1068 GI/2017
(1191)
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- 10]
ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 5—ekpZ 11] 2017] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 14—iQkYxqu 20] 1938
No. 10]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 5—MARCH 11, 2017, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 14—PHALGUNA 20, 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
oL=k ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 iQjojh] 2017
dk-vk- 575-—dsUnzh; ljdkj (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds
vuqlj.k esa] oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks ftlds 80% ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr
dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS %&
jk"Vªh; iVlu cksMZ]
3, o 3ch ikdZ Iyktk]
71&ikdZ LVªhV] dksydkrk&700016 (if'pe caxky)
¹la- bZ&11016@1@@2015& ¯gnhº
iquhr vxzoky] la;qDr lfpo
1192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2017
S.O. 575.—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 office of the Ministry of Textiles, more than
80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
National Jute Board,
3A & 3B Park Plaza,
71-Park Street,
Kolkata-700016 (West Bengal)
[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi]
PUNEET AGGRAWAL, Jt. Secy.
स्वास्थ्य और पिरवार कल्याण मंᮢालय
(स्वास्थ्य और पिरवार कल्याण िवभाग)
नई िदल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 576.—जबिक भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2013 की धारा 3क की उप-धारा (I) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ
शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान अनुसंधान पिरषद का 06 नवम् बर, 2013 को पुनगर्ठन िकया गया था;
और जबिक भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 की धारा 102) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) (ख) के
ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसरण मᱶ डॉ. अरूण कुमार अᮕवाल को िदनांक 20.03.2015 से बी.एन. मंडल िवश् विव᳒ालय, मधेपुरा, िबहार का
ᮧितिनिधत् व करते हुए भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद के सदस्य के रूप मᱶ मनोनीत िकया गया था;
और जबिक पटना के माननीय उच् च न् यायालय ने सीडब् ल् यूजेसी सं. 5291/2016, डॉ. बसंत कुमार बनाम िबहार राज् य एवं
अन् य मᱶ अपने िदनांक 1.12.2016 के आदेश के तहत डॉ. अरूण कुमार अᮕवाल के िनवार्चन को अवैध घोिषत िकया था ।
अत:, अब बी.एन. मंडल िवश् विव᳒ालय, मधेपुरा, िबहार का ᮧितिनिधत् व करने वाले डॉ. अरूण कुमार अᮕवाल को तत् काल
ᮧभाव से भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद की सदस् यता समाप् त हो गई मानी जाएगी ।
[सं. वी-11013/02/2015-एमईपी (भाग)]
अिमत िबस्वास, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 28th February, 2017
S.O. 576.—Whereas on 6th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956
(102 of 1956) Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal was nominated as a member of the Medical Council of India
representing B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Bihar with effect from 20.03.2015;
And whereas the Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide its order dated 01.12.2016 in CWJC No. 5291/2016,
Dr. Basant Singh versus the State of Bihar and others declared the election of Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal null and void.
Now, therefore, Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical
Council of India representing B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Bihar with immediate effect.
[No. V-11013/02/2015-MEP(Pt.)]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1193
नई िदल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 577.—जबिक भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2013 की धारा 3क की उप-धारा (I) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ
शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान अनुसंधान पिरषद का 06 नवंबर, 2013 को पुनगर्ठन िकया गया था;
और जबिक कᱶᮤ सरकार ने भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 की धारा 102) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा
(I) के खंड (ग) के अनुसरण मᱶ, पंजीकृत िचिकत्सा ᳩातक िनवार्चन क्षेᮢ से िनवार्चन आयोिजत िकया है तथा िन᳜िलिखत को इस
अिधसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वषᲄ के िलए भारतीय आयुिवज्ञान पिरषद के सदस्य हेतु िनवार्िचत िकया गया है।
अब अतः उपयुर्Ღ अिधिनयम की धारा (3) की उप-धारा (1) के ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसरण मᱶ कᱶᮤ सरकार स्वास्थ्य मंᮢालय की
िदनांक 09 जनवरी, 1960 के तत्कालीन सा.आ. सं. 138 मᱶ भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना मᱶ एतद् ᳇ारा िन᳜िलिखत संशोधन करती है
अथार्त्:-
स्वास्थ्य और पिरवार कल्याण मंᮢालय के िदनांक 06 नवंबर, 2013 के सा.आ.सं. 3324 (अ) मᱶ भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना
मᱶ अंितम ᮧिवि᳥ तथा उससे संबंिधत ᮧिवि᳥ के उपरांत िन᳜िलिखत ᮧितस्थािपत िकया जाएगा, अथार्त् :—
ᮓ.
सं.
पंजीकृत िचिकत्सा ᳩातक िनवार्चन
क्षेᮢ का नाम
िनवार्िचत सदस्य का िववरण
िनवार्चन की
पित
18
िᮢपुरा
डा. अिभजीत दᱫा, एसोिसएट ᮧोफेसर, िवकृित िवज्ञान िवभाग,
अगरतला सरकारी िचिकत्सा कालेज एवं जीबीपी अस्पताल,
अगरतला
िनवार्िचत
[सं. वी-11013/01/2015-एमईपी (भाग-I)]
अिमत िबस्वास, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th February, 2017
S.O. 577.—Whereas on 06th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And, whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate
Constituency and the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with
effect from the date of issue of this notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then
Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:-
In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number
S.O. 3324(E) dated 06th November, 2013, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted,
namely :—
S. No.
Name
of
the
Registered
Medical
Graduate
Constituency
Details of the Elected Member
Mode
of
Election
18.
Tripura
Dr. Abhijit Datta, Associate Professor,
Department
of
Pathology,
Agartala
Government Medical College & GBP
Hospital, Agartala
Elected
[No. V-11013/01/2015-MEP (Pt. 1)]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
1194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 578-—jktho xka/h isVªksfy;e izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku (vkjthvkbZihVh) vf/fu;e] 2007 ds fu;e 5(1) ds rgr
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fuEufyf[kr O;fDr;ksa dks vkjthvkbZihVh ds iquxZfBr vf/'kklh eaMy
esa fnukad 20-02-2017 ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lnL; fu;qDr djrh gS %&
(i) Jh egs'k ch- yky] iwoZ vè;{k vkSj izca/ funs'kd] ,pihlh,y
(ii) Jh izHkkr ¯lg] lhbZvks vkSj izca/ funs'kd] isVªksusV ,y,uth
(iii) izks- izhre¯lg] iwoZ funs'kd] vkbZvkbZ,e y[kuÅ vkSj ,eMhvkbZ xq#xzke
(iv) MkW- iznhi dqekj ¯lg] funs'kd] dsaæh; [kuu vkSj b±/u vuqla/ku laLFkku] /uckn
(v) izks- Mh- jkekÑ".ku] i`Foh foKku foHkkx] vkbZvkbZVh eqacbZ A
¹iQk- la- ts&25021@13@@2014&tu- (ikVZ)º
jkt fd'kksj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 578.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum
Technology (RGIPT) Act, 2007, the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons as Members on the
reconstituted Board of Governors of RGIPT with effect from 20.02.2017 for a period of three years or until further
orders, whichever is earlier :—
(i)
Shri Mahesh B. Lal, Former C&MD, HPCL
(ii)
Shri Prabhat Singh, CEO&MD, Petronet LNG
(iii)
Prof. Pritam Singh, Former Director, IIM Lucknow and MDI Gurugram
(iv)
Dr. Pradip Kumar Singh, Director, Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Dhanbad
(v)
Prof. D. Ramakrishnan, Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Bombay
[F. No. J-25021/13/2014-Gen. (Pt.)]
RAJ KISHORE, Under Secy.
fo|qr ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 579-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4)
ds vuqlj.k esa] fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds psUuS laidZ o fujh{k.k dk;kZy;] la- 2
(iqjkuk la- 16)] igyh xyh] Hkkjrh uxj] ukFkZ mLeku jksM] Vh- uxj] psUuS&600017] ftlds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjhoa`n us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS A
¹la- 11017@10@2013& ¯gnhº
vatw HkYyk] la;qDr lfpo (iz'kk-)
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1195
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 579.—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 notify the Chennai Liaison & Inspection Office, No. 2 (Old No.
16) 1st Street, Bharati Nagar, North Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017 of the Power Grid Corporation of India
Ltd. under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]
ANJU BHALLA, Jt. Secy. (Adm.)
उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय
(उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग)
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 580.—भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(i)
का.आ. सं0 3289 िदनांक 25 िदसम् बर, 2004 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ii)
का.आ. सं0 81 िदनांक 08 जनवरी, 2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(iii)
का.आ. सं0 2257 िदनांक 9 अगस् त, 2002 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(iv)
का.आ. सं0 436 िदनांक 13 फरवरी, 2010 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(v)
का.आ. सं0 1472 िदनांक 15 अᮧैल, 2006 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(vi)
का.आ. सं0 1473 िदनांक 15 अᮧैल, 2006 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “शेखर ᮩदसर्” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “शेखर इंटरनेशनल” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा. सं. डÊ Ð यू.एम-19(86)/2014]
बी. एन. दीि±त, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िव²ान)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 580.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-
section (ii)-
(i)
S. O. No. 3289 dated 25th December, 2004, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brothers”.
(ii)
S. O. No. 81 dated 8th January, 2005, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brother”.
(iii)
S. O. No. 2257 dated 9th August, 2002, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brothers”.
1196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iv)
S. O. No. 436 dated 13th February, 2010, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brothers”.
(v)
S. O. No. 1472 dated 15th April, 2006, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brothers”.
(vi)
S. O. No. 1473 dated 15th April, 2006, in second para the words “Shekhar International” shall be
substituted for the words “Shekhar Brothers”.
[F. No. WM-19(86)/2014]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 581.—भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(i)
का.आ. संख् या 1262 िदनांक 7 जून, 2008 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “इंडोसॉ” शब् द के स् थान पर “यूरोटेक” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत
िकए जाएंगे।
(ii)
का.आ. संख् या 1280 िदनांक 16 मई, 2009 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् कुमार सत् यम” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् कुमार
िसस् टम” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(iii)
का.आ. संख् या 1281 िदनांक 16 मई, 2009 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् कुमार सत् यम” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् कुमार
िसस् टम” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(iv)
का.आ. संख् या 1281 िदनांक 16 मई, 2009 के तीसरे पैरा मᱶ “कम से कम 10 िकलोᮕाम की क्षमता। वेिरिफकेशन स् केल
इंटरवल (ई) 1 िकलोᮕाम है” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “कम से कम 200 िकलोᮕाम की क्षमता। वेिरिफकेशन स् केल इंटरवल
(ई) 10 िकलोᮕाम है” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(v)
का.आ. संख् या 1282 िदनांक 16 मई, 2009 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् कुमार सत् यम” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् कुमार
िसस् टम” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा.सं. डब् ल् यू.एम-19(77)/2016]
बी. एन. दीिक्षत, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िवज्ञान)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 581.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii)-
(i)
S. O. No. 1262 dated 7th June, 2008, in second para the words “EUROTECH” shall be substituted for the
words “INDOSAW”.
(ii)
S. O. No. 1280 dated 16th May, 2009, in second para the words “M/s Kumar System” shall be substituted
for the words “M/s Kumar Satyam”.
(iii)
S. O. No. 1281 dated 16th May, 2009, in second para the words “M/s Kumar System” shall be substituted
for the words “M/s Kumar Satyam”.
(iv)
S. O. No. 1281 dated 16th May, 2009, in third para the words “minimum capacity of 200kg. The
verification scale interval (e) is 10kg” shall be substituted for the words “minimum capacity of 10kg. The
verification scale interval (e) is 1kg”
(v)
S. O. No. 1282 dated 16th May, 2009, in second para the words “M/s Kumar System” shall be substituted
for the words “M/s Kumar Satyam”.
[F. No. WM-19(77)/2016]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1197
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 582.— भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(क)
का.आ. संख् या 3917 िदनांक 29 अक् टूबर,2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् जे0 पािरख एण् ड सन् स, बी-43, िᮢथभूिम
अपाटर्मᱶट, नसर्री के सामने, लो गाडर्न के िनकट, एिलसिᮩज, अहमदाबाद-380006” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् जे0
पािरख एण् ड सन् स, 1, िवनोबानगर, पंचशील बस स् टॉप के िनकट, गाडर्न रोड, उस् मानपुरा, अहमदाबाद-14, गुजरात”
शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ख)
का.आ. संख् या 3918 िदनांक 29 अक् टूबर,2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् जे0 पािरख एण् ड सन् स, बी-43, िᮢथभूिम
अपाटर्मᱶट, नसर्री के सामने, लो गाडर्न के िनकट, एिलसिᮩज, अहमदाबाद-380006” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् जे0
पािरख एण् ड सन् स, 1, िवनोबानगर, पंचशील बस स् टॉप के िनकट, गाडर्न रोड, उस् मानपुरा, अहमदाबाद-14, गुजरात”
शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ग)
का.आ. संख् या 3919 िदनांक 29 अक् टूबर,2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् जे0 पािरख एण् ड सन् स, बी-43, िᮢथभूिम
अपाटर्मᱶट, नसर्री के सामने, लो गाडर्न के िनकट, एिलसिᮩज, अहमदाबाद-380006” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् जे0
पािरख एण् ड सन् स, 1, िवनोबानगर, पंचशील बस स् टॉप के िनकट, गाडर्न रोड, उस् मानपुरा, अहमदाबाद-14, गुजरात”
शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(घ)
का.आ. संख् या 3920 िदनांक 29 अक् टूबर,2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् जे0 पािरख एण् ड सन् स, बी-43, िᮢथभूिम
अपाटर्मᱶट, नसर्री के सामने, लो गाडर्न के िनकट, एिलसिᮩज, अहमदाबाद-380006” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् जे0
पािरख एण् ड सन् स, 1, िवनोबानगर, पंचशील बस स् टॉप के िनकट, गाडर्न रोड, उस् मानपुरा, अहमदाबाद-14, गुजरात”
शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा.सं. डब् ल् यू.एम-19(76)/2015]
बी.एन. दीिक्षत, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िवज्ञान)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 582.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-
section (ii)-
(a)
S. O. No. 3917 dated 29th October, 2005, in second para the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons, 1,
Vinobanagar, Nr. Panchshil Bus-Stop, Garden Road, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-14, Gujarat” shall be
substituted for the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons., B-43, Trithbhoomi Apartment, Opp. Nursery, Near
Low Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006”.
(b)
S. O. No. 3918 dated 29th October, 2005, in second para the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons, 1,
Vinobanagar, Nr. Panchshil Bus-Stop, Garden Road, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-14, Gujarat” shall be
substituted for the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons., B-43, Trithbhoomi Apartment, Opp. Nursery, Near
Low Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006”.
(c)
S. O. No. 3919 dated 29th October, 2005, in second para the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons, 1,
Vinobanagar, Nr. Panchshil Bus-Stop, Garden Road, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-14, Gujarat” shall be
substituted for the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons., B-43, Trithbhoomi Apartment, Opp. Nursery, Near
Low Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006”.
(d)
S. O. No. 3920 dated 29th October, 2005, in second para the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons, 1,
Vinobanagar, Nr. Panchshil Bus-Stop, Garden Road, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-14, Gujarat” shall be
substituted for the words “M/s J. Parikh & Sons., B-43, Trithbhoomi Apartment, Opp. Nursery, Near
Low Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006”.
[F. No. WM-19(76)/2015]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
1198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 583.—भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(क) का.आ. संख् या 2861 िदनांक 29 जुलाई, 2006 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम, 65-बी,
डी0डी0ए0 फ्लैट्स, मानसरोवर पाकर्, शाहदरा, िदल् ली” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम,
प् लॉट नं0 42, खसरा सं0 292, ᮕाम मोखमपुर, दैिनक जागरण कायार्लय के पीछे, िदल् ली रोड, मेरठ-250002, उत् तर
ᮧदेश” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ख) का.आ. संख् या 2860 िदनांक 29 जुलाई, 2006 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम, 65-बी,
डी0डी0ए0 फ्लैट्स, मानसरोवर पाकर्, शाहदरा, िदल् ली” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम,
प् लॉट नं0 42, खसरा सं0 292, ᮕाम मोखमपुर, दैिनक जागरण कायार्लय के पीछे, िदल् ली रोड, मेरठ-250002, उत् तर
ᮧदेश” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ग)
का.आ. संख् या 4018 िदनांक 5 नवम् बर, 2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम, 65-बी,
डी0डी0ए0 फ्लैट्स, मानसरोवर पाकर्, शाहदरा, िदल् ली” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम,
प् लॉट नं0 42, खसरा सं0 292, ᮕाम मोखमपुर, दैिनक जागरण कायार्लय के पीछे, िदल् ली रोड, मेरठ-250002, उत् तर
ᮧदेश” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(घ)
का.आ. संख् या 4019 िदनांक 5 नवम् बर, 2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड िसस् टम, 65-बी,
डी0डी0ए0 फ्लैट्स, मानसरोवर पाकर्, शाहदरा, िदल् ली” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् एम0जी0 इलैक् ᮝॉिनक् स एण् ड
िसस् टम, प् लॉट नं0 42, खसरा सं0 292, ᮕाम मोखमपुर, दैिनक जागरण कायार्लय के पीछे, िदल् ली रोड, मेरठ-250002,
उत् तर ᮧदेश” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा.सं. डब् ल् यू.एम-19(76)/2015]
बी. एन. दीिक्षत, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िवज्ञान)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 583.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-
section (ii)-
(a)
S. O. No. 2861 dated 29th July, 2006, in second para the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, Plot
No. 42, Khasra No. 292, Village Mokhampur, Behind Dainik Jagran Office, Delhi Road, Merrut-250002,
Uttar Pradesh” shall be substituted for the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, 65-B, DDA Flats,
Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi”.
(b)
S. O. No. 2860 dated 29th July, 2006, in second para the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, Plot
No. 42, Khasra No. 292, Village Mokhampur, Behind Dainik Jagran Office, Delhi Road, Merrut-250002,
Uttar Pradesh” shall be substituted for the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, 65-B, DDA Flats,
Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi”.
(c)
S. O. No. 4018 dated 5th November, 2005, in second para the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System,
Plot No. 42, Khasra No. 292, Village Mokhampur, Behind Dainik Jagran Office, Delhi Road, Merrut-
250002, Uttar Pradesh” shall be substituted for the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, 65-B, DDA
Flats, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi”.
(d)
S. O. No. 4019 dated 5th November, 2005, in second para the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System,
Plot No. 42, Khasra No. 292, Village Mokhampur, Behind Dainik Jagran Office, Delhi Road, Merrut-
250002, Uttar Pradesh” shall be substituted for the words “M/s M. G. Electronics & System, 65-B, DDA
Flats, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi”.
[F. No. WM-19(76)/2015]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1199
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 584.—भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(क)
का.आ. संख् या 1533 िदनांक 5 मई, 2012 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् वारादे ऑटोमेशन सॉल् यूशन ᮧाईवेट िलिमटेड” शब् दᲂ
के स् थान पर “मैससर् वारादे पैकटेक ᮧा0 िलिमटेड” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
(ख)
का.आ. संख् या 3356 िदनांक 26 नवम् बर, 2011 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “मैससर् वारादे ऑटोमेशन सॉल् यूशन ᮧाईवेट िलिमटेड”
शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “मैससर् वारादे पैकटेक ᮧा0 िलिमटेड” शब् द ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा.सं. डब् ल् यू.एम-19(76)/2015]
बी. एन. दीिक्षत, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िवज्ञान)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 584.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-
section (ii)-
(a) S. O. No. 1533 dated 5th May, 2012, in second para the words “M/s Warade PackTech Pvt. Ltd.” shall be
substituted for the words “M/s Warade Automation Solutions Private Limited”.
(b) S. O. No. 3356 dated 26th November, 2011, in second para the words “M/s Warade Pack Tech Pvt. Ltd.”
shall be substituted for the words “M/s Warade Automation Solutions Private Limited”.
[F. No. WM-19(76)/2015]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
नई िदल् ली, 22 फरवरी, 2017
का.आ. 585.—भारत के राजपᮢ भाग II, खण् ड 3, उपखंड (ii) मᱶ ᮧकािशत, उपभोक् ता मामले, खा᳒ एवं सावर्जिनक िवतरण
मंᮢालय (उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग) भारत सरकार की अिधसूचना –
(i)
का.आ. सं0 3228 िदनांक 10 िसतम् बर, 2005 के दूसरे पैरा मᱶ “क् लॉस-III” शब् दᲂ के स् थान पर “क् लॉस-IIII” शब् द
ᮧितस् थािपत िकए जाएंगे।
[फा.सं. डब् ल् यू.एम-9(81)/2015]
बी. एन. दीिक्षत, िनदेशक (िविधक माप िवज्ञान)
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2017
S.O. 585.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Minsitry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs) published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section
(ii)-
(i)
S. O. No. 3228 dated 10th September, 2005, in second para the words “Class-IIII” shall be substituted
for the words “Class-III”.
