmal, xerox copy of the Rules regarding determination of date of birth,

xerox copy of the record of age/date of birth vide circular No. 9 of 1988, xerox copy of the B-register, copy of the

letter of workman to A.G.M. Bolani Iron Mines, copy of the proceeding enquiry dated 21.1.1997, copy of the enquiry

report held on 25.1.1997, copy of the letter dated 27.1.1997 of D.C.P.M. SAIL, Bolani to the workman, copy of the

letter dated 5.2.1997 to the A.L.C.(C) Rourkela of General Secretary, Bolani Shramik Sangh, copy of the letter dated

27.2.1997 of D.C.P.M, SAIL, Bolani to the A.L.C.(C), Rourkela, xerox copy of the letter dated 29.1.1998 of Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, and xerox copy of service records of Shri Sasmal.

ISSUE No. 2 & 3

Issue No. 2 and 3 being most crucial to the reference and inter related to each other are taken up together for

consideration first for the sake of convenience.

As per the settled principle set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions the Court or the Tribunal

should be careful and conscious while dealing with an application for correction of date of birth of an employee more

particularly when the same has been sought at the fag end of service. Unless a clear case on the basis of materials

which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules

governing the service, the court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of

5612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

materials which make such claim only plausible. The applicant has to produce credible and unimpeachable evidence in

support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question

arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. In many

cases it is a part of strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their

retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service book. Keeping the

above settled principles in view it is to be examined whether the disputant workman has produced any irrefutable

evidence/proof relating to his date of birth including to his claim that the Management mentioned wrongly/deliberately

21.4.1936 as his date of birth without any basis when his actual date of birth was on 19.5.1943 as mentioned in his

school leaving certificate. Though the workman claims to have submitted his original school leaving certificate before

the Management at the time of his joining, there is no documentary evidence to that effect except his oral version. He

admits submission of medical certificate at the time of his joining and to that effect he has not raised any serious

dispute towards the genuinity of the medical certificate marked Ext.-B by the Management. According to him Ext.-B

medical certificate was issued towards his medical examination for ascertaining his fitness to join in the service and

such medical examination was not held for any purpose of determination of his age. At the same time it cannot be

ruled out that usually Medical Officer mention the age of examinee on the basis of his statement and as such age

mentioned in such medical certificate has presumptive value till the same is rebutted by clinching and unimpeachable

evidence.

The workman has only produced a duplicate school leaving certificate allegedly issued by the School Headmaster

after his superannuation. The person issuing the certificate has not been examined to prove the genuinity of the entry

made in the school leaving certificate. All other documents relied upon by the workman towards proof of his age

except entry made in the identity card issued by C.I.S.F. are obtained after his superannuation. On the other hand the

evidence of the Management including the documents relief upon by it more particularly medical examination report

(Ext.-B), B-Form Register (Ext.-G), service book (Ext.-R) reveal that the workman was aged about 25 years when he

joined in service and his date of birth is shown as 21.4.1936 in B-Form register and service book and such entry is

apparently interpolated by making another entry of date as claimed by the workman. Besides, it cannot be over-sighted

that in the school leaving certificate produced by the workman he has been named as “Keshaba Charan Sasmal”. There

is no serious dispute to the fact that Identity card was issued by the C.I.S.F. agency and no personnel of C.I.S.F. agency

has been examined to ascertain as to what basis date of birth of the workman was mentioned in the said Identity card.

As per settled principle burden always lies on the employee to prove that the Management/employer committed

mistake in recording the date of birth. As discussed earlier the workman appears to have failed miserably or failed to

produce any unflinching and irrefutable evidence to prove the above action of the Management i.e. the Management

committed the error in recording the date of birth wrongly.

Undisputedly, the service rules of the Management provides that every employee must declare his date of birth in

the application or the prescribed form before his first appointment and must produce confirmatory evidence in support

of his declaration and mentioned there-under. No person should be allowed to join in the services of the company

without his date of birth having been declared/recorded as prescribed. In view of such rule, if the B-Form register is

taken into consideration it can be safely inferred that date of birth mentioned in the said B-Form must be on the basis of

a declaration made by the workman. Further, as per the rules in case of any difference between the age declared in the

affidavit and the age certified by the Medical Board, the higher age shall be accepted and recorded. The Rule 4.7

further prescribes as to how date of birth of a workman is to be calculated/determined and keeping in view the said rule

the determination of date of birth of the workman on the basis of Ext.-B cannot be discarded out-rightly. It cannot also

be over-sighed that when service record of the workman discloses his date of birth is 21.4.1936, the workman did not

make any effort to change the same by producing documentary evidence towards proof of his age and he obtained the

school leaving certificate after his superannuation. Further, the discrepancy with regard to the name of the school

mentioned in his service book and the duplicate school leaving certificate produced by him cannot be over-looked in

view of settled principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of change of date of birth in service

record. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances discussed above it can be safely held that the Management

had not committed any error in superannuating the workman taking his date of birth as 21.4.1936. Accordingly these

two issued are answered in favour of the Management.

10.

In view of above findings other issues need no answer/discussion further.

11.

Therefore no illegally or unjustified action seems to have been noticed in making the workman Sasmal to retire

with effect from 30.4.1995. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5613

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2396-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

txUukFk lsD;wfjVh esaVsusl l£ol ,.M lIykbZ ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2012) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@4@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2396.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Jagannath Security Maintenance Service and Supply and others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-43011/4/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 36/2012

No. L-43011/4/2011-IR (M), dated 27.02.2012

Date of Passing Award – 21^st October, 2016

Between:

1. M/s. Jagannath Security Maintenance

Service & Supply, Contractor of

Bangur Chromite Mines of M/s. OMC Ltd.,

Po. Dhanurjaypur, Dist. Keonjhar,

Orissa

2. The Regional Manager,

Bangur Chromite Mines of M/s. OMC Ltd.,

Dhanurjaypur, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

The General Secretary,

Boula Regional Chromite Mines Worker’s Union,

At./Po. Dhanurjaypur, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

Shri Bidyadhar Singh

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 1.

Shri S.R. Pattnaik, Sr. Manager (Legal)

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 2.

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

ORDER

On 28.9.2016 representatives for the Management No. 1 is present and files hazira. None appears on behalf of the

2^nd party-Union and the Management No. 2 on repeated calls. It is seen from the record that after filing of Statement of

5614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claim the 2^nd party-Union failed to attend the proceeding despite repeated notice. The Management No. 1 has already

submitted its written statement whereas the principal employer, Management No. 2 has also filed written statement.

The reference is lingering only due to non-attendance of the 2^nd party-Union. As the Union failed to attend the

proceeding as well as adduced any evidence in addition to its claim there is no alternative than to pass a no-dispute

award and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2397-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@31@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2397.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-17012/31/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 40/2012

Date of Passing Award – 21^st October, 2016

Between:

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Bhubaneswar Divisional Office,

Jeevan Prakash, Unit-7, Surya Nagar,

Bhubaneswar – 751 001

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Dwijabar Sahoo,

At./Po. Nabaghanpur, Dist. Nayagarh,

Orissa

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

M/s. B.P Satapathy, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

M/s. Archana Mishra, Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5615

AWARD

This award arises out of the reference with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhubaneswar, in terminating

the services of Shri Dwijabar Sahoo without complying the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment between the employers in relation to the

Management of Indian Bank and their workman in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter No. L-17012/31/2011 – IR(M),

dated 13.03.2012.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the reference as revealed from the statement of claim is that the 2^nd party-

workman Shri Dwijabar Sahoo was working as a badali worker from the period from 1985 to 27.1.1996 intermittently

in the branch office of the 1^st Party-Management at Nayagarh on daily wage basis and his such engagement was based

on the basis of the order of the Regional Manager, LIC, Cuttack. He was receiving remuneration and Bonus for the

period of his job at a rate equivalent to the wage provided to sub-staff of the 1^st Party-Management. It is the claim of

the 2^nd party that he was duly selected to work as badali worker after observation of all formalities of selection and he

was discharging his duties with all sincerity and devotion. According to him he worked for more than 240 days in the

calendar year 1989. As he was sincere to his duty different Branch Managers posted in the branch office made

correspondences to their higher authority for regularization of his service and his name was sponsored from time to

time for his selection against permanent sanctioned post and he was empanelled in the list of successful candidates for

such permanent absorption. It is alleged by him that his service as badali worker was terminated suddenly on 27.1.1996

without assigning any reason and without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and such action

of the Management is out rightly illegal and unjustified. He was victim to unfair labour practice adopted by the

Management. Hence a dispute was raised before the labour machinery resulting in the present reference.

The 1^st Party-Management has submitted its written statement denying the claim of the 2^nd party-workman and

pleading inter alia that the service of the 2^nd Party-workman was taken only intermittently at the time of need when a

staff/sub-staff remained absent from his duty. His engagement was purely on temporary and daily wage basis and in no

point of time he was engaged for more than 240 days in a calendar year. As he was never given appointment either on a

temporary or daily wage basis as a badali worker, there was no scope of employer and employee relationship between

the workman and the Management to attract any provisions of the I.D. Act in the dispute raised by the workman. A

further stand has been taken on behalf of the Management that a recruitment rule is being adopted by the Management

for appointment to the sanctioned/permanent post of Class-IV category and neither the Branch Manager nor his

superior authority is vested with any power to appoint any one as a badali worker as claimed by the workman and as

such, he was never selected to work as a badali worker or sub-staff in the branch office of the 1^st Party-Management at

Nayagarh. The engagement of the 2^nd party being a temporary in nature and on need basis there was no question of

termination/disengagement of the 2^nd party from his service and there was no violation of any provisions of section 25-

F of the I.D. Act.

On the aforesaid pleadings following issues have been settled for adjudication of the reference.

I S S U E S

1. Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhubaneswar, in

terminating the services of Shri Dwijabar Sahoo without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is legal and justified?

2. What relief the workman is entitled to?

Oral as well documentary evidence have been adduced by both the parties in support of their respective pleadings

and contentions. Besides, examining himself the workman has filed/exhibited copy of recruitment of sub-staff dated

27.5.1989, copy of experience certificate, copy of Bio Data of the 2^nd party, copy of experience certificate, copy of

experience certificate, copy of interview letter dated 28.6.2001, copy of report of the Central Information Commission,

copy of paper advertisement, copy of appointment of peons in the LIC of India, copy of rejection letter of the 2^nd party

dated 11.8.2011, copy of office order dated 24.2.2012, copy of money receipt dated 28.5..2011, copy of Bonus

calculation sheet from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989, copy of reply on R.T.I. Application dated 15.5.2013marked as Ext.- 1 to

15. To refute the claim of the 2^nd party the Management has examined Shri Dilip Nandi and filed letter of authorization

of the Management dated 19.1.2015, copy of the regulation of the Management towards appointment, probation and

termination of service, copy of the register containing statements of transfer/temporary appointment of employees

marked as Ext.- A to C.

5616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

FINDINGS

ISSUES No. 1 & 2

Both the issues are taken into consideration for the sake of convenience. As it appears from the pleadings and

contentions raised by the parties that there is no serious dispute to the fact that the 2^nd party was being engaged in the

branch office of the 1^st Party-Management at Nayagarh on temporary and daily wage basis and his engagement was

intermittent. The documents filed by the parties also reveal that he was paid wages as well as Bonus for the period of

his temporary engagement. There is no document to the effect that any procedure was followed while making

engagement of the workman. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on behalf of the 2^nd party to establish that

the 2^nd party–workman was given appointment letter either on temporary or on casual basis. However no serious

dispute is emerging to the fact that the 2^nd party-workman was engaged on daily wage basis, temporarily and

intermittently and his engagement was not against any sanctioned or permanent post. As per the pleadings and

evidence of the 2^nd party-workman his engagement was never exceeded 240 days in a calendar year except in the year

1989 in which he has claimed to have worked for 241 days. Law is well settled that to avail the benefit of provisions of

Section 25-F the claimant-workman is to prove his engagement/appointment for more than 240 days continuously in a

calendar year preceding to his alleged termination.

