5808 GI/2016
(5747)
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- 53]
ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 25—fnlEcj 31] 2016] 'kfuokj@ ikS"k 4—ikS"k 10] 1938
No. 53]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 25—DECEMBER 31, 2016, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 4—PAUSA 10, 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)
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता मामले
मामले
मामले
मामले, , , , खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
(उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग)
(भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यूरो
रोरो
रो)
नई द ली, 20 दस बर, 2016
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 2450
2450
2450
2450.— भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम,
1988
के िविनयम 6 के उपिविनयम (3) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक यूरो ,rn~}kjk नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए उ पाद क! मुहरांकन शु क अिधसूिचत करता है :
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
भारतीय
मानक
सं या
भाग
अनु.
भाग
वष
उ पाद
इकाई
यूनतम मुहरांकन
शु क (.)
इकाई दर
लैब 1
( .)
लैब म
इकाईयां
इकाई
दर
लैब 2
( .)
लैब 2
म
इकाई
यां
इकाई
दर
लैब 3
( .)
लैब 3 म
इकाईयां
चालन ितिथ
वृहद
तर
MSME
252
-
-
2013
कािटक सोडा
एक
टन
58000
47000
15.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
868
-
-
1990
सी%लग म'म
100
(क. *ा.
58000
47000
20.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1551
-
-
1991
टाइपराइटर' के िलए
काब न कागज
100
का एक
संदूक
51000
41000
0.36
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1746
-
-
1992
जूता पािलश, पेट
1 (क.
*ा.
76000
61000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13213
-
-
1991
पॉिलयू2रथेन, पूण चमक
वाला इनैमल (दो पैक)
100
िलटर
80000
64000
48
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15573
-
-
2005
पॉलीऐयुिमिनयम
5लोराइड
1 मी.
टन
57000
46000
10
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
261
-
-
1982
कॉपर सफ़ेट
1 टन
53000
43000
35.35
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1221
-
-
1991
फाऊनटेन पैन क9 याही –
रंग आधा2रत
1
िलटर
59000
48000
0.17
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11087
-
-
1986
अ>र पहचान चु?बक9य
याही वाले चैकके मु@ण के
कागज
1 टन
59000
48000
43.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
341
-
-
1973
काला जापान टाइप ए,
बी और सी
1
िलटर/
1 (क.
*ा
90000
72000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1061
-
-
1997
(फनोिलक टाईप
रोगाणुनाशी वाह
1
(कलो
िलटर
72000
58000
43.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1065
-
-
1989
Bली%चग पाउडर, टेबल
एक
टन
50000
40000
8.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
10758
-
-
1983
िड-ओडोराइ%जग व
क9टाणुनाशक @व
100
िलटर
62000
50000
8.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
427
-
-
2013
अपि>त रंग के शुDक
िडसट?पर
1
िलटर/
1 (क.
*ा
68000
55000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6956
-
-
2001
आवरण कागज
1 टन
63000
51000
55
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2653
-
-
2004
िडBबी बंद िनरापद
(दयासलाई
10000
संदूक
48000
39000
8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2730
-
-
1977
मैEीिशयम सफेट
(Epsom नमक)
1 टन
50000
40000
25
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12766
-
-
1997
कागज, क?Fयूटर
1000
शीGस
68000
55000
0.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
158
-
-
2015
तेजाब, >ार और ताप
ितरोधी, काला
िबटिमनस, Iुश से योग
हेतू तैयार िमिJत रंग
रोगन
1
िलटर/
1 (क.
*ा
60000
48000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
164
-
-
2015
सड़क िचहांकन के िलए
िमिJत रंग
1
िलटर/
1 (क.
*ा
64000
52000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
285
-
-
1992
कपड़े धोने का साबुन
1 टन
59000
48000
50
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
428
-
-
2013
धोने योKय िडटे?पर
1
िलटर/
1 (क.
*ा
68000
55000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15489
-
-
2013
रंग रोगन, Fलािटक
इमशन
100
िलटर
10500
0
84000
21
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5749
133
1
-
2013
इनैमल, भीतरी: (क)
अधलेपन (ख) प2रसOा –
भाग 1 घरेलू और
सजावटी योग के िलए
1
िलटर
72000
58000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
265
-
-
1993
हाइPो5लो2रक अ?ल
1 (क.
*ा
58000
47000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
266
-
-
1993
सलफु2रक एिसड
1 (क.
*ा
73000
59000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
915
-
-
2012
योगशाला Kलॉसवेयर –
एक – िचह वाली
आयतनी Qलाक
1
Qलाक
52000
42000
1.05
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1117
-
-
1975
एक अंक िपपेट
100
पीस
53000
43000
13.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1381
1
-
2003
योगशाला काँच सामान
– लघु *ीवा Tथन Qलाक
1 पीस
50000
40000
0.25
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1997
-
-
2013
योगशाला हेतु Kलॉसवेयर
– Bयूरेट
1 पीस
56000
45000
1.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5487
-
-
1992
धातु पािलश, तरल
1
(कलो
िलटर
57000
46000
51.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12254
-
-
1993
पालीिवनाइल 5लोराईड
औधोिगक जूते
1
जोड़ा
69000
56000
0.44
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2619
-
-
1993
काँच के बीकर
1 पीस
55000
44000
0.16
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1109
-
-
1980
बोरे5स
1 टन
53000
43000
85
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11673
-
-
1992
सोिडयम हाइपो5लोराइट
1
(कलो
िलटर
63000
51000
15
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1989
1
-
1986
चमड़े क9 बूट' और जूत'
क9 िविशिV भाग 2 भारी
धातु के उYोग' के िलए
1
जोड़ा
67000
54000
0.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1989
2
-
1986
चमड़े क9 बूट' और जूत'
क9 िविशिV भाग 2
खYान' के िलए
1
जोड़ा
68000
55000
0.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3736
-
-
1995
कैनवस के बूट, रबड़ सोल
1
जोड़ा
72000
58000
1.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5557
-
2004
औY'िगक और संर>ी रबड़
घुटना और टखना जूते
1
जोड़ा
95000
76000
0.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7532
-
-
1974
नरम साबुन
1 टन
70000
56000
34.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13209
-
-
1974
न िमटने वाली याही
1
िलटर
47000
38000
7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1069
-
-
1993
संचायक बैट2रय' के िलए
पानी क9 गुणता छूट
1
(कलो
िलटर
53000
43000
6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
251
-
-
1998
सोडा भम, तकनीक9
1 टन
47000
38000
1.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
711
-
-
1970
फे2रक 5लोराइड तकनीक9
1 टन
55000
44000
8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2142
-
-
1992
Iोमीन, तकनीक9
1 टन
51000
41000
51
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2933
1
-
2013
इनैमल, बाहरी: (क)
अधलेपन (ख) प2रसOा -
भाग 1 घरेलू और
सजावटी योग के िलए
1
िलटर
68000
55000
0.27
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2932
1
-
2013
इनैमल, संि[त, बाहरी
(क) अधलेपन (ख)
प2रसOा - भाग 1 घरेलू
और सजावटी योग के
िलए
1
िलटर
81000
65000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6911
-
-
1992
टैनलेस इपात क9 Fलेट,
चYर तथा पि\याँ
1 टन
96000
77000
12
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5531
-
-
2014
पानी और मल जल क9
दबाव पाइप' के ऐबेटॉस
सीमट के िलए ढलॅवा लोहे
के घटक
1 टन
77000
62000
17.30
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
21
-
-
1992
बत न िनमा ण के िलए
िपटवॉँ एयुिमिनयम और
एयुिमिनयम- िमJधातुऍँ
1 टन
64000
52000
160
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3975
-
-
1999
केिबस के कवच के िलए
अप
काब न
जतीकृत
इपात तार, आकृित तार
और टेप
1 टन
49000
40000
10.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
277
-
-
2003
जतीकृत इपात क9 चYर
(सादी एवं नालीदार)
1 टन
47000
38000
4.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1783
2
-
2014
बद िसरे वाले बड़े Pम -
भाग 2 *ेड बी Pम
1 Pम
60000
48000
1.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4923
-
-
1997
खोखले इपात के खंड
संरचना मक
योग
के
िलए
1 टन
74000
60000
8.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13997
-
-
2014
ऊपर से खुले बड Pम
1 Pम
53000
43000
1.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
210
-
-
2009
भूरे लोहे क9 ढलाईयां
1 टन
49000
40000
72
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2062
-
-
2011
त` बेिलत मaयम एवं
उb तयता के संरचना
इपात
1 टन
62000
50000
3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2831
-
-
2012
संरचना इपात (साधारण
गुणता) के पुनवcलन हेतू
काब न ढलवां इपात इंगट,
िबलेट, Bलूम एवं लैब
1 टन
46000
37000
3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2830
-
-
2012
सामाय संरचना इपात
हेतू पुनवcलन के िलए
काब न ढलवां इपात इंगट,
िबलेट, Bलूम एवं लैब
1 टन
49000
40000
3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5751
7887
-
-
1992
सामाय
इंजीिनयरी
योजन'
के
िलये
मृदुइपात तार स2रये
1 टन
66000
53000
3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1538
-
-
1993
पानी, गैस और मलजल के
िलये ढलवां लोहे के दाब
पाइप' क9 (फdटग
1 टन
62000
50000
41.35
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1875
-
-
1992
गढ़ाइय' के िलए काब न
इपात के िबलेट, Bलूम,
िसिलयाँ एवं छड़
1 टन
60000
48000
3.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9523
-
-
2000
पानी, गैस एवं मलजल
के िलये दाब पाइप हेतु
तद लोहे क9 (फdटग
1 मी.
टन
79000
64000
43.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
916
-
-
2000
चौकोर कनतर – ठोस
पदाथg के िलए
100
कनतर
58000
47000
8.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4270
-
-
2001
पानी के कुh म उपयोग के
िलए इपात निलकाएँ
1 टन
71000
57000
8.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9295
-
-
1983
पटटा कवेयर के िलए
आइडलर के इपात क9
निलयां
1 टन
61000
49000
8.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7903
-
-
2011
वiा(द – उb घन व
पोलीइथलीन बुने कपड़े से
बने ितरपाल
100
वग मी.
99000
80000
7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1422
-
-
1983
सूती डक
100
वग मी.
53000
43000
11.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15853
-
-
2009
वiा(द – वदjय' के िलए
पॉलीटर िमिJत बुनी
सूdटग
100
वग मी.
66000
53000
10.10
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2566
-
-
1993
वiा(द – अनाज भरने के
बी-िGवल पटसन के बोरे
1 टन
63000
51000
17.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12650
-
-
2003
वiा(द – 50 (क. *ा.
खाYाm पैक करने िलए
पटसन के बोरे
1 मी.
टन
59000
48000
17.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8391
-
-
1987
कुश%नग के िलए रबड़कृत
कयत (क शीट
1 टन
82000
66000
43.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
758
-
-
1988
हथकरघे पर बुने सूती
गॉज, अवरोशी, िनज म क
रिहत
100
वग मी.
47000
38000
12
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
863
-
-
1988
हथकरघे पर िनnमत सूची
बoडेज सूची, गैर-
100
वग मी.
47000
38000
16
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
175
-
-
1989
चYर के कपड़े, िबतर के
िलए मोटा धारोधार सूती
कपड़ा और चYर
100
मी.
87000
70000
14.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14928
-
-
2001
वiा(द
–
सि?मJण
संि[V रेश' (क रिसयॉँ
1 मी.
टन
47000
38000
300
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14929
-
-
2001
वiा(द – उb सामpय
पॉलीओलीफाइस
कोपालोमर क9 रिसयॉँ
1 मी.
टन
49000
40000
260
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2089
-
-
1977
आम ूqड कैनवास/ डक
तथा पोिलन (तारपोलीन)
सौ वग
मीटर
65000
52000
8.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5382
-
-
1985
गैस साधन, पानी के साधन
और नाली के िलए रबर
सील छले
एक
टुकड़ा
76000
61000
0.26
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15559
-
-
2004
पॉिलएटर rै%पग
सौ
(कलो
*ाम
49000
40000
25
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8887
-
-
2004
सड़को के िलए िबटूमेन
पायस (धनायिनक टाइप)
एक टन
94000
76000
49
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2396
-
-
1988
sधन के िवतरण के िलए
रबर क9 नली
सौ
मीटर
64000
52000
25.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
245
-
-
1988
rाइ5लोरोिथलीन,
तकनीक9
एक टन
52000
42000
25.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15410
-
-
2003
पैकेजबद खिनज जल और
पैकेजबद पेय जल क9
पैकेजबदी के िलए धारक
सौ
टुकढ़े
73000
59000
52
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7466
-
-
1994
ेशर कुकरो के िलए रबर
के गाकेट
सौ
गाकेट
74000
61000
1.75
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5753
10908
-
-
1991
@िवत पेrोिलयम गैस के
िलए रबड़ क9 न?य निलयाँ
सौ
मीटर
69000
56000
5.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1741
-
-
1960
लेटे5स फोम रबर उ पाद
एक टन
66000
51000
86
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4654
-
-
1993
पैरा(फन मोम
एक टन
56000
45000
13.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
702
-
-
1988
औtोिगक कोलतार
एक टन
63000
51000
17.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7933
-
-
1975
घरेलू गYे के िलए लचीला
फोम
एक
(कलो
*ाम
93000
75000
0.54
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
638
-
-
1979
चYर रबड़ जोड़ तथा रबड़
िनवेuय जोड़
एक टन
64000
52000
200
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3549
-
-
1983
रबड़ के पानी चूषण और
उ सज न के हौज , हैवी
vूटी
सौ
मीटर
89000
72000
161.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5430
-
-
1981
अमोिनया संरि>त क(@त
ाकृितक रबर लेटे5स
एक टन
(डी
आर सी
बेिसस)
57000
46000
51.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8654
-
-
2001
मोटर वाहन हाइPोिलक
Iेक @व, हैवी vूटी
एक
(कलो
लीटर
95000
76000
86
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1007
-
-
1984
कटड पाउडर
एक
(कलो
*ाम
50000
40000
0.18
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1008
-
-
2004
उबली wई चीनी क9
कोफे5शनरी
एक
(कलो
*ाम
56000
45000
0.18
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1011
-
-
2002
िबकुट
एक टन
51000
41000
8.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1051
-
-
1980
पाइरेxम स\
100
लीटर
61000
49000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1159
-
-
1981
बेyकग पाउडर
एक
(कलो
*ाम
46000
37000
0.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1165
-
-
2002
दूध का पाउडर
एक टन
80000
64000
40
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1251
-
-
1988
%ज़क फॉफाइड, तकनीक9
एक टन
47000
38000
97.95
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1319
-
-
1983
खाने योKय टैिपओका
टाच
एक टन
64000
52000
24
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1488
-
-
1989
क9टनाशक – 2, 4 – डी
सोिडयम लवण, तकनीक9
एक टन
57000
46000
285
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1507
-
-
1977
कॉपर ऑ5सी5लोराईड के
पानी म िछतराने वाले
पाउडर के सा@ क9
िविशिV
एक टन
49000
40000
196
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1656
-
-
2007
दुKध-अनाज आधा2रत
अनुपूरक आहार
एक टन
133000
107000
172.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1664
-
-
2002
खिनज िमJण, पशु आहार
का पूरक
एक टन
84000
68000
58.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1694
-
-
1994
टाrा िजन खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
63000
51000
1.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1698
-
-
1994
इंिडगो कारिमन, खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
62000
50000
1.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1806
-
-
1975
जौ िमिJत दूध आहार
एक टन
56000
45000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1824
-
-
1978
क9टनाशी सार े क9
िविशिV
100
लीटर
90000
72000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1825
-
-
1983
अलुमीिनयम अलॉइ दूध
कैन क9 िविशिV
1 कैन
62000
50000
2.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5755
1832
-
-
1978
मेलािथयान, तकनीक9 क9
एक टन
55000
44000
86.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1932
-
-
1986
पशुधन आहार घटक के
|प म सरस' एवं
रेFसीड खली
एक टन
69000
56000
16
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2358
-
-
1984
थायीकृत िमथो5सी
इथाइल मर5यूरी
5लोराइड (एम ई एम
सी) सां@ पर आधा2रत
फॉ?यु लेशस
एक टन
46000
37000
255.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2404
-
-
1993
माट सार
एक टन
64000
52000
20.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2558
-
-
1994
पाँसो 4 आर,
खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
65000
50000
1.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2567
-
-
1978
मेलािथयान
इमिस(फ़एबल सा@
100
लीटर
52000
42000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2568
-
-
1978
मेलािथयान पानी म
िछतराने वाले पाउडर
एक टन
51000
41000
60
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2569
-
-
1978
मेलािथयान के पानी म
िछतराने वाले पाउडर के
सा@
एक टन
64000
52000
160
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2785
-
-
1979
ाकृितक चीज़ (स}त
(कम), संकृत चीज़,
संकृत चीज़ ेड एवं
नरम चीज़
एक टन
50000
40000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2923
-
-
1995
काम~सीन, खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
65000
52000
1.45
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3383
-
-
1982
आ@ करणीय सफ़र
पाउडर
एक टन
54000
44000
45
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3899
-
-
1981
जीनेब का पानी म
िछतराने वाला पाउडर
एक टन
58000
47000
193.35
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3902
-
-
1975
डाईमेथोएट तकनीक9
एक टन
58000
47000
172.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3903
-
-
1984
डाईमेथोएट,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
100
लीटर
51000
41000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3906
-
-
1995
फसल संर>ण उपकर –
हतचािलत पीठ पर लादा
जाने वाला संपीडन
फुहारा, िपटन टाईप
एक
संपीडन
फुहारा
53000
43000
3.45
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4320
-
-
1982
थाइरम, तकनीक9
एक टन
48000
39000
250
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4467
-
-
1996
कैरामल
एक
(कलो
*ाम
75000
60000
0.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4766
-
-
1982
थाइरम का पानी म
िछतराने वाला पाउडर
एक टन
54000
44000
270
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5191
-
-
1993
सोिडयम एिजनेट, खाt
*ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
88000
71000
0.42
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5277
-
-
1978
डाई5लोरवॉस,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
100
लीटर.
54000
44000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5278
-
-
1969
डाईकोफॉल, तकनीक9
एक टन
46000
37000
306.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5279
-
-
1969
डाईकोफॉल,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
100
लीटर
49000
40000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5342
-
-
1996
एकोnबक अ?ल, खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
65000
52000
1.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5346
-
-
1994
संि[V खाt रंग –
िनिमि\याँ और िमJण
1
(कलो
*ाम
(पाउड
र), 1
(कलो
*ाम
(तरल)
के िलए
54000
44000
0.45
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5719
-
-
2005
िजले2टन, खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
68000
55000
0.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5757
6046
-
-
1982
कृिष उपयोग के िलये
िजFसम
एक मी.
टन
53000
43000
2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6385
-
-
1997
सैकरीन, खाt *ेड
एक
(कलो
*ाम
71000
57000
3.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6438
-
-
1980
ऐयुमीिनयम फॉफाइड
पाउडर फॉमु लेशन
एक टन
46000
37000
69.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6444
-
-
1979
सफर ड%टग पाउडर
एक टन
46000
37000
19
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7021
-
-
1973
िशशु एवं िवtा€यास के
पूव बb' के िलए ोटीन से
भरपूर खाt अनुपूरक
एक टन
80000
64000
20
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7948
-
-
1987
फेिथयन, इमिस(फ़एबल
सां@ (ईसी)
100
लीटर
47000
38000
200
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8025
-
-
1990
मोनोोटोफॉस, तकनीक9
एक टन
48000
39000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8028
-
-
1987
(Tनाफ़ोस,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
(ईसी)
100
लीटर
48000
39000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8074
-
-
1990
मोनोोटोफॉस एस एल
100
लीटर
49000
40000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8249
-
-
1994
%जक सफेट हेFटाहाइPेट,
कृिष *ेड
एक टन
54000
44000
17.3
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8291
-
-
1976
फेनथोएट, इमिस(फ़एबल
सां@
100
लीटर
47000
38000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8446
-
-
1991
क9टनाशक – काबc‚डाजीम
(एम बी सी) डBलू पी
एक टन
57000
46000
285
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8498
-
-
2013
टेमफोस, इमिस(फ़एबल
सां@ (ई.सी॰)
100
लीटर
48000
39000
38.40
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8707
-
-
2013
मेनकोजेब तकनीक9
एक टन
48000
39000
156
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8708
-
-
2006
मेनकोजेब आ@ करणीय
पाउडर
एक टन
53000
43000
265
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8944
-
-
2005
5लोरपाइरीफॉस, ई. सी.
100
लीटर
52000
42000
40
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8960
-
-
1978
िमथाइल पॅरािथओन,
ड%टग पाउडर
एक टन
50000
40000
50
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9354
-
-
1980
एले5लोर इमिस(फ़एबल
सां@
100
लीटर
52000
42000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9356
-
-
1980
Bयूटा5लोर,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
100
लीटर
52000
42000
38
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9359
-
-
1995
क9टनाशक - फोरेट जी
संपु2टत
एक टन
53000
43000
90
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9360
-
-
1980
काब~Qयूरान *ैयूल,
संपु2टत
एक टन
66000
53000
86.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9532
-
-
1980
च„ा एवं Jीखंड
एक टन
51000
41000
17.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9585
-
-
1980
लै5टोमीटर
एक
पीस
47000
38000
0.16
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9665
-
-
1981
ोपाक…युर,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
100
लीटर
59000
48000
118
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
10243
-
-
1993
2,4 - डी इथाईल एटर,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
(ईसी)
100
लीटर
49000
40000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11010
-
-
1984
ज़ाईरम कोलाइडल
सपेशन
100
लीटर
52000
42000
34.5
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5759
11536
-
-
2007
संकृत-अनाज आधा2रत
अनुपूरक आहार
एक टन
15500
0
12400
0
172.8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11785
-
-
1986
कॅपटन आ@ करणीय
पाउडर (डBलु पी)
एक टन
52000
42000
300
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11995
-
-
1987
आइसोोटूरॉन
आ@ करणीय पाउडर (डBलु
पी)
एक टन
53000
43000
345
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11997
-
-
1987
फेनवैलरेट,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
(ईसी)
100
लीटर
58000
47000
56
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12016
-
-
1987
साइपरमेिxन,
इमिस(फ़एबल सां@
(ईसी)
100
लीटर
48000
39000
69.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12337
-
-
1988
हत-चािलत उव रक
सारक
एक
सारक
46000
37000
1.38
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12751
-
-
1989
क9टनाशक – पडीमेथालीन
100
लीटर
59000
48000
70
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12786
-
-
1989
%सचाई उपकार —
%सचाई अमुय के िलए
पोलीएिथलीन पाइप
एक
(कलो
*ाम
89000
72000
0.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12912
-
-
1990
Iोमोडायोलोन आर बी
एक टन
49000
40000
449.2
8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12916
-
-
1990
एसीफेट एस पी
एक टन
46000
37000
728.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12931
-
-
1990
ऐrाज़ीन डBयू पी
100
(कलो
*ाम
53000
43000
43.2
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13428
-
-
2005
पैकेजबंद ाकृितक
िमनरल जल
1000
लीटर
125000
100000
20
6000
15
400
0
10
शेष
20 12 2016
13457
-
-
1992
क9टनाशक – डेटामेथ2रन
डBयू पी
एक मी.
टन
58000
47000
1,124.00
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13487
-
-
1992
%सचाई उपकर –
उ सज क
1000
उ सज
क
55000
44000
8.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13785
-
-
1993
क9टनाशक – डोिडन डBयू
पी
एक
(कलो
*ाम
55000
44000
2.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14151
(P-1 )
-
-
1999 %सचाई उपकर –
%कलर पाइप– भाग-1
: पािलएिथलीन पाइप
एक
(कलो
*ाम
10800
0
87000
0.18
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14158
-
-
1994
िसफ़लुिxन, घुलनशील
पाउडर
100
(कलो
*ाम
63000
51000
414.7
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14183
-
-
1994
क9टनाशक - कारतप
हाइPो5लोराइड
घुलनशील पाउडर
एक टन
53000
43000
792
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14411
-
-
1996
डेटामैथ2रन एफ
100
लीटर
48000
39000
62.4
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14510
-
-
1997
ले?बडा-साइहेलोिxन
घुलनशील पाउडर
एक
(कलो
*ाम
52000
42000
6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14543
-
-
2004
पैकेजबंद पेय जल
(पैकेजबंद ाकृितक
िमनरल जल के अलावा )
1000
लीटर
12800
0
10240
0
20
6000
15
400
0
10
शेष
20 12 2016
14552
-
-
1998
थीओफ़ेनेट िमथायल,
डBयू पी
एक
(कलो
*ाम
53000
43000
1.35
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14724
-
-
1999
जल प2रशोधक यं†-
पराबoगनी रोगाणुनाशक
सिहत
एक
पीस
87000
70000
9.6
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14743
-
-
1999
%सचाई उपकर -
हाईPोसाइ5लोन (फटर
एक
(फ़टर
68000
55000
8
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15160
-
-
2002
ेटीलाकलोर
इ?यूलसी(फयबल सां@
100
लीटर
47000
38000
22
2000
11
शेष
-
-
20 12 2016
15182
-
-
2002
ोपीकोनेज़ोल ई. सी॰
100
लीटर
49000
40000 130.00
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5761
[संदभ% : सीएमडी-2/जी -18]
ए. के. शमा%, वै+ािनक एफ एवं उपमहािनदेशक (माणन)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2016
S.O. 2450.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the product given
in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
15219
-
-
2002
एयूिमिनयम फाफाइड
पाउडर फोर?युलेशन
एक
(कलो
*ाम
46000
37000
1.1
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15227
-
-
2002
डेटामेxीन यू. एल. वी.
100
लीटर
47000
38000
115
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15236
-
-
2002
ोफेनोफोस+
साइपरमेिxन
इ?लसी(फयबल सां@
100
लीटर
57000
46000
124.20
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15335
-
-
2003
इमीडा5लोिड एस एल
100
लीटर
52000
42000
55.00
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15603
-
-
2005
अफ़ासाइपर-मेथ2रन,
डBलू. पी.
एक मी.
टन
68000
55000
170
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15757
-
-
2007
अनुस2रत फामू ला –
अनुपूरक आहार
एक मी.
टन
154000
124000
245
250
123
250
62
शेष
20 12 2016
15939
-
-
2011
क9टनाशक- बाइफेथरीन
आ@ करणीय पाउडर
एक
(कलो
*ाम
63000
51000
0.9
सभी
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum
Marking Fee (Rs.)
Unit
Rate
Slab-
1
Fee
(Rs.)
Units
in
Slab-
1
Unit
Rate
Slab-2
Fee
(Rs.)
Units
in
Slab-
2
Unit
Rate
Slab-
3 Fee
(Rs.)
Uni
ts
in
Sl
a
b-
1
Effective
Date
Large
Scale
MSME
252
-
-
2013
Caustic Soda
ONE
TONNE
58000
47000
15.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
868
-
-
1990
Sealing wax
100 KG
58000
47000
20.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1551
-
-
1991
Carbon papers for
typewriter
1 BOX
OF 100
51000
41000
0.36
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1746
-
-
1992
Shoe polish, paste
1 KG
76000
61000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13213
-
-
1991
Polyurethane full
gloss enamel (two
pack)
100 ltr
80000
64000
48
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15573
-
-
2005
Polyaluminium
chloride
1 MT
57000
46000
10
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
261
-
-
1982
Copper sulphate
1
TONNE
53000
43000
35.35
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1221
-
-
1991
Fountain Pen Ink -
Dye Based
1 LITRE
59000
48000
0.17
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11087
-
-
1986
Paper for magnetic
ink character
recognition cheque
printing
1
TONNE
59000
48000
43.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
341
-
-
1973
Black japan, Types
A, B and C
1
LITRE/1
KG
90000
72000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1061
-
-
1997
Disinfectant Fluids,
Phenolic Type
1 KILO
LITRE
72000
58000
43.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1065
-
-
1989
Bleaching Powder,
Stable
ONE
TONNE
50000
40000
8.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
10758
-
-
1983
De-odorising-cum-
disinfactant fluids
100
LITRES
62000
50000
8.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
427
-
-
2013
Distemper, Dry,
Colour as Required
1
LITRE/1
KG
68000
55000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6956
-
-
2001
Cover Paper
1
TONNE
63000
51000
55
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2653
-
-
2004
Safety Matches in
Boxes
10000
BOXES
48000
39000
8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2730
-
-
1977
Magnesium sulphate
(epsom salt)
1
TONNE
50000
40000
25
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12766
-
-
1997
Paper, computer
1000
SHEETS
68000
55000
0.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
158
-
-
2015
Ready Mixed Paint,
Brushing,
Bituminous, Black,
Lead-free, Acid,
Alkali And Heat
Resisting
1
LITRE/
1 KG
60000
48000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
164
-
-
2015
Ready Mixed Paint
for Road Marking
1
LITRE/1
KG
64000
52000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
285
-
-
1992
Laundry Soaps
1
TONNE
59000
48000
50
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
428
-
-
2013
Washable
Distemper
1
LITRE/1
KG
68000
55000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15489
-
-
2013
Paint, Plastic
Emulsion
100
LITRES
105000
84000
21
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
133
1
-
2013
Enamel, Interior :
(a) Undercoating (b)
Finishing
1 LITRE
72000
58000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
265
-
-
1993
Hydrochloric acid
1 KG
58000
47000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
266
-
-
1993
Sulphuric acid
1 KG
73000
59000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
915
-
-
2012
Laboratory
Glassware - One-
mark Volumetric
Flasks
1
FLASK
52000
42000
1.05
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1117
-
-
1975
One-mark pipettes
100
PIECES
53000
43000
13.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1381
1
-
2003
Laboratory
Glassware -
Narrow-Necked
Boiling Flasks
1 PIECE
50000
40000
0.25
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1997
-
-
2013
Laboratory
glassware - Burettes
1 PIECE
56000
45000
1.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5487
-
-
1992
Metal polish, liquid
1 KILO
LITRE
57000
46000
51.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12254
-
-
1993
Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) Industrial
ONE
PAIR
69000
56000
0.44
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5763
Boots
2619
-
-
1993
Glass Beakers
1 PIECE
55000
44000
0.16
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1109
-
-
1980
Borax
1
TONNE
53000
43000
85
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11673
-
-
1992
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Solution
1 KILO
LITRE
63000
51000
15
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1989
1
-
1986
Leather Safety
Boots and Shoes -
Part 1 : For Miners
1 PAIR
67000
54000
0.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1989
2
-
1986
Leather Safety
Boots and Shoes -
Part 2 : For Heavy
Metal Industries
1 PAIR
68000
55000
0.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3736
-
-
1995
Canvas boots,
rubber sole
1 PAIR
72000
58000
1.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5557
-
2004
Industrial and
Protective Rubber
Knee and Ankle
Boots
1 PAIR
95000
76000
0.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7532
-
-
1974
Soft Soap
1
TONNE
70000
56000
34.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13209
-
-
1974
Indelible ink
1 LITRE
47000
38000
7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1069
-
-
1993
Quality Tolerances
for Water for
Storage Batteries
1 KILO
LITRE
53000
43000
6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
251
-
-
1998
Soda ash, technical
1
TONNE
47000
38000
1.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
711
-
-
1970
Ferric chloride,
technical
1
TONNE
55000
44000
8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2142
-
-
1992
Bromine, technical
1
TONNE
51000
41000
51
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2933
1
-
2013
Enamel exterior (a)
undercoating, (b)
finishing
1 LITRE
68000
55000
0.27
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2932
1
-
2013
Enamel, Synthetic,
Exterior : (a)
Undercoating (b)
Finishing: Part 1 for
Domestic and
Decorative
Applications
1 LITRE
81000
65000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6911
-
-
1992
Stainless steel plate,
sheet and strip
1
TONNE
96000
77000
12
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5531
-
-
2014
Cast iron specials
for asbestos-cement
pressure pipes for
water, gas and
sewage
1
TONNE
77000
62000
17.30
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
21
-
-
1992
Wrought
Aluminium and
Aluminium Alloys
for Manufacture of
Utensils
1
TONNE
64000
52000
160
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3975
-
-
1999
Mild steel wires,
formed wires and
tapes for armouring
of cables
1
TONNE
49000
40000
10.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
277
-
-
2003
Galvanized Steel
Sheets (Plain and
Corrugated)
1
TONNE
47000
38000
4.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1783
2
-
2014
Drums, Large,
Fixed Ends - Part 2
Grade B Drums
ONE
DRUM
60000
48000
1.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4923
-
-
1997
Hollow steel
sections for
structural use
1
TONNE
74000
60000
8.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13997
-
-
2014
Drums, Large Open
Top
1 DRUM
53000
43000
1.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
210
-
-
2009
Grey Iron Castings
1
TONNE
49000
40000
72
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2062
-
-
2011
Hot Rolled Medium
and High Tensile
Structural Steel
1
TONNE
62000
50000
3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2831
-
-
2012
Carbon Steel Cast
Billet Ignots,
Billets, Blooms and
Slabs For Re-rolling
into Low Tensile
Structural Steel
(Ordinary Quality)
1
TONNE
46000
37000
3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2830
-
-
2012
Carbon steel cast
billet
ingots,billets,bloom
s and slabs for re-
rolling into steel for
general structural
purposes
1
TONNE
49000
40000
3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7887
-
-
1992
Mild steel wire rods
for general
engineering
purposes
1
TONNE
66000
53000
3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1538
-
-
1993
Cast iron fittings for
pressure pipes for
water, gas and
sewage
1
TONNE
62000
50000
41.35
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1875
-
-
1992
Carbon steel billets,
blooms, slabs and
bars for forgings
1
TONNE
60000
48000
3.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9523
-
-
2000
Ductile Iron Fittings
for Pressure Pipes
for Water, Gas and
Sewage
1 MT
79000
64000
43.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
916
-
-
2000
Square Tins for
Solid Products
100
TINS
58000
47000
8.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4270
-
-
2001
Steel Tubes Used
for Water Wells
1
TONNE
71000
57000
8.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9295
-
-
1983
Steel tubes for idlers
for belt conveyors
1
TONNE
61000
49000
8.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7903
-
-
2011
Textiles -
Tarpaulines Made
From High Density
Polyethylene
Woven Fabric
100 SQ
METRE
99000
80000
7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1422
-
-
1983
Cotton duck
100 SQ
METRE
53000
43000
11.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15853
-
-
2009
TEXTILES –
Polyester Blended
Woven Suiting for
Uniforms
100 SQ
METRE
66000
53000
10.10
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2566
-
-
1993
Textiles - B-twill
jute bags for
packing food grains
1
TONNE
63000
51000
17.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12650
-
-
2003
Textiles - Jute Bags
for Packing 50 kg
Food grains
1 MT
59000
48000
17.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8391
-
-
1987
Rubberized Coil
Sheets for
Cushioning
1
TONNE
82000
66000
43.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
758
-
-
1988
Handloom Cotton
Gauze, Absorbent,
Non-Sterilized
100 SQ
METRE
47000
38000
12
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
863
-
-
1988
Handloom Cotton
Bandage Cloth,
Non-Sterilized
100 SQ
METRE
47000
38000
16
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
175
-
-
1989
Sheeting, Tickings
and Bed sheets
100
METRE
S
87000
70000
14.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14928
-
-
2001
Textiles -
Composite
Synthetic Fibre
Ropes
1 MT
47000
38000
300
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14929
-
-
2001
Textiles - High
Strength Polyolefins
Copolymer Ropes
1 MT
49000
40000
260
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2089
-
-
1977
Common proofed
canvas/duck and
paulins (tarpaulins)
100 SQ
METRE
65000
52000
8.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5382
-
-
1985
Rubber Sealing
Rings for Gas
1 PIECE
76000
61000
0.26
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5765
Mains, Water Mains
and Sewers
15559
-
-
2004
Polyester Strapping
100 KG
49000
40000
25
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8887
-
-
2004
Bitumen Emulsion
for Roads (Cationic
Type)
1
TONNE
94000
76000
49
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2396
-
-
1988
Rubber Hose for
Fuel Dispensing
100
METRES
64000
52000
25.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
245
-
-
1988
Trichloroethylene,
Technical
1
TONNE
52000
42000
25.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15410
-
-
2003
Containers for
Packaging of
Natural Mineral
Water and Packaged
Drinking Water
100
PIECES
73000
59000
52
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7466
-
-
1994
Rubber gaskets for
pressure cookers
100
Gaskets
74000
61000
1.75
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
10908
-
-
1991
Flexible Rubber
Tubing for
Liquefied Petroleum
Gas
100
METRE
S
69000
56000
5.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1741
-
-
1960
Latex foam rubber
products
1
TONNE
66000
51000
86
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4654
-
-
1993
Paraffin wax
1
TONNE
56000
45000
13.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
702
-
-
1988
industrial bitumen
1
TONNE
63000
51000
17.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7933
-
-
1975
Flexible
Polyurethane Foam
for Domestic
Mattresses
1 KG
93000
75000
0.54
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
638
-
-
1979
Sheet Rubber
Jointing and Rubber
Insertion Jointing
1
TONNE
64000
52000
200
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3549
-
-
1983
Water Suction and
Discharge Hose of
Rubber, Heavy Duty
( Covers IS 2410 :
1963 Also )
100
METRE
S
89000
72000
161.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5430
-
-
1981
Ammonia Preserved
Concentrated
Natural Rubber
Latex
1
TONNE
(DRC
Basis)
57000
46000
51.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8654
-
-
2001
Automotive
Hydraulic Brake
Fluid, Heavy Duty
1 KILO
LITRE
95000
76000
86
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1007
-
-
1984
Custard Powder
1 KG
50000
40000
0.18
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1008
-
-
2004
Sugar Boiled
Confectionery
1 KG
56000
45000
0.18
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1011
-
-
2002
Biscuits
1
TONNE
51000
41000
8.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1051
-
-
1980
Pyrethrum Extracts
100
LITRES
61000
49000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1159
-
-
1981
Baking Powder
1 KG
46000
37000
0.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1165
-
-
2002
Milk Powder
1
TONNE
80000
64000
40
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1251
-
-
1988
Zinc Phosphide,
1
47000
38000
97.95
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Technical
TONNE
1319
-
-
1983
Edible Tapioca
Starch
1
TONNE
64000
52000
24
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1488
-
-
1989
Pesticides - 2, 4-D
Sodium Salt,
Technical
1
TONNE
57000
46000
285
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1507
-
-
1977
Specification for
Copper Oxychloride
Water Dispersible
Powder
Concentrates
1
TONNE
49000
40000
196
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1656
-
-
2007
Milk-Cereal Based
Complementary
foods
1
TONNE
133000
107000
172.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1664
-
-
2002
Mineral Mixtures
for Supplementing
Cattle Feeds
1
TONNE
84000
68000
58.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1694
-
-
1994
Tartrazine, Food
Grade
1 KG
63000
51000
1.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1698
-
-
1994
Indigo Carmine,
Food Grade
1 KG
62000
50000
1.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1806
-
-
1975
Malted Milk Foods
1
TONNE
56000
45000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1824
-
-
1978
Specification for
Insecticidal Space
Spray
100
LITRES
90000
72000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1825
-
-
1983
Specification for
Aluminium Alloy
Milk Cans
1 CAN
62000
50000
2.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1832
-
-
1978
Specification for
Malathion,
Technical
1
TONNE
55000
44000
86.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
1932
-
-
1986
Mustard and Rape
Seed Oilcake as
Livestock Feed
Ingredient
1
TONNE
69000
56000
16
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2358
-
-
1984
Formulations Based
on Stabilized
Methoxy Ethyl
Mercury Chloride
(MEMC)
Concentrate
1
TONNE
46000
37000
255.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2404
-
-
1993
Malt Extract
1
TONNE
64000
52000
20.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2558
-
-
1994
Ponceau 4R, Food
Grade
1 KG
65000
50000
1.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2567
-
-
1978
Specification for
Malathion
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
52000
42000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2568
-
-
1978
Specification for
Malathion Dusting
Powders
1
TONNE
51000
41000
60
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2569
-
-
1978
Specificaion for
Malathion Water
Dispersible Powder
Concentrates
1
TONNE
64000
52000
160
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
2785
-
-
1979
Natural Cheese
(Hard Variety),
Processed Cheese,
Processed Cheese
1
TONNE
50000
40000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5767
Spread and Soft
Cheese
2923
-
-
1995
Carmoisine, Food
Grade
1 KG
65000
52000
1.45
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3383
-
-
1982
Wettable Sulphur
Powder
1
TONNE
54000
44000
45
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3899
-
-
1981
Specificaion for
Zineb Water
Dispersible Powders
1
TONNE
58000
47000
193.3
5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3902
-
-
1975
Dimethoate,
Technical
1
TONNE
58000
47000
172.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3903
-
-
1984
Dimethoate
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES.
51000
41000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
3906
-
-
1995
Crop Protection
Equipment - Hand-
operated Knapsack
Sprayer, Piston
Type
1
Sprayer
53000
43000
3.45
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4320
-
-
1982
Thiram, Technical
1
TONNE
48000
39000
250
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4467
-
-
1996
Caramel
1 KG
75000
60000
0.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
4766
-
-
1982
Thiram Water
Dispersible Powders
1
TONNE
54000
44000
270
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5191
-
-
1993
Sodium Alginate,
Food Grade
1 KG
88000
71000
0.42
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5277
-
-
1978
Dichlorvos
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
54000
44000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5278
-
-
1969
Dicofol, Technical
1
TONNE
46000
37000
306.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5279
-
-
1969
Dicofol
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
49000
40000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5342
-
-
1996
Ascorbic Acid,
Food Grade
1 KG
65000
52000
1.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5346
-
-
1994
Synthetic Food
Colour -
Preparations and
Mixtures
1 Kg
(For
powder),
1 Kg
(For
Liquid)
54000
44000
0.45
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5719
-
-
2005
Gelatin, Food Grade
1 KG
68000
55000
0.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6046
-
-
1982
Gypsum for
Agricultural Use
1 M.T
53000
43000
2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6385
-
-
1997
Saccharin, Food
Grade
1 KG
71000
57000
3.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6438
-
-
1980
Aluminium
Phosphide
Formulations
1
TONNE
46000
37000
69.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
6444
-
-
1979
Sulphur Dusting
Powders
1
TONNE
46000
37000
19
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7021
-
-
1973
Protein-Rich Food
Supplements for
Infants and
Preschool Children
1
TONNE
80000
64000
20
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
7948
-
-
1987
Fenthion EC
100
LITRES
47000
38000
200
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8025
-
-
1990
Monocrotophos,
Technical
1
TONNE
48000
39000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8028
-
-
1987
Quinalphos EC
100
LITRES.
48000
39000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8074
-
-
1990
Monocrotophos Sl
100
LITRES.
49000
40000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8249
-
-
1994
Zinc sulphate
heptahydrate,
agricultural grade
1
TONNE
54000
44000
17.3
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8291
-
-
1976
Phenthoate
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100 Litre
47000
38000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8446
-
-
1991
Pesticide -
Carbendazim
(MBC) WP
1
TONNE
57000
46000
285
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8498
-
-
2013
Temephos
Emulsifiable
Concentrates (EC)
100
LITRES
48000
39000
38.40
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8707
-
-
2013
Mancozeb,
Technical -
Specification
1
TONNE
48000
39000
156
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8708
-
-
2006
Mancozeb Wettable
powder
1
TONNE
53000
43000
265
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8944
-
-
2005
Chlorpyrifos
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
52000
42000
40
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
8960
-
-
1978
Methyl Parathion
Dusting Powders
1
TONNE
50000
40000
50
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9354
-
-
1980
Alachlor
emulsifiable
concentrates
100
LITRES
52000
42000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9356
-
-
1980
Butachlor
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
52000
42000
38
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9359
-
-
1995
Pesticide - Phorate
G Encapsulated
1
TONNE
53000
43000
90
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9360
-
-
1980
Carbofuran
Granules,
Encapsulated
1
TONNE
66000
53000
86.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9532
-
-
1980
CHAKKA and
SHRIKHAND
1
TONNE
51000
41000
17.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9585
-
-
1980
Lactometers
1 PIECE
47000
38000
0.16
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
9665
-
-
1981
Propoxur
Emulsifiable
Concentrates
100
LITRES
59000
48000
118
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
10243
-
-
1993
2, 4-D Ethyl Ester
EC
100
LITRES
49000
40000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11010
-
-
1984
Ziram
Colloidal
Suspension
100
LITRES
52000
42000
34.5
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11536
-
-
2007
Processed
-cereal
based
complementary
foods
1
TONNE
155000
124000
172.8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11785
-
-
1986
Captan
(Wettable
Powder) WP
1
TONNE
52000
42000
300
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
11995
-
-
1987
Isoproturon, WP
1
TONNE
53000
43000
345
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5769
11997
-
-
1987
Fenvalerate EC
100
LITRES
58000
47000
56
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12016
-
-
1987
Cypermethrin EC
100
LITRES
48000
39000
69.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12337
-
-
1988
Manually Operated
Fertilizer
Broadcaster
1 Broad-
caster
46000
37000
1.38
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12751
-
-
1989
Pesticides
-
Pendimethalin EC
100
LITRES
59000
48000
70
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12786
-
-
1989
Irrigation
Equipment
-
Polyethylene Pipes
for
Irrigation
Laterals
1 KG
89000
72000
0.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12912
-
-
1990
Bromadiolone RB
1
TONNE
49000
40000
449.2
8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12916
-
-
1990
Acephate SP
1
TONNE
46000
37000
728.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
12931
-
-
1990
Atrazine WP
100 KG
53000
43000
43.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13428
-
-
2005
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water
1000
LITRES
125000
100000
20
6000
15
4000
10
R
e
m
ai
ni
n
g
20 12 2016
13457
-
-
1992
Pesticide
-
Deltamethrin WP
1 MT
58000
47000
1,124
.00
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13487
-
-
1992
Irrigation
Equipment
-
Emitters
1000
Emitters
55000
44000
8.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
13785
-
-
1993
Pesticide - Dodine
WP
1 KG
55000
44000
2.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14151
(P-1 )
-
-
1999
Irrigation
Equipment
-
Sprinkler Pipes -
Part
1
:
Polyethylene Pipes
1 KG
108000
87000
0.18
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14158
-
-
1994
Cyfluthrin WP
100 KG
63000
51000
414.7
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14183
-
-
1994
Pesticide - Cartap
Hydrochloride SP
1
TONNE
53000
43000
792
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14411
-
-
1996
Deltamethrin F
100
LITRES
48000
39000
62.4
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14510
-
-
1997
Lambda-cyhalothrin
WP
1 Kg
52000
42000
6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14543
-
-
2004
Packaged Drinking
Water (Other than
Packaged
Natural
Mineral Water)
1000
LITRES
128000
102400
20
6000
15
4000
10
R
e
m
ai
ni
n
g
20 12 2016
14552
-
-
1998
Thiophanate
Methyl, WP
1 KG
53000
43000
1.35
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14724
-
-
1999
Water Purifiers with
Ultra-violet
Disinfection
1 PIECE
87000
70000
9.6
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
14743
-
-
1999
Irrigation
Equipment
-
Hydrocyclone
1 Filter
68000
55000
8
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
5770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[Ref. : CMD-2/G-18]
A. K. SHARMA, Sc. F & DDG (Certification)
bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 9 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2451-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10
ds mi&fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] bysDVªkWfudh vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky; dh vkbZvkbZVh dSEil] iobZ] eqacbZ fLFkr Lok;Ùk laLFkk]
izk;ksfxd lw{erjax bysDVªkWfuDl vfHk;kaf=kdh rFkk vuqla/ku laLFkk (lehj)] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS A
¹la- 7(2)@2005&fg-v-º
jktho dqekj] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2016
S.O. 2451.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Society for Applied Microwave Electronics
Engineering and Research (SAMEER), an autonomous society of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
located at IIT Campus, Powai Mumbai, whose more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]
RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
Filters
15160
-
-
2002
Pretilachlor
Emulsifiable
Concentrate
100
LITRES
47000
38000
22
2000
11
Rema
ining
-
-
20 12 2016
15182
-
-
2002
Propiconazole E.C.
100
LITRES
49000
40000
130.0
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15219
-
-
2002
Aluminium
Phosphide
Powder
Formulation
1 Kg
46000
37000
1.1
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15227
-
-
2002
Deltamethrin ULV
100
LITRES
47000
38000
115
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15236
-
-
2002
Profenofos
+
Cypermethrin
Emulsifiable
Concentrate
100
LITRES
57000
46000
124.2
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15335
-
-
2003
Imidacloprid SL
100
LITRES
52000
42000
55.00
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15603
-
-
2005
Alphacypermethrin.
WP
1 MT
68000
55000
170
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
15757
-
-
2007
Follow-up formula -
Complementary
foods
1 MT
154000
124000
245
250
123
250
62
R
e
m
ai
ni
n
g
20 12 2016
15939
-
-
2011
Pesticide
-
Bifenthrin Wettable
Powder
1 Kg
63000
51000
0.9
All
-
-
-
-
20 12 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5771
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2452-—के/0ीय सरकार, कम%चारी रा1य बीमा अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) क! धारा 91-क के साथ प2ठत धारा
88 4ारा द5 शि6य7 का योग करते 9ए आई
आई
आई
आई.आई
आई
आई
आई.एस
एस
एस
एस.सी
सी
सी
सी.ओ.टील
टील
टील
टील लांट
लांट
लांट
लांट, बन पुर
बन पुर
बन पुर
बन पुर के कारखान7/;थापना= के िनयिमत कम%चा2रय7
को इस अिधिनयम के वत%न से छूट दान करती है। यह छूट अिधसूचना जारी होने क! ितिथ से एक वष% क! अविध के िलए भावी
रहेगी।
2.
उ6 छूट िनAिलिखत शतB के अधीन है; अथा%त्:—
(1) पूवD6 ;थापना िजसम कम%चारी िनयोिजत हE, एक रिज;टर रखेगी, िजसम छूट ाG कम%चा2रय7 के नाम और पदनाम
दखाये जायगे;
(2)
इस छूट के होते 9ए भी, कम%चारी उ6 अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी सुिवधाएं ाG करते रहगे िजनको पाने के िलए वे इस
अिधसूचना 4ारा दी गई छूट के वृ5 होने क! तारीख से पूव% संद5 अंशदान7 के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हE;
(3)
छूट ाG अविध के िलए, यद कोई अिभदाय पहले ही कए जा चुके ह7, तो वे वापस नहI कए जाएंगे;
(4)
उ6 कारखाने/;थापना का िनयोजक उस अविध क! बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/;थापना पर उ6 अिधिनयम (िजसे
इसम इसके पKात उ6 अविध कहा गया है) वत%मान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे ाLप म और ऐसी िविशिMय7 सिहत देगा
जो कम%चारी रा1य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उ6 अविध क! बाबत देनी अपेिNत होती थI;
(5)
िनगम 4ारा उ6 कम%चारी रा1य बीमा अिधिनयम क! धारा 45 क! उप-धारा (1) के अधीन िनयु6 कया गया कोई
सामा िजक सुरNा अ िधकारी या िनगम का इस िनिम5 ािधकृत कोई अ/य पदधारी;
(i) धारा 44 क! उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उ6 अविध क! बाबत दी गई कसी िववरण क! िविशMय7 को स यािपत करने
के योजनाथ%; अथवा
(ii) यह अिभिनिKत करने के योजनाथ% क कम%चारी रा1य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 4ारा यथाअपेिNत
रिज;टर और अिभलेख उ6 अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नहI; या
(iii) यह अिभिनिKत करने के योजनाथ% क कम%चारी, िनयोजक 4ारा दये गए उन फायद7 को, िजसके फल;वLप इस
अिधसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद म और व;तु Lप म पाने का हकदार बना 9आ है या नहI; या
(iv) यह अिभिनिKत करने के योजनाथ% क उस अविध के दौरान, जब उ6 कारखाने के संबंध म अिधिनयम के उपबंध
वृ5 थे, ऐसे क/हI उपबंध7 का अनुपालन कया गया था या नहI, िनAिलिखत काय% करने के िलए सश6 होगा :—
(क) धान या आसQ िनयोजक से अपेNा करना क वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरो6 िनरीNक या अ/य
पदधारी आवRयक समझता है ; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे धान या आसQ िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, कसी कारखाने, ;थापना, काया%लय या अ/य प2रसर म
कसी भी उिचत समय पर वेश करना और उसके भारी से यह अपेNा करना क वह Sि6य7 के िनयोजन
और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अ/य द;तावेज, ऐसे िनरीNक या अ/य पदधारी के
समN ;तुत कर और उनक! परीNा करने द या ऐसी जानकारी द िजसे वे आवRयक समझते हE; या
(ग)
धान या आसQ िनयोजक क!, उसके अिभकता% या सेवक क!, या ऐसे कसी Sि6 को, जो ऐसे कारखाने,
;थापना, काया%लय या अ/य प2रसर म पाया जाए, यह िवTास करने का युि6यु6 कारण है क वह कम%चारी
है, परीNा करना; या
(घ)
ऐसे कारखाने, ;थापना, काया%लय या अ/य प2रसर म रखे गए कसी रिज;टर, लेखा, बही या अ/य द;तावेज
क! नकल तैयार करना या उUरण लेना;
5772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ङ)
यथािनधा%2रत अ/य शि6य7 का योग करना ।
6.
िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले म, द5 छूट ;वत: रV हो जाएगी और तब नए ितWान को छूट हेतु समुिचत सरकार क!
अनुमित लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/27/2013-एसएस-I]
अजय मिलक, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2016
S.O. 2452.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of
factories/establishments of IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be
effective from the date of issue of notification for a period of one year.
2.
The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the
name and designations of the exempted employees’;
(2)
Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to
which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from
which exemption granted by this notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that
factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in
such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the
Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said
ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :—
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for
the said period; or
(ii)
Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State
Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in
cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this
notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period
when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:
(a)
require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider
necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b)
at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by
such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in
charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of
wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c)
examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such
factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other
official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or
(d)
make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document
maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5773
(6)
In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and
then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/27/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2453-—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@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2010) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 28th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 53/2010
Between :
Sri D. Kiran Kumar,
S/o B. Bheemaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampally Area, Bellampally,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
Goleti-I Incline,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampally, Adilabad District
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
5774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Sri D. Kiran Kumar who worked as Coal 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. BPA/PER/129/1830 dated 26/27.5.2008 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in April, 2006 and he was regular to his duties till the year 1996.
But during the year 2007, Petitioner’s brother and grandfather suffered ill-health and the Petitioner went to look after
them, and his grandfather passed away. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated 9.2.2008 was issued by the
Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2007, which 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 put forth 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, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. BPA/PER/129/1830 dated 26/27.5.2008. 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 2007 was only on account of his brother and grand father’s ill-health and other personal
problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated
that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary,
violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered several 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. BPA/PER/129/1830 dated 26/27.5.2008 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.
3.
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
was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 17.4.2006 as Badli Filler. He was 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 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 him 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 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 to him,
and after receiving the show-cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified
and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 13.1.2014.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri D. Kiran Kumar is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No. I : During the course of argument, the 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5775
Petitioner’s Brother and Grand Father fell ill and in the process of taking care of them, the Petitioner could not be
able to attend his duties regularly. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not
been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from
service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to illness of his brother and
Grand Father 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.
8.
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 Respondents’ 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.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness of
his brother and grand father, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, 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 was 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 at the age of 23 years, he is now aged about 29 years
and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being a
young and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, atleast 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 Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the
management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri D. Kiran Kumar is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I 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 D. Kiran Kumar 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. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri D. Kiran Kumar 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 or 190 days in a year 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 not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve
his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year
of service of the workman he will be terminated from service 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 28th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
5776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2454-—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- 41@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2008) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 26th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 41/2008
Between :
Sri Pulipaka Chandrasekhar,
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
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Srirampur,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
IK-1A Incline, IK & CHNR Mines
Srirampur, Adilabad District
…Respondents
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5777
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Pulipaka Chandrasekhar, 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 proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/5104 dated 15.10.2007 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler during the month of November, 2002. From the date of his
appointment the Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 2005. It is submitted that previously the Petitioner met
with road accident, for which his left clavicle bone had fractured. But during the year 2006 due to enormous pain of
his left clavicle bone, he remained absent. While the matter stood thus, one charge sheet dated 20.2.2007 was issued
by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2006, which 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 put forth 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, the Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 25.10.2007 vide order No. SRP/PER/13.008/5104
dated 15.10.2007. 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 2006 was only on account of his ill-health and other family
problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated
that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary,
violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 4 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/13.008/5104 dated 15.10.2007 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..
3.
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
was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 7.11.2002. He was 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 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, the Respondent 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 to him,
and after receiving the show cause notice. 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.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admitting the validity of the domestic
enquiry as valid and legal, the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated
21.6.2010.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
5778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Pulipaka Chandrasekhar is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the 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 road accident resulting fracture of left clavicle bone and the same was given immense pain for which 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 and on account of absenteeism capital
punishment of dismissal from service was 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, without considering any aspect the authority has given capital punishment to the
Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
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 Respondents’ 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 into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness
the Petitioner could not be able to be 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 was 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 at the age of 25 years, he is now aged about 33 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner has already
realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, 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 Respondents 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 Pulipaka Chandrasekhar is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I 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 Pulipaka Chandrasekhar 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. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he
being the sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of
service. In such a circumstances, in the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief
claimed in his claim petition. But he is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Pulipaka Chandrasekhar 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5779
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2455-—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- 2@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2008) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 26th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 2/2008
Between :
Sri Geesa Rayalingu,
S/o Narasaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No.G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
5780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
KK-5A Incline, Mandamarri,
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 Geesa Rayalingu, 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 proceeding No.P/MM/7/2/00/3531 dated 16.8.2000 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1987 and later he was confirmed as Coal Filler. The
Petitioner could not be regular to his duties during the year 1999, as he suffered from illness and other family problems.
While the matter stood thus, one charge sheet dated 31.1.2000 was issued by the Respondents alleging that the
Petitioner absented for duty during the year 1999, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order
No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the course of enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any
opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth 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, the Petitioner was dismissed
from service w.e.f. 23.8.2000 vide order No. P/MM/7/2/00/3531 dated 16.8.2000. 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 1999
was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the
Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing
the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has
rendered 12 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. P/MM/7/2/00/3531 dated 16.8.2000 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..
3.
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 was
appointed in the Respondent’s company on 12.5.1987. He was 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 on the date fixed 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, the Respondent 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 to
him, and after receiving the show cause notice. 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.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admitting the domestic enquiry legal and
valid, the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 4.2.2009.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5781
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Geesa Rayalingu is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the 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
fell ill 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 and on account of
absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was 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.
8.
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 of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondents’ 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.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous, and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness
the Petitioner could not be able to be 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 was 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 at the age of 40 years, he is now aged about 50 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner has already
realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, 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 Respondents 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 Geesa Rayalingu is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I 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 Geesa Rayalingu 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. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In such a
circumstances, in the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief claimed in his claim
petition. But he is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Geesa Rayalingu 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
5782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2456-—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- 66@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2007) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 26th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 66/2007
Between :
Sri Basavabathula Raja Ram,
S/o Ramaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5783
Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2. The Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK-1A Incline, Mandamarri,
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 Basavabathula Raja Ram who worked as Coal 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. P/RKP/16/2K/26 dated 2.1.2001 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1988 and was confirmed as Coal Filler. But during the
year 1997 the Petitioner suffered with ill-health and other family problems, for which the Petitioner has undergone
treatment at his in-laws village through conventional methods and being recovered from that ailment the Petitioner
returned to his residence. While the matter stood thus, a notice of proceeding dated 2.1.2001 was issued by the
Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 1997, which amounts to misconduct under
company’s Standing Order No.25.25 and it is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner’s house which
was returned undelivered and as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry
and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was conducted and he was
dismissed from service. The Petitioner was undergoing treatment in his native village and he was not aware of either
issuance of charge sheet or publication of notice made by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could
have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication.
It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 1997 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 vide office order dated 2.1.2001. It is also stated that the action
of the Respondents’ management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of
principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 9 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. P.Rg.I/32A/103 dated 2.1.2001 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..
3.
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 had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without
sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 1998. A charge sheet
was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned
undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper dated 3.7.1998 advising the
Petitioner to attend an enquiry fixed on 10.7.1998. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet
nor attended the enquiry, as such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 10.7.1998 wherein the charges levelled against
the Petitioner were proved. 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
5784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 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.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 26.3.2010, in view
of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Basavabathula Raja Ram is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.1: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.
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.
8.
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 Respondents’ management 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.
9.
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
Petitioner did not participate to defend the charges levelled against him and ultimately the charges 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 the company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender. When punishment has been imposed,
his past conduct has not been considered. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management
should verify the past conduct of the delinquent and think of the condition of the workers’ 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 Basavabathula
Raja Ram 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 Basavabathula Raja Ram 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 Basavabathula Raja Ram 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5785
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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this 26th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2457-—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- 3@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2008) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 24th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 3/2008
Between :
Sri Akula Rajender,
S/o Ramulu,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
5786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RG-I Area, Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar District.
2. The Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
GDK-6A Incline, Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar District
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Akula Rajender, 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. P.Rg.I/32A/103 dated 7.1.2000 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 16.8.1996. From the date of appointment the Petitioner rendered
his best services upto the satisfaction of his superiors. While the matter stood thus, a proceeding dated 7.1.2000 was
issued by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 1999, which amounts to
misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25 and it is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the
Petitioner’s house which was returned undelivered, as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to
attend for enquiry and as the Petitioner did not attend enquiry on the scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was conducted
and he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner was undergoing treatment in his native village and he was not aware
of either issuance of charge sheet or publication made by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could
have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication.
It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 1999 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 vide office order dated 7.1.2000. It is also stated that the action
of the Respondents’ 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. P.Rg.I/32A/103 dated 7.1.2000 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..
3.
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 had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient
cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 1998. A charge sheet was sent to
his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned undelivered.
Subsequently, the same was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper dated 16.9.1999 advising the Petitioner to
attend an enquiry fixed on 21.9.1999. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor attended
the enquiry, as such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 21.9.1999 wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5787
were proved. 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. 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.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 4.2.2009, in view
of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Akula Rajender is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.1: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.
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.
8.
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 Respondents’ management 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.
9.
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
Petitioner did not participate and 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. When punishment has been imposed, his past conduct has not been
considered. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the
worker as well as his family members so also his past conduct. 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 Akula Rajender 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 Akula Rajender 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.
5788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Akula Rajender 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 24th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2458-—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- 130@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/2007) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 25th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 130/2007
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5789
Between :
Sri Sriramula Ramulu,
S/o Narsaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2. The Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
KK-1 Incline, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Sriramula Ramulu who worked as Coal 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. P/MM/2/98/2699 dated 17.9.1998 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1987 and he was regular to his duties till the year 1996.
But during the year 1997, Petitioner suffered ill-health and other family problems. While the matter stood thus, charge
sheet dated 20.3.1998 was issued by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year
1997, which 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
put forth 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, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No.
P/MM/2/98/2699 dated 17.9.1998, w.e.f. 25.9.1998. 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 1997 was only on account of his
mental as well as physical ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the
Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing
the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has
rendered several 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. P/MM/2/98/2699 dated
17.9.1998 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..
3.
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 was
appointed in the Respondent’s company on 26.5.1987 as Floating Badli Filler. He was 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 and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair
5790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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, the Respondent 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 to
him, and after receiving the show cause notice. 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.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admitting the validity of the domestic
enquiry to be legal and valid, the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order
dated 3.2.2010.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sriramula Ramulu is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the 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
fell ill 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 and on account of
absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was 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.
8.
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 Respondents’ 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.
9.
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. 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 was 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 at the age of 45 years, he is now aged about 54 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner has already
realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, atleast 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 Respondents 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 Sriramula Ramulu 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 Sriramula Ramulu 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. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5791
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Sriramula Ramulu 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 25th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2459-—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- 31@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007) 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 22.12.2016.
[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
5792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated the 24th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 31/2007
Between :
Sri Aggu Rayamallu,
S/o Gattaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
KK-2 Incline, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Aggu Rayamallu, 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 proceeding No. P/MM/7/2/01/2039 dated 27.4.2001 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the 1st Respondent company and later he was confirmed as Coal
Filler on 28.6.1990. The Petitioner could not be regular to his duties during the year 1999, during which time his elder
son expired and he suffered with illness and other family problems. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated
7.2.2000 was issued by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 1999, which
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. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the
erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. P/MM/7/2/01/2039
dated 27.4.2001. 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 1999 was only on account of the death of his elder son, his ill-
health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from
service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is
wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered several 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. P/MM/7/2/01/2039 dated 27.4.2001 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..
3.
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
was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 14.11.1987 and was later promoted as Trammer. He was dismissed
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5793
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 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, the Respondent 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 to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. 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.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 5.3.2009, in view
of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
5.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Aggu Rayamallu is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
6.
Point No.1: During the course of argument, the 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 lost his elder son, fell ill 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 and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was 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.
7.
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 Respondents’ 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.
8.
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. 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 was 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 at the age of 40 years, he is now aged about 50 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner has already
realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, 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 Respondents 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 Aggu Rayamallu is not legal and justified.
This point is answered accordingly.
9.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to
Sri Aggu Rayamallu 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. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
5794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Aggu Rayamallu 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 24th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2460-—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- 34@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007) 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 22.12.2016.
[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 24th day of October, 2016
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5795
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 34/2007
Between :
Sri K. David Srinivas,
S/o Suvarna Rathnam,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
KK-5A Incline,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
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 K. David Srinivas, 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. P/MM/7/2/98/3261 dated 5.11.1998 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler and later he was promoted as coal filler. From the date of his
appointment the Petitioner rendered his best services upto the satisfaction of his superiors. While the matter stood thus,
a proceeding dated 5.11.1998 was issued by the Respondents alleging that charge sheet dated 26.3.1998 was issued
under company’s Standing Orders No.25.25 for habitual absenteeism from 1.4.1997 to 31.12.1997. The proceeding
dated 5.11.1998 was issued consequent upon the exparte enquiry conducted and the Petitioner was dismissed from
service. It is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner’s house which was returned undelivered, as
such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry and as the Petitioner did not attend
the enquiry on the Scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The
Petitioner also stated that he was undergoing treatment in his native village and was not aware of either issuance of
charge sheet or publication made in the news papers by the Respondent. The Petitioner could have certainly
participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication. It is further
stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 1999 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 vide office order dated 5.11.1998. It is also stated that the
action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of
the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 8 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. P/MM/7/2/98/3261 dated 5.11.1998 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.
5796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
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 had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without
sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 1997. A charge sheet
was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned
undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper dated 23.7.1998 advising the
Petitioner to attend an enquiry fixed on 3.8.1998. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet
nor attended the enquiry, as such an exparte enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner
were proved. 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. 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.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 13.3.2009, in view
of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri K. David Srinivas is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted
that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. 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.
8.
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 Respondents’ management 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.
9.
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 K.
David Srinivas is not legal and justified.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5797
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 K. David Srinivas 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 K. David Srinivas 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 24th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2461-—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- 158@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-
2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2461.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 158/2006) 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 22.12.2016.
[No. L-22013/1/2016-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
5798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 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 29th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 158/2006
Between :
Sri Venuvanka Kommaiah,
S/o Kanthaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,
Flat No. G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
KK-5A Incline,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Venuvanka Kommaiah, 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. P/MM/7/2/00/1186 dated 11.3.2000 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1983 and further he was promoted as Coal Filler in 1987.
From the date of appointment the Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 1997. During the year 1998 the
Petitioner’s mother fell sick and expired during the year 1999. Consequently the father of the Petitioner also fell sick
during the year 1999 and expired in the year 2000. The above reasons coupled with other family problems
contributed to the Petitioner’s inability to be regular to his duties during the years 1998 and 1999. While the matter
stood thus, charge sheet dated 6.3.99 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner
absented for duty during the year 1998, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25.
Subsequently, inquiry was conducted and during the time of 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 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. 24.3.2000 vide office order dated 11.3.2000. 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 1998 was only on account of his mother’s 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. 24.3.2000 vide office order dated 11.3.2000. 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5799
justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 16 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.
P/MM/7/2/00/1186 dated 11.3.2000 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..
3.
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 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.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 20.1.2014, in view
of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Venuvanka Kommaiah is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
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 his 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 a cryptic and unreasoned order was passed imposing severe
punishment. In this case, the authority has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of
punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
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.
9.
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. 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 submissions of
the Petitioner has not been considered and the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital
punishment has been imposed. In the mean time the father of the Petitioner died. 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 one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service. While imposing
5800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Venuvanka Kommaiah is not legal and justified.
This point is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been observed that the punishment of dismissal from service to
Sri Venuvanka Kommaiah 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 his 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 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 Venuvanka Kommaiah 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.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 29th day of
September, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2462-—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- 1@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5801
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 22.12.2016.
[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 26th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 1/2009
Between :
Sri Tati Hanumanthu,
S/o Ramaiah,
R/o Vepalagadda,
P.O. Mukundapuram,
Yellandu Mandal,
Khammam District
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Yellandu Collieries,
Yellandu Mandal - 507124
…Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Sri William Burra, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Tati Hanumanthu who worked as Coal 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 dismissal order issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same
consequently directing the Respondent 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1986 in Yellandu Collieries, he worked hard sincerely
and efficiently. But due to unavoidable circumstances, he lost his regularity which caused for absenteeism in duty.
While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated 24.8.1999 was issued by the Respondent. The Petitioner submitted his
explanation to the show cause notice. 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 put forth 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, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. 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 13 years of continuous service in the Respondent’s management. The Petitioner approached
the Respondent to consider his case sympathetically, but the Respondent/management did not pay any heed to it.
Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order issued by the
Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the
Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
5802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief as
follows:
In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was
appointed in the Respondent’s company on 1.4.1986 as Badli Filler and drafted as Coal Filler. He was 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 on the date fixed 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, the Respondent 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 to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. 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.
4.
In view of the statement of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner across the Bench, admitting the validity of the
domestic enquiry to be legal and valid, the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid
vide order dated 12.2.2014.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support
of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Tati Hanumanthu is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted
that due to unavoidable circumstances, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely and he could not be
able to attend his duties regularly. But it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of
absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has
taken a stand that due to domestic problems, 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.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent 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’s 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.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness
the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty. In fact, due to unavoidable circumstances 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 was 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 at the age of 40 years, he is now aged
about 47 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the
Petitioner has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work, atleast 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 Tati Hanumanthu is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I 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 Tati Hanumanthu 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5803
chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner 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 in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In such a
circumstances, in the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim
petition. But he is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
It is ordered that the workman Sri Tati Hanumanthu 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 is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26th day of
October, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2463-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 116@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@8@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. FCI and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.12.2016.
[No. L-22011/8/2015-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
5804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 26th September, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 116/2015
(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 Food Corporation of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Ms. S. Sharmila
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Area Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Food Corporation of India
District Office, Tatabad Post
Coimbatore-641012
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Sri M. Imthias, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-22011/08/2015-IR (CM.II)
dated 03.08.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the termination of S. Sharmila by the Management of Food Corporation of India, Coimbatore is
justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman/union is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 116/2015 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.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent in the year 2012. She was appointed to do the work of
compilation of stocks account, compiling and feeding IRRS Data, preparing proposals for write off of storage loss /
transit loss, compilation of PV Statements, etc. The petitioner has independently worked even in the Lorry Weigh
Bridge which work is that of an Assistant GradeI-(D). The engagement of the petitioner was due to acute shortage of
manpower in the Coimbatore Main Depot of the Respondent. Appointment was made to a permanent post against a
regular vacancy. The petitioner discharged the work of a regular employee. She has continuously worked in the
Respondent establishment from 01.11.2012 to 28.2.2014 without any break. She has worked for more than 480 days in
two calendar years. The petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the service of the Respondent.
The petitioner made representations on 20.09.2013 and 01.04.2014 requesting to regularize her service. Instead of
regularizing her she was terminated from service on 28.02.2014. The petitioner had completed more than 240 days of
continuous service in the 12 calendar months from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013. The Respondent did not comply with
Section-25(F) of ID Act in terminating the petitioner. So the termination is void ab-initio. After terminating the
petitioner from service the Respondent engaged outsiders by outsourcing of the work. After terminating the petitioner
the Respondent has engaged new persons in violation of Section-25(G) of the Act. She was engaged to do permanent
work by terming her as a casual labour to deny the benefit of permanency. An award may be passed holding that
the termination of the petitioner is illegal and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with
full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits by regularizing the service of the petitioner in
permanent vacancy.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The allegations in the Claim Statement are denied by the Respondent. The petitioner was engaged as a casual
labour only on temporary basis during urgencies. She has not been appointed for any permanent post nor terminated
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5805
from permanent post. Regular appointment in the Respondent establishment has been done in accordance with FCI
Staff Regulations of 1971. The petitioner has not acquired any legal right to claim permanency or regularization in the
Respondent establishment. The employment of the petitioner was only on casual basis. No appointment order was
issued to her. So there was no question of her termination from service also. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating the case in the
Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W23 and Ext.M1
7.
The points for consideration in the case are:
(i)
Whether termination of the petitioner form the service of the Respondent is legal and justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
8.
The claim of the petitioner is that she had worked in the Respondent establishment during the period from
01.11.2012 to 28.02.2014 in a regular vacancy and she was terminated from service on 28.02.2014 without complying
with Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to her she is entitled to be reinstated in service and
regularized in the permanent vacancy. The Respondent, though admitted that the petitioner had worked in the
establishment has contended that she was engaged only as a casual labour, that also during exigencies and she is not
entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by her.
9.
The petitioner has examined herself as WW1. In the Proof Affidavit filed by her in lieu of her Chief Examination
she has asserted the case in the Claim Statement. There is the evidence given by MW1, the Assistant General Manager
(IRS) of the Respondent denying the case of the petitioner.
10.
Apart from her oral evidence the petitioner has tried to establish her case through the documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W23 also. Ext.W2 is a communication of the Area Manager, Coimbatore addressing the General
Manager stating that consequent to several retirements in the establishment there is acute shortage of employees and so
persons are to be hired to carry out the works such as security, day-to-day depot operations work and data entry work.
The letter requests the General Manager to grant permission to make arrangement for hiring persons. It could be seen
from the subsequent documents that the request as per Ext.W2 was conceded to. The subsequent documents reveal that
casual labourers were engaged and payments were made to them. Ext.W3 is the sanction accorded by the Area
Manager for payment to casual labourers amounting to almost 200 in number for the month of November, 2012.
Alongwith this document there is also the extract of the register showing that the petitioner was engaged in November,
2012 for 26 days. Ext.W4 is another sanction order for payment of wages for the month of December, 2012. The
extract of the register of December, 2012 also is attached. This shows that the petitioner has worked for 27 days in this
month. Ext.W5 is another such document in respect of January, 2013. In this month also the petitioner had worked for
27 days. Ext.W7 shows sanction for payment for February 2013. The petitioner seems to have worked for 27 days in
this month also. Ext.W8 is the sanction order for payment of wages for the period from 01.03.2013 to 15.03.2013. The
petitioner had worked for 13 days during this period. Ext.W9 is the sanction order for payment of wages for the second
half of March, 2013. The extract of the register alongwith Ext.W9 reveals that the petitioner had worked for the entire
16 days during this period. Ext.W11 contains the file notes of the Respondent for the period from 14.05.2013 to
03.08.2013. This contains the note that labourers are to be engaged for the operations of the FCI. Ext.W14 is also file
note to this effect.
11.
Even though documents are not available on the side of the petitioner to prove that she was engaged continuously
for the entire period claimed, when considered alongwith the statement of the Respondent and the evidence given by
MW1 it could be assumed that she must have worked during the entire period claimed by her without any break. She
has specifically stated in the Claim Statement that she had worked continuously during the period from
01.11.2012 to 28.02.2014. Though the Counter Statement states that the engagement of the petitioner was only for
urgent purposes. there is no specific contention in the Counter Statement that she has not worked continuously as
claimed by her in the Claim Statement. Apart from this is the evidence given by MW1 in this respect. The affidavit of
this witness also does not put forth a case that the petitioner was not engaged continuously. There is also the admission
by MW1 during his cross-examination that he was not working in the depot when the petitioner was working there and
he has no personal knowledge of the employment of the petitioner. He had admitted that Exts.W22 and W23 are the
copies of the Attendance Register. Ext.W22 is the Attendance Register for the month of October 2013 in respect of
daily workers and Ext.W23 is the Attendance Register for November, 2012 to September, 2013. It is also admitted that
the petitioner’s name finds a place in these documents. Thus the Attendance Register produced by the petitioner,
though for certain months would show that she was in continuous engagement during the period shown in the register.
12.
It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that she has tendered whatever evidence available with her to prove
that she had been working in the establishment continuously and therefore the burden has shifted upon the Respondent
5806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to establish that it was not so. The counsel has referred to the decision in KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD. VS. SHAMIM MIRZA reported in 2009 1 SCC (L&S) 70 to fortify his argument in this respect. In this the Apex
Court has held that though the burden to prove that a claimant was in the employment of the particular management
primarily lies on the person who claims to be so, the degree of proof so required varies from case to case and it is
neither feasible nor advisable to lay down an abstract rule to defend the employer-employee relationship. It is
essentially a question of fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative effect of the entire material placed
before the adjudicatory forum by the claimant and the management, it was further held. Reference was also made to the
decision in DIRECTOR FISHERIES TERMINAL DEPARTMENT VS. BHIKUBHAI MEGHAJIBAI CHAVDA
reported in 2010 1 SCC 47 in this respect. In this the Apex Court has observed that the workman who is hired on daily
wage basis would be having difficulty to access all official documents in connection with his service and he having
come forward and given evidence the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days
of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service.
13.
When the pattern of attendance of the petitioner in the Respondent establishment through the produced
documents are taken into account alongwith the vague contention in the Counter Statement and the absence of evidence
on the part of the Respondent it is very much apparent that the petitioner must have been working in the establishment
continuously during the period claimed by her. Necessarily she must have completed 240 days of service in the 12
calendar years preceding the date on which her engagement was stopped.
14.
There is no case for the Respondent that the termination of the petitioner is in compliance with the conditions
prescribed in Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner was not given notice of termination nor was
any compensation given. The case of the Respondent is that the petitioner having been a casual labour there is no
necessity for complying with the section. Even a casual worker will come under the definition of the term workman as
contemplated in the ID Act and the Respondent was bound to comply with Section-25(F) of the Act before the
petitioner was sent away after stopping her engagement.
15.
Now the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in the service of the
Respondent and even regularization as claimed by her. Certainly, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of
regularization. There is no evidence to show that she was employed on a sanctioned post. She had worked in the
establishment only for a year and two months, even according to her. The counsel for the Respondent has been
strongly relying upon the decision in STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI AND THREE OTHERS reported in
2006 4 SCC 1 to resist the case of regularization. There it was held that engagement without compliance with the
norms of recruitment is illegal and such appointments could not be regularized except for the exceptions given in the
decision itself. Of course, the decision in Uma Devi does not restrict the power of Industrial Tribunal to give proper
relief in deserving cases. However, the case of the petitioner herein could not be termed as an appointment which is
only irregular and not illegal. She is not entitled for regularization as claimed by her.
16.
The petitioner need not be given even the relief of reinstatement also when the nature of the engagement and
other circumstances are taken into account. In this respect the decision of the Apex Court in ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
RAJASTHAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. GITAM SINGH reported in 2013 5 SCC
136 is relevant. It was a case where the workman had worked only for 8 months as daily wager and his termination was
held to be in contravention of Section-25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court has held after referring to
the previous decisions on the point that it can be said without any fear or contradiction that it has not held as an
absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal the dismissed employed is entitled to reinstatement in all
situations but it has always been the view of the Court that there should be circumstances in a case which may make it
expedient to order reinstatement. It was further held that though the normal rule is that the dismissed employee is
entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal, it is not without exception and in so far as wrongful
termination of daily rated worker is concerned, consequential relief would depend on a host of factors viz. manner and
matter of appointment, nature of appointment and length of service and that where the length of engagement as daily
wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow but compensation should be directed to be paid. The
relief of reinstatement awarded in the case has been set aside and direction was given to pay compensation.
17.
In the present case the petitioner has been working as a casual labourer on daily wages. In the documents
produced by the petitioner itself reference is as casual wager. The petitioner has worked with the establishment only for
a little more than a year. The petitioner has admitted that she was not given any appointment order. It is clear that there
was no appointment based on the Recruitment Rules, but only engagement on account of the shortage existing in the
department. So rather than reinstatement, proper relief would be compensation. Considering the period for which the
petitioner has worked the amount of compensation is fixed as Rs. 1,50,000/-.
18.
In view of my discussion above, an award is passed as below:
The Respondent shall pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation within two
months of publication of the Award. The amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of the Award, in case of default.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5807
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 26th September, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Ms. S. Sharmila
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri C. Saravanan
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
06.12.2006
Circular issued by the Respondent regarding ban on engagement of casuals
Ext.W2
30.12.2012
Letter of Area Manager, FCI to the General Manager (TN), FCI
Ext.W3
07.12.2012
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W4
07.01.2013
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W5
16.02.2013
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W6
12.03.2013
Letter of Manager (D) to area Manager regarding engagement of employees on
closed holidays
Ext.W7
13.03.2013
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W8
01.04.2013
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W9
17.04.2013
Sanction order for payment of wages to the employees working in Coimbatore
Depot with annexures
Ext.W10
16.05.2013
Circular regarding recruitment of Watchman
Ext.W11
-
File Notes from 14.05.2013 to 03.08.2013
Ext.W12
19.09.2013
Order regarding fixation of minimum wages
Ext.W13
05.11.2013
Circular of the recruitment regarding minimum wages
Ext.W14
-
File Note from 31.09.2013 to 03.05.2014
Ext.W15
17.07.2014
Letter from the Area Manager to the petitioner
Ext.W16
28.07.2014
Office Order appointing 15 persons as Assistant Grade-III
Ext.W17
06.08.2014
Office Order appointing one person as Assistant Grade-III
Ext.W18
07.08.2014
Representation of the petitioner
Ext.W19
-
Reply filed by the Respondent before the Conciliation Officer
Ext.W20
05.03.2015
Letter of General Manager enclosing the minutes of meeting between the
management and union
Ext.W21
20.04.2015
Representation of the petitioner
Ext.W22
-
Attendance sheet for the month of October 2013
Ext.W23
-
Attendance sheet from November 2012 to September, 2013
5808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
-
Xerox copy of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1971 relating to
recruitment
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2464-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 31@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@232@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2464.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/232/1999-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2000
Shri Ram Singh Ahirwar,
Vallabh Nagar, 2, Jhuggi No.472,
Near CIB Qtrs, Vallabh Nr. Ward No.36,
Bhopal (MP)
… Workman
Versus
Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank,
Regional Office, E-5, Arera Colony,
Bhopal
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of November, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 14-1-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/232/99/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ramsingh Ahirwar
S/o Bansilal Ahirwar w.e.f. 10-5-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed as peon on 9-11-88 in 2nd party No.3 Habibganj branch. He
continuously worked with devotion till 10-5-97 for about 10 years. That he was engaged on daily wages Rs.15/-.
Wages were increased to Rs.60 per day. 2nd party had settlement with Union dated 12-10-89 for regularization of daily
wage employees. By settlement, circular dated 31-3-90 was issued by the management. That 2nd party No.3 had issued
letter dated 1-2-94 furnishing information of daily wages, name of Ist party was shown letter at Sl.No.3.
3.
Ist party workman reiterates that he was continuously working for more than 240 days during each of the year.
His services were terminated without notice. He was eligible for regularization after completion of 240 days. Instead
of regularizing his services, he was terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5809
Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID act. While terminating his services, seniority list was
not disclosed. Employees junior to him were continued. Policy of last come first go was not followed. Junior
employees Abdul Alim, Ramabai, Deepak Kale, Laxmirayan Jatav were retained in service. Ist party was
discriminated, he is unemployed after termination of his service. on such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement
with backwages.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/5 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party denies that Ist party
was appointed as peon. As per 2nd party, workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wage basis, he was not
appointed following the recruitment process. Workman was not continuously working from 9-11-88 to 10-5-97. He not
completed continuous service for more than 240 days. Issuance of circular dated 19-10-89 is admitted by 2nd party.
However it is contented that said circular provided for panel. The mode and particulars were given in the circular. Ist
party had not submitted application as per the circular. Ist party workman was engaged as per exigency of work. He
was engaged dehors the recruitment rules. Workman was intermittently engaged. Workman is not entitled to
regularisation. As workman had not completed 240 days continuous service, he is not entitled to protection of ID Act.
Workman was paid his remuneration, nothing is due against the 2nd party. For disengagement of workman, notice was
not required. Workman did not deserve hearing in the matter. His representation to higher authorities were duly
considered. The disengagement of workman doesnot amount to retrenchment. Daily wager cannot be appointed against
the vacancies. It is denied that Ist party workman is unemployed. Daily wager cannot be regularized or absorbed in
service. Bank is sustaining loss empanelled casual workers could not have absorbed. 2nd party has referred to judgment
in Writ Petition no. 1339/98. On all its contentions, 2nd party prays that reference be answered in its favour.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of UCO
Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ramsingh
Ahirwar S/o Bansilal Ahirwar w.e.f. 10-5-97 is
justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
6.
The terms of reference pertains to legality of termination of workman. Workman is challenging termination of his
services for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Management has denied. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He
has stated that he was appointed as peon against vacant post in Habibganj branch on 9-11-88. He was continuously
working till 10-5-97. He was paid wages Rs.50 per day. wages were increased to Rs.60 per day. management had
settlement with Union dated 12-10-89 for absorption/ regularisation of daily wage employees. Circular dated 31-3-90
was issued for its implementation. Letter dated 1-2-94 was sent by 2nd party No.3. his name was shown but he was not
included in the panel. His services are terminated without notice. Junior employees are continued in service. in his
cross, workman says appointment letter was not received by him. His name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. He not submitted application for job he was doing work of sweeping and supplying drinking water and
other works as per direction. He was paid wages at end of the week at less than collector rate. He doesnot know what
was collector rate of daily wages at the relevant time. Settlement was arrived between management and Union dated
12-10-89. He submitted application for including his name for empanelment. He donot recollect said date. Copy of
application is not produced. He denies to have made false statement. That he produced certificate P-4 regarding his
continuous working. Workman was re-examined and documents Exhibit W-1 to W-20 were admitted in evidence.
7.
In his cross examination, workman says Exhibit W-1 is not written on letter head, W-2 to W-6 are not bearing
signature of Chief Manager. Exhibit W-7 was issued to him. He denies that said document is fabricated and false.
Exhibit W-8 doesnot bear his signature. It also doeosnot bear signature of any officer. W-9/1 to 9/15 were given to him
by Chief Manager of the Bank. He says that those vouchers bear signature of Shri B.P.Vohra, Chief Manager.
Consequently Exhibit W-10,11 was given to him, its original may be with the Bank. Exhibit W-12 to 16 were given to
him by Manager. W-17 was given to him by Branch Manager . W-18 bears seal of the Bank but he doesnot bear
signature of any authority. The entry of his attendance were submitted before Manager. Exhibit W-19 pertains to
Arera colony branch. It is not mentioned in Exhibit W-19 it doesnot bear seal and signature of the officer. Exhibit W-20
doesnot bear the seal.
8.
Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Omprakash Meena supports contentions of management in
Written Statement. That Ist party was not appointed against vacant post, he was not appointed following selection rules.
5810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman had not submitted application for appointment. Settlement dated 12-10-89 was issued by Head office for
empanelment and absorption of persons engaged on daily wages. Workman had not submitted application as per
circular. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. affidavit of evidence sof management’s witness
refers to the evidence of workman and documents produced appears in the nature of argument. The contents of the
affidavit in the nature of argument cannot be said evidence. Such affidavit cannot be appreciated. From evidence of
management’s witness, documents Exhibit M-1,2 are admitted in evidence.
9.
Management’s witness in his cross says workman did not worked under him. Appointment letter was not issued.
Workman was engaged on daily wage basis but he was unable to tell the exact period. Workman worked in Arera
colony, Habibganj branch. It is possible he worked in Bhopal Zonal office. Workman was not served with notice for
termination. He claims ignorance whether Abdul Alim, Ramabai, Deepak Kale, Laxmirayan Jatav were working in the
Bank. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman. Management’s witness claims ignorance whether
seniority list was prepared when workman was terminated. He claims ignorance whether workman was continuously
working from 1987 to May 97. Workman was working on part time basis was told to him by Law Officer. He was
unable to tell why said fact was not pleaded in Written Statement. He was also unable to tell why it was not pleaded in
Written Statement that workman was working for 2-3 hours in a day. management’s witness admitted documents
marked Exhibit W-21. He claims ignorance whether under letter dated 11-2-94, name of Ist party workman was sent
for empanelment. He claims ignorance whether workman was working as cash peon and his services were terminated
despite the work was available.
10.
During course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Bhattacharjee heavily argued that the documents
produced by workman are fabricated and bogus. Documents Exhibit W-1 doesnot bear signature of General Manager
(P). That in statement of claim, workman has mentioned about said document in Para 5 2nd party in reply to para-5 has
admitted the contents in para-5 of the statement of claim. Therefore said document cannot be disbelieved. The circular
dated 19-10-89 is produced on record, it pertains to empanelment and appointment of persons engaged on daily wages.
The eligibility is mentioned in ipara 2 of the document. Workman has not produced document that he submitted
application for his empanelment. Exhibit W-2 letter dated 1-2-92 heavily relied by counsel for workman Shri Dhote.
Said document is not signed by any body. At Sl.No.3 name of Ramsingh Bans Agrawal is written, it doesnot tally with
the name of workman. As said document is not bearing signature of any officer, no reliance could be placed on it.
Documents Exhibit w-5,6 also donot bear signature and no reliance could be placed on those documents. Evidence of
workman is supported by documents Certificate Exhibit W-21. Ist party workman was working in Arera colony
branch, Bhopal. Certificate Exhibit W-7 shows Ist party workman was working in Habibganj branch in the year 1991.
Exhibit W-8 shows payments made to the Ist party workman. Said document appears copy of the entries in the Bank
account, it doesnot bear signature. When document is entries in the Bank Account, no signature is expected. The
entries shown in Exhibit W-8 cannot be disbelieved. Workman produced documents Exhibit W-9/1 to 15 payments
made to Ist party workman in Habibganj branch shows that he had worked more than 240 days. In Exhibit W-14, letter
issued by Chief Manager , Zonal Office, Bhopal name of workman is appearing at Sl.No.3 finds reference about
continuous working on daily wages for 3-6 years by Ist party workman and other two employees. Exhibit W-15 shows
Chief Manager issued letter in pursuance of letter dated 2-2-94. The statement is annexed with said letter refers to name
of workman and his working is shown in Divisional Office in Jan, Feb-1990. Exhibit W-16 letter dated 20-3-96 shows
that workman was assigned work of collecting cheque, said letter is issued by Manager of Habibganj branch. Exhibit
W-17 lettr dated 1-8-96 name of Ist party workman is shown working on daily wages along with Premchand and
others. The signature is not completely appearing on zerox copies. Exhibit W-18 bears seal of the bank regarding
payments entries. However name of workman is not appearing on the documents. Said document therefore doesnot
corroborate claim of Ist party. In Exhibit W-19, payment of bonus amount Rs.14950 to workman is shown for period 1-
4-95 to 31-3-96. In letter Exhibit W-20 dated 7-5-97 by Sr.Manager, it shows that workman was working in ithe Bank
since November 1988, photocopy of statement as of 31-12-93 of Habibganj branch is enclosed. Evidence of Ist party is
corroborating that he was working more than 240 days.
11.
The application for production of documents was filed by workman. Documents were not produced. Exhibit M-1
produced by management is policy for recruitment dated 31-3-90. Workman has also produced said document on
record.
12.
Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Dhote submits that workman completed more than 240 days, his services are
terminated without notice. Management’s witness has claimed ignorance whether notice of termination was served on
workman, retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Shri Dhote relies on ratio held in case between-
Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in 2015(4)SCC-458. Their Lordship considering
muster roll Exhibit W-6 produced by appellant workman showing that appellant had worked for 22 days in
September 93. In written statement, respondent employer categorically stating that appellant had worked for 231
days in first sub division. Their Lordship held workman had worked for more than 240 days in the establishment
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5811
of respondent employer immediately preceding date of his termination. Judgment of Labour Court about
termination without compliance of Section 25-F of ID Act was upheld.
Shri Dhote relies on short note 2016-LLR-1227 on point that the law is well settled that if a party despite in
possession of the best evidence has not produced the same adverse inference can be drawn against such a party.
In present case, workman has produced document payment vouchers, entries of payment made to him,
management has not produced anoy documents regarding the working days of workman. Therefore evidence of Ist
party workman deserves to be excluded.
Shri Dhote relies on ratio held in case between IIS.Rajashekara versus State Bank of Mysore and another
reported in 2012-MPLSR-255(SC). Their Lordship dealing with violation of Section 25 B, F of ID Act. The
petitioner had worked in several branches of State Bank of Mysore during the period 1985 to 97. He served for
292 days during 8-7-94 to 30-8-95 held it would be sufficient if petitioner would establish that he rendered
service for more than 240 days in a block of 12 months. Directions were issued for absorption as permanent
employee.
13.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Bhattacharjee relies on ratio held in case between
Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsing reported in 2006-SCC(L&S)38. Their Lordship
held for applicability of Section 25-F,B of ID Act, facts must be established that (i) their existed relationship of
employer employee, (ii) he is a workman under Section 2(s) , (iii) establishment in which he is employed is an
industry within meaning of the Act and (iv) he has put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined
in Section 25 B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any one is missing then Section 25-F
will not be attracted. To get relief from court, workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service
and that his service has been terminated without complying with provisions of Section 25-F.
Ratio held in the case doesnot support the contentions of management.
Reliance is also placed in case between Union of India and others versus Jummasha Diwan reported in 2006-
SCC(L&S) 2037. Ratio held in the case pertains to when the project came to close, requirements of Section 25 N
were not required to be complied. The Tribunal has correctly opined that the employment of respondent was not
in an industrial establishment which would come within definition of factory in Section 2(m) of Factories Act,
1948. That dealing with continuous service, their Lordship held employment of casual employee in different
establishments, even under the same employer held would not amount to his being in continuous service.
In his statement of claim, workman has pleaded that he was working in Habibganj branch whereas documents
produced about his working is of Arera colony branch. The Bank cannot be said factory. Ratio held in 2015-4-SCC-458
is clear that work done in different sub divisions was considered while dealing with continuous service of the
workman. As services of Ist party workman are terminated without notice, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
14.
Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of workman is found illegal, question is whether
workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Term of reference doesnot pertain to regularization workman
had not submitted application for his absorption as per circular of 1989. Ist party workman was working on daily wages
since 1988 to 1997. Shri Bhattacharjee Advocate relies on ratio held in case between
Union of India and others versus Bishamber Dutt reported in 997-SCC(L&S) 478. Their Lordship held persons
appointed as part time employees dehors the rules, even though regularly working for a long time are not entitled
to regularization.
Ratio held in case between Secretary State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others reported in 2006-
SCC(L&S) 753. Their Lordship held that it is erroneous for SC to consider equity of the handful of people who
have approached the court with a claim whilst ignoring equity for the teeming millions seeking employment and
a fair opportunity for competing for employment.
In case between Secretary to Government School Education Department, Chennai versus R.Govindaswamy and
others reported in 2014(2)SCC(L&S)108. Their Lordship even temporary adhoc or daily wage service for a long
number of years let along service for one or two years will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he
is not working against a sanctioned post.
In case between Hari Nandan Prasad and another versus employer in relation to management of FCI and another
reported in 2014(2)SCC(L&S) 408. Their Lordship held it would be difficult to give relief of reinstatement to
persons who were engaged as daily wagers and whose services were terminated in a distant past and further
5812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
where the termination is held to be illegal only on technical ground of not adhering to the provisions of Section
25-F. of ID Act.
In case between Hari Nandan Prasad and another versus Food Corporation of India and another reported in
2014(2)SCC(L&S) 408. Their Lordship held it would be difficult to give relief by way of reinstatement with
backwages or compensation matters to be considered. Nature of post, duration of engagement, delay in raising
industrial dispute, time period which has elapsed from time of termination , technical violation of Section 25-F
of ID Act.
In case between Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, UP versus Akhilesh Kumar Khare and
another reported in 2016(1) SCC(L&S)-186, his Lordship held daily rated employees not entitled to
regularization found entitled to compensation if any.
15.
Considering the period of workman of Ist party, compensation Rs. 2 Lakhs would be appropriate. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No.2.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ramsingh Ahirwar S/o
Bansilal Ahirwar w.e.f. 10-5-97 is not proper and legal.
(2)
2nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2 Lakh to the workman .
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In
case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2465-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ
VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&31011@5@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Mumbai
Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.12.2016.
[No. L-31011/5/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/13 of 2010
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman
Mumbai Port Trust
CP & IRM’s Office
Port Bhavan, S.V. Marg
Mumbai 400 001.
AND
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5813
THEIR WORKMEN
The Secretary
Transport & Dock Workers’ Union
P.D’mello Bhawan
P.D’mello Road
Carnac Bunder
Mumbai 400 038.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
Mr. A.M. Koyande, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 9th November 2016
AWARD PART- II
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment by its Order No.L- 31011/ 5 /2009-IR (B-II), dated
18.01.2010 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:
“Whether action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Mohd.
Shafique Ahmed, Sr. Wr. 182-c(86637) by way of imposing the penalty “Removal from services” vide order
dated 29.08.2005 is legal, justified and proper? What relief the workman is entitled to ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were sent to both parties. In response to the notice, second party, union
filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-7. According to the Unionthe workman Shri Mohd.Shafique Ahmed was a senior
worker of the management. Dy. Dock Manager issued charge-sheet dt. 11/2/2005 alleging that, the worker remained
absent unauthorisedly for 15 days on 6 occasions during the period 18/01/2000 till 20/12/2000 and from 17/6/2003 till
the date of chargesheet i.e. 11/2/2005. It amount to violation of Regulation 3 (1/A) (ii) & 3 (1/A) (xii) of MbPT
Employees Conduct Regulation 1976. The workman replied the charge-sheet stating that he was on sanctioned leave
w.e.f 18/5/2003 to 16/3/2003 during the said period of leave unfortunately he had met with a road accident on
19/5/2003. Therefore he was under medical treatment from MbPT Hospital, Wadala. Due to the trauma and
disturbance in his family life, he lost his sound sense. His parents treated him as if he was under influence of some
malignant spirit and moved him at holy places. After persistent efforts of his family members the workman became
normal and approached the Dy. Dock Manager’s office for joining his duties vide his letter dt. 16/2/2005. But they
asked him to approach MbPT Hospital, Wadala. The Medical Officer, MbPT Hospital checked him thoroughly and
asked him to take rest from 23/2/2005 to 2/3/2005. Thereafter on 2/3/2005 Medical Officer issued fitness certificate to
him. Again workmanhas given letter on 5/3/2005 to Dy. Dock Manager and requested to allow him to join his duties.
However they conducted domestic inquiry against the workman w.e.f. 31/3/2005. The inquiry was concluded on
25/4/2005. Thereafter show-cause notice was issued on 2/7/2005. Workman replied the same. However they did not
consider the fact pleaded by the workman and passed order dated 29/8/2005 removing the workman from services. The
appeal of the workman was turned down. Review application was also rejected by the Chairman of the first party.
Therefore workman raised industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C), the Central Govt.
Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.
3.
According to the workman the inquiry was not fair and proper. There was violation of principles of natural
justice while conducting the inquiry. The findings of the I.O. are not based on the evidence on record. They are
perverse. Therefore the union prays that the inquiry be declared not fair and proper and findings of Inquiry Officer be
declared as perverse. The union also prays that punishment of removal from service awarded to the workman be set
aside and he be reinstated in service with full back wages.
4.
The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide it written statement at Ex-8. According to them
the averments and allegations made in the statement of claim are false and contrary to the facts.The workman has
intentionally violated the rules of discipline amounting to total disregard to the principle of dignity, sincerity and
honesty.The workman was continuously absent unauthorisedly for 574 days from 7/6/2003 upto 11/2/2005 and has
shown total disregard to the aforesaid principle of dignity, sincerity and honesty. For that act the workman was
removed from services as it amounts to gross misconduct under Regulation 3 (1), 3 (1/A) (ii) & (xii) of the MbPT
Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976. After holding legal, fair and proper inquiry against the workman, and after
giving him full, fair and proper opportunity to defend himself, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report. The inquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer held him guilty. Show-cause
notice was issued to him. He submitted his reply. After considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority awarded the
punishment of removal from services for the grave misconduct. The findings of the I.O. are not perverse. They are
5814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
based on the evidence on record. The allegations in the statement of claim are false. The medical certificate obtained
by the workman does not deserve any consideration. The same was also not produced in the inquiry proceeding or
before the disciplinary authority so also before the appellate authority or relieving authority. The misconduct was of
grave nature and punishment of removal from service is not shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
Therefore according to the first party the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Therefore they pray that the
reference be dismissed with cost.
5.
This Tribunal has passed Award Part – I and concluded that the inquiry is held fair and proper and the findings of
the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. The parties are directed to argue / or lead evidence on the point of quantum of
punishment relating to issue No. 3.
6.
Concerned workman filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief Ex. 34 on the point of quantum of punishment
related to issue No.3. First party management has not adduced any oral evidence.
7.
Following are the issues for my determination.I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:-
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the punishment of terminating his services is
shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct ?
No.
2.
What relief the workman is entitled to ?
As per final order.
3.
What order ?
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No.3:-
8.
According to the workman due to trauma and due to disturbance in his family life he lost his sound sense.
According to him, his parents gave treatment to him and he was taken to holy places. In this respect, it will have to be
said that the concerned workman has not filed any medical certificate or any medical evidence to show that he lost his
sound sense due to trauma and due to disturbance in his family life. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he
was absent on duty for the period from 2003 to 2005. He also admitted that he has not made any application for getting
service to any other place after he has removed from service from the Port Trust. It appears that even during the
inquiry proceedings he has not adduced evidence to prove that he was suffering from trauma and that he was taken to
holy places by his parents. Mere statement of the concerned person Mohammed Shafik Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh in his
affidavit is of no avail especially when he has not adduced any medical evidence even during the inquiry and before
this tribunal to prove that his absence was due to trauma suffered by him due to disturbance of his family life. For want
of evidence it will have to be said that his evidence to the effect that he remained absent on duty due to trauma due to
disturbance of his family life and that he was taken to holy places by his parents is not acceptable since it has not been
supported by the concrete evidence.
9.
Even otherwise this tribunal has held that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer against the workman was
just and legal with the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. So, now the question that creeps in is whether
the punishment of removal from service of the concerned workman is proportionate or not ?
10.
Learned Counsel for the First Party Management seeks to rely on the decision in case of State of Rajasthan &Anr.
Vs. Mohammed AyubNaz 2006 (I) CLR 401 wherein it is held that for unauthorized absence for 3 years the
punishment for removal from service was not disproportionate.
11.
Learned Counsel also seeks to reply on the decision in case of L & T Komatsu Limited Vs. N. Udaykumar 2008
(I) CLR 978 wherein it is held that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline. Labour Court and High Court
are not justified in directing reinstatement by interfering with the order of termination. In para 20 of the judgment, it
has been observed that after introduction of Section 11 in the Industrial Disputes Act certain amount of discretion is
vested with the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the
management whether the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very
well defined by the various judgments and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of
High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain
factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to satisfy the conscious of the Court
or the existence of any mitigating circumstances are requiredfor reduction of sentence or past conduct of the workman
which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment.
12.
In view of this legal position it can be said that in present case also there are no mitigating circumstances which
require the reduction of sentence. It has not been proved by evidence that the concerned workman was suffering from
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5815
trauma due to disturbance of family life. His absence on duty for no good reason is gross violation of discipline. Even
it appears that his appeal and review petition before the competent authority after the punishment was awarded to him
have not been considered by the competent authority. He had remained un-authorisedly absent as a result of which the
work of the employer was adversely affected. Disciplinary inquiry was conducted and the inquiry is also held to be
legal and proper with the observation that findings of I.O. are not perverse. It is in that circumstances I find that in the
present case there are no grounds for exercising discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
13.
Learned Counsel for the First Party Management also seeks to rely on the decision in the case of NRC Ltd. Vs.
NRC Employees Union 2001 (III) CLR 286. In that case the allegations in the charge sheet were that (i) from the
month of May 1993 the workman had remained absence unauthorisedly without sanction of leave on 13 occasions
consisting of 14 full days and 4 ½ days. (ii) he had remained unauthorisedly absent on the days fixed or suffixed to the
holidays (iii) He was continuously absent for one week between 11 – 15 of October 1993 on the ground of alleged
illness and medical certificate which was produced was not reliable. Consequently, it was alleged that the workman
had conducted misconduct of habitual absence without leave and gross negligence.
14.
In the circumstances, it has been observed that Labour Court by Part I Award held that inquiry herein is just and
fair and findings of guilt of misconduct is upheld. The question in this petition was whether the discretion exercised by
the Labour Court under Section 11-A granting reinstatement without back wages was proper. It is held that the
exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section 11-A was not proper.
15.
Reliance is also placed on the decision in case of M.D. Kawade & Anr. Vs. Mahindra Eng. & Chemical Products
Limited, Pune & Anr 2000 (I) CLR 545 wherein it is held that misconduct of the habitual absenteeism of the petitioner
workman was duly proved and his dismissal was proper. It is held that workman must be always at work and not away
from work and that should be our work culture.
16.
In view of this legal position, it will have to be said that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman is
not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He was absent at work for the period 18.1.2000 to 20.12.2000 for
15 days on 6 occasions and thereafter remained continuously absent unauthorisedly for 574 days from 17.6.2003 to
11.2.2005 in violation of Regulation 3 (1/A) (ii) and 3(1/A) (xii) of MbPT Employees Conduct Regulation 1976. Even
it appears that in the review petition the workman admitted that he did not have the medical certificate and as such the
same cannot be produced and in that circumstances the reviewing authority has not interfered with the order dated
19.09.2006.
17.
Considering all these facts and the legal position that stands, I find that the punishment of terminating services of
the workman is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. This issue is therefore answered accordingly in the
negative.
Issue Nos. 4 & 5:-
18. In view of my findings to the above issue, I hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief and therefore the
reference is liable to be rejected.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date : 09/11/2016
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2466-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ
VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 56@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-12-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&31011@19@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2016
S.O. 2466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
5816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Mumbai
Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.12.2016.
[No. L-31011/19/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/56 of 2009
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman
Mumbai Port Trust
Port House, Ballard Estate
Mumbai 400 038.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN
The General Secretary
Mumbai Port Trust Mazdoor Sangh
Parvati Building
7, Pitha Street, Off. Sir P.M. Road
Mumbai 400 001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Ms. Kunda Samant, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 10th October, 2016.
AWARD
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/19/2007-IR (B-II) dated
02/07/2009 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:
“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in denying promotion/selection to
Shri Ramchandra Rane to the post of Winder (Electrical) is legal and justified? To what relief the workman
concerned is entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the Reference notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice second party union
has filed Statement of Claim Ex-5. According to him it is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926
and represents the workmen employed in Mumbai Port Trust including concerned workman Shri Ramchandra B. Rane.
Said Ramchandra Rane joined the services of the First party w.e.f. 14/6/1968 and was working in the Chief Mechanical
Engineer’s department. The said workman at the material time was working as Sr. Wireman Electrical establishment,
Southern Division, MbPT.
3.
According to the 2nd party union said workman worked sincerely, faithfully and diligently and maintained a clean
and unblemished record of service. By dint of his hard work and merits, the said workman not only earned annual
increments regularly in the posts held by him for time being but also to the higher post. He was promoted from his
initial post of Mazdoor to the post of Assistant Wireman in the year 1989. Thereafter in April 1993 as wireman w.e.f.
2004, as Sr. Wireman and lastly he was legitimately aspiring, being eligible for the promotion for the post of in the
higher scale of Supervisor. However, the said post was denied to him by conducting farce of tests and selection of two
junior employees superseding the seniority and the post, experience of the said S. B. Rane. Theselection of two Jr.
employees Shri J.P. Patel and Shri N.P. Kadam for promotion to the higher scale of supervision is illegal unjust in view
of promotional rules, policies, seniority consideration, for promotion schedule to MbPT Employees Recruitment
(Recruitment Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1973 for Class III &IV posts.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5817
4.
According to the union said workman Mr. Rane was holding PWD II Class license. He was promoted to Asstt.
Wireman after passing Departmental Promotion Committee’s test. He was again promoted as wireman in 1993, and by
passing the D.P.C. in the skilled category where in the worked nearly for 10 years and thereafter in a highly skilled job
for 3 years again passing D.P.C. he maintained his clean image. He regularlyattended repairs and rewinding of various
types/capacities of motors and equipment independently and accurately. He had done more than 250 jobs independently
successfully. He had attended the job work of Grinder-Stator assembled tested and found O.K. and also one five H.P.
Rotor rewinding on 13/12/1982.His work consisted of repairing of AC or DC ceiling fans and regulator for reverse
connections or open circuit in regulator and use of merger. He was prevailing seventh pay scale of 10 pay scales
prescribed for Class III and class IV employees of the First party.
5.
According to union,the first party through Electrical Establishment C.M.E’s Department where the concerned
workman was working displayed a notice for filing the post of electrical winder invited applications willingness of the
workmen who possess requisite qualifications on 25/11/2004.The willing workman including Mr. R.B. Rane appeared
for oral examination on 13/4/2005 and for practical examination on 4/5/2005 and on 5/5/2005 Shri Rane is the Sr. most
in the category doing the same work and having considerable experience that the candidates appeared in the test. He
was drawing salary immediate, next to the notified post of electrical winder. Total 10 candidates appeared for the
process of finding out suitability for promotional post of winder (E) the oral examination included drawing of diagram,
out of which four candidates were declared as passed and were called for practical test. The said practical tests were
held on 4/5/2005 and 5/5/200 in respect of Shri Patel and Vaste and practical test for Shri Rane and Kadam was held on
5/5/2005 and 6/5/2005. The criteria for this promotional post are seniority-cum-merit.
6.
According to the union for practical tests Shri Rane and Vaste were given 16-16 coils for rewinding but
Shri Kadam and Patel were given 14 coils for rewinding. Shri Kadam’s and Shri Rane’s practical tests were held on
5/5/2005 and on 6/5/2005 respectively. Rane had completed his job on 6/5/2005 at 4.00 pm without any help from any
outsider and reported to his regular work at 5.00 pm at EESD Yantra Bhavan, Indians Docks from Mazgaon, to attend
to second shift, where as Shri Patel could not complete his job at 5.00 pm on 5/5/2005 but had completed at 5.15 pm.
However Shri V.K.Patvardhan, Electrical Charge-man signed who was not authorized to conduct the practical test by
openly favoring him over Shri R.B. Rane.
7.
According to the union Departmental promotion had been conducted an oral test fo the following workmen of the
post of electrical winder:
(i) 6 Mazdoor in the pay scale 3700-5830 (Class IV).
(ii) 1 Sr. Wireman in the pay scale 4640-9550 (Class III) (Shri R B Rane).
The DPC met on 12th and 13thApril, 2005 where they interviewed all the 7 employees. Out of these 7 employees,
they declared 3 as failed and the remaining four were called for practical test. There were 3 Mazdoors Patel, Vaste and
Kadam in the base-line pay scale of Rs. 3780-5830 Class IV and one (i.e. the workman) in the pay scale of Rs. 4640-
9550 ClassIII. Accordingly, Shri Vardham conducted practical test as charge man (Mechanical) on 4th, 5th, 6th of May
2005 at the E.E.N.D. workshop by giving two full days of repairing and rewinding of ceiling fans. It was not only a
drawing but also a comprehensive and rigorous test which the workman Shri Rane underwent for 2 days consisting of
the following four stages:
a)
Fan-motor wiring, cutting and cleaning of starters.
b)
Selection of wire gauge and required equipment
c)
Rewinding the starter with termination of coils.
d)
Assembling and testing the fan motors.
For performance of each stage, it had a specific value (10+15 marks)
8.
According to the union even though Shri R.B. Rane was senior most and suitable for the promotional post he was
denied the same and was given to his Junior N.P.Kadam and J.B.Patel who were in Mazdoor category Class IV. Union
therefore wrote letter dt 5/8/2005 to the Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME). Workman concerned gave two reminders
on 29/8/2005 and on 30/09/2005 but his case was not considered. Therefore he applied in respect of examination
conducted and the connected documents of other 3 candidates also under RTI 2005. So according to the union denial of
promotion being unjust and illegal the union raised an Industrial Dispute demanding promotion to the workman
Shri R.B Rane as an Electrician in the scale of pay of next higher than the one in which he was working. First party
declined to concede the demand of the union, and therefore approached the Conciliation Officer, Central for
intervention in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 and 12 of I. D. Act. The conciliation proceedings were
held which ended in failure. Unionthere fore filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 212 of 2009 in the Hon’ble
5818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
High Court of judicature of Bombay wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to order to the Union of India to
make a fresh order in accordance with law.
9.
So according to the union arbitrary denial of the promotion to workman Shri Rane has not only affected his
career progression but monetary loss. It has prayed that the action of first party in denying promotion/selection to
Shri R.B. Rane to post of winder (E) be held illegal. And it be held and declared that Shri Rane is entitled to promotional post
of winder (electrical) from 27/7/2005 with consequential benefits arrears, retrial dues, including PF. Pension etc.
10.
First party resisted the claim by filing Written Statement Ex-12. According to the first party management the
action taken by the management of Mumbai Port Trust in denying the promotion to Mr. Rane to the post of Electrician
winder is certainly legal and justified. As per MbPT Employees’ (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations,
1977 for class III and Class IV posts, the eligibility criteria for the post of Electrician(winder) are that the employees
from lower categories having completed 5 years of service in the lower category and possess PWD II class Wireman
License. The posts of Electrical (winder) in Electrical Divisions are having common seniority amongst three Electrical
Divisions channel to fill these posts by promotions. The prevailing procedure being adopted by this department for
filing in the non-selection posts i.e. Electrician (winder), Electrician (Auto), Electrician (Refregn) etc. Which are not
having hierarchical promotion channel is by inviting applications from the eligible candidates and holding prescribed
oral exam and practical test by the Department Promotion Committee (DPC). In the oral exam, the candidate is
required to obtain minimum pass mark of 15 out of 40 and in practical test 40 out of 60 and this procedure has
withstood the test of time and no dispute whatsoever has been raised by any of the employees except Mr. Rane.
Claiming the said promotional post of Electrician (Winder) on merely seniority basis is totally unfair and not justified.
Thus the promotion to Mr. RB Rane has already been given as Asst. Wireman on 31/1/1989, wireman on 27/4/1993
and Sr. Wireman on 1/10/2004. Henceselection of two junior employees in the category of Mazdoor to the higher scale
of supervisor on the basis of their skill and competency in the trade is justified and legitimate in accordance with the
said procedures and regulations.
11.
According to the 1st party Mr. Rane was working as a Mazdoor in 1982, the Mazdoor is not at all entrusted with
the highly skilled and specialized jobs of rewinding of motors, etc.independently which are connected with the
electricity. Being Sr. most amongst all the applicants, Mr. Rane was given opportunity at the first number to express
and prove his ability in oral and practical test before the DPC. But he miserably failed on the practical test and
ultimately, the DPC recommended him unsuitable of the promotional post of Electrician (Winder). The DPC test
conducted in April/May 2005 was his third attempt. So the contention of Mr. Rane that he is the Sr. most in the
category doing the same work and having considerable experience than the candidates appeared in the test is totally
incorrect and is misleading. Category of wireman is coming under the hierarchical promotional post meant for the
categories of the employees right from Mazdoor, Nawganee, Passenger liftman/Goods liftman to Asstt. Wireman and
as such, the Wireman is not compared with the category of Electrician (Winder) which is falling under the special
category of highly skilled and having expertise in the trade. Mr. Rane failed in the practical test as he made connection
of fan motor terminals wrong as per the test report available in the records of this office. Therefore only clearing the
oral and practical tests in the trade does matter. Once the tests are cleared, the applicants who are recommended
suitable by the DPC are empanelled for promotional post on the basis of their seniority in feeder categories irrespective
of their merit performance in the test. As regard the practical test given to Mr. Rane on 5/5/2005 and 6/5/2005 about the
rewinding of ceiling fan having 16 coils, it is submitted that Mr. Rane failed to lodge any complaint with the then
Supervisor in regard to difference in the coils of the ceiling fans given to individual candidates at the time of test. As
such Mr. Rane’s contention is that he had completed more than 250 jobs of rewinding works independently and
accurately, he should have gained adequate ability and expertise in carrying out such rewinding jobs and passed the
practical test conducted on ceiling fan in the first attempt itself in the year 1995. Even after a lapse of about 10 years,
he miserably failed to gain the requisite expertise in rewinding work and thus, failed in third attempt also.
12.
According to the 1st party management Mr. Rane did not possess required expertise in the field. The post of
Electrician (Winder) is being filled in either by direct recruitment or by promotion amongst the eligible candidates after
testing their knowledge, ability and skill in the trade by the DPC by conducting oral and practical test and not merely
on the basis of service seniority or senior in the rank of hierarchical promotion. All the employees right from lower
category of Mazdoor having completed five years’ service in MbPT and holding PWD second class wireman license
are eligible. Mr. Rane failed repeatedly in his attempt to get higher promotion to the post of Electrician (Winder). As
he has failed in the test and found not suitable for the post of Electrician (Winder). As also, he is not a successful
candidate and not promoted to the post of Electrician (Winder). Therefore he is not entitled to promotion to the post of
Electrician (Winder). Therefore the 1st party prays that the Reference be rejected with costs.
13.
In view of above pleadings following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the
reasons to follow:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5819
Sr No
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the action of management of Mumbai Port Trust in
denying promotion/selection to Shri R. B. Rane to the post of
Winder (Electrical) is legal and justified?
Yes.
2.
Whether Mr. Ramchandra Rane is entitled to get promotion and
other benefits as prayed for?
No.
3.
What order?
As per order.
REASONS
Issues nos. 1 &2:
14.
Second party workman claims promotion to the post of Winder (Electrical) on the basis of seniority. Admittedly
he joined the services of the first party on 14/6/1968 and was working in Chief Mechanical Engineer department. He
was given higher post from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Assistant wiremen in 1989. He was given the post of
wiremen in 1993 and in 2004 he was given post of senior wireman. So the standing point of dispute between the parties
is whether selection of Shri J P Patel and Mr. N P Kadam is unjustified in view of promotion policies.
15.
For, it is explicit that the promotion to the post of Electrician (winder) is to be accorded to the employees on the
basis of their technical knowledge skill and requisite knowledge in the trade competency and not purely on seniority
basis. It is pertinent to note that as per MbPT Employees Recruitment (Recruitment Seniority and Promotion)
Regulations 1973 for Class III &IV posts the eligibility criteria for the post of electricity winder is that the employees
from lower categories having completed 5 years of service in the lower category and possess PWD II class wireman
License. The posts of electrical (winder) in Electrical Divisions are having common seniority amongst three Electrical
Divisions EESD, EEND and EEWA. But there is no any specified channel to fill in these posts by promotions. The
prevailing procedure being adopted by this department for filing in the non selection post i.e. Electrician (winder),
Electrician (auto), Electrician (Refregn.) etc. are not having hierarchical promotion channel.It is by inviting
applications fromthe eligible candidates and holding prescribed oral exam and practical test by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC). In the oral exam, the candidate is required to obtain minimum pass mark of 15 out of
40 and in practical test 40 out of 60 and this procedure has with stood the test of time. Now the question is whether Mr.
Rane has qualified for the post to get promotion as Electrician (Winder).
16.
Ld.counsel for the union submitted that Rane’s service record is unblemished. He had to his credit letters of
appreciation issued by the first party. Submission is to the effect that due to his sincerity hard work, the annual
increments were given to him regularly and he was promoted from his initial post of Mazdoor to the post of Assistant
Wireman in the year 1989. Thereafter, in April 1993 as wireman w.e.f. 2004, as Sr. Wireman. According to the Ld
Counsel for union Mr. Rane was legitimately aspiring, being eligible for the promotion for the post of Supervisorand
winder electricalin the higher scale. His submission is that Mr. J P Patel and Mr. Kadam were given promotion though
they were junior to him and seniority aspect was not considered.
17.
However, on going through the report of selection committee section EESD it appears that in practicalwork for
motor winding and cutting and cleaning of Stator Mr. Rane secured 7 marks out of 10 marks. In Selection of wire
gauge and required equipments he secured 7 out of 10 marks.In rewinding the stator with termination of coils he
secured 18 out of 25 marks and in assembling testing of fan motor he secured 5 out of 15 marks. In total he secured 37
out of 60 marks and as per the remark of the section committee the marks of IVth steps are considered according to
time taken for finishing the work and also held taken by candidates in progressing to next step. The candidate had done
the winding connections wrong. Hence less mark are given for the IVth step. Asper selection committees’ report
section CMEEEND, it appears that Mr. Rajendrakumar P. Vastein practical work for motor winding and cutting and
cleaning of Stator secured 7 marks out of 10 marks. In Selection of wire gauge and required equipments he secured 7
out of 10 marks. In rewinding the stator with termination of coils he secured 17 out of 25 marks and in assembling
testing of fan motor he secured 5 out of 15 marks. In total he secured 36 out of 60 marks. As per the committees’report
selected candidate Mr. Jayantilal B Patel secured 44 out of 60 and as per the remarks of the committee Mr. Jayantilal
Patel has competed the work satisfactory in given time of two days. Similarly selected candidate Mr. Nana Paya Kadam
secured 49 out of 60 and as per the remarks of the committee he has completed the work satisfactory in the given time
of two days. He has completed the work in one and half days only. So as per the report of selection committee Mr.
Rane secured less marks as compared to the selected candidate and since his performance was not satisfactory so he
was not given promotion.
18.
Ld.Counsel for the union urged that lower post to Electrician (winder) is highly skilled (4640-9500) where as
Mazdoor is the eighth category and it is not lower category but lowest and/or bottom category. Other three candidate
5820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mr. Vaste, Patel and Kadam belonged to Mazdoor category, Class IV where as Mr. Rane belonged to skilled category,
Class III. This aspect was not taken into consideration while giving promotion. Submission is to the effect that there
were no adverse report against Mr. Rane and Mazdoor who has not even worked as Assistant wireman are selected in
the practical test. Submission is also to the effect that Mr. Rane was given 16-16 coils for rewinding but Shri Kadam
and Patel were given 14-14 coils for rewinding. Mr. Rane’s and Kadam’s test were held on 5/5/2005 and 6/5/2005.
However the practical test of Patel and Vaste were held on 4/5/2005 and 5/5/2005. According to him Mr. Rane had
completed his job on 6/5/2005 at 4.pm without any help from any outsider and reported to his regular work at 5.00 pm
at EESD Yantra Bhavan, Indians Docks from Mazgaon, to attend to second shift, where as Shri Patel could not
compete his job at 5.00 pm on 5/5/2005 but had completed at 5.15 pm. However Shri V.K Patvardhan electrical charge-
man signed who was not authorized to conduct the practical test by openly favoring of Mr. Patel who got selected.
Submission is also to the effect that Mr. Rane had drawn the correct diagram and correct answers in oral examination
and that his practical test was taken without presence of any DCP members. Therefore so called practical test was a
false. These practical test are not authentic and even the remarks were written afterwards and remarks are not correct,
since remarks were passed without inspecting job.
19.
It is not possibleto accept these submissions since it appears that Mr. Rane has not made any given DPC
immediately after the exam were over. Even otherwise these submissions are not substantiated by adducing evidence to
that effect. Even in his cross examination Mr. Rane has admitted that there were DPC for three times and considering
his seniority he was considered for DPC for three times but then as per DPC report it appears that he could not pass oral
examination and even secured less marks in the test as compared to the candidate who are selected. Since the
promotion is based not only on the basis of seniority but it is based on seniority-cum-merits reports of DPC has
significant value which were considered for giving promotion to the post of Electric (Winder).
20.
Even it is admitted by Mr. Rane in cross examination that different officers attended three DPC’s. It does not
appear probable that these officers purposely failed him and favoured the selected candidate specially when there is
record to show that Mr. Rane secured less marks as compared to selected candidate and even he could not pass oral
examination successfully. There is absolutely no any evidence that mark-list is prepared later on by destroying the
original and somebody else has signed instead of panel members of DPC namely Shri Rathod, Daware, and Varghese.
It cannot be said therefore that denial of promotion is illegal and unjustified.
21.
Ld Counsel for the management submitted that keeping in view the service seniority the promotion to Mr. R B
Rane has already been given as Asst. Wireman on 31/1/1989, wireman on 27/4/1993 and Sr. Wireman on 1/10/2004.
But so far the promotion of Electrical (wireman) it is based on seniority-cum-merit. Category of wireman is coming
under hierarchical promotion post meant for categories of the employees right from Mazdoor, Nawganee, Passenger
liftman/Goods liftman to Asst. Wireman and as such, the wireman is not compared with the category of Electrician
(winder) which is falling under the special category of highly skilled and having expertise in the trade. Mr. Rane failed
in practical test as he made the connection of fan motor terminals wrong. He was denied promotion and therefore the
question of category employee i.e. class III and IV for filling in the non-hierarchical promotional post of Electrician
(winder) does not arise. The applicants who are recommended suitable by the DPC are empanelled for promotional
post on their seniority in feeder categories irrespective of their merit performance in the test. The submission appears to
be probable that since there are documents on record to show that process of selection had completed as per
promotional rules, policies, seniority consideration, for promotion schedule to MbPT Employees Recruitment
(Recruitment Seniority and Promotion) Regulations 1973 for Class III & IV posts.
22.
In view of above observations, I find that the denial of promotion, given to Mr. R.B. Rane to the post of
Electrical (winder) is legal and justified. Therefore, Mr. Rane is not entitled to promotion and other benefits as claimed
by him. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore answered accordingly.
23.
In the result Reference is liable to be rejected.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 10.10.2016
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2467-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksjiksjs'ku
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5821
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lh-vkj- 29@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@58@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. C.R. No. 29/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Corporation
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/58/2016-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 07th NOV., 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 29/2016
I Party
II Party
Sh. Nagaraj S.V,
The Chairman,
H No. 15/42, Karthik Nilaya,
Corporation Bank Head Office,
Nehrunagar, Sagara,
Mangalor-575001
Shimoga-577401
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/58/2016 – IR(B-II)dated 05.09.2016 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Corporation Bank is justified in awarding the punishment of Compulsory
retirement from services to Sri. S.V. Nagaraj? If not, what are the reliefs the workman is entitled to?”
2.
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. I party and II Party called absent for the hearing on 07.11.2016. Notice for hearing has been
sent to I party and II party by RPAD and also this Tribunal received served postal acknowledgment from Department
of Posts, India. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I party and also II Party, and both parties called,
absent.
3.
Unfortunately, the Ist party has failed to make appearance before this Tribunal. Further, in the present matter, the
Ist party has been furnished with sufficient and adequate opportunities to make his submissions, in the present case. It
is the settled law, that the particular matter has to be judged, in the light of its facts and circumstances of the said
matter only. Already, reasonable opportunities have been granted to the I party to make his submissions. Therefore, it
would be laying down the proposition, a little too broadly, to say that, even in an Award passed, rejecting the Award
for non-prosecution, it must be supported by elaborate reasons and details. After going through the material records,
this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the Ist Party. Further more it is seen that, the
contentions of the Ist Party cannot be accepted for the above mentioned reasons also. Moreover, on the perusal of the
material records, it can be very well said that the Ist Party is not interested to contest the present matter, on the question
of fact and also on the question of law.
4.
In the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear in the present matter, that the Ist party has no
interest to contest the present matter. It is for the Ist party to make out a case that she has a right to continue in service
of management and that the management has done a mistake in discontinuing his services
5822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further, no case has been
made out by Ist party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view
the conduct of Ist party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, despite due service of the notice, that too by way of
RPAD and his conduct, in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal clear that the Ist party
is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above mentioned facts and
situations, it has to be held 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
Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 7th November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2468-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 04@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 04th November, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer (Hubli Camp)
I. D. No. 04/2016
I Party
II Party
Sh Basavaraj,
1.
The Canara Bank, Haveri Branch, Haveri, TQ:DT: Haveri
S/o Nagappa Ballary,
Post: Bankapur,
2.
The Asst. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office,
Tq: Shiggaon, Dt: Haveri
HRM Section, IMA House, B N Nagar, Hubli-29
3.
The Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office No.112,
JC Raod, Bangalore-560002.
AWARD
The petition U/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 2010 (C) filed by the I party praying to set
aside the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2013 and to direct the II party to reinstate the I party, into service with
continuity of service and also with back wages and with all consequential benefits.
1. Brief details mentioned by the I party, in the Application are as follows:
The I party has been appointed as a P T E on daily wages basis on 12.01.2005 at: Canara Bank Branch, Haveri.
Since from the date of appointment, the I party has sincerely worked to the entire satisfaction of the superiors, without
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5823
any blemish, in his service records, and the II party, by considering the service of I party, has regularized the service
of the I party as a permanent employee on 15.05.2012. Since from the date of regularization, the I party has worked
with the most sincerity in service of the II Party Bank. The I party has narrated the true facts with regard to the
charges, but the respondent without considering the reply properly, has proceeded to hold the Departmental Enquiry
against the I party. The custodian of the cheque books and the process of issuing cheque books and also process of
passing cheques are within the ambit of respondent and the alleged transaction has been made through some third
parties with a view to cause loss to the account holder. In the present case the account holder has not given any written
complaint against the I party regarding the alleged charges. With a view to victimize, the I Party to any extent and with
view to shift their negligence, on the duties, while performing money transactions, the II party has obtained signatures
of the I party, on a blank paper and also shifted the burden as if the petitioner has committed the alleged, misconduct
only with a view to make a scape goat. Signatures have been obtained in blank papers with a view to victimize the I
party. The I party has not committed, any misconduct, as he has worked in the lower cadre only, and the I party has
signed in the blank paper without raising any objection, as per the orders of the superiors. The signed paper has been,
then, converted as a confession letter to the alleged charge sheet. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer,
without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and also without properly looking into the facts of the case
and without summoning the Account holder to the enquiry and also against principles of natural justice and Banking
Rules and Regulations has passed the order. Further, without looking to the documents, properly the Appellate
Authority and also, without considering the true facts of the case, has blindly proceeded to confirm the order dated
22.11.2013 passed by the II party. The I party has no source of Income to earn his daily bread to the family, and further
the petitioner is age barred and also, due to unemployment from the date of dismissal, the I party is suffering a lot, both
physically and also mentally due to, the order passed by the II party. Hence, the I party has requested to set aside to
the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2013 and to direct the II party to reinstate the I party into continuity of service, with
back wages and all consequential benefits.
2.
On the receipt of the present Application, and also, registering it in I.D No.04/2016, notices have been issued to
both parties and Sh. A.M. Patil, Advocate on 19.07.2016 has filed vakalat for the I party and whereas, for the
respondent, no representation, has been made, and II party have been called thrice and also, remained, absent. Though
notices of hearings have been issued to II party by RPAD and served postal acknowledgments, also received from
Department of Posts, India, the II party has not appeared before this court and no representation is also made on behalf
of the II party.
3.
The pertinent point that arises for consideration, in the present matter, is:-
Whether, the I party is entitled to get relief, as prayed for in the present Application, for the reasons, and
grounds stated therein?
4.
Point:- the petitioner has filed affidavit to treat the same as examination in chief in the form of affidavit as per
the provisions of the order XVIII Rule 4(1) C.P.C and also along with affidavit, I party has filed 4 exhibits, namely Ex
W-1 to Ex W-4 in order to establish the submissions made in the application and the details of the Exhibits have been
clearly pointed out, in the end of the present award. The applicant, apart from submitting the above mentioned details
made in the present application , has also pointed out in the affidavit specifically that, in the present case the said
account holder has not given any written complaint against the I party, regarding the alleged charges. Further, without
summoning the account holder to the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has blindly proceeded to hold the enquiry, against
the principles of natural justice and against the Banking rules and Regulations and service code. Further more, the I
party has specifically stated that, since from the date of dismissal, he has no other source of Income and he is also age
barred and also, unemployed, from the date of dismissal and suffering the lot, both physically and mentally and also
financially, by the order passed by the II party. Hence, the I party in the affidavit also specifically requested this court
to set aside the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2013 and to direct the II party to reinstate him into service with
continuity of service and also with back wages and with all consequential benefits.
5.
Further the I party has also filed the below mentioned four exhibits and also clearly established that the
respondents have failed to examine the important witness, namely the alleged account holder, whose account has been
allegedly, utilized to withdraw money and also the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and
doctrine of fairness and also reasonableness and the extreme punishment of termination, amounts to economic death to
the I party and the action of II party is capricious, abusive and malafide exercise of power, amounting to victimization
and unfair labour practices. Further, in order to establish the said submissions the First party has marked as Ex W-1 the
proceedings of the Assistant General Manager dated 22.11.2013 and also Ex W-2 order of Disciplinary Authority.
However, as per details mentioned, in, Ex W-3 the charge sheet has been issued to the I party and also it has been
specifically mentioned that on 21.01.2013, the said customer made a complaint about the alleged withdrawal of money,
without proper authorisation granted by him. However, the I party categorically stated that the said complaint has not
been examined by the II party to establish the said allegations, made against the I party. Further, as per Ex W-4 a
certificate has been issued by the Conciliation Officer to the effect that, no settlement has been reached and also the I
5824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
party has been advised to file his dispute before this Court. Accordingly, the I party has filed present application
claiming the above mentioned reliefs and also established the same in accordance with Law. Further, the I party has
pointed out that, after the dismissal from the service, he is without any employment and he is suffering a great
hardhship and also financial difficulty. Hence, the I party has requested to answer the points of dispute in favour of the
I party and to direct the II party to reinstate him with all consequential benefits, like full back wages, continuity of
service and all monetary benefits with costs of these proceedings, in the interest of equity and justice.
6.
Further, the II party has miserably failed to establish the alleged misconduct, committed by I party, in accordance
with law. Also, the II party management have failed to prove the charge made, as against the I party, and even, the II
party, has failed to appear before this Court, even after the receipt of the registered notice of hearing. Further, I party
has prayed to pass an award in this matter, granting him, full relief, as prayed in the claim statement and all appropriate
relief as may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the II party management have not made out any
case as against the I party and II party is refusing, even to appear before this Court and also, delaying the matter and
thus, causing the I party, the irreparable loss and mental agony to the I party.
7.
Further, the learned counsel appearing for the I party has rightly submitted that the claim statement and evidence
of I party have been left uncontroverted and unchallenged by the II party and hence the action of the management has
to be held as illegal and unjustified. Further, submissions made on behalf of I party in the claim statement is not
controverted or assailed by the II party, in an appropriate manner, know to law and hence this Court has no reason to
disbelieve the submissions made on behalf of the I party in the claim statement, which is also established, in
accordance with law. Further, the II party has failed to substantiate its action of imposing the penalty of removal from
service as against the I party, as the legal action, and also, justified. Further, the II party has not produced any material
records to establish that I party has been dismissed, as per the rules and also, in accordance with law. Further this
Court, after considering materials available on record and considering the attitude of the II party, the Court is able to
come to a conclusion that the I party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement. Further, as per the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1986 SC 1413, “Even if the burden of proof does not lie, on a
party, the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw
light on the facts in issue in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.” Further, no tenable
submission has been made by the II party as to why the I party is not entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim
statement. Certainly, the II party has taken the Court proceedings, lightly and II party is not justified in terminating the
service of the I party. For the above mentioned reasons, it found the I party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the
claim statement. For the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances, it is found that the II party has not
established that the dismissal order of the I party has been passed, after following the appropriate Rules and
Regulations. Hence, the following Award is passed by this Tribunal.
AWARD
The II party/management is not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on I party/Sh.
Basavaraj and the said I party is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other
consequential benefits that he would have received in the absence of the impunged penalty of dismissal from service.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 4th November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
Witness on the side of I party: Basavaraj(W1)
Sl.No.
Particulars
Ex. Nos.
1
Proceedings of the Assistant General Manager,
dated 22.11.2013
Ex W-1
2.
Orders of the Disciplinary Authority, dated
22.11.2013
Ex W-2
3.
Orders of the Appellate Authority along with the
forwarding letter dated 19.06.2014
Ex W-3
4.
Certificate by the Conciliation Officer as provided
u/s 2A of ID Act 1947 along with Covering letter
dated 30.05.2016
Ex W-4
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2469-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksjiksjs'ku
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5825
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lh-vkj- 38@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@58@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. C.R. No. 38/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Corporation
Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/58/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 16th November, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 38/2015
I Party
II Party
Sri Vamana,
The Assistant General Manager,
Laxmi Muthu,
Corporation Bank, Head Office,
Sri Kuruvamba Temple Road,
Mangal Devi Temple Road,
Kalbhavi, Kottara Derebali,
Mangalore - 1
Ashokanagar Post,
Mangalore - 575006
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/58/2015-IR(B-II) dated 02.12.2015 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 Corporation Bank in awarding the punishment of compulsory
retirement from service to Sri Vamana is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
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 Ist party and Ist 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 Still, no representation has been made on
behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.
3.
On perusal of records, already notices have been sent to both the parties. 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.
4.
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 issuance 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 get the above mentioned relief and that the management has
done a mistake by denying the said relief. Further, on behalf of the 2nd party, Mr. S R Kamalacharan Advocate of the
2nd Party filed vakalat on 29.09.2016 and reported that the 2nd party has not violated any provisions of the Rules and
also, the I party has continued to refuse to perform the duties allotted to him, and therby, causing dislocation to smooth
functioning of the Branch of the II party, and the II party has imposed an order of Compulsory Retirement from the
services of the Second Party Bank, with superannuation benefits, vide order dated 31.01.2014, in accordance with law.
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.
5826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
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. Further, on a perusal of the report
of the Learned Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner, that, in spite of conciliation proceedings,
taken in the present matter, the conciliation proceedings, also, ended in failure. Ultimately, the matter has been referred
to this Tribunal. Further, the II Party has vividly pointed out that the I Party herein is not entitled to get any relief, in
the present matter. 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 16th November, 2016).
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2470-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@139@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/139/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 02nd December, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 25/2005
I Party
II Party
Sh M. E. Thimmappa,
The General Manager (P),
No.30, Chikkanna Layout,
Vijaya Bank,
Pampamahakavi Road,
Head Office,
Shankarapuram,
41/2, M.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560004
Bangalore – 560001
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/139/2003-IR(B-II) dated 26.05.25005 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5827
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of Shri M.E. Thimmappa S/o Sh. Erappa that he was appointed by the management of
Vijaya Bank as a Temporary Sweeper on daily wage basis during the period from May 1985 to 02.06.2000
and terminated his services thereafter is correct? If so, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to?”
2.
In the Claim Statement the I Party has prayed to pass an Order to the effect that
“WHEREFORE, the I Party respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the II Party
Management is not justified in terminating the services of the I Party w.e.f 02.06.2000 and set aside the order of illegal
termination dated 02.06.2000 and further direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party workman in his original post with all
consequential benefits like full backwages, permanency/regularisation of employment, continuity of service etc., along
with the costs of these proceedings, in the interest of equity and justice.”
3.
In the counter the II Party has stated that, Sri. M. E. Thimmappa was engaged as part-time sweeper on daily wage
basis during the absence/leave period of regular sweeper in the said branch. He was engaged as a temporary sweeper
intermittently from 1995 to 1999 and he was paid 1/3 of the regular wages for the period of his engagement. His
engagement was purely temporary in nature on daily wage basis and his name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. Haragopal and others reported in 1987 II LLN 20 has
upheld the legal validity of the rules/guidelines framed by the Government of India. A temporary employee cannot
equate his position with that of a permanent employee and cannot expect that same wages should be paid to him.
4.
Further, I Party has Specifically stated in his deposition, that, he is presently residing at Door No. 6,
Thiharepalayan, Balaji Nagar, Dhanalaxmi Traders (Opposite to) Bangalore, Mobile No. 8792493886, and the I Party
has filed the memo with the details as follows:-
“The I Party submits that the II Party has offered him employment on 14.11.2014, and hence the I Party has no further
interest in pursuing this dispute and withdraws all his claims against the II Party. Wherefore this Hon’ble Tribunal may
be pleased to treat the matter as withdrawn by the I Party and pass an Award in the interest of justice and equity.”
5.
Further, it is clearly stated that the I Party has no further interest in pursuing the present dispute and also
withdraws all his claim against the II Party in the memo dated 09.06.2015, signed by the I party and also by the counsel
for the I Party.
6. Further, from the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter,
that the I party has no further interest to contest the present matter, and it is to be held that the present reference has to
be disposed of, as not pressed as prayed for in the said memo dated 09.06.2015 and no useful purpose will be served in
keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following:
AWARD
Reference is disposed of, as not pressed as per the memo dated 09.06.2015, filed by the I Party and also signed
by the counsel for the I Party.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 2nd December, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2471-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 61@13) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@28@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of
Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-12011/28/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
5828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID.No. 61/13
The General Secretary,
Bank Of Baroda Staff Association,
Flat No. 106, Anand Aishway, 14/87,
Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001
…Workman
Versus
The Dy. General Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Bank of Baroda Bhawan,
12th Floor, 16 Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001,
New Delhi
…Management.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No. L-12011/28/2013-IR(B-II) dated 28.05.2013
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in holding the 2nd enquiry on the same set of charges
against workman Sh. B.P.Deval in absence of any provision in bipartite settlement is justified, if not to what
relief workman is entitled to?”
On 8.7.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as I.D No. 61/13 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 12.08.2013 claim statement was filed by workman. Through which he prayed as follows:-
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to answer the reference in favour of workman
and hold that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management on the workman was totally illegal and in
violation of the settlement dated 10.04.2002 and accordingly be further pleased to set-aside the same in the interest of
justice.
Against claim statement management filed its written statement on 23.09.2013. Wherein management prayed as
follows:-
1.
That the reference made in the present case is bad in law and liable to be dismissed.
2.
That the action of the management in terminating workman services is just and lawful and that the
workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
On 8.10.2015 I framed following issues:-
1.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in holding the 2nd enquiry on the same set of
charges against Sh. B.P.Deval in absence of any provision in bipartite is justified? If so, its effect ?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
And fixed 10.12.2015 for workman evidence.
Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he remained failed to adduce his evidence.
Hence this Tribunal closed the right of evidence of workman on 3.2.2016 and fixed 25.02.2016 for management
evidence.
Management also not adduced any evidence as evidence of workman has already been closed.
Thereafter I heard the arguments of Ld. A/R for the management. Then I reserved the Award.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no option except to decide the reference in favour of management and
against workman in want evidence of workman.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5829
Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 27/6/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2472-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj U;w eaxyksj
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lh-vkj- la- 86@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&45011@8@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. C.R. No. 86/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of New
Mangalore Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-45011/8/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 11th November, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer (Mangalore Camp)
C. R. No. 86/2007
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
The Traffic Manager,
Kanara Stevdoring Workers’ Union,
New Mangalore Port Trust,
Q C Laboratory Building,
Regd. Cargo Handling Workers,
Panambur,
Administrative Wing, Panambur,
Mangalore – 575 010
Mangalore – 575 010
Government order:-
No. L-45011/8/2006-IR(B-II) dated 02.07.2007, whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an
industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of New Mangalore Port Trust and their
workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
AND WHEREAS the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
NOW THEREFORE, 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 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for
adjudication to the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of New Mangalore Port Trust for denial of ACP Scheme
benefits w.e.f 01.01.1997 as per the Wage Revision settlement dated 02.08.2000 to 66 signalmen
mentioned in the Annexure is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
5830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
In the claim statement, it is specifically stated as follows:
“That the Signalmen whose names are mentioned in the annexure to the points of dispute are now entitled
to two financial upgradations as they have already completed 24 years of service. It is therefore prayed
that this Honourable Court may be pleased to hold the points of dispute in favour of the first party
workman and pass an Award directing the Second party to pay ACP benefits to the I Party workmen with
interest and cost of the proceedings”.
3.
However in the counter statement the II party has mentioned specifically as follows:
“The pattern of modified ACP Scheme has been changed from the existing 12 years and 24 years to 10, 20
& 30 years. Therefore, the action taken by the 2nd party management is justified and correct.
These Signalmen have been granted 2nd ACP on completion of their 24 years of service as per the
guidelines mentioned in the Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 02.08.2000 and the claim of the
I Party Union is not tenable”
4.
Further Memo dated 17.12.2014, has been filed on behalf of II party stating as follows:-
“It is respectfully submitted that in view of the management of II party setting right the anomaly in the
basic pay of Hatch workers/Store Workers, who have been promoted during 1992 as signalman, the
present Reference does not survive for consideration and it is prayed that Reference may be closed as
settled out of court, in the interest of justice & equity.”
5.
Further, the I party has not raised any tenable objection regarding the memo filed on behalf of the II party; though
settlement and adequate opportunities have been granted to the I party. Further, the present matter is pending from the
year 2007 onwards. For the above mentioned reasons, it is seen that the present reference has to be disposed of, as per
the request made on behalf of the II party in the above mentioned memo. It is for the I party to establish the rights
mentioned in the claim statement. However, the I party has miserably failed to establish that the I party is entitled to get
the above mentioned benefits.
6.
For the above mentioned facts, and circumstances and also situation, it is found that the reference has to be
disposed of, as per the request made by the II party in the said memo. Hence, the following award is passed.
AWARD
The present reference is rejected, as settled out of court, and also the present reference does not survive for
consideration, for the above mentioned peculiar facts and special circumstances of the present matter.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 11th November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2473-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 53@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@264@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of 3 &4 Incline,
Jhanjra Project of M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-22012/264/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5831
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 2006
PARTIES:
The management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project, E.C L
Vs.
Sri Ashok Bouri
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri S. K. Pandey, Union Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
DATED : 11.11.2016
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-
22012/264/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 10.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Ashok Bouri, Cleaning Mazdoor, U. M. No. 128513 w.e.f. 30.07.2005 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/264/2005/IR(CM-II) dated 10.08.2006 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 53 of 2006 was
registered on 18.09.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative and filed their separate sets of written statement in support of their respective claims.
2.
The Workman Shri Ashok Bouri has alleged in his written statement that he was in employment of the Company
as Cleaning Mazdoor at 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project, Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. While on duty
in the underground he met with an accident on 11.10.2001 and he was admitted and got treatment at C.H. Kalla till
29.9.2003 Ashok Bouri reported for his duty with effect from 30.9.2003 after being declared fit. He performed his duty
up to 05.10.2003. He reported for his further treatment at C.H., Kalla because he was facing trouble due to his old
injury. Being declared fit, when he reported for his duty he was informed that a Chargesheet has been issued against
him alleging his unauthorized absent from 6.10.2003 to 18.05.2004. In enquiry proceeding he submitted his treatment
paper The Enquiry Officer without giving him opportunity to prove his innocence and without following the principle
of natural justice conducted a departmental enquiry and passed the dismissal order of Shri Ashok Bouri. Management
representative stated all false allegation against him. As per law not a single document was submitted and proved in his
departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were highly prejudiced and biased against the
concerned workman The findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on record. The dismissal of Ashok Bouri from
Company service is illegal and unjustified. The workman belongs to down-trodden community and he is sitting
without any job. His whole family is dying without meal. The workman has prayed that tribunal may direct the
management of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project of M/s. E.C L to reinstate the workman in service with payment of full
back wages for the period from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.
3.
On the other hand, the management of 3 & 4 Incline Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area has denied the allegation
of the workman by filing written statement. The Agent 3 & 4 Incline Jhanjra Project of M/s E C Ltd has stated in his
written statement that Ashok Bouri, Ex Cleaning Mazdoor, U.M No. 128513 was absent from duty from 6.10.2003 to
27.3.2004 unauthorisedly without any information. Later on Shri Bouri came to Colliery with some medical certificates
claiming to be issued from C H Kalla for the period of his unauthorized absence. The treatment papers submitted by
5832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Ashok Bouri was sent to the Medical Officer, C.H. Kalla for verification. The Medical Officer, C.H. Kalla vide his
letter No. CHA/CR/MTD/G/04/1407 dated 28,4,2004 confirmed that the sick certificate submitted by Shri Ashok Bouri
was not genuine. Accordingly Shri Bouri was charge sheeted vide reference No. AGT/JNR/3 & 4//04/443/ dated
18/19.5.2004 under clause 26.1 and 26.20 for fraud and dishonesty in connection with employer’s business and
absence from duty for more than 10 days without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause. The Chargesheet was sent to
Shri Ashok Bouri to his ‘B’ Form recorded home address. But Shri Bouri did not reply to the Chargesheet or sent any
information. After lapse of time three notices were sent to Ashok Bouri at his home address recorded in the Office of
Colliery. As per report of the Enquiry Officer the charges levelled against Bouri under Clause 26.1 and 26.29 were
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Last five years attendance of Shri Ashok Bouri was as follows:- in 1999 -80 days,
2000- 194 days, 2001- 70 days, 2002 – Nil, 2003 – 02 days. Shri Ashok Bouri was punished previously with the
stoppage of two annual increments. Shri Bouri was served with second show cause notice under reference No.
GM/JNR/PER//08/2005/4043;’ dated 11/12.3.2005 along with copy of enquiry proceeding and findings at his home
address. The reply of Shri Bouri to second show cause notice was unsatisfactory. Management was pleased to dismiss
Shri Bouri from service vide Office Order No.GM/JNR/PER/08/2005/1260 dated 27/30.7.2005. The Agent, 3 & 4
Incline Jhanjra Project has denied that Management did not follow the principle of Natural justice or did not give
reasonable opportunity to ex workman to prove his innocence. It has also been denied that management witnesses
tendered false evidence against Shri Bouri The Agent has denied that the Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer were
prejudiced or biased against Shri Bouri. The Agent, 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area has prayed that
the action of management is totally justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The workman has filed copy of enquiry proceeding, copy of treatment papers and copy of dismissal order.
Shri Ashok Bouri has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate of 3 &4
Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area.
The Agent, 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area has not filed any documentary evidence or affidavit
of any witness in their support.
I have heard the argument of Shri S.K. Pandey, the learned Union representative on behalf of workman and Shri
P.K. Das the learned Advocate on behalf of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area.
5.
Shri S K Pandey has argued that Shri Ashok Bouri was injured while he was on duty. He got his treatment being
declared fit he joined his duties, but again from 6.10.2003 he was compelled to go under treatment at C. H. Kalla owing
to his ailments. In enquiry none of the charges has been proved against Ashok Bouri. The Enquiry Officer has no
examined the Medical Superintendent who has written the letter that the medical certificate is not genuine. In fact,
Ashok Bouri was admitted at C.H Kalla. He filed medical papers, but it has not been considered by the Medical
Officer. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry in violation of principle of natural justice. Whereas Shri P.K Das
has argued that concerned workman Shri Ashok Bouri had been habitual absentee and for his previous unauthorized
absence he has been punished earlier. His medical papers are not genuine and his punishment is justified.
6.
It is not disputed that Shri Ashok Bouri, Cleaning Mazdoor, U.M No.128513 was in employment of 3 & 4
Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area. He has been dismissed after domestic enquiry for false medical papers and
unauthorized absence. The enquiry proceeding has been challenged by delinquent workman which has been denied by
the management of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area. A workman owes on duty to his employer to
exercise his reasonable care in the performance of his duty. A workman who deliberately neglects to carry out his work
or perform his duty when required to do so with reasonable care will be guilty of misconduct. If he is absent from duty
without sanctioned leave or information he is accountable to his employer, under certified standing order of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. His negligence or misconduct can be ascertained after departmental enquiry. The
departmental enquiry, commences with the service of Chargesheet. Before proceeding with the domestic enquiry
against an offending workman, he must be informed clearly and accurately of the charges levelled against him. It is the
duty of employer o indicate the delinquent employee not only the precise nature of the charges, but also the documents,
if any, upon which the charges are bases. The Chargesheet should particularly set out the charges which the workman
is called upon to show cause against and should also state the relevant particulars so that the delinquent workman may
have opportunity to explain and defend himself. The object of his requirement is that the delinquent workman must
know what he has charged with and have the opportunity to meet the charges and to give proper explanation after
knowing the nature of offence, with which he has charged, otherwise he will amount being condemned unearthed. But
copy of Chargesheet has not been filed by 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project. It is settled law that onus to prove
misconduct of the workman is on employer. Therefore, the Agent 3 &4 Incline-Jhanjra Project was under legal
obligation to file the copy of Chargesheet and other relevant documents.
7.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashinath Dikshita VS. Union of India & Others (1986) 3 S.C.C, page 229 has held :
“No one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant
statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5833
concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies
with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. Observance of natural justice and due opportunity has
been held to be an essential ingredient in disciplinary proceedings”.
8.
From perusal of enquiry proceeding, statement of management witnesses and enquiry report, it transpires that
delinquent workman Ashok Bouri was held liable for misconduct due to his unauthorized absence. He was also held
liable for submitting false medical papers. Ashok Bouri submitted medical papers regarding his treatment for the
period of his absence on duty. But as per information of Medical Superintendent of C.H. Kalla it was false. It is
necessary to mention that letter of Medical Superintendent which is the basis of enquiry report has not been filed on the
file of reference by the Agent, 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project. The delinquent workman Ashok Bouri has stated in his
cross – examination during enquiry proceeding that he was under treatment of Dr. Sahu. It is Dr. Sahu who was able to
give information about genuineness of medical papers. But it is strange that neither Dr. Sahu was examined as witness
in enquiry proceeding nor his information was sought for by Enquiry Officer regarding genuineness of treatment paper
of delinquent workman. Even treatment paper submitted by delinquent workman in enquiry proceeding upon which
information was sought for by Medical Superintendent has not been filed before this Tribunal. Even letter of opinion of
Medical Superintendent, C.H. Kalla has not been filed by the Agent, 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project.
9.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B Parmar V Union of India and another reported in 2012(132) FLR 1023
(SC) has held that :
“If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform
duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful.
Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does
not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty,
including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness accident, hospitalization etc, but in such case
the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government
servant.
In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority
is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to
misconduct.”
10.
The statement of management representative was recorded on 5.10.2004 by the Enquiry Officer in presence of
delinquent workman. The statement of delinquent workman was recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 5.10.2004.
Thereafter delinquent workman was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer on 05.10.2004, but without affording
opportunity to lead defence evidence to delinquent workman, The Enquiry Officer sent enquiry report on 5.10.2004.
The opportunity to lead defence evidence is valuable right of delinquent workman. He had right in law to rebut the
evidence submitted against him.. He had right to summon Dr. Sahu as defence witness to prove the genuineness of
treatment/medical papers. Denial of opportunity to lead defence evidence to chargesheeted employee is utter violation
of principle of natural justice. Even copy of second show-cause notice allegedly sent to delinquent workman has not
been filed on record.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U. P. & another v/s C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158has held that ‘ omission
to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings.
It was further held that a dismissal order has serious consequence and should be passed only after complying with the
rules of natural justice.”
11.
From perusal of materials available on record it is manifest that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry
proceeding in utter violation of principle of natural justice. Several factors are required to be considered before passing
order of punishment ;the period of absences from duty, whether the absence is willful or under compelling
circumstances or it is willful negligence of the delinquent workman, nature of duties, right of delinquent workman in
enquiry proceeding as well as validity of enquiry proceeding etc. Failure to take into account these materials before
awarding the punishment will be fatal to the order of punishment. The order of dismissal, which is the major
punishment, without a valid, lawful, un-vitiated and proper enquiry, the punishment of dismissal of any delinquent
workman for mere absence of few months is illegal, unjustified and quite disproportionate to the unproved guilty of the
delinquent workman, which must be modified.
12.
The workman Shri Ashok Bouri has stated in para-11 of his written statement that he belongs to downtrodden
community. He is sitting without any job. His whole family is dying without meal. This fact has not been rebutted by
the Agent, 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area in his written statement. The workman has stated in para-
IV of his affidavit that he is illiterate. He is sitting without any job from the date of his dismissal. He has been cross
examined by the learned Advocate of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project, but his evidence on oath is un-shattered. It is
apparent from the facts and evidence of the delinquent workman that he was not gainfully employed anywhere-else
5834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
during the period of dismissal i.e. from 30.7. 2005. The service excerpts has not been filed on record. The delinquent
workman Shri Ashok Bouri has stated his age ass 35 years in his affidavit filed in the year 2007. At present his
approximate age would be near about 44 years. He is illiterate man and belongs to downtrodden community. Keeping
in view this fact there is no possibility of getting alternate employment anywhere else Hon’ble Apex Court in Pawan
Kumar Agarwala v/s General Manager-II & / Appointing Authority State Bank of India & Others, 2016 (148) FLR 865
has relied on Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others,(2013) 10 SCC 324 :
“The case in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilt of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the Court or Tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.”
13.
It is settled law that ‘Consequential Benefit’ does not mean only back wages, it includes apart from back wages
other service benefits such as, Promotion, fixation of seniority, increment, grant of other financial benefits admissible
to the post, had he been in service.
14.