[F. No. WM-9(81)/2015]
B. N. DIXIT, Director (Legal Metrology)
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 586-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls
blesa blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds
}kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 1812¼v½] rkjh[k 30 ekpZ] 2015] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM
1200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3] mi&[kaM ¼iia½] rkjh[k 4 tqykbZ] 2015 esa izdkf’kr vkSj la’kksf/kr vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 2973¼v½] rkjh[k 15 flrEcj]
2016] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼iia½] rkjh[k 16 flrEcj] 2016 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 1000-076 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2471-19 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk’k; dh uksfVl nh Fkh;
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwph esa fofgr dh xbZ mDr Hkwfe
ds Hkkx esa dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS ;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 1000-076 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2471.19 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ds
;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj ds vtZu djus ds vius vk”k; dh uksfVl nsrh gS:
fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@504]
rkjh[k 7 fnlEcj] 2016 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk&vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns”k½ vkSj dyDVj] ftyk& dksfj;k ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds
dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l
fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS%&
^^8- vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa-&¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ
gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij
ds fdUgha vf/kdkjkas dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA
Li"Vhdj.k]& bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy,
Loa; [kuu lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A
¼2½
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh]
vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a lqus tkus ;k fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i’pkr~
vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i”pkr] tks og vko”;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½
ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdMsa+
;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj’kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds
vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu’p; ds fy, nsxkA
¼3½
bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk
gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gS^^A
fVIi.k 3 % dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3
ds v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii) esa
4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA
vuqlwph
ve`r/kkjk vkslhih ¼dqYgfj;k Cykd½
tequk dksrek {ks=
ftyk vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns’k½ vkSj dksfj;k ¼NRrhlx<+½
¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@504] rkjh[k 7 fnlEcj] 2016½
lHkh vf/kdkj%
¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe%
Øe
la[;k
xzke dk
uke
iVokjh
gYdk
la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj esa fVIif.k;ka
1-
Vkadh
70
dksrek
vuqiiqj
93.516
Hkkx
dqy % 93.516 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 231.08 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1201
¼[k½ ou Hkwfe%
Øe
la[;k
ou dk uke
jsat
izHkkx
{ks= gsDVj esa
fVIif.k;ka
1-
Vkadh
dksrek
vuqiiqj
200.184
Hkkx
2-
HkkBhljbZ
dksrek
vuqiiqj
359.089
Hkkx
3-
eyxk
dksrek
vuqiiqj
115.527
Hkkx
4-
dksjk
eusUnzx<+
eusUnzx<+
231.760
Hkkx
dqy % 906.560 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2240.11 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
dqy ;ksx ¼d$[k½% 1000.076 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½
;k 2471.19 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
1-
xzke Vkadh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 406 ls 409] 410¼Hkkx½]430¼Hkkx½] 432¼Hkkx½] 433 ls 436]
437¼Hkkx½] 438 ls 449] 450¼Hkkx½] 451¼Hkkx½-
2-
ou Vkadh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 410¼Hkkx½] 430¼Hkkx½] 432¼Hkkx½] 437¼Hkkx½] 450¼Hkkx½]
451¼Hkkx½-
3-
ou HkkBhljbZ ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 645¼Hkkx½] 646] 647¼Hkkx½] 649¼Hkkx½] 650 ls 656-
4-
ou eyxk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 240] 241¼Hkkx½] 246¼Hkkx½]247] 248¼Hkkx½] 253¼Hkkx½ ls
255¼Hkkx½] 260¼Hkkx½] 261] 262¼Hkkx½] 263¼Hkkx½] 269¼Hkkx½] 270¼Hkkx½-
5-
ou dksjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys dEikVZesaV la[;k% 680¼Hkkx½] 681¼Hkkx½]682¼Hkkx½-
lhek &o.kZu %
d&[k
js[kk] fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ou HkkBhljbZ ds IykV la[;k 645] 647] 649 ls gksdj fQj ou eyxk
esa izos’k dj IykV la[;k 270] 269] 262] 263] 260 ls gksdj 261 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkSj fcUnq **[k** ij
feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk] fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ou eyxk ds IykV la[;k 255] 254] 253] 248] 246] 241] 240 ls
gksrh gqbZ fQj dksjk ou esa izos”k dj dEikVZesaV la[;k 680 ls gksrh gqbZ vkSj fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA
x&?k&³ js[kk] fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj dksjk ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;k 680] fcUnq ^?k^] dEikVZesaV la[;k 681] 682
ls gksrh gqbZ vkSj fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA
³&d
js[kk] fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ou dksjk ds dEikVZesaV la[;k 682 ls gksdj ou Vkadh esa izos”k dj
IykV la[;k 451] 450] 430] 410] 437 ls gksrh gqbZ HkkBhljbZ ou esa izos”k dj IykV la[;k 645 ls gksrh gqbZ
vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA
[ Qk-la- 43015@06@2017&,y , ,.M vkbZvkj]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 586.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number
S.O. 1812(E), dated the 30th March, 2015 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-
section(ii), dated the 4th July,2015 and as amended vide notification number S.O.2973(E), dated the
15th September,2016 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the
16th September,2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government gave notice of
1202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
its intention to prospect for coal in 1000.076 hectare (approximately) or 2471.19 acre (approximately) of the lands in
the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed
in the Schedule appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 1000.076 hectare (approximately) or
2471.19 acre (approximately) as all rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:
Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG) / LAND/ 504, dated the 7th December, 2016 of the area
covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) and
Collector, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -
700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006
(Chhattisgarh).
Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-
“8. Objection to Acquisition.-- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section
7 has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any
part of the land or any rights in or over such land.
Explanation,- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself
desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be
undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.
(2)
Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent
authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after
hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report
in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or
make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central
Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by
him, for the decision of the Government.
(3)
For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to
claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act”.
Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001, has been appointed by the Central
Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the
20th March, 1987, published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April, 1987.
SCHEDULE
Amritdhara OCP (Kulharia Block)
Jamuna Kotma Area
District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) and Korea (Chhattisgarh)
[ Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 504, dated the 7th December, 2016]
All Rights:
(A) Revenue land:
Sl.
No.
Name of
village
Patwari
halka
number
Tahsil
District
Area in
hectare
Remarks
1.
Tanki
70
Kotma
Anuppur
93.516
Part
Total : 93.516 hectare (approximately) or 231.08 acre (approximately)
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1203
(B) Forest land:
Sl.
No.
Name of
Forest
Range
Division
Area in
hectare
Remarks
1.
Tanki
Kotma
Anuppur
200.184
Part
2.
Bhathisarai
Kotma
Anuppur
359.089
Part
3.
Malga
Kotma
Anuppur
115.527
Part
4.
Kora
Manendragarh
Manendragarh
231.760
Part
Total : 906.560 hectare (approximately) or 2240.11 acre (approximately)
Grand total (A+B) = 1000.076 hectare (approximately)
or 2471.19 acre (approximately)
1.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Tanki (Part): 406 to 409, 410(P), 430(P), 432(P), 433 to 436, 437(P),
438 to 449, 450(P), 451(P).
2.
Plot numbers to be acquired in Tanki Forest (Part): 410(P), 430(P), 432(P), 437(P), 450(P), 451(P).
3.
Plot numbers to be acquired in Bhathisarai Forest (Part): 645(P), 646, 647(P), 649(P), 650 to 656.
4.
Plot numbers to be acquired in Malga Forest (Part): 240, 241(P), 246(P), 247, 248(P), 253(P) to 255(P),
260(P), 261, 262(P), 263(P), 269(P), 270(P).
5.
Compartment numbers to be acquired in Kora Forest (Part): 680(P), 681(P), 682(P).
Boundary description:
A-B
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in Bhathisarai Forest through plot number 645, 647, 649 then enter in
Malga Forest and passes through plot number 270, 269, 262, 263, 260, along eastern boundary of 261 and
meets at point ‘B’.
B-C
Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in Malga Forest through plot number 255, 254, 253,248, 246, 241,
240 then enter in Kora Forest and passes through compartment no. 680 and meets at point ‘C’.
C-D-E
Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in Kora Forest through compartment no. 680, point ‘D’, compartment
no. 681, 682 and meets at point ‘E’.
E-A
Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in Kora Forest through compartment no. 682 then enter in Tanki
Forest and passes through plot number 451, 450, 430, 410, 437 then enter in Bhathisarai Forest and passes
through plot number 645 and meets at starting point ‘A’.
[ F.No. 43015/06/2017-LA&IR ]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 587-& केन्ᮤीय सरकार को यह ᮧतीत होता है िक इसके उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ विणत पिरक्षेᮢ की भूिम मᱶ से कोयला
अिभᮧा᳙ होने की संभावना है ;
और उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणत भूिम के क्षेᮢ मᱶ अंतिव᳥ करने वाला रेखांक संख्यांक आर.ई.वी./01/2017, तारीख 4 जनवरी,
2017 का िनरीक्षण सᱶᮝल कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड (भूिम और राजस्व िवभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, राँची – 834029 (झारखण्ड) के कायार्लय
मᱶ या महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड, ढोरी क्षेᮢ, िजला- बोकारो ( झारखण्ड) के कायार्लय मᱶ या उपायुᲦ, िजला-बोकारो
(झारखण्ड) या महाᮧबंधक (खोज ᮧभाग), आर.आई.-III, केन्ᮤीय खान योजना एवं िडजाइन संस्थान िलिमटेड, गᲂडवाना पैलेस, कांके
रोड, राँची (झारखंड) के कायार्लय मᱶ या कोयला िनयंᮢक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस स्ᮝीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के कायार्लय मᱶ िकया जा
सकता है;
1204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अतः, अब, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेᮢ (अजर्न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) ( िजसे इसमᱶ इसके
प᳟ात उᲦ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए, उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणत भूिम
मᱶ कोयले का पूवᱷक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।
उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब कोई ᳞िᲦ –
(i)
संपूणर् भूिम या उसके िकसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम मᱶ या उसके ऊपर िकसी अिधकार के अजर्न पर आक्षेप कर सकेगा; अथवा
(ii)
उᲦ अिधिनयम की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (3) के अधीन की गई कारर्वाई से हुई क्षित या संभािवत क्षित अिधिनयम की धारा
6 के अधीन िकसी नुकसानी के िलए ᮧितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; अथवा
(iii)
उᲦ अिधिनयम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा (1) के अधीन समा᳙ हो गई पूवᱷक्षण अनुज्ञि᳙यᲂ के संबंध मᱶ या उᲦ अिधिनयम
की धारा 13 की उप- धारा (4) के अधीन समा᳙ हो गये खनन पᲵे के िलए ᮧितकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उᲦ अिधिनयम
की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) मᱶ िविन᳸द᳥ मदᲂ के संबंध मᱶ उपगत ᳞य को उपदिशत करने के िलए
उᲦ भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचᮢᲂ, सारिणयᲂ और अन्य दस्तावेजᲂ को सुपुदर् करेगा,
इस अिधसूचना के राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे िदनᲂ के भीतर महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड, ढोरी क्षेᮢ, िजला
बोकारो (झारखंड) या महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड, (भूिम और राजस्व िवभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, राँची – 834029
(झारखण्ड) को सुपुदर् करेगा ।
अनुसूची
सेलेक्टेड ढोरी खुली खदान खान
िजला- बोकारो (झारखंड)
(रेखांक संख्यांक आर.ई.वी./01/2017, तारीख 4 जनवरी, 2017)
ᮓम
संख्या
ᮕाम
थाना
थाना
संख्या
िजला
क्षेᮢफल
(एकड़
मᱶ)
क्षेᮢफल
(हेक्टेयर
मᱶ)
िटप्पणी
1॰
तुिरयो
चन्ᮤपुरा
78
बोकारो
18.41
7.45
भाग
कुल:
18.41
7.45
कुल: 18.41 एकड़ (लगभग) या 7.45 हेक्टेयर (लगभग)
सीमा-वणर्न:
क-ख-ग-घ-ड.-च-छ
रेखा, प्लाट संख्या 1 के भीतर िबन्दु ‘क’ से ᮧारंभ होकर प्लाट संख्या 1 के भीतर िबन्दु ‘ख’,’ग’,’घ’,’ड.’ और ’च’
से गुजरते हुए और िबन्दु ‘छ’ पर िमलती है ।
छ-ज-झ-ञ-ट-ठ
रेखा, िबन्दु ‘छ’ से ‘ठ’ तक प्लाट संख्या 308, 298, 294, 293, 285, 286 तथा 283 की सीमा रेखा से
गुजरते हुए और िबन्दु ‘ठ’ पर िमलती है ।
ठ-ड-ढ-ण-त-थ-द-
रेखा, िबन्दु ‘ठ’ से ‘ब’ तक प्लाट संख्या 273, 25, 23, 21, 20, 19,18, 17, 16, 15, 11,10 तथा 9 की
ध-न-प-फ-ब-क
सीमा से गुजरते हुए प्लाट संख्या 1 के भीतर ᮧारंिभक िबन्दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है ।
[ फा.सं. 43015/10/2017-एलए एण्ड आईआर ]
सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1205
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 587.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in
the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/01/2017, dated the 4th January, 2017 containing details of the
areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and
Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central
Coalfields Limited, Dhori Area, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand), Deputy Commissioner, District -Bokaro (Jharkhand) or
at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI- III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute
Limited, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House
Street, Kolkata- 700 001;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the said Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, —
(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or
(ii)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any
action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof ; or
(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to
have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the
expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of
the said Act,
to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori Area, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) or General
Manager, Central Coalfields Limited (Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi - 834029
(Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
Selected Dhori Opencast Mine
District – Bokaro(Jharkhand)
(Plan bearing number Rev/01/2017, dated 4th January, 2017)
Sl.
No.
Village
Thana
Thana
number
District
Area
(in
acres)
Area
( in
hectares)
Remarks
1.
Turio
Chandrapura
78
Bokaro
18.41
7.45
Part
Total:
18.41
7.45
Total: 18.41 acres (approximately) or 7.45 hectares (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B-C-D-E-F-G
:
Line starts from point ‘A’ within plot number 1 and passes through points ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’,
‘E’ and ‘F’ and meets at point ‘G’ within the plot number 1.
G-H-I-J-K-L
:
Line passes through points ‘G’ to ‘L’ through boundary line of plot numbers 308, 298,
294, 293, 285, 286 and 283 and meets at point L.
L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-
:
Line passes through points ‘L’ to ‘W’ through boundary line of plot numbers 273, 25,
S-T-U-V-W-A
23, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 11, 10 and 9 and meets at starting point ‘A’ within the
plot number 1.
[ F.No. 43015/10/2017-LA&IR]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
1206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 588-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls
blesa blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds
}kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 302] rkjh[k 19 Qjojh] 2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM
¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 20 Qjojh] 2016 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk lsa layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa
ftldk eki 2727-323 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 6739-21 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nh
Fkh;
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk esa mikc} vuqlwph esa fofgr dh xbZ mDr Hkwfe
esa dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 1632-380 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 4033-61 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ds
;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS:
fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@
Hkwfe@2016@503] rkjh[k 7 fnlEcj] 2016 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk lqjtiqj vkSj ljxqtk ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k
dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM
¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj & 495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS:-
^^8- vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifRr;ka-& ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ
gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij
ds fdUgha vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA
Li"Vhdj.k-& bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a
[kuu lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A
¼2½
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh]
vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a lqus tkus ;k fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i”pkr~
vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp];fn dksbZ gks]djus ds i”pkr] tks og vko”;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+ksa ;k
,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj”kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds
vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu”p; ds fy, nsxk^^A
¼3½
bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk
gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA^^
fVIi.k 3% dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3
ds v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii) esa
4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA
vuqlwph
jsgj if”peh Cykd] foJkeiqj {ks=]
ftyk& lqjtiqj vkSj ljxqtk ¼NRrhlx<+½
[js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@2016@503] rkjh[k 7 fnlEcj] 2016]
Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%
¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe %
Øze
la-
xzke dk uke xzke la[;k
iVokjh gYdk
la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj esa fVIif.k;ka
1-
tkscxk
275
11
lqjtiqj
lqjtiqj
119.153
Hkkx
2-
iksaMh
270
12
lqjtiqj
lqjtiqj
176.595
Hkkx
3-
lidjk
418
27
lqjtiqj
lqjtiqj
83.240
Hkkx
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1207
¼[k½ lajf{kr ou Hkwfe %
Øze
la-
ou dk izdkj
dEikVZesaV
la[;k
jsat
izHkkx
{ks=
gsDVj esa
fVIif.k;ka
1-
Lakjf{kr ou
ih 1729
ekuh
nf{k.k ljxqtk
134.690
laiw.kZ
2-
Lakjf{kr ou
ih 1759
iksaMh
nf{k.k ljxqtk
67.340
laiw.kZ
3-
Lakjf{kr ou
ih 1760
jktkiqj
nf{k.k ljxqtk
150.142
laiw.kZ
4-
Lakjf{kr ou
ih 1761
jktkiqj
nf{k.k ljxqtk
25.550
Hkkx
5-
Lakjf{kr ou
ohoh,uih 1843
ySaxk
nf{k.k ljxqtk
77.810
Hkkx
6-
Lakjf{kr ou
ohoh,uih 1844
ySaxk
nf{k.k ljxqtk
32.167
laiw.kZ
dqy % 487.699 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1205.10 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
dqy ;ksx ¼d$[k½% 1144.681+487.699=1632.380 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½
;k 4033.61 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
1-
xzke tkscxk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 77(Hkkx), 78 ls 81] 82(Hkkx), 83 ls 94] 95(Hkkx),
96(Hkkx), 110(Hkkx), 125(Hkkx), 126 ls 133] 134(Hkkx), 135 ls 139] 140(Hkkx), 442] 443] 444(Hkkx), 445(Hkkx),
446 ls 485] 486(Hkkx), 487(Hkkx), 613(Hkkx), 614] 615] 616(Hkkx), 617 ls 636] 637(Hkkx), 644(Hkkx), 645(Hkkx),
646 ls 709] 710(Hkkx), 711] 712(Hkkx), 719(Hkkx), 833(Hkkx), 834 ls 837] 838] 1021(Hkkx), ls 1024(Hkkx),
1027(Hkkx) ls 1029(Hkkx), 1030] 1031] 1032(Hkkx), 1036(Hkkx), 1037 ls 1040] 1041(Hkkx), 1042(Hkkx), 1044(Hkkx),
1045 ls 1076] 1077(Hkkx), 1078 ls 1152-
2-
xzke iksaMh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 188] 189(Hkkx), 190] 191] 192(Hkkx), 193(Hkkx), 194]
195] 196(Hkkx), 271] 272(Hkkx), 273] 274(Hkkx), 288(Hkkx), 291(Hkkx), 292 ls 304] 305(Hkkx), 306 ls 366]
369(Hkkx), 372(Hkkx), 374(Hkkx), 375(Hkkx), 376 ls 386] 387(Hkkx), 388(Hkkx), 391(Hkkx), 392(Hkkx), 393 ls 551]
552(Hkkx), 553 ls 576] 581(Hkkx), 605(Hkkx), 606(Hkkx), 607 ls 609] 793(Hkkx), 806(Hkkx), 887(Hkkx), 897(Hkkx),
899(Hkkx), 900] 901(Hkkx), 902 ls 928] 929(Hkkx), 930(Hkkx), 931] 932(Hkkx), 934(Hkkx), 936(Hkkx), 937(Hkkx), 938
ls 1094-
3-
xzke lidjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 321(Hkkx), 682(Hkkx), 683 ls 745] 746(Hkkx),
747(Hkkx), 767(Hkkx), 774(Hkkx), 775] 776(Hkkx), 777(Hkkx), 780] 781(Hkkx), 782 ls 786] 787(Hkkx), 788(Hkkx), 789
ls 806] 808 ls 827] 828(Hkkx), 830(Hkkx) ls 833(Hkkx), 859(Hkkx), 867(Hkkx).
4-
xzke ekuh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 22(Hkkx) ls 30(Hkkx), 108(Hkkx), 111(Hkkx) ls 113(Hkkx),
114 ls 176] 177(Hkkx), 179(Hkkx), 180 ls 860] 862 ls 1183] 1679-
5-
xzke xsrjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 1(Hkkx), 2 ls 268] 269(Hkkx), 270] 271] 272(Hkkx), 273]
274(Hkkx), 275(Hkkx), 276] 277] 278(Hkkx), 279(Hkkx), 281(Hkkx), 295(Hkkx), 297 ls 304] 305(Hkkx), 306 ls 313]
314(Hkkx), 315] 316] 317(Hkkx), 319(Hkkx), 342(Hkkx), 343(Hkkx), 495(Hkkx), 496 ls 824] 825(Hkkx), 826 ls 840]
841(Hkkx), 842(Hkkx), 843 ls 855] 856(Hkkx), 857 ls 861] 862(Hkkx) ls 864(Hkkx), 867(Hkkx) ls 869(Hkkx),
884(Hkkx), 885(Hkkx), 886] 887] 888(Hkkx) ls 891(Hkkx), 892 ls 970] 972 ls 993] 994(Hkkx), 995(Hkkx), 996] 997]
998(Hkkx), 1001(Hkkx), 1002(Hkkx), 1003] 1004(Hkkx), 1005(Hkkx), 1010(Hkkx) ls 1012(Hkkx),1013]1014(Hkkx),
4-
ekuh
659
12
lqjtiqj
lqjtiqj
476.614
Hkkx
5-
xsrjk
138
01
y[kuiqj
ljxqtk
289.079
Hkkx
dqy % 1144.681 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2828.51 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
1208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1015(Hkkx),1017(Hkkx) ls 1020(Hkkx), 1021] 1022(Hkkx), 1023]1024] 1025(Hkkx) ls 1027(Hkkx), 1032(Hkkx),
1036(Hkkx), 1050(Hkkx), 1051(Hkkx), 1052 ls 1055] 1056(Hkkx), 1057(Hkkx), 1069(Hkkx), 1213] 1222] 1223] 1227
ls 1229] 1231(Hkkx).
lhek &o.kZu %
d&[k&x
js[kk] fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke xsrjk ds IykV la[;kd 1036] 994] 995] 998]
1001]1002] 1004] 1005] 891] 890] 889] 888] 884] 885] fcUnq *[k*] 856] 864] 863] 862] 867 ls
gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA
x&?k&³
js[kk] fcUnq ^x^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke xsrjk ds IykV la[;kd 867] 868, 869, 842, 841, 1010,
1011, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1017, fcUnq *?k*] 839, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 1032, 1026, 1027, 1025,
1050, 1051, 1069, 1057, 1056, 825, 1231, 495, 281, 278, 279, 275, 274, 272, 295, 269, 297, 305, 306,
307, 314, 319, 317, 342, 343, 1 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA
³&³1&³2&³3&p
js[kk] fcUnq ^³^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lajf{kr ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;kd ohoh,uih 1844] fcUnq^³1]
ohoh,uih 1843] fcUnq ^³2^] fcUnq ^³3^ ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA
p&N
js[kk] fcUnq ^p^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lajf{kr ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;kd ohoh,uih 1843] ih 1761
ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA
N&t
js[kk] fcUnq ^N^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tkscxk ds IykV la[;k 1022, 1023, 1024, 1077, 1027,
1028, 1021, 1032, 1036, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1021, 838, 833, 710, 712, 719, 644, 645, 637, 613, 616,
487, 486, 444, 445, 140, 134, 125, 110, 95, 96, 82, 77 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **t** ij
feyrh gSA
t&>
js[kk] fcUnq ^t^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lajf{kr ou ds dEikVZesaV la[;k ih 1759 ds mRrjh lhek ls
gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **t** ij feyrh gSA
>&´
js[kk] fcUnq ^>^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke iksaMh ds IykV la[;kd 189, 192, 193, 196, 391, 392, 388,
387, 375, 374, 369, 368, 372, 272, 274, 305, 288, 291, 552, 581 ls gksdj 555, 576, 575 ds mRrjh
lhek] 605, 606, 609, 793, 806, 901, 897, 899, 928, 929, 930, 887, 932, 934, 936, 937 ls gksrh gqbZ
tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **´** ij feyrh gSA
´&V
js[kk] fcUnq ^´^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ekuh ds IykV la[;kd 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
108, 111, 112, 113, 177, 179 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **V** ij feyrh gSA
V&B
js[kk] fcUnq ^´^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lidjk ds IykV la[;kd 682, 321, 747, 746, 788, 787,
774, 776, 777, 781, 767, 826, 828, 830, 831, 832, 833, 859, 867 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **B**
ij feyrh gSA
B&M&<
js[kk] fcUnq ^B^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj jsgj unh ds if”peh fdukjk vkSj fcUnq ^M^ ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh
gS vkSj fcUnq ^<^ ij feyrh gSA
<&d
js[kk] fcUnq ^<^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj tkscxk ukyk ds mRrjh fdukjs ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj
izkjafHkd fcUnq ^d^ ij feyrh gSA
[Qk-la- 43015@5@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 588.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 302,
dated the 19th February, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 or 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, part
II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 20th February, 2016, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to
prospect for coal in 2727.323 hectares (approximately) or 6739.21 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality
specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed
in the Schedule appended to this notification;
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1209
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 1632.380 hectares (approximately) or
4033.61 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over the said land specified in the Schedule appended hereto:
Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/2016/503, dated the 7th December, 2016 of the area
covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Surajpur and Surguja
(Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700001 or in the office of the
South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh).
Note 2 : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-
“8. Objections to Acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section
7 has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any
part of the land or any rights in or over such land.
Explanation.-It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires
to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken
by the Central Government or by any other person.
(2)
Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent
authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after
hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report
in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or
make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central
Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by
him, for the decision of the Government.
(3)
For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to
claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act”.
Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 has been appointed by the Central Government
as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the 20th March,
1987, published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April, 1987.
SCHEDULE
Rehar West Block, Bishrampur Area,
District Surajpur and Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
(Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/2016/ 503, dated the 7th December, 2016)
Surface Right:
(A) Revenue Land:
Sl.
No.
Name of
village
Village
number
Patwari
halka
number
Tahsil
District
Area in
hectares
Rem-
arks
1.
Jobga
275
11
Surajpur
Surajpur
119.153
Part
2.
Pondi
270
12
Surajpur
Surajpur
176.595
Part
3.
Sapkara
418
27
Surajpur
Surajpur
83.240
Part
4.
Mani
659
12
Surajpur
Surajpur
476.614
Part
5.
Getra
138
01
Lakhanpur
Surguja
289.079
Part
Total :- 1144.681 hectares (approximately) or 2828.51 acres (approximately)
1210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(B) Protected Forest Land:
Sl.
No.
Type of
Forest
Compartment
number
Range
Division
Area in
hectares
Rem-
arks
1.
Protected
Forest
P 1729
Mani
South
Surguja
134.690
Full
2.
Protected
Forest
P 1759
Pondi
South
Surguja
67.340
Full
3.
Protected
Forest
P 1760
Rajapur
South
Surguja
150.142
Full
4.
Protected
Forest
P 1761
Rajapur
South
Surguja
25.550
Part
5.
Protected
Forest
VVNP 1843
Lainga
South
Surguja
77.810
Part
6.
Protected
Forest
VVNP 1844
Lainga
South
Surguja
32.167
Full
Total :- 487.699 hectares (approximately) or 1205.10 acres (approximately)
Total (A+B)= 1144.681+487.699 = 1632.380 hectares (approximately)
or 4033.61 acres (approximately)
1.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jobga (Part): 77(P), 78 to 81, 82(P), 83 to 94, 95(P), 96(P), 110(P),
125(P), 126 to 133, 134(P), 135 to 139, 140(P), 442, 443, 444(P), 445(P), 446 to 485, 486(P), 487(P), 613(P), 614, 615,
616(P), 617 to 636, 637(P), 644(P), 645(P), 646 to 709, 710(P), 711, 712(P), 719(P), 833(P), 834 to 837, 838, 1021(P)
to 1024(P), 1027(P) to 1029(P), 1030, 1031, 1032(P), 1036(P), 1037 to 1040, 1041(P), 1042(P), 1044(P), 1045 to 1076,
1077(P), 1078 to 1152.
2.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pondi (Part): 188, 189(P), 190, 191, 192(P), 193(P), 194, 195, 196(P),
271, 272(P), 273, 274(P), 288(P), 291(P), 292 to 304, 305(P), 306 to 366, 369(P), 372(P), 374(P), 375(P), 376 to 386,
387(P), 388(P), 391(P), 392(P), 393 to 551, 552(P), 553 to 576, 581(P), 605(P), 606(P), 607 to 609, 793(P), 806(P),
887(P), 897(P), 899(P), 900, 901(P), 902 to 928, 929(P), 930(P), 931, 932(P), 934(P), 936(P), 937(P), 938 to 1094.
3.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Sapkara (Part): 321(P), 682(P), 683 to 745, 746(P), 747(P), 767(P),
774(P), 775, 776(P), 777(P), 780, 781(P), 782 to 786, 787(P), 788(P), 789 to 806, 808 to 827, 828(P), 830(P) to 833(P),
859(P), 867(P).
4.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Mani (Part): 22(P) to 30(P), 108(P), 111(P) to 113(P), 114 to 176,
177(P), 179(P), 180 to 860, 862 to 1183, 1679.
5.
Plot numbers to be acquired in village Getra (Part): 1(P), 2 to 268, 269(P), 270, 271, 272(P), 273, 274(P),
275(P), 276, 277, 278(P), 279(P), 281(P), 295(P), 297 to 304, 305(P), 306 to 313,
314(P), 315, 316, 317(P),
319(P), 342(P), 343(P), 495(P), 496 to 824, 825(P), 826 to 840, 841(P),
842(P), 843 to 855, 856(P), 857 to
861, 862(P) to 864(P), 867(P) to 869(P), 884(P), 885(P), 886, 887,888(P) to 891(P), 892 to 970, 972 to 993, 994(P),
995(P), 996 , 997, 998(P), 1001(P),1002(P), 1003, 1004(P), 1005(P), 1010(P) to 1012(P), 1013, 1014(P), 1015(P),
1017(P) to 1020(P), 1021, 1022(P), 1023, 1024, 1025(P) to 1027(P), 1032(P), 1036(P), 1050(P), 1051(P),1052 to 1055,
1056(P), 1057(P), 1069(P), 1213, 1222, 1223, 1227 to 1229, 1231(P).
Boundary Description:
A-B-C
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Getra through plot numbers 1036, 994, 995, 998,
1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 891, 890, 889, 888, 884, 885, point ‘B’ 856, 864, 863, 862, 867 and meets at
point ‘C’.
C-D-E
Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Getra through plot numbers 867, 868, 869, 842, 841,
1010, 1011, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1017, point ‘D’, 839, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 1032, 1026, 1027,
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1211
1025, 1050, 1051, 1069, 1057, 1056, 825, 1231, 495, 281, 278, 279,
275, 274, 272, 295, 269, 297,
305, 306, 307, 314, 319, 317, 342, 343, 1 and meets at point ‘E’.
E-E1- E2-E3-F
Line starts from point ‘ E’ and passes through Protected Forest compartment number VVNP
1844, point ‘E1’, VVNP 1843, point ‘E2’, Point ‘E3’ and meets at point ‘F’.
F-G
Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes through Protected Forest compartment number VVNP 1843, P
1761 and meets at point ‘G’.
G-H
Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes in village Jobga through plot numbers 1022, 1023, 1024, 1077,
1027, 1028, 1021, 1032, 1036, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1021, 838, 833, 710, 712,719, 644, 645, 637, 613,
616, 487, 486, 444, 445, 140, 134, 125, 110, 95, 96, 82, 77 and meets at point ‘H’.
H-I
Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes along northern boundary of Forest compartment number P1759
and meets at point ‘I’.
I-J
Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes in village Pondi through plot numbers 189, 192, 193, 196, 391,
392, 388, 387, 375, 374, 369, 368, 372, 272, 274, 305, 288, 291, 552, 581, along northern boundary
of plot numbers 555, 576, 575, through 605, 606, 609, 793, 806, 901, 897, 899, 928, 929, 930, 887,
932, 934, 936, 937 and meets at point ‘J’.
J-K
Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes in village Mani through plot numbers 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 108, 111, 112, 113, 177, 179 and meets at point ‘K’.
K-L
Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes in village Sapkara through plot numbers 682, 321, 747, 746,
788, 787, 774, 776, 777, 781, 767, 826, 828, 830, 831, 832, 833, 859, 867 and meets at point ‘L’.
L-M-N
Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes along western bank of Rehar River, point ‘M’ and meets at
point ‘N’.
N-A
Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes along northern bank of Jobga Nala and meets at starting point
‘A’.
[ F. No. 43015/ 5/ 2017-LA&IR]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017
dk- vk- 589-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa
dks;yk vfHkizkI; fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;
vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@Hkwfe @506] rkjh[k 17 tuojh] 2017 dk ftlesa mDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk “kgMksy ¼e/;izns”k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk
fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo
vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa
blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh uksfVl nsrh gSA
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ O;fDr&
(i)
laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu dk vk{ksi dj ldsxk ;
vFkok
(ii)
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi &/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k lEHkfor {kfr mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu fdlh uqdlkuh ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( vFkok
¼iii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu lekIr gks x;s [kuu iV~Vs ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds laca/k esa mixr O;;
dks minf”kZr djus ds fy;s mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZ vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks lqiqnZ djsxk]
bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk”ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½]
lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ dks lkSaisxkA
1212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
pkUik Cykd] lksgkxiqj {ks=
ftyk&”kgMksy ¼e/; izns'k½
¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@Hkwfe@506] rkjh[k 17 tuojh] 2017½
Øe
la-
xzke
dk
uke
iVokjh
gYdk la[;k
cankscLr
la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
esa
fVIi&
f.k;ka
1-
Pkakik
72
291
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
340.000 Hkkx
2-
iksaxjh
61
821
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
40.000 Hkkx
3-
gjnh
62
1029
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
40.000 Hkkx
4-
teqbZ
70
338
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
160.000 Hkkx
5-
teqvk
71
332
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
322.619 laiw.kZ
6-
xksjrjk
71
234
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
50.000 Hkkx
7-
ujljgk
78
510
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
32.298 Hkkx
8-
dqnjh
72
116
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
308.083 laiw.kZ
9-
dksrek
73
118
lksgkxiqj
”kgMksy
400.000 Hkkx
dqy % 1693-000 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 4183-40 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek &o.kZu%
d&[k
js[kk] fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksrek] pkaik ds e/; Hkkx] xzke iksaxjh ds if”peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS
vkSj fcUnq *[k* ij feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk] fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke iksaxjh] gjnh ds if”peh Hkkx] xzke teqbZ ds e/; Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ
tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq *x* ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk] fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke teqbZ ds e/; Hkkx] xzke teqvk ds nf{k.kh lhek] xzke ujljgk ds iwohZ
Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq *?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k&³
js[kk] fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ujljgk ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke ujljgk&dqnjh ds lfEefyr
lhek esa fcUnq *³* ij feyrh gSA
³&d
js[kk] fcUnq *³* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dqnjh ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh vkSj if”peh lhek] xzke dksrek ds e/; Hkkx
ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq *d* ij feyrh gSA
[Qk- la- 43015@11@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 589.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in
the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM/ PLG/ LAND/ 506, dated the 17th January, 2017
containing the details of the area of land described in the Schedule to the aforesaid plan may be inspected at the office
of the Collector, District - Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,
Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -
495006 (Chhattisgarh);
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1213
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may-
(i)
object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land; or
(ii)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any
action taken under sub -section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have
effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure
incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattishgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
Chainpa Block, Sohagpur Area,
District-Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh
[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM /PLG/LAND/ 506, dated the 17th January, 2017]
Sl.
No.
Name of
village
Patwari
halka
number
Bandobast
number
Tahsil
District
Area
in
hectares
Remarks
1.
Chanpa
72
291
Sohagpur
Shahdol
340.000
Part
2.
Pongari
61
821
Sohagpur
Shahdol
40.000
Part
3.
Hardi
62
1029
Sohagpur
Shahdol
40.000
Part
4.
Jamui
70
338
Sohagpur
Shahdol
160.000
Part
5.
Jamua
71
332
Sohagpur
Shahdol
322.619
Full
6.
Gortara
71
234
Sohagpur
Shahdol
50.000
Part
7.
Narsarha
78
510
Sohagpur
Shahdol
32.298
Part
8.
Kudri
72
116
Sohagpur
Shahdol
308.083
Full
9.
Kotma
73
118
Sohagpur
Shahdol
400.000
Part
Total: 1693.000 hectares (approximately) or 4183.40 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through middle part of village Kotma, Chanpa, western part of village
Pongari and meets at point ‘B’.
B-C
Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes through western part of village Pongari, Hardi, middle part of village Jamui
and meets at point ‘C’.
C-D
Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through middle part of village Jamui, along southern boundary of village
Jamua, eastern part of village Narsarha and meets at point ‘D’.
D-E
Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through eastern part of village narsarha and meets at point ‘E’ on common
boundary of villages Narsarha-Kudri.
E-A
Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes along partly southern and western boundary of village Kudri, through
middle part of village Kotma and meets at starting point ‘A’.
[F. No. 43015/11 /2017-LA&IR]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
1214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई िदल् ली, 9 माचर्, 2017
का.आ. 590.—कोयला धारक क्षेᮢ (अजर्न और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसमᱶ इसके पश् चात् उक् त
अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंᮢालय की अिधसूचना संख्या का.
आ. 18, तारीख 29 िदसम्बर, 2016 ᳇ारा, जो भारत के राजपᮢ, भाग ।।, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii), तारीख 7 जनवरी,2017 मᱶ ᮧकािशत
होने पर, उᲦ अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूची की विणत भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के सभी अिधकार ( िजसे इसमᱶ इसके प᳟ात् उᲦ भूिम कहा
गया है) उक् त अिधिनयम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िवल् लंगमᲂ से मुक् त होकर, आत् यंितक रूप मᱶ केन् ᮤीय सरकार
मᱶ िनिहत हो गए थे;
और, केन् ᮤीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, िक साउथ ईस्टनर् कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड, सीपत रोड, पोस्ट बाक्स संख्या
60, िजला िबलासपुर- 495006 (छᱫीसगढ़) (िजसे इसमᱶ इसके पश् चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधनᲂ और शतᲄ का
िजन् हᱶ केन् ᮤीय सरकार इस िनिमत् त अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलये रजामंद हᱹ ;
अत:, अब, केन् ᮤीय सरकार, उᲦ अिधिनयम की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत् त शिक् तयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए, यह
िनदेश करती है िक उक् त भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के सभी अिधकार केन् ᮤीय सरकार मᱶ इस ᮧकार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, 7 जनवरी,
2017 से िनम् निलिखत िनबंधनᲂ और शतᲄ के अधीन रहते हुए, उक् त सरकारी कंपनी मᱶ िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथार्त् –
1.
सरकारी कंपनी, उक् त अिधिनयम के उपबंधᲂ के अधीन यथाअवधािरत ᮧितकर, ब् याज, नुकसािनयᲂ और वैसी ही मदᲂ की
बाबत् िकए गए संदायᲂ की केन् ᮤीय सरकार को ᮧितपूित करेगी ;
2.
सरकारी कम् पनी ᳇ारा शतर् 1 के अधीन केन् ᮤीय सरकार को संदेय रकमᲂ का अवधारण करने के ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए उक् त
अिधिनयम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन िकया जाएगा और ऐसे िकसी अिधकरण और अिधकरण की सहायता के
िलए िनयुक् त व् यिक् तयᲂ के संबंध मᱶ उपगत सभी व् यय, सरकारी कंपनी ᳇ारा वहन िकए जाएंगे और इसी ᮧकार िनिहत उक् त भूिम मᱶ या
उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के िलए या उनके संबंध मᱶ अपीलᱶ आिद सभी िविधक कारर्वािहयᲂ की बाबत् उपगत, सभी व् यय भी, सरकारी
कंपनी ᳇ारा वहन िकए जाएंगे;
3.
सरकारी कंपनी, केन् ᮤीय सरकार या उसके पदधािरयᲂ की, ऐसे िकसी अन् य व् यय के संबंध मᱶ क्षितपूित करेगी, जो इस ᮧकार
िनिहत उक् त भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के बारᱶ मᱶ, केन् ᮤीय सरकार या उसके पदधािरयᲂ ᳇ारा या उनके िवरू िकन् हᱭ
कायर्वािहयᲂ के संबंध मᱶ आवश् यक हो ;
4.
सरकारी कंपनी को केन् ᮤीय सरकार के पूवर् अनुमोदन के िबना उक् त भूिम को िकसी अन् य व् यिक् त को अंतिरत करने की शिक् त
नहᱭ होगी ; और
5.
सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेशᲂ और शतᲄ का पालन करेगी, और केन् ᮤीय सरकार ᳇ारा,जब कभी आवश् यक हो, उक् त भूिम के
िविशष् ट क्षेᮢᲂ के िलए िदए जाएं या अिधरोिपत िकए जाएं ।
[ फा.सं. 43015/4/2016-एलए एण्ड आईआर ]
सुजीत कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 590.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,
number S.O. 18, dated the 29th December, 2016 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),
dated the 7th January, 2017, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land with all rights in or over the said
land described in Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely
in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1215
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Post Box number 60, District-Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs, that the all rights in or over the said land so vested with effect from the 7th January,
2017 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company subject to the
following terms and conditions, namely:-
1.
The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2.
A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the
Central Government by the Government Company under
condition 1 and all expenditure incurred in connection
with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and
similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the
rights, in or over the said lands so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3.
The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;
4.
The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the
prior approval of the Central Government; and
5.
The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the
Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/4/ 2016–LA&IR]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 591-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa
dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;
vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y @ch,lih @ th,e ¼ih,yth½ @ Hkwfe@505] rkjh[k 26 fnlEcj] 2016 dk ftlesa
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns”k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k
dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM
¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa
blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS ;
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ O;fDr&
(i)
laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu dk vk{ksi dj ldsxk ; ;k
(ii) mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi &/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k lEHkfor {kfr vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fdlh uqdlkuh ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
¼iii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu lekIr gks x;s [kuu iV~Vs ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds laca/k esa mixr
O;; dks minf”kZr djus ds fy;s mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZ vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks lqiqnZ djsxk]
bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk”ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½]
lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ dks lkSaisxkA
1216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
vkekMkaM lkbZfMax] tequk dksrek {ks=
ftyk&vuqiiqj] e/; izns'k
[js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@505] rkjh[k 26 fnlEcj] 2016]
Øe
la-
xzke
dk
uke
iVokjh
gYdk la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
esa
fVIif.k;ka
1-
cSgkVksyk
45
dksrek
vuqiiqj
0.500
Hkkx
2-
dVdksuk
46
dksrek
vuqiiqj
3.000
Hkkx
3-
csfy;k
47
dksrek
vuqiiqj
4.500
Hkkx
4-
fiijgk
50
dksrek
vuqiiqj
6.500
Hkkx
5-
lsejk
52
dksrek
vuqiiqj
10.000
Hkkx
6-
Qwydksuk
55
dksrek
vuqiiqj
8.500
Hkkx
7-
[kksMjh
56
dksrek
vuqiiqj
3.000
Hkkx
8-
dksgdk
56
dksrek
vuqiiqj
3.000
Hkkx
dqy % 39-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 96-37 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek&o.kZu%
d&[k
js[kk fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cSgkVksyk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *[k* ij feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *x* ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke csfy;k ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k&³
js[kk fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fiijgk ds e/; Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *³* ij feyrh gSA
³&p
js[kk fcUnq *³* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsejk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *p* ij feyrh gSA
p&N
js[kk fcUnq *p* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Qwydksuk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *N* ij feyrh gSA
N&t
js[kk fcUnq *N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kksMjh ds nf{k.kh iwohZ fdukjs ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *t* ij feyrh gSA
t&>
js[kk fcUnq *t* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksgdk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *>* ij feyrh gSA
>&´
js[kk fcUnq *>* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksgdk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *´* ij feyrh gSA
´&V
js[kk fcUnq *´* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksgdk esa mRrjh fn’kk dh vksj xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *V* ij feyrh gSA
V&B
js[kk fcUnq *V* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kksMjh ds nf{k.kh iwohZ fdukjs ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *B* ij feyrh gSA
B&M
js[kk fcUnq *B* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Qwydksuk ds if”peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *M* ij feyrh gSA
M&<
js[kk fcUnq *M* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsejk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *<* ij feyrh gSA
<&.k
js[kk fcUnq *<* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fiijgk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *.k* ij feyrh gSA
.k&r
js[kk fcUnq *.k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke csfy;k ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *r* ij feyrh gSA
r&Fk
js[kk fcUnq *r* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *Fk* ij feyrh gSA
Fk&n
js[kk fcUnq *Fk* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cSgkVksyk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *n* ij feyrh gSA
n&d
js[kk fcUnq *n* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cSgkVksyk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d* ij feyrh
gSA
[ Qk- la- 43015@9@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]
lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1217
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017
S.O. 591.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in
the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 505, dated the 26th December, 2016
containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector,
District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or
at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the said Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, -
(i)
object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land; or
(ii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be
caused by any action taken under sub -section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have
effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure
incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattishgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the
official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Amadand Siding, Jamuna Kotma Area
District-Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/ 505, dated the 26th December, 2016]
Sl.
No.
Name of
village
Patwari
halka
number
Tahsil
District
Area
in
hectares
Remarks
1.
Baihatola
45
Kotma
Anuppur
0.500
Part
2.
Katkona
46
Kotma
Anuppur
3.000
Part
3.
Beliya
47
Kotma
Anuppur
4.500
Part
4.
Piparah
50
Kotma
Anuppur
6.500
Part
5.
Semra
52
Kotma
Anuppur
10.000
Part
6.
Fulkona
55
Kotma
Anuppur
8.500
Part
7.
Khodri
56
Kotma
Anuppur
3.000
Part
8.
Kuhka
56
Kotma
Anuppur
3.000
Part
Total: 39.00 hectares (approximately) or 96.37 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through southern part of village Baihatola and meets at point ‘B’.
B-C
Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes through northern part of village Katkona and meets at point ‘C’.
C-D
Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through southern part of village Beliya and meets at point ‘D’.
D-E
Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through middle part of village Piparah and meets at point ‘E’.
1218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
E-F
Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes through middle part of village Semra and meets at point ‘F’.
F-G
Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes through western part of village Fulkona and meets at point ‘G’.
G-H
Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes through south east corner part of village Khodri and meets at
point ‘H’.
H-I
Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through middle part of village Kuhka and meets at point ‘I’.
I-J
Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes through middle part of village Kuhka and meets at point ‘J’.
J-K
Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes towards north in village Kuhka and meets at point ‘K’.
K-L
Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes through south east corner part of village Khodri and meets at
point ‘L’.
L-M
Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes through western part of village Fulkona and meets at point ‘M’.
M-N
Line starts from point ‘M’ and passes through middle part of village Semra and meets at point ‘N’.
N-O
Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes through middle part of village Piparah and meets at point ‘O’.
O-P
Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes through southern part of village Beliya and meets at point ‘P’.
P-Q
Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes through northern part of village Katkona and meets at point ‘Q’.
Q-R
Line starts from point ‘Q’ and passes through southern part of village Baihatola and meets at point ‘R’.
R-A
Line starts from point ‘R’ and passes through southern part of village Baihatola and meets at starting
point ‘A’.
[F. No. 43015/9/2017-LA&IR]
SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 592-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj
,elhMh ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 128@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@02@2012&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 128/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Commissioner, MCD, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
26.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/02/2012-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1219
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID.No. 128/2012
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union
Aggarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi – 110054
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),
Civic Centre, Kamla Nagar Market,
New Delhi - 110054
EX-PARTE AWARD
On 16.08.2012 reference No. L-42011/02/2012-IR (DU) Dated – 30.07.2012 for the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi received in this tribunal the ID Case No. 128/2012 was registered.
Notices to parties issued workman was directed to file claim statement within 15 days from the date of receipt
of notice complete with all relevant documents list of reliance and witnesses.
Workman filed his claim statement on 23.11.2012.
Through which he prayed as follows:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that an Award be made in favour of the workman thereby set aside the office order
dated 12.01.2005 as per which penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect has been imposed upon the
workman and the management is directed to pay all consequential benefits and to pay him the entire difference of
salary with all arrears either monetary or otherwise. The cost of litigation as provided in Section 11(7) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 may also be awarded to the workman.
Any other order, relief or directions as may deem fit to this Hon’ble Tribunal may also be given in favour of
the workman.”
Management has not filed written statement inspite of several opportunities hence right to file written
statement of management has been closed by me on 03.09.2014 and fixed 22.09.2014 for ex-parte evidence of
workman.
On 01.12.2014 workman filed his affidavit alongwith affidavit of his witness Sh. Surender Bhardawaj.
On 04.02.2015 workman in his ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit and affidavit of his witness Sh.
Surender bhardawaj as WW1 and WW2 respectively. Thereafter evidence of workman has been closed.
On 10.08.2016 written arguments on behalf of workman filed through which he prayed as follows:-
“It is ,therefore, prayed that an Award be made in favour of the workman holding thereby set aside the office
order dated 12.01.2005 as per which penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect has been imposed upon
the workman and the management is direct to pay all consequential benefits and to pay him the entire difference of
salary with all arrears either monetary or otherwise. The cost of litigation as provided in Section 11(7) of the I.D. Act,
may also be awarded to the workman.”
He placed reliance on principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is cited rulings.
In the light of contentions mentioned in the written arguments. I perused the pleadings of claim statement and
ex-parte evidence of workman. Which shows that workman and his witness through their ex-parte evidence tendered
following documents:-
WW1/A –
Affidavit of workman
WW1/1 –
Photo copy of legal demand notice by workman to management
WW1/2 –
Photo copy of postal receipt of aforesaid registered notice
WW1/3 -
Photo copy of A. D.
WW1/4 –
Photo copy of notice etc issued to workman on behalf vigilance Director Delhi Nagar Nigam
1220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
WW1/5 –
Photo copy of Reply to aforesaid notice of workman.
WW1/6 –
Photo copy of 15 days show cause notice dated 01.04.2004 along with copy of enquiry report
to workman for making representation or submission by workman before disciplinary
Authoritys.
WW1/7-
Photo copy of show cause notice dated 12.01.2005 issued to workman Kishan Kumar Driver
against proposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with future effect,Through which
workman was invited to make represented.
WW1/8 –
Photo copy of reply to show cause dated 01.04.2004.
WW1/9 –
Photo copy of claim statement
WW1/10 –
Photo copy of written statement of MCD filed before the conciliation officer (Central), New
Delhi.
WW1/11 –
Photo copy of rejoinder filed by workman before conciliation officer (Central), New Delhi.
1.
Affidavit of WW2 Ext- WW2/A
2.
Photo copy of resolution dated 16.12.2008 and Ext-WW2/1
Perusal of ex-parte evidence of workman need it crystal that workman tried to prove that he committed no
misconduct and tried to whistle out his charge sheet dated 17.04.2002, containing allegations that Sh. Krishan Kumar
while working as driver in CSE Department during the year 1999 was found responsible for committing gross
misconduct in as much as that on 11.12.1999 he had taken his allotted truck no 2867 in Shahdara area i.e. beyond his
prescribed route of ward no 118-A, Kalyan Vihar without obtaining approval from the Competent Authority.
He, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) of the CCS conduct Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the
employees of MCD.
It is admitted fact that departmental enquiry was conducted against workman and he was found guilty.
Disciplinary authority agreed with the report of enquiry officer.
Workman was supplied with enquiry report alongwith show cause notice. His show cause was not found
sufficient.
He was again given show cause notice against proposed punishment but his representation was not found
sufficient.
Through his ex-parte evidence workman utterly failed to prove that departmental enquiry held against
workman was in contravention of principles of natural justice. So his evidence is short of required evidence to ignore
the enquiry proceedings which were properly held against workman.
Moreover on the basis of settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court the power of Tribunals provided U/s 11-A ID.
Act 1947 is limited to give relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman.
In addition to its principles laid down in cited rulings are inapplicable due to distinguished facts.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that reference is liable to be decided against
workman and in favour of management and claim statement is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly decided.
Ex-pare Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-09.11.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 593-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j
lqifjUVsUMsUV vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQl nsgjknwu ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@11) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@6@2011&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1221
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 42/11) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Dehradun and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
26.12.2016.
[No. L-40011/6/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 42/11
Sh. Balwant Singh Panwar S/o Prem Singh Panwar,
Balawar Post, Balawar,
Dehradun.
Versus
1.
The Sr. Superintendent of Post,
D/o Post, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun.
2.
The Asstt. Superintendent of Post,
D/o Post,
East /Mussoorie), Arhat Bazar,
Dehradun.
3.
The Post Master,
D/o Post,
Balawala,
Dehradun.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No:- 40011/6/2011 (IR(DU)) dated 03.06.2011
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Post Office, Dehradun, in terminating the services of workman Sh.
Balwnat Singh Panwar S/o Sh. Prem Singh Panwar from the post of Dak Pal, w.e.f . 21.04.2010 without
complying section 25 F, G, H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified?
On 22.06.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 42/2011 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.
After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 3.10.2011. Through which he prayed as follows:-
“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that the management may kindly be directed to re-instate the services of the
workman with continuity of service and with full back wages, and the Award may kindly be passed accordingly.”
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 6.11.2015. Through which it prayed as
follows:-
“It is most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the Applicant’s petition at the threshold.”
Against which workmen filed rejoinder on 18.02.2013. Through which he reaffirmed the contents of claim
statement.
On 14.04.2013 my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:-
1.
Whether the claimant was engaged against leave vacancy from 06.05.2008 to 21.07.2010?
1222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
As in terms of reference.
Workman filed affidavit. Which was tendered by him on 29.04.2014. None came to cross-examine him. Hence
right of cross-examination with WW1 has been closed and fixed 8.07.2014 for remaining cross-examination of
workman.
On 30.03.2016 workman closed his remaining evidence. Hence I fixed 19.05.2016 for workman evidence.
On 14.07.2016 management closed his evidence. Hence I fixed 5.09.2016 for arguments.
On 5.09.2016 Ld. A/R for the workman expressed his desire to file written arguments and sought time then I
fixed 20.09.2016.
On 20.09.2016 written arguments on behalf of workman filed. Then I reserved the Award.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions of Ld. A/Rs for the parties as well as contention of Ld. A/R
for workman I perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties. Which shows that in the instant case only workman
has adduced his evidence and he was not cross-examined by Ld.A/R for the management.
So my issue wise findings are as follows:-
FINDING ON ISSUE NO.1
On the basis of only evidence of workman it is established that workman /claimant was engaged against leave
vacancy from 6.05.2008 to 21.07.2010 by management.
Hence Issue no. 1 is liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management. Which is accordingly
decided.
FINDING ON ISSUE NO. 2
Which is as follows:-
As in terms of reference.
Which means it includes both questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference.
So I am deciding question of determination No.1.
First of all I am the provisions of S. 25 F, G, H of ID. Act, 1947.
Provisions of S.27-F I.D. Act , 1947 are reproduced as follows:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
a.
The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and
the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice;
b.
The workman has been paid , at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen day’s average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess
of six months; and
c.
Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [ for such authority as may be
specified by appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Provisions of S.25-G I.D.Act, 1947 provides procedure for retrenchment of workman.
Which is as follows:-
Procedure for retrenchment.—“Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India,
is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf , the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any
other workman.”
Provisions of S. 25-H provides provisions of re-employment of retrenched workman:-
Which are as follows-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1223
“Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes
to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed given an opportunity [to the
retrenched workmen who are citizen of India or offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen]
who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.”
None of aforesaid provisions have been followed by management.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that question of determination no. 1 mentioned in
the schedule of reference is liable to be decided in favour of the workman and against management because action of
the management of Post Office, Dehradun, in terminating the services of workman Sh. Balwant Singh Panwar, from the
post of Dak Pal w.e.f. 21.04.2010 without complying S.25 F, G and H I.D. Act, 1947 is not legal and justified. Which
is accordingly decided.
Now it is to be determined to what relief the workman is entitled under question of determination No. 2 of
schedule of reference.
As per settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court workman is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50000/- only.
Reference is accordingly decided and claim statement is partly allowed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-17.11.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 594-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,elhMh ubZ
fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@158@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the MCD, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/158/2012-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 14/2013
Sh. Harish Chandra Joshi
…workman
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
...management
1224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
On 25.02.2013 Labour Ministry of Government of India made reference No. L-42011/158/2012 IR(DU) to this
tribunal for adjudication “Whether the action of management in withholding the yearly increments of the workman
with effect from the year, 2001 and the up gradations under the ACP Scheme illegal and unjustified? If so, what relief
Sh. Harish Chander Joshi is entitled to and what direction are necessary in this regard?
Aforesaid reference has been received in this tribunal on 05.04.2013. Which has been registered as ID No. 14 of
2013 by my learned predecessor. Notice to workman/respondent was issued to file claim/statement response to
reference fixing 29.04.2013.
On 02.08.2013 workman filed his claim statement. Copy of which supplied to representative of management.
On 30.05.2014 management filed its written statement. Copy of which supplied to workman and fixed
21.07.2014 for rejoinder.
After few dates Ld. A/R for workman on 19.12.2014 expressed his desire not to file rejoinder on behalf of
workman.
Hence I closed the right of workman to file rejoinder and fixed 23.01.2015 for framing of issues.
On 22.08.2016 Ld. A/R for workman informed that his case has already been decided by way of settlement with
management then Ld. A/R for management sought time to verify fact of settlement of case.
I fixed 26.09.2016 for filing of report of settlement if any.
After few dates management filed settlement report on 19.12.2016.
Through which management informed in writing that all benefits which are due to workman has been made to
him till date and nothing is due to him.
On which Ld. A/R for workman made an endorsement to the effect “The workman has received the payment as
claimed in the Industrial Dispute”.
Such endorsement has been signed by workman also.
On such information I reserved the award on 19.12.2016.
For passing the reserved award I perused the pleadings and evidence on record. Which makes it crystal clear that
after settlement outside court management paid all dues of workman which admitted by workman in writing.
On such payment, claim of workman/claimant stands satisfied.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-20/12/2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 595-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Hksy] caxykSj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@149@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1225
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 29/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, BHEL, Bangalore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
15.12.2016.
[No. L-42012/149/2015-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 1st DECEMBER 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 29/2015
I Party
II Party
Shri. Umesh,
The General Manager (HR),
S/o Kariyaiah,
Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited,
No.7, Pragathi Nilaya, Indian Bank Colony,
BHEL Electronics Division
Ideal Homes, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
P.B. No. 2606, Mysore Road
Bangalore – 560098
Bangalore - 560026
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/149/2015-(IR(DU)) dated 15.09.2015 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the BHEL (EDN) Bangalore in not considering the withdrawal of resignation by Shri
Umesh Ex-Workman is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have been
sent for both parties. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.
Further, the Registered post with acknowledgement due regarding notice of hearing, issued to I Party, in Transaction
No. A-RK326900194IN, dated 02.09.2016, through India Government Service, India Post, has been returned with the
endorsement “Addressee Deceased” hence, returned to sender.
3.
On a perusal of records, already notices have been sent to both the parties through the RPAD with
acknowledgment cards due, by this Tribunal. Hence, it is found that inspite of giving sufficient and adequate chances
by issuing notices of hearing to I party, on behalf of, I party, no representation has been made. In such circumstances,
the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of entire records brought on record. Further, as per the Report
of the Learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Bangalore, dated 31.07.2015, the Conciliation proceeding
also ended, in failure.
4.
Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that both
the parties have, no interest to contest the present matter. It is for the I party to make out a case that I party is entitled
to the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a mistake by denying the said benefits. Under the
above mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after
the perusal of materials available on record.
5.
Since no appearance on behalf of I Party has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and
further, no case has been made out by I party and the present reference abates, only.
6.
Further, on behalf of this reference, it is not established that the I Party is entitled to get the above mentioned
benefits, though sufficient time has been granted to the I Party to establish the above mentioned rights. In the result
and also in above mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference abates, and no useful purpose
will be served, in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.
1226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In the result, the present Reference, abates.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 1st December, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 596-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr ,oa
muds deZpkjh 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; ubZ fnYyh la- 2 ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 88@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 23-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@92@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 88/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.01.2017.
[No. L-42012/92/2015-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 88/2015
Shri. Tarif Singh, S/o Sh. Amir Singh,
R/o Thanakalan, The-Kharkhoda,
Dist. Sonipat,
Haryana-131402
Versus
The Commissioner,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-42012/92/2015(IR(DU)) dated 26.05.2015
referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the workman Shri. Tarif Singh S/o Sh. Amir Singh is entitled to any increment as the order of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court? Is it applicable to NDMC and if yes, any or all consequential benefits arising out of
grant of such increments?
On 9.6.2015 reference was received in this tribunal. Which was register as I.D No.88/2015 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.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1227
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] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 597-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
us'kuy ,;jksLisl yscksjsVjht] caxykSj 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;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@44@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/44/2016-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 6th DECEMBER 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 21/2016
I Party
II Party
The President,
1. The Director, National Aerospace Laboratories,
Karnataka General Labour Union,
P.B.No. 1779 Kodihalli, Old Airport Road,
Redg. Office No. 50, 6/3,
Bangalore – 560017.
H. Chandra Reddy Layout, Ejipura,
2. The Management, Viskaan Associates,
Bangalore – 560047
No. 2, 2nd Floor, I Main Road,
Muneshwara Block , Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore – 560086.
3. The Management, M/s Bee Gee Facility Services,
No. 68, Sridevi Complex, I Floor, VII Block,
Jaya Nagar, B’lore -82
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-42011/44/2016-(IR(DU))dated 06.05.2016 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore and Mr. Manimaran, Proprietor
of Viskaan Associates, Bangalore, Mr. Ramana Gowdar, Proprietor of Bee Gee Facility Services,
Bangalore,is sham and camouflage? If so, what relief the workmen, listed as per annexure, are entitled to?”
1228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Further, during the course of proceedings the I Party-Union has filed the memo dated 27.10.2016, signed by the
President and General Secretary of the I Party-Union and also signed by the advocate for the I Party-Union. Further, it
is clearly stated in the said memo as follows:-
“The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the Management of National Aerospace Laboratories Vs
Engineering & General Workers Union [2015 (3) KarLJ127], that the appropriate government in regard to
National Aerospace Laboratories is the State Government. The same has also been upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its order dated 24.09.2015 in SLP No. 13880/2015. The I Party-Union has, accordingly,
approached the State Labour Department and a conciliation in this regard is presently pending. Hence, it is
prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to dispose of, the instant reference, with liberty to the I Party-Union
to proceed with the conciliation and dispute which is pending before the State Labour Department in the interest
of justice and equity”. The said memo is signed by Mr. B. Gajendra Kumar, President of KGLU, Mobile No:
9945337600 and by General Secretary of KGLU and also signed by the Advocate for the I Party-Union.
3.
In support of the said memo, the I Party-Union has enclosed along with the said memo the above mentioned
judgement, to establish the said submission made in the memo. On a perusal of records, it is seen that in the light of the
above said judgements, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court, the I Party, has rightly,
approached the State Labour Department and also Conciliation is presently pending. Accordingly, the I Party has
requested to dispose of, the present reference with liberty to proceed with the conciliation and dispute, which is pending
before the State Labour Department.
4.
On a perusal of materials on records and also the said judgements filed by the I Party, this court is also satisfied.
In the circumstances, the following award is passed.
AWARD
The present reference is disposed of, with liberty to the I Party-Union to proceed with the conciliation and dispute,
which is pending before the State Labour Department. Reference is ordered, accordingly.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 6th December, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 598-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
dsUæh; izQkstsu oh;Z mRiknu ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
29@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@43@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 29/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, Central Frozen Semen Production and Taining Institute and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 09.02.2017.
[No. L-42011/43/2014-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 29/2014
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1229
I Party
II Party
The Secretary,
1.
The Director,
Central Cattle Breeding Farm,
Central Frozen Semen Production &
Central Frozen Semen Production &
Training Institute, Hessarghatta,
Training Institute Employees Union ( R),
Bangalore – 560088
Hessarghatta, Bangalore – 560088.
2.
The Farm Superintendent,
Central Frozen Semen Production &
Training Institute, Hessarghatta,
Bangalore – 560088.
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-42011/43/2014-IR(DU) dated 18.07.2014 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the charter of demands raised by the central cattle breeding farm and central frozen semen production
and training institute employees union and refusal by the management is justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen and the union is entitled to?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have been
sent for both parties. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.
Though RPAD notice has been sent to both the Parties in Transaction No. B RK345401483 IN dated 19.11.2016 and in
B RK345401470 IN dated 19.11.2016, and in Transaction No. B RK 345401466 IN dated 19.11.2016 and also postal
acknowledgments have been received by this Court, through Department of Post, Government of India. However, the I
Party has not made any appearance before this Court.
3.
On perusal of records already notices have been sent to both the parties through the RPAD, by this Tribunal.
Hence, it is found that in spite of giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to both the
parties, both parties have not made any appearance. In such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award,
after the perusal of entire records brought on record.
4.
Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I
party has no interest to contest the present matter, in spite of the service of notice of hearing to the I party. It is for the I
party to make out a case that I party is entitled to the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a
mistake by denying the said benefits. Under the above mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this
Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the perusal of materials available on record.
5.
Since no appearance has been made, and further no case has been made out by I party and the present reference
has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view the conduct of I party in, not appearing before
this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party by way of RPAD in support of the said reference, it
is crystal clear that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in
above mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution
and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.
AWARD
Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 3rd February, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 599-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d
,e@,l baLVªwesaVs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2013) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&13011@02@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
1230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 05/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Eranakulam as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, M/s. Instrumentation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
09.11.2016.
[No. L-13011/02/2012-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 07th day of October, 2016/15th Asvina, 1938)
ID 5/2013
Unions
:
1. The General Secretary,
Instrumentation Workers Union,
Kanjikode West,
Palakkad – 678623.
By Adv. Shri. Asok M. Cherian
2. The General Secretary,
Instrumentation Employees Union,
Kanjikode West,
Palakkad – 678623.
By Adv. Shri. C. Anilkumar
Management
:
The General Manager,
M/s Instrumentation Ltd,
Kanjikode West,
Palakkad – 678623.
By M/s. Menon & Menon
This case coming up for final hearing on 30.09.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 07.10.2016 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.
2.
The dispute is:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Instrumentation Ltd., Palakkad in recovering the advances
paid to the employees from their terminal benefit is justified or not? If not, what relief employees are entitled
to?”
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-13011/02/2012-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2012, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit their pleadings and produce
documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of summons, the parties entered appearance through
counsel and submitted their pleadings.
4.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the union No.1 in brief are as follows:-
The two unions in this reference represent all the employees in the workmen category under the management.
The management is a company fully owned by the Government of India, functioning under the Department of Heavy
Industries. The Instrumentation Limited at Kanjikode, Palakkad is a separate unit for all practical purposes. It has its
own standing orders and long term settlements regarding payment of wages and other service conditions of its
employees. The long term settlement entered into between the management and the trade unions in the year 1987 came
to an end on 31.12.1991. Even though the trade unions submitted representation before the management for long term
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1231
settlement, it was delayed indefinitely. The wage settlement for the period from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1998, could be
signed only on 26.06.1999. As per the settlement the pay of the workers were revised and it was implemented with
immediate effect. At that time it was mutually agreed that the issue regarding payment of arrears for the period from
01.01.1992 to 31.12.1998 will be discussed and settled between the management and the unions subsequently.
5.
In view of the pendency for the demand for wage revision from 01.01.1992, the management paid advances to
the workmen anticipating the pay revision and other service benefits due to the employees from 01.01.1992. The
unions submitted the charter of demands for the period from 01.01.1997 before the management in the year 2000. The
settlement relating to the period of ten years commencing from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006 could be arrived at only on
03.08.2009. In that settlement it is stipulated that the pay revision benefit to the employees will be paid and the
arrears will be paid only from 23.02.2009 as an immediate relief. In relation to the advances and ad hoc payment
effected against anticipated pay revision, the settlement dated 03.08.2009 reads as follows:
“13.
That regarding adjustment of all the advances/ad hoc payments against 1992 pay revisions given to
the employees of the company shall be discussed between Management and Unions separately.
14.
That the arrears against the pay revision, including all fringe benefits, effective from 1.1.1997 to 22-
2-2009 shall be discussed and decided between the Management and Unions separately.”
6.
The management paid advances to the workmen to achieve production turnover/targets and to motivate the
employees for gaining the goal of the company by paying advance against incentive/adhoc. Advances were paid in the
name of flood relief. It was paid without any request by the individual employees or trade unions. The workmen were
made to understand by the management that the amounts so paid will be adjusted against the amount due to them on
account of the arrears of pay revision/incentive.
7.
The advance payment was made to the workmen in order to overcome the financial difficulties faced by them as
a result of the undue delay in the wage revision. In fact the cost of living during the period from 1991 to 2009 was
increased considerably and the advance received by the workmen could wipe off only a portion of the increase in the
cost of living during that period. The main reason stated by the management for the delay in implementing the long
term settlements was financial difficulty. In fact the Kanjikode unit of the management was always a profit making
unit but the profit made by this unit was wiped off due to the loss occasioned by the other unit in Kota, Rajasthan.
8.
In both the long term settlements it is clearly stated that the adjustment of advances/ad hoc payments and the
disbursement of arrears of pay revision including all fringe benefits shall be decided through discussion between the
management and the unions separately. The wage arrears consequent to the two long term settlements referred earlier
are much higher than the advance/ad hoc payments made to the workmen by the management. Without settling the
issue of disbursement of arrears of pay consequent to wage revision, the management unilaterally decided and began to
recover the advance/ad hoc payments from the terminal benefits to the workmen on their superannuation/acceptance of
VRS. This decision of the management was implemented w.e.f. 01.09.2009 as per an order issued by the Additional
General Manager(CHQ). The decision of the management to recover/ad hoc payments without settling the issue of
disbursement of arrears of wage revision, is illegal and unsustainable. Till 01.09.2009 the management released the
terminal benefits to the workmen after obtaining an undertaking from the employees regarding the outstanding amount
due from them under the head of advances/ad hoc payments on their retirement. From 01.09.2009 the management
altered their stand and began to recover the amount from the terminal benefits payable to the employees. Without
settling the issue of disbursement of arrears of wage revision in accordance with the terms in the long term settlements,
the unilateral decision by the management to recover the amount from the employees from and out of their terminal
benefits is illegal and unjustifiable.
9.
The period stipulated as per the settlement dated 03.08.2009 has already been expired on 31.12.2006. Now the
new long term settlement is overdue. The trade unions have already submitted their charter of demands. Therefore
union No.1 has requested to pass an award to the effect that the recovery of advance/ad hoc payment made to the
workmen shall not be withheld or recovered from and out of the terminal benefits of the retiring employees/employees
opting VRS on the ground that the recovery is illegal and to direct the management to pay the amount so deducted to
the respective employees with interest thereof.
10.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the union No.2 in brief are as follows:—
Union No.2 has raised the similar contentions as that of union No.1. They sought the same relief as requested by
union No.1.
11.
The contentions in the written statement filed on behalf of the management against the claim statements filed by
union Nos.1 & 2 in brief are as follows:—
They have denied all the averments in the claim statements filed by the union Nos.1 and 2 except those that are
specifically admitted. The management has stated that they have not recovered the advance amount from and out of the
1232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminal benefits of the retiring employees. The dispute referred for adjudication will not come under the purview of
Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
Without prejudice to the contentions raised above the management has stated that the Instrumentation Limited,
Palakkad unit is engaged in the manufacture and sale of control valves of different sizes and specifications for
industrial use. The net worth of Instrumentation Limited eroded. Consequently the company was referred before the
Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985. The BIFR has declared the company as a sick unit w.e.f.19.01.1994. The unit at Palakkad is
having 157 workmen. The workmen are represented by the two unions. The service conditions, including pay and
other benefits of the workmen are governed by the terms and conditions in the settlements entered into between the
management and the unions from time to time. It is in line with the unit at Kota.
13.
The period stipulated as per the settlement entered on 23.04.1990 between the management and the unions for
revision of pay and benefits of the employees expired on 30.09.1992. The next settlement for the period from
01.01.1992 to 31.12.1996 was signed in June, 1999. Without any negotiation and signing of settlement, the
management paid recoverable advances to the employees against pay revision benefits. By the time the pay revision
for the period from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1996 was settled, the pay revision for the period from 01.01.1997 became due.
In the meantime the management unit was declared as a “sick company” and the scheme for rehabilitation was pending
consideration before BIFR. Therefore no effective discussion between the management and the unions could be held
so as to arrive at a settlement regarding the pay revision with effect from January, 1997. The settlement revising the
pay and benefits from 01.01.1997 was arrived at and signed between the management and the unions on 03.08.2009.
14.
The management had given recoverable advances pending negotiation and execution of agreement revising the
pay and benefits to its employees from January, 1997. As per letter No.5(2)/2000-PE-VIII dated 23.02.2009, the
Government of India approved the revival package of Instrumentation Ltd. and permission was granted for
implementation of DPEs 1997 pay scale in the company from and out of their own resources prospectively. On the
basis of which the 1997 pay revision settlement was implemented prospectively w.e.f. 23.02.2009. In view of this; the
1997 pay revision arrears for the period from 01.01.1997 to 22.02.2009 are not due to any employees who were or are
on the rolls of the company. This aspect was intimated to the unions as per letter No.ILP/P&A/03/09 dated 24.11.2009.
15.
The management disbursed the arrears consequent to the 1992 pay revision to the widows of former employees,
to the employees who had retired from service and to the employees who left service under Voluntary Retirement
Scheme in a phased manner. In respect of the workmen who are serving in the company, arrears consequent to pay
revision was payable considering the fact that the amount paid to them as recoverable advance from time to time was
higher than the arrear amount payable to them consequent to 1992 pay revision. At the time of retirement, benefits
such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and last drawn salary are paid in full to the employees. The amounts due towards
settling advance, earned leave encashment are deposited with the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam
in accordance with the terms and conditions in the agreement dated 12.04.2012 entered into between the management
and the unions.
16.
In view of the pendency of the dispute raised by the unions the management even though issued notice to the
employees after retirement requesting to pay the amount due to the management without delay, no serious steps were
taken by the management. The amount paid as recoverable advance was recovered from the former General Manager –
Shri.N.K. Srivatsava who retired from service on 28.02.2011 and also from the Additional General Manager – Shri. R.
S. Yugal who retired from service on 31.03.2012. As per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in RP
No. 807/2010 in WP(C) No.16697/2010, the amount paid as advance to Shri Vijayan K. Jose who opted for VRS was
withheld. The contention of the unions that the unit at Palakkad is a profit making venture right from the beginning has
nothing to do with the merits of this case. The advance payment was effected to the workmen only as a recoverable
one. The 1997 pay revision was implemented prospectively and hence there is no arrears payable to the employees
consequent to that pay revision. The contention of the unions that the management unilaterally began to recover the
advances/ad hoc payments from and out of the terminal benefits payable to the workmen on their superannuation, is
without any merit. The management accepted bonds from few employees in accordance with the terms of the
judgment/order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petitions filed by them. The management has stated that
the unions are not entitled to any relief as per this reference. They have requested to uphold their contentions.
17.
After filing written statement by the management, union No.2 filed rejoinder reaffirming the contentions in the
claim statements filed by the two unions.
18.
After filing rejoinder by union No.2, the matter was posted for taking steps and production of documents. Both
sides have produced documents. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the unions and that of the
management. Exts.W1 to W22 are the documents marked on behalf of the unions. Exts.M1 to M12 are the documents
marked on behalf of the management. Heard both sides.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1233
19.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i)
Whether there is any justifiable ground or reason for the management of M/s. Instrumentation
Limited, Palakkad for recovering the advances paid to the employees from and out of their terminal
benefits?
(ii)
To what relief the employees are entitled?”
20.
Point No.(i):—The dispute referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Instrumentation Ltd., Palakkad in recovering the
advances paid to the employees from their terminal benefit is justified or not? If not, what relief
employees are entitled to?”
It is admitted that the management – M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad is a company fully owned by the
Government of India and is functioning under the Department of Heavy Industries, Union of India. The registered
office of the company is situated at Kota, Rajasthan. The company has two units, one at Kota in Rajasthan and the
other at Kanjikode West, Palakkad, Kerala. The unions have stated that ever since the beginning of the company the
unit of M/s.Instrumentation Limited at Kanjikode is a profit making venture. According to them the unit at Kanjikode,
Palakkad is a separate and independent entity for all practical purposes and it has got its own standing orders and long
term settlements relating to payment of wages and other service conditions to its employees. It is stated that the
long term settlement arrived at between the management and the trade unions in 1987 expired on 31.12.1991. In the
meantime and thereafter the unions repeatedly requested the management to have a long term settlement for the period
from 01.01.1992. It is stated that the long term settlement for the period from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1996 could be
signed only on 26.06.1999. As per that settlement the pay of the workers were revised and it was implemented with
immediate effect and thereby disbursing the arrears of salary with effect from 01.01.1999. In that settlement it is
specifically stated that that the payment of arrears of salary including the value of fringe benefits for the period from
01.01.1992 to 31.12.1998 would be discussed between the management and the unions later. In view of the pendency
of the demand for wage revision from 01.01.1992 the management paid advances to the workmen. It is stated that the
settlement in relation to the charter of demands submitted by the unions for the period from 01.01.1997 could be
arrived at only on 03.08.2009 covering a period of ten years from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006. In that settlement it is
stipulated that the employees will be paid the benefit of pay revision and its arrears only from 23.02.2009 as an
immediate relief. Regarding the advances and ad hoc payment against pay revisions, the settlement dated 03.08.2009
reads as follows:—
“13.
That regarding adjustment of all the advances/ad hoc payments against 1992 pay revision given to
the employees of the company shall be discussed between Management and Unions separately.
14.
That the arrears against the pay revision, including all fringe benefits, effective from 1.1.1997 to
22.2.2009 shall be discussed and decided between the Management and Unions separately.”
21.
According to the unions the management paid advances/ad hoc payment to the workmen to achieve production
turnover/targets and to motivate the employees to achieve the company’s goal. It is stated that the advance payment
was effected to the workmen in order to overcome the financial difficulties faced by them consequent to the undue
delay in wage revision. The unions have specifically stated that there was considerable increase in the cost of living
during the period from 1991 to 2009 and the advance received by the workmen could wipe off only a portion of the
increase in the cost of living during that period. The unions have stated that in the long term settlements entered into
between the management and the unions it is clearly stated that the adjustment of advances/ad hoc payments and the
disbursement of arrears of pay revision and the fringe benefits shall be discussed and decided between the management
and the unions separately. The unions have stated that without settling the issue of the disbursement of arrears of pay
consequent to wage revision, the management unilaterally decided and began to recover the advances/ad hoc payments
from the terminal benefits of the workmen on their superannuation/ acceptance of VRS. According to the unions, in
view of the clear stipulation in the long term settlements, without settling the issue of disbursement of arrears of wage
revision, the decision of the management to recover the advances/ad hoc payments, is illegal and unsustainable. It is
stated that the period stipulated as per the settlement dated 03.08.2009 has already expired on 31.12.2006 and now the
new long term settlement is overdue. Even though the trade unions have submitted their charter of demands well in
advance the management has not taken any effective steps for settling the demands of the workmen. The unions have
requested to direct the management not to recover the advances/ad hoc payments from and out of the terminal benefits
of the retiring employees or employees opting for VRS on the ground that such a decision by the management is illegal,
unjust and improper.
22.
The management has refuted the claim put forward by the unions. They have stated that they paid recoverable
advances to the employees against pay revision benefits pending negotiation and signing of settlement. It is stated that
the management company was declared as a “sick company” and scheme for rehabilitation was pending consideration
1234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
before the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR). According to the management no effective
discussion between them and the unions could be held to arrive at a settlement regarding pay revision with effect from
January, 1997 for the reason that the company was declared as a “sick unit” and rehabilitation proceedings are pending
before the BIFR. They would further state that the 1997 pay revision was implemented w.e.f.23.02.2009 only and
hence there will be no arrears payable to the workmen. It is stated that the amounts due towards the settlement of
advance, earned leave encashment are deposited with the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam in
accordance with the conditions in the agreement dated 12.04.2012 executed between the management and the unions.
The management has further stated that they have already recovered the recoverable advance paid to Shri. N. K.
Srivatsava former General Manager who retired on 28.02.2011 and from Shri. R. S. Yugal, former Additional General
Manager who retired from service on 31.03.2012. They would also state that as per the order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court in RP No. 807/2010 in WP(C) No.16697/2010, the advance paid to Shri. Vijayan K. Jose who opted for
VRS was withheld. The management has denied the contentions of the unions that the pay arrears are much higher
than the advance for ad hoc payments effected to the employees. They have requested to uphold their contentions.
23.
Ext.W3 is the copy of the memorandum of settlement dated 03.08.2009 between the management and the unions.
Clause 1.1 of Ext.W3 is to the effect that the pay revision will be effected for a period ten years w.e.f.01.01.1997 to
31.12.2006 and thereafter will continue to be in force till the next pay revision takes place. Clause 1.2 in Ext.W3 is to
the effect that as an immediate relief the employees have been paid the benefits of the pay revision and its arrears from
23.02.2009 along with the salary of June, 2009. Clauses 13 and 14 in Ext.W3 settlement read as follows:—
“13.
ADJUSTABLE AD HOC PAYMENT/ADVANCES AND RECOVERABLE ADVANCES
That regarding adjustment of all the Advances/Ad-hoc Payments against 1992 pay revision given to the
employees of the Company shall be discussed between Management and Union separately.
14.
That the arrears against the pay revision, including all fringe benefits, effective from 01.01.1997 to
22.02.2009 shall be discussed and decided between the Management and Unions separately.”
24.
Ext.W4 is the Circular dated 13.10.2009, signed by the Additional General Manager(CHQ) to all Heads to the
effect that it has been decided by the management that the recovery of outstanding advances will be made from the
employees leaving the company instead of taking undertaking of outstanding amount of such advance and that will be
implemented w.e.f. 01.09.2009. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.W4 Circular the management began to recover the
advances/ad hoc payments from and out of the terminal benefits payable to the employees who retired from
service/who opted for VRS. According to the unions the decision of the management to recover the advances paid to
the employees without finally settling the demands in accordance with the Clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.W3 settlement, is
illegal and unsustainable. The contention of the management is that the Board for Industrial Finance and
Reconstruction (BIFR) has declared the unit as a “sick company” and therefore steps for rehabilitation are pending
before the Board and as such their decision to recover the amount from and out of terminal benefits payable to retired
employees/employees opted for VRS is just and legal.
25.
The learned counsel appearing for the unions submitted that the unions have submitted charter of demands well
in advance and the settlement relating to the payment of wages and arrears is unduly delayed by the management for
one reason or other. The learned counsel submitted that there is no justification on the part of the management in
recovering the advance/ad hoc payments without finally settling the dispute. The issue is left open as per clauses 13
and 14 in Ext.W3 settlement. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the management is justified in
the recovery of advance/ad hoc payments from and out of the terminal benefits payable to the employees who retired
from service/who opted for VRS.
26.
The parties to this proceedings are governed by the terms and conditions in Ext.W3 settlement entered into
between the management on the one hand and the unions on the other. Clauses 13 and 14 specifically provides that the
adjustments of all the advances/ad hoc payments against 1992 pay revision given to the employees of the company
shall be discussed between the management and the union separately. So also regarding the arrears of pay revision
it is specifically stated that the benefits from 01.01.1997 to 22.02.2009 shall be discussed and decided between the
management and the unions separately. In view of the specific clauses in Ext.W3 settlement there is no justification on
the part of the management to recover the advances/ad hoc payments made as an interim measure to the employees. It
can also be seen that the employees have made their earnest effort to ensure that the maximum productivity is attained
so as to gain profit to the management company. In such circumstance there is no justification on the part of the
management to deduct the advances/ad hoc payments made to the employees from and out of their terminal benefits
without settling the issue bilaterally. The unilateral action on the part of the management to recover the advances paid
to the employees for which they are legally entitled for the work done by them during the period from 01.01.1997 to
22.02.2009, is unjust, illegal and improper. Therefore it is held that the action of the management of Instrumentation
Limited, Palakkad in recovering the advances paid to the employees from their terminal benefits is unjust, illegal and
improper. It follows that there is no justification on the part of the management to recover the advances/ad hoc
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1235
payment effected to its employees without finally settling the issue in accordance with the terms and conditions in
clauses 13 and 14 of Ext.W3 settlement. Hence the point for consideration is answered in favour of the unions and
against the management.
27.
Point No.(ii):—In view of the finding in Point No. (i) the management is not justified in recovering the advances
paid to the employees from and out of their terminal benefits. It follows that the unions are entitled to the relief
claimed. The point is answered accordingly.
28.
In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management of M/s. Instrumentation Limited,
Palakkad in recovering the advances paid to the employees from and out of their terminal benefits is unjust, illegal and
improper. The employees are entitled to the consequential benefits thereof.
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 07th day
of October, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the unions
NIL
Witness for the management
NIL
Exhibits for the 2nd union
W1
-
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.06.1999 entered into between the representatives of
the unions and the management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W2
-
Copy of the Circular bearing No.ILP/ADMN/II-21/2008-09 dated 28.06.2008 issued by the Sr.
Personnel Officer, (P&A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W3
-
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.08.2009 entered into between the unions and the
management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad before the Conciliation Officer-cum-District
Labour Officer, Palakkad.
W4
-
Copy of the Circular bearing No.IL/CPD-1/135/P & R/2009-10 dated 13.10.2009 issued by the Addl.
General Manager(CHQ), CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
W5
-
Copy of the Minutes of discussion held on 02.04.2011 at ILP between ILP management,
Instrumentation Employees Union (INTUC) and Instrumentation Workers Union (CITU) before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Cochin.
W6
-
Copy of the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2012; Copy of the Statement of Profit and Loss for the year
ended 31.03.2012; Copy of the Cash flow statement for the year ended 31.03.2012; Copy of
Significant accounting policies; Copy of the Notes on financial statements for the year ended
31.03.2012; Copy of Township Expenses and social overheads for the year 2011-2012 and Capital
Expenditure on Township and Social amenities as at 31.03.2012 in respect of Instrumentation
Limited, Palakkad
W7
-
Copy of the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2013; Copy of the Statement of Profit and Loss for the year
ended 31.03.2013; Copy of the Cash flow statement for the year ended 31.03.2013; Copy of
Significant accounting policies; Copy of the Notes on financial statements for the year ended
31.03.2013; Copy of Township Expenses and social overheads for the year 2012-2013 and Capital
Expenditure on Township and social amenities as at 31.03.2013 in respect of Instrumentation
Limited, Palakkad.
W8
-
Copy of the reply letter No.ILP/P&A/RTI/2013 dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Manager(Comml) &
Asst. Public Information Officer, Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West, Palakkad to Shri. R.
Vinod Kumar, General Secretary, Instrumentation Workers Union (CITU), Kanjikode West,
Palakkad.
W9
-
Copy of advances paid during various years by the management.
Exhibits for the 1st union
W10
-
True copy of the Note bearing No.ILP/Admn/III.08/96 dated 14.08.1996 issued by the Sr. Persl.
Officer (P & A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
1236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
W11
-
True copy of the agreement dated 27.08.1997 entered into between the representative of the unions
and the management of the Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode, Palakkad.
W12
-
True copy of the draft Circular No.ILP/Admn./8.14/99 dated 08.02.1999 issued by the Dy.
Manager(P & A), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W13
-
True copy of the Circular No.ILP/Admn./III.08/99 dated 10.08.99 issued by the Manager(P & A),
Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W14
-
True copy of the Circular bearing No.IL/CPD-1/135/P & R/2000-01 dated 02.08.2002 issued by the
Dy. General Manager(P&A), CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
W15
-
True copy of the Circular bearing No.ILP/ADMN/III.08/2004 dated 20.08.2004 issued by the Dy.
General Manager(P&A), P & A Division, Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W16
-
True copy of the Gist of discussions held at Mumbai on 11.04.2007 between the management and the
unions.
W17
-
True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.02.2008 entered into between the
representatives of the management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
W18
-
Copy of the Circular bearing No.IL/CPD-1/135/P & R/2009-10 dated 13.10.2009 issued by the Addl.
General Manager(CHQ), CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
W19
-
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.08.2011 entered into between the representatives of
the unions and the management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad before the Regional Labour
Commissioner(Central), Cochin.
W20
-
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 12.04.2012 entered into between the representatives of
the unions and the management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad before the Regional Labour
Commissioner(Central), Cochin.
W21
-
True copy of the reply letter No.ILP/P&A/RTI/2013 dated 13.03.2013 addressed to Shri K. E.
Padmakumar, Leading Hand, Production Department, Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West,
Palakkad by the Additional General Manager(P & A) & Asst. Public Information Officer,
Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West, Palakkad
W22
-
True copy of the reply letter No.ILP/P&A/RTI/2013 dated 09.10.2013 addressed to Shri R. Vinod
Kumar, General Secretary, Instrumentation Workers Union (CITU), Kanjikode West, Palakkad by
the Manager(Comml) & Asst. Public Information Officer, Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West,
Palakkad
Exhibits for the management
M1
-
True copy of the Order dated 19.01.1994 in case No.509/93 in respect of M/s.Instrumentation
Limited before the members of Bench-I, Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New
Delhi.
M2
-
True copies of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.04.1990 entered into at Palghat between the
representatives of the management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad and the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.04.1990 entered into at Kota between the representatives of the
management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
M3
-
True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.06.1999 entered into between the
representatives of the management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
M4
-
True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.02.2008 entered into between the
representatives of the management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
M5
-
True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.08.2009 entered into between the unions and
the management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad before the Conciliation Officer-cum-District
Labour Officer, Palakkad.
M6
-
True copy of the letter No.5(2)/2000-PE-VIII dated 23.02.2009 issued by the Director, P.E. VIII
Section, Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industry & Public Enterprises, New
Delhi to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Instrumentation Limited, Kota – 324005 (Raj).
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1237
M7
-
True copy of the letter No.ILP/P&A/03/09 dated 24.11.2009 issued by the Sr. Personnel Officer,
Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West, Palakkad to the General Secretary, Instrumentation
Workers Union, Kanjikode West, Palakkad.
M8
-
True copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 12.04.2012 entered into at Ernakulam between
the representatives of the management and the unions of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad before
the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Cochin under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
M9
-
True copy of the statement dated 06.06.2014 and a Demand Draft bearing No.442218 dated
05.06.2014 drawn in favour of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for an amount of
`2,38,772.54.
M10
-
True copy of the list of ex-employees dated 10.04.2015 and a Demand Draft bearing No.873881
dated 09.04.2015 drawn in favour of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) for an amount of
`3,00,214.93.
M11
-
True copy of the Note No.IL/CPD-I/135/P&R/2010-11 dated 18.04.2011 issued by the AGM(CHQ),
CPD (Policy & Rules Section), Instrumentation Limited, Kota to the AGM(PU)/AGM(P&A)-PU.
M12
-
Statement showing the advance outstanding break up of the ex-employees of (P&A Division),
Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad.
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 600-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ftyk
vfHk;ark (iksLV ,aM VsyhxzkiQ) ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2006) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@534@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 03/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Distt.
Engineer (Post & Telegraph and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04.01.2017.
[No. L-40012/534/2000-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 3 / 2006
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- ,y- 40012/534/2000–vkbZvkj (Mh;w) fnukad 5/12/2005
Shri Kanhaiya Lal S/o. Shri Mohan Lal,
C/o Jt. General Secy, Hind Mazdoor Sabha,
Bengali Colony, Chawani,
Distt.- Kota (Rajasthan)
V/s.
1.
Distt. Engineer (Post &Telegraph),
Telecom.,
Bundi,
Rajasthan
1238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh jktsUnz flag & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls %
Jh cg~ekuUn lUnq & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
fnukad % 29- 11- 2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ (?k) ds vUrxZr fnukad
5-12-2005 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn
fuEuor~ gS %&
2-
“Whether the management of District Engineer (Post & Telegraph), Telecommunication
Department, Bundi, in terminating the Services of Shri Kanhiya Lal w.e.f. 8-5-1997 is just and legal ? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse es fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dUgS;kyky
nwjlapkj ftyk vfHk;Urk] Mkd ,oa rkj foHkkx] cwUnh us fnuakd 2-9-1994 dks ikuh Hkjus] lQkbZ djus] vkWfQl dk dk;Z djus
o lkbM ij dk;Z djus gsrq prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k FkkA
4-
fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks vpkud fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s rFkk fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fnukad 8-5-97 ls ukSdjh ls
gVk fn;k tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds le; fu;kstd us ;g dgk Fkk fd dqN le; ckn dke ij j[k
ysxsA blds ckn izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ ukSdjh gsrq dkQh pDdj yxk;s ijUrq fu;kstd vkt dy djds Vkyrk jgkA
vUr esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 11-1-2000 dks fu;kstd dks ,d izkFkZuk&i= M;wVh ij fy;s tkus gsrq izsf"kr fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ ds i=
dh izkfIr ds rhu fnu ds vUnj M~;wVh ij ugha fy;s tkus ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ds lEcU/k esa lwfpr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk
Hkstk i= fu;kstd dks izkIr gks x;k ijUrq fu;kstd us izkFkhZ ds i= dk dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;k ,oa izkFkhZ dks M~;wVh ij Hkh
ugha fy;kA
5-
vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gk¡ 2-9-94 ls fnukad 7-9-97 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk bl
vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dk fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-
vks-½ ds vUrxZr **NaVuh** dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls fudkys tkus ds iwoZ /kkjk 25 ,Q ds
izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dh uksfVl ugha nh vkSj u blds cnys ,d ekg dh vfxze osru dk Hkqxrku fd;kA fu;kstd
us lsokeqDr djus ds iwoZ **NaVuh** dk eqvkotk Hkh ugha fn;k vkSj u gh nsus dk dksbZ izLrko fd;kA
6-
izkFkhZ dks lsok ls fudkyus ds ckn foi{kh us dLrqjk vkfn dbZ yksxksa dks lsok esa fu;ksftr dj fy;k gS ysfdu izkFkhZ
dks fu;kstu gsrq dksbZ volj ugha iznku fd;k gS tks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,p ds lkFk ifBr vkS|ksfxd
fookn fu;e ¼dsUnzh;½ ds fu;e 78 ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku gS rFkk fu;kstd dk ;g d`R; **vuqfpr Je O;ogkj** dh
ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk dh gS fd mls foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr leLr fiNys ykHkksa
ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djk;k tk; ,oa [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tk;A
7- ;kfpdk ds fo:) tokc esa foi{k us ;kfpdk ds leLr dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd ;kph dks foi{k dh
rjQ ls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA izkFkhZ ls lafonk ds vk/kkj ij ikuh dh eVdh ek=
Hkjok;h tkrh FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ij j[kk gh ugha x;k blfy, mls ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus dk
dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS ,oa foi{k ds fo:) dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk fo'ks"k gtsZ ds lkFk
[kkfjt dh tk;A
8-
;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ;kph dh rjQ ls lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= fnukafdr 16-9-2010 izLrqr gS ftlds lkFk izkFkhZ dks
lsok esa ysus ls lEcfU/kr i= fnukad 11-1-2000 izn'kZ&1] rRlEcfU/kr jftLV~h jlhn izn'kZ&2 rFkk ikorh izn'kZ&3 ,oa
lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; dksVk] dks foi{kh }kjk iqu% lsok esa fu;kstu gsrq Hksts x;s i= fnukad 28-12-2000 dh izfr
izn'kZ&4 layXu gSA
9-
foIk{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA foi{k us ;kph dh 'kiFk&i= ds
fo:) mldh izfrijh{kk Hkh ugha dh gSA
10-
eSa eSuas izkFkhZ Jh dUgS;kyky ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh ,di{kh; cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA
fu"d"kZ
11-
i=koyh esa lk{; dh dk;Zokgh ds lEcU/k esa laf{kIrr% mYys[kuh; gS fd i=koyh esa mHk;i{k ds lk{; dh dk;Zokgh
fnukad 9-12-14 ls izkjEHk dh x;hA dze'k% fnukad 9-12-14] 25-2-14] ,oa 6-5-15 dks ;kph dUgS;kyky dh foIk{k }kjk
izfrijh{kk ugha gks ldh vr% vxyh frfFk 25-6-15 ;kph dh izfrijh{kk gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 6-5-15 dks foi{k
vuqifLFkr Fkk ftl fnu ;kph dh izfrijh{kk gksuh Fkh ijUrq ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us crk;k fd foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k
vkt ugha vk,axs ,oa twu esa mUgksaus rkjh[k pkgh gS vr% 25-6-15 rkjh[k ;kph dh izfrijh{kk gsrq fu;r dh x;h FkhA
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1239
12-
fnukad 25-6-15 dks foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha jgkA izkFkhZ dUgS;kyky vius fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds lkFk
mifLFkr vk;sA foi{k dh rjQ ls fdlh ds mifLFkr u vkus rFkk izfrijh{kk u djus ds dkj.k foIk{k }kjk ;kph dh
izfrijh{kk dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k rFkk 9-9-15 foi{k lk{; gsrq frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 9-9-15 dks foi{k
vuqifLFkr rFkk ;kph Ik{k mifLFkr jgkA U;k;fgr esa ,d volj iznku dj foi{k ds lk{; gsrq ,d volj iznku dj
dk;Zokgh eqYroh dh x;h vkSj vxyh frfFk 19-11-15 fu;r dh x;h ijUrq 19-11-15 dks Hkh foi{k vuqifLFkr vkSj ;kph i{k
mifLFkr FkkA vfUre volj iqu% U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk Lo;a iznku dj vxyh frfFk 8-12-15 foi{k ds lk{; gsrq fu;r dh
x;hA fnuakd 8-12-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs vr% fnuakd 6-1-16 foi{k ds lk{; gsrq frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd
8-12-15 dks vkns'kksijkUr foi{k mifLFkr vk;k ftls 6-1-16 dh frfFk ,oa fu;r dk;Zokgh ls voxr djk;k x;kA
13-
fnuakd 6-1-16 dks fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k@izfrfuf/kx.k U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr FksA ;kph i{k mifLFkr rFkk foi{k
vuqifLFkr Fkk vr% 17-3-16 vxyh frfFk foi{k ds lk{; gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnuakd 17-3-16 dks Hkh foi{k vuqifLFkr Fkk
vr% foi{k dks U;k;fgr esa vfUre volj iznku djrs gq, 18-5-16 frfFk foIk{kh lk{; ds fy, fu;r dh x;h vkSj fnuakd
18-5-16 dks iqu% ,d volj iznku dj 17-11-16 frfFk foi{kh lk{; ds fy, fu;r dh x;h ijUrq fnuakd 17-11-16 dks ;kph
i{k mifLFkr Fkk vkSj foi{k iqu% vuqifLFkr Fkk vr% foi{k ds lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k rFkk ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh
djus dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, 28-11-16 dks i=koyh ;kph dh ,di{kh; cgl ds fy, fu;r dh x;hA
14-
lk{; dh mDr fLFkfr ls Li"V gS fd ;kph dh lk{; esa 'kiFk&i= ij ;kph dh izfrijh{kk foi{k }kjk ugha dh x;h
gS vkSj foi{k }kjk viuk lk{; Hkh ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
15-
;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ,di{kh; cgl esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;kph us viuh ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa 'kiFk&i=
izLrqr fd;k gS ftl ij foi{k us izfrijh{kk ugha dh gS vr% ;kph dk dFku fl) ekuk tkuk pkfg, vkSj mls ;kfpr vuqrks"k
iznku gksuk pkfg,A
16
mDr cgl rFkk ;kfpr vuqrks"k ds lUnHkZ esa ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;kfpdk esa dfFkr rF;kas dks fl) djus dk
Hkkj izFker% ;kph i{k ij gSA foi{k us dksbZ lk{; izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd ugha izLrqr fd;k gS ijUrq foi{k dh bl deh ls
;kph i{k dks dksbZ ykHk iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA foi{k us oknksRrj esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;kph ls lafonk ij ek=
ikuh dh eVdh Hkjok;h tkrh Fkh ijUrq mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij dksbZ fu;qfDRk ugaha nh x;h FkhA bl dFku ds
fo:) ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ izR;qRrj ugha gSA fnukad 24-4-14 dks ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls dgk x;k gS fd mudh rjQ
ls dksbZ izR;qRrj ugha izLrqr gksuk gS] vr% foi{k }kjk ;kph dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qfDRk fn;s tkus ds rF;
dks fl) djus dk Hkkj ;kph i{k ij gSA ;kph us dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha izLrqr fd;k gSA
17-
tgk¡ rd /kkjk 25,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku dk iz'u gS blds fy, ;kph dks izFker% ;g fl}
djuk vko';d gS fd lsokeqfDRk dh frfFk 8-5-97 ds Bhd iwoZ ;kph us ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu dh lsok dh gSA
bl lEcU/k esa ;kph us osru Hkqxrku dk fooj.k vFkok mifLFkfr ls lEcfU/kr fooj.k ugha izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls ;g rF;
fl) ugha gksrk gS fd /kkjk 25,Q dk mYya?ku fl) djus esa izkFkhZ lQy gSA
18-
Tkgk¡ rd /kkjk 25&,p ,oa fu;e 78 ds mYya?ku dk iz’u gS ;g nksuksa izkfo/kku NaVuh'kqnk deZpkjh dh iqufuZ;qfDr
ls lEcfU/kr izkfo/kku gS tks fuEuor gS %& **/kkjk 25&t- NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu &
tgka fd fdUgha deZdkjksa dh **NaVuh** dh tkrh gS vkSj fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks vius fu;kstu esa j[kus dh
izLFkkiuk djrk gS] ogka og mu NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dks] tks Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gSa] ,slh jhfr ls] tSlh fofgr dh tk,]
;g volj nsxk fd iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vkSj NaVuh fd, x, mu deZdkjksa dks tks iqu% fu;kstu ds
fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vU; O;fDr;ksa ij vf/keku feysxkA**
**fu;e 78- NkaVs x;s deZdkjksa dh iqu% fu;qfDRk 1- ml frfFk ls de ls de nl fnu igys] ftl ij fjfDr;ka Hkjh
x;h] fu;ksDrk mudh fjfDr;ksa ds o.kZuksa dks vkS|ksfxd izdze ds ifjlj esa lgtn`'; Hkkx esa lwpuk cksMZ ij yxkus ds fy,
O;oLFkk djsxk vkSj NaVuh ds le; ;k mlds i'pkr fdlh Hkh le; mlds }kjk Mkd }kjk mu fjfDr;kas dh Hkh lwpuk nsxk%
ijUrq tgka ,slh fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k NkaVs x;s deZdkjksa dh la[;k ls de gks] rks ,slh fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k ds nqxqus
,sls ofj"B deZdkjksa dh la[;k i;kZIr gksxh] ;fn lwpuk fu;ksDrk }kjk O;fDrxr :i ls fu;e 77 esa fufnZ"V lwph esa NkaVs
x;s ofj"B deZdkjksa dks nh tkrh gks%
ijUrq vkSj tgka fjfDr ,d eghus ls de vof/k dh gks] ogka NkaVs x;s deZdkjska dks vyx vyx ,slh fjfDr dh
lwpuk fu;ksDrk dks Hkstus dh dksbZ ck/;rk ugha gksxh%
ijUrq ;g Hkh fd ;fn NkaVk x;k deZdkj] fu;ksDrk dks fyf[kr esa i;kZIr dkj.k n'kkZ;s fcuk] bl mi fu;e ds
v/khu fu;ksDrk }kjk mldks Hksth x;h lwpuk esa fofufnZ"V frfFk ;k frfFk;ksa ij iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, mldks izLrkfor ugha
djrk] rks fu;ksDrk mls fjfDr;ksa dh lwpuk ugha ns ldrk] tks fdlh vuqxkeh volj ij Hkjh tk ldsxhA
2- mi&fu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh vuqikyuk djus ds rqjUr i'pkr] fu;ksDrk Hkjh tkus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k vkSj
NkaVs x;s deZdkjksa] ftUgsa lwpuk ml mi&fu;e ds v/khu Hksth x;h] ds ukeksa dks vkS|ksfxd izdze ls tqMs V~sM ;wfu;uksa dks
Hkh lwfpr djsxk%
1240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ijUrq bl mi&fu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh fdlh ekeys esa fu;ksDrk }kjk vuqikyuk djus dh vko';drk ugha gS] tgka
lwpuk dks fu;e 77 ds v/khu rS;kj lwph esa mYysf[kr deZdkjksa esa ls izR;sd dks Hksth tkrh gSA**
19-
mDr nksukas izkfo/kkuksa ds lE;d ,oa lw{e voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd fu;kstd }kjk ;fn fdUgh O;fDr;ksa dks
fu;qDr djus dk izLrko gS rks lcls igys ,slh fu;qfDr esa NaVuh'kqnk deZpkjh ;fn fu;qfDr gsrq viuh mEehnokjh izLrqr
djrk gS rks mls ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA fu;e 78 fu;qfDRk dks lwfpr djus rFkk NaVuh'kqnk dehZ dks uksfVl nsus ds rjhds dk
mYys[k djrh gSA
20-
'kiFk&i= esa rFkk ;kfpdk esa ;kph us dLrqjk vkfn dh fu;qfDRk dk mYys[k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds okn djus
ds lEcU/k esa fd;k gS ijUrq ;g rF; vfHkys[k] fdlh fu;qDr O;fDr ;k lgdehZ dks lk{; esa izLrqr dj lkfcr ugha fd;k
x;k gS tcfd foi{k us bl rF; ls Li"V bUdkj fd;k gSA bl izdkj eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd ;kph i{k us /kkjk 25&,p
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku dk foi{k }kjk mYya?ku fl) ugha fd;k gSA
21-
izkFkhZ }kjk Lkk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= mlds }kjk ;kfpdk esa fd;s x;s dFku dh iqujko`fRr ek= gS ftls ;kfpdk esa
izLrqr fd;s x;s dFku dks lkfcr djus gsrq i;kZIr lk{; dh laKk ugha nh ldrh gSA bl lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk (2002) 3 S.C.C. 25 Range forest officer V/s S.T. Hadimani ds iSjk 3 esa nh x;h O;oLFkk
mYys[kuh; gS tks fuEuor~ gS%&
**16- In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management
without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more
than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so
worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to
show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an
affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence
for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240
days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of
appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone,
the award is liable to be set aside."
22-
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh mDr O;oLFkk ls Li"V gS fd ;kph dh 'kiFk&i= mlh dk dFku ek= gS ftls i;kZIr
lk{; ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd ;kph ;kfpdk ds dFku
fl) ugha dj ldk gSA
23-
i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa lEcfU/kr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds
lE;d voyksdu rFkk fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gw¡ fd ;kph i{k ;g fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd foi{kh
izcU/ku }kjk fnukad 08-5-97 ls ;kph Jh dUgS;k yky dh lsok lekfIr vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk ;kfpr
vuqrks"k gsrq rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV
rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 601-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,fj;k
eSustj] fjyk;al ,pvkj l£olst izkbosV fyfeVsM ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2015)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@11@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 20/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Area
Manager, Reliance HR Services Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
30.11.2016.
[No. L-40012/11/2015-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1241
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 20/2015
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- ,y- 40012/11/2015–vkbZvkj (Mh;w) fnukad 09/03/2015
Shri Jugal Kishore Sharma S/o Bhagirathmal Sharma,
R/o Flat No.613, LIG Block, Sec-29,
Pratap Apartment, Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer,
Jaipur - 302029 Raj.
V/s
1.
The Area Manager,
Reliance HR Services Pvt. Ltd.,
D-69, S.P. Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur- 302001 (Rajasthan)
2.
The HR Head,
Reliance Communication Ltd.,
D-69, S.P. Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur- 302001 (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh tqxy fd'kksj 'kekZ & Loa;
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
%
Jh lat; JhokLro & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
fnukad % 24&10&2016
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ (?k) ds vUrxZr fnukad
09/03/2015 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr
fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
2-
**D;k izca/ku fjyk;Ul dE;wfuds'ku fy-] t;iqj dk deZdkj Jh tqxy fd'kksj 'kekZ] lsYl ,DthD;wfVo dks fnukad
06-11-2014 dks lsok ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh
gS\**
3-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIr% izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd og fnukad 9-4-2007 ls izxfr Bsdsnkj
oSY;w ,sMsM lksY;w'ku izkbZosV fyfeVsM }kjk fu;qDr Fkk vkSj mlesa fujUrj vPNk dk;Z djus ds dkj.k fnukad 1-9-2007 dks
izeksV dj lsYl ,DthD;qfVo in ij yxk;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk dk;Z mPp Js.kh dk jgk gSA vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd dze
la[;k 3 ij dEiuh ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk eq> ij tks dk;Z ds vlarks"k ik;s tkus dh psrkouh dk nkok gS ml lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ
;g dguk pkgrk gS fd mlds dk;Z djus ds vafre eghuksa esa lSysjh ds lkFk bUlsfUVo Hkh izkIr gqvk gS tks ;g n'kkZrk gS fd
mldk dk;Z mRre Fkk vkSj dEiuh mlh ,DthfD;qVo dks bUlsfUVo nsrh gS tks vius fn;s gq, VkjxsV ls vf/kd VkjxsV izkIr
djrk gSA ;g ckr izkFkhZ dh osru iphZ ls tkfgj gSA
4-
Øe la[;k 4 esa foi{khx.k us esjs ,fj;k lsYl eSust ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS fd eSaus mudk futh dk;Z ugha fd;k gS tks fd
loZFkk xyr gSA esjs ,fj;k eSaustj Jh uouhr frokjh dh cgu dk rykd Jh eku~ euh"k 'kekZ] fuoklh jkorHkkVk] dksVk dks
eq>s vius lkFk esa ys tkdj djok;k gS ftldk eS lk{kh gw¡A dze la[;k 5 o 6 esa ;g dFku gS fd eSaus vius gLrfyf[kr i=
ls vU;= dbZ vPNh miyfC/k feyus ds dkj.k R;kx i= fn;k gS tks xyr gSA eq>s dgha vPNh ukSdjh ugha feyh uk gh eSaus
vius gLrfyf[kr i= esa viuk R;kxi= fn;k gSA ;g esjs dEiuh ds ,fj;k eSustj o dEiuh ds ,pvkj fMikVZesUV ds }kjk
fd;k x;k "kM;U= gS ftldk eSa f'kdkj gw¡A vxj eq>s vU;= dgha vPNh ukSdjh feyrh rks eSa vkids lkeUks buds f[kykQ
iwoZ esa vkjksi i= izLrqr ugha djrkA esjs ,fj;k eSustj us viuh cgu dk rykd esjs }kjk vius cguksbZ ls eq>s dke ls
fudkyus dk Mj fn[kkdj djok;k gS tks fd esjs lkFk nqO;Zogkj dks n'kkZrk gSA
5-
vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd dze la[;k 8 o 9 esa foi{k dk dFku gS fd esjh fu;qfDr 1 o"kZ ds fy, Fkh rks ekpZ 2007
ls uoEcj 2014 rd mls dSls dke ij j[kk x;k vkSj mlus ,slk dksbZ xyr dk;Z ugha fd;k ftlls mls iqu% dEiuh dh
lsok esa ugha fy;k tk ldsA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mlus vius gLrfyf[kr i= ls dksbZ R;kxi= ugha fn;k vkSj og dksbZ
1242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xyr vkjksi ugha yxk jgk gS rFkk ;g iw.kZr;k lR; ckr gS fd mlds ,fj;k eSustj o ,p-vkj- LVkQ dh rjQ ls xyr
lk{; izLrqr gS fd mlus viuh rjQ ls bl dk;Z ls R;kx i= fn;k gSA izkFkhZ dk vkxs dFku gS fd vius ifjokj ds izfr
og viuh ftEesnkjh vPNh rjg le>rk gS ,oa blh dk;Z ls og vius ifjokj dh t:jrsa iwjh djrk Fkk vkSj foi{k us
nqHkkZouk ls xzLr gksdj og xyr rjhds ls mls dk;Z ls gVk;k gSA izkFkhZ dk vkxs dFku gS fd vxj mldh fu;qfDRk fnukad
1-4-2007 ls Fkh rks fnukad 6-9-2014 dks D;ksa gVk;k x;k tcfd ekpZ dk eghuk iwjk gksus esa ikap eghus Fks vkSj foi{k us
nqHkkZouk ds dkj.k gkFkksa&gkFk mldk VehZus'ku dj fn;kA foi{k ds i= ls nks ckrsa lkQ tkfgj gksrh gS fd dHkh rks og eq>s
VehZus'ku djus dh ckr djrs gS rks dHkh ;s eq>s Lo;a gLrfyf[kr R;kx&i= nsus dh ckr djrs gS tks fd ljklj >wB ls
izsfjr gSA eSa fiNys 2 ekg ls csjkstxkj gw¡ A esjs rFkk esjs ifjokj dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr lgh ugha gksus ds dkj.k eSa vkils U;k;
dh xqgkj djrk gw¡A
6-
izkFkhZ dk vkxs dFku gS fd bl dEiuh dks izkFkhZ us viuh ftUnxh ds djhc 8 o"kZ fn;s gS vkSj bu dEifu;ksa ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa us viuh dh xbZ Ny&diV ls izkFkhZ dk R;kx&i= dks ,d gh fnu esa rS;kj dj fy;kA fdlh Hkh dEiuh ds
deZpkjh dks fcuk uksfVl ihfj;M ds ,d ekg dh vof/k esa gVk;k ugha tk ldrk gSA dEiuh ds fdlh fu;e dk izkFkhZ us
mYya?ku ugha fd;k gSA foi{k us izkFkhZ dk ekufld vkSj vkfFkZd 'kks"k.k fd;k gS] vr% buds f[kykQ mfpr dk;Zokgh djds
mls U;k; iznku fd;k tkos rFkk {kfriwfrZ jkf'k o iqu% blh dEiuh esa ukSdjh fnyokus dh d`ik dh tk;A
7-
;kph us fnukad 13-7-15 dks Dyse izLrqr fd;kA fnukad 13-7-15 dks foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vk;kA vr%
foi{k ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k ikfjr dj i=koyh fnukad 15-9-2015 dks ;kph dh ,di{kh; lk{; ds fy,
fu;r dh x;hA vkns'kksijkUr foi{k us fnukad 13-7-15 dks vf/kdkj i= izLrqr fd;k rFkk ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fujLr djus
gsrq vkosnu izLrqr djus ds fy, le; dh ekax dhA foi{k dks fnukad 15-9-2015 dh vxyh frfFk ls voxr djk;k x;kA
8-
fnukad 15-9-2015 dks ;kph i{k us ,di{kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr dh rFkk foi{k us ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fujLr djus dh
vkosnu Hkh ugha izLrqr dhA fnukad 15-9-2015 dks ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr Fkk rFkk foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds eqa'kh mifLFkr
jgsA U;k;fgr esa dk;Zokgh eqYroh dj 26-11-15 ,di{kh; lk{; gsrq iqu% frfFk fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 26-11-15 dks mHk;i{k
vuqifLFkr jgs vkSj iqu% U;k;fgr esa ,d volj iznku djrs gq, fnuakd 24-12-15 frfFk ,di{kh; lk{; gsrq fu;r dh x;hA
fnukad 24-12-15 ls 27-12-15 rd vodk'k jgk vr% i=koyh fnukad 28-12-15 dks izLrqr gqbZA fnuakd 28-12-15 dks ;kph i{k
iqu% vuqifLFkr jgk rFkk foi{k mifLFkr jgkA ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vodk'k ij FksA foi{k us ,di{kh; vkns'k fujLr djus dh
vkosnu izLrqr dhA vxyh frfFk fnukad 22-2-16 vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq fu;r dh x;hA
9- fnukad 22-2-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs vr% fnukad 28-4-16 vxyh frfFk fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r dh x;hA fnukad 28-
4-16 dks ;kph i{k iqu% vuqifLFkr jgk vkSj foi{k mifLFkr jgk i=koyh fnukad 14-7-16 dks foi{kh dh ,di{kh; vkns'k dks
fujLr djus dh vkosnu fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r dh x;hA
10- fnukad 14-7-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgs vr% fnukad 19-9-16 vxyh frfFk iqu% foi{kh dh vkosnu ds fuLrkj.k gsrq
fu;r dh x;h ,oa fnukad 19-9-16 dks mHk;i{k ds vuqifLFkr jgus ij vxyh frfFk 6-10-16 fuLrkj.k gsrq fu;r dh x;hA
fnukad 6-10-16 dks mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgsA fnukad 6-10-16 dks ikfjr vkns'k fuEuor~ gS %&
**06-10-16 iqdkj dh x;hA mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr gSaA i=koyh vijkUg esa is'k gksA
y?kq gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼ihBklhu vf/kdkjh½**
6-10-16 vijkUg
iqdkj dh x;hA mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr gSaA i=koyh foIk{k dh fnukad 28-12-15 dh vkosnu fuLrkj.k esa gS ftlesa foi{kh ds
fo:) 13-7-15 dh ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fujLr djus dh vkosnu esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS ftlij ;kph i{k dh vkifRr vkuh gSA
;kph i{k us vc rd ml vkosnu dh udy Hkh ugha xzg.k dh gS vkSj ;kph fnukad 28-12-15 ds iwoZ fnuakd 13-7-15 dks
mifLFkr gksdj ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ds ckn vkt rd mifLFkr ugha vk;k gSA
i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA foIk{k dh l'kiFk vkosnu fnuakfdr 28-12-15 ,oa fe;kn vf/kfu;e dh vkosnu fnukad
28-12-15 mDr vkosnu ds lkFk fuLrkj.k esa gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ vkosnu ij cy nsus okyk ugha gS vkSj foi{k Hkh
vuqifLFkr py jgk gS vr% foIk{k dh mDr vkosnu [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs ,di{kh; lk{; ;kph fnuakd
20-10-16 dks is'k gksA
y?kq gLrk{kj viBuh;
¼ihBklhu vf/kdkjh½**
11- fnuakd 20-10-16 dks Hkh mHk;i{k vuqifLFkr jgsA i=koyh ;kph ds ,di{kh; lk{; gsrq iqu% fnuakd 20-10-16 dks fu;r
FkhA fnukad 13-7-15 ls ;kph dh fujUrj vuqifLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[k lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k rFkk i=koyh
,okMZ gsrq vkjf{kr dh x;hA
12- iapkV gsrq eSuas i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1243
13- ;kfpdk esa izLrqr fd;s x;s dFku dks fl) djus dk izkjfEHkd nkf;Ro ;kph ij gSA mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr ls Li"V
gS fd ;kph us ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa ugha izLrqr fd;k gSA i=koyh ij ;kph ds gLrys[k esa
R;kx&i= fnukafdr 6-11-14 dh QksVksizfr miyC/k gS tks vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa gSA i= esa dgk x;k gS fd ;kph dEiuh dh lsok ls
vU;= csgrj volj ds fy, R;kx&i= ns jgk gSA ;kph us bl R;kx&i= ls bUdkj fd;k gS vr% ;g nkf;Ro ;kph ij gS
fd og fl) djs fd mlus u vkosnu fy[kh gS u ml ij gLrk{kj ;kph ds gSaA bl lEcU/k esa lk{; gsrq ;kph dh rjQ ls
dqN Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA
14- mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gWw fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd
izcU/ku fjyk;Ul dE;wfuds'ku fy- t;iqj dk deZdkj Jh tqxy fd'kksj 'kekZ] lsYl ,DthD;wfVo dks fnukad 6-11-2014 dks
lsok ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr ugha gSA deZdkj Jh tqxyfd'kksj 'kekZ] rn~uqlkj fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus ds
gdnkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k
tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 602-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd
jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64@2011) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@33@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 64/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the The Director, National Institute of Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 16.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/33/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID.No. 64/11
Sh. Somnath S/o Sh. Lila Ram,
R/o Vikash Nagar, W.No. 24, Paudi,
P.O. –Garbhal,
Kurukshetra.
Versus
The Director,
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42012/33/2011 IR(DU) dated 14.09.2011
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshera, in
terminating the services of Sh. Somnath S/o Sh. Lila Ram w.e.f 27.05.2010, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?”
1244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On 29.09.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 64/2011 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.
On 12.12.2011 claim statement has been filed by workman. Through which workman prayed as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the claim statement of the workmen/applicant may please be accepted and the
respondent may kindly be directed taken back in service to the applicant with continuity of service and full back wages.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”
Against Claim statement management filed its written statement on 22.05.2012. Where in management prayed
as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the present claim statement may please be rejected/dismissed in the interest of
justice.”
Workman filed rejoinder on 24.07.2012. Where in he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement .
On 14 .5.2013 Dr. R. K Yadav my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:
1.
Wehther there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2.
Whether engagement of the claimant by the Mess Committee of the hostel confers any status of Industrial
employee in respect of the business of the management.
3.
As in terms of reference.
And fixed 23.07.2013 for workman evidence.
Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. Hence his
evidence has been closed on 2.11.2016 and case was fixed for management evidence/ arguments.
On 18.1.2017 management not adduced any evidence. So I reserved the award.
I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.
In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.
Which is accordingly passed.
Dated:-30/1/2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 603-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd
jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2011) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@38@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 69/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the The Director, National Institute of Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 16.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/38/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1245
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 69/2011
Sh. Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Bhalu Ram,
Village-Dayalpur,
P.O. –Gurukul,
Kurukshetra.
Versus
The Director,
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42012/38/2011 IR(DU) dated 14.09.2011
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshera, in
terminating the services of Sh. Dharam Singh, S/o Sh. Bhalu Ram w.e.f 27.05.2010, is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 29.09.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 69/2011 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.
On 12.12.2011 claim statement has been filed by workman. Through which workman prayed as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the claim statement of the workmen/applicant may please be accepted and the
respondent may kindly be directed taken back in service to the applicant with continuity of service and full back wages.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”
Against Claim statement management filed its written statement on 22.05.2012. Where-in management prayed
as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the present claim statement may please be rejected/dismissed in the interest of
justice.”
Workman filed rejoinder on 24.07.2012. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement .
On 14 .5.2013 Dr. R. K Yadav my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:
1.
Wehther there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2.
Whether engagement of the claimant by the Mess Committee of the hostel confers any status of Industrial
employee in respect of the business of the management?
3.
As in terms of reference.
And fixed 23.07.2013 for workman evidence.
Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. Hence his
evidence has been closed on 2.11.2016 and case was fixed for management evidence/ arguments.
On 18.1.2017 management not adduced any evidence. So I reserved the award.
I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.
In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.
Which is accordingly passed.
Dated:-30/1/2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
1246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 604-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd
jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2011) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@35@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 604.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 66/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the The Director, National Institute of Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 16.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/35/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 66/2011
Sh. Karambir S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass,
Village & P.O. –Kirmach,
Kurukshetra.
Versus
The Director,
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42012/35/2011 (IR(DU)) dated 14.09.2011
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshera, in
terminating the services of Sh. Karambir S/o Sh. Rameshwar Das w.e.f 27.05.2010, is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 29.09.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 66/11 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.
On 12.12.2011 claim statement has been filed by workman. Through which workman prayed as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the claim statement of the workmen/applicant may please be accepted and the
respondent may kindly be directed taken back in service to the applicant with continuity of service and full back wages.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”
Against Claim statement management filed its written statement on 22.05.2012. Where-in management prayed
as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the present claim statement may please be rejected/dismissed in the interest of
justice.”
Workman filed rejoinder on 24.07.2012. Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement .
On 14 .5.2013 Dr. R. K. Yadav my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1247
1.
Wehther there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2.
Whether engagement of the claimant by the Mess Committee of the hostel confers any status of Industrial
employee in respect of the business of the management.
3.
As in terms of reference.
And fixed 23.07.2013 for workman evidence.
Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. Hence his
evidence has been closed on 2.11.2016 and case was fixed for management evidence/ arguments.
On 18.1.2017 management not adduced any evidence. So I reserved the award.
I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.
In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.
Which is accordingly passed.
Dated:-30/1/2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 605-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd
jk"Vªh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2011) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@56@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 87/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the The Director, National Institute of Technology and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 16.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/56/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 87/2011
Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Phool Singh,
Village-Sunehri, PO –Salarpur,
Kurukshetra.
Versus
The Director,
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42012/56/2011 (IR(DU)) dated 14.09.2011
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
1248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshera, in
terminating the services of Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Phool Singh, w.e.f 27.05/2010, is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 29.09.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 87/11 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.
On 14.12.2011 claim statement has been filed by workman. Through which workman prayed as follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the claim statement of the workmen/applicant may please be accepted and the
respondent may kindly be directed taken back in service to the applicant with continuity of service and full back wages.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”
Against Claim statement management filed its written statement on 3.07.2012. Where-in management prayed as
follows:-
“It is therefore prayed that the present claim statement may please be rejected/dismissed in the interest of
justice.”
Workman filed rejoinder on 4.09.2012. Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement .
On 30.04.2013 Dr. R. K. Yadav my Ld. Predecessor framed following issues:
1.
Wehther there exists relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2.
Whether Mess Committee, being run in the hostel is part of the main function of the management? If yes,
its effects?
3.
As in terms of reference.
And fixed 2.07.2013 for workman evidence.
Several opportunities given to workman to adduce his evidence but he failed to adduce his evidence. Hence his
evidence has been closed on 2.11.2016 and case was fixed for management evidence/ arguments.
On 18.1.2017 management not adduced any evidence. So I reserved the award.
I perused the record which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence.
In want of which only “No dispute Award” award can be passed.
Which is accordingly passed.
Dated:-30/1/2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 606-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ofj"B
egkizca/d] vk;q/ fuekZ.kh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 07@2014) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@32@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 606.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 07/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1249
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior
General Manager, Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
16.12.2016.
[No. L-14012/32/2013-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR
COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 07 of 2014
Between :
Behari Traders,
through Sri Ram Ayodhya Singh,
Proprietor,
15/110, M.P. Mill Compound,
Sarvodaya Nagar,
Kanpur. U.P.
Mukesh Kumar son of late Sohan Lal,
House No.2 Kachi Basti,
Govind Nagar Kanpur.
And
Senior General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road,
Kanpur.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification L-14012/32/2013-IR (DU) dated
21.01.14 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of M/s Behari Traders, Kanpur, in terminating the service of Sri Mukesh
Kumar son of late Sohan Lal, workman with effect from 06.05.13 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?
3.
In this case after receipt of the notice of the tribunal the worker filed an affidavit along with application that he is
not interested to contest the present reference.
4.
The present case is pending since 10.02.2014, and considering period of the pendency of the case as well
affidavit of the worker filed on 07.08.14, in which he has clearly submitted that he is not interested to prosecute with
the case and of his own will he interested to withdraw the present pending case from this tribunal, therefore, the
Tribunal felt it to be put the present case before the LOK ADALAT, scheduled to be held on 30.09.16.
5.
The case was taken up in LOK ADALAT ON 30.09.16, and as observed above that the worker is not interested in
contesting his case before this tribunal and wants to withdraw the case of his case without assigning any cogent
reasons.
6.
Therefore, the tribunal during holding of LOK ADALAT, is constrained that the worker would prosecute his case
in view of his application and affidavit submitted in the case above case. Hence it is decided that the worker is not
interested in prosecuting his claim before the tribunal, therefore, his case in LOK ADALT, is decided against him.
7.
As such the case is decided against the workman through the LOK ADALAT and in favour of the Management.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 607-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj
E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ fnYyh] bZLV ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
1250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 74@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@143@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case CR No. 74/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (East), New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/143/2013-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. 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.74/2015
Shri Inder Pal Singh, S/o Shri Khajan Singh, through
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi(East),
Udyog Sadan, near Patparganj,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110 092
…Management
AWARD
Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/143/2013-IR(DU) dated
05.02.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:
‘Whether Shri Inder Pal Singh S/o Shri Khajan Singh, is entitled to the status of Chaudhary with effect from
the date on which any order was passed wherein Shri Inder Pal Singh was given responsibility of looking after
the work of Chaudhary and all consequential benefits revised from time to time?’
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Inder Pal Singh filed his statement of claim, wherein it
is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989 by the competent officers of
Horticulture Department of Civil Lines Zone where he performed his duty upto 18.06.2009. Thereafter he was
transferred to Rohini zone and on 01.07.2010, he was posted to Shahdara North Zone. However, he has been denied
pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of
mali, i.e. Rs.750-940 instead of Rs.950-1500 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary,
effect from 01.03.1989. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour
practice.
3.
It is also averred in para 7 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand vs
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who are
working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble
Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-
VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court
of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-
payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon’ble
High Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1251
4.
It is also averred that similar situated workmen who were performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay scale
of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and management has challenged
the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD has been dismissed by
both, before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Workman, herein, is also similarly situated and
doing work of Chaudhary and as such, entitled to same benefits.
5.
Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute not
being an industrial dispute as there is no espousal & no demand notice has been served upon the management, claim
being misconceived, claim being stale etc. In para 3 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the workman
herein was engaged on the post of mali on daily wage basis and was later on regularized on the same post of mali.
There is prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post
of Garden Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department.
Claimant has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. No such office order has
been issued by the competent authority. It is further alleged that the workman herein is not entitled for any relief on
account of delay and laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank
Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’ (2002 (2) SC 4) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (2005)
5 SC 91). Management, on merits, have denied material averments and reiterated that the workman herein appeared in
the trade test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited on behalf of the management, in which the workman
had secured 140th rank. It is, further submitted that only 50 employees were promoted to the post of Chaudhary, who
were having requisite qualification as well as secured rank upto 50. It is also denied that the workman herein was
performing duties of Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman
herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
6.
Against this factual background, the Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues:
(i)
Whether reference is not maintainable, as alleged in the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
Findings on Issue No.(i)
7.
Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for
adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal
or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the
pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that
there is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate
delay in approaching this Tribunal by the workman.
8.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014) Lab.I.C.
4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the appropriate
Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in the above
judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of the
pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’
(supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no
inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.
9.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the management
has raised objections that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General Mazdoor
Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the management. To
my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In this regard, it is
appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal
(AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the union was not a
registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by observing as under:
‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be
parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some
of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation
Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the
establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any
contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part
1252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in
Section 20(2) of the Act.
10.
Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is no sponsored or espoused by
substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would
not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears
to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay
(1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not
fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section
of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:
‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even
though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on
which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference
under Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an
industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’
11.
In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not sine
qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, this issue is decided in
favour of the workman and against the management.
Findings on Issue No.(ii)
12.
Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled
for grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1500 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from
pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on he was
regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.750-940(pre-revised) alongwith usual allowances. This fact
has been admitted even by the management in para 3 of the preliminary objections.
13.
There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating Chaudhary.
It is clear from perusal of document dated 12.08.2004 (List of Chaudharys looking after Garden Chaudhary in
Horticulture Department) Ex.WW1/1 that name of the workman, Shri Inder Pal finds mention at serial No.3 and
working as Chaudhary since March 1989. Workman, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit
Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged
in the affidavit that he was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989. There are also averments in
his affidavit that one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale of Chaudhary by the management of MCD and
Sultan Singh and others vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting Chaudhary , vide judgement of the Hon’ble High
Court, i.e. in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh & others and necessary orders for implementation of the said
judgement were issued by MCD vide order dated 04.06.2013. There is no cross examination of the workman/deponent
that he has appeared as WW1 and has tendered in evidence a copy of his identity card, which is Ex.WW1/2. It is
evident from perusal of the Identity Card that against the column ‘Designation’, there is mention of workmen
Chaudhary, Horticulture.
14.
There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled for
promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he has not appear in the trade test conducted by the department. To
my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of
Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011
rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of
2010). Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:
“28.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as
they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they
worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not
competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed
to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents
are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis
on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1253
Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no
illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”
15.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by
the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was
clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen were
entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact
that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman
herein could not qualify the test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit and has no
relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
16.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case
referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to
implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are
required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is
no question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The
Hon’ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting
Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher
post, on ad hoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or
regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port
Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of
benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:
“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal
and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had
attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the
judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be
applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well
as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into
the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached
the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the
Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union
of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the
said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the
judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from
either laches and delays or acquiescence.”
17.
In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Inder Pal Singh is entitled
to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from March 1989 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the
difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties
1254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and functions of Garden Chaudhary till date. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : December 6, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 608-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj]
ukFkZ fnYyh E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
221@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@166@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case CR No. 221/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42012/166/2015-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. 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. 221/2015
Shri Jai Bhagwan,
S/o late Shri Daya Nand,
C/o Shri Anuj Aggarwal,
Aggarwal Bhawan,
GT Road, Tis Hazari,
New Delhi 110 054
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi 110 002
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received in the present from Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-42012/166/2015-IR(DU)
dated 05.10.2015 for adjudication of dispute with the following terms of reference:
‘Was the termination of Shri Jai Bhagwan without assigning any reason is justified as per provisions of law?
If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
2.
Facts of the case as contained in the statement of claim are that Shri Jai Bhagwan, the workman herein joined
services of Municipal Corporation of Delhi the management, in Horticulture Department with effect from 23.10.1993
as mali. He was being treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and was being paid fixed wages, which were
being revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. Other facilities, like uniform, earn leave, casual leave,
gazette holidays, festival and restricted holidays which the other counter parties were also denied to the workman
herein. The workman herein has an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. Services of the workman was
terminated with effect from 25.01.1996 without assigning any valid reason and said action of the management in
terminating services is alleged to be totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide and without following any legal
procedure. Action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2(ra) read with Item
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1255
No.5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) and the same is in violation of
provisions of the Act. The workman has in fact worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year for the
purpose of 25(B) of the Act. Claimant has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to him have been
regained while the workman herein has been thrown out of job, which is in violation of Section 25 F, G, H and N of the
Act read with rule 76, 77 and 78 of the Central Industrial Rule 1957. Finally, prayer has been made for reinstatement
of the workman with full back wages.
2.
It is clear from the record of the case that nobody appeared on behalf of the management, as such, management
was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.03.2016. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
Claimant examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8.
3.
It is clear from perusal of affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the averments contained in the affidavit are on the same
lines as the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. The workman has also deposed that his job is perennial in nature.
4.
It is evident from perusal of document Ex.WW1/1 that the workman has filed application before the Deputy
Director (Horticulture) seeking relevant information regarding employment and engagement of beldars. Ex.WW1/2
shows that information was also sought by the workman under RTI Act and it was replied vide letter dated 17.01.2012.
Workman herein was daily wage beldar for different days as per list enclosed. He was engaged from time to time
whenever muster roll was got sanctioned by the department for specific work and period and his services were not
regularized. It is further clear from details of the salary annexed with Ex.WW1/2 that right from December 1993 till
10.10.1996 the claimant was engaged for different period and his attendance was also duly marked in the muster roll
enclosed with the said documents.
5.
Workman has also filed copy of the demand notice Exc.WW1/3 wherein he has mentioned about his
engagement as mali/beldar on 23.12.1993 and his termination on 25.01.1996. Ex.WW1/5 shows that the matter was
taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner averring that he was employed by the management in its Horticulture
Department on 29.12.2013 as daily wager muster roll worker for a short period for seasonal work and further it is
mentioned that the workman worked only upto 28.01.1994. However, in the subsequent para it is mentioned that the
workman also worked from 10.07.1995 to 09.09.1995 and from 26.11.1995 to 25.01.1996 for 48 and 52 days
respectively only. It is thus clear from the resume of evidence on record that the workman was admittedly engaged by
the management as daily rated/casual labour and he was performing his duties till the date of his termination on
25.01.1996. Statement of the claimant in his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A is clear and remains un-rebutted as the workman has
not been subjected to any cross examination by the management, who has been proceeded ex-parte on 17.03.2016.
Since evidence led by the workman to the effect that he was continuously engaged by the management for the date of
his engagement till his termination in the year 1996 remained unrebutted, as such, it is held that the workman has
worked continuously with the management.
6.
It is pertinent to mention here that even a daily or casual worker also falls within the ambit and scope of the
definition of ‘workman’ as defined under section 2(s) of the Act, which definition is reproduced thus:
“2(s) Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or
(iii)
Who is, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason
of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”.
7.
It is clear from the records that the workman herein was engaged on daily or casual basis, as such, workman in
the present case would fall within the definition of ‘workman’. The question whether daily wager or casual labour is a
workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Devender Singh Vs. MC Sanaur (AIR (2001) SCC 2532) wherein while interpreting provisions of Section 2(s) of the
Act, it was held as under:
1256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of
service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not
a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the Act.
The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a
person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be
inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a
workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual
employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the
employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing
manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment
for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the
definition of `workman'.
8.
In Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015 (1) SCALE 360), Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the question of
grant of back wages where termination of the job of a daily paid worker who worked for 240 days in a calendar was
found to be illegal, null and void.
9.
In the present case, claimant has specifically deposed in his affidavit, Ex.WW1/A, that he is out of service after
his termination. In such a situation, Tribunal is of the view that claimant is entitled to be paid back wages in the wake
of the ratio of law in Jasmer Singh case (supra), wherein it was observed as under:
The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or
termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been
but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed
or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an
order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived
of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid
starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the
action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the
competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant
statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the
employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits,
then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was
gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has
suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments."
10.
Admittedly, in the present case, no notice was served by the management as required under Section 25 F of the
Act. Workman has also stated that he was doing similar work which was being performed by other daily wagers and
juniors to him have also been retained in service while he has been thrown out of the job. Since provisions of Section
25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature, which clearly provides that a workman employed in any establishment who
has put in continuous service for less than 240 days, shall not be terminated or retrenched unless the workman has been
given one month notice in writing or one month salary in lieu of such notice is to paid to such workman. In the case in
hand, management has not adduced any evidence so as to rebut the case of the workman, as such, this Tribunal is left
with no choice except to believe the version of the workman contained in statement of claim and duly supported by him
in his evidence while appearing as WW1, coupled with documentary evidence on record. Law is fairly settled that if
averments made in the plaint or statement of claim is not specifically denied by the other party and the said party has
also not entered into the witness box so as to rebut the claim of the claimant, in that eventuality, court can believe the
version of such a claimant and draw adverse inference against the party who has not appeared before the Court or
Tribunal. It is clear from the evidence discussed above that the workman herein was not served with any kind of notice
before his termination. As such, there is clear cut violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and even
provisions of Section 25-G have also been violated as juniors of the workman have been regularized and retained in
service while the workman herein has been thrown out of the job. Principle of last come, first go appears to have been
not followed by the management.
11.
As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that termination of services of the claimant herein is illegal and in
violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of provisions of Section 25-F, G, H and N of the Act read
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1257
with Rule 76, 77 and 78 of the Central Industrial Rules. Consequently, the workman, Shri Jai Bhagwan, is liable to be
reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits, as the work against which he was working is
perennial in nature. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 28, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 609-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]
bafM;u bafLVV~;wV vkWiQ eSts fjlpZ] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
155@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@79@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 155/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Director, Indian Institute of Maize Research, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42012/79/2016-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. 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. 155/2016
Shri Lal Babu Rajak,
R/o B-II, Pusa Seravant Quarters,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Director,
Indian Institute of Maize Research,
Pusa Campus, New Delhi
2.
Shri Lakshmi Prasad,
M/s Green Space Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd.,
26, Plot No.54, AKH – 288, Ground Floor,
Gali No.7, Block E,
Near Lal Mandir Niti Vihar,
New Delhi
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42012/79/2016-IR(DU) dated 24.08.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Whether the claim of the workman Shri Lal Babu Rajak for reinstatement in the establishment of India
Institute o Maize Research is legal and/or justifiable and if so to what relief is the workman entitled and what
directions are necessary in this regard? Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Maize
Research in continuing the workman as contractor labour against the permanent and perennial nature of work
is illegal and/or unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice and if so whether the workman is entitled to
absorption in service as direct employee and if so on what terms and conditions?
1258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Lal Babu Rajak opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : December 6, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 610-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ps;jeSu de
eSus¯tx Mk;jsDVj] ,uchlhlh fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
156@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@72@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 156/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NBCC Limited, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/72/2016-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. 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. 156/2016
Shri Suraj @ Pappu and 6 others,
Through Delhi Multi Storey Building,
Employees Congress, P-85,
Congress P-85, Pandav Nagar,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
National Building Construction Corporation Limited,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
…Managements
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1259
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/72/2016-IR(DU) dated 22.08.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the demand of the union for regularization of the workman concerned (mentioned in Annexure A) in
the service of management No.1-NBC with all consequential benefits from the date of their initial engagement
or any other subsequent date is legal and/or justified and if so to what relief the workman concerned are
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” Whether the workman concerned (mentioned in
Annexure A) are entitled to wages and benefits at par with the employees of the corresponding status of
management No.1-NBC if so to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, the workmen union opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman union as well as the management. Neither
the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the workman union. Despite service of the notice, workman union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman union has neither put in its appearance nor has it led any evidence so as to prove their cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : December 6, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 611-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsØsVªh
,uMh,elh] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2012) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@176@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
eathr flag uSÕ;j] mi lfpo
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 61/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Secretary, NDMC, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/176/2011-IR (DU)]
MANJIT SINGH NAYAR, Dy. 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. 61/2012
Shri Rajinder, S/o Shri Jogeshwar, Beldar, through
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan,
G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi
…Workman
Versus
1260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Secretary,
New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),
Palika Bhawan,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour under sub-section (1) and sub-section
2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, vide letter No.L-42011/176/2011-
IR(DU) dated 23.02.2012, the terms of which are as under:
“Whether the management of New Delhi Municipal Council(NDMC), New Delhi in denying regularization to
Shri Rajinder, S/o Shri Jageshwar, Beldar with retrospective effect (from the initial date of appointment, i.e.
31.07.1985) with all consequential benefits is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?”
2.
Background facts necessary for disposal of the matter are that the Shri Rajinder, (hereinafter referred to as the
claimant ) joined employment of New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short the management ) as beldar on 31.07.1985.
He was being treated as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and was being paid revised wages from time to time
under the Minimum Wages Act. His counterparts doing identical work were being treated as regular employees and
paid salary in pay scale and allowances. They were also enjoying other facilities like uniform earned leave, casual
leave, gazetted/festival/restricted holidays, which were completely denied to the workman, who has an unblemished
and uninterrupted service record.
3.
It is the case of the workman that his services were terminated on 01.03.1988 without assigning any reason.
This termination was challenged by the claimant herein before the Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court No.VIII in ID
No.357/1992, Ex.WW1/6 and it was held that termination of the claimant was totally illegal and unjustified and 50%
back wages to the claimant. Thereafter, matter was taken by the management in writ appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court and vide order dated 01.02.2005 and award passed by the management was modified to the extent of grant of
25% back wages instead of 50%, subject to reinstatement of the workman.
4.
There are allegations that in pursuance of the above order, claimant was assigned duties on 07.04.2005 and on
27.09.200, Junior Engineer Shri Rath asked the workman not to come for duties from 28.09.2005 as his muster roll has
expired. Even thereafter, the claimant visited the management on 28.09.2005 though without assignment of any duty.
Thus, the management has again terminated services of the claimant with effect from 28.09.2005 without assigning any
reason despite continuity of service granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Rather, management should have
regularized services of the claimant since July 1985. Thereafter, claimant again raised an industrial dispute before the
Conciliation Officer challenging termination as well non-regularization of his services and during pendency of the
conciliation proceedings, management allowed reinstatement of the claimant and assigned duties to him with effect
from 08.08.2006. The appropriate Government vide order dated 31.03.2008 has only referred the dispute regarding
termination without referring the issue of regularization. As a result of this, claimant was constrained to raise an
industrial dispute pertaining to his regularization. Action of the management regarding non-regularization of his
services with effect from 31.07.1985, i.e. initial date of his joining on the post of beldar in proper time scale and
allowances at par with his regular counterparts on the principle of equal pay for equal work is fully illegal, bad and
unjust due to reasons which are fully enumerated in the statement of claim. Finally, a prayer has been made for
passing an award regarding regularization on the post of beldar from his initial date of appointment, i.e. 31.07.1985
with all consequential benefits.
5.
Claim filed by the claimant was contested by the management, who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections regarding maintainability of the present reference, non-disclosure of the fact that the claimant has sought
same relief in the writ petition in High Court of Delhi vide writ petition (C) 1003/2012. On merits, it is averred that
the claimant was engaged as a beldar i.e. TMR, who are daily rated/casual/muster roll workers. Claimant was not a
regular employee and as such not entitled to the facilities to which his counterparts are entitled. Moreover, he is not
entitled for regularization in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case Vs. State of
Karnataka. Moreover, claimant has concealed material facts deliberately and has not disclosed that he was reinstated
as casual worker without any change in his status with effect from 07.04.2005 as a result of order dated 01.02.2005 in
writ petition No.2980/2003. In fact, claimant continued to work till 27.09.2005 as alleged by the claimant. In fact, due
to initiation of conciliation proceedings, Conciliation Officer allowed duties with effect from August 2006 as work was
available for this category of workers. It is denied that the claimant is entitled for regularization from the initial date
as claimed by him and claimant is governed by the policy framed by the management for regularization of such
workmen subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1261
6.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide order dated 02.07.2012 observed that no specific
issue except the reference raised for adjudication was made out. As such, case was adjourned for evidence of the
parties.
7.
Claimant, in order to prove the case against the management, examined himself as WW1 and tendered his
affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. Shri Surender Bhardwaj was examined as
WW2 whose affidavit is Ex.WW2/A, who relied on document Ex.WW1/5 which is resolution passed by the union on
08.10.2008.
8..
Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Raj Shekhar, Executive Engineer as
MW1, who has also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/14.
9.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri M.S. Rawat, A/R for the management
10.
Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions raised on behalf of either of the parties,
it is necessary to mention here that during the course of arguments, it was fairly admitted by the authorized
representative of the respective parties that the claimant herein was initially engaged as a beldar on 31.07.1985 on
temporary muster roll and the management has allowed status of such workmen to be daily rated/casual workers. It is
also clear from evidence that he was being paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act. However, he was not enjoying
the facilities which are available to the counterparts who are performing identical duties. Learned A/R for the
management, in all fairness, stated that facilities, like uniform, EL, CL, gazette/festival/restricted holidays is available
only to regular workmen. So far as the past litigation between the parties is concerned, factum of the same has not been
denied even by the management in its pleadings. It is clear from perusal of the award Ex.WW1/6 that initially
termination of the claimant herein was held to be illegal and unjustified under the law and it was held that the claimant
is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity of service alongwith 50% back wages with effect from
03.07.1988. Admittedly, matter was taken by the management before Hon’ble High Court and vide order Ex.WW1/7
award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was partly modified and set aside as direction was given for payment of only
25% back wages instead of 50%, subject to reinstatement of the claimant herein on or before 02.04.2005. Perusal of
order dated 08.08.2006 Ex.WW1/8 shows that the claimant Shri Rajinder was reinstated as beldar on TMR with
immediate effect. This was done in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court stated above.
11.
Now, the vital question before this Tribunal is whether the claimant is entitled for regularization of his service
from back date as alleged by the claimant. Shri Rawat, authorized representative appearing on behalf of the
management strongly contended that the claimant is not entitled for regularization as a matter of course as he has never
been interviewed, does not possess requisite qualification and his past record has to be examined. It is only thereafter
that he can be regularized as per policy of the management. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to policy of
regularization, which is Ex.MW1/3. It is clear from perusal of the above policy that daily or casual workers working as
TMR workers and who have completed 500 days are required to be given status of RMR. The said policy contains
detailed guidelines to be followed by the management while considering workers for regularization. During the course
of arguments, it was not denied that several workmen have been regularized after issuance of the above policy by the
management and in the contention of the learned A/R for the management, case of the claimant herein is not covered
by the said policy. However, learned A/R for the management could not satisfy the court as to how the case of the
claimant is not covered, particularly when award was earlier passed in favour of the claimant herein wherein he was
granted reinstatement, including benefit of previous service. Hon’ble High Court has only reduced the back wages to
25% instead of 50% and has clarified in the judgment Ex,WW1/7 that the claimant is entitled for reinstatement on or
before 02.04.2005 and claimant was also required to report to the Director (Personnel ), North Delhi Municipal
Corporation Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi. This clearly shows that the claimant would be deemed to be
in continuous service inasmuch as the claimant has reported for duties pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court and this fact is clear from office order dated 08.08.2006 Ex.MW1/6, that he is taken on duty. Therefore,
there is no merit in the contention of the management that the claimant herein was not fulfilling the necessary
conditions required under the regularization policy.
12.
There is another order dated 22.12.2009 Ex.MW1/2 issued by Director which shows that policy of
regularization was being reviewed from time to time. It was being sent for framing policy by the Committee set up for
the purpose and the Committee has also made report in this regard for regularization of the left over workers. It was
thereafter that policy regarding conversion of TMR to RMR was made vide Ex.MW1/3.
13.
It is further clear from pleadings on record as well as evidence of the claimant WW1 that he has been in
continuous service from the date he initially joined services on 31.07.1985 till his first termination by the management
in 1988 without assigning any reason. However, this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that vide award Ex.WW1/6 as well
as judgement of the Hon’ble High Court Ex.WW/17, benefit of back wages has been accorded to the claimant herein,
as such it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that the claimant herein is not covered by the
1262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
regularization policy. As stated above, learned A/R for the management could not satisfy the court as to how the case
of the claimant is not covered by the policy of regularization applicable to such workmen.
14.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant relied upon the judgement in NDMC vs. Budh
Ram (Manu/DE/2565/2015) wherein also in a similar matter question of regularization was considered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Court. In the said case also, services of daily water/TMR was terminated on
31.08.1990 without assigning any reason and labour court has held termination to be totally illegal and unjustified vide
award dated 07.01.2002. Thereafter, matter was taken in writ by the management and the findings rendered by the
Tribunal was upheld and pleadings of the management of non-entitlement of the workman for regularization as turned
down. In the said case, workman was seeking regularization from 04.10.1989, i.e. from the date he his juniors were
regularized. Hon’ble High Court kept in mind the principle of equality as well as equal pay for equal work and upheld
the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the writ filed by the management.
15.
In Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union(2015 LLR (449), Hon’ble Supreme
Court dealt with the question of regularization of workmen engaged by the gram panchayat. It was observed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that it amounts to unfair trade practice to keep an employee casual or temporary for a long period
and an employee cannot be temporary throughout his life if the nature of work is regular or perennial in nature. Same
view appears to have been taken in Rajinder Singh vs. Union of India by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (2015) 1 LLJ
389).
16.
Position in the present case is very clear. It is not the case of the management that the claimant was recruited in
an irregular or an illegal manner. Rather in view of the previous orders of the Industrial Tribunal as well as judgement
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, he was to be given benefit of his previous service and order of previous
termination on 05.03.1988 has been found to be totally illegal and unjustified. There is hardly any dispute with the
provision of law that a daily wager/casual worker also falls within the definition of ‘workman’. When management has
regularized services of the other similarly situated employees, there is no legal justification to deny similar benefit to
the claimant herein. It is not out of place to mention here that the claimant herein has put it almost 30 years of service
since the time of his initial appointment in the year 1985. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant herein is not only
entitled for regularization and denial of the same with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits is totally
illegal and unjustified. It is clarified that benefit of regularization as per policy of regularization, discussed above,
would be given when similar situated workers were regularized. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : January 3, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 612-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ^bafM;u
iQkeZlZ iQ£Vykbtj dksvkikjsfVo fyfeVsM* ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1211@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@287@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1211/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian
Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/287/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1263
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 20th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1211/2004
The Sr. General Manager,
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd.,
Kandla (Gujarat) – 370210
…...…….First Party
V/s
Shri M.D. Parmar,
D-194, IFFCO Colony,
Udaynagar,Gandhinagar,
Kutch (Gujarat) - 370203
………….Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Gogia
For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-42012/287/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 03.12.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in terminating the services of Shri M.D. Parmar,
Senior Technician w.e.f. 08.05.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and
since when?”
1.
The reference dates back to 03.12.2002when the reference was received from the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi. Notices were issued to all the parties.
2.
The second party workman vide his statement of claim Ex. 7 alleged that the first party Indian Farmers Fertiliser
Co-operative Ltd., Kandla, hereinafter referred to as “The Society” is a multi-state co-operative society registered under
the Multi Unit Co-operative Society Act, 1942 which was engaged in the manufacture of chemical fertilisers. It was
established in the year 1975 with 1500 workmen including the staff members. The Society is also governed by various
labour laws like Factory Act, 1948, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1948. The society has also got its standing orders certified under the aforesaid Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1948; therefore, the relations between the society and its workmen are regulated by the said act and said
certified standing orders. The second party workman M.D. Parmar joined the society on 15.09.1981 as apprentice. He
was given regular employment as junior technician on 24.09.1988. He was confirmed as permanent junior technician
Grade K at the same time. He was promoted to the Grade J in the year 1987 and on 01.02.1993; he was promoted and
posted as senior technician. At the time of impugned order of termination of service, his last pay was Rs. 9926.29/-. He
has alleged that he was served with a charge-sheet bearing no. KP/IR/62230/999 dated 05.08.1999 by Joint General
Manager (KI) S.P. Yadav with a charge that he absented from duty unauthorisedly for 199 days from 01.04.1998 to
03.04.1999. He also alleged that he submitted the explanation on 27.08.1999 against the charge-sheet but the society
appointed one Mr. L.K. Bhambