88 GI/2017

(251)

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- 3]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 15—tuojh 21] 2017] 'kfuokj@ ikS"k 25—ek?k 1] 1938

No. 3]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 15—JANUARY 21, 2017, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 25—MAGHA 1, 1938

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence

foÙk ea=kky;

(jktLo foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 125-—dsUnz ljdkj] 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] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu izorZu funs'kky; ds f'keyk mi {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

vf/dkfj;ksa@ deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@1@2016&,Mh (¯gnh&4)º

vkuan dqekj] mi funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 125.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Shimla Sub-Regional Office of the Directorate of

Enforcement under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/1/2016-AD (Hindi-4)]

ANAND KUMAR, Dy. Director (O.L.)

252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ च

उ च

उ चतर िश ा िवभाग

तर िश ा िवभाग

तर िश ा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग)

नई द ली, 12 जनवरी, 2017

का

का.आ. 126

126

126.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-

िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म%, मानव संसाधन िवकास मं(ालय () कूल िश+ा एवं सा+रता िवभाग) के अंतग-त िन. निलिखत काया-लय को, ऐसे

काया-लय के 0प म%, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम-चारी-वृ द ने िह दी का काय-साधक 5ान ा6 त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है :-

के ीय िव7ालय, 8महामा, 9ीनगर,

ज. मू और क; मीर - 190007

के ीय िव7ालय,

िभखी<वड, िजला- तरन तारन,

पंजाब - 143303

[सं.11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर <सह संधु, संयु? त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2017

S.O. 126.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

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

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

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Humhama,

Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir - 190007

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bhikhiwind,

District – Tarn Taran,

Punjab – 143303

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

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य और परवार क या

और परवार क या

और परवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य और प रवार क या

और प रवार क या

और प रवार क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

शुि

शुि-प

प

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vDrwcj] 2016

dk-vk- 127-—bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la- ;w&12012@69@2012&,ebZ (ih&II) fnukad 06-11-2012 ds vuqØe esa Hkkjrh;

vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæ

ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr] vkSj la'kksèku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %–

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

253

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa &

(Ä) ¶caqnsy[kaM fo'ofo|ky;] >kalh] mÙkj izns'k¸ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kfIrdj.k* dkye (3) 'kh"kZd ds varxZr

ekLVj vkWiQ ltZjh (vksVks&jfguks&ys¯jxksykWth) ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;q£oKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g egkjkuh y{eh ckbZ esfMdy

dkWyst] >kalh] mÙkj izns'k esa 1993 dh ctk, 1992 vFkok mlds i'pkr izf'kf{kr fd, x, Nk=kksa dks caqnsy[kaM

fo'ofo|ky;] >kalh] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznÙk gksxh A

¹la- ;w&12012@473@2015&,ebZ&I ([kaM)º

Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2016

S.O. 127.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U-12012/69/2012-ME-I (P.II) dated 6.11.2012,

and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule –

(e) “against “Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh”, under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

(column 3), the Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology) qualification shall be a recognised medical

qualification when granted by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being

trained at Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh on or after 1992 instead of 1993”.

[No. U-12012/473/2015-ME-I(Pt.)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

उपभो ता

उपभो ता मामले

मामले

मामले, , , , खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभो ता

उपभो ता

उपभो ता माम

माम

मामले िवभाग

ले िवभाग

ले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक यू

भारतीय मानक यू

भारतीय मानक यूरो

रोरो

रो)

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2017

का

का.आ. 128

128

128.—भारतीय मानक @ यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म% भारतीय

मानक @ यूरो एतAारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइस%स के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म% दए गए हD, वे ) वीकृत कर दए गए हD:-

अनुसूची

Fम

संG या

लाइस%स संG या

) वीकृत करने

क ितिथ

लाइस%सधारी का नाम

व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीष-क

भा मा

भाग

अनु

वष-

एल-

9512358922

01.09.2016

मै. लI मी J वैलस-,

180/3, यू 531 बी/6,

ओ ड स@ ज़ी मM डी,

मेन सदर बाज़ार,

िजला गुड़गOव – 122001,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एल-

9512359023

01.09.2016

मै. लI मी J वैलस-,

180/3, यू 531 बी/6,

ओ ड स@ ज़ी मM डी,

मेन सदर बाज़ार,

िजला गुड़गOव – 122001,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

एल-

9512359124

01.09.2016

मै. शुभदीप ) वण-कार,

बी-778, डबुआ कालोनी,

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121001,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512359217

01.09.2016

मै. शुभदीप ) वण-कार,

बी-778, डबुआ कालोनी,

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121001,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

एल-

9512359520

05.09.2016

मै. सराफ भगवान दास

J वैलर,

शॉप नं0 1, सेवा सिमित

क. पलै? स, माTकट नं0 1,

एन आई टी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512359621

05.09.2016

मै. सराफ भगवान दास

J वैलर,

शॉप नं0 1, सेवा सिमित

क. पलै? स, माTकट नं0 1,

एन आई टी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

एल -

9512359722

05.09.2016

मै0 सराफ कृX ण लाल J वैलर,

शॉप नं0 5, सेवा सिमित

क. पलै? स, माTकट नं0 1,

एन आई टी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल -

9512359823

05.09.2016

मै. सराफ कृX ण लाल J वैलर,

शॉप नं0 5, सेवा सिमित

क. पलै? स, माTकट नं0 1,

एन आई टी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

255

एल -

9512359924

06.09.2016

मै. भूिमत J वैलस-,

हनुमान मिदर के सामने,

मेन बाज़ार,

िजला झJ जर – 124103,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

10.

एल -

9512360016

07.09.2016

मै. ) वाि)तक पाई6 स िल0,

41 केएम, द ली रोहतक

रोड,

वीपीओ असौदा,

िजला झJ जर,

हPर याणा

अत6 त लघुकृत अ प

काब-न इ) पात क

चादर एवं पZ ती

513

2008

11.

एल -

9512360622

09.09.2016

मै. डी. आर. इ टरािसस,

पीर वाली गली,

मैहम गोहाना रोड, मैहम,

िजला रोहतक – 124112,

हPर याणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉ? स

15658

2006

12.

एल -

9512360117

14.09.2016

मै. अशोका J वैलस-,

7/56, मेन माTकट,

अनाज मM डी चौक के पास,

पुराना फरीदाबाद –

121002,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

13.

एल -

9512360218

14.09.2016

मै. अशोका J वैलस-,

7/56, मेन माTकट,

अनाज मM डी चौक के पास,

पुराना फरीदाबाद –

121002,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

14.

एल -

9512360319

14.09.2016

मै. 9ी ताप J वैलस-,

7/60, मेन माTकट,

अनाज मM डी चौक,

पुराना फरीदाबाद –

121002,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

एल -

9512360420

14.09.2016

मै. 9ी ताप J वैलस-,

7/60, मेन माTकट,

अनाज मM डी चौक,

पुराना फरीदाबाद –

121002,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

16.

एल -

9512360715

14.09.2016

मै. यू ब(ा J वैलस-,

496, सराफा बाज़ार,

िजला Pरवाड़ी – 123401,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िशल् प व) तुS

–

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

17.

एल -

9512360521

15.09.2016

मै. एलाइड सP]6 स िल0.,

42 केएम ) टोन, द ली

रोहतक रोड,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झJ जर – 124507,

हPर याणा

अत6 त लघुकृत अ प

काब-न इ) पात क

चादर एवं पZ ती

513

2008

18.

एल -

9512360917

15.09.2016

मै. िच(ा ]ेडस-,

रोहतक रोड, पुल के पास,

िजला झJ जर – 124103,

हPर याणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉ? स

15658

2006

19.

एल -

9512362517

15.09.2016

मै. ओम साई ए? वा,

6 लॉट नं0 .9, 9ी कृX ण

परमधाम मिदर के पास,

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121001,

हPर याणा

पैकेजब द पेय जल

(पैकेजब द ाकृितक

िमनरल जल के

अलावा)

14543

2004

20.

एल -

9512360816

21.09.2016

मै. 9ी गोपाल इM ड) ]ीस,

6 लॉट नं0 1, मौह. मदपुर

इM ड) ]ीयल एPरया, सै? टर -

36, जेबीएम गेट नं. 2 के

पास,

िजला गुड़गOव - 122104,

हPर याणा

पोलीिवनाइल

? लोराइड से िवधुत

रोिधत अनावPरत और

आवPरत केबल

694

2010

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

257

21.

एल -

9512361616

21.09.2016

मै. डयूरा िब ड केयर ा.

िल.,

6 लॉट नं. 2376,

मॉडन- इM ड) ]ीयल इ) टेट,

पाट- बी, बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झJ जर ; 124507,

हPर याणा

सीम%ट मोटा-र एवं

कंFट के िलए एककृत

जल-सह यौिगक

2645

2003

22.

एल -

9512361018

22.09.2016

मै. नव िशखा पॉलीपैक

इM ड) ]ीस ा. िल.,

174, सै? टर - 3, फेस - I,

आईएमटी बावल,

िजला Pरवाड़ी,

हPर याणा

त6 त और अत6 त पेय

जल िवतरण _ यव) था

के िलए ? लोरीनकृत

पॉलीिवनाइल

? लोराइड (सीपीवीसी)

पाईप

15778

2007

23.

एल -

9512361818

22.09.2016

मै. यूब ऑयल @ लै<डग

6 लOट,

गOव व डाकघर असौटी,

िजला पलवल – 121102,

हPर याणा

) वचिलत हाइaोिलक

bेक तरल, भारी डयूटी

8654

2001

24.

एल -

9512361321

23.09.2016

मै. नीरज इ cा,

कोसली रोड, गOव

पलहावास,

िजला Pरवाड़ी,

हPर याणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉ? स

15658

2006

25.

एल -

9512361119

26.09.2016

मै. मारवाड़ी J वैलस-,

बारा हज़ारी रोड,

िजला Pरवाड़ी – 123401,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS

–

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

26.

एल -

9512361220

26.09.2016

मै. मारवाड़ी J वैलस-,

बारा हज़ारी रोड,

िजला Pरवाड़ी – 123401,

हPर याणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS

–

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

27.

एल -

9512361422

26.09.2016

मै. िवनय J वैलस-,

शॉप नं0 12, चूड़ी माTकट,

जैकबपुरा,

िजला गुड़गOव - 122001,

हPर याणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28.

एल -

9512361515

26.09.2016

मै. जोिग दर इ टरलोdकग

टाइ स,

अशौक िवहार कालोनी,

जeद बाई पास,

िजला रोहतक – 124001,

हPर याणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉ? स

15658

2006

29.

एल -

9512361717

26.09.2016

मै. कौिशक टाइल एM ड

िब<डग मैटीPरयल

स6 लायर,

गोपाल िb? स क. पनी के

सामने,

वीपीओ लाहली,

िजला रोहतक – 124113,

हPर याणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉ? स

15658

2006

[सं. सीएमडी-13:11]

सुनील कुमार, वै5ािनक एफ एवं मुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 128.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

No.

Part

Sec.

Year

L-

9512358922

01.09.2016

M/s Laxmi Jewellers,

180/3, New 531 B/6,

Old Sabji Mandi,

Main Sadar Bazar,,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L -

9512359023

01.09.2016

M/s Laxmi Jewellers,

180/3, New 531 B/6,

Old Sabji Mandi,

Main Sadar Bazar,,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

L -

9512359124

01.09.2016

M/s Shubhdeep Swarnkar,

B-778, Dabua Colony,

Distt. Faridabad – 121001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L -

9512359217

01.09.2016

M/s Shubhdeep Swarnkar,

B-778, Dabua Colony,

Distt. Faridabad – 121001,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

259

L -

9512359520

05.09.2016

M/s Saraaf Bhagwan Dass

Jeweller,

Shop No. 1, Seva Samiti

Complex, Market No.1,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad

Haryana,

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L -

9512359621

05.09.2016

M/s Saraaf Bhagwan Dass

Jeweller,

Shop No. 1, Seva Samiti

Complex, Market No.1,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad

Haryana,

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

L -

9512359722

05.09.2016

M/s Saraaf Krishan Lal

Jeweller,

Shop No.5, Seva Samiti

Complex, Market No.1,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L -

9512359823

05.09.2016

M/s Saraaf Krishan Lal

Jeweller,

Shop No.5, Seva Samiti

Complex, Market No.1,

NIT,

Distt. Faridabad

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

L -

9512359924

06.09.2016

M/s Bhumit Jewellers,

Opp. Hanuman Mandir,

Main Bazar,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124103,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

10.

L -

9512360016

07.09.2016

M/s Swastik Pipes

Limited,

41 Km, Delhi Rohtak

Road,

VPO Asaudah,

Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

Cold Reduced Low

Carbon Steel Sheets

and Strips

513

2008

11.

L -

9512360622

09.09.2016

M/s D.R. Enterprises,

Peer Wali Gali,

Meham Gohana Road,

Meham,

Distt. Rohtak – 124112,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

12.

L -

9512360117

14.09.2016

M/s Ashoka Jewellers,

7/56, Main Market,

Near Anaj Mandi Chowk,

Old Faridabad – 121002,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

13.

L -

9512360218

14.09.2016

M/s Ashoka Jewellers,

7/56, Main Market,

Near Anaj Mandi Chowk,

Old Faridabad – 121002,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

14.

L -

9512360319

14.09.2016

M/s Shree Pratap

Jewellers,

7/60, Main Market,

Aanaj Mandi Chowk,,

Old Faridabad – 121002,

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Haryana

15.

L -

9512360420

14.09.2016

M/s Shree Pratap

Jewellers,

7/60, Main Market,

Aanaj Mandi Chowk,,

Old Faridabad – 121002,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

16.

L -

9512360715

14.09.2016

M/s New Batra Jewellers,

496, Sarafa Bazar,

Distt. Rewari – 123401,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

17.

L -

9512360521

15.09.2016

M/s Alied Strips Ltd.,

42 Km. stone, Delhi

Rohtak Road,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124507,

Haryana

Cold Reduced Low

Carbon Steel Sheets

and Strips

513

2008

18.

L-

9512360917

15.09.2016

M/s Chitra Traders,

Rohtak Road, Near

Flyover,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124103,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

19.

L-

9512362517

15.09.2016

M/s Om Sai Aqua,

Plot No.9, Near Shree

Krishan Paramdham

Mandir ,

Distt. Faridabad – 121001,

Haryana

Packaged Drinking

Water (Other Than

Packaged Natural

Minerals Water)

14543

2004

20.

L-

9512360816

21.09.2016

M/s Shree Gopal

Industries,

Plot.No -1, Mohammadpur

Industrial Area. Sector-36,

NearJBM Gate No-2,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122104,

Haryana

PVC Insulated Cables

for Working Voltage

upto and including

1100 V

694

2010

21.

L-

9512361616

21.09.2016

M/s Dura Build Care Pvt.

Ltd.,

Plot No. 2376,

Modern Industrial Estate,

Part B, Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124507,

Haryana

Integral Water Proofing

Compounds for

Cement Mortar

Concrete

2645

2003

22.

L-

9512361018

22.09.2016

M/s Nav Shikha Polypack

174, Sector - 3, Phase-I,

IMT Bawal,

Distt. Rewari,

Haryana

Chlorinated Polyvinyl

Chloride (CPVC) Pipes

for Potable Hot and

Cold Water

Distribution Supplies

15778

2007

23.

L-

9512361818

22.09.2016

M/s Lube Oil Blending

Plant,

Village & PO Asaoti,

Distt. Palwal – 121102,

Haryana

Automotive Hydraulic

Brake Fluid, Heavy

Duty

8654

2001

24.

L-

9512361321

23.09.2016

M/s Neeraj Infra,

Kosli Road, Village

Palhawas,

Pelhawas,

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

261

Distt. Rewari,

Haryana

25.

L -

9512361119

26.09.2016

M/s Marwari Jewellers

Bara Hajari Raod,

Distt. Rewari – 123401,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

26.

L-

9512361220

26.09.2016

M/s Marwari Jewellers

Bara Hajari Raod,

Distt. Rewari – 123401,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

27.

L-

9512361422

26.09.2016

M/s Vinay Jewellers,

Shop No 12, Churi Market,

Jacobpura,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

28.

L-

9512361515

26.09.2016

M/s Jogender Interlocking

Tiles,

Ashok Vihar Colony,

Jind Bye Pass,

Distt. Rohtak – 124001,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

29.

L-

9512361717

26.09.2016

M/s Kaushik Tile &

Building Material

Supplier,

Opp. Gopal Bricks

Company,

VPO - Lahli,

Distt. Rohtak – 124113,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

[No.CMD/13:11]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2017

का

का.आ. 129

129

129.—भारतीय मानक @ यूरो (माणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म%

भारतीय मानक @ यूरो एतAारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन. न िववरण वाले लाइस%स को उनके आगे दशा-यी गई तारीख से रद् /) थिगत

कर दया गया है/:-

अनुसूची

Fम

लाइस%स संG या

लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पhा

लाइस%स के अ तग-त व) तु/Fम

रद करने क ितिथ

संG या

सीएम/एल

स. बi भारतीय मानक का शीष-क

एल-9907301

मै. एस. के. बैवरेिजस,

पैकेजब द पेय जल

09.09.2016

35, माइलस् टोन,

(पैकेजब द ाकृितक िमनरल

गOव गदईपुर,

जल के अलावा)

पटौदी, िजला गुड़गOव,

हPरयाणा

[सं. सीएमडी-13:13]

सुनील कुमार, वै5ािनक एफ एवं मुख

262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 129.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Name & Address

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

No.

No. CM/L-

of the Licensee

Indian Standards covered by

Cancellation

the licence cancelled/suspension

L-9907301

M/s S.K. Beverages,

Packaged Drinking Water

09.09.2016

35, Mile Stone,

(Other Than Packaged Natural

Village Gadaipur,

Minerals Water)

Pataudi, Distt. Gurgaon

Haryana

[No.CMD/13:13]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2017

का

का.आ. 130

130

130.—भारतीय मानक @ यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म% भारतीय

अनुसूची

Fम

संG या

लाइस%स संG या

) वीकृत करने

क ितिथ

लाइस%सधारी का नाम

व पhा

भारतीय मानक का

शीष-क

भा मा

भाग

अनु

वष-

एल-

9512357120

01.08.2016

मै. पंजाब जेनेरल इM ड) ]ीस

ा. िल.,

6 लॉट नं. 149-150,

सै? टर – 24,

िजला फरीदाबाद

हPरयाणा

गढ़ाईय के िलए काब-न

इ) पात के िब लेट,

@ लूम, िसिलयO एवं

छड़%

1875

1992

एल-

9512358417

01.08.2016

मै. िl ड इिMडया पावर

केब स ा. िल.,

6 लॉट नं. 63,

सै? टर – 5,

आईएमटी मानेसर,

िजला गुड़गOव – 122001,

हPरयाणा

वायवीय गुिmछत केबल

1100 वो ट तक और

सिहत क काय-वारी

वो टता के िलए

14255

1995

एल-

9512356918

02.08.2016

मै. लाला दालच द J वैलस-,

चूड़ी वाली गली, नया

बाज़ार,

िजला गुड़गOव,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512356817

03.08.2016

मै. आर आर J वैलस-,

मेन चौक, अटेली मM डी,

िजला महे गढ़ - 123021,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

263

एल-

9512357019

03.08.2016

मै. राजस स J वैलस-,

गनेश माTकट के पास,

रेलवे रोड,

िजला रोहतक - 124001,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512357221

04.08.2016

मै. 8डा इ टरलोdकग टाइ स,

गॉव धुसकानी,

डाकघर - िखदवेल,

जवाहर नवोदया ) कूल के

पास,

िजला रोहतक - 124001,

हPरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉक

15658

2006

एल -

9512357423

04.08.2016

मै. अंकुर फायर िस) टम

एM ड क सलटDटस,

1134, सै? टर - 8,

िजला फरीदाबाद -

121006,

हPरयाणा

ए. बी. सी. ? लास अिn

शमन के िलए शुX क

रसायिनक पाउडर

14609

1999

एल -

9512357617

04.08.2016

मै. जे एल वायरस एM ड

केब स,

611, उZ तम नगर,

िजला Pरवाड़ी - 123401,

हPरयाणा

पोलीिवनाइल

? लोराइड से िबधुत

रोिधत अनावPरत और

आवPरत केबल

694

2010

एल -

9512357322

05.08.2016

मै. एच सी J वैलर,

द ली रोहतक रोड,

सदर थाना के पास,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला रोहतक,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

10.

एल -

9512357524

05.08.2016

मै. 9ी साई नाथ

इ टराइिसस,

गOव बमबार, धा0हेड़ा,

िजला Pरवाड़ी - 123401,

हPरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉक

15658

2006

11.

एल -

9512357718

11.08.2016

मै. 9ी कृX णा क स]कशन,

गॉव एस शाहपुर,

पटौदी

िजला गुड़गOव - 122414,

हPरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए

पूव- ढिलत कंFट

@ लॉक

15658

2006

264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

एल -

9512358518

11.08.2016

मै. मोया- उ7ोग िल.,

सोहना रोड, सै? टर - 25,

गौछी ऑ? ]ाय पो) ट के पास,

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121004,

हPरयाणा

अ प दाब वणीय गैस

के िलए 5 िलटर से

अिधक जल +मता वाले

वैिडड अ प काब-न

इ) पात के िस<लडर

भाग 2: एल पी जी के

अलावा वणीय

अिवषालु गैस के िलए

3196

2006

13.

एल -

9512357819

16.08.2016

मै. सोिनका J वैलस-,

शॉप नं. 2086, 22 फुट रोड,

एस जी एम नगर,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

14.

एल -

9512357920

16.08.2016

मै. सोिनका J वैलस-,

शॉप नं. 2086, 22 फुट रोड,

एस जी एम नगर,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

15.

एल -

9512358021

16.08.2016

मै0 सोनी स स ) वण-कार,

शॉप नं. 62, स@ ज़ी मM डी,

माTकट नं0 5, एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

16.

एल -

9512358122

16.08.2016

मै. सोनी स स ) वण-कार,

शॉप नं. 62, स@ ज़ी मM डी,

माTकट नं. 5, एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

17.

एल -

9512358223

16.08.2016

मै. िनिखल J वैलस-,

आय- समाज रोड,

नई स@ जी मM डी,

िजला Pरवाड़ी,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

265

18.

एल -

9512358324

16.08.2016

मै. दीप J वैलस-,

नाहरा नाहरी रोड,

) टेट बDक ऑफ इिMडया ,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झJ जर - 124507,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

19.

एल -

9512359318

17.08.2016

मै. एस जी क ]ोल एM ड

ि)वचिगयर ा. िल.,

6 लॉट नं. 319, सै? टर - 7,

फेस - II, आईएमटी,

मनेसर,

िजला गुड़गOव,

हPरयाणा

क डयूटस फॉर

इलै? ]ीकल इ टालेशंस

भाग 3: Pरिजड 6 लेन

क डयूटस ऑफ

इ सूलेoटग मैPटPरयलस

9537

1983

20.

एल -

9512358619

26.08.2016

मै. सोनी J वैलस-,

शॉप नं. 5 के - 40,

एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

) वण- एवं ) वण-

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

21.

एल -

9512358720

26.08.2016

मै. सोनी J वैलस-,

शॉप नं. 5 के - 40,

एनआईटी,

िजला फरीदाबाद,

हPरयाणा

चOदी एवं चOदी

िम9धातु

आभूषण/िश प व) तुS –

महीनता एवं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

22.

एल -

9512358821

26.08.2016

मै. फोिन? स इM ड) ]ीस,

3-माइल) टोन पटौदी रोड,

राधा ) वामी सतसंग भवन के

पास,

िजला गुड़गOव - 122001,

हPरयाणा

सुबाहय अिn शामक

काय-काPरता और

िनमा-ण

15683

2006

23.

एल -

9512359419

26.08.2016

मै. एफटीसी ि)वचिगयर

ा. िल.,

1604, एमआईई., भाग -

बी,

बहादुरगढ़,

िजला झJ जर - 124507,

हPरयाणा

1000 वो. ए सी अथवा

1500 वो. डी सी से

अनिधक बो टता के

िलए अ प बो टता

फयूज़

13703

1993

[सं. सीएमडी-13:11]

सुनील कुमार, वै5ािनक एफ एवं मुख

266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 130.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

No.

Part

Sec.

Year

L-

9512357120

01.08.2016

M/s Punjab General

Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.149-150, Sector -

24,

Distt. Faridabad

Haryana

Carbon Steel Billets,

blooms, Slabs and Bars

for forgings

1875

1992

L-

9512358417

01.08.2016

M/s Grid India Power

Cables Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 63, Sector-5, IMT

Manesar,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,

Haryana

Aerial Bunched Cables

for Working Voltages

upto and including

1100 Volts

14255

1995

L-

9512356918

02.08.2016

M/s Lala Dalchand

Jewellers,

Churi Wali Gali, Naya

Bazaar,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-

9512356817

03.08.2016

M/s R.R. Jewellers,

Main Chowk, Ateli Mandi,

Distt. Mahendragarh ;

123021,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-

9512357019

03.08.2016

M/s Rajsons Jewellers,

Near Ganesh Market

Railway Road,

Distt. Rohtak ; 124001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-

9512357221

04.08.2016

M/s Hooda Interlocking

Tiles,

Village - Ghuskani,

Post Office - Khidwail

Near Jawahar Novodya

School,

Distt. Rohtak - 124001,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

L-

9512357423

04.08.2016

M/s Aankur Fire Systems

& Consultants,

1134, Sector - 8,

Distt. Faridabad -121006,

Haryana

Dry Chemical Powder

for Fighting A, B, C

Class Fires

14609

1999

L-

9512357617

04.08.2016

M/s J.L. Wires & Cables,

611, Uttam Nagar,

Rewari- 123401,

Haryana

PVC Insulated Cables

for Working Voltage

upto and including

1100 V

694

2010

L-

9512357322

05.08.2016

M/s H.C. Jeweller,

Delhi-Rohtak Road,

Near Sadar Thana,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Rohtak,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

267

10.

L-

9512357524

05.08.2016

M/s Shree Sai Nath

Enterprises

Village Bambar

Dharuhera,

Distt. Rewari - 123401,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

11.

L-

9512357718

11.08.2016

M/s Shri Krishna

Construction,

Village S.Shahpur,

Pataudi,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122414,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

12.

L-

9512358518

11.08.2016

M/s Mauria Udyog Ltd.,

Sohna Road, Sector 25,

Near Gounchi Octroi Post,

Faridabad – 121004,

Haryana

Welded Low Carbon

Stee; Cylinders 5 Litre

Water Capacity for

Low Pressure

Liquefiable Gases

Part 2: Cylinders for

Liquefiable Non-Toxic

Gases Other than LPG

3196

2006

13.

L-

9512357819

16.08.2016

M/s Sonika Jewellers,

Shop No.2086, 22 Foot

Road, S.G.M. Nagar,

Faridabad,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

14.

L-

9512357920

16.08.2016

M/s Sonika Jewellers,

Shop No.2086, 22 Foot

Road, S.G.M. Nagar,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

15.

L-

9512358021

16.08.2016

M/s Soni Sons Swarnkar,

Shop No. 62, Subji Mandi,

Mkt. No. 5, NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

16.

L-

9512358122

16.08.2016

M/s Soni Sons Swarnkar,

Shop No. 62, Subji Mandi,

Mkt. No. 5, NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

17.

L-

9512358223

16.08.2016

M/s Nikhil Jewellers,

Arya Samaj Road, Near

New Sabzi Mandi,

Rewari,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

18.

L-

9512358324

16.08.2016

M/s Deep Jewellers,

Nahra- Nahri Road, Near

State Bank Of India ,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

19.

L-

9512359318

17.08.2016

M/s S.G. Control &

Switchgear

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 319, Sector-7,

Phase-II, IMT, Manesar,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Conduits for Electrical

Installations

Part 3: Rigid Plain

Conduits of Insulating

Materials

9537

1983

20.

L-

9512358619

26.08.2016

M/s Soni Jewellers,

SHOP NO 5K -40, NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.

L-

9512358720

26.08.2016

M/s Soni Jewellers,

SHOP NO 5K -40, NIT,

Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

22.

L-

9512358821

26.08.2016

M/s Phonix Industries,

3-Milestone, Pataudi Road,

Near Radha Swami

Satsang Bhawan,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001,

Haryana

Portable Fire

Extinguisher

Performance and

Construction

15683

2006

23.

L-

9512359419

26.08.2016

M/s FTC Switchgear Pvt.

Ltd.,

1604, M.I.E., Part-B,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124507,

Haryana

Low Voltages Fuses

for Voltages Not

Exceeding 1000 V AC

or 1500 V DC

Part 2: Fuses for use by

Authorized Persons

Sec. 1: Supplementary

Requirements

13703

1993

[No.CMD/13:11]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2017

का

का.आ. 131

131

131.—भारतीय मानक @ यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म% भारतीय

मानक @ यूरो एतAारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन. न िववरण वाले लाइस%स को उनके आगे दशा-यी गई तारीख से रद् /) थिगत कर दया

गया है/:-

अनुसूची

Fम

लाइस%स संG या

लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पhा

लाइस%स के अ तग-त व) तु/Fम

रद करने क ितिथ

संG या

सीएम/एल

स. बi भारतीय मानक का शीष-क

शून् य

[सं. सीएमडी-13:13]

सुनील कुमार, वै5ािनक एफ एवं मुख

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2017

S.O. 131.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Name & Address

Article/Process with relevant

Date of

No.

No. CM/L-

of the Licensee

Indian Standards covered by

Cancellation

the licence cancelled/suspension

Nil

[No.CMD/13:13]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

269

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 132-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fjykbUl ykbiQ ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 126@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@21@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

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

Government on 28.12.2016.

[No. L-17012/21/2015-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 126/15

Sh. Narendra Kumar,

S/o sh. Bhanwar Singh,

R/o H. No. 553, Gandhi Nagar,

Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar (UK),

Haridwar (Uttranchal).

Versus

The Chief HR,

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

At-Ist Floor Dhirubhai Ambani knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai, Maharastra,

Mahrashtra-400710.

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-17012/21/2015-IR(M) dated 21.07.2015

referred the following industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, was erroneous in

terminating the services solely on the basis of unilateral performance appraisal without affording any natural

justice? If so, what remedy lies to the workman.”

On 26.10.2015 reference was received in this tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.126/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the basis of which none of the parte can be directed to adduce its evidence.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-24.10.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fn

bEiykbt jkT; chek fuxe ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 125@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. The Employees Rajya Beema Nigam and other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 10.01.2017.

[No. L-15025/1/2017-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 125/2016

Shri Satish Kumar, S/o late Shri Ram Mehar,

R/o House No.334, Walore, near Mata Chowk

Post Bahadurgarh, Thana Bahadurgarh,

Tehsil Bahadurgarh,

Distract Jhajhar, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1. The Employees Rajya Beema Nigam,

Regional Dispensary, Near Hakikat Rai Park,

Jangpura, New Delhi 110 014

2. M/s 2792 V.P. Bhagat Security Agency

Head Office, 343, Vardhman D.C. Plaza,

Plot No.7, Sector 11, Dwarka,

New Delhi 110 075

…Managements

AWARD

Shri Satish Kumar (the claimant herein) was employed through M/s V.P. Bhagat Security Agency (hereinafter

referred to as the contractor) as Security Guard by Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short the management)

on 22.06.2014. On 26.08.2015, while returning home for work, the claimant met with an accident and had to remain

on medical leave. Contractors were duly informed about the incident. On 10.09.2015, when the claimant reported for

duties alongwith his medical fitness certificate, he was not allowed to join despite repeated requests. Feeling

aggrieved, the claimant raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer seeking reinstatement in service of the

Corporation with continuity and full back wages. On expiry of 45 days from the date of moving application before the

Conciliation Officer, the claimant raised his dispute before this Tribunal, using provisions of sub-section (2) of section

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

271

2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted

by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, it was registered as an

industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d)

of the Act.

Claim statement was filed by the claimant, wherein it is averred that he was engaged by the management through

the contractor as a security guard on 22.06.2014 and he was paid Rs.14,700.00 per month as wages. The claimant was

made to work for 12 hours instead of 8 hours. Bonus for the year 2014-15 and overtime for the period 30.06.2014 to

25.08.2015 were also not paid. Legal facilities, such as, attendance card, leave card, annual leaves, pay slips, bonus

for the year 2014-15, overtime wages for 30.06.2014 to 25.08.2015 etc. were not made available to him. Claimants

signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers and vouchers and threatening them with dire consequences. On

26.08.2015, while returning home from his duty, the claimant met with an accident and had to remain on leave upto

10.09.2016. Though information of his leave was duly conveyed to his employer, he was not allowed to resume duties

despite repeated requests and furnishing of medical fitness certificate. Demand notice was sent to the management on

26.10.2015, to which no reply was received by the claimant. He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the

contractor, with continuity and full back wages.

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of the managements. However, in the

meanwhile, it was stated by the contractor that there are chances of settlement, hence parties were persuaded to settle

their dispute amicably. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled between the parties amicably. In view of the

fact that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remained no occasion to frame issues/adjudicate the matter

on merits.

Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs.75,000.00 from the contractor towards

full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity,

bonus and other benefits, if any. He announced that on payment of Rs.75 ,000.00 to him, his claim would stand

satisfied. Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, Filed Officer and authorized representative of the contractor, unfolded that he

was competent to settle the case on behalf of the contractor with the claimant. He undertook, on behalf of the

contractor, to pay a sum of Rs.75,000.00 (Rs.60,000.00 through cheque No.888785 dated 28.12.2016 of Dena Bank and

Rs.15,000.00 in cash) to the claimant towards full and final settlement of his claim, made in the present dispute. Thus,

it emerged that the contractor agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000.00 to the claimant towards full and final settlement of

his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, bonus and other benefits, if any.

On payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- claim made would stand satisfied. Statement of the claimant as well as Shri

Praveen Kumar Singh, Field officer, were recorded separately, which shall form integral part of the award. An award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : January 5, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 134-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fn

bEiykbt jkT; chek fuxe ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 126@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. The Employees Rajya Beema Nigam and other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 10.01.2017.

[No. L-15025/1/2017-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 126/2016

Shri Jagdev Singh, S/o late Shri Dayanand,

Village – Acheena, Post – Acheena,

Thana – Baund Kala, Tehsil – Charkhi Dadri,

District - Bhiwani, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

1. The Employees Rajya Beema Nigam,

Regional Dispensary, Near Hakikat Rai Park,

Jangpura, New Delhi 110 014

2. M/s 2792 V.P. Bhagat Security Agency

Head Office, 343, Vardhman D.C. Plaza,

Plot No.7, Sector 11, Dwarka,

New Delhi 110 075

…Managements

AWARD

Shri Jagdev Singh (the claimant herein) was employed through M/s V.P. Bhagat Security Agency (hereinafter

referred to as the contractor) as Security Guard by Employees State Insurance(in short the management) in August

2014. He served the principal employer till 31.08.2015. On 01.09.2015, his services were abruptly dispensed with by

the contractor on 01.09.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer seeking

reinstatement in service of the Corporation with continuity and full back wages. On expiry of 45 days from the date of

moving application before the Conciliation Officer, the claimant raised his dispute before this Tribunal, using

provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Since dispute was

within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section

2A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

Claim statement was filed by the claimant, wherein it is averred that he was engaged by the management through

the contractor as a security guard in August 2014 and he was paid Rs.13,000.00 per month as wages. He worked to the

entire satisfaction of his superiors and had a clean record of service. Legal facilities, such as, attendance card, leave

card, annual leaves, annual increments, pay slips, bonus, overtime wages were not made available to him. On

01.09.2015 when the claimant reported for duties, his services were abruptly done away with, without assigning any

reason . Demand notice was sent to the management on 26.10.2015, to which no reply was received by the claimant.

He claims reinstatement in service of his employer, the contractor, with continuity and full back wages.

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of the managements. However, in the

meanwhile, it was stated by the contractor that there are chances of settlement; hence parties were persuaded to settle

their dispute amicably. Good sense prevailed and the dispute was settled between the parties amicably. In view of the

fact that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remained no occasion to frame issues/adjudicate the matter

on merits.

Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs.75,000.00 from the contractor towards

full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity,

bonus and other benefits, if any. He announced that on payment of Rs.75,000.00 to him, his claim would stand

satisfied. Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, Filed Officer and authorized representative of the contractor, unfolded that he

was competent to settle the case on behalf of the contractor with the claimant. He undertook, on behalf of the

contractor, to pay a sum of Rs.75,000.00 through cheque No.888782 dated 28.12.2016 of Dena Bank to the claimant

towards full and final settlement of his claim, made in the present dispute. Thus, it emerged that the contractor agreed

to pay a sum of Rs.75,000.00 to the claimant towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service,

notice pay, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, bonus and other benefits, if any. On payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/-

claim made would stand satisfied. Statement of the claimant as well as Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, Field officer, were

recorded separately, which shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : January 5, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

273

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 35@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@16@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.01.2017.

[No. L-30011/16/2013-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/35 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

The Director (HR) Personnel

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

17, Jamshedji Tata Road

Mumbai 400 020.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

The Joint Secretary

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport & General Kamgar Union

Jivraj Bhanji Shan Market

3^rd floor, Near Masjid Station

Mumbai 400 009.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. L.L. D’Souza, Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 18^th November, 2016

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-30011/16/2013-IR ( M ), dated

28.05.2013 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 demand of the union for regularisation of the services of listed contract workers (Annex-I, II, III

& IV) with effect from their initial date of appointment is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workmen

are entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference notices were issued to both parties. In response to the notice, second party union

filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-8. Management resisted the Claim of second party by filing their Written

Statement at Ex-10. Thereafter matter was fixed for framing of Issues. On 9/11/2016 both parties filed joint

274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

application to take the matter on board. Orders were passed allowing the said application. Both parties filed

application (Ex-14) for disposing the Reference as per consent Terms (Ex-15). On 18/11/2016 both the parties

remained present along with their representatives. After verification of the documents, orders were passed on Ex-14.

Accordingly I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view of consent terms (Ex-15), Reference stands dismissed.

Date: 18.11.2016

Sd/-

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Ex-15

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, AT MUMBAI

Ref. CGIT-2/ 35 of 2013

BETWEEN :

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

…FIRST PARTY

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

THROUGH

MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT & GENERAL KAMGAR UNION

…SECOND PARTY

CONSENT TERMS

It is submitted that the parties to the above reference i.e. First party M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited and Second Party i.e. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport & General Kamgar Union have entered into out of

Court Settlement in respect of 28 contract workmen which are covered in present reference represented by the Second

party. A detailed list of said 28 contract workmen is detailed in Attachment-1 of the said MOU i.e. out of Court

Settlement. A copy of out of Court settlement is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-1.

It is submitted that though the First Party had no Employer-Employee nexus or relationship with said Contract

workmen represented by Second party and thus first party was not liable under any law, in any respect to provide work

and payment of any compensation to them. However in order to amicably resolve the present dispute expeditiously the

said Out of Court Settlement has been signed between said contract workmen represented by second party and the first

party on following terms:

It has been agreed that the first party would continue the services of 28 concerned contract workmen

thorough contractor(s) for performing the contractual obligation as its Establishment at HP Nagar Housing

Complex (East & West) Mumbai till attaining the age of their superannuation i.e. 60 years save and except

misconduct.

It has been agreed that the first party after adhering to the purchase procedures of the Corporation would

appoint independent contractors and would specify in the tender conditions the mutually agreed terms for

continuation of the said 28 contract workmen under the respective contractors at its Establishment at HP

Nagar Housing Complex (East & West) Mumbai for performing the contractual obligations as detailed in

the Memorandum of Understanding for Out of Court Settlement.

It has been agreed that second party would withdraw instant reference case pending before this Hon’ble

Tribunal in view of the said Out of Court Settlement.

It has been agreed that in the event of indiscipline or misbehavior or any misconduct committed by said 28

contract workmen, the respective contractor engaged at the relevant point of time, would have the right to

take disciplinary action including discontinuation of these workmen after adhering to due process of law.

It has been agreed that said 28 contract workmen would be paid an additional fixed allowance of Rs.7020/-

p.m. over and above the applicable minimum wages payable in their respective category by the concerned

contractors. The aforesaid fixed allowance would be revised on 1^st January of each calendar year and

incremental revision @ 3 % of such additional allowance paid as of 31^st December of the previous calendar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

275

year would be paid to the contract workmen which would be deemed to be the revised fixed additional

allowance for the particular calendar year, subject to minimum attendance of 180 days during the preceding

year.

It has been agreed that irrespective of the fact that the respective contractors may be having their

independent code under PF, the contribution in respect of said 28 contract workmen would be deposited

through the corporation’s separate code allotted for the contract labourers engaged across Corporation’s

locations.

It has been agreed that consequent to the additional fixed allowance of Rs.7020/- per month the said 28

contract workmen would be entitled to receive applicable bonus amount @ 8.33 % of actual wages,

irrespective of the fact that the gross wage exceeds Rs.21,000 per month or the limit as declared by the

Appropriate Authority under payment of Bonus Act 1965 from time to time.

It has been agreed that since consequent to the payment of additional fixed allowance of Rs.7020/- per

month over and above the applicable minimum wages, the said 28 contract workmen would not be entitled

for coverage under ESI Act a comprehensive workmen Compensation Policy as well as Medical Insurance

Policy would be taken by the Corporation as a Principal Employer on behalf of these workmen for covering

them along with their dependent family members (dependent parents, spouse & Children) whereby the

contractor as the Employer would contribute an amount equivalent to 4.75% of the wages payable to these

workmen and the workmen would contribute 1.75% of their wages which would be deducted from the

wages payable to the workmen towards coverage under Comprehensive Medical Insurance Scheme. It has

been agreed that till the time such comprehensive insurance policy is being undertaken by the Corporation

as the Principal Employer the said 28 contract workmen would continue to be covered under the

employees’ State Insurance Act and remittance to that effect would be made by the concerned contractors.

It has been agreed that upon attaining the age of superannuation (60 years) the applicable gratuity would be

disbursed to the respective contract workmen, for their services through various contractors in the

Corporation’s location. It is submitted that for the purpose of calculating gratuity, the date of joining the

services would be reckoned effective the date of filing of the Writ Petition no.431 of 1997 as detailed in

Attachment-1 of the said MOU i.e. Out of Court Settlement.

It has been agreed by the second party as well as the said contract workmen that in future no dispute /

claim/ demand of whatsoever nature, monetary or non-monetary shall be raised by them or their members/

workmen before any court of law under issue of permanency/ regularization in the services of the first

party.

It has been agreed that said contract workmen agree and undertake to irretrievably forgo their claim for

regularization/ permanency in the services of the first party’s corporation and or wages at par with regular

workmen.

The said contract workmen and the second party have agreed to indemnify and keep indemnified and save

harmless the first party, its Directors and Officers from any claim of any nature whatsoever from any of

these workmen/ their legal heirs against the first party Corporation.

m) It has been agreed that the second party as well as the said contract workmen originally covered under Writ

Petition 431 of 1997 and common in the instant Reference and shall not cite the said MoU i.e. Out of Court

Settlement, arrived at between the parties under the present facts and circumstances of the case in order to

amicably resolve the matter, before any competent court of law/ Tribunal/ authority for seeking wages and

benefits at par with regular employees or otherwise for present or in future at any stage or in any

proceedings involving any other employee/s or contract employees.

It has been agreed and understood by and between the parties that the said 28 contract workmen to whom

the benefit of continuity as contract workmen under the respective contractors at the Corporation’s

Establishment at HP Nagar Housing Complex (East & West) Mumbai has been extended shall not resort to

any agitation, stage demonstration/ coercive picketing or indulge in any other act against the Corporation or

its Officers affecting the working of the Corporation in support of their any or alleged demands of

permanency/ regularization in the employment of the Corporation/ parity of wages along with regular

workmen of the Corporation or whatsoever nature and indeed no such demand shall hereinafter be made in

future.

In has been agreed that the financial benefits arising out of said settlements would be paid effective

1/4/2011 onwards. However, while calculating the arrears, the incremental revision @ 3% of additional

fixed allowance would not be calculated and such incremental revision would be payable with prospective

276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

effect i.e. effective January 2015 onwards.

It has been agreed that the benefit accruing out of the settlement entered between the first party and said 28

contract workmen shall be binding as to full and final settlement of all claims/ demands of whatsoever

nature as may be conceived under any law arising out of their engagement/ non-engagement in the

establishment of the first party through the contractors or otherwise.

It is submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, second party agree to forgo the claim

for regularization and wages at par with regular employees raised the instant Industrial Dispute. The second party also

categorically forgo any claim of monetary/ regularization or any other kind of benefit whatsoever nature in instant

Reference, save and except the benefits which has been amicably agreed upon in the out of court settlement entered

with the concerned 28 contract workmen represented through second party. The second party also forgo the claim and

would not pursue the matter in respect of all the contract workmen covered in instant Reference.

It is submitted that in view of above, the parties i.e. the First party as well as second party humbly prays that this

Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to dispose off the present Reference.

Signed on this day of 18^th November, 2016 at Mumbai.

Advocate of First Party

For an on behalf of First Party.

Sd/-

(Lancy D’Souza)

(Surinder Kumar)

Chief Manager (Admn.)

Sd/-

(M.A. Shaikh)

(Suresh R. Khond)

Advocate of Second Party

Secretary

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi

Tpt. & General Kamgar Union

ORDER

Surinder Kumar & Suresh R. Khond are present. Both have admitted their signatures on this Consent Terms.

They are being indentified by their advocates. Hence read and recorded.

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Name of contract labour as per List Ex-14.

Smt. Kaushalya C. Patel

Smt. Janabai Bhanudas Jogdand

Smt. Jaywantibai D. Khunte

Smt. Gangubai D. Malagi

Smt. Prabhavati Sadanand Nair

Shri Kuppammal R. Ajuns

Smt. Kashiratnam A. Arjuns

Smt. Savitribai Kashinath Bane

Shri Dilip D. Ukande

10.

Shri Balu Maruthi Phalke

11.

Shri Lakshappa B. Yerkali

12.

Shri Mangan P. Palani

13.

Shri Rajendra A. Kaliyan

14.

Shri Kashinath Sakharam Bane

15.

Shri Michael S. Nadar

16.

Shri G.P. Faras

17.

Shri Khaja Hussain Mulla

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

277

18.

Shri Sahebrao Vitthal Adbale

19.

Shri Ramesh Gowda

20.

Shri Javre Nigappa Gawda

21.

Smt. Hirabai Sitaram More

22.

Smt. Kamla Mohan Pol

23.

Smt. Laxmibai Lalappa Gajre

24.

Shri Santanam Adimulam

25.

Smt. Puttajiamma K. Gowda

26.

Smt. Mery Anthony Mark

27.

Smt. Balan Eknath Kasbe

28.

Smt. Laxmi Murgesh Ramaswamy

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-

,e-Mh-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@13@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. N.M.D.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.01.2017.

[No. L-29011/13/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2014

General Secretary,

Bailadila Mine Workers Union (INTUC),

Bacheli Branch, PO Bacheli,

Distt. Dantewada

Chhattisgarh

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

NMDC Ltd., BIOM. Bacheli,

Dantewada (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of December 2016

As per letter dated 11-8-2014 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-29011/13/2014-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the demand of Bailadila Mine Workers Union (INTUC), Bacheli Complex, Distt. Dantewada that the

additional two hours time which every worker spend every day for reaching their respective working area in

Akash Nagar and Dep.No.5,10and 11 of NMDC Ltd., Bacheli complex should either be included in the duty

hours or additional allowance for the tune of 25 % of basic wages should be paid to the workers in lieu thereof is

justified or not?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party failed to appear in the matter. Despite

notices, Ist party failed to appear in the matter. Workman was proceeded exparte on 20-3-2016.