Coming to the case at hand, the workman has pleaded and stated in his evidence that he worked for the 1^st Party-

Management from 1985 to 27.01.1996 and he was disengaged there-after. If his version is accepted in toto a burden

lies on him to show that he was engaged for more than 240 days preceding to the alleged date of disengagement i.e.

27.1.1996. In that respect there is neither any oral claim or documentary evidence to establish that the workman was

engaged as a casual/daily wager for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly except public holidays prior

to his alleged disengagement in order to avail the benefits guaranteed under the provisions of the I.D. Act. The

documents relied upon by the workman reveal only that he was engaged temporarily as badali worker and no document

filed by him suggests that he was ever given engagement for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year. As

per the settled principles when the workman fails to establish that he had worked for 240 days continuously and

uninterruptedly in the preceding calendar year just prior to his disengagement then there is no need of complying

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

Further, it cannot be over-sighed that the 2^nd party-workman was engaged intermittently and his engagement was

on need basis as a daily wager. Hence question does not arise for termination or disengagement of his service. In a

catena of decisions including the case between Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others -Versus- State of Bihar and

others the Hon’ble Apex Court have propounded that disengagement of temporary employees working on purely on

daily wages cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the I.D. Act as the concept of “retrenchment” cannot be

stretched to such an extent to cover these employees. Since they are only daily waged employees and have no right to

the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary. In that view of the settled principle the 2^nd party-workman cannot be said

to have any right to the Class-IV post and as he was never engaged as a badali worker for more than 240 days

continuously in a calendar year and his engagement was purely temporary and on need basis, his termination or

disengagement as claimed in the schedule of the reference cannot be termed as unjust and illegal.

In view of the above conclusion, the 2^nd party-workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

10.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2398-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Jh

Ñ".kk bathfu;¯jx ,.M daLVªDlu daiuh ,oa rhu vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2014) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26011@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2398.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5617

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

management of M/s. Sri Krishan Engineering and Construction Co. and three others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-26011/1/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 4^th November, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 59/2014

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Sri Krishna Engineering & Construction

Co. & Three Others and their workman)

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

The Mazdoor Harbour Worker’s Union

“Bhagat House”. 48, Prakasam Salai

Broadway

Chennai-600108

AND

Sri Krishna Engg. & Construction Co. :

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

“Kalyani”, No. 9/2

MVP Colony

Visakhapatnam-630017

The Regional Manager

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

Vizag Steel Plant

Chennai-600034

M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.

2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

RINL VSP Administrative Bldg.

Visakhapatnam-530031

The Management

2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

M/s. Sundar & Company

22 Jones Street

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd & 3^rd Respondent

M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

M/s. J. Senthil Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-26011/1/2014-IR (M) dated

09.07.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of Srikrishna Engineering and Construction Company in denying

employment to Sri S. Jayaraman and 55 (list enclosed) others are legal and justified? If not to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?”

5618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 59/2014 and issued notices to both sides.

Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are these:

The Second Respondent has a Stockyard located at Manali for storing its pig iron and steel materials. The Second

Respondent had been appointing Handling Contractor for handling and storage of materials in the Stockyard and for the

purpose of transportation of steel consignments from the Stockyard to customer premises and to other Stockyards for

second and Third Respondents. Initially the Second Respondent had awarded the work of handling, storage and

transportation to M/s. Sunder & Co. Sunder & Co. had engaged the service of 56 employees who are concerned in the

dispute to do the work. They have been working for the period ranging from 15-22 years continuously. All the workers

are members of the Petitioner Union. Sunder & Co. had been entering into settlement with the Petitioner Union relating

to service conditions of the employees. the Contractor was only a middleman. The workers had been doing work of the

Second Respondent which is perennial in nature. The Contractor was only a name lender. The First Respondent had

now been inducted as the new Contractor. It had stopped all the 56 employees concerned in the dispute and replaced

them with new employees. Thus the concerned employees were illegally denied work from 13.12.2013. Even if the

contract changes the employees concerned should be allowed to continue. The Respondents cannot replace one set of

employees with another set of employees. The concerned employees had worked for more than 480 days continuously

within a period of 24 calendar months. They are to be deemed permanent employees under Section-3 of the Tamil

Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act. The service of the concerned workmen could not

be dispensed with on change of the Contractor. The termination is in violation of Section-25(F) of the ID Act. An

award may be passed holding that denial of employment to the concerned workmen is illegal and also direct the

Respondents to reinstate the 56 employees concerned in the dispute with full backwages, continuity of service and all

other benefits.

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The First Respondent is engaged in the business of undertaking steel products of Steel Plants in the various steel

yards of the respective companies. It was also acting as a handling Contractor. In the year 2013 the Third Respondent

awarded the First Respondent a contract of Steel Handling in the stockyard of the Second Respondent for a period of 7

years from 11.12.2013. The First Respondent never employed the 56 persons on whose behalf the dispute is raised.

The First Respondent did not terminate them from employment also. The first Respondent has no obligation to provide

employment to the 56 persons. The Second Respondent handed over to the First Respondent the space in the yard and

the materials on 11.12.2013. The First Respondent has been carrying out the work with 18 workmen. The petitioner

union is not entitled to any relief.

The Second Respondent and third Respondents have filed joined Counter Statement contending as below:

There is no employer-employee relationship between the Respondents 2 and 3 and the concerned workmen. M/s.

Sunder & Co. who are said to have engaged the concerned workmen is not made a party to the dispute. The contract

with Sunder & Co. expired in the year 2012. Open tender was called for after this and several companies had

participated in the tender. The tender quoted by the First Respondent was accepted. The work has been assigned to the

First Respondent to handle the arrivals, stacking, storage and also security and the delivery of iron and steel materials.

As per the contract entered into between the Second Respondent and First Respondent the First Respondent is entitled

to appoint workers as per their requirements. The contract does not give any continuity of service to the workers and

when the Contractor changes it is within the right of new Contractor to appoint workers of their choice. The concerned

workmen are not entitled to any relief under Section-3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of

Permanent Status) Act. The Second and Third Respondents were informed that M/s. Sunder & Co. had settled the

gratuity, provident fund and other service dues to all its employees. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Sunder & Co. had been impleaded as the Fourth Respondent on application before this Tribunal. This

Respondent had filed Counter Statement as below:

The Fourth Respondent is a licensed Contractor of the Second Respondent. The contract came to an end by

November 2013. Consequent to the termination of the contract, as per the terms of the settlement made between the

Petitioner Union and the Fourth Respondent the Fourth Respondent has paid compensation to all the concerned

workmen. The workmen cannot have any further claim for employment or any other claim against the Fourth

Respondent. The workmen were paid substantial amounts on expiry of the contract. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW 1, 2 & 3 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W11 and

Ext.M1 to Ext.M34

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5619

The points for consideration are:

(I)

Whether the action of the First Respondent in denying employment to the workmen concerned is legal and

justified?

(II) What, if any, is the relief to which the concerned workmen are entitled?

The Points

The Pig Iron and Steel manufactured by the Third Respondent used to be transported to the stockyard belonging

to the Second Respondent and stacked there. The Third Respondent used to engage Contractor for receiving and

handling the materials at the yard. The Fourth Respondent who was subsequently impleaded as a party to the dispute

had been the Contractor who was doing the work of handling, storage and transportation of the materials at the yard.

The Fourth Respondent had engaged the concerned workmen for doing the work of storage, transportation, etc. The

contract between the Fourth Respondent and the Company expired in the year 2013. New tenders were called

and the quotation of the First Respondent who also participated in the tender alongwith the Fourth Respondent was

accepted and thus the First Respondent became the handling Contractor from 11.12.2013. The First Respondent seems

to have engaged new workmen rather than allowing the 56 workmen concerned who handled the work under the 4^th

Respondent to continue. The claim of the Petitioner on behalf of the concerned workmen is that denial of work to the

56 employees is not legal.

10.

In the Claim Statement the petitioner has sought a direction against the Respondents to reinstate the 56

employees concerned in the dispute. Before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) the claim of the

petitioners seems to have been only against the First Respondent, the new Contractor. In Ext.W9-the letter by the

Union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner the claim is that all the 56 workmen concerned were employed as

contract labours in the stockyard at Manali for more than 15-22 years through erstwhile Contractor M/s. Sundar & Co.,

but a new Contractor by name Srikrishna Engineering and Construction Co. i.e. the First Respondent had been given

contract on 03.10.2013 but the new Contractor had refused to engage the concerned workmen and that the matter of

non-employment of the concerned workmen by the new Contractor shall be taken for conciliation. As seen from

Ext.W11-the failure report, the First Respondent has taken a stand before the Conciliation Officer that there is no

employer-employee relationship between it and the concerned workmen and they have no obligation to employ the

workmen. On this basis the schedule of reference is regarding non-employment by the First Respondent only.

However, in the Claim Statement the petitioner has changed its stand to some extent by not claiming relief against any

particular Respondent/Respondents but only seeking a direction against the Respondent to reinstate the 56 employees.

In the Claim Statement the petitioner has taken a further stand that the contractor i.e. the Fourth Respondent herein was

only a name lender and that the workmen had been doing work which is perennial in nature. This is a stand very much

against the one which has been taken before the Labour Commissioner.

11.

The Petitioner does not seem to be very much sure until the last stage against whom relief is to be sought. Even

after impleading the Fourth Respondent under whom the concerned workmen were working the Petitioner has not

specified against whom it requires relief.

12.

The First Respondent, as stated, has taken the stand that there was never any employer-employee relationship

between it and the concerned workmen and it has no liability or obligation to employ the concerned workmen. The

Second and Third Respondents also have taken the stand that they had no employer-employee relationship with the

concerned workmen, but it was the Fourth Respondent who was earlier handling the work who had employed them.

The Fourth Respondent who had come to the arena at the very late stage had contended that even as per the contract

with the concerned workmen they were entitled to be in their service only till the contract with the Second Respondent

expired and that after the contract came to an end they have paid all the dues to the concerned workmen.

13.

Though, a vague attempt has been made in the Claim Statement and also during evidence to make out that the

contractors were only name lenders, but the Second and Third Respondents were the real employers, no real attempt

has been made to establish such a case. Again, if this was the case the relief should have been claimed only against

Second and Third Respondents and not against other Respondents.

14.

It could be seen from the evidence, both documentary as well as oral that the concerned workmen had been

entering into settlement with the Fourth Respondent regarding the terms of their employment. Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 are

these settlements of 1994, 1996 and 2005 respectively. The first one is under Section-12(3) of the ID Act and the other

two are under Section-18(1) of the Act. Exts.M17 to 22 are the extension of handling contract issued by the Second

Respondent to the Fourth Respondent. As could be seen even after contract was given to the First Respondent,

extension was given for the purpose of handing over the material and the site to the First Respondent. WW1, the

General Secretary of the Petitioner Union who is the sole witness examined on behalf of the petitioner has stated that

settlement were being signed with the Fourth Respondent from 1994 onwards and that in all these the Fourth

Respondent is referred to as the Contractor of the Second Respondent. As per Clause-18 of Ext.W3 the Contractor will

5620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not be responsible for providing job beyond the period of contract. WW1 has admitted during his cross-examination

that the contract between the Fourth and Second Respondent came to an end in April 2013. According to WW1 even

though there is provision for settlement of gratuity and service payments in the contract, the workers used to continue

in the employment of the Contractor even after receiving these benefits and on expiry of the contract. It could be

seen from the evidence that from the beginning till the First Respondent was inducted as the Contractor the Fourth

Respondent acted as the Contractor under three different contracts and the concerned workmen were all along doing the

work under the Fourth Respondent. It is apparent from the admission of WW1 itself that the concerned workmen were

working under the Fourth Respondent directly and had nothing to do with the Second or Third Respondents. The very

fact that settlements used to be entered into between the workmen and the Fourth Respondent fortifies the fact that they

were workers of the Fourth Respondent only. This being the case, the Second or Third Respondent are not liable for

any relief in respect of the concerned workmen. The reference is silent on any such claim also.

15.

The First Respondent also is not liable to provide any relief to the concerned workmen. In fact at the initial stage

the claim was only against the First Respondent. As per the schedule of reference itself the claim is only against the

First Respondent. The only question raised in the schedule of reference is against denial of employment by the First

Respondent to the concerned workmen. However, the First Respondent had never employed the concerned workmen.

There was no employer-employee relationship between the First Respondent and the concerned workmen. The dictum

that a contract worker cannot be changed cannot be made applicable in the present case. It applies only if the

Contractor is the same. The First Respondent who has been inducted as the Contractor has no commitment to the

concerned workmen and is not liable to take in the concerned workmen who were employees of the Fourth Respondent.

So the petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the First Respondent.

16.

As stated the Fourth Respondent was impleaded at a late stage and no specific claim was made against any of the

Respondents and no specific claim was made against the Fourth Respondent also after it was impleaded. However, at

the stage of argument the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any case the concerned workmen are entitled

to compensation from the Fourth Respondent under Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Fourth

Respondent has taken a contention that on expiry of the contract with the Second Respondent it had paid all its dues to

the concerned workmen. Ext.M34 (series) are produced to prove this. There is evidence given by MW3 on behalf of the

Fourth Respondent also in this respect. Ext.M34 (series) contain the termination letters issued by the Fourth

Respondent to each of the concerned workmen after it failed to renew its contract with the Second Respondent. The

letter states that Rs. 40,000/- have already been paid towards settlement. There is a sheet showing calculation of the

amount of gratuity payable to each of the employees also. It has been admitted by MW3 during cross-examination that

only gratuity has been paid to the employees on expiry of the contract and no amount has been given by way of

compensation.

17.

According to the Fourth Respondent the employees are not entitled to any compensation since their

disengagement will not amount to retrenchment. According to them it comes under Section-2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act. As

per this sub-section termination of service of workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of the employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf will not be retrenchment. Ext.W1 and other settlements entered into between the Fourth

Respondent and the Union on behalf of the concerned workmen contains a clause for settlement of gratuity, service

payments, etc. as per government laws at the time of expiry of period of the contract. Thus it could be seen from these

settlements that the Union on behalf of the concerned workmen has admitted the fact that the employment is to come to

an end on expiry of the contract between the Fourth Respondent and the Second Respondent. Probably the Union was

very much aware of this when the dispute was raised by Ext.W9, the letter written by it to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. In this, while requesting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to conciliate the matter of non-

employment of the concerned workmen by the First Respondent, the petitioner has categorically stated that the Fourth

Respondent had complied with the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act and also all statutory

obligations of the Central Government Labour Laws. Thus there is an admission in Ext.W9 itself that the Fourth

Respondent has already paid the dues to the workmen on expiry of the contract.

18.

Even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to make a claim against the Fourth Respondent in view of the very

reference. As per the reference relief is claimed only against the First Respondent. The Fourth Respondent was not

even a party before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner never thought of claiming any relief against the

Fourth Respondent, probably on account of the fact that whatever dues have been paid or agreed to be paid.

19.

The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in AMANULLAH VS.

CHENNAI PORT TRUST AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE MADRAS 6797 in this respect. Here it

was held that the Labour Court in order to render substantial justice is empowered to adjudicate the real dispute

between the parties and the order of reference is capable of interpreting to the effect that the Labour Court can go into

the incidental issue also. However, the present claim of the petitioner against the Fourth Respondent cannot be treated

as an incidental issue. No issue was raised against the Fourth Respondent at all and it was not a subject matter of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5621

reference also. The dispute raised was only against the First Respondent. So even if the concerned workmen were

entitled to any relief against the Fourth Respondent, it could not have been considered in this reference.

20.

In view of my discussion above the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered

against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

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

4^th November, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Sri K. Ravi

For the 2^nd Party/Managements

MW1, Sri K. Anil Kumar

MW2, Sri S. Gunasekaran

(Original deposition is missing.

Replaced with photocopy obtained from one of the parties)

MW3, Sri M. Kumaravel

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

05.09.1994

Settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ext.W2

01.06.1996

Settlement under Section-18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ext.W3

10.07.2005

Settlement under Section-18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ext.W4

03.10.2013

Letter of 3^rd Respondent awarding contract to the 1^st Respondent

Ext.W5

16.11.2013

Letter of the 1^st Respondent to Police

Ext.W6

16.11.2013

Letter of the 1^st Respondent to Police

Ext.W7

19.11.2013

Letter of the 1^st Respondent to Police

Ext.W8

25.11.2013

Letter of the Petitioner to the 3^rd Respondent

Ext.W9

16.12.2013

Dispute raised by the Union

Ext.W10

21.01.2014

Letter given by the Petitioner Union to the Conciliation Officer

Ext.W11

31.01.2014

Conciliation failure report

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

Open tender for steel handling work only extract (extract of internal pages 3 of 102,

4 of 102, 5 of 102, 6 of 102, 7 of 102, 8 of 102, 24 of 102.25 of 102, 26 of 102, 27

of 102, 28 of 102, 29 of 102, 41 of 102, 49 of 102, 50 of 102, 51 of 102, 52 of 102,

53 of 102, 54 of 102, 55 of 102, 56 of 102 57 of 102, 58 of 102, 59 of 102, 60 of

102, 60 of 102, 73 of 102, 77 of 102, 78 of 102, 85 of 102

Ext.M2

List of 18 employees with their insurance number under ESI Act and their Account

Number under Provident Fund Act

Ext.M3

15.09.2010

Letter from ESI Corporation, Chennai to M/s. Sri Krishna Engineering and

Construction Company, Manali, Chennai allotting sub-code number 51-62-034209-

001-1006

5622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M4

09.01.2014

License issued by ALC (C), Pondicherry to M/s. Sri Krishna Engineering &

Construction Co. for steel materials handling work at M/s. R I N – Stockyard at

Sathankkadu, Manali, Chennai upto 08.11.2015

Ext.M5

03.05.2005

Contract issued by the 3^rd Respondent to M/s. Sundar & Company alongwith terms

and conditions

Ext.M6

03.10.2013

Letter of acceptance issued to the 1^st Respondent by the 3^rd Respondent

Ext.M7

21.10.2013

Letter issued by Ms. Sundar & Co. to the petitioner

Ext.M8

02.11.2013

Letter issued by the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M9

15.11.2013

Letter issued by the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M10

16.11.2013

Letter issued by the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M11

19.11.2013

Letter given by M/s. Sundar & Co. to the Joint Commissioner of Police

Ext.M12

19.11.2013

Letter given by M/s. Sundar & Co. to the 2^nd Respondent

Ext.M13

24.01.2014

Letter issued by M/s. Sundar & Company

Ext.M14

27.01.2014

Termination letter issued by M/s. Sundar & Co.

Ext.M15 &

26.04.2014

Letter issued by the 2^nd Respondent to M/s. Sundar & Company

Ext.M15(a)

Ext.M16

05.09.1994

Translation of Settlement under Section-12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Ext.M17

18.04.2012

Extension of handling contract issued by 2^nd Respondent Company from May

2012-August 2012

Ext.M18

31.08.2012

Extension of handling contract issued by 2^nd Respondent Company from August

2012-January 2013

Ext.M19

01.02.2013

Extension of handling contract issued by 2^nd Respondent Company from February

2013-March 2013

Ext.M20

23.04.2013

Extension of handling contract issued by 2^nd Respondent Company from April

2013-September 2013

Ext.M21

02.09.2013

Extension of handling contract issued by 2^nd Respondent Company from September

2013

Ext.M22

11.09.2013

Acceptance of extension of handling contract by the applicant company till

15.11.2013

Ext.M23

15.11.2013

Letter sent by 2^nd & 3^rd Respondent to implead party to handing over of material

Ext.M24

24.01.2014

Letter sent by the impleaded party M/s. Sunder & Company to the Petitioner Union

General Secretary Mr. V.K. Balakrishnan

Ext.M25

24.01.2014

Letter sent by the Impleaded party M/s. Sunder & Co. to the Petitioner Secretary

Mr. A. Panneerselvam

Ext.M26

27.01.2014

Letter sent by the impleaded party M/s. Sunder & Company to Petitioner Union

General Secretary regarding the intimation of termination letter sent to 56

employees

Ext.M27

27.01.2014

Termination letter issued to each of the 56 workmen by the impleaded party (M/s.

Sunder & Company) –Specimen Copy

Ext.M28

09.08.2014

Letter sent by the impleaded party’s Advocate to each of the 29 employees those

who have not come forward to collect the settlement gratuity with the petitioner,

putting them a notice to collect gratuity payment within a week, failing which,

thereafter it will be deposited in their Bank Account

Ex.M29

09.08.2014

Letter sent by the impleaded party’s Advocate to President AITUC, informing that

amount will be deposited in the Bank account of 29 employees those who have not

come forward to collect the money

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5623

Ext.M30

16.09.2014

Letter sent by the impleaded party to Mr. Kuppan General Secretary giving further

time to 29 employees to collect the settlement gratuity within 10 days failing which

the same will be deposited in the Bank Account

Ext.M31

Impleaded party (M/s. Sunder & Company) to each of the 29 employees those who

have not come forward to collect the settlement dues from the impleaded party

Ext.M32

Statement Advance Paid to all the 56 employees

Ext.M33

Settlement of ull dues to all the 56 employees

Ext.M34

Combined Book Volume I to Volume-III consist of Proof of Payment of Settlement

of Gratuity dues to all the 56 employees alongwith the abstract of salary, details of

deposit of final settlement of salary & graduity, receipt of payment received on

final settlement of salary and gratuity, receipt of PF as on 17.01.2014, bank

statement and last salary register.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2399-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Jh

ctkt vkfy;kat ykbiQ ba;ksjsal dEiuh 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;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 111@2015) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@15@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-17012/15/2015-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 28^th October, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 111/2015

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri M. Jose

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Chief Executive Officer

: 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada

Pune-411006

2. The Branch Manager

: 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

5624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Celin Arcade, Distillery Road (No. 26 SBI Road)

Vadsery

Nagarcoil-629001

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. S. Arunachalam Associates, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Respondent

M/s. S. Namasivayam, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-17012/15/2015-IR (M) dated