In view of the discussions made above, the action of management of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra
Area in M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Ashok Bouri, Cleaning Mazdoor, U. M. No. 128513 with
effect from 30.7.2005 is illegal and unjustified. The dismissal order of Shri Ashok Bouri dated 30.7.2005 is hereby set-
a-side. The management of 3 & 4 Incline-Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited is
directed to reinstate Shri Ashok Bouri with full back wages from the date of order of dismissal i.e. from 30.7.2005 till
his reinstatement. He is further directed that Shri Ashok Bouri will be entitled to get all consequential service benefits,
e.g. promotion, increment, fixation of seniority etc. from the date of dismissals till his reinstatement. Ashok Bouri will
be imposed a punishment of stoppage of 4 (Four) annual increments without cumulative effect.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2474-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@24@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2016
S.O. 2474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western
Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-22012/24/2007-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/77/07
The President, C.Mewa,
Shakha Vekoli, Zonal,
Ward No.10, Gudhi,
PO Palachaurai,
Chhindwara
…Workman/Union
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5835
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,
Chhindwara
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of September 2016
1.
As per letter dated 8-8-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/24/2007-
IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of WCL for refusing appointment on compassionate ground to dependent
of deceased workman namely Shri Dhannu on the ground of his non-regularisation/ permanent with the
management is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the dependent of the deceased workman entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Workers Association submitted statement of
claim at Page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman Ist party is Late Dhannu General Mazdoor was working at Amla Colliery.
He rendered service since 1975 to 2000 for almost 25 years. The settlement arrived between Union and management
provides employee dying in harness during course of employment. His dependent would be given compassionate
appointment. That the dependent of Late Dhannu was denied terminal benefit including the benefit of grant of
compassionate appointment by the management of 2nd party. Application under Payment of Gratuity Act filed by Smt.
Ramvati Bai widow of Late Dhannu was allowed by ALC, Nagpur. His dependent was denied compassionate
appointment on the ground Late Dhannu was casual worker. The act of the management of 2nd party is arbitrary and
violating the statutory provisions.
3.
Ist party further submits the words workman who is engaged for decades together discharging duties as casual
labour denying legal benefits by manageme3nt is illegal. Ist party has referred to ratio held in case between Umadevi
versus Mineral Exploration Corporation. Ist party prays that 2nd party management be directed to provide
compassionate appointment to Shri Sukhlal S/o Late Dhannu.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. The case of 2nd party is claim for compassionate
appointment as dependent of Late Dhannu General Mazdoor working in Amla Colliery cannot be allowed. That
NCWA III deals with the employment to one dependent on permanently disabled worker. That Late Dhannu was
engaged as casual labour in Ambara colliery during 1980-81. The attendance of Late Dhannu is shown in Para-8 of the
Written Statement. Maximum working days are shown 160 days in 985 and less than 240 days during 1982 to 2000.
That deceased Dhannu was not regular employee. His dependent are not entitled to benefit of NCWA. JBCCI has
issued guidelines vide circular No. 143 clarifying dependents of causal employees cannot be considered for
employment as per clause 9.4.1 to 9/4/4 of NCWA. Therefore claim for compassionate appointment is not tenable. That
meeting was held on 17-11-04 between recognized Union and the management. Management did not agree with the
proposal of the Union. In Coal Mine Industry, provisions of dependent employment is governed by NCWA only for
permanent employees. The dependents of canal employees are not entitled to such benefits. All adverse contentions of
workman are denied.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My
findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the management of WCL
for refusing appointment on compassionate ground
to dependent of deceased workman namely Shri
Dhannu on the ground of his non-regularisation/
permanent with the management is legal and
justified?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Dependent of deceased Dhannu is not entitled to
any relief.
5836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
6.
The term of reference pertains to denial of appointment on compassionate ground to son of deceased Dhannu. Ist
party filed statement of claim. However it failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim. Evidence of Ist party is
closed on 13-5-15.
7.
2nd party management filed affidavit of witness Umesh Kumar supporting its contentions in the Written
Statement. Documents Exhibit M-1,2 are produced. Exhibit M-1 issued by JBCCI provides that dependents of causal
employees could not be considered for employment as per clause 9/4/1 to 9/4/4 of NCWA-III. Exhibit M-2 also
provides that dependent of casual employees should not be considered for employment under above clauses of NCWA-
III.
8.
The evidence of management’s witness remained unchallenged. Ist party/ claimants has failed to adduce evidence
in support of their claim. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management in refusing appointment on compassionate ground to dependent of deceased
workman namely Shri Dhannu is legal.
(2)
The son of Late Dhannu is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2475-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc
xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 8@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@12@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab Gramin
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/12/2010-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No 8 of 2010
Reference No. L-12012/12/2010/IR (B-I) dated 25.06.2010
Shri Anoop Kumar, S/o Sri Tikka Lal, R/o Abadi,
Dhilwan Road, Dakoha, Jalandhar (Punjab)
…Workman.
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Punjab Gramin Bank, Head Office,
Jalandhar Road, Punjab, Kapurthala
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Workman
:
In person.
For the Management
:
Shri Dinesh Goyal.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5837
AWARD
Passed on: 14-06-2016
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. . L-12012/12/2010/IR (B-I) dated 25.06.2010 the
Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab Gramin Bank, Kapurthala in imposing the punishment of
termination of services on Shri Anoop Kumar, ex-cashier, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2.
Brief facts of the case according to the workman are that workman was working as clerk-cum-cashier with the
management. Vide order dated 31-01-2004 the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service
without disqualification for future employment. The appeal filed by the workman was also dismissed. It is further
pleaded by the workman that the order dated 31-01-2004 is totally illegal, arbitrary and is not sustainable as the same
is against the principles of natural justice which is without conducting any legal and valid departmental enquiry as the
workman was not given any reasonable opportunity to defend himself during enquiry. It is further pleaded that no legal
charges were framed against the workman, charge sheet was totally vague, baseless and without accompanying with
relevant documents which form the bases of charge sheet. The workman was not given reasonable opportunity to reply
to the charge sheet which was self contradictory and some of the charges are not related to the workman. The
appointment of the enquiry officer was malafide as the enquiry officer earlier was the bank’s vigilance officer who
called the explanation of the workman regarding charges which formed the charge sheet ultimately served upon the
workman which influenced the competent authority to issue the charge sheet and he was biased and cannot hold
independent and impartial enquiry. It is pleaded that the proceeding conducted by such like enquiry officer bound to be
tainted, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is further pleaded that the workman was never afforded
reasonable opportunity as the enquiry officer illegally and arbitrarily rejected the demand of the workman to summon
the record which was most relevant and material for the defence of the workman and these documents go to the root of
the matter and were to prove the total innocence of the workman. The enquiry officer intentionally and wilfully ignored
the evidence and documents which pointed towards the complete innocence of the workman and enquiry officer has
come to the biased conclusions on the basis of the unauthenticated and partial documents. It is further
pleaded that there was no complaint from any customer against the workman and the enquiry officer believed the
official witnesses as gospel truth which shows the worst type of bias on the part of the enquiry officer. The findings of
the enquiry officer are ipsedixit and are perverse which are totally against the evidence and documents and it is proved
fact that all the withdrawal slips vide which the amount has been withdrawn from the different accounts have been
filled in the hand of the then manager shri D.R.Duggal who is main person responsible for the alleged irregularities
who was let off by only imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments. It is further pleaded that the enquiry
officer completed his enquiry proceedings on 18.12.2003 and he presenting officer submitted his brief on 30.12.2003
which were received by the workman on 2.1.2004. the workman submitted his brief on 10.1.2004 but the enquiry
officer submitted his report on 1.1.2004 which caused great prejudice to the workman in as much as the defence was
not considered by the enquiry officer. The order dated 31.1.2004 is non speaking, cryptic and shows totally non
application of mind by the punishing authority. The appeal of the workman was also rejected which is totally illegal in
view of the fact that the disciplinary authority also part of the board who heard the appeal of the workman and the
workman was also not provided personal hearing which is against the principles of natural justice. The workman also
submitted that punishment is also harsh and not proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The workman has
unblemished service of more than 20 years and in a similar circumstances Mr. Duggal who infact was responsible for
the irregularity was let off by imposing meagre penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect where as
the workman was removed from service. The workman prayed that his termination is illegal and against the principle
of natural justice and he may be reinstated in service with continuity and with all consequential benefits.
3.
The management filed reply in which preliminary objection has been taken that in the present case after detailed
enquiry, the allegation levelled against the workman was found to be correct and the workman was removed from
service and the punishment was in commensurate to the guilt of the workman. It is further submitted by the
management that Mr.D.R.Duggal was charges sheeted on 1.10.2003 and detailed enquiry was conducted against h and
he admitted all the charges voluntarily and vide order dated 9.2.2004 major penalty of reduction to the lower grade
from officer Scale-II to Officer Scale-I was imposed upon him. The workman misappropriated cash deposits by the
depositors by making 58 fictitious entries amounting to Rs. 579300/- in different bank accounts. He further
misappropriated an amount of Rs. 544500/- by not debiting 12 withdrawal slips out of which signatures on nine
withdrawals were forged and in order to cover up his above acts of omission and commissions constituting major
misconduct, the workman casted, totalled and tallied the head of savings balance of various months fraudulently. The
workman did not submit his reply to the charge sheet and departmental enquiry was instituted and enquiry officer as
well as presenting officer were appointed. The charges were read over to the workman. List of documents and
witnesses were taken on record and copies were provided to him. The fair and proper enquiry was conducted against
the workman. He was allowed to inspect the documents. His defence representative was allowed to cross examine the
5838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
witnesses of the management. The enquiry officer submitted his report of finding on 6-1-2004 to the disciplinary
authority who issued show cause notice dated 22-1-2004 proposing penalty of removal from bank’s service which
shall not be a disqualification for future employment . Workman was also allowed personal hearing which was availed
by him on 28-1-2004 . The disciplinary authority after carefully considering all the material on record awarded the
punishment of removal from bank’s service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The appeal of
the workman was also dismissed by a speaking order. The workman vide his representation dated 1-8-2005 requested
for review of the order of the appellate authority but his review application was not considered. The workman admitted
the charges in his letter dated 22-8-2003. The workman was given full opportunity to defend himself during enquiry.
All the documents were provided to the workman. The finding of enquiry officer are based on record produced during
enquiry and his finding are reasoned and after evaluation of evidence. It is further submitted by the management that
the case of the workman and the case of Sh. D.R.Duggal referred above have been decided and dealt with on their
respective merits. It is prayed by the management that the action of the management is legal, just, proper and in
accordance with law and claim of the workman may be filed.
4.
The workman in rejoinder reiterated the claim made in the claim statement.
5.
Both the parties submitted documents i.e. proceedings of the enquiry, charge sheet, enquiry report, order of the
disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and other number of documents.
6.
Earlier the parties were heard on the issue of fairness of enquiry and this Tribunal vide order dated 26-12-2013
held that the enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner in accordance with the principle of the natural justice
and there was no infirmity in conducting the enquiry and parties were directed to lead evidence on the issue of
perversity in decision making and quantum of punishment.
7.
The workman examined Virender pal Branch Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank as WW1.
8.
The management did not examine any witness on the point of perversity and quantum of punishment.
9.
WW1 Varinder Pal in his examination in chief stated “ after making entry clerk present the withdrawal form
before the officer of the branch for passing the withdrawal form. After passing the withdrawal form is sent to the
cashier for payment.---- In September 2000 Mr. D.R.Duggal was the branch manager.--------Documents Ex.W1 to
Ex.w10 tendered at the time of examination. Documents Ex.W1 to W4 and W6 to W9 were passed by Mr.Duggal
Branch Manager. I am not sure whether Ex.w1 to W10 are in the handwriting of Mr.D.R.Duggal the then branch
manager. I have seen Mr. Duggal writing before me. I was examined as management’s witness in departmental
enquiry. In departmental enquiry I stated before the enquiry officer that the withdrawals slips were filled by Shri
D.R.Duggal. I do not deny that the withdrawals slips were not in the handwriting of Mr. Duggal. In departmental
enquiry I stated 12 years before, therefore, today I stated that I am not sure whether the withdrawals slips were in the
hands of Mr. D.R.Duggal.” This witness further stated that if a withdrawal slip is passed by the manager, the cashier
can not deny the payment and he is bound to pay. This witness further stated “ it is correct as per record Ex.W11 that
workman Anoop Kumar was on leave on 7.12.2001.In charge sheet chrgeNo.2 at serial No.12 it has been mentioned
that Anoop Kumar allegedly committed fraud on 7.12.2001 of Rs. 10000/-. Vol. stated that this charge has not been
proved. In enquiry report at page A22, it has been mentioned that charge No.2 proved.”
10.
As the departmental enquiry has been held fair and proper vide this Tribunal order dated 26.12.2013. So far the
issue of perversity in decision making and quantum of punishment is concerned, the workman pointed out that the
chairman who passed the order against the workman as disciplinary authority headed the board of appellate authority as
well. Regarding this submission, the workman pointed out that on 28.10.2010 my learned predecessor in office passed
detailed order citing that the chairman has acted as disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority which is against
the principle of natural justice. No person can award the punishment and can hear the appeal against the punishment so
awarded. In such case, the appellate authority can not be termed as detached and fair and vide this order , the order of
appellate authority was set-aside and the management was directed to decide the appeal as a fresh and it was
specifically directed that the appellate authority must not be chaired by the chairman who has acted as disciplinary
authority while awarding punishment. The management complied with the order and passed the same order.
11.
Workman submitted that management has acted arbitrarily while awarding the punishment of removal from
services without disqualification for future employment whereas the branch manager who was equally responsible was
awarded lesser punishment of reduction to the lower grade from officer scale-II to officer scale-I. It is pertinent to
mention that from the statement of sole witness (WW1 Varinder Pal) examined by the workman, it is clear that most of
the withdrawals slips were in the handwriting of the manager of Sh. D.R.Duggal. In departmental enquiry this witness
admitted that pay in slip are in the handwriting of Mr. D.R.Duggal the then branch manager and withdrawals slip
passed by Sh. D.R.Duggal. This witness also stated that if the withdrawals slip is passed by the branch manager then
the cashier bound to pay. The workman submitted that he has been awarded the capital punishment of removal from
services whereas Shri Duggal was found guilty and was given lesser punishment and retained in service, therefore, the
same may be substituted by lesser punishment by invoking powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5839
12.
Section 11-A of the I.D.Act 1947 provides as under:
“11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharges
on dismissal of workmen.-Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has
been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the
adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that
the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may , by its award, set aside the order of discharge or
dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give
such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as
the circumstances of the case may require”.
13.
The workman in its written arguments also submitted that in the case of Mr. Uma Kumar Versus Super Bazar, Co
operative Store Ltd. reported in LLR 1991 page 320 the Hon’ble High Court Delhi has held that dismissal is too harsh
and held that it would meet the ends of justice if the punishment of stoppage of three increments without future effects
with reinstatement of services imposed. In my considered view, it is fit case where the powers U/S 11A of the I.D.Act
1947 should be exercised. Thus the punishment from removal from service is set-aside and substituted with that of
reinstatement with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect but without back wages from the date of
removal from service to the date of reinstatement. The management is directed to reinstate the workman in service
within one month from the date of publication of the award.
14. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh
14.06.2016
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2476-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@24@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2016.
[No. L-12011/24/2011-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ID. No. 54/2011
Sh. Chander Singh Rathee,
H. No. 976, Sector-2,
Huda Rohtak
…Workman
Versus
State Bank of India
Through Asstt. General Manager(Ops),
Zonal Office Haryana, Plot No. 1 & 2,
Sector- 5, Panchkula (Haryana)
…Management
5840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
On 28.07.2011 Ministry of Labour of Government of India send reference No. L-12011/24/2011 (IR(B-I)) to this
tribunal for adjudication, “Whether the action of management of State Bank of India, Panchkula is not promoting to
Sh. Chander Singh Rathee, Senior Assistant to special Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2006 giving him the benefit of added two
years service available to ex-serviceman, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
Aforesaid reference was received in this tribunal on 05.08.2011. Which was register as ID No. 54/2011.
Notice to parties were issued fixing 20.10.2011 for filing of claim statement by workman within fifteen days
from the receipt of notice complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witness.
On 20.10.2011 workman filed his claim/statement. Copy of which given to other party. Fixed 16.12.2011 for
filing of written statement.
On 16.12.2011 management sought adjournment. Which was allowed and 05.01.2012 was fixed for filing of
written statement.
On 05.01.2012 management filed its written statement. Copy of which supplied to workman. Fixed 17.02.2012
for replication etc.
On 17.02.2012 workman filed his replication. Fixed 19.04.2012 for filing of documents, A/D of documents and
framing of issues.
On 19.04.2012 my Ld. Predecessor heard Ld. A/Rs for parties. They submitted that no issue other than the one
mentioned in the reference requires to the framed in this case. In view of this, 12.07.2012 was fixed for workman
evidence by way of affidavit.
On 12.07.2012 evidence by way of affidavit filed by workman. Copy of which given to the other party. Fixed
27.08.2012 for tendering of affidavit of workman and his cross-examination.
On 27.08.2012 workman tender his affidavit. He was cross examined and his cross-examined and his cross-
examination concluded. Thereafter workman closed his evidence then fixed 06.11.2012 for management evidence by
way of affidavit.
On 06.11.2012 management sought adjournment. Which was allowed and case was adjourned to 15.01.2013 for
management evidence.
On 15.01.2013 management evidence filed through affidavit. Copy of which supplied to workman. Fixed
10.04.2013 for tendering of affidavit of MW Sh. J. C. Sanghi and his cross-examination.
On 13.01.2014 parties informed to his tribunal that process of settlement is going on.
Thereafter parties sought adjournments on this court.
Ultimately process of settlement concluded and settlement between parties took place outside court and
management bank on 18.11.2016 handed over cheque of Rs. 60,000/- to workman Sh. Chander Singh Rathee as full
and final payment in this case. Who received aforesaid cheque and made an endorsement to this effect on the photo
copy of cheque filed by management. Which is introduced on record.
Thus it emerged that the management bank agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the claimant towards full and
final settlement of his claim.
On payment of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- through cheque to claimant by management of SBI claim is accordingly
decided.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 18.11.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2477-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 69@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@146@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5841
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2016.
[No. L-12012/146/2007-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
ID.No. 69/2007
Sh. Chander Singh Rathee,
Through District Organiser
All India Ex-servicemen Bank
Employees Federation (regd.)
Officer: 1330, Sector – I,
Rohtak – 124001
…Workman
Versus
State Bank of India
Through Asstt. General Manager(Ops),
Zonal Office Haryana, Plot No. 1 & 2,
Sector- 5, Panchkula (Haryana)
…Management
AWARD
On 21.11.2007 Ministry of Labour of Government of India send reference No- L-12012/146/2007-IR(B-I) to this
tribunal for adjudication, “Whether the action of the management of State bank of India in fixing the pay of
Sh. Chander Singh Rathee, Clerk-cum-Cashier on re-employment in the Bank by adding two increment for graduation
w.e.f. 06.03.1985 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman Sh. Rathee is entitled and which date?”
Aforesaid reference was received in this tribunal on 06.12.2007, which was register as ID. No. 69 of 2007.
Notice to parties were issued fixing 31.01.2008 for filing of claim statement by workman with fifteen days from
the receipt of notice complete with relevant documents list of reliance and witnesses.
On 31.01.2008 workman filed his claim/statement then 30.04.2008 was fixed for reply (WS) by my Ld.
Predecessor.
On 30.04.2008 reply was filed by management and 25.07.2008 was fixed for filing of rejoinder.
On 25.07.2008 workman filed his rejoinder. Copy of which supplied to management and 02.09.2008 was fixed
for filing affidavit.
On 02.09.2008 workman filed his affidavit in his evidenc and 01.01.2009 was fixed for his cross-examination.
On 14.05.2013 my predecessor Dr. R. K. Yadav framed following issues:-
1.
Whether delay of 22 years in raising the dispute frustrates rights of the claimant?
2.
As in terms of reference.
Fixed 14.05.2013 for evidence of parties. Claimant to conclude first.
On 14.05.2013 workman sought adjournment which was allowed and case was adjourned to 19.07.2013 by my
Ld. Predecessor.
On 19.07.2013 I was on leave so 29.08.2013 was fixed for evidence of parties.
On 29.08.2013 parties informed me that process of settlement is in progress. So I fixed 03.10.2013 for the
progress of settlement.
5842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 31, 2016/PAUSA 10, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After several dates process of settlement concluded and settlement concluded and settlement between parties took
place outside court and management Bank on 18.11.2016 handed over cheque of Rs. 3,00,500/- to workman Sh.
Chander Singh Rathee as full and final payment in this case. Who received aforesaid cheque and made an endorsement
to this effect on the photo copy of cheque filed by management. Which is introduced on record.
Thus, it emerged that the management Bank agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,500/- to the claimant towards full
and final settlement of his claim for fixation of pay after adjusting the two additional increments which are otherwise
given exclusively against graduation.
On payment of a sum of Rs. 3,00,500/- through cheque to claimant by management of SBI claim is accordingly
decided.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 18.11.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2478-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tuojh] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftls mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;
IV (/kjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS) rFkk vè;k; V vkSj VI ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk vle jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Ø-la-
jkT;
ftyksa ds uke
fuEukafdr ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh {ks=k
1-
vle
ektqyh
ektqyh 'kgj
2-
vle
xksokyikjk
xksokyikjk Vkmu
¹la- ,l&38013@45@2016&,l-,l-&Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2478.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2017 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V
and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following Areas in the State of Assam namely :—
Sl. No.
State
Districts
All the Areas falling under
1.
Assam
Majuli
Majuli Town
2.
Assam
Goalpara
Goalpara
[No. S-38013/45/2016-S.S.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2479-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tuojh] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftls mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;
IV (/kjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS) rFkk vè;k; V vkSj VI ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk vle jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Ø-la-
jkT;
ftyksa ds uke
1-
vle
tksjgkV
2-
vle
fMczwx<+
¹la- ,l&38013@46@2016&,l-,l-&Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 31] 2016@ikS"k 10] 1938
5843
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2479.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2017 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V
and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in following Districts in the State of Assam namely :—
Sl. No.
State
Districts
1.
Assam
Jorhat
2.
Assam
Dibrugarh
[No. S-38013/46/2016-S.S.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2016
dk-vk- 2480-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tuojh] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftls mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k;
IV (/kjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS) rFkk vè;k; V vkSj VI ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77]
78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk if'pe caxky jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
¶gqxyh ftys (if'pe caxky) ds lHkh xzke ,oa {ks=k¸ A
¹la- ,l&38013@47@2016&,l-,l-&Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2016
S.O. 2480.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2017 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V
and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following Areas in the State of West Bengal namely :—
“All the areas of the District Hooghly, West Bengal.”
[No. S-38013/47/2016-S.S.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK
KUMAR
Date: 2017.01.14 11:18:14
+05'30'