2^nd party management filed exparte Written Statement. 2^nd party management in its Written Statement has

contented that Ist party Union has not filed statement of claim as per Rule 10(B) of ID Central Rules 1957. The

contention of the Union that workers at Akash Nagar is to travel 45 kms to reach the working place and back and have

to spend 2 hours additionally claiming special allowance. The service conditions are covered by standing orders of

NMDC, there is no provision for such special allowance for employees working at Hill Top. That the mechanism of

more than 40 years of bipartism system prevailing in NMDC across its project. All India NMDC Workers Federation is

operating at corporate level as per its constitution. The system is so effective that the Project has not experienced any

major strike on company related issues. The system is unique in India and appreciated by all renowned trade union

leaders of the company. The facilities such as conveyance, accommodation etc are given to employees and several

other allowances are provided. The amount of perk is limited to 42 % basic pay. Transportation facility from township

to respective duty place is provided free of cost. Accommodation facility is provided at nominal charges of Rs./2/- for

type II quarter and Rs.149 for Type III quarters in a well maintained township. Facilities such as well maintained

community centers, gymnasium, shopping centres, subsidized coaching facilities are provided as a welfare measure to

all employees. Considering Bailadila as a hard station Special allowance @ 10 % of basic is given to workmen which is

a part of hill allowance. Union raised dispute before ALC, Raipur claiming additional special allowance for spending

2hours for reaching work place and back. Management has provided various facilities and allowances. The standing

orders of NMDC not cover special allowance for employees travelling to the working place. 2 major Unions SKMS

and MMWU had reached to the agreement with management regarding payment of special incentive scheme for those

who are working in Deposit 5 Hill Top. The employees working there are addressed and resolved for every. Therefore

the claimants are not entitled to any relief.

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 demand of Bailadila Mine Workers

Union

(INTUC),

Bacheli

Complex,

Distt.

Dantewada that the additional two hours time which

every worker spend every day for reaching their

respective working area in Akash Nagar and

Dep.No.5,10and 11 of NMDC Ltd., Bacheli

complex should either be included in the duty hours

or additional allowance for the tune of 25 % of basic

wages should be paid to the workers in lieu thereof

is justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Union has not participated in reference. Statement of claim is not filed. Management filed exparte Written

Statement contending various allowance and facilities to its employees and agreements entered with the major Unions.

The affidavit of management’s witness Arun Shukla supports full contentions in Written Statement. Evidence of

management’s witness remained unchallenged. Management has produced memorandum between management and

Union Representative dated 11-3-2015. As Union has not participated in reference and evidence of management’s

witness remained unchallenged, the demand of the Union is not supported by any evidence, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of Bailadila Mine Workers Union (INTUC), Bacheli Complex, Distt. Dantewada that the

additional two hours time which every worker spend every day for reaching their respective working area

in Akash Nagar and Dep.No.5,10and 11 of NMDC Ltd., Bacheli complex should either be included in the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

279

duty hours or additional allowance for the tune of 25 % of basic wages should be paid to the workers in lieu

thereof is not legal.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-

vkbZ-vks-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-

01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@17@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. M.I.O.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.01.2017.

[No. L-30012/17/2002-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2002

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh,

Bansi Villa Compound, Katol Road,

Nagpur

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M.O.(I) Ltd, 3 Mount Rd.,

Extension, PO No.34,

Nagpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of December 2016

As per letter dated 31-5-2002 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-30012/17/2002-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Sr.Manager(MP), Tirodi Mine of MOIL, Tirodi in terminating the services of Shri

Vijendra Mahajan, Piece rated worker of Tirodi Mine of MOIL, Tirodi w.e.f. 29-3-00 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?

After receiving reference order dated 31-5-02, another reference is received dated 7-2-2003 and was registered as

R/49/03. Considering identical reference w.r.t. same workman was made, request was made to the Government for

cancellation of either of the reference. As per letter dated 27-7-05, order of reference dated 7-2-2003 pertaining to

R/49/03 was treated was treated cancelled. Therefore R/91/02 only needs to be decided.

Workman submitted his statement of claim in R/91/02 challenging legality of the enquiry conducted against him

and findings of Enquiry Officer. Workman prayed for his reinstatement.

280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2^nd party filed Written Statement which is kept in R/49/03. Management contented that the chargesheet was

issued to workman under Clause 29(b)(vii), 29(b)xii) of the standing orders, enquiry was conducted, Enquiry Officer

submitted his report., workman had unconditionally accepted charges. Charges were proved. Considering the findings

of Enquiry Officer, punishment was imposed against Ist party workman, the action of the management is legal.

After recording evidence of both parties, preliminary issue pertaining to legality of enquiry was answered in

favour of workman. Enquiry was found vitiated.

Management challenged order of enquiry in Writ Petition No. 16025/2014. The order passed by Hon’ble High

Court is received. Both parties submitted before High Court that settlement is arrived between them. The Writ Petition

has been disposed off. The workman has filed application for withdrawal of his claim. Management has given no

objection. Workman is allowed to withdraw his claim. For above reasons, no dispute award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Jh

Ñ".kknkl Vhdkjke ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@30@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Shri Krishnadas Teekaram and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 05.01.2017.

[No. L-29012/30/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/119/2001

Shri Mahant Rai,

C/o Shri N.K.Pandey,

Shram Sadhna, West Land Ordnance Factory,

Katni (MP)

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Shri Krishnadas Teekaram,

Mine Owner, Civil Lines, Katni,

Post Box 156, Katni (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9^th day of December, 2016

As per letter dated 20-6-2001by 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-29012/30/2001/IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of M/s Shrikrishna Das Teekaram, Mine Owner, Civil Lines Katni Post Box No. 156, katni

(MP) in stopping payment of salary from May 99 and removing workman Shri Mahant Rai from service w.e.f.

19-7-99 is legal and justified? If not to what relief, the concerned workman is entitled to?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

281

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 6/1

to 6/5. Case of Ist party workman is since 1977, he was working on post of Mines Supervisor. Provisions of standing

order, ID Act are applicable to the establishment of 2^nd party. His services were illegally terminated by 2^nd party from

19-7-99 no chargesheet was issued to him. Any enquiry was not conducted against him, retrenchment compensation

was not paid to him before terminating his services. He had sent letter to 2^nd party by RPAD dated 23-3-99 claiming

bonus and pay from the month of November 1998. He was not paid for the year 1995 to 1998. 2^nd party had given reply

to his letter on 29-6-99 claiming that workman was paid bonus for 1995-96 as per bonus sheet signed by him. If any

amount was due against the management, its detail be given and receive such dues. Workmanhas referred to

correspondence dated 29-6-99, 8-2-99, 16-7-99 with regard to the payment of bonus and other grievances. His

explanation was called about his absence from duty against complaints made against him. Workman reiterates that his

service was terminated without enquiry, termination notice was not issued to him, retrenchment compensation was not

paid to him. On such ground, workman prayed for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party raised preliminary objection as per the

workman, he was appointed on permanent post of mine supervisor from 1977. His services were terminated on 19-7-99.

Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act as he was doing supervisory work drawing salary

Rs.1800 permonth. The reference is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed on above ground. It is denied that the

workman was illegally terminated. That letter dated 29-6-99 was not issued by management. Management had issued

letter dated 19-6-99. Workman had not responded. There was no option but to terminate his services on the basis of

irregularities found against him. It is alleged that workman was posted at Argat Mine where he had not reported to

duty. Ist party had absconded from duty but to extract money from management he claimed salary and other dues. It is

reiterated that Ist party was not attending duty. There were complaints against him. Ist party was unauthorisely absent.

Violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is denied. No interference is called for.

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 Ist party is covered as workman

under Section 2(s) of ID Act?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the action of M/s Shrikrishna Das

Teekaram, Mine Owner, Civil Lines Katni Post

Box No. 156, katni (MP) in stopping payment

of salary from May 99 and removing workman

Shri Mahant Rai from service w.e.f. 19-7-99 is

legal and justified?

Doesnot survive

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

to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

2^nd party in its Written Statement has contented that Ist party workman was appointed as Mine Supervisor. He

was drawing salary Rs.1800 permonth is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Workman in his

statement of claim has stated that he was appointed as Mines Supervisor. The appointment letter is produced at Page

6/7. The pay of workman is shown Rs.225/- per month. Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated that he was

appointed as Mines Supervisor. He was in service for 24 years. In his cross-examination, workman admits he was

working as supervisor, his monthly salary was more than Rs.1600 per month instead of Rs.1850 per month.

Management’s witness in his affidavit of evidence however stated that Ist party workman was doing work of labour

supervisor, drawing monthly salary more than Rs.1800. said evidence of management’s witness is not challenged in

his cross examination.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Miss R.Nair submits that as workman was appointed as Mines Supervisor drawing

more than Rs.1600 per month salary is not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. In support of her argument, reliance

is placed on ratio held in case between—

Young Women’s Christian Association of India versus Smt.Jyotsna Paul reported in 2005-LLR-68. His Lordship

dealing with Section 2(s) of ID Act laid down factors to be considered for determination as to who is workman or not?

Considering the respondents was drawing wages Rs.2176 per month, her specific responsibilities were to

282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

effectivelyorganize and control the food and beverage department. The respondent was not held workman under

Section 2(s) of ID Act.

In case between Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Ranipur, Haridwar versus State and others reported in 2004LAB-

I.C.3600. His Lordship held Petitioner Assistant Foreman doing supervisory work and his salary exceeding Rs.1800

per month is not workman.

In present case, in his pleadings and evidence, Ist party workman has claimed that he was appointed as Mines

Supervisory. In his cross, he says he was drawing salary Rs.1850/- per month. Prior to amendment of 2010 of Section

2(s), the salary limit was Rs.1600 per month excluding supervisor from ambit of Section 2(s) of ID Act. For above

reasons, I hold that Ist party is not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. The issue is answered in Negative.

Point No.2- the pleading of parties as well as evidence of workman is clear that his services were terminated for

certain irregularities including unauthorised absence without holding enquiry. However Ist party is not workman under

Section 2(s) of ID Act. Therefore the reference is not tenable. Point no.2 has become reluctant.

Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID

Act, reference is not tenable, workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act, reference is not tenable.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fgjhZ

ekbUl vkWiQ fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26011@4@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.01.2017.

[No. L-26011/4/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/34/2002

Smt.Sahodarabai,

W/o Ramnath, Ex-worker of Hirri Mines of

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Opp Hirri Mines,

Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur

…Workman

Versus

M/S Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant,

Mines Manager, PO Hirri Mines,

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

283

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of December 2016

As per letter dated 12-2-2002 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-26011/4/2001-IR(M)., The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in

terminating the services of Smt. Sahodarabai is justified? If not, to what relief the workman Smt. Sahodarabai is

entitled?”

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

Page 4/2 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that she was working as labour in Hirri Mines under management f 2^nd

party. She had worked for 13 years satisfactorily. Chargesheet was served on her on 24-12-99 for allegation that she

beaten employee Tiharu in canteen premises on 13-12-99 at 10 AM and using abusive language. It was also alleged

that she along with her husband and her son had beaten Tiharu. Misconduct under Rule 29.1,7,8 of standing order was

alleged against her. That she had given reply to chargesheet denying charges against her. That she had given reply to

the chargesheet denying charges against her. She contented that she had not abused or beaten Tiharu. That she

submitted FIR to police but no action was taken despite she was examined by Doctor and injuries were found on her.

That Shri G.M.Rehar was appointed as Enquiry Officer, K.R.Sahu appointed as Presenting Officer. When enquiry was

fixed on 13-4-00, she was pressurized by Mine Manager and Presenting Officer to accept charges against her. Because

of the pressure by the officers, she was forced to admit charges. Thereafter Enquiry Officer not recorded statement of

any witnesses, enquiry was closed. Ist party reiterated that enquiry was not properly conducted on the report of Enquiry

Officer, she accepted the charges. She was removed from service as per order dated 22-9-2000. Her husband was also

served with separate chargesheet. His two increments were withheld as per order dated 11-7-00. Ist party workman

reiterates that enquiry was conducted violating principles of natural justice, punishment of removal from service

imposed against her is discriminatory. The action of the management is arbitrary and unfair. On such ground,

workman prays for her reinstatement with full backwages. Ist party workman died during pendency. Despite repeated

notices, LRs not participated in reference proceeding.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/6 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party management submits

that Ist party workman was appointed as DPR since 13-6-78. She was in service for 23 years and not 13 years as stated

in statement of claim. He denied that service record of workman was satisfactory. Workman was served with

chargesheet on 31-12-99. She denied charges against her in reply to the chargesheet. Enquiry was conducted. Workman

had admitted charges against her. Enquiry Officer submitted his report. As workman admitted charges against her,

charges were established. 2^nd party denied that workman was pressurised for accepting charges against her. Copy of

Enquiry Report was sent to workman, no reply was received. For proved charges, workman was removed from service.

complaints were also received against workman from other employees. Punishment is imposed that charges alleged

against workman were established. It is denied that action of the management is discriminatory and illegal. The

contentions of workman are after thought. The action was taken against workman for misconduct committed by her as

per the standing orders. 2^nd party submits that punishment is legal.

As per order dated 13-10-2015, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and

determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Workman died during pendency of the proceeding.

Workman died during pendency of the proceeding. LRs not participated in reference proceeding, documents pertaining

to enquiry are produced at Exhibit W-1 to 4. Management has also produced documents at Exhibit M-1 to M-3. In

284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Enquiry Proceedings, statement of workman was recorded , she had admitted charges alleged against her. The charges

alleged against workman had beaten co-employee and used abusive language are admitted by workman in Enquiry

Proceedings. As such charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Therefore I

record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- The punishment of removal is imposed against workman for charges proved in Enquiry Proceedings.

Charges proved against workman pertains to beating Tiharu on 13-12-99 using abusive language. The proved

misconduct is of serious nature. Therefore punishment of removal imposed against workman cannot be held

disproportionate. To proved misconduct, no interference in imposing punishment imposed against workman is justified.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Hirri Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in

terminating the services of Smt. Sahodarabai is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@16@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.01.2017.

[No. L-30011/16/2010-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 23^rd day of September, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 22/2010

Between:

The President,

ONGC (K.G.Asset) Mechanical Maintenance

Workers Union, D.No.76-6-11/2, Gandhipuram-2,

Rajahmundry

…Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Krishna Godavari Project,

Godavari Bhavan, Base Complex, (A.P.),

Rajahmundry – 533106.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

285

The General Manager (HR),

ONGC Ltd.,

K.G. Asset, Godavari Bhavan,

Rajahmundry

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

President, ONGC (K.G.Asset) Mechanical Maintenance Workers Union

For the Respondent

None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-30011/16/2010-IR(M) dated 19.8.2010 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of ONGC Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Rajahmundry and its contractor M/s. Sai Tech Central

Technical Servicing Industrial Co. Operative Society Limited, Rajahmundry in terminating the services of 24

contract workers (As per list enclosed) is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 22/2010 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The Petitioner Union has filed their claim statement and Respondents failed to file their respective counter

statement.

The case stands posted for recording Petitioner’s evidence.

Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner union remained absent and there is

no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union, which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner union has

already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has got no claim to raise.

Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 23^rd day of

September, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,iQ-

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@28@87&Mh- III (ch)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. FACOR and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.01.2017.

[No. L-29011/28/87-D.III (B)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01/2001

No. L-29011/28/87-D.III (B), dated 05.10.1987

Date of Passing Order – 2^nd November, 2016

Between:

The Chief Executive of Mines, FACOR,

P.O. Dhanurjayapur, Dist. Keonjhar, (Orissa).

M/s. Agrawal Brothers, Contractor of FACOR,

C/o. The Mines Manager, Boula Chromite Mines

of FACOR, Po. Dhanurjayapur,

Dist. Keonjhar, (Orissa)

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

The General Secretary,

B.Z.C.M.L. Union, Po. Dhanurjoypur,

Dist. Keonjhar

…2^nd Party-Union

Appearances :

Shri P.K. Sahoo, Law Officer

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 1

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Management No. 2

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

ORDER

Representative of the 1^st Party-Management is present. None appears on behalf of the 2^nd party-Union on repeated

calls. No step is also taken on behalf of the 2^nd party-Union. Heard the representative of the 1^st Party-Management who

submitted for return of reference on the ground of failure of the 2^nd party-Union as well as the Government of India in

the Ministry of Labour to furnish the list of 885 under-ground workmen who are stated to have been refused

employment by the 1^st Party-Management with effect from 17.3.1986.

Perused the Schedule of the reference, statement of claim submitted by the 2^nd party-Union, written statement of

the 1^st Party-Management, the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 3.2.2014 arising of W.P.(C) No 14329/2006,

order dated 08.09.2006 of this Tribunal and other connecting papers including various orders passed by this Tribunal

from time to time. It is seen from the record that the reference with the Schedule “whether the action of the

management of M/s. Agrawala Brothers, Contractor of Boula Chromtie Mines of FACOR in refusing employment to

885 under-ground workers with effect from 17.3.1986 is lawful and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to” made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-

section 2-A of Section 10 after failure of the conciliation between the parties on a dispute raised by the 2^nd party-Union

is pending for adjudication for the last 30 years and no progress seems to have been made for taking evidence of the

parties in support of their respective claim after settlement of issues on 02.04.1993. The reference is pending without

adjudication on account of failure on the part of the 2^nd party-Union as well as the Central Government to furnish the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

287

details of 885 workmen who are stated to have been refused employment by the 1^st Party-Management on 17.3.1986. In

its order dated 29.12.1995 the parties more particularly the Central Government was directed to ascertain all necessary

particulars in respect of 885 workmen and to confirm in writing that the workmen are employed and being identified

since identification remains a matter of doubt and, any award, if passed will be either un-implementable or the benefit

of the award will be reaped by the fake persons who are not worthy of it. In either case it will occasion failure of

justice. The appropriate government was given time till 31.1.1996 to comply the direction of the Tribunal. Despite

such an order the Central Government failed to furnish the complete list of 885 workmen so also the 2^nd party-Union

and on 8.9.2006 this Tribunal taking the above matter and submissions advanced by the parties into consideration

passed an order that while making the reference the Central Government primarily asked to examine the action of the

Management in terminating the under-ground workers numbering 885. Therefore, as secondary requirement the

Tribunal asked for a list of those workers for their due identification as a matter ancillary to the main issue and directed

the parties to come ready to adduce their evidence on the prime question relating to the action of the Management in

terminating the services of the disputant-workmen as the reference can be answered without identification of the

workmen. The Tribunal directed the parties to produce their documents, if any in regard to the identity of the workers

and also directed the Management of FACOR to produce certain documents like muster roll etc. from which the

identity of the disputant workmen can be ascertained. The Management preferred a Writ against such order vide

W.P.(C) No. 14329/2006 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. While disposing the writ the Hon’ble Court have

observed that in absence of details of 885 workmen, reference cannot be answered by the Tribunal by adjudicating the

same and it will be a futile exercise.

In spite of such order being passed on 3.2.2014 neither the 2^nd party-Union nor the Central Government has

furnished the list of disputant-workmen. In the meantime seven to eight adjournments have already been given and the

reference cannot be allowed to linger in such a manner for an indefinite period. Further it can be noticed that the 2^nd

party-Union is not taking any steps. In the above back-drops keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble

High Court the Tribunal has no alternative than to return the reference to the Ministry for necessary action at their end.

Accordingly the reference case is disposed of.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Llsy

ekb¯ux ,.M baMLVªht fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@96@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.01.2017.

[No. L-29011/96/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 59/2002

288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date of Passing Order – 18^th November, 2016

Between:

The Agent,

M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd.,

At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Dhabaleswar Mohakud,

Ore Crushing Unit, Jilling Langlotta Mines,

P.O. Jajang, Dist. Keonjhar

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. S. Pattnaik, Advocate

…For the 1^st Party-Management

M/s. Subrat Kr. Mishra, Advocate

…For the 2^nd Party-Workman

AWARD

This award arises out of a reference made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercising its

authority under sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with

the following Schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Management of Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Jelling Langlotta Mines in

dismissing the service of Shri Dhabaleswar Mohakud is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

In nutshell facts giving rise to the reference may be stated as follows:-

The 2^nd party-workman, who was working as a general Mazdoor in the crusher plant of the Management, was

issued with a charge-sheet on 11.10.1998 on being charged of talking in slang language with co-employee-Operator

Mr. B. Ray against the Management on 28.9.1998 at 9.30 P.M. inside plant while being given “C” Shift duty

commencing from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. of the next day and abusing and slapping Shri Ray and other employees when

they persuaded him not to use slang language. He was also charged for giving assault to two security men, when they

attempted to take him out of the plant premises on being directed by Shri Satpathy, Assistant Engineer. Allegation was

raised in charge-sheet that due to agitation of the workers on account of being slapped by the disputant-workman the

production of the plant was interrupted for more than two hours. The charge-sheet was followed by a departmental

enquiry in which the workman was found to have committed serious misconduct having assaulted his superiors and

other co-workers, which ultimately culminated in dismissal of his service.

The 2^nd party-workman has raised the present industrial dispute taking a stand that he was on “B” shift duty on

28.9.1998 and all the allegations raised in the charge-sheet were false and concocted. Rather, he was abused and

assaulted by other employees of the 1^st Party-Management at the relevant time, day and spot and he sustained bodily

injuries. Instead of taking any departmental action against the defaulting employees he had been placed under

suspension followed by a departmental enquiry. The enquiry was not conducted with conformity to the principles of

natural justice as well as provisions of the Certified Standing Order of the Management. It was not conducted in fair

and proper manner in as much as the proceeding was recorded in English and the statement of witnesses and documents

exhibited in the proceeding was not explained to him by the enquiry officer. The enquiry proceeding was erroneous

having been completed in one day. The proceeding was initiated on personal bias and with vindictive attitude without

any preliminary/fact finding enquiry. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were also biased, discriminatory and

prejudicial to the interest of the workman. There was no adverse remark or stigma in the service career of the workman.

The order of dismissal is unjustified and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. During course of argument

contention has also been raised that no subsistence allowance was provided to the workman as a result of which the

departmental proceeding is illegal and void abnitio. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with all

back wages and service benefits.

Refuting the above allegations the Management has pleaded inter-alia that charge was framed against the

disputant workman basing upon allegations made by his fellow employees as on the relevant time, day and place he

was stated to have misbehaved, abused and physically assaulted his fellow workmen in the premises of the plant which

amounts to a serious misconduct. As his explanation was not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was held and the

same was conducted in fair and proper manner. The workman was given all opportunities to defend himself in the said

enquiry. It is the stand of the Management that the workman attended and participated in the enquiry and a co-worker

was defending him in the said proceeding. On completion of enquiry he was also issued with the findings of the

enquiry officer for giving his explanation on the findings as well as proposed punishment. There was no violation of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

289

principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. Having been found guilty of serious misconduct he was duly

punished being dismissed from service. The dispute raised by him has no merit.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled:-

ISSUES

Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the 2^nd party-workman was fair and proper?

Whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal of the services f the 2^nd party is justified?

To what relief the 2^nd party-workman is entitled to?

It is pertinent to mention here that during course of the proceeding the parties had agreed for hearing on all issues

instead of taking the fairness of the departmental enquiry as a preliminary one and accordingly they led their evidence

on all the issues.

The 2^nd party has examined himself and exhibited certain documents like copy of letter No. JLIIM/641/98 dated

29.9.1998 of Mines Manager, Jilling Longlata Iron and Manganese Mines of E.M. & S Limited, copy of the letter

No. JLIM/296/98-99, dated 11.10.1998 of Mines Superintendent, Jilling Longlata Iron & Manganese Mines, copy of

the letter No. JLIM/128/99-00, dated 31.5.1999 of Sr. Vice President (Mines), Essel Mining & Industries Limited

(marked Ext.-1 to 3, while the Management has examined Shri Ashok Kumar Pattanaik and produced documents like

Form-B Register, xerox copy of the shift report, copy of the explanation to the charge-sheet dated 3.12.1998 of the

workman, copy of the notice of enquiry dated 20.12.1998, copy of the order-sheet (entire proceeding file of the

enquiry), copy of the enquiry report, copy of the letter dated 24.2.1999 forwarding the enquiry to the workman, copy of

the representation of the workman on the enquiry report, copy of the Standing Order of the Management and copy of

the notice of commencement of work issued by the Mines Manager to the Director (Mines) (marked Ext.-A to K).

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

The main plank of the disputant workman is that the enquiry was not conducted in all fairness and proper manner

and the same was void abnitio on account of (i) he was not being provided with subsistence allowance, (ii) he was not

explained about the proceeding and evidence adduced by the Management in Odiya though the enquiry was recorded in

English and (iii) the enquiry was completed in one single sitting in a day. It is appropriate to mention here that no stand

has been taken in the statement of claim that subsistence allowance was not provided to the disputant workman pending

domestic enquiry inspite of he being placed under suspension on 29.9.1998. In his evidence submitted under Order 18

Rule 4 C.P.C. it is mentioned that subsistence allowances were not paid to him as per rule during the period of

suspension. There is nothing specific about the subsistence allowances to which the workman was entitled to as per the

rule during the period of his suspension. He has not categorically denied of having received any subsistence allowance.

On the other hand, in cross examination the management witness M.W.-1 has asserted that he was paid subsistence

allowance though the suspension order was silent in that regard. Further, there is nothing specific either in the pleadings

of 2^nd party-workman or in his evidence that he was substantially prejudiced for not being paid subsistence allowance

as per the rule. Admittedly the workman attended the departmental enquiry and cross examined the witnesses in the

enquiry. In the above back-drops it cannot be said that the disputant workman was not given proper opportunity to

defend himself in the departmental enquiry and the principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between

Jagdamba Prasad Shukla – Versus- State of U.P. and other reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 825 and in

the case of State of Punjab and others – versus- K.K. Sharma reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 18 are

apparently in different context as much as on distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the

disputant workman was provided subsistence allowance.

Contention has been raised on behalf of the workman that he was in “B” Shift duty on 28.9.1998. But, charge-

sheet was issued alleging that while he was in “C” shift duty he committed the alleged misconduct. Despite his stand

that he was in ”B” Shift duty and prayer in the departmental proceeding as well as before this Tribunal for production

of “B” shift attendance register of the relevant day, the Management failed to cause production of the said attendance

register. Such lapse on the part of the Management is sufficient to hold the enquiry defective ab initio. Admittedly, the

charge-sheet issued against the workman reveals that the alleged shouting in slang language and assault by the

workman was committed while he was in “C” shift duty, whereas in his show cause explanation to the charge-sheet as

well as statement of claim filed before this Tribunal the workman has taken a stand that he was in “B” shift duty on the

relevant day. A petition was moved before this Tribunal for production of “B” Shift attendance register on the relevant

day and despite direction of this Tribunal the Management could not produce the said attendance sheet on a submission

that the said attendance sheet was not traceable. It is emerging from the evidence of both the parties that “B” Shift duty

is held from 2 P.M. to 10 P.M., whereas “C” shift duty is from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. It cannot be unnoticed that as per the

charge-sheet the alleged incident of slapping and scolding in slang language was taken place at around 9.30 P.M. near

290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the gate of the plant of the Management. Accordingly it can safely be said that the alleged incident took place before

commencement of “C” shift duty near the entrance gate of the plant. No gross mistake or defect cannot be attributed to

the charge-sheet on stating that the delinquent workman was in “C” shift duty since as per the claim of the Management

he was allotted with “C” shift duty on the relevant day and in that regard “C” shift attendance sheet was produced in the

enquiry. Since the “C” shift duty was yet to be commenced and the workman created trouble before commencement of

“C” shift duty and he was removed from the plant with assistance of security guards, he was not expected to sign the

attendance register. Even if, it is accepted that he was on “B” shift duty, he was not supposed to utter slang abuses and

assault his co-employees and the above discrepancy, if any, cannot exonerate him from his misdeeds. It makes no

difference when the delinquent workman is alleged to have committed the misconduct in the plant premises. Therefore,

no serious error was found to have been committed by the Management for its failure to produce the “B” shift

attendance register.

10.

The fairness of the departmental enquiry is also challenged on the ground that the proceeding was recorded in

English language without the same being explained to the delinquent workman in Oriya even though it was within the

knowledge of the enquiry officer that the workman is unable to understand English. No such plea does not seem to

have been raised in the departmental proceeding. The termination letter under Ext.-3 and the evidence of the

Management including the enquiry proceeding file reveals that the 2^nd party-workman was issued with second show

cause notice along with findings of the enquiry officer seeking his representation, if any. Ext.-3 further reveals that

Oriya version of the enquiry report was sent to the workman on his demand. Nothing has been forthcoming from the

evidence of the workman that during second show cause notice he pleaded before the Management that he was not

explained about the proceeding in Oriya for which he was prejudiced in the departmental proceeding. On the other

hand it is emerging from the evidence of the Management witness that the workman was explained in his language

during recording of the departmental proceeding. The workman admitted to have submitted his representation on

second show cause notice. There is nothing in the said representation to suggest that he challenged the enquiry

proceeding on the ground of the same being recorded in English. Hence, it can be stated that the plea is after-thought

and he was not prejudiced in the departmental proceeding on the ground of the same being recorded in English.

11.

As it emerges from the evidence of the parties as well as the enquiry proceeding file submitted by the

Management that the enquiry was held on a single day in which all witnesses were examined on behalf of the

Management. But, there is nothing either in the pleading or in the evidence of the disputant workman that he had ever

made any request to the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry in piece-meal or to record the statement of witnesses on

different dates so as to enable him to cross examine them properly. No evidence is also forth-coming to show that the

disputant workman had made any prayer to the enquiring officer to adjourn the proceeding/enquiry for his

preparedness. On the other hand the notice issued to him (Ext.-D) for attending the enquiry proceeding clearly indicates

that he was asked to come ready for participating the enquiry including to produce his evidence, if any in the said

proceeding. Neither in the enquiry proceeding nor in his statement before this Tribunal the disputant workman has not

claimed that inspite of his request the Management or the enquiry officer failed to provide him documents or list of

witnesses for which he was prejudiced in the departmental proceeding.

12.

Though, a bald allegation has been raised that the charge was not specific as to the misconduct committed by

him, mere perusal of the charge-sheet (Ext.- 2) suggest that the allegation of the workman seems to be baseless. Copy

of the certified standing order of the Management (Ext.-J) reveals that as per clause – 22 sub-clause (g) drunkenness,

fighting, riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour amounts to misconduct so also causing willful damage to work in

progress as contemplated in clause – 22 sub-clause (k). There is no settled principle that the disciplinary authority is

required to cite the provisions of its Standing Order that cover the alleged misconduct. On a close reading of the

charge-sheet it is crystal clear that the alleged acts of the disputant workman was covered by the act of fighting, riotous,

disorderly and indecent behaviour. It is also mentioned in the charge-sheet that the work of the plant was stopped for

more than two hours due to such alleged indecent behaviour of the workman which is covered by the misconduct as

defined in Clause-22 sub-clause (k). In that view of the matter the pleadings and contentions raised by the disputant

workman that he was prejudiced and the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural

justice due to unspecific charge and the same being held in a single day is not acceptable.

13.

Inspite of raising allegation of biasness and vindictiveness on the part of the enquiry officer no specific instance

has been brought either in the oral testimony of the disputant workman or in the cross examination of the management

witness to establish that the enquiry officer was not maintaining impartiality or fairness while conducting the enquiry.

No specific instance or action has been pointed out to indicate any vindictive attitude of the enquiry officer. Mere

reading of the statements given by the departmental witnesses goes to show that the findings of the enquiry officer was

not perverse to the conclusion that would have been drawn by a reasonable persons from the materials presented before

the enquiry officer. Rather, law is well settled that if the conclusion arrived by the enquiry officer is a possible one of

the evidence/materials led before him, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgement for the judgement of the

enquiry officer even it may come to a different conclusion on the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer. The

Tribunal/Labour Court is not supposed to appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate forum of the enquiry

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

291

officer. It is also coming forth that the disputant workman was provided with the findings of the enquiry officer and

asked to submit his say on the proposed punishment before passing of his removal order.

14.

Keeping in view the pleading and evidence of the parties more particularly the departmental enquiry proceeding

file and discussions made in supra it can be safely said that the Management proceeded against the 2^nd party-workman

informing him the charges leveled against him clearly, the witnesses were examined in his presence in the departmental

proceeding in respect of the said charges, the workman was given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses

examined in the departmental proceeding, he was given opportunity to examine his witnesses to defend his cause and

the enquiry officer was found to have recorded his findings assigning the reasons for such findings. As such the

departmental enquiry seems to have been conducted properly and fairly. The same cannot be held defective merely on

the ground of being held in a single sitting in a day when the workman fails as to how he was prejudiced due to

completion of enquiry in a single day. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the 1^st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2 & 3

15.

These two issues being related to each other are taken up together for consideration for sake of convenience.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the disputant workman that imposed punishment in shape of

termination of service is disproportionately, excessive and harassed in comparison to the misconduct allegedly

committed by the disputant workman. There was no adverse remark or stigma in the service carrier of the workman and

as such lesser punishment should have been inflicted by the Management instead of dismissing the workman from

service. Admittedly the charge issued against the disputant workman is silent about his past conduct. It is elicited from

the cross examination of M.W.-1 that there was no adverse remark or stigma in the service carrier of the disputant

workman prior to the alleged misconduct. The workman was in early thirties when he was dismissed from service.

Having regard to the above facts an opportunity could have been provided to the workman to mend himself by

inflicting lesser punishment. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the

Tribunal/Labour Court has discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to interfere with the

punishment of dismissal where such punishment amounts to highly disproportionate to the misconduct allegedly

committed by the workman and such discretionary power shall be exercised judicially and judiciously as under section

11-A of the Act. The court/Tribunal have been vested with wide powers to set aside the punishment of discharge or

dismissal or in its place can award any lesser punishment. However, high amount of care and caution is required to be

exercised by the Tribunal while invoking the said discretionary jurisdiction for replacing the punishment of discharge

or dismissal and such exercise of discretion will have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Before

exercising the said discretion the Tribunal has to necessarily reach a finding that the order of discharge or dismissal was

not justified. Coming to the case in hand there is no serious dispute to the fact the disputant workman had no adverse

report or stigma and he was only 31 years old at the time of dismissal. It is apparent from the evidence laid before the

enquiry officer that the disputant workman misbehaved his co-employees verbally and physically when he was asked to

restrain himself from abusing the Management in loud voice and he did not behave in such manner previously. There is

no material or evidence before the Tribunal that the workman was in gainfull employment after his dismissal. The

punishment of dismissal seems to have deprived him and his family members of the source of livelihood and the

employer could have provided an opportunity to the workman with lesser punishment and warned him to maintain

utmost discipline in the establishment in order to give him a chance to mend himself. Thus this Tribunal finds the

punishment of dismissal without giving another chance to the workman to amend himself and to behave properly in

future with infliction of lesser punishment like with-holding annual increments or giving warning or imposing financial

punishment seems to be disproportionate excessive and harassed in nature in comparison to the first misconduct

committed by the workman. In the meanwhile the workman is sufficiently punished for such alleged misconduct being

deprived of employment and monthly wages for last 17/18 years as such the extreme punishment need interference.

Hence the misconduct on the part of the workman did not warrant extreme punishment of termination from service and

as such, an interference should be made by this Tribunal. Keeping the totality of the case in view, it is just and

appropriate to direct the Management to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service and without any

back wages. Such reinstatement should be made within two months from the gazette notification of the award.

16.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vtesj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@8@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2008) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.01.2017.

[No. L-30012/8/2008-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l-,u- Vsyj] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izdj.k la[;k& lh

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh-vkj

vkj

vkj- 03@08

03@08

jsQjsal la[;k

jsQjsal la[;k& ,y-&30012@8@2008&vkbZvkj ¼,e½ fnukad 02@07@2008

izeksn flag pkSgku iq= Jh vkj ds pkSgku tfj;s

lfpo ,l lh@,Vh ,lVh@,lVh egkla?k /kksykHkkVk]

eq[; ekxZ] vtesj

---izkFkhZ

cuke

{ks=h; izca/kd fgUnqLrku iSVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼,yihth IykUV½

xzke xknsjh ulhjkckn ftyk vtesj

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

% Jh vkj lh tSu] izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

% Jh Mh ,u 'kekZ] vf/koDrkA

vok

vokMZ

fnukad 23-11-16

dsUnz ljdkj }kjk bl Je U;k;ky; dks fuEufyf[kr fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k g%S&

"Whether the action of the management of regional manager HCPL (LPG PLANT) village -

GADERI, Nasirabad in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Singh Chouhan w.e.f. 20-01-2007

is just and legal If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ@Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds l kFk vizkFkhZ l[a;k 2 ds :i eas ,e@vks

isVªksfy;e ,aM uSpqjy xSl 'kkL+=h Hkou] u;h fnYyh dks ntZ djrs gq, vfHkopu fd, x, gS fd mldks vizkFkhZ

l[a;k 2 fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k o lwpuk ds rFkk fcuk dksbZ iwoZ uksfVl fn;s rFkk mldk i{k lqus fnukad

20-01-2007 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds in ls lsok lekfIr djds ekSf[kd vkns'k nsdj lsok ls fu"dkflr

dj fn;k tks fof/k fo:) rFkk fu/kkZfjr Jfed dkuwu] U;kf;d ifzd;k rFkk izkd`frd U;k; fl)kUrksa ds foijhr

gksus ls voS/k o xyr gS Jfed ds :i esa dEI;wVj VkbZfiLV dk dk;Z nSfud osru@etnjwh #i;s 100@ izfrfnu

ls 'kq: gksdj 180@ #i;s izfrfnu izkIr djrs gq, fnukda 20-09-2001 ls 20-01-2007 rd dqy lsok vof/k 4 o"kZ

2 ekg 09 fnu mDr in ij dk;Z djus ds ckn fnukad 30-01-+2007 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k nsdj izkFkhZ@Jfed dks

mDr nfSud osru in ls gVk fn;k izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ ds fgUnqLrku xSl IykUV xzke dknsjh ikLsV vk'kkiqjk

ftyk vtesj esa 100@#i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls vizkFhkZ l[a;k 2 us fnukad 20-09-2011 dks dEI;wVj VkbZfiLV

de lgk;d ys[kk fyfid in ij lh/kh HkrhZ rFkk ekfS[kd vkns'k ls fu;qDr fd;k A izkFkhZ Jfed izeksn flag

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

293

pkSgku] dey dqekj dks lkFk lkFk fu;qDr fd;k A lkFk gh ;g Hkh vk'oklu fu;kts d vizkFkhZ la 2 us fn;k fd

Hkfo"; esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks fu;fer@LFkk;h ukSdjh ij fu/kkZfjr osru Ja[kyk esa fu;qDr dj fy;k tk;sxk rFkk tc

rd nsSfud ors u le; le; ij c<k;h tkrh jgsxh A mlh ds rgr nfSud etnjwh iwoZ eas 100 : fQj 120 @&

:i;s rFkk 150@ :i;s vkSj vUr es 180@ :i;s :i;s c<kbZ xbZ A 90 fnu iwjs gksus ij Jfedks dks dqN fnu ds

fy, gVk fn;k tkrk jgk vkSj dqN fnu ckn iqu% nSfud ors u Jfed in ij j[k fy;k tkrk Fkk A izkFkhZ@Jfed

us fnukad 20-09-2001 ;s ls 19-12-2001 rd 90 fnu fnukad 20-2-2002 ls 19-07-2002 rd 150 fnukad 20-08-

2002 ls 19-03-2003 rd 210 fnu fnukad 20-04-2003 ls 01-08-2003 rd 102 fnu fnukad 01-09-2003 ls 01-05-

2004 rd 242 fnu fnukda 11-06-2004 ls yxkrkj 20-01-2007 rd 2 o"kZ 7 ekg 15 fnu dqy lsok vof/k ;ksx

3 o"kZ 11 ekg 24 fnu fu;fer :i ls dk;Z fd;k A mifLFkfr iaftdk izkFkhZ@Jfed rFkk mlds lkFk dk;Zjr

vU; nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dey dqekj nksuksa dh eksoesUV n'kkZrh FkhA mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuqlkj gh izkFkhZ

Jfedksa dk osru cuk;k tkrk Fkk rFkk eLVjksy ij fVfdV yxkdkj gLrk{kj djok dj izkFkhZ@Jfed dks

osru@etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk A izkFkhZ Jfed rFkk muds lkFk&lkFk dke djus okys nfSud osru Hkksxh

Jfed Jh dey dqekj ftl dEI;wVj ij dke djrs Fks mlesa dksM oMZ eas izkFkhZ dk uke lh lh ih ,l lh

vFkZkr dsT;w,y DydZ izeksn flag pkSsgku rFkk ftl dEI;wVj ij dey deqkj dke djrk Fkk mldh VkbZi'kqnk

'khVl fudyrh Fkh mu ij lh lh ds ds vFkkZr dsT;wy DydZ dey dqekj vafdr gksrk FkkA {ks=h; izcU/kd

egksn;] ih ,.M , mrjh tksu eEqcbZ] tks muls ofj"B ,oa l{ke vf/kdkjh gS dks fy[kdj Jh izeksn dqekj pkSgku]

Jh dey dqekj] Jh lqjsUnz flag 'ks[kkor rhuksa O;fDr;ksa gsrq vuqefr rhu DydksZa ds fjDr inksa dh iwfrZ gsrq ekaxah

FkhA fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dksiksZjs'ku fy- ds egkizcU/kd egksn; ukWFkZ tksu] gfj;k.kk us fnukad 11-12-2006 dks ,d

ljD;wyj tkjh djds dkiksZjs’ku eqxy ljk;] okjk.klh] Hkjriqj csrkyiqj] cgknqjx<+ gksf'k;kjiqj] yksuh] vtesj rFkk

tkykU/kj eas dk;Zjr mu depZkfj;ksa ls fnukad 5-1-2007 rd dEI;wVj VkbZfiLV ds fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr djus

gsrq vkefU=r fd;s ftleas xzsT;w;V lkFk esa nks o"kZ dh lsok RkFkk vxzsth VkbZfiax ftudh LihM 30 'kCn izfr feuV

rFkk dEI;wVj dks [kksyus o mlds dke dk vuqHko Hkh gks rFkk mDr ;ksX;rk gks A izkFkhZ Jfed izeksn flag pkSgku

xzsT;w,V gksus ds lkFk lkFk nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; ls mDr xSl IykUV ij dk;Z Hkh dj jgk Fkk rFkk mls VkbZfiax

ds lkFk lkFk dEI;wVj VkbZfiax 30 'kCnksa ls vf/kd gksus ls o ;ksX; rFkk l{ke izR;k'kh Fkk A izkFkhZ Jfed us

jftLVMZ Mkd ls izkFkZuk Hkh Hksts ijUrq ml ij dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;k x;k A Jfed viuh ;ksX;rk vuqHko rFkk

rduhdh f'k{kk mrh.kZ gksus ds ckotwn mls vuns[kk fd;k tkdj bl fookn dks iSnk fd;k x;k A ubZ fu;qfDr;ka

dj in Hkj fy;s x;s A izkFkhZ Jfed ,d vuqlfwpr tkfr dk f'kf{kr deZdkj gksus ls mls ukSdjh esa vkj{k.k dk

ykHk izkIr gS A Hkkjr ljdkj us mUgsa ukSdfj;ksa esa vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr gS A Hkkjr ljdkj us mUgs ukSdfj;ks eas

vkj{k.k dk ykHk nsus ds fy;s 100 iksbZUV jksLVj ykxw fd;k mldk ykHk Hkh Jfed dks ugha fn;k x;k tcfd

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fy0 ds Hkkjr ds fofHkUu dk;kZy;kas eas vkt Hkh vkjf{kr in [kkyh gS vkj{k.k dksVk

iwjk ugh gksus ls og fof/kd :i ls mDr dkjiksjs'ku eas ukSdjh ikus dk ik= gS fookn fe;kn esa gS A U;k;ky; dks

mls lquus ,oa fuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd )kjk u rks vius laLFkku esa dksbZ mifLFkfr

jftLVj] ofj"Brk jftLVj] jksLVj jftLVj] etnwjh Hkqxrku jftLVj] dkUVªsDVj yscj jftLVj vkfn dqN Hkh

la/kkfjr ugh djds Jfed dkuwuksa vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 osru Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e 1936 yscj dksUVªDV

,DV 1970 dk [kqys :i ls mYy?aku djrs gq, /kkj 25¼,Q½] 25¼Mh½] 25¼,e½] 25¼,u½ rFkk 25¼th½ vkS/kksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ds foifjr dk;Zokgh dh gS tks fof/k fo#) o xyr gS laLFkku fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fy-

,d Hkkjr ljdkj dk vUMj Vsfadax laLFkku gksus ls ml ij mijksDr of.kZr dkuwu rFkk dsUæh; ljdkj ds vU;

dkuwu ykxw gSa ftUgsa ekuus o ikyu djus dks og ck?; gSA var eas izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks osru

ifjykHk lfgr fu;qfDr dk o vU; vuqrks"k tkjh fd;s tkosA

mDr vizkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ )kjk ntZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ,e@vks isVªksfy;e ,aM uSpqjy xSl 'kkL+=h Hkou] ubZ

fnYyh )kjk tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr dj izkFkhZ ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq,

vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugh fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds

;gka viuh lsok, gh nh gS A ,sls es mlds )kjk 240 ls vf/kd dk;Z fnolksa rd dk;Z djuk furkar dikys

dfYir gS A izkFkhZ us QthZ vkjs cukoVh dwVjfpr nLrkotskr vFkZkr mifLFkfr iaftdk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k

izLrqr dh gSA vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dksbZ Hkh dk;Z voS/kkfud rjhds ls ugh fd;s tkrs gSA vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dHkh Hkh

izkFkhZ ds fu;qfDr ckor dksbZ vuqefr ugh ekxah xbZ A vizkFkhZx.k laLFkku ,d Hkkjr ljdkj dk v.MjVsfdax

miØe gS vkSj bl laLFkku eas HkrhZ fd;s tkus deZpkfj;ksa o vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy;s i`Fkd ls ,d HkrhZ izfØ;k cuh gqbZ

gS ftleas fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gSa vkSj muds LØwVhuh dh tkrh gS vkSj fyf[kr ijh{kk

vk;kfstr dh tkrh gS vkSj mlds i'pkr lk{kkRdkj fy;s tkrs gS vksj rnqaijkr fdlh Hkh deZpkjh @vf/kdkjh

dh fu;fqDr fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k viukus ds ckn dh tkrh gS A vizkFkhZ lLa Fkku dks muds eq[;ky; ls le; le; ij

funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd vki vkdfLed t:jrksa ds fy;s felysfu;l gsM esa deZpkjh j[k ldrs gSa vksj mldk

deZdkj dk ;fn dk;Z larks"kizn gks rks ml O;fDr ds ckjs eas flQkfj'k dh tkrh gS fd mldh fuefer fu;qfDr dh

294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

tkos A izkFkhZ dks vizkFhkZ la[;k 1 )kjk dHkh dksbZ fu;fer fu;qfDr ugh nh xbZ A izkFkhZ us ekuuh; U;k;ky; das

le{k vU; deZdkj ds lkFk feydj ,d feF;k] dwVjfpr nLrkostkr mifLFkfr iaftdk rS;kj dh gS mDr

mifLFkfr ifatdk ij vizkFkhZx.k ds fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh ,ao izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ugh gS vkjs uk gh ;g

mifLFkfr iaftdk vizkFkhZx.k ds dk;kZy; dh gSA mlds fo:) Hkkjrh; n.M lfgark dh /kkjk 193 lifBr /kkjk

340 n.M izfdz;k lfagrk ds rgr i`Fkd ls dk;Zokgh [kskyh tkos A vra eas izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaUV

vkWQ Dyse e; fo'ks"k gtsZ [kpsZ ds [kkfjt Qjek;k tkos vksj izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkyh nLrkostkr mifLFkfr ifatdk ds

ckjs eas U;k;ky; es Loa; tkpa dj laEcf/kr QkStnkjh U;k;ky; esa bLrxklk izLrrq fd;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku fd,

tkosA

izkFkhZ }kjk viuh lk{; esa , Mc-2 c`teksgu] , Mc-3 Lo;a izkFkhZ izeksn dks ijhf{kr djok;k gS tcfd

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ds ds jkW; dks ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dhs vksj ls

nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ , 1 yxk;r , 17 nLrkost iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{;

eas izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e &3 nLrkost dh QksVks izfr;ka izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;h x;h gS A

cgl vafre lquh x;h A fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds rF;ksa ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs

gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ dk Jfed gksuk izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls fl) gS A izkFkhZ dks fcuk dksbZ eqvkotk

fn;s o uksfVl fn;]s gVk;k tkuk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds fo:) gS A izkFkhZ us yacs

le; rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gka lsok;as nh gS og fu;fer fd;s tkus ;ksX; Fkk pwafd izkFkhZ dk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk

voS/k gS vr,o izkFkhZ iwoZ osru o HkRrkas lfgr lsok eas iquZLFkkiuk dk ik= gS A vizkFkhZ }kjk vius vfHkopuksa esa izkFkhZ

dk Jfed gksus ls badkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk mudh vkjs ls izkFkhZ dhs fu;qfDr voS/k gksusa ds laca/k esa dksbZ vfHkopu

ugh fd;s x;s gS rFkk izdj.k eas ges'kk cnuh;rh iwoZd vkpj.k fd;k x;k gSA vr,o izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r eqvkots

ds ctk; lsok eas iquZLFkkfir fd;k tkuk fof/ki.wkZ o U;k;ksfpr gS A muds }kjk vius rdksZ ds leFkZu eas fuEufyf[kr

U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gS%&

1&2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flag cukje gfj;k.kk os;jgkmflxa dkWjiksjs'ku]

2&2001 ¼88½ ,Q ,y vkj 741 ¼,l lh½ foØekfn;k ikMsas cuke bMafVª;y fVªC;wuy] y[kuÅ o vU;]

3&2003 ¼3 ½ vkj ,y McY;w ¼jkt0½ 1966 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jh egsaæw tks'kh o vU;]

4&2010 ¼2½ vkj ,y McY;w ¼,llh½ 1586 vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,DthD;qfVo batahfu;j] ifCyd gSYFk fMohtu

u-a 1] ikuhir]

5&¼2010½ 3 ,l lh lh 637 d`".kflag cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j] gfj;k.kk LVsV ,xzhdYpj ekdsZfVxa

cksMZ jksgrd]

6&, vkbZ vkj 1979 ysc vkbZ lh 1192 ¼,l lh½ 'kadj cuke fczVkfu;k fcLdqV diauh]

7&2005 ySc vkbZ lh 2279 cSad vkWQ cMkSnk cuke ?ksjeHkkbZ gjthHkkbZ jsckjh A vra eas muds }kjk izkFkhZ ds

LVseVas vkWQ Dyes eas of.kZr vuqrks"k tkjh fd;s tkrs gq, mDr fookn dk mRrj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fn;s tkus

dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A

fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk vius ekSf[kd rdkZs eas izkFkhZ dk vizkFkhZ dk Jfed gksuk ,oa mldks fcuk

fjVªsapesaV eqvkotk ,oa ukfsVl fn;s lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gq, rdZ fn;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ dh

fu;qfDr pwafd vizkFkhZ ds fu;e o ikWfylh ds fo:) gS vr,o izkFkhZ dks gn ls gn ,deq'r eqvkots dk vuqrks"k

fn;k tk ldrk gS A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lat; dqekj cuke yscj dksVZ ,aM baMfLVª;y

fVªC;wuy vtesj o vU; ds vuqlkj gh izdj.k dh fLFkfr gksus ds Hkh rdZ fn;s x;s gS A muds }kjk vius rdksZa ds

leFkZu eas mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds vykok fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gS %&

1&2007 ,y ,y vkj 561 iatkc okWVj lIykbZ ,Ma lsojst cksMZ cuke jutks/k flga o vU;]

2&2012 ,y ,y vkj 718 eS- Mh ,l vkbZ vkbZ Mh lh cuke izoh.k dqekj 'kekZ A

mHk;i{kdkjku~ ds rdkZs ds en~ns utj muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa ds vfHker ,oa lacaf/kr fof/k dks

fopkj esa ysrs gq, i=koyh dk vk|ksikar xHakhjrkiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A

izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls vk;h ekSf[kd lk{; o nLrkoth lk{; ls rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;h ekSf[kd lk{; eas

fLFkj gksus ls ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;h lk{; ls izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; dk [kaMu ugha gksus ls

izkFkhZ }kjk vius LVVs easV vkWQ Dyes eas of.kZr le;kof/k eas vizkFkhZ ds ;gka Jfed ds :i esa daI;wVj VkbZfiLV dk

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

295

nSfud ors u ij dk;Z djuk c[kwch lkfcr gksrk gS rFkk bl rF; dks fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk cfsgpd vius

rdkZs esa Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gS A vr% bl fcsanq ij vR;f/kd foopsu dh vko';drk ugh jg tkrh gSsA

izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkrs le; dksbZ NaVuh HkRrk fn;k tkuk ;k uksfVl fn;k tkuk

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; eas ugh j[kk x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bu vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ dks

lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds mYya?ku eas voS/k crk;k x;k gS

ftu rF;ksa dks Hkh fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk vius rdksZ esa csfgpd Lohdkj fd;k gS A vr% bl fcnq ij Hkh

vR;f/kd foopsu dh vko';drk ugh jg tkrh gS A

10-

fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ ds rdZ jgs gS fd izkFkhZ dh izkjafHkd fu;qfDr dks voS/k gksuk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

vius vfHkopuksa esa ugh j[kk x;k gS tcfd fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ ds rdZ jgs gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc ds

en ua- 26 eas ,sls rF; viuh Hkk"kk eas j[ks x;s gSA gekjs fouez er esa vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc ds iSjk ua-26 eas HkrhZ

izfdz;k ds ckjs eas rF; of.kZr fd;s x;s gS rFkk ;g Hkh vius 'kCnkas esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh HkrhZ esa

,slk dqN ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dk nwf"kr gksuk Hkh vius

vfHkopuksa eas j[kdj vius 'kCnkas esa pqukSrh nsrk gS A

11-

izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkra 2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flag cukje

gfj;k.kk os;j gkmflxa dkWjiksjs'ku ds izdj.k esa Jfed dh fu;fqDr voS/k gkus ds lac/ak eas vk/kkj ugh fy;k x;k

Fkk A izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2001 ¼88½ ,Q ,y vkj 741 ¼,l lh½ foØekfn;k ikaMs cuke

baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy] y[kuÅ o vU; eas izdj.k ;w ih dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht ,aiykbZt lfoZl jsX;wys'kal 1975 ds

rgr Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2003 ¼3½ vkj ,y McY;w ¼jkt-½ 1966 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jh egsUnz

tks'kh o vU; ds izdj.k esa tfwu;j deZpkfj;kas dks fujarj fd;k x;k FkkA U;kf;d n`"Vkar ¼2010½ ¼2½ vkj ,y

McY;w ¼,llh½ 1586 vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j] ifCyd gSYFk fMohtu u-a 1] ikuhir ds izdj.k eas

NaVuh HkRrk Hkstk x;k ;k ugh Hkstk x;k ;g iz'uxr Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar ¼2010½ 3 ,l lh lh 637 fd'kuflag

cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j ds izdj.k esa Hkh U;kf;d n`"Vkra 2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flga

cuke gfj;k.kk os;jgkmflax dkWjiksjs'ku tSlh gh ifjfLFkfr Fkh A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1979 ySc vkbZ lh 1192 'kadj

pdzorhZ cuke fczVkfu;k fcLdqV diuh fyfeVsM o vU; baDok;jh ls lacaf/kr izdj.k Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkra 2005 ySc

vkbZ lh l 2279 cSad vkWQ cMkSnk cuke ?ksjeHkkbZ gjthHkkbZ jsckjh ds izdj.k esa ,deq'r eqvkots dk dksbZ iz'u

varZxzLr ugh Fkk A vr% mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar rF;ksa dh mDr izdkj fHkUurk ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ

dh dksbZ enn ugh djrs gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrrq U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ,y ,y vkj 561 iatkc okWVj

lIykbZ ,Ma los jst cksMZ cuke jutks/k flag o vU; eas ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar lSØsVªh vkWQ

dukZVdk o vU; cuke mek nsoh o vu; ¼2006½ ¼4½ ,l lh lh 1 esa ikfjr vius vfHker dks vigsYM fd;k x;k

gS ftleas vLFkkbZ Jfed dks fujarj ugh fd;k tk lduk o ,slk djus ij ;g lkoZtfud fu;kstu dk u;k rjhdk

cu tkuk tks fd vuqKkr ugh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A U;kf;d n`"Vkr 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lta;

dqekj cuke yscj dksVZ ,aM baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy vtesj o vU; eas ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk leku

ifjfLFkfr ds Jfed dks Je U;k;ky; }kjk lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk ds ctk; :i;s nks yk[k ds ,deq'r eqvkots dk

vuqrks"k mldh fu;qfDr ds voS/k gksus ds n`f"Vxr fn;k tkuk lgh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA gLrxr

izdj.k eas izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fof/k vuqlkj dh x;h gks ;g izdV ugh gksrk gS A izkFkhZ Lo;a ;g ekurk gS fd mls

chp&chp esa ckj&ckj gVk;k Hkh x;k gS o fQj dk;Z ij fy;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ lsok ls i`Fkd gks tkus ds ckn

csjkstxkj jgk gks] bl laca/k eas izkFkhZ ds u rks dksbZ vfHkopu gS vkSj u gh lk{; gSA mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa

vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lat; dqekj cuke yscj dksVZ ,aM

baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy vtesj o vU; eas ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s vfHker ds en~ns utj izkFkhZ

lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk ds ctk; ,deq'r eqvkotk :i;s nks yk[k izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk

U;k;laxr gS ,oa mDr fookn dk mRrj blh vuqlkj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A

&% % % % vkns'k %

s'k %

s'k %&

12-

,rn~}kjk Je e=aky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk funsZf'kr mDr fookn dk mRrj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd

izca/ku jhtuy eSustj] ,p ih lh ,y ¼,y ih th½ IykVa xzke&xknsjh] ulhjkckn] vtesj }kjk izkFkhZ@Jfed Jh

izeksn flag pkSgku dks fn- 20-1-2007 ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS A QyLo:i izkFkhZ Jfed lsok eas

iquZLFkkiuk dh ctk; vizkFkhZ ls nks yk[k :i;s ,deq'r eqvkots ds :i eas izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS tks vizkFkhZ }kjk

izkFkhZ Jfed dks bl vokMZ ds izdk'ku dh fnukda ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj Hkqxrku fd;s tkos A vizkFkhZ }kjk nks ekg

eas mDr jde dk Hkqxrku ugh djus ij izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls ukS izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh gksxk A

,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k

296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vtesj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@9@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2017

S.O. 144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.01.2017.

[No. L-30012/9/2008-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj

kdj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l-,u- Vsyj] vkj-,p-ts-,l

izdj.k la[;k& lh

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh-vkj

vkj

vkj- 04@08

@08

jsQjsal la[;k

jsQjsal la[;k& ,y&30012@9@2008&vkbZvkj ¼,e½ fnukad 11@07@2008

dey dqekj iq= Jh vkseizdk’k }kjk

,llh@,lVh egkla?k /kksykHkkVk]

eq[; ekxZ] vtesj

---izkFkhZ

cuke

{ks=h; izca/kd fgUnqLrku iSVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼,yihth IykUV½

xzke xknsjh] fnyokjk] ok;k ulhjkckn ftyk vtesj

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

% Jh vkj lh tSu izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

% Jh Mh ,u 'kekZ vf/koDrk

vok

vokMZ

fnukad 23-11-16

dsUnz ljdkj }kjk bl Je U;k;ky; dks fuEufyf[kr fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k g%S&

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager HCPL (LPG PLANT) village-Gaderi,

Nasirabad, Ajmer in terminating the services of Sh. Kamal Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash w.e.f. 20-01-2007 is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ@Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds lkFk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds :i esa ,e@vks

isVªksfy;e ,aM uSpquy xSl 'kkL+=h Hkou] u;h fnYyh dks ntZ djrs gq, vfHkopu fd, x, gS fd mldks vizkFkhZ

la[;k 2 fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k o lwpuk ds rFkk fcuk dksbZ iwoZ uksfVl fn;s rFkk mldk i{k lqus fnukad

20-01-2007 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds in ls lsok lekfIr djds ekSf[kd vkns'k nsdj lsok ls fu"dkflr dj

fn;k tks fof/k fo:) rFkk fu/kkZfjr Jfed dkuwu] U;kf;d izfd;k rFkk izkd`frd U;k; fl)kUrks ds foijhr gksus ls

voS/k o xyr gS Jfed ds :i es dEI;wVj VkbZfiLV dk dk;Z nSfud osru @etnwjh :i;s 100@ izfrfnu ls 'kq:

gksdj 180@ :i;s izfrfnu izkIr djrs gq, fnukad 20-09-2001 ls 20-01-2007 rd dqy lsok vof/k 4 o"kZ 2 ekg

09 fnu mDr in ij dk;Z djus ds ckn fnukad 30-01-+2007 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k nsdj izkFkhZ@Jfed dks mDr nSfud

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

297

osru in ls gVk fn;k A izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ ds fganqLrku xSl IykaV xzke dknsjh iksLV vk'kkiqjk ftyk vtesj

esa lkS :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls vizkFkhZ la-2 us fn-20-9-2011 dks daI;wVj VkbZfiLV de lgk;d ys[kk fyfid in

ij lh/kh HkrhZ rFkk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fu;qDr fd;k A izkFkhZ Jfed dey dqekj] izeksn flag pkSgku dks lkFk&lkFk

fu;qDr fd;k A lkFk gh ;g Hkh vk'oklu fu;kstd vizkFkhZ la 2 us fn;k fd Hkfo"; esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks fu;fer

@LFkk;h ukSdjh ij fu/kkZfjr osru Ja[kyk esa fu;qDr dj fy;k tk;sxk rFkk tc rd nsSfud osru le; le; ij

c<k;h tkrh jgsxh A mlh ds rgr nSfud etnwjh iwoZ esa 100 : fQj 120 @& :i;s rFkk 150@ :i;s vkSj

vUr esa 180@ :i;s :i;s c<kbZ xbZ A 90 fnu iwjs gksus ij Jfedksa dks dqN fnu ds fy, gVk fn;k tkrk jgk

vkSj dqN fnu ckn iqu% nSfud osru Jfed in ij j[k fy;k tkrk Fkk A izkFkhZ @Jfed us fnukad 13-7-2011 ls

19-9-2001 rd 79 fnu] fn-19-102001 ls 19-12-2001 rd uCcs fnu] fn-1-2-02 ls 2-5-01 rd uCcs fnu] fn-1-7-02

ls 1-10-02 rd uCcs fnu] fn-1-12-02 ls 1-3-03 rd uCcs fnu] fn-1-5-03 ls 1-8-03 rd uCcs fnu] fn- 1-9-03 ls

1-12-03 rd uCcs fnu] fn-1-1-04 ls 31-5-04 rd 150fnu] fn-15-9-04 ls 20-1-07 rd 740 fnu dqy 4o"kZ 2 ekg 09

fnu fu;fer :i ls dk;Z fd;k A mifLFkfr iaftdk izkFkhZ @Jfed rFkk mlds lkFk dk;Zjr vU; nSfud osru

Hkksxh Jfed izeksn nksuksa dh eksoesUV n'kkZrh FkhA mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuqlkj gh izkFkhZ Jfedksa dk osru cuk;k

tkrk Fkk rFkk eLVjksy ij fVfdV yxkdkj gLrk{kj djok dj izkFkhZ @Jfed dks osru@etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k

tkrk Fkk A izkFkhZ Jfed rFkk muds lkFk lkFk dke djus okys nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed Jh izeksn ftl dEI;wVj

ij dke djrs Fks mlesa dksM oMZ esa izeksn flag dk uke lh lh ih ,l lh vFkZkr dsT;w,y DydZ izeksn flag

pksSgku rFkk ftl dEI;wVj ij izkFkhZ dey dqekj dke djrk Fkk mldh VkbZi'kqnk 'khVl fudyrh Fkh mu ij lh

lh ds ds vFkkZr dsT;wy DydZ dey dqekj vafdr gksrk FkkA {ks=h; izcU/kd egksn;] ih ,.M , mrjh tksu eqEcbZ]

tks muls ofj"B ,oa l{ke vf/kdkjh gS dks fy[kdj Jh izeksn dqekj pkSgku] Jh dey dqekj] Jh lqjsUnz flag

'ks[kkor rhuksa O;fDr;ksa gsrq vuqefr rhu DydksZ ds fjDr inksa dh iwfrZ gsrq ekaxh FkhA fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e

dksiksZjs'ku fy- ds egkizcU/kd egksn; ukWFkZ tksu] gfj;k.kk us fnukad 11-12-2006 dks ,d ljD;wyj tkjh djds

dkiksZjs'ku eqxy ljk;] okjk.kklh] Hkjriqj csrkyiqj] cgknqjx< gksf'k;kjiqj] yksuh vtesj rFkk tkyU/kj esa dk;Zjr

mu deZpkfj;ks ls fnukad 5-1-2007 rd dEI;wVj VkbZfiLV ds fjDr inks ij fu;qfDr djus gsrq vkefU=r fd;s

ftlesa xzsT;w;V lkFk esa esa nks o"kZ dh lsok RkFkk vxzsath VkbZfiax ftudh LihM 30 'kCn izfr feuV rFkk dEI;wVj dks

[kksyus o mlds dke dk vuqHko Hkh gks rFkk mDr ;ksX;rk gks A izkFkhZ Jfed dey dqekj xzstq,V gksus ds lkFk

lkFk nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; ls mDr xSl IykaV ij dk;Z Hkh dj jgk Fkk rFkk mls VkbZfiax ds lkFk lkFk daI;wVj

VkbZfiax rhl 'kCnksa ls vf/kd gksus ls og ;ksX; rFkk l{ke izR;k'kh Fkk A izkFkhZ Jfed us jftLVMZ Mkd ls izkFkZuk

Hkh Hksts ijUrq ml ij dksbZ /;ku ugh fn;k x;k A Jfed viuh ;ksX;rk vuqHko rFkk rduhdh f'k{kk mrh.kZ gksus

ds ckotwn mls vuns[kk fd;k tkdj bl fookn dks iSnk fd;k x;k A ubZ fu;qfDr;ka dj in Hkj fy;s x;as A

izkFkhZ Jfed ,d vuqlwfpr tkfr dk f'kf{kr deZdkj gksus ls mls ukSdjh esa vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr gS A Hkkjr

ljdkj us mUgs ukSdfj;ks esa vkj{k.k dk ykHk nsus ds fy;s 100 iksbZUV jksLVj ykxw fd;k A mldk ykHk Hkh Jfed

dks ugh fn;k x;k tcfd fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fy0 ds Hkkjr ds fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa esa vkt Hkh vkjf{kr

in [kkyh gS vkj{k.k dksVk iwjk ugh gksus ls og fof/kd :i ls mDr dkjiksjs'ku esa ukSdjh ikus dk ik= gS fookn

fe;kn esa gS A U;k;ky; dks mls lquus ,oa fuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd )kjk u rks vius

laLFkku esa dksbZ mifLFkfr jftLVj] ofj"Brk jftLVj] jksLVj jftLVj] etnwjh Hkqxrku jftLVj] dkUVªsDV yscj

jftLVj vkfn dqN Hkh la/kkfjr ugh djds Jfed dkuwuksa vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 osru Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e

1936 yscj dksUVDV ,DV 1970 dk [kqys :i ls mYya?ku djrs gq, /kkjk 25¼,Q½] 25¼Mh½] 25¼,e½] 25¼,u½ rFkk

25¼th½ vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds foifjr dk;Zokgh dh gS tks fof/k fo#) o xyr gS laLFkku fgUnqLrku

isVksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fy ,d Hkkjr ljdkj dk vUMjVsfdax laLFkku gksus ls ml ij mijksDr of.kZr dkuwu rFkk

dsfUnz; ljdkj ds vU; dkuwu ykxw gSa ftUgs ekuus o ikyu djus dks og ck?; gSA var esa izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd

izkFkhZ Jfed dks osru ifjykHk lfgr fu;qfDr dk o vU; vuqrks"k tkjh fd;s tkos A

mDr vizkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ )kjk ntZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ,e@vks isVz~ksfy;e ,aM uSpquy xSl 'kkL+=h Hkou] u;h

fnYyh )kjk tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr dj izkFkhZ ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq,

vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugh fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds

;gka viuh lsok, gh nh gS A ,sls esa mlds )kjk 240 ls vf/kd dk;Z fnolksa rd dk;Z djuk furkar diksy dfYir

gS A izkFkhZ us QthZ vksj cukoVh dwVjfpr nLrkostkr vFkZkr mifLFkfr iaftdk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr

dh gSA vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dksbZ Hkh dk;Z voS/kkfud rjhds ls ugh fd;s tkrs gSA vizkFkhZx.k )kjk dHkh Hkh izkFkhZ ds

fu;qfDr ckor dksbZ vuqefr ugha ekaxh xbZ A vizkFkhZx.k laLFkku ,d Hkkjr ljdkj dk v.MjVsfdax miØe gS vkSj

bl laLFkku esa HkrhZ fd;s tkus deZpkfj;ksa o vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy;s i`Fkd ls ,d HkrhZ izfdz;k cuh gqbZ gS ftlesa

fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gSa vkSj mudh LØwVhuh dh tkrh gS vkSj fyf[kr ijh{kk vk;ksftr

dh tkrh gSa vkSj mlds i'pkr lk{kkRdkj fy;s tkrs gSa vksj rnqaijkr fdlh Hkh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr

fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k viukus ds ckn dh tkrh gS A vizkFkhZ laLFkku dks muds eq[;ky; ls le;≤ ij funsZ'k fn;s

298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

tkrs gSa fd vki vkdfLed t:jrksa ds fy;s felysfu;l gsM esa deZpkjh j[k ldrs gSa vksj ml deZdkj dk ;fn

dk;Z larks"kizn gks rks ml O;fDr ds ckjs esa flQkfj'k dh tkrh gaS fd mldh fu;fer fu;qfDr dh tkos A izkFkhZ dks

vizkFhkZ la[;k 1 )kjk dHkh dksbZ fu;fer fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ A izkFkhZ us ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k vU; deZdkj

ds lkFk feydj ,d feF;k] dwVjfpr nLrkostkr mifLFkfr iaftdk rS;kj dh gS mDr mifLFkfr iaftdk ij

vizkFkhZx.k ds fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh ,ao izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ugha gS vkSj uk gh ;g mifLFkfr iaftdk

vizkFkhZx.k ds dk;kZy; dh gSA mlds fo#) Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 193 lifBr /kkjk 340 n.M izfdz;k

lafgrk ds rgr i`Fkd ls dk;Zokgh [kksyh tkos A var esa izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaUV vkWQ Dyse e; fo'ks"k

gtsZ [kpsZ ds [kkfjt Qjek;k tkos vksj izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkyh nLrkostkr mifLFkfr iaftdk ds ckjs esa U;k;ky; esa

Loa; tkap dj laEcf/kr QkStnkjh U;k;ky; esa bLrxklk izLrqr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku fd, tkosa A

izkFkhZ }kjk viuh lk{; esa , Mc-1 v'kksd] , Mc-2 vCnqy] , Mc-3 Lo;a izkFkhZ dey dks ijhf{kr djok;k

gS tcfd vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ds ds jkW; dks ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dhs vksj ls

nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ , 1 yxk;r , 14 nLrkost iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{;

esa izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e &3 nLrkost dh QksVks izfr;ka izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;h x;h gS A

cgl vafre lquh x;h A fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds rF;ksa ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs

gSa fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ dk Jfed gksuk izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls fl) gS A izkFkhZ dks fcuk dksbZ eqvkotk

fn;s o uksfVl fn;s] gVk;k tkuk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds fo:) gS A izkFkhZ us yacs

le; rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gka lsok;sa nh gS og fu;fer fd;s tkus ;ksX; Fkk pwafd izkFkhZ dk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk

voS/k gS vr,o izkFkhZ iwoZ osru o HkRrksa lfgr lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk dk ik= gS A vizkFkhZ }kjk vius vfHkopuksa esa

izkFkhZ dk Jfed gksus ls badkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk mudh vksj ls izkFkhZ dhs fu;qfDr voS/k gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ

vfHkopu ugh fd;s x;s gSa rFkk izdj.k esa ges'kk cnuh;rh iwoZd vkpj.k fd;k x;k gSA vr,o izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r

eqvkots ds ctk; lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tkuk fof/kiw.kZ o U;k;ksfpr gS A muds }kjk vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa

fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gS%&

1&2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flag cukje gfj;k.kk os;jgkmflax dkWjiksjs'ku]

2&2001 ¼88 ½,Q ,y vkj 741 ¼,l lh½fodzekfn;k ikaMs cuke baMfLVz~;y fVz~C;wuy] y[kum o vU;]

3&2003 ¼3 ½vkj ,y McY;w ¼jkt0½1966 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jh egsanz tks'kh o vU;]

4&2010 ¼2½ vkj ,y McY;w ¼,llh½1586 vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j] ifCyd gSYFk fMohtu

ua-1] ikuhir]

5&¼2010½ 3 ,l lh lh 637 d`".kflag cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j] gfj;k.kk LVsV ,xzhdYpj ekdsZfVax

cksMZ jksgrd]

6&, vkbZ vkj 1979 ysc vkbZ lh 1192 ¼,l lh½ 'kadj cuke fczVkfu;k fcLdqV daiuh]

7&2005 ySc vkbZ lh l 2279 cSad vkWQ cMkSnk cuke ?ksjeHkkbZ gjthHkkbZ jsckjh A var esa muds }kjk izkFkhZ

ds LVsesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr vuqrks"k tkjh fd;s tkrs gq, mDr fookn dk mRrj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fn;s

tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A

fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk vius ekSf[kd rdksZ esa izkFkhZ dk vizkFkhZ dk Jfed gksuk ,oa mldks fcuk

fjVªsapesaV eqvkotk ,oa uksfVl fn;s lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gq, rdZ fn;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ dh

fu;qfDr pwafd vizkFkhZ ds fu;e o ikWfylh ds fo:) gS vr,o izkFkhZ dks gn ls gn ,deq'r eqvkots dk vuqrks"k

fn;k tk ldrk gS A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lat; dqekj cuke yscj dksVZ ,aM baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy

vtesj o vU; ds vuqlkj gh izdj.k dh fLFkfr gksus ds Hkh rdZ fn;s x;s gSa A muds }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa

mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds vykok fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh is'k fd;s x;s gS%&

1&2007 ,y ,y vkj 561 iatkc okWVj lIykbZ ,aM lsojst cksMZ cuke jutks/k flag o vU;]

2&2012 ,y ,y vkj 718 eS0 Mh ,l vkbZ vkbZ Mh lh cuke izoh.k dqekj 'kekZ A

mHk;i{kdkjku~ ds rdksZ ds en~ns utj muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa ds vfHker ,oa lacaf/kr fof/k dks

fopkj esa ysrs gq, i=koyh dk vk|ksikar xaHkhjrkiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;h ekSf[kd lk{; o nLrkosth lk{; ls rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;h ekSf[kd lk{; esa

fLFkj gksus ls ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;h lk{; ls izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; dk [kaMu ugh gksus ls

izkFkhZ }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr le;kof/k esa vizkFkhZ ds ;gka Jfed ds :i esa daI;wVj VkbZfiLV dk

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

299

nSfud osru ij dk;Z djuk c[kwch lkfcr gksrk gS rFkk bl rF; dks fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk csfgpd vius

rdksZ esa Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gS A vr% bl fscanq ij vR;f/kd foospu dh vko';drk ugh jg tkrh gsSA

izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkrs le; dksbZ NaVuh HkRrk fn;k tkuk ;k uksfVl fn;k tkuk

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; esa ugh j[kk x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bu vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ dks

lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds mYya?ku esa voS/k crk;k x;k gS

ftu rF;ksa dks Hkh fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk vius rdksZ esa csfgpd Lohdkj fd;k gS A vr% bl fcnq ij Hkh

vR;f/kd foospu dh vko';drk ugh jg tkrh gS A

10-

fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ ds rdZ jgs gSa fd izkFkhZ dh izkjafHkd fu;qfDr dks voS/k gksuk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius

vfHkopuksa esa ugha j[kk x;k gS tcfd fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ ds rdZ jgs gSa fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc ds en

ua-26 esa ,sls rF; viuh Hkk"kk esa j[ks x;s gS A gekjs fouez er esa vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc ds iSjk ua- 26 esa HkrhZ

izfdz;k ds ckjs esa rF; of.kZr fd;s x;s gS rFkk ;g Hkh vius 'kCnksa esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh HkrhZ esa ,slk

dqN ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dk nwf"kr gksuk Hkh vius vfHkopuksa

esa j[kdj vius 'kCnksa esa pqukSrh nsrk gS A

11-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flag cukje gfj;k.kk

os;jgkmflax dkWjiksjs'ku ds izdj.k esa Jfed dh fu;qfDr voS/k gksus ds laca/k esa vk/kkj ugh fy;k x;k Fkk A izkFkhZ

dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2001 ¼88½ ,Q ,y vkj 741 ¼,l lh½ foØekfn;k ikaMs cuke baMfLVª;y

fVªC;wuy] y[kuÅ o vU; esa izdj.k ;w ih dkWijsfVo lkslk;Vht ,aiykbZt lfoZl jsX;wys'kal 1975 ds rgr Fkk A

U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2003 ¼3 ½vkj ,y McY;w ¼jkt0½1966 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jh egsanz tks'kh o vU;

ds izdj.k esa twfu;j deZpkfj;ksa dks fujarj fd;k x;k Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2010 ¼2½ vkj ,y McY;w ¼,llh½1586

vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,DthD;qfVo bathfu;j] ifCyd gSYFk fMohtu ua-1] ikuhir ds izdj.k esa NaVuh HkRrk Hkstk x;k

;k ugh Hkstk x;k ;g iz'uxr Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2010 3 ,l lh lh 637 fd'kuflag cuke ,DthD;qfVo

bathfu;j ds izdj.k esa Hkh U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj ist 425 vt;iky flag cukje gfj;k.kk

os;jgkmflax dkWjiksjs'ku tSlh gh ifjfLFkfr Fkh A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1979 ySc vkbZ lh 1192 'kadj pdzorhZ cuke

fczVkfu;k fcLdqV daiuh fyfeVsM o vU; baDok;jh ls lacaf/kr izdj.k Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2005 ySc vkbZ lh

la- 2279 cSad vkWQ cMkSnk cuke ?ksjeHkkbZ gjthHkkbZ jsckjh ds izdj.k esa ,deq'r eqvkots dk dksbZ iz'u varZxzLr

ugha Fkk A vr% mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar rF;ksa dh mDr izdkj fHkUurk ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh dksbZ enn

ugha djrs gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ,y ,y vkj 561 iatkc okWVj lIykbZ ,aM lsojst

cksMZ cuke jutks/k flag o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar lSØsVªh vkWQ dukZVdk o vU;

cuke mek nsoh o vu; ¼2006½ ¼4½ ,l lh lh 1 esa ikfjr vius vfHker dks vigsYM fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vLFkkbZ

Jfed dks fujarj ugh fd;k tk lduk o ,slk djus ij ;g lkoZtfud fu;kstu dk u;k rjhdk cu tkuk tks fd

vuqKkr ugh gksuk ,slk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A U;kf;d n`"Vkr 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lat; dqekj cuke

yscj dksVZ ,aM baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy vtesj o vU; esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk leku ifjfLFkfr ds

Jfed dks Je U;k;ky; }kjk lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk ds ctk; :i;s nks yk[k ds ,deq'r eqvkots dk vuqrks"k mldh

fu;qfDr ds voS/k gksus ds n`f"Vxr fn;k tkuk lgh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh

fu;qfDr fof/k vuqlkj dh x;h gks ;g izdV ugh gksrk gS A izkFkhZ Lo;a ;g ekurk gS fd mls chp&chp esa ckj&ckj

gVk;k Hkh x;k gS o fQj dk;Z ij fy;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ lsok ls i`Fkd gks tkus ds ckn csjkstxkj jgk gks] bl laca/k

esa izkFkhZ ds u rks dksbZ vfHkopu gS vkSj u gh lk{; gS A mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr

mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2014 ,y ,y vkj 511 lat; dqekj cuke yscj dksVZ ,aM baMfLVª;y fVªC;wuy vtesj o vU;

esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s vfHker ds en~ns utj izkFkhZ lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk ds ctk;

,deq'r eqvkotk :i;s nks yk[k izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ,oa mDr fookn

dk mRrj blh vuqlkj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A

&% vkns'k %&

12-

,rn~}kjk Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk funsZf'kr mDr fookn dk mRrj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd

izca/ku jhtuy eSustj] ,p ih lh ,y ¼,y ih th½ IykaV xzke&xknsjh] ulhjkckn] vtesj }kjk izkFkhZ@Jfed Jh

dey dqekj iq= Jh vkseizdk'k dks fn- 20-1-2007 ls lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS A QyLo:i izkFkhZ

Jfed lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk dh ctk; vizkFkhZ ls nks yk[k :i;s ,deq'r eqvkots ds :i esa izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS

tks vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks bl vokMZ ds izdk'ku dh fnukad ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj Hkqxrku fd;s tkos A

vizkFkhZ }kjk nks ekg esa mDr jde dk Hkqxrku ugha djus ij izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls ukS izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh

izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk A

,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k

300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 31@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@25@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/25/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

SADAN”, G G PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

DATED : 21^st DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer (Hubli Camp)

CR No. 31/2006

I Party

II Party

Sh. M. H. Shankarappa,

The Zonal Manager,

S/o. Hanumaiah, Opp. Gopalayya , Building.

Bank of India,

I Cross, Hosmane, Shimoga – 577201

Zonal Office, M G Road,

Repdt. by : The General Secretary,

Bangalore - 560009

Dharwad District Bank Employees’ Association,

No.9, Corporation Building, Broadway,

Hubli – 580020

For I Party : M. Rama Rao,

For II Party: V.A. Byatnal, Advocate

the authorized representative of workman

Mr. M. H. Shankarappa

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/25/2006-IR(B-II) dated 02.02.2015 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

the reference and also, the corrigendum, for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Bank of India is justified in not regularizing and terminating the services of

Shri M.H. Shankarappa? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Brief details mentioned by the I party, in the Claim Statement, are as follows:

The workman, Sh. M.H. Shankarappa has been appointed as a Sub Staff on 20.04.1992 at Bank of India,

Shimoga in the vacant post of Sub staff, after the due process of employment through the employment exchange.

Since, from the date of appointment, he has worked for nearly ten years. During the period of his service the II Party

has extracted, all kinds of sub staff work, from the I Party-workman. The II Party has suddenly denied the work to the I

Party-workman from 08.03.2001, without quoting any reason. The I Party-workman has suffered a lot, due to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

301

unilateral action of the II Party. Considering the requests of the I Party-workman, the II Party has reinstated into the

service, the I Party-workman again from 20.08.2002. In spite of sincere work of the I Party-workman, the II Party

again terminated the service of the I Party-workman from 01.08.2003, without any notice or reason. On 30.08.2004,

the II Party has entered into a settlement with the I Party before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hubli.

The II Party has signed the above settlement with an understanding that, the I Party-workman will be given temporary

work at the Shimoga branch upto 280 days in a year and the I Party-workman will be filled in the vacancy of sub staff

that exists in the state of Karnataka. Also, the II Party has paid to the I Party-workman, a Bonus of Rs.10,400/- on

02.12.2004 for the service rendered from 1992 to 2004, after filing compliant with the Labour Enforcement Officer

(Central). The II Party has adopted the unfair labour practice by employing the I Party-workman continuously for more

than 10 years as temporary workman, so as to deny him, the benefits of permanent workman. Hence, the I Party-

workman has requested to direct the II Party, to reinstate the service of I Party-workman, with full back wages, and

ancillary benefits with, costs.

Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-

The I Party-workman, has been provided the work on purely casual basis, by Shimoga Branch of Bank of India.

The I Party-workman, has been paid, appropriately, for the said kind of temporary assignments, depending upon the

number of hours, he has been engaged, on each day. Further, the I Party-workman, has been engaged on purely

temporary basis only, on different occasion and hence, it will not confer any right for regularization of his services in

the Bank, on permanent basis. The bank is barred from regularizing employment in respect of Casual Labour as per the

Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Division Bench) in the case of National Fertilizers Limited and

Others Vs Somvir Singh reported in AIR 2006 SC 2319. The service of I Party-workman, has not been terminated on

08.03.2001 as alleged by the I Party-workman, without quoting any reason, or reinstated on 20.08.2002. Since, the I

Party workman, has been provided with work on purely temporary basis for certain periods, such engagements will

come to an end, each time when the temporary work is completed. Further, there is no understanding as alleged by the

I Party-workman, to provide the engagement to him in the bank for 240 days in a year, and the I Party workman, has

been paid appropriate wages/bonus for the period during which he has been engaged to perform the work on purely

casual nature from time to time. The I Party-workman, also intended, to take undue advantage by creating undue

pressure on the Bank by making the settlement dated 30.08.2004 as a tool to get regular employment in the Bank.

Also, the demand of the I Party-workman, for reinstatement of his services with regularization of service from

01.08.2003 and also, for payment of wages in the pay scale of sub staff of the Bank from 1992 to 01.08.2003 cannot be

considered. Therefore, the II Party Prays this Tribunal to dismiss the claim of the I Party-workman, as not maintainable

either on the grounds of facts or on the grounds of law and also in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Division

Bench of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above.

The pertinent points, that arise for consideration, in the present matter, are:-

(i)

Whether, the II Party-Bank of India is justified, in not regularizing and terminating the services of Shri

M.H. Shankarappa/Workman?

(ii)

To what relief, the workman is entitled to?

Analysis, discussions and findings with regard to the above mentioned points:-

Sh. M.H. Shankarappa, workman, has examined himself as WW 1 and also filed Exhibits Ex W-1 to Ex W-26,

as specifically pointed out in the end portion of the present award. The I Party-workman, has specifically stated that

initially the workman has been appointed as temporary sub staff on 20.04.1992, itself at Shimoga district, as per the II

Party-Bank rules and regulations, and the I Party workman, has been appointed in the vacant place of Sh. M.

Anjanappa a sub staff, who has been subsequently removed from the service. Also, MW 1, who has been examined on

behalf of II Party namely, Mr. Mohan Kumar, Branch Manager Shimoga, has clearly admitted in his evidence that he is

conversant with the facts of the present case, and he has also clearly admitted that it is true to suggest the said Sh. M.

Anjanappa, sub staff at Shimoga Branch, has been suspended in April 1992 and it is true to suggest that since April

1992, the I Party has worked in the place of Sh. M. Anjanappa, on the temporary basis. The I Party-workman, has

categorically stated in the claim statement, as well as in the evidence that even though, there existed vacancies, the II

Party Bank has not regularized the service of the I Party-workman, and initially, I Party-workman, has been appointed

as temporary staff only, and also served for several days as pointed in the claim statement.

Further, MW 1 has also admitted that it is not known as to whether the branch manager of the Shimoga has

refused to give work for I Party-workman, and he does not know, whether the I Party- workman, has been again taken,

to work as sub staff in Shimoga branch on 20.08.2002 and discontinued from 01.08.2003. However, the I Party-

workman, has produced Ex W-2 dated 24.12.1997 itself, and in the said Ex W-2, the II Party-Bank manager has

admitted that the casual labour is being employed, on regular basis, ever since, the said Mr. Anjanappa has been

suspended from service and later, the said Anjanappa has been dismissed. Further, in the Ex W-3, dated 31.03.1998,

302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Shimoga branch manager of II Party, has specifically stated that the work of the workman are very good and also he

is working hard and hence, recommended for the appointment of the said workman, in bank service against any

vacancy in Chikmangalur or any other branches, which is likely to be opened, shortly.

Further, in the claim statement as well as in evidence, the I Party-workman, has categorically stated that even

after the denial of granting work to I Party on 01.08.2003, there existed several vacancies in the II Party-Bank and the

workman has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and initially appointed as temporary sub staff on Shimoga

branch on 20.04.1992. Thereafter also, for several days the I Party-workman, has worked with II Party-Bank, as per

the details mentioned by the I Party-workman, in the claim statement as follows:-

Further, the workman has also pointed out in the claim statement, the II Party-Bank has paid bonus of

Rs.10,4000/- on 02.12.2004, for the services rendered by the workman. In the statement of objection also, the II Party-

Bank has clearly admitted that the said workman, has been paid appropriate wages/bonus.

Further, in the claim statement itself, the I Party-workman, has specifically mentioned the details of the vacancies

existed at Shimoga branch alone from 1992 to 2005 as under:-

Year

Employed

Vacant

Total

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

No. of days engaged

1992-1993

280

1993-1994

280

1994-1995

281

1995-1996

291

1996-1997

272

1997-1998

283

1998-1999

282

1999-2000

269

2000-2001

272

2002-2003

191

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

303

Based on the above mentioned details only, the I Party-workman, has pointed out that there are clear cut

vacancies from 01.08.2003 in sub staff cadre, and the II Party-bank, for the best known reason, known to itself alone,

has not provided employment to the said workman, without any reasonable grounds. Further, MW-1 Manager of

Shimoga branch has also admitted that it is true to suggest that full time sweeper Smt. Kanamma, retired in September

1998, and it is true to suggest that Balappa working in Shimoga branch expired in 2002, and it is true that another sub

staff, Ramachandra retired in 2009 and to the post of Kanamma, one Chandrashekar has been posted and for the said

Ramachandra and Anjanappa, no postings, have been made. Hence, it is seen that there is significant force in the said

submission made by the I Party-workman.

Further, in Ex W-5 dated 26.07.2000 also, the Branch Manager of the II Party-Bank, has clearly stated that the,

said workman Sh. M.H. Shankarappa, has worked in the place of Anjanappa, and the said workman is a hard working

and sincere staff and since, he has already worked with the II Party-Bank, the said Branch Manager has recommended

for the appointment of the said Sh. M.H. Shankarappa, in II Party-Bank’s service. Further, in the Ex W-6 dated

02.08.2000, also the branch manager of the II Party Bank, has clearly admitted that I Party-workman, namely Sh. M.H.

Shankarappa has been working in the place of regular sepoy since 1992 and he has started working with II Party-bank,

in 1992 from the age of 26 years, and hence the I Party-workman, also satisfied the eligibility criteria, and it is also

pointed out that, I Party-workman, is a hard working and sincere staff and also, well versed in bank’s work, and also

the employment registration number mentioned as 227/89, in the letter enclosed with Ex W-6. Further, as per details

mentioned in Ex W-7 dated 15.02.2004, itself the I Party has requested the II Party-Bank, for reinstatement and

regularization of service as sub staff in the bank and also I Party-workman, has stated that, he has been denied work

from 01.08.2003, without any reason and also, he has repeatedly requested the II Party-Bank to restore him as sub staff

in the interest of justice. Further, in the settlement entered into before the Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour

Commissioner, the II Party-Bank, has agreed that the I Party will be engaged by the bank as the casual worker, on

temporary basis and as and when the vacancies arises in part time and full time sub staff cadre, the workman will be

considered for taking into service. In the Ex W-12, letter dated 26.10.2004, the I Party has written to II Party-bank, that

the II Party has not engaged him into the service, though there existed the clear vacancies, for the post of sub staff.

Again by letter dated 16.12.2004, as per Ex W-14 the I Party-workman, has requested for providing regular work in sub

staff cadre, and again as per the letter dated 05.01.2005, marked as Ex W-15 the Dharwad District Bank Employees

Association has also sent a letter to the II Party to extend speedy justice to I Party-workman, by providing him regular

employment, and once again, as per the letter dated 03.02.2005, in Ex W-16, the I Party-workman, has sent the letter to

Bank and also, as per Ex W-17 the workman has sent a representation to Director of Public Grievances Department,

requesting for the regular sub staff post and also in Ex W-18 he has requested for the same, by writing letter to II Party-

Bank. Also, as per Ex W-19 letter dated 24.11.2005, the I Party-workman, has sent representation to Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) to refer the dispute for adjudication by the court, as the II Party has not fulfilled its

commitment and also, not implemented the settlement in its true spirit.

10.

Further, in Ex W-20, the Zonal Manager of the II Party has stated, the I Party Sh. M.S. Shankarappa has intended

to take undue advantage by creating undue pressure on the bank by making the settlement dated 30.08.2004 as a tool to

get regular employment in the bank. However, it is seen that II Party is a Premier Nationalised Bank, with various

officers, and Executives with high qualification and Designations, and hence, the poor workman, namely M.S.

Shankarappa, a temporary sub staff cannot create undue pressure on the II Party-Bank. Hence, the said submission of

II Party is not sustainable. Further, it is found that in Ex W-11, the bank itself has entered into settlement, and the

Memorandum of Settlement has been signed before Conciliation Officer and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

and also signed by Representative of the II Party-Bank, by the Senior Manager, IRD, Bank of India. Further, on behalf

of the II Party-Bank, it is pointed out that, as and when vacancies arises in the part time/full time sub staff cadre, the I

Party-workman, would be considered, subject to Bank’s recruitment rules and regulations and at the same time, the II

Party-Bank, has admitted that the workman will be provided engagement with the Bank as the casual worker. Further,

in the letter dated 02.08.2000, in Ex W-6 the Branch Manager of II Party has admitted that the I Party-workman, aged

only 26 years, on the date of joining into service and hence, he has satisfied the eligibility criteria, to be appointed as

sub staff. However, the bank has filed the representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on

13.12.2005 as per EX W-20, that the I Party-workman, as no right to get the posting orders from the bank. In such

circumstances it is clear that the II Party is taking the aprobate and reprobate stand, in various stages and on various

dates, only. Accordingly, the I Party-workman, has requested the Assistant Labour Commissioner to refer the dispute

to the court. Hence, the reference has been made to this court.

11.

Further, in the reply as per Ex W-25, received under Right to Information, namely, from the Central Public

Information officer, of the II Party, it is clearly admitted about the full time sub staff in II Party-Bank in Karnataka

State, and the details have been mentioned as follows:-

“Retired:19, Dismissed:8, Deceased:14, VRS:5.”

304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Though, the II Party Management has filed the Ex M-1 Seventh Bi-partite Settlement dated 27.03.2000, and Ex

M-2 Memorandum of Settlements dated 10.04.2002, it is clear from the records and evidence of both sides, that the

said workman has worked as temporary sub staff and in spite of the fact that there existed the vacancies of the sub staff

posts, with the II Party-Bank, and also the I Party is entitled to get the post, the I Party-workman, has not been taken

into the service by the II Party-Bank, without any valid reasons. From the above mentioned circumstances, it is seen

that the II Party bank has refused to provide employment to the workman, without any valid reasons and I Party-

workman, has proved that he has got the valid grounds to get postings as a new recruit in the sub staff post, and also II

Party has to be directed to appoint the I Party as sub staff without raising any super technical or hyper technical

objections for, the above mentioned peculiar reasons.

12.

Further, it is found that the II Party is not justified in refusing to provide employment to the I Party-workman, as

sub staff, as a new appointee and also, the action of II Party in not providing employment as sub staff is not justified.

Further, it is seen that the II Party Management has discriminated the I Party-workman, with mala fide intention by not

providing employment as sub staff, for the above mentioned reasons. Further, it is pertinent point out, that in spite of

repeated requests made to various authorities on various days, the II Party Management has not considered to appoint I

Party-workman, as sub staff. It is not the case of the II Party-Bank that the I Party-workman, has never worked with II

Party-Bank, and on the other hand, the II Party, in the Counter Statement and also MW1, have admitted that the I Party-

workman, has already served with II Party-Bank, on various days as pointed out in the claim statement, on temporary

basis and also, it is seen that, even though, there existed vacancies in the sub staff cadre, the application of the I Party

has not been considered by the II Party-Bank without any valid reasons, though the Branch Manager of II Party-Bank

has admitted, as already pointed out, that on the date of initial appointment the I Party has satisfied the age criteria also.

For the above mentioned reasons and grounds, it is found that there is violation of the provision of the ID Act and I

Party-workman, is entitled to get employment as sub staff as a new candidate, on regular roles of the II Party Bank.

Further, for the above mentioned details, the I Party-workman, is entitled to get the posting as fresh sub staff in regular

post only and except that, I Party-workman, is not entitled to get any other relief as claimed in the Claim Statement.

13.

Further, in the citations filed on behalf of I Party-workman,, reported in ILR KAR 2000 4356, (in the case of

Chief General Manager, RBI Vs Presiding Officer and Another) it is clearly held as follows:-

“Employing workmen as casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of

depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen, is an ‘Unfair Labour Practice’.” And also, in

the judgement reported in ILR 2001 KAR 3407, (in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs H.Ganesh Rao

and Others) it is clearly observed as follows:-

“Direction to regularize can be given in cases where the initial appointment on daily wage basis was against the

existing vacancies and was neither illegal nor in “Utter disregard” of the procedure and rules.” In the present case

also, it is found that the I Party, is entitled to get above mentioned relief of employment as sub staff, only, on the

fresh, regular appointment basis and II Party has to be directed, to take the I Party-workman, as sub staff, without

raising any technical objection, and also, it shall be treated as a fresh regular posting, for the above mentioned

facts and situations.

14. Further, the Learned Counsel appearing for the II Party has relied upon the judgement reported in AIR 2006 SC

2319 (in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors Vs Somvir Singh), wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court as follows only:-

“Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the

Respondents/Workman are illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service.”

However, in the present case, the facts and details are entirely different and in fact, the workman has been

appointed in the place of regular sepoy, since 1992, and also, satisfied the eligibility criteria and also a hard working

and sincere employee and he is also well versed with the Bank’s work, as per the details, already mentioned in Ex W-6,

by the Branch Manager of II Party-Bank. For the above mentioned peculiar facts of the present case, it is seen that the

above mentioned judgment relied, on behalf of the II Party, is not applicable to the present case. Further, a

recommendation has been made by the Branch Manager of the II Party-Bank himself, to the effect that, he is a sincere

and hardworking staff, and he is fully qualified to be appointed as sub staff, as he has satisfied the age criteria also.

Further, in the said citation filed on behalf of the II Party-Bank, it is ultimately held as follows only:-

“We may, however, observe that their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, in

view of the policy decision of the Appellant itself may be relaxed to the extend they had worked. The salary or

any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered.” In this present case also, it is found that as a

fresh regular appointment basis only, the workman has to be appointed, considering the above mentioned details.

15. Further, this Court has to discharge its statutory function in terms of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,

based upon the facts and circumstances of the present case only. Further, it is seen that the refusal of work and also,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

305

not providing the work to workman, by the II Party-Bank, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, in complete contravention

of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of law, is not justified. Further, the workman has also served in

the II Party-Bank for several years, as per the letter issued by the Manager of the II Party-Bank, however he is not

given a regular posting as a sub staff, though he has rendered the long, loyal, dedicated service and also maintaining the

commitment to work. Furthermore, Economic exploitation of workman in the guise of contract labour, goes against the

Directive Principles stated in the Constitution of India and the Contract Labour Act. Also, the system of contract

workers employed by II Party-Bank, even though there existed regular vacancies, amounts to unfair labour practice

under the V schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Further, the I Party workman sent to II Party-Bank, several

letters, seeking that he be taken back into service and allowed to be continued to work. It is seen that, II Party-Bank

has arbitrarily refused employment with effect from 01.08.2003, without any valid reason, even though, there existed

regular vacancies. During his employment, the said workman has not given any room for any complaint, on his work

performance or conduct, and has not committed any act of misconduct. On the other hand, the Manager of II Party-

Bank, himself, admitted in the letter that the said workman is a hard working and sincere staff, and also well versed in

Bank’s work and he has also satisfied the eligibility criteria. Thereafter the I Party-Workman has made several

requests to the II Party-Management to permit him to continue his service, but, to no avail. Despite his repeated

attempts requesting for his employment, the II Party-Management has refused to do so and has made such termination,

in an arbitrary and unlawful fashion, without even providing him an opportunity of being heard. The actions of the II

Party-Management is male fide, discriminatory and amounts to unfair labour practice as defined under sec. 2(ra) read

with the V schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. The I Party workman has been employed under nomenclature

“Casual employee” for the long time, in the above mentioned several years, with the sole intension of depriving him of

the status and privilege of a permanent workman.

16. Further, the I Party-Workman continued to work on low wages and exploitive working conditions, only with the

reasonable expectation that he will be provided with the permanent post of the sub-staff. Also, the action of the II

Party-Bank is totally illegal, unjustified and opposed to all the labour laws and is also opposed to public policy and

public employment, under the Constitution and the various judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the

action of the II Party in refusing employment to the I Party workman is totally illegal, unjustified and amounts to unfair

labour practice as defined under sec. 2(ra) of the ID Act read with the V schedule. Also, the I Party has been

discriminated and victimized for no fault of his, and the II Party management has utilized the services of the said

workman, and also, appreciated the services rendered by the I Party-Workman, as is evidenced by the letters of

appreciation given to the I Party-Workman by the II Party-Branch Manager, himself. Further, the I Party-workman is

ready to join work if provided, and also, looking at it, from any point of view, the extreme step of abruptly depriving

the I Party-workman of his livelihood, is nothing but economic death to the workman and his family and the same is

totally unfair and unjustified. For the above mentioned circumstances, the Workman would qualify for a relief, though

it would have to be suitably, moulded, having regard to the materials on record and the only direction that the workman

would be entitled to get the post of sub staff and the II Party-Bank, shall provide employment to the workman as a sub

staff, but the same shall be treated as a fresh regular appointment.

17. Further, it is also evident after considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the I Party-workman, is

entitled to get the sub staff post with the II Party Bank. Admittedly, the I Party-workman, has not worked from the date

of denial to provide work from 01.08.2003 to the present date. Absolutely, there is no contribution of the I Party-

workman, during the said period. In order to balance the interest of both the parties, this Court is of the considered

opinion that by directing the II Party-Bank, to give the posting of sub staff to the I Party-workman, will meet the end of

justice, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and long gap

from the date of denial of work from 01.08.2003 to till date, it is found that the direction only has to be given to II

Party-Bank to, provide employment to I Party-workman-M.H. Shankarappa, as a sub staff, on the fresh regular

appointment basis only, with the II Party-Bank, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Thus, the points are

answered, accordingly.

AWARD

The II party/management is directed to provide employment as a regular sub staff to the workman-Sh. M.H.

Shankarappa, in the most expeditious manner, without raising any technical issues, and the said workman is entitled for

employment as a sub staff, on the fresh regular appointment basis only, and he is not entitled to get any other benefits.

The present reference is answered, accordingly without cost, for the peculiar facts, and special circumstances of the

present matter.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 21^st December, 2016)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW1 Shankarappa, I Party

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

MW1 Mohan Kumar, Manager of II Party-Bank

Documents exhibited on behalf of I Party:

Sl.No.

DATE

EXHIBITS

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

20.04.1992

Ex W-1

Application copy of I Party

24.12.1997

Ex W-2

II Party letter

31.03.1998

Ex W-3

II Party letter with I Party application

15.11.1999

Ex W-4

II Party letter with enclosure

26.07.2000

Ex W-5

II Party letter

02.08.2000

Ex W-6

II Party letter with I Party application

15.02.2004

Ex W-7

I Party letter to II Party with postal receipts

15.02.2004

Ex W-8

I Party letter to ALC (c), Hubli

09.03.2004

Ex W-9

I Party letter to ALC (c), Hubli

24.06.2004

Ex W-10

I Party letter to II Party with AD card

30.08.2004

Ex W-11

Settlement entered before ALC, C, Hubli

26.10.2004

Ex W-12

I Party letter to II Party

30.11.2004

Ex W-13

I Party letter to ALC, Hubli

16.12.2004

Ex W-14

I Party letter to II Party with cour. receipt

05.01.2005

Ex W-15

DDBEA, Hubli letter to II Party

03.02.2005

Ex W-16

I Party letter to II Party

12.03.2005

Ex W-17

I Party petition to Directorate of Public Grievances, Delhi with AD Card

06.05.2005

Ex W-18

I Party letter to II Party

24.11.2005

Ex W-19

I Party letter to ALC, Hubli

13.12.2005

Ex W-20

II Party letter to ALC, Hubli with enclosures

25.12.2005

Ex W-21

I Party letter to ALC, Hubli

31.12.2005

Ex W-22

I Party letter to NSCC copy

13.02.2006

Ex W-23

Failure on Conciliation Report of ALC, (c), Hubli

30.11.2011

Ex W-24

II Party letter on RTI Application

21.12.2011

Ex W-25

II Party letter with information submitted on the Retired, Dismissed,

Deceased, VRS employees from 01.01.1992

Ex W-26

Appointment details of sub staff

Documents exhibited on behalf of I Party:

Sl.No

DATE

EXHIBITS

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

27.03.2000

Ex M-1

Seventh Bi-partite Settlement

10.04.2002

Ex M-2

Memorandum of Settlements

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

307

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu 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;] ,jukdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 13@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&35011@04@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Cochin Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-35011/04/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 31^st day of May, 2016/10^thJyaistha, 1938)

ID 13/2015

Union

The General Secretary,

The Cochin Port Staff Association,

Willington Island,

KOCHI (KERALA) – 682009

By Adv. Shri. A. V. Xavier

Management

The Chairman,

Cochin Port Trust,

W/Island,

COCHIN - 3.

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan, Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.05.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed

the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

‘Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in promoting Male dressers of Head Dressers in

the vacancies arising out of Female Head Dressers as per the Recruitment Rules and against the existing

system of practice is correct? What relief the workman is entitled to?’

After receipt of the reference order No.L-35011/04/2014-IR(B-II) dated 24.02.2015, issued by the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear and answer all material points relating to

the dispute and to produce the documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons, the

parties entered appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings.

The union filed claim statement with a prayer to hold that the action of the management, in not considering the

grievances of Smt. V. D. Sudharma, for being promoted to the post of Head Dresser as per the existing practice and

308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

precedent which had been followed for the last 34 years is not justifiable, that the action of the management in

promoting the male dressers for the duty of supervising the dressing of female patients, dishonouring the advice of the

conciliation officer to oblige to Section 22(2)d and 33 of the I.D Act, as illegal and in violation of the laws of the land.

In the light of the management proceedings with the existing Recruitment Rule for promoting the Head Dressers this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to regulate the pay and allowance of Smt. V. D. Sudharma, retrospectively as if she had

been promoted in line with her actual seniority had the promotions been made strictly in accordance with the

Recruitment Rule from the beginning.

The management filed written statement denying the claim of the union and stated that the workmen are not

entitled to the relief claimed.

After filing written statement by the management the matter was posted for filing rejoinder by the union. In the

meantime, the union filed a statement which reads as follows:

“The above I.D is at the stage of filing Rejoinder by the union.

The management has effected the promotion in dispute as per the existing Recruitment Rules. Hence the

practice does not arise in the promotion Order No.C1/F24/Promotions/Class III & IV/2014-H dated

18.03.2014. So the matter specified in the Schedule to the Reference Order does not merit consideration.

In the said circumstances, the union does not pursue the matters specified in the Schedule to the Reference

Order for adjudication by this Hon’ble Court.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the above Statement and pass an Award accordingly.”

Notice of this statement was given to the counsel for the management. The matter was heard in presence of the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In view of the statement filed by the union that they are not pursuing the relief as requested in this ID and that the

matter does not require consideration on merit: the statement filed by the union is recorded and that an award is passed

holding that there is no subsisting dispute between the union and the management to be adjudicated as per this

reference. The statement filed by the union shall form part of the award.

In the result an award is passed holding that there is ‘no subsisting dispute’ to be adjudicated as per this

reference.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31^st day

of May, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

ID 13/2015

The Chairman,

Management

Cochin Port Trust,

Willington Island,

Kochi – 682009

Vs.

The General Secretary,

Union

Cochin Port Staff Association,

Willington Island,

Kochi – 682009

STATEMENT FILED BY THE UNION

The above I.D. is at the stage of filing Rejoinder by the union.

The management has effected the promotion in dispute as per the existing Recruitment Rules. Hence the

practice does not arise in the promotion Order No. C1/F24/Promotions/Class III & IV/2014-H dated 18.03.2014. So the

matter specified in the Schedule to the Reference Order does not merit consideration.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

309

In the said circumstances, the union does not pursue the matters specified in the Schedule to the Reference

Order for adjudication by this Hon’ble Court.

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the above Statement and pass an Award accordingly.

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

-Sd- Illegible

Advocate

Union

All the facts stated above are true.

-Sd- Illegible

Union

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@55@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/55/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 29^th December, 2016

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 32/2016

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Kannapiran

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Industrial Relations Department

Central Office, 763, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Management

Set Ex-parte

310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/55/2016-IR (B.II) dated

05.09.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in terminating the service of Sri P. Kannapiran,

Temporary Messenger is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 32/2016 and issued notices to both sides. The

petitioner has appeared through his counsel. There is no appearance for the Respondent.

The petitioner has not filed any Claim Statement in the matter. The counsel for the petitioner has made an

endorsement to the effect that the petitioner is not proceeding with the dispute in view of ID 26/2016 regarding the

same subject matter which is pending before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the ID is closed.

An Award is passed accordingly.

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

day the 29th December, 2016)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1225@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@243@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1225/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Union Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12011/243/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

311

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1225/2004

The Dy. General Manager,

Union Bank of India,

High Court Way, Premchand House, Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009

…First Party

V/s

The Assistant Secretary,

Gujarat Bank Workers’ Union,

Rambar, 8, Jagnath Plot, Post Box No. 10,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party

Shri Yogen Pandya

AWARD

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

L-12011/243/2002-IR(B-II) dated 31.03.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Ahmedabad in awarding punishment of

compulsory retirement to Shri K.R. Ajwalia is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the concerned workman

entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 31.03.2003. The second party submitted the statement of claim on 04.11.2004. The

first party did not submit the written statement despite the fact that Shri B.K. Oza advocate submitted the vakalatpatra

Ext. 3 on behalf of the first party but since the filing of the statement of claim, second party has been absent. Therefore,

fresh notice was issued to both the parties vide Ext. 6 to appear on 21.04.2011 but the second party workman did not

prefer to appear to prosecute the case as ex-parte.Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the

reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the management of Union

Bank of India, Ahmedabad in awarding punishment of compulsory retirement to Shri K.R. Ajwalia is legal and

justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 149-—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;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 325@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-

2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@306@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 325/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/306/1999-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 325/2004

The Regional Manager,

UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Near Sanyas Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009

…First Party

V/s

Miss Smitaben S. Patel,

2-B, Ravi Kunj,

Opp. Nakshi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri D.G. Shukla

For the Second Party

Shri V.K. Kazi

AWARD

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

L-12012/306/1999-IR(B-II) dated 25.05.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Regional Office, Ahmedabad in dismissing Miss

Smitaben S. Patel, Asstt. Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper w.e.f. 30.03.1999 on the alleged charges of misconduct

vide supplementary charge sheet dated 01.06.1998 to the original charge sheet no. DO/OAD/SSP/3/97-98 dated

05.07.1997 is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concern employees is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 25.05.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 3 on 10.08.2000.

The first party submitted the written statement Ext. 11 on 10.10.2001. Since then the second party workman has been

absent and has also refrained to lead evidence however the advocate for the second party generally attends the tribunal.

Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as

under: “the action of the management of UCO Bank, Regional Office, Ahmedabad in dismissing Miss Smitaben S.

Patel, Asstt. Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper w.e.f. 30.03.1999 on the alleged charges of misconduct vide supplementary

charge sheet dated 01.06.1998 to the original charge sheet no. DO/OAD/SSP/3/97-98 dated 05.07.1997 is legal and

justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

313

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 150-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 714@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-01-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@57@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 714/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/57/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 26^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 714/2004

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Kalindi, 1,

Mahavir Jain Society,

Nr. S.T. Depot,

Godhra (Gujarat) – 389001

…First Party

V/s

Smt. Telma John,

Room No. B-100,

Divda Colony, Tal. Kadana,

Dahod (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Mahesh K. Thakar

For the Second Party

Shri Sudhir J. Shah

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/57/2000-

IR(B-II) dated 11.08.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Divda Colony Branch in terminating the services of

Smt. Telma John, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 18.09.1999 orally without observing the provisions of Section 25-F,

G and H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, then what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 11.08.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ext. 4 on 16.03.2001

and the first party submitted the written statement Ext. 5 on 16.07.2001. The second party workman submitted the

314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

affidavit/examination in chief Ext. 13 on 07.02.2009 before the State Industrial Tribunal Central, Ahmedabad but on

receiving the reference/record on transfer to this tribunal, fresh notices were issued on 23.09.2012 to appear on

23.05.2012 as parties had not been appearing. Again on 15.04.2014, fresh notices were issued to the parties to appear

on 11.04.2014 but to no result and the second party did not appear for cross examination. Thus it appears that the

second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the cross-examination of the second party workman with

the observation as under: “the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Divda Colony Branch in terminating the

services of Smt. Telma John, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 18.09.1999 orally without observing the provisions of Section

25-F, G and H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1402@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-01-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@38@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1402/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-12012/38/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 29^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1402/2004

The Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Panch Hatadi,

Navsari (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Shri Nitin Kumar Sunderlal More,

RamchandraNivas, Sambhaji Nagar,

At.PO.Vijalpour, Taluka,

Navsari (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Mahesh Thakar

For the Second Party

Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

315

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/38/2003-

IR(B-II) dated 26.05.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Nitinkumar Sunderlal More has put in ‘continuous service’ in the Bank of Baroda as per

provisions of Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the management of

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Valsad through its officers in discontinuing/terminating the services of the

workman Shri Nitinkumar Sunderlal More is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 26.05.2003. On service of notices to both the parties, the second party Nitinkumar

Sunderlal More submitted his statement of claim Ext. 5 alleging that he had been working as Peon in the first party

bank, Bank of Baroda, in its several branches, herein after referred to as Bank of Baroda since 24.03.1998 honestly,

sincerely and regularly. The branch manager of the bank used to direct him to work him other branches like Staion

Road, Sayaji Road, Tarota Bazaar, Dudhiya Lake of Navsari and Kabil Pore, Kaliawadi, Dalalpore and Dabhol. On all

these branches of the bank of Bank of Baroda, he performed his duties under the direct instruction from the manager of

the first party bank, Bank of Baroda. He was used to be paid Rs.75/- and Rs.50/- as daily wages in the city and rural

branches respectively by way of vouchers after getting their signature thereon. He used to do give ledgers, cheques,

cheques book, account books to the official of the bank as per their requirement, used to prepare Tea and water to

provide to the bank staff and also used to do other miscellaneous works entrusted to him from 10:30 AM to 07:30 PM.

He was also called upon to do some duty even on Sunday holidays and Bank holidays. He was also paid bonus for the

years 2000-01 vide cheque 0219679 dated 18.08.2001 for Rs.693/- while working at Tarota Bazaar Branch, Navsari of

the Bank. He further alleged that he worked in the first party bank and its other braches as per the instructions of the

manager of the bank, Bank of Baroda. He worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, he had been in

continuous service as per the provisions of the Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has also given the

details of his working days since the calendar year 1998 to 2002 which are as below:

Year

Working Days

1998

134

1999

104

2000

259

2001

178

2002

167

He has further alleged that with an intent to cause interruption or artificial break in his service the bank used to

pay and prepare vouchers in the name of Yogesh Vipinbhai Patel and Maheshbhai More despites the fact that work was

taken from him so as to break his service. He has to put his signatures in the form of Yogesh Vipinbhai Patel and

Maheshbhai More. Thus Bank of Baroda misused his helplessness which was arbitrary, unfair legal practice, illegal and

also against the principles of natural justice. Thus he entitled for regularization of service as per decisions of the

Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court. He has further alleged that he was not paid full daily wages and allowances as

provided under the minimum wages act, therefore, the Bank of Baroda is also directed to pay the differences of all the

wages and allowances for the period aforesaid. He requested the Bank of Baroda to make his services permanent but to

no result, therefore, he applied for a job in Mufatlal Industry Limited but he was stopped by the Bank of Baroda to

appear for interview. He further alleged that on 06.08.2002 at 04:00 PM, the Branch Manager of Tarota Bazaar,

Navsari orally informed him. He discharged from the service of the bank without giving any notice in writing or wages

in lieu of discharge notice and also without paying retrenchment compensation as per the requirement of Section 25 F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said action was illegal, improper, amounting to victimisation, full of unfair

labour practice and also against the principles of natural justice as he was not subjected to any departmental inquiry. He

further alleged that he served the Bank of Baroda with a notice on 09.09.2002 through his advocate. Thus he has prayed

for declaring his termination of his services on 06.08.2002 as illegal and improper and to reinstate him with back wages

and all allowances as admissible in the service.

The first party Bank of Baroda submitted the written statement Ext. 11 denying all the allegations made in the

statement of claim Ext. 5. However the Bank of Baroda has admitted that the workman Nitin More was working as a

316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

daily wager in a temporarily manner. He was never issued any appointment letter. There was no permanent vacancy in

the bank against which the appointment of this workman put have been required to be made. He was paid daily wages

by way of vouchers. While working in the bank, he never raised his claim for employment or any other benefits. On the

contrary, he offered him and accepted his position that he would not be entitled for any type of permanent employment

or any other benefits. It is also admitted that he was paid daily wages as per his averments in the statement of claim. He

was not handling the ledgers, cheques, pass books and account books of the bank. He was never asked to prepare and

serve tea to the bank staff. He cannot be said to be in continuous service of the bank as he worked as daily wages in

various branches of the bank as per his claim. He can also be subjected to criminal proceeding as he has admitted that

he worked in the name of Yogesh Nitinbhai Patel and Maheshbhai More. He could not be issued identity card as he was

not permanent employee of the bank. He was never asked to serve on Sunday and Bank Holidays. He was never

stopped to appear for interview for a job in Mufatlal Industries Limited. The allegations of termination of service as

illegal, vindictive, unreasonable and against the rules and principles of natural justice and also unfair legal practice are

baseless. Thus he is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the statement of claim.

This reference earlier was pending in the State Industrial Tribunal where the first party did not lead his evidence,

therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party on 23.07.2010. Later the case was transferred

to this tribunal which was received on 06.12.2010. Consequently a notice Ext. 24 was issued to the manager, Bank of

Baroda, PanchHatadi, Navsari (Gujarat) to appear on 15.02.2011 for leading evidence but none for the first party

appear. Therefore this tribunal on 26.09.2011 on the application Ext. 25 of second party close the evidence of the first

party despite giving several opportunities. Since then the first party did not try to get the order of ex-parte hearing

recalled.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues are to be addressed in this proceeding which is as under:

Whether Shri Nitinkumar Sunderlal More has put in ‘continuous service’ in the Bank of Baroda as per

provisions of Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the

management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Valsad through its officers in discontinuing/terminating

the services of the workman Shri Nitinkumar Sunderlal More is legal, proper and justified?

ii.

To what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?

Issue No. i & ii :- Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of prove of this

issue lies on the workman who has submitted his affidavit/examination-in-chief Ext. 17 reiterating the averments made

in the statement of claim which are not controverted or rebutted by the first party. Therefore, the evidence given by the

second party is conclusive to the extent given by him in the affidavit Ext. 17. I have gone through the record which

reveals that the workman worked in the bank for the period given in the table below:

Year

Working Days

1998

134

1999

104

2000

259

2001

178

2002

167

From the table, it appears that he worked for the calendar years 1998 to 2002 but he worked for more than 240

days only in the year 2000. Thus it appears that there was not sufficient work in the bank for the workman. Therefore,

he worked for less than 240 days in every calendar except calendar year 2000.There is no documentary evidence that he

worked on Sunday and Bank Holidays.It is also noteworthy that he was discharged from service on 06.08.2002 and in

the year 2002 and 2001, he did work for only 167 and 178 days respectively. The preceding year as per the provisions

of Section 25 B of Industrial Disputes Act in his case was 2001 wherein he works for only 178 days. Thus he cannot be

said to be a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to be entitled for as per the provisions of

Section 25 B of Industrial Disputes Act.

However as per the law laid down in the Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal verses Santosh

Kumar Seal, 2010 (6) SCC 773. It would be equitable to order the first party bank to pay Rs. 60000/- as compensation

to the second party workman which will meet the end off justice.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

317

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ykbZiQ

ba'kksjsal dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@30@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-17012/30/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 16/2006

The Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Vadodara Division,

7^th Floor, Suraj Plaza –II, Sayajigunj,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390005

…First Party

V/s

Shri Suresh N. Tailor,

62, Kamlapark Society, HarniWarasia, Ring Road,

Behind Mangalya S.,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

Shri H.D. Kathrotiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-17012/30/2000-

IR(B-II) dated 02.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Baroda Division, Baroda in

terminating the services of Shri Suresh N. Tailor w.e.f. 06.03.1999 vide order dated 06.03.1999 by way of

removal from the services, is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to

and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 02.03.2001. In pursuance of the notices issued by the Tribunal to the parties, the

Second Party workman hereinafter referred to a “workman” submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 alleging that he had

318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been in employment in the First Party Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as “First Party” as

typist (SR. No.439658) since 1990 till he was served with a charge sheet on 6.4.1998 by the First Party. During his

whole service, there was nothing adverse regarding his qualification confidence and conduct. He had also been

receiving annual increments in his pay. The charge levelled against him in the charge sheet was that he

altered/manipulated a Schedule Caste Certificated dated 1.5.1989 from the District Backward Class Welfare Officer,

Vadodara. Thus, he fraudulently claimed the benefits available to the Schedule caste candidate in his recruitment as

typist. He further alleged that he never carried out mutation or alteration in the school leaving certificate. The truth is

that the school itself on the basis of the affidavit of his father changed his caste in the school leaving certificate and its

record. He further alleged that he belongs to Hindu Mochi Caste but his father adopted the profession of tailor,

therefore, the school by itself recorded his caste as Hindu Darji which was later changed by the school as Hindu Mochi

on the basis of affidavit of his father. Therefore, the allegation of fraud, deceit and forgery levelled against him by the

First Party is baseless. The First Party initiated departmental inquiry into the charge and held him guilty of the charge

levelled against him and passed the order of termination from the service after issuing notice and detailed explanation

submitted by the workman in a routine manner without considering the explanation properly. The matter went to

reconciliation before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Central Government against the aforesaid unfair action

but to no result. Therefore, this matter came to this Tribunal as reference for award. The workman in his claim prayed

for quashing of the unjust and unfair termination of service with appropriate cost and consequential reliefs.

The First Party, Life Insurance Company of India submitted its written statement Ex. 7, denying all the averments

of the statement made by the workman and submitted that the school leaving certificate of the workman was having

caste as a Hindu Darji which was later altered into Hindu Mochi. The caste certificated obtained as Hindu Mochi was

manipulated by the workman on the basis of the affidavit submitted by his father who was infact, a tailor or darji being

his caste. The certificate was not issued by the competent authority. Thus, it was misconduct on the part of workman to

obtain employment on the basis of a false caste certificate. Therefore, inquiry was held into the matter and finding him

guilty of misconduct of manipulating the caste certificate as Hindu Mochi, his services were terminated after issuing

him notice and considering his explanation.

The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Centre Baroda, after consideration the pleadings and evidence thereon on

31.3.2003 passed the award reinstating the workman with 75% back-wages. The matter went into writ before the

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the award and remanded matter to

the Tribunal for deciding afresh.

After creation of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, matter was taken up by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal and decided the reference quashing and setting aside the order of termination of services of

workman under challenge 6.3.1999 and affirmed the order of Industrial Tribunal, Centre Baroda passed on 31.3.2003

with a direction to make compliance of the award within 60 days from the knowledge of the award.

The matter again went to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 5085 of 2008 with

Civil Application No. 232 of 2015 therein and again the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 12.8.2015 observed as

under:-

“Both the counsels have after making submissions on merits, and in view of the instructions given by the

respondent –workman who is present in the Court, arrived at a consensus that looking to the lack of due

advertence to the evidence to the record, let the order impugned be quashed and set aside and the matter be

remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding afresh after affording opportunity to both sides on the basis of

evidences already on record, meaning thereby, no further opportunities, so far as leading of evidence are

concerned, is to be granted based upon the evidence on record. The counsels be permitted to make the

submission and the entire dispute be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six month

from the date of receipt of this order.

In view of this, the present petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. Rule discharged.”

The matter was taken up as a fresh and both the parties were also asked to submit further evidence, if any, which

they did not avail this opportunity.

In the present case, workman produced 24, 2 and 6 documents vide Ex- 13, 16 and 72. On consenting of both

parties all these documents were exhibited as Ex- 53 to 69, Ex- 70 and 71 and Ex- 94 to 100. He also submitted an

affidavit at Ex- 80 as examination chief stating on oath that he had been working as typist in First Party Organization

for last ten years since, 28.2.1990, his father was a tailor therefore, he adopted the surname as Darji but the First Party

Organization served with a chargesheet on 6 April, 1998, charging that he was Darji but he manipulated his caste a

Hindu Mochi and got the benefits of Schedule Caste in the recruitment of his post of typist. He replied the chargesheet

by explanation Ex-62 properly stating the reasons mentioned in the statement of claim but unfortunately the First Party

initiated departmental inquiry and terminated his services since then he is unemployed. He further stated that he has

been staying in joint family with his father and maintaining them. In his cross-examination he stated that in the inquiry

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

319

he was asked to submit the original school leaving certificate which was later turned back. He admitted that earlier his

caste in the school record was Hindu Darji which was changed by the school on the basis of affidavit of his father as

Hindu Mochi which was truth and fact and same has not been disputed by any competent authority of Gujarat State.

Below Ex-9 list total 34 documents are produced by the First Party institutions which are Ex. 19 to 52.

First Party examined at Ex-89, Principal of the School at Ex-90 Mr. Makwana, Clerk of the school at Ex-91,

Inquiry Officer at Ex-92.

10.

The principal states that, certificate below Ex-79 is prepared by him and it bears his signature. He admits that,

this certificate was prepared as per the instructions of LIC. He states that, he has prepared this certificate as per the

record of the school. He states that, School Leaving Certificate at Ex-82 is of his school, wherein Shri S. N. Tailor of

the concerned student is as mentioned with caste “Hindu Cobbler”. He admits his signature on copy at Ex-82. He states

that, said true copy was given to LIC on demand of the LIC taking from the original. Original is produced before the

Court. (The School Leaving Certificate at Ex-82 is at page No. 340 and general registration No. 321 is mentioned to it.)

As against this, in the cross-examination he states that, when any student is admitted in the school the information

which is provided by the guardian regarding surname and other details, are recorded in the record of the school. He has

no right or jurisdiction to verify the facts whether it is true or false as submitted by the guardian. The certificate below

Ex-79 is given according to G.R. but same is not at present with him. He states that, the handwriting and signature are

similar to that of Exs- 82 and 83. He states that, the certificate below Ex-79 which is given before that the note is put in

the said institution. At that time, he was not in service. He admits that, if original school leaving certificate is lost, in

that case, duplicate certificate is issued after producing affidavit to that effect. Shri Vinod Dhulabhai Makwana, the

witness No. 2 clerk of H. V. Shroff High School is examined on oath at Ex-90 stated that:”

“I am serving in H. V. Shroff Memorial School. My post in the school is junior clerk. Last 15 years I am serving

in the school. The school leaving certificate below Ex- 82 is prepared by me. My signature appears in the said

certificate as preparing clerk. The certificate at Ex-83, wherein sub-caste “Hindu Mochi” is mentioned is the

name is not written by me”

As against this in the cross-examination he has said that:

“Certificates below Ex-82 are issued by the school. I cannot say whether hand writing are similar for the facts

stated in the certificate at Ex-82 Hindu Tailor Vadodara and Hindu Mochi at Ex-83.”

11.

Shri Ashish Prabhakar Joshi, the witness of the company is examined on oath at Ex- 92. He has said in the

examination in chief that:

“I was serving as Manager in the first party institution in Vadodara in year 1998. In the case of second party, I

was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The registered cover dated 12/11/1998 was issued by second party during the

inquiry proceedings. I had opened on letter received in the said cover. The said letter was dated 10/11/1998. In

the said cover there was only one letter and no such school leaving certificate of the second party was attached.

Relevant note, I have made on the said cover. My signature appears against the said note at Ex- 86.”

As against this, in the cross-examination he has said that:

“The Cover was received by me on 12/11/1998. It is true that, this cover was received on 12/11/1998 but no such

note is made by me in the inquiry proceedings. It is true that, this cover after 6 days on dated 17/11/1998, I had

opened in inquiry. During the proceedings, the objection pertaining to opening the cover, the note to this effect

was made, but I have not investigated for the same. I cannot say whether second party had attached original

school leaving certificate in the cover or not.”

12.

I heard the arguments of both advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and considered the oral and

documentary evidence adduced therein.

13.

The charge levelled againstthe workman is that he manipulated his caste certificate from Hindu Darji to Hindu

Mochi for claiming the benefits of Schedule Caste fraudulently getting the post of Typist in the First Party

Organization, Life Insurance Corporation of India. The charge levelled against the workman amounts to cheating

defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The Provisions of the Section 415 is reproduced as under:-

Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code

415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived

to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally

induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so

deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,

320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within

the meaning of this section. Illustrations

(a)

A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, inten-tionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z

to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

(b)

A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was

made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A

cheats.

(c)

A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, inten-tionally deceives Z into believing that the article

corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d)

A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A

expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to

deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e)

A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby

dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

(f)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and

thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it.A cheats.

(g)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which

he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such

delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and

afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action

for breach of contract.

(h)

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he

has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

(i)

A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in conse-quence of such sale he has no right to the

property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance

to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

14.

To prove this charge, the workman in his affidavit has stated on oath that he belongs to Hindu Mochi Caste but

his father adopted the profession of Tailoring instead of Hindu Mochi. Consequently, the Headmaster of his alma

matter by his personal knowledge recorded his caste as Hindu Darji but his father on becoming aware of this mistake

submitted an affidavit in the school to the effect that he is Hindu Mochi, accordingly his caste was altered by the

Headmaster in the school record as Hindu Mochi. On the basis of this certificate, the District Social Welfare Officer,

issued him a caste certificate of Hindu Mochi. He applied for the post of Typist before the First Party Organization

annexing the aforesaid caste certificate and he was made successful as Schedule Caste candidate for the post of typist

but after serving for 10 years first party without complaint with a malice served him with a charge sheet to this effect

and initiated the Departmental Inquiry wherein his services were terminated.

15.

First Party in rebuttal did not examine any witness like village head, said Headmaster of the school who admitted

the workman as student in the school and the District Welfare Officer who were examined in the departmental inquiry.

In the departmental inquiry the aforesaid witnesses plainly gave the statement that the school certificate to the effect of

Hindu Mochi was issued by the school after alteration on the basis of the Affidavit of his father. And the Village head

admitted that it is true that the workman was Hindu Mochi but his father has been doing the profession of tailoring

therefore, the certificate of the Hindu Mochi should have been issued. Similarly, the District Social Welfare Officer

stated in the departmental inquiry that he issued certificate formally on the basis of school leaving certificate.

16.

But unfortunately, the inquiry officer in the departmental inquiry without any basis disbelieved the evidence of

aforesaid witnesses and held the workman guilty of cheating. It is true that if the charge is true there is a case of

cheating and a FIR into the matter ought to have been registered before the police but the department did not prefer this

option being suspicious or non-confident of his finding. The Village head who lives in the village of the workman

prima facie ought to have been believed unless a strong rebuttal is there like he is relation of the workman or some

more relationships but it is not the case in the matter. Thus, the findings of the inquiry officer have no plausible or

reasoned basis in holding that the workman was not a Hindu Mochi. He has failed to give any finding as to why he

disbelieved the evidence of the village head, school headmaster and record of the school and also the evidence of

District Social Welfare Officer.

17.

It would have been reasonable on the part of First Party or inquiry officer to have made a reference for

verification to the District Social Welfare Officer to inquire into the matter of caste of the workman, he did not do so

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

321

which gives a basis that the inquiry officer and First Party Organization initiated action arbitrarily and with malice for

the reasons best known to them. It is also noteworthy that headmaster of the school stated in his evidence that the caste

of the workman was altered into Hindu Mochi on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the Father of workman. Had

this affidavit been false, it would have been a case of perjury and he would have been prosecuted for the same but none

of the state authority initiated any action against the father of workman for perjury even after receiving the knowledge

that the caste certificate was altered on the basis of workman’s father.

18.

Thus it is clear that controversy revolved round the alteration in caste certificate and benefit taken thereon in the

recruitment but it would have been proper if it would have been enquired into the village where the workman

permanently reside. Strangers cannot be the best evidence. Thus the finding of the enquiry officer is based on weak

evidence. Had it been complained to the District Authority and enquired by them then it would have been proper

because they would have taken strong evidence and have also prosecuted the workman and his father for cheating and

perjury. Thus the alteration in caste certificate is based on unbelievable evidence and liable to disbelieved.

19.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidence, I am of the view that he findings given by the inquiry officer was

without any plausible evidence and reason and workman’s services were arbitrarily terminated, therefore, the action

taken by the First Party Organization is liable to be quashed and set aside.

20.

Thus, on the basis the aforesaid reasons and evidence I decide the reference with the observation as under:-

“The action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Baroda Division, Baroda in terminating

the services of Shri Suresh N. Tailor w.e.f. 06.03.1999 vide order dated 06.03.1999 by way of removal from the

services, is not legal, proper and justified.”

21.

Thus, First Party Organization is directed to reinstate the services of second party workman within 60 days from

the date of knowledge of the award with 70% back-wages and other service benefits.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu 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;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 58@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-

2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&35011@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Cochin Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-35011/01/2014-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 30^th December, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 58/2014

322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Chairman,

Cochin Port Trust,

W. Island,

Cochin

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

The Cochin Port Staff Association,

W. Island,

Cochin

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-35011/01/2014-

IR(B-II) dated 13.06.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in withdrawing the honorarium @ 7.5% of

basic pay paid to 20 member of employees of Power House Section of Electrical Section from October

2011 without issuing 21 days notice u/s 9A of the I.D. Act is justified?”

ii.

“Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in stopping the honorarium to the employees

during the pendency of conciliation proceedings amounts to violation of Section 33 of I.D. Act?”

iii.

“What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 13.06.2014. The Cochin Port Trust vide letter dated 09.05.2016, Ext. 7 and Shri Ravi

Kumar, Desk Kumar (IR-B-II), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide their letter dated

16.05.2016, Ext. 8 have informed that the matter relates to Cochin, therefore, this reference be cancelled.

Thus in the light of the aforesaid letter, the aforesaid reference is cancelled. Shri Ravi Kumar, Desk Kumar (IR-

B-II), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment be informed that the reference has been cancelled as

requested.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 154-—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- 32@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2007) 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. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

323

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 32/2007

Between :

Sri Dune Laxmipathi,

S/o 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.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

2. The Dy. CME/Superintendent of Mines,

KK-5 Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

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 Dune Laxmipathi 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 proceeding No. P/MM/7/2/01/4005 dated 25.8.2001 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.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler and later he was confirmed as Coal Filler. Petitioner was regular to

his duties till the year 1999. But during the year 1999, the Petitioner suffered with illness and family problems. While

the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 23.1.2000 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 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/7/2/01/4005 dated 25.8.2001. 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 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 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. P/MM/7/2/01/4005 dated 25.8.2001 issued by

the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to

324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages

etc.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with averments in brief as

follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 15.12.1988 as Badli Filler and he was regularised as Coal filler on

1.9.1995. 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 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.

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 5.3.2009.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Dune Laxmipathi is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.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. 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 his illness he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the

authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment. But, the authority has given capital punishment

to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the 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.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, he 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 41 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 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 Dune Laxmipathi is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

325

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Dune Laxmipathi 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 Dune Laxmipathi 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 musters 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 10^th day of

November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 155-—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- 33@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2007) 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. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 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 9^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 33/2007

Between :

Sri Nathariki Rajam,

S/o Mallaiah,

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.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

KK-5 Incline,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Nathariki Rajam 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/7/2/00/4149 dated 26.9.2000 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.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in the year 1990 and later he was promoted as Coal Filler in the year 1995.

The Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 1998. But during the year 1999, the Petitioner suffered with illness

and other family problems. While the matters stood thus, 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 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/7/2/00/4149 dated 26.9.2000. 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 the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner has rendered 10 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/7/2/00/4149 dated

26.9.2000 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..

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

327

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs 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 Respondents’ company on 24.9.1990 as Badli Filler and he was regularised as Coal filler on

1.9.1995. 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.

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 5.3.2009.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Nathariki Rajam is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted

that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. 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 his illness and family 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.

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.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and family problems, 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 41 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 being an

able bodied 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 Nathariki Rajam is not legal and

justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Nathariki Rajam 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 Respondents’

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 only

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 Nathariki Rajam 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 either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters 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 9^th day of

November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 156-—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- 100@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2007) 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. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

329

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 8^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 100/2007

Between :

Sri Sangam Jampaiah,

S/o Sangam Laxmaiah,

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.,

Srirampur Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RK-6 Incline, Srirampur

Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

Shri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Sangam Jampaiah 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. RKP/Per/R/008/5927 dated 26.10.2002 issued by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service

duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits

etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 10.9.2000 in 1^st Respondent’s company and rendered his services

sincerely. While the matter stood thus, a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and notice dated 7.1.2000 was

issued to him 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, 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 ex parte

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 2001 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 26.10.2002. 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 3

years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his

sickness and family problems which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the

above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service

330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vide one office order. 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. RKP/Per/R/008/5927 dated 26.10.2002 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and

to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all

other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with averments in brief as

follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

has been dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly

following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without

sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 2001. 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 Vartha daily newspaper dated 25.5.2002 advising the Petitioner

to attend an enquiry fixed on 5.6.2002. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor

attended the enquiry, as such an ex parte enquiry was conducted on 5.6.2002 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 made

in 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.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 20.2.2009, in view

of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sangam Jampaiah is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No. 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.

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.

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 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

331

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 Sangam Jampaiah 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 Sangam Jampaiah 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 Sangam Jampaiah 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 8^th day of

November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 157-—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- 123@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/2007) 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. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-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 8^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 123/2007

Between :

Sri Akula Satyanarayana,

S/o Ramulu,

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 (P) Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

2. The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RK-New Tech,

Srirampur (P) Area, Srirampur,

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 Akula Satyanarayana, 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/35.A/02/5693 dated 13.12.2002 issued by Respondent

No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner

into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 5.4.2000 in 1^st Respondent’s company and rendered his services

sincerely. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet dated 15.2.2002 was issued to him by the Respondents alleging

that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2001, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing

Order No. 25.25. Subsequently an enquiry was conducted by the Department without the knowledge of the Petitioner

and proceeding dated 13.12.2002 was issued consequent upon the ex parte enquiry conducted and lastly the Petitioner

was dismissed from service. It is submitted that the Petitioner was suffering from ill-health and his father seriously ill

and expired on 2.9.2001. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was not aware of issuance of the charge sheet, or its

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

333

publication in the newspaper due to which he could not be able to participate in the enquiry. He remained absent from

duty only on account of his sickness and also due his father’s ill-health which ought not to have been treated as a

serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions,

the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 13.12.2002. 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 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/35.A/02/5693 dated 13.12.2002 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside

the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other

attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with averments in brief as

follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner has been

dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following

the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed on 7.5.2002 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. The Petitioner admitted his mistake before the Enquiry

Officer. 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. The Petitioner in his deposition before the

Enquiry Officer stated that during the year 2001 due to his ill health he remained absent from duties and assured to be

careful in his duty and work without absence in future. 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. It is further stated that as the charge levelled against the Petitioner was 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 any 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 issuance of charge sheet, and receipt of

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.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 27.1.2010, basing

on the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, which had been filed not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Akula Satyanarayana is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.1: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to his father’s illness, and his illness 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 his illness and the illness of his 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 without considering the genuineness of the absenteeism has given capital punishment to the Petitioner

when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondent company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness

of the Petitioner and his father, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty and a proceeding was

initiated for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were

proved. For this, capital punishment has been imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless

334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He being the sole bread earner of his family has already

realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court and is ready to provide bread and butter to his family members.

When the Petitioner has already realised his mistake atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into

service. Further more, 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 Akula Satyanarayana 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 Satyanarayana is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. Now, after dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being

the sole earning member of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances, atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondents’ management. But the Petitioner is not entitled to get any other relief as claimed in his petition. But he

is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management to maintain his livelihood.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

It is ordered that the workman Sri Akula Satyanarayana 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 either 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 passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 8^th day of

November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2017

dk-vk- 158-—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- 133@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

335

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2017

S.O. 158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/2007) 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. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.01.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-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 8^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 133/2007

Between :

Sri Merugu Venkaty,

S/o Posham,

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.,

BPA (P) Area, Bellampalli,

Adilabad District.

2. The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Goleti No. 1 Incline,

Bellampalli, Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Merugu Venkaty 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.BAP/129/1934 dated 22.7.1999 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal,

arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly

granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc.,

and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 28.9.1985 and subsequently was regular to his duties. While the

matter stood thus, a proceeding dated 22.7.199 was issued to him 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 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 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 made

by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was

336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2017/MAGHA 1, 1938

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 1998 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 22.7.1999. 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 about 14 years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. He remained absent from duty only

on account of his sickness which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the

above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service

vide office order dated 22.7.1999. 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.BAP/129/1934 dated 22.7.1999 issued by the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary

and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly

granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in

brief which runs 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 Vartha daily newspaper dated 19.9.1998 advising the Petitioner

to attend an enquiry fixed on 23.9.1998. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor

attended the enquiry, as such an ex parte enquiry was conducted on 23.9.1998 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

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.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 30.6.2009, in view

of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Merugu Venkaty is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 21] 2017@ek?k 1] 1938

337