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

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the termination of Sri M. Jose by the Management of M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. is

justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID No. 111/2015 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The

petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

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

The petitioner joined service of the Respondent on 24.06.2006 as Junior Sales Manager. He was confirmed on the

post after completion of probation. The duty of the petitioner as Junior Sales Manager is to promote insurance business

by recruiting Insurance Consultants and actively canvassing policies with the assistance of Insurance Consultants. The

post of Junior Sales Manager does not involve any supervision or managerial capacity. The petitioner is a workman

coming within the definition of Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has no subordinates under his

control. He has no authority to issue or execute any order or to take any decision. The position of the petitioner as

Junior Sales Manager was upgraded to Assistant Sales Manager in the year 2007 and to Executive Sales Manager in the

year 2008. He was not issued with any specific orders placing him in different designations, but his allowances and

certain perks were raised. The raise in the emoluments were without raising the Basic Pay. The petitioner was

performing his duties by putting all his efforts ever since he joined the service of the Respondent. However, the

Respondent started to issue warning letters to the petitioner stating that there was shortfall in achieving the target. The

petitioner was terminated from service on 14.02.2014 by giving him one month’s notice pay. The termination is by way

of victimization. The termination was not preceded by any enquiry. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to

explain his case before he was terminated from service. The Management did not want the petitioner to continue

in service as he was placed in the category with higher emoluments. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service

with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The petitioner is appointed by the Respondents in managerial capacity. He had administrative and managerial

powers. He was responsible to develop insurance business of the Respondent Company. The petitioner was also

authorized to recruit Insurance Consultants. The petitioner in his cadre as Executive Sales Manager has been expected

to achieve certain amount as target. He has not achieved the amount of sales as expected from him. In spite of multiple

warnings the petitioner failed to improve so his service had to be terminated. The allegation in the Claim Statement that

the petitioner is a workman coming with the definition of Section-2(s) of the ID Act is not correct. The petitioner has a

team of Insurance Consultants working under his guidance and supervision. He is empowered to take decisions on

behalf of the Respondent. It is incorrect to state that the termination is the result of victimization. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

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

Ext.W7.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether termination of the petitioner by the Respondent is justified?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5625

The Points

The petitioner who had joined the service of the Respondent with the designation of Junior Sales Manager in the

year 2006 was terminated from service in February 2014 on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory. The

petitioner has contended in the Claim statement that he was terminated from service without conducting any enquiry

and this is against the principles of natural justice. He has further stated in the Claim Statement that in spite of

designation such as Junior Sales Manager, Assistant Sales Manager, Executive Sales Manager, etc. he never had any

administrative power and his job was not of a managerial capacity. Thus, according to him he was a workman coming

under the definition of Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Respondent has contended in the Counter Statement that the petitioner was bound to achieve certain target of

work but he has failed in doing this and he was terminated on account of this. It is also stated by the Respondent that

the petitioner was having managerial powers and he was not a workman.

10.

Initially the question whether the petitioner was a workman or not has to be considered. There is the evidence

given by the petitioner examined as WW1 that in spite of several nomenclatures for his job implying managerial

powers he never had any such power and he continued to be a Salesman to procure and canvass insurance policies. He

had no subordinate persons under his control. He has stated that Insurance Consultants through whom he seeks

co-ordination to develop business are not his subordinates. The Insurance Consultants are not company employees at

all. So he had no powers to issue any orders or take any decision regarding them also.

11.

It could be seen even from the very contentions in the Counter Statement that the job of the petitioner essentially

was to canvass insurance policies and to recruit Insurance Consultants. Exts.W2 to Ext.W4 are the monthly

performance review in respect of the petitioner which shows that the Management was concerned only about his

canvassing insurance policies to their satisfaction. Ext.M3 (series) are also monthly performance review letters

indicating this. The termination of the petitioner from service was on the ground that he failed to achieve the target to

the satisfaction of the Respondents.

12.

The admission made by MW1 during his cross-examination also would show that the petitioner was only

workman in spite of his designations such as Junior Sales Manager, Assistant Sales Manager, Executive Sales

Manager, etc. MW1 has stated during his cross-examination that the duty of the petitioner was to canvass policies from

the public and recruit consultants. He further admitted that the petitioner has no staff under his control in the

Respondent establishment. He also admitted that the petitioner had no power to take any independent decision. He even

admitted that the petitioner is a workman. If the nature of the work performed by the petitioner, his position without

any decision making power etc. are taken into account it could be seen that the petitioner was only a workman coming

under the definition of Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

13.

The petitioner was terminated from service admittedly without conducting any enquiry. As seen from Ext.W5,

the termination order, the performance of the petitioner has been found unsatisfactory as he has failed to achieve the

assigned business targets continuously for three months. It is accordingly he was terminated from service.

14.

Exts.W2 to Ext.W4 are the monthly performance review letters issued to the petitioner. Ext.W2 was issued in

September 2012. It states that his rating as on 31.08.2012 for the period from 1^st April to 31^st August, 2012 is “low

performance”. In Ext.W3 another performance review letter issued in December, 2012 his performance is shown as

“above average”. In Ext.W4, the performance rating is as “extremely low”. Ext.M3 (series) are the monthly

performance review letterers marked on the side of the Respondent. These cover the period from June 2013 to

December 2013, all showing performance rating such as “extremely low performance”, etc.

15.

MW1 who is working as Deputy Manager in the Respondent establishment has stated that the petitioner has not

achieved the amount of sales as expected from him and that in spite of multiple warnings he failed to improve and this

has resulted in his termination. However, the Respondent did not produce any documents to show that any particular

business target has been given to the petitioner. None of the performance review letters refer to any particular target but

merely states that the performance is low. There is nothing to show that any specified target was given to the

petitioner.

16.

In fact the target is seen fixed only during the period of probation, as seen from Ext.W1, the Appointment Order.

The order states that the person appointed as Junior Sales Manager will be on probation for a period of one year and

the period could be extended upto two years. Clause-13 of the Appointment Order states that the duties and obligations

of Junior Sales Manager are given in Annexure-A(2). This annexure does not refer to any fixed target. However,

Annexure-A(1) refers to business target for Junior Sales Manager on probation. Thus even in the Appointment Order as

Junior Sales Manager there is no reference to any fixed target for one who has completed the period of probation.

17.

The practice of the company seems to have been to put persons who have done more business in the

nomenclature of Sales Manager, Executive Sales Manager, etc. The petitioner had joined in the year 2006 and had been

5626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in position of executive Sales Manager at the time when he was terminated from service. In spite of all the

nomenclatures given the petitioner continued to do the same kind of work i.e. canvassing insurance policies and

recruitment of Insurance Consultants who will be canvassing policies. In the absence of any document to show that a

person in the position of Executive Sales Manager is bound to achieve target, the case put forth by the Respondent in

this respect could not be accepted. There was no justification for the Respondent to terminate the service of the

petitioner on the ground of low performance.

18.

Even as admitted by the respondent there was no enquiry preceding the termination. Exts.W2 to W4 are only

performance review letters insisting that the petitioner should achieve the targets. The petitioner was not given any

opportunity to explain his case.

19.

The petitioner was given one month’s salary in lieu of notice. However, he was not given any compensation.

Thus the termination is in violation of Section-25(F) of the ID Act. The termination of the petitioner by the Respondent

is without any justification. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

20.

In view of my discussion above, an Award is passed as below:

The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within two months of the publication of the

Award with 50% backwages and all attendant benefits. Default in payment of backwages will entail interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the Award.

(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the

28^th October, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri M. Jose

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Respondents

MW1, Sri S.M. Satheesh

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

26.05.2006

Appointment Order issued to the petitioner

Ext.W2

01.09.2012

On monthly performance review of the petitioner with a warning

Ext.W3

01.12.2012

On monthly performance review of the petitioner with a warning

Ext.W4

02.12.2013

On monthly performance review of the petitioner with a warning

Ext.W5

14.02.2014

Termination order of the petitioner by the Respondent from his service

Ext.W6

31.03.2014

Letter to the Labour Commissioner

Ext.W7

27.02.2015

Letter of the Regional Labour Commissioner

On the Respondent’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

26.05.2006

Appointment letter of Junior Sales Manager M. Jose

Ext.M2

29.09.2011

Compensation restricting letter to M. Jose M Maria Louis, Executive Sales

Manager

Ext.M3

July 2013 to

Monthly Performance Review Letters.

Jan. 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2400-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5627

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@7@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2400.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-42011/7/1995-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO 39 OF 2001

PARTIES

The Joint Secretary,

Uranium Kamgar Sangh

PO: Jadugoda, Distt: Singhbhum (E), Jharkhand

Vs.

The Chairman –cum-Managing Director,

Uranium Corp. of India Ltd.,

P.O. Jadugoda Mines-832102 Distt: Singhbhum (E), Jharkhand.

Order No.L-42011/7/95-IR (Misc) dt.nil

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

Mr. P.R. Rakshit, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16^th Sept., 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-42011/7/95-IR(Misc) . dt.nil

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Uranium Kamgar Union for making permanent the services of drivers and

operators and designating them as tradesman “C in the scale of pay of Rs.1280-43-1839-59-1957 from the

date of their appointment and paying them arrears is justified ?If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-42011/7/95-IR (Misc). dt.nil 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 2000 was registered on 07.03.2001 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 appeared respectively, and contested the case.

In the W.S. of the workmen the Union alleged that the Driver and Operators of the Mines have been working at

two Units at -Jadugoda and Narwa Pahar under the Management of Uranium Corporation of the India Ltd against the

permanent vacancy under director control & supervision of the Management of the UCIL and they had put in 240 days

in each calendar year and staked claimed permanency at par with Tradesman since the date of their initial appointment

5628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

but the Management denied them. Though they have put in regular and continuous service in each year till the

Management of the UCIL with malafide intention to victimize the workmen concerned did not accord the permanent

status. Subsequently the issue, on being sponsored by the Union came up before the Management, and then to

Conciliation Officer stating therein that they had been performing the job of Drivers & Operators at the behest and to

the satisfaction of Management. They discharged duties even at underground Mines and on Surface as well till

Management rejected their demand of permanency status and salaries at par with those of the Tradesman. However the

issue was referred to the ALC(C),Chaiapas but Management stood by firmly & remained adamant , the case ended as

failure of conciliation , resulted in birth of Reference Case. However the during the pendency of the conciliation

proceedings the Management accorded status of the permanency to the Drivers and Operator. The Union demanded

from the Management for permanent status of Drivers/Operators at par with Tradesman ’C’ in the scale of pay

mentioned in the order of Reference and arrear thereof on the basis of equal pay equal work as stated in W.S.

Brushing aside all the allegations, the Management stated categorically the factual that they had workforce as

Drivers/Operators and tradesman etc. in their employment and, their classification are governed by the rules/orders

and policy decisions as taken out by the Management Company from time to time. Under the Management of the

Uranium Corporation of India (CIL), there have been three Mines namely Jaduguda,/Narwapahar/Bhatin under its fold

and uniform policies are enforced spread over three entities in the matter of workforce employment therein and

requirements of personnel even their workmen‘s particulars maintained separately by the respective Units /Mines

independently . The Management Corporation is wholly owned by Government of India has not been carrying on any

trade or business as envisaged under the ID Act.1947. The Management cannot deviate from or give a go bye to such

rules or cause any arbitrariness in all such matters. In fact, the workmen are given employment on casual/temporary

basis depending upon the exigencies and requirements .The reference has become in fructuous as all the casual drivers

have been absorbed. The Corporation being a Government of India Organization there is no scope for any victimization

and/or exploiting, these all mean fomenting Industrial unrest alleged by the workmen .Though the Hon'ble High Court,

Ranchi Bench (Single) by upholding the order of the Government declined to give any direction upon the Government

nor any direction to make a reference .However, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench made

a direction to the Government

to make reference, as asserted by the Management .So the Management came out

with prayer that a No- Dispute Order be passed in view of the dispute does not exist since upon granting permanent

status of all Drivers/operators with the prescribed scales and so far, question of putting them in optimum scales and to

designate them as Tradesman-C that seems to have no longer any meaning in right prospective.

Hearing as scheduled on 5.8.20016 inviting both sides at Jadugoda for taking final decision on the petition

dt.09.12.2014 .But neither the Union nor their Representative appeared on their behalf nor did take any move to close

hearing of evidence and taking a final decision, as the Court already fixed. Whereas they were regularly served with

notices for appearance. Mr.P.R.Rakshit, Ld. Advocate along with a team of the Management officials made

appearance representing the Management side not for this time, but all along since long. During the course of hearing

the fact emerged out from the Management side that the core issue in fact, had already been settled based on

Memorandum of Settlement(MOS) arrived at on 18^th June,1999 at Jadugoda between the workmen represented by

Jadugoda Labour Union, Uranium Kamgar Union and Uranium Mazdor Sangh and their Management of Uranium Corp

of the India Ltd.(UCIL).With this settlement enforced long back in the said Mines, the real issue in schedule need not

be dealt with as it has no longer any relevancy with implementation of the Memorandum of Settlement dates back

18.06.1999.The Memorandum of the Settlement will itself form a part of the Award. The industrial dispute does not

matter in real sense as of now , with implementation said Memorandum of Settlement(MOS) now exclusively enforced

in the said Company after having arrived at settlement in wake of discussions and deliberations, at length amongst the

Management and the four Unions Representatives .

The extract of the Memorandum of Settlement is as follow:

FORM-H, (Rule-58)

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMEN ARRIVED AT ON 18-06-1999 AT JADUGUDA BETWEEN THE

MANAGEMENT OF UNANIUM CORPORATION F INDIA LIMITED AND THEIR WORKMEN REPRSENTED

BY JADUGUDA LABOUR UNION (INTUC),URANIUM KAMGAR UNION (IFTU),URANIUM MAZDOOR

SANGH (BMS)AND SINGHBHUM URANIUM MAZDOOR UNION (JMM)

ON BEHALF OF MANAGEMENT

ON BEHALF OF WORKMEN

Shri J.L.Bhasin,Chairman & MD

JADUGUDA LABOUR UNION

Shri R.P.Sengupta,GM (Mech)Project

Shri B.N.Choudhary,Gen.Secy

Shri K.Maheli,Chief Manager (P&A)

Shri Bameshwar Singh,Asstt.Secy

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5629

Shri D.Acharya,Chief Supdt.(Mines)NWP

Shri B.D.Prasad,Asstt.Secy.

Shri A.K.Sinha,Manager (P&A)

Shri Jayasheelan,Exec.Committee Mem.

Shri A.K.Sinha,Supdt.(Maint.Tpt)

Shri M.C.Das,Exec.Committee Member.

Sri Pranab Roy,Dy.Supdt (Indl.Engg).

Sri C.P.Verma,Addl.Manager (PERS)

JADUGUDA KAMGAR UNION

Md.Massood,Orgn.Secy.

UNANIUM MAZDOOR SANGH

Shri Ram Naresh Kumar,Gen.Secy

Shri Raj Kr.Bhakat, Working President

SINGHBHUM MAZDOOR UNION

Shri H.P.Mahato,Asstt.Secy

Shri K.K.Mahato,Treasurer

Short Recital of the case

Proper grade of Drivers who were engaged in driving underground equipments like Service Transprt, LHD, LPDT and

Motor Grader was under consideration for sometime past. A proposal was put up to all the Unions on 4.10.1996 which

was subsequently discussed a number of times but could not be finalized. Now after lot of protracted discussions

between the Management and all the Unions, the following is agreed to:-

Terms of Settlement

1. It is agreed that all the Drivers who are engaged in driving underground equipments as mentioned above will

be designated as Driver (SLLM)-‘A’ after their regularization.

2. After putting in one year of satisfactory service as Driver (SLLM)-A, such Drivers will be promoted to the

next higher grade of Driver (SLLM)’B’.

3. It is also agreed that Drivers engaged as Driver (SLLM)-‘B” would be promoted further as Driver (SLLM)-C’

after putting in 3(three) years of satisfactory service as Driver (SLLM)-B’

4. It is also agreed that their further promotion will be as per normal channel of promotion.

5. The promotion for one grade to next higher grade will be dependent on satisfactory attendance in the

preceding year and in case of Driver (SLLM) is having 75 days absenteeism in a year, his case will be

reviewed next year.

6. It is further agreed that all the above promotions will be effective from the date of their deployment in

underground work and they continue to do the job in underground without any break.

7. It is also agreed that promotions will be considered in case a Driver (SLLM) is rehabilitated.

8. It is also agreed that in future no Driver (SLLM) will be transferred to Surface duty unless he is declared

rehabilitated as per the Company’s existing practice.

9. The arrear payment arising out of the above Agreement will be made within three months of signing of this

Agreement.

10. The above agreement would be applicable to only those Driver (SLLM) who are working in this trade as on

the date of signing of the Agreement.

11. The Union expressed that the above workers be designated as Operators (SLLM) but the Management did not

agrees as similar designations are prevalent in Jaduguda and Bhatin mines.

Representative Management

Representative Workmen

Sd/

1 Illegible Signatures of various Management Officials Sd/1 Illegible Signatures of various workmen

Representatives

5630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Place : Jaduguda Mines

Witness

Sd/-

Dated : 18^th June1999

(S.K.Banerjee)

Sr.Secratarial Officer

Sd/-

(L.K.Modak)

Helper-C

Thus an Award based on ‘Memorandum of Settlement’ (MOS) already enforced in the said Mines in toto, is

passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2401-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

;qlwiQ ,.M cznlZ 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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@7@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2401.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Yusuf & Brothers and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

30.11.2016.

[No. L-29011/7/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act,1947

REFERENCE NO. 39 OF 2014

PARTIES

The Gen. Secretary,

Manglahat Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajmahal Head Office, PO & Distt: Pakur

Vs.

M/s. Yusuf & Brothers,

J.K. Mines,

Block –B, Rajmahal,

Sahibganj, Jharkhand, Sahibganj (Jharkhand).

Order No. L-29011/7/2014-IR (M) dt.08.07.2014

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25^th July, 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5631

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-29011/7/2014-IR (M) dtd. 08.07.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rourkela Shramik Sangh to provide compassionate employment to Sri Bijay Kumar

Mahapatra on the death of his father late Budhnath Mahapatra who died due to stress taken during

employment is justified and proper? If yes, to what relief he is entitled to get from the Rourkela Steel Plant?”

Neither the Sponsoring Union/petitioner nor Representative from the Management is reported to be present on

date despite sending notice dtd.14.8.2014 to the both litigant parties at the addresses referred in order of the Reference

itself ever since its inception and subsequently coming into existence as ID bearing No. 39 of 2014. The case deals with

providing employment to workman’s son on compassionate ground in the Rourkela Steel Plant . Though Notice dtd.

14^th August, 2014 had been sent both the litigant parties on the addresses referred in the Order of the Reference itself

that remained unresponsive. The case has been hanging over filing W.S. on the part of the workman for over more

than one and half year with posting of hearings and adjournments. Significantly it fell flat even unfolding at the very

beginning.

From perusal of the records concerned, it points out clearly that since inception not even a single step is

reported to have been moved forward nor has it been even offered any cogent reasons for unprecedented delay

especially on the part of the workman. The workman/petitioner do not seem to be in hurry to proceed the case through

adjudication nor do they have least interested to even file WS in spite of so much opportunities provided. The

workman miserably failed to appear or file the long awaited W.S, lying pending since long back. The conduct and

gesture, the workman walks, convinces of no use dragging further due to disinterestedness of the workman side and,

against the natural justice. Under the circumstances, the case is wrapped up as No Industrial Dispute between the

parties concerned in real sense. Accordingly an Award of ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e 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] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@83@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2402.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. BPCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-30011/83/2006-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/s 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No.13/2008

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BPCL

AND

Their workmen

5632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate

For the workman

Shri R.R.Ram, Rep

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Petroleum

Dated- 21/10/2016

AWARD

By Order No. L-30011/83/2006-IR (M) dated 13/03/2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BPCL, Tatanagar Depot in terminating the service of Shri Peter

Paul Topno H/V Driver and in not regularising the service of S/Shri Bikram Hembram, Mani Ram Baskey

General Operator inspite of increase in workload with induction of larger capacity Tanklorry (18 KL in place

of 12KL) and in view of the job reportedly being of perennial nature is justified?”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 26.03.2008. After receipt of reference, both Parties are

noticed, The sponsoring Union files their written statement on 30.01.2009. After long delay the management also files

their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.03.2011. Three witnessess adduced on behalf of the workman and two

witnessess examined on behalf of the management. Documents of the workman is marked as W-1 to W- 8/1 and one

document also marked by the management as M-1 series. & M-2.

The case of the workman is that the Company sent their requisition to National Employment Exchange who

sponsore some names to fill up some Casual vacancies in the category of General workmen , Casual and Heavy Vehicle

Driver at Tata Nagar Depot. On the basis of said requisition , the National Employment Exchange has sponsored the

names of some candidates including the name of all three workmen of this case. All workmen were appeared for

written test and subsequently appeared for interview on 3^rd Oct. 1989 vide letter dated 20.09.1989.

It is further submitted by the workman that all workmen were successful in the written examination , interview,

Driving Test and Medical Test and subsequently asked to report in the Tata Nagar Depot vide letter No. TATA/CON/

dated 20.11.1989 and they were working under the said Depot for more than 12 years continously before the

termination but the company have not absorbed them as permanent employee. On the contrary the management has

terminated the workmen without any notice.

5. It is also submitted by the workman that the workman has been discriminated in as much as some other casual

workmen who joined alongwith the workman concerned has since been absorbed by the company in other location but

they were discriminated hence industrial dispute arose.

On the other hand the case of the management is that The prevalent practice in the whole oil Industry with regard

to engagement of casual is laws followed in the BPCL. The standing order of the BPCL permits to engage casual

Labour on daily basis against absenteeism of permanent workmen. When a permanent workmen becomes absent

casual labour requires to be engaged to help continuity in work which have been hampared by sudden absence of any

permanent workman.

It is further submitted by the management that for the purpose of engagement of casual workman there is a

system for empanelment of casual labour of panel. Their names are sponsored by the office of the concerned

employment Exchange. The sponsored names are not automatically entered into the book of casual but through a

selection process their names are empanelled for a particular job and their engagement are made as and when the same

is required due to sudden absenteeism of permanent workman. Such engagement however does not confer any right

upon the casual to be treated as permanent.

It is also submitted by the management that the process of engagement of casual is not only followed in BPCL

but also is prevailing in the whole oil Industry and it is a common practice through out the Country. In the above

circumstances the question of appointment of any casual or termination of services does not arise at all.

The company obtained sponsorship from the said employment exchange in 1989 for the post of two casual

general workmen and one casual heavy vehicle driver purely on need basis . The disputant workmen were engaged for

the Tata Nagar Depot on casual basis and their engagement was never on regular basis but on intermittent period if

permanent workman went on leave, and just to keep continuity in work they were engaged on those occasion.

10. The fact remains that under no circumstances such necessity occurred for more than 160 days or little more under

exceptional circumstances in any particular year i.e much below the 240 days in any calendar year.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5633

11. The short point to be decided in this reference whether the workman who have been denied to work under the

management will be reemployed under the management or not.

12. The admitted fact of the parties are that the workmen taken through employment exchange, after due interview

and physical fitness, and engaged by the management as casual employees i.e their services utilised as and when

required. From the documents it appear that the workman have been engaged by the management. But on close

scrutiny, it is not found that the workman completed 240 days in any calendar years, from the date of their engagement.

But they have been serving in the corporation about 14-15 years without any lapses or any misconduct.

13. But it also persused that workman are also not proved their 240 days attendance nor they say in their evidence.

Therefore this Tribunal unable to give any relief to them for engagement.

14. But the management ought to take their services as and when required as they were taking previously . The

management should not bear grudge, as to why the concerned workmen raised dispute. Hence all the workman be

engaged as they were rendering service to the management to save from starvation and when a regular post occurs or

any one retire the workmen concerned be engaged as regular employee.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dsjyk feujyl ,.M esVy 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;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@22@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2403.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Kerla Minerals & Metals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-29011/22/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. K. Sasidharan, B. Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 30^th day of September, 2016/08^th Asvina, 1938)

ID No. 32/2013

Union

The General Secretary,

Kerala Minerals & Metals Employees Organization,

Chavara – 691583,

Kollam.

(ex-parte)

Additional Party

Shri Sivankutty Nair. K, Visakh,

Near Milk Society Ltd.,

Thamarakulam P O,

Alapuzha, Kerala – 690530

(Impleaded vide Order dated 10.03.2016 in IA No.165/2015)

(in person)

5634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management

The Managing Director,

M/s. Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.,

Sankaramangalam,

Chavara – 691583.

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan, Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.08.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.09.2016

passed the following:

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication before this Tribunal is:

“Whether the action of the management of the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., in dismissing Shri Sivankutty

Nair K. from service for the alleged misconduct, w.e.f.07.07.2011 is correct? If not, what relief he is entitled

to get?”

After the receipt of reference Order No.L-29011/22/2013-IR(M) dated 18.06.2013, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit their pleadings and produce

documents to substantiate their respective contentions.

On receipt of the summons the parties entered appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the union in brief are as follows:-

The workman involved in this reference Shri Sivankutty Nair K. was originally appointed as Accountant Grade II

on 19.06.1985 in the Titanium Dioxide Pigment unit of the management company. Subsequently he was promoted as

Accountant Grade I and later as Senior Grade Accountant. He is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had unblemished service of more than 26 years under the management.

With effect from 15.05.2006, the workman was in charge of Project Accounts and miscellaneous bills in the

management company. As per the letter of award No.01/51/1073/PKG-064A dated 22.03.2006, the management

company entered into a contract with M/s. Oriental Manufactures Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat for executing the work of

engineering procurement, manufacturing, supply, transportation, fabrication, etc. for a total contract price of

`3,00,12,012/- and an order to that was issued on the same day. As per Clause 5.1.1 of the contract, the management

company obtained two bank guarantees from Bank of India, Ahmedabad branch for `57,37,366/- against interest free

advance of an equal amount to be paid by the management company to the contractor and another bank guarantee for

`15,00,600/- towards security deposit for due performance of the contract. As per clause 4 of the work order the

contract period was 12 months from 22.03.2006.

The term of contract ought to have been completed on or before 22.03.2007. Either side failed to comply the

contractual obligations within the stipulated period. The Board Directors of the management company resolved to

abandon the project in its 187^th meeting held on 07.03.2008. Thereafter, the management issued stop memo to the

contractor on 27.03.2008 and it was approved by the Government of Kerala as per G.O.(MS) No.168/2010/ID dated

03.08.2010. Even after the abandonment of the project; the bank guarantee executed by the contractor was renewed

from time to time for a period of thirty months. The workman who was in charge of retaining the bank guarantee

and accordingly it was renewed at the instance of the Assistant General Manager(Finance) and the Manager Accounts.

The bank guarantee in relation to Chlorinator Phase II and Phase III was due to expire on 30.08.2010. Due to an

inadvertent omission/human error occurred in the computer, the due date for the renewal of the bank guarantee was

noted as 30.09.2010. This aspect was intimated to the superior officers as per office note dated 13.09.2010. The

superior officers failed to rectify the error. When the request for renewal was made to the Bank of India, Ahmedabad

branch, they declined to renew the same for the reason that the bank guarantee had expired one month prior to the date

of request for renewal. It was the Assistant General Manager (Finance) who is solely responsible for the failure to

renew the bank guarantee in time.

When the bank failed to renew the bank guarantee, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman

and one Shri. Raveendran, Accounts Officer. The management company placed the workman under suspension

w.e.f.01.10.2010 pending enquiry. A memo of charge dated 06.10.2010 was served on the workman to explain the

reason for causing loss to a tune of more than `72,37,966/- and thereby charges were framed against him for:

Damage to the company’s properties (clause XXX(1)4 of the standing orders.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5635

Dishonesty in connection with the company’s benefits and business Clause XXX(1)5

Non-observance of the duties and obligations during the working hours (clause XXXI 65 r/w.Clause 19(2).

10.

The workman submitted his explanation on 11.10.2010 and thereafter his suspension was revoked without

prejudice to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings/domestic enquiry and decision thereon.

11.

The management appointed Shri. A. Sudheer Bose, Advocate to conduct domestic enquiry in relation to the

charges levelled against the workman. The enquiry officer submitted report with the finding that the workman is guilty

of the charges levelled against him. The enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice and

without affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions. On receipt of the

enquiry report the disciplinary authority served a copy of the same, called for submissions from the workman and

thereafter passed an order dismissing the workman from service with immediate effect, treating the suspension period

as absence from duty and without wages and allowances. Thereafter the management issued another order

reserving their right to realize the sum of `72,37,966/- from the workman. Subsequently they issued an order forfeiting

the gratuity amount payable to the workman to compensate the loss to the company.

12.

Thereafter the workman submitted an appeal before the Board of Directors of the management company which

also ended in dismissal. The union had agitated the matter before the competent authority for adjudication of the

dispute between the management and the workman. In the meantime the workman preferred ID No. 28/2013 for the

redressal of his grievance after exhausting remedy before the conciliation officer.

13.

The union has stated that the action of the management is illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural

justice and fair play. Therefore the union has requested to set aside the dismissal order and the order for recovery of

amount from the workman and to reinstate him with all benefits.

14.

The averments in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-

The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the union except those that are

specifically admitted. The workman involved in this reference will not come under the purview of Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management company through its consultant MECON, invited tender for the

purpose of engineering, procurement, manufacturing, supply, transportation, fabrication, unloading of the material at

site, erection, storage, site fabrication etc. for testing and commissioning Chlorinators for the company at Kollam.

M/s. Oriental Manufacturers Ltd (Contractor) having Head Office at Vadodara, Gujarat was assigned the work to be

executed for the management company. On 22.03.2006 the management company issued letter of award and work

order to the contractor. The contract value was `3,00,12,012/-. As per clause 5.1.1 of the work order the management

has to pay an amount equal to 20% of the contract value i.e., `57,37,366/- as advance payment against the bank

guarantees to be furnished by the contractor. So also the contractor should furnish bank guarantee to a tune of 5% of

the total contract price towards security deposit. On furnishing the bank guarantees, the management paid a sum of

`57,37,366/- to M/s. Oriental Manufacturers Ltd. as advance payment. As per the stipulations in the contract, the work

has to be executed within eight months from the date of the letter of acceptance. As per G O (MS) No.15/2008/ID

dated 25.01.2008 the Government decided to cancel the major expansion project and thereby the contract became

frustrated. As requested by the management company the bank guarantee furnished by the contractor was renewed

from time to time and it was not renewed after 30.08.2010. The non-renewal of bank guarantee furnished by the

contractor was due to the fault on the part of the workman. The workman was bound to ensure timely renewal of the

bank guarantee and thereby the management suffered loss to a tune of `57,37,366/- paid as advance against the

bank guarantee and also `15,00,600/- furnished as security deposit. The workman was responsible for the loss

occasioned to the management company for the failure on his part to renew the bank guarantee in time.

15.

The management called for explanation from the workman and his explanation was not satisfactory and hence

ordered domestic enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry after affording reasonable and

fair opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions. The enquiry officer conducted a joint domestic enquiry

against the workman and one Shri. K. Raveendran, Accounts Officer. The enquiry officer submitted report on

17.12.2010 with the finding that the workman is responsible for the non-renewal of bank guarantees and his act

constitutes misconduct of negligence in performance of duty and thereby causing loss to the management company

which is accountable to the Government for such a huge loss.

16.

On receipt of the enquiry report, the management complied all the statutory requirements and thereafter issued an

order with the proposed punishment. The workman made his submissions and thereafter the disciplinary authority

passed an order terminating the workman from services. The appellate authority also considered the submissions made

by the workman and disposed the appeal. The contention of the workman that he is not responsible for the renewal of

bank guarantees is false and incorrect. The management has stated that the company decided to release the terminal

benefits due to the workman on humanitarian grounds. The management has requested to consider the validity of the

domestic enquiry as a preliminary point and sought permission to adduce evidence and prove the charges against the

workman. They have requested to uphold their contentions.

5636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

After filing written statement by the management, the union filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the

claim statement.

18.

When the matter was posted for preliminary enquiry, the learned counsel for the union relinquished the vakalath.

Subsequently the union was called absent and set ex-parte. Thereafter the workman appeared in person and at his

request, as per the order in IA 165/2015 dated 10.03.2016; he was added as an additional party to this reference.

Thereafter the workman filed a separate claim statement reiterating the contentions in the claim statement filed by the

union. The management also filed additional written statement reaffirming their stand in the written statement filed

earlier.

19.

Thereafter opportunity was afforded to the parties to take steps. The management produced enquiry file and

examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and the enquiry file was marked as Ext.M1.

20.

The validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as the preliminary point. As per the Preliminary Order dated

23.06.2016 the domestic enquiry conducted by the management in relation to the charges levelled against the

workman was found to be valid, just and proper. Thereafter opportunity was afforded to the parties to make their

submissions. The workman appeared in person and argued his case vehemently. The learned counsel appearing for the

management made submissions and the matter was heard in detail.

21.

The points arising for consideration are:-

“(i) Whether the action of the management of the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. in dismissing Shri K.

Sivankutty Nair from their service for the alleged misconduct w.e.f.07.07.2011 is correct?

(ii)

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

22.

Point No.(i):-

The workman involved in this reference, Shri Sivankutty Nair. K. was initially appointed as

Accountant Grade II in the Titanium Dioxide Pigment unit of the management company w.e.f.19.06.1985.

Subsequently he was promoted as Accountant Grade I and later as - Senior Grade Accountant. The workman was in

charge of Project Accounts and miscellaneous bills in favour of the company w.e.f.15.05.2006, for the various works

undertaken by the company. Admittedly the management company entered into a contract with one M/s.Oriental

Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat (contractor) for the purpose of executing the work as per the office letter of award

No.01/51/1073/PKG-064A dated 22.03.2006 and work order No.01-51-1073/Pkg-64A dated 22.03.2006 was issued. In

accordance with the stipulations under clause 5.1.1 of the contract, the management company obtained two bank

guarantees from Bank of India, Ahmedabad branch issued at the instance of the contractor, for `57,37,366/- against

interest free advance amount to be paid by the company to the contractor and another bank guarantee for `15,00,600/-

towards security deposit for due performance of the contract. It is stated that as part of the obligation on the part of

the management company they released a sum of `57,37,366/- to the contractor on the strength of the bank guarantee

furnished by them. It is stated that the bank guarantee produced by the contractor was renewed from time to time.

23.

In the meantime the management company abandoned the project and a letter to that effect was issued to the

contractor with the approval of the Government of Kerala. Even after that the bank guarantee was renewed from time

to time for the reason that there was advance payment by the management to the contractor. The workman involved in

this reference has stated that the bank guarantee in relation to Chlorinator Phase-II and Phase III was due to expire on

30.08.2010 and an inadvertent omission/human error occurred. As a result the due date for the renewal of bank

guarantee was noted as 30.09.2010 in the computer. Subsequently, the management as per note dated 13.09.2010

requested the bank for renewal of the bank guarantee and the request was declined by the bank for the reason that the

term of bank guarantee expired on 30.08.2010.

24.

Thereafter the management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman and one Shri. Raveendran,

Accounts Officer. The management called for explanation from the concerned persons. According to the management

the explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory and hence they ordered domestic enquiry by appointing

an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry against the workman and Shri. Raveendran jointly and

submitted report with the finding, that the workman is guilty of the misconduct alleged. The management has stated

that the disciplinary authority complied all the statutory requirements and issued an order of dismissal of the workman

from service without prejudice to their right to realize the sum of `72,37,966/- being the loss occasioned to the

company on account of lapses/negligence/ misconduct on the part of the workman.

25.

The workman has stated that he is not responsible for the non-renewal of the bank guarantee in time. He has

stated that the Assistant General Manager(Finance) is solely responsible for the timely renewal of bank guarantee and

hence he shall not be proceeded even if there is any misconduct on his part.

26.

The management has stated that it was the duty and responsibility of the workman to renew the bank guarantees

in time and his failure to do so occasioned loss to a tune of `57,37,366/- and `15,00,600/- to the management company.

The management has further stated that the abandonment of the project and the reason for the abandonment by the

management company and decision to that effect by the Government of Kerala has nothing to do with the inaction on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5637

the part of the workman to renew the bank guarantees in time. They have stated that the workman is responsible for the

misconduct alleged against him and thereby caused huge loss to the company.

27.

At the time of hearing the workman appeared in person and submitted that he is not responsible for the timely

renewal of the bank guarantee and that he shall not be proceeded for the non-renewal of bank guarantees in time. The

learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman is responsible for the timely renewal of the bank

guarantee. It is stated that failure on the part of the workman to renew the bank guarantee in time occasioned loss to

the management company.

28.

At the stage of preliminary enquiry the workman cross-examined the enquiry officer (MW1) at length. MW1 has

stated that as per Exts.D3 and D5 documents marked in the enquiry, it is the responsibility of the workman who is the

senior accountant in the company to renew the bank guarantee in time.

29.

On going through the documents marked in the domestic enquiry as revealed from Ext.M1 enquiry file, it is seen

that it was the responsibility of the workman to take appropriate steps at the relevant time to renew the bank guarantees

especially for the reason that the management company had already advanced the sum of `57,37,366/- to the contractor

on the strength of the bank guarantee furnished by them. The workman cannot put the blame on the Assistant

General Manager(Finance) and evade the responsibility for the reason that the management had abandoned the project.

It is seen that during the domestic enquiry the workman cross-examined the management witness. The workman has

produced documents which are marked as Exts.D1 to D5 in the enquiry. From the documents marked in the enquiry

and the evidence adduced it is clear that the workman was solely responsible for the timely renewal of the bank

guarantee and his failure to perform duty occasioned considerable loss to the management company. In such

circumstance the decision of the management to dismiss him from services of the management w.e.f.07.07.2011 cannot

be said to be unjust; or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Therefore the point for consideration is

answered against the workman.

30.

Point No.(ii):-

In view of the finding on Point No.(i), the workman is not entitled to any of the relief

claimed as per this reference. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.

31.

In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. in

dismissing Shri. Sivankutty Nair. K, from their service for the alleged misconduct w.e.f.07.07.2011 is just, correct and

proper.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30^th day

of September, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

23.12.2015

Advocate Shri. A. Sudheer Bose

Exhibit for the workman

NIL

Exhibit for the management

Enquiry File

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ n

gqV~Vh xksYM ekbUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&43011@12@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2404.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

5638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-43011/12/2012-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 15^th NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 43/2012

I Party

II Party

Shri Wale Babu,

The Executive Director,

The Ex-General Secretary,

The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Limited,

HGM Staff & Employees Union,

Hutti - 584115

Hutti PO,

Raichur District.

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-43011/12/2012-IR(M) dated 21.09.2012 in exercise of the powers

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

this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Hutti Gold Mines Co. Limited (HGML)in not paying the

arrears from 01.04.2006 in terms of settlement dated 03.05.2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have been

sent for both parties. None appeared for the I party and I party also called absent. In fact, notice of hearings have been

sent to the I party by RPAD through the Department of Posts, India and also acknowledgment received regarding the

receipt of the notice by the I Party. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I party and also, I party is

called, absent.

On perusal of records already notices have been sent and, the said notices have been served to both the parties

and the RPAD acknowledgment cards have been received by this Tribunal. Hence, it is found that inspite of giving

sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I party has not made any appearance. In

such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of entire records brought on record.

Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I

party has no interest to contest the present matter, inspite of the service of notices of hearing to the I party. It is for the

I party to make out a case that I party is entitled to the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a

mistake by denying the said benefits. Further, on behalf of the 2^nd party, M R C Ravi Advocate of the 2^nd Party,

reported that the 2^nd party has not violated any provisions of the Rules and also, already granted all the legitimate

benefits to the I party and also, as per the provisions of law, the relevant benefits have been granted by the 2^nd Party.

Under the above mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate

award, after the perusal of materials available on record.

Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has been

made out by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in

view the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party

by way of RPAD and the conduct of I Party in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal

clear that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above

mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution and no

useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.

AWARD

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 15^th November, 2016)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5639

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e 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;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30015@3@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 30.11.2016.

[No. L-30015/3/2005-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No.CGIT-2/45 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

The Chairman & Managing Director

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 038.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Mumbai ShramikSangh

Sangursh, Quarry Road

Bhandup (W)

Mumbai 400 078.

Shri Mahesh M. Bhosale & 14 Ors.

C/o. Babu Sadashiv Shetty

Shastri Nagar, Vasinaka R.C. Marg

Chembur, Mumbai 400 074

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Mr. L.L. D’Souza, Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 3^rd October, 2016.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L-30015/3/2005-IR (M), dated

13.01.2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

5640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the contract between the contractor and the HPCL is sham and bogus and is a camouflage to

deprive the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit ‘A’ from the benefits available to permanent

workers of the HPCL?”

“Whether the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit ‘A’ should be declared as permanent workers and

wages and consequential benefits be paid to them”

Annexure A

Name of the workers:

Mahesh M. Bhosale

Dhanaji Y. Kokare

Jamil Y. Shaikh

Moreshwar A. Patil

Hansbahadur Naval Singh

Jasim Husain Mulla

Sahebrao Patil

Sanjay S. Nikalje

Vijay S. Nikalje

10.

Tatoba K. Kamble

11.

Balasaheb B. Thorat

12.

Dadasaheb B. Jare

13.

Sudhir P. Shinde

14.

Ramakant P. Gawale

15.

Babu S. Shetty

After restoration of the Reference on 23/02/2012, evidence of Workman witness was recorded and the matter was

fixed for cross-examination of workman witness-2. Today the 14 concerned workmen represented by Mr.

UmeshNabar and Representative of Management, Mr. L.L.D’Souza filed Consent Terms (Ex-38) and prayed to dispose

of the Reference as the dispute is settled amicably out of court. Orders were passed on Ex-38. Accordingly I pass the

following order:

ORDER

In view of consent terms (Ex-38), Reference stands dismissed.

Date: 03.10.2016

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Ex. -38

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

REFERENCE CGIT II 45 OF 2005

Chairman & Managing Director,

Hindustan Petroleum & Corporation Ltd.

…First Party

V/s.

Shri Mahesh M. Bhosale & 14 Others

…Second Party

CONSENT TERMS

It is submitted that the parties to the above Reference i.e. First Party M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited and Second Party i.e. Mahesh M. Bhosale& 13 Others, have arrived at an amicable Out of Court Settlement . A

detailed list of I 4 contract workmen who have entered into Out of Court Settlement with the First Party is detailed in

Attachment- 1 of the said MOU i.e. Out of Court Settlement dated 23/09/2016. A copy of Out of Court Settlement, is

annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-I.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5641

It is submitted that though the First Party had no Employer-Employee nexus or relationship with Second Party

Contract workmen and thus First Party was not liable under any law, in any respect to provide work and payment of

any compensation to them. However, in order to amicably resolve the present dispute expeditiously, the said Out of

Court Settlement has been signed between said contract workmen and the First Party on following terms:

It has been agreed that the First Party would continue the services of concerned contract workmen through

contractor(s) for performing the contractual obligation at its Establishment at HP Nagar Housing Complex

(East & West), Mumbai, till attaining the age of their superannuation i.e. 60 years, save and except

misconduct.

It has been agreed that the First. Party after adhering to the purchase procedures of the Corporation would

appoint independent contractors and would specify in the tender conditions the mutually agreed terms for

continuation of the said contract workmen under the respective contractors at its Establishment at HP Nagar

Housing Complex (East & West), Mumbai, for performing the contractual obligations as detailed in the

Memorandum of Understanding for Out of Court Settlement.

It has been agreed that the Second Party Contract workmen, would withdraw their claim of regularization

raised in instant reference case pending before this Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal and also agreed to relinquish

their claim of regularization and wages at par with regular workmen.

It has been agreed that in the event of indiscipline or misbehavior or any misconduct committed by said

contract workmen, the respective contractor engaged at the relevant point of time, would have the right to

take disciplinary action including discontinuation of these workmen, after adhering to due process of law.

It has been agreed that said contract workmen would be paid an additional fixed allowance of Rs. 7020/-

p.m. over and above the applicable minimum wages payable in their respective category by the concerned

Contractors. The aforesaid fixed allowance would be revised on 1' January of each calendar year and

incremental revision@ 3% of such additional allowance paid as of 31 December of the previous calendar

year, would be paid to the contract workmen which would be deemed to be the revised fixed additional

allowance for the particular calendar year, subject to minimum attendance of 180 days during the

preceding year.

It has been agreed that irrespective of the fact of the respective contractors may be having their

independent code under PF, the contribution in respect of said contract workmen would be deposited

through the Corporations separate code allotted for the contract labourers engaged across Corporations

locations.

It has been agreed that consequent to the additional fixed allowance of Rs. 7,020/- per month, the said

contract workmen would be entitled to receive applicable bonus amount @ 8.33% of actual wages,

irrespective of the fact that the gross wage exceeds Rs. 21,000/- per month or the limit as declared by the

Appropriate Authority under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 from time to time.

It has been agreed that since consequent to the payment of additional fixed allowance of Rs. 7020/- per

month over & above the applicable minimum wages, the contract workmen would not be entitled for

coverage under ESI Act, a comprehensive Workmen Compensation Policy as well as Medical Insurance

Policy would be taken by the Corporation as a Principal Employer on behalf of these workmen for

covering them along with their dependent family members (dependent parents, spouse & children)

whereby the Contractor, as the Employer would contribute an amount equivalent to 4.75% of the wages

payable to these workmen and the workmen would contribute 1.75% of their wages which would be

deducted from the wages payable to the workmen towards coverage under Comprehensive Medical

Insurance Scheme. It has been agreed that till the time such comprehensive insurance policy is being

undertakenby the Corporation as the Principal Employer, the contract workmen would continue to be

covered under the Employees State Insurance Act and remittance to that effect would be made by the

concerned Contractors.

It has been agreed that upon attaining the age of superannuation (60 year), the applicable gratuity, would be

disbursed to the respective contract workmen, for their services through various contractors in the

Corporation’s location. It is submitted that for the purpose of calculating gratuity, the date of joining the

services would be reckoned effective the date of filing of the Writ Petition No. 942 of 1998 as detailed in

Attachment- 1 of the said MOU i.e. Out of Court Settlement.

It has been agreed by Second Party contract workmen that in future no dispute / claim / demand of

whatsoever nature, monetary or non-monetary, shall be raised by them before any Court of law under issue

of permanency / regularization in the services of the First Party.

5642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It has been agreed that said Second Party contract workmen agree and undertake to irretrievably forgo their

claim for regularization / permanency in the services of the First Party's Corporation and / or wages at par

with regular workmen with consequential benefits.

The said contract workmen agreed and accepted that with these consent terms, all their claims as against

the First Party arising out of the pending disputes/ claims before all other Courts /Authorities / Forums in

respect of their employment, have been fully resolved and the said contract workmen accept the same.

The Second Party contract workmen have agreed to indemnify and keep indemnified and save harmless the

First Party, its Directors and Officers from any claim of any nature whatsoever from any of these workmen

/ their legal heirs against the First Party Corporation.

It has been agreed flat the Second Party contract workmen covered under the instant Reference shall not

cite the said MOU i.e. Out of Court Settlement, arrived at between the parties under the present facts and

circumstances of the case in order to amicably resolve the matter, before any competent court of law / tribunal /

authority for seeking wages and benefits at par with regular employees or otherwise, for present or in future at any

stage or in any proceedings involving any other employee/ s or contract employees.

It has been agreed and understood by and between the parties that the said contract workmen, to whom the benefit

of continuity as contract workmen under the respective contractors at the Corporations Establishment at HP Nagar

Housing Complex (East & West), Mumbai, has been extended, shall not resort to any agitation, stage

demonstration / coercive picketing or indulge in any other act against the Corporation or its officers affecting the

working of the Corporation in support of their any or alleged demands of permanency / regularization in the

employment of the Corporation / parity of wages along with regular workmen of the Corporation or whatsoever

nature and indeed no such demand shall hereinafter be made in future.

It has been agreed that the financial benefits arising out of said settlement would be paid effective

1/4/2011 onwards. However, while calculating the arrears, the incremental revision a @ 30/o of additional

fixed allowance would not be calculated and such incremental revision would be payable with prospective

effect, i.e. effective January 2015 onwards.

It has been agreed that the benefit accruing out of the settlement entered between the First Party and

Second Party contract workmen shall be binding as to full and final settlement of all claims / demands of

whatsoever nature as may be conceived under any law arising out of their engagement / non-'engagement

in the Establishment of the First Party through the contractors or otherwise.

It is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the Parties, Second Party agree to forgo the claim

for regularization and wages at par with regular employees for all the workmen for whom they have espoused the cause

and raised the instant Industrial Dispute. The Second Party also categorically forgo any claim of monetary /

regularization or any other kind of benefit whatsoever nature in respect of the contract workmen, save & except the

benefits which has been amicably agreed upon in the Out of Court Settlement entered with the Second Party contract

workmen.

It is submitted that in view of above, the parties i.e. the First Party as well as Second Party Contract Workmen

humbly pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dispose off the present Reference.

Signed on this day of 3^rd of October, 2016 at Mumbai

Sd/-

Lancy D’Souza

Surinder Kumar

(Advocate for the first party)

(HPCL)

Sd/-

(UmeshNabar)

Advocate of Second Party

For and on behalf of Second Party

Sd/-

Mahesh M Bhosale

Sd/-

Dhanaji Y. Kokare

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5643

Sd/-

Jamil Y. Shaikh

4. Sd/-

Moreshwar A. Patil

5. Sd/-

Hansbahadur N. Singh

6. Sd/-

Kasim Hussain Mulla

7. Sd/-

Sahebrao Patil

8. Sd/-

Sanjay S. Nikalje

9. Sd/-

Vijay G. Nikalje

10. Sd/-

Balasaheb B. Thorat

11. Sd/-

Dadasaheb B. Jare

12. Sd/-

Prakash Parab

13. Sd/-

Ramakant P. Gawale

14. Sd/-

Babu S. Shetty.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 53@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh g]S tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.12.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

5644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 14^th day of September, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 53/2007

Between :

Sri Goli Ravinder,

S/o Posham,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

IK & CHNR Area,

Adilabad District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ch-2 Incline, IK & CHNR Area,

Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Goli Ravinder, who worked as Badli filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/5711 dated 8.8.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service

duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits

etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler at IK-1 incline and later he was transferred to CHNR-2 incline vide

order No.I/P/PER/008/2004/1548 dt. 30.7.2004 and joined in duty on 7.12.2005 at CHNR-2 incline. From the date of

appointment he was regular in his duties till the year 2003. During that period the Petitioner suffered with severe back

pain and other health family problems. The Petitioner has also met with a road accident and admitted in the area

hospital, RKP with his spinal pain and was under sick from 29.1.2002 to 24.7.2003. During this period the Petitioner

was referred to CMO, Kothagudem for further treatment and referred back to RKP area hospital. The Petitioner has

also taken treatment of physio therapy for a period of 40 days and thereafter he was once again referred to KGM main

hospital. Even thereafter, there was no improvement, the Petitioner’s well wishers advised him to take treatment at

Government hospital, Peddapalli, as expert Doctors are available there for spinal problems. The Petitioner believed the

version of his well wishers and taken treatment there, but his health condition was not improved. The Petitioner was

further referred to Corporate Medical Board and was not relieved from back pain and he went to various hospitals at

Hyderabad for early recoup. In this process, the Petitioner undergone severe spinal pain and sustained huge financial

loss. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated 7.7.2005 was issued by the Respondents alleging that the

Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2004, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order

No.25.31. Subsequently, inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any

opportunity much less valid in nature to putforth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer a show cause notice dated

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5645

8.2.2006 was issued and subsequently the Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 14.8.2006 vide proceedings

dated 8.8.2006. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated that his

inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2004 was only on account of his recurrent spinal problem and

due to his illhealth and for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions,

the Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 14.8.2006 vide office order dated 8.8.2006. It is also stated that the

action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of

principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 7 years of continuous service in the Respondents’

management. the Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically but the management did

not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned

order No.SRP/PER/13.008/5711 dated 8.8.2006 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the

same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant

benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with averments in brief as

follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

has been dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly

following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed on 8.12.2005 and had fully

participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The

enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence

adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the

Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of

show cause notice No.CH-2/R4/2006/327 dated 8.2.2006 giving an opportunity to make representation against the

findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature,

punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry

proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly,

the Respondent No.1 was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was

irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the

show cause notice on 8.6.2004. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal

and as such the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 26.3.2009, in view

of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Goli Ravinder is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.1: During the course of argument, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted

that due to illness, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. It is also contended that the Petitioner

met with a severe accident for which he was given treatment in several hospitals including the company hospital and

due to his ill-health he could not be able to attend his duties regularly. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has

mentioned the fact of his illness but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry. But on account of

absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has

taken a stand that due to illness he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority

should have considered his case while imposing punishment. But, the authority has given capital punishment to the

Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondent company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous, remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness the

Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty. During the time of his illness the Petitioner has been admitted in

several hospitals for his recovery. The Petitioner has also faced an accident during the period of his absence from

5646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

duty. In fact, due to illness the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated for his

absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this,

capital punishment has been imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to

provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court

and is ready to provide bread and butter to his family members. When he has already realised his mistake one chance

should be given to him for reinstatement into service. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the

management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment

imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action of

the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Goli Ravinder is not legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Goli Ravinder is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already

realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance

to serve for his family members. Now, after dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the

sole earning member of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances, atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondent’s management. But as the Petitioner has not come to the court in time he is not entitled to get the relief as

claimed in his petition. But he is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

It is ordered that the workman Sri Goli Ravinder be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in

Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company

Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed

to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall

have to maintain minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and the management shall have the right to review the

work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three

months, the service of the workman will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry. The management shall

consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s

hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of

work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 14^th day of

September, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2016

dk-vk- 2407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2016

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5647

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2016

S.O. 2407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.12.2016.

[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 30^th day of September, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 58/2007

Between :

Sri Gowda Krishna,

S/o Late G. Rajaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The Project Officer,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

IK & CHR Mines, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Chennur-2 Incline, Srirampur,

Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Gowda Krishna, who worked as Badli filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/2983 dated 30.5.2005 issued by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service

duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits

etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler vide office order dated 6.2.2002 and on completion of training he

was posted to work at Srirampur Area vide office order dated 16.5.2002 and posted to work at Chennur-2 Incline.

During the year 2003 the Petitioner suffered ill-health and other family problems. He has taken treatment at the

company’s hospital and also at other private hospitals. The Petitioner used to attend his duties by undertaking journey

from Jawaharnagar to Chennur as he is residing in company’s allotted quarter at Jawaharnagar, Godavarikhani. This

arduous journey also caused severe health disorder to the Petitioner. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated

25.5.2004 was issued by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2003, which

5648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 17, 2016/AGRAHAYANA 26, 1938 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and

during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to putforth his

grievances. But basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and also basing on

the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer a show cause notice was issued and subsequently the Petitioner was

dismissed from service w.e.f. 1.6.2005 vide office order dated 30.5.2005. It is stated that during the course of the

enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2003

was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but

without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 1.6.2005 vide office order

dated 30.5.2005. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Petitioner from

service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 3 years

of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his

case sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to

approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. SRP/PER/13.008/2983 dated 30.5.2005 issued by the

Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate

the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with averments in brief as

follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

has been dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly

following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the enquiry and had fully participated in the

enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was

conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the

Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was

proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause

notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge

levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from

service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there

was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1 was constrained to dismiss the

Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his

attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice on 30.10.2004. It is further stated

that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be dismissed in

limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 23.1.2010, in view

of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gowda Krishna is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.1: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to his mother’s illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty

sincerely. It is also contended that the Petitioner was suffering from ill-health and as such, he could not be able to

attend his duties regularly. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the fact of his illness but it has not

been considered during the course of the enquiry. But on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from

service has been imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to illness he could not be

able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case but, without

considering any of the submissions of the Petitioner, the authority has passed one cryptic and unreasoned order and has

given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s

Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 17] 2016@vxzgk;.k 26] 1938

5649

by the Respondent company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous, remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness the

Petitioner could not be able to regular in his duty. In fact, due to illness the Petitioner has remained absent in his

duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the

charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment has been imposed. After dismissal

of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has

already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the Tribunal and is ready to provide bread and butter to his family

members. When he has already realised his mistake atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into

service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a

first offender. His past conduct has not been considered before imposing punishment. While imposing capital

punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family

members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it

can safely be stated that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri

Gowda Krishna is not legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Gowda Krishna is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has

already realised his mistake and has come to the Tribunal with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be

given a chance to serve for his family members. Now, after dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and

he being the sole earning member of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances, atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondents’ management. But, in the circumstances stated above, the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as

claimed in his petition. But the Petitioner is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

It is ordered that the workman Sri Gowda Krishna be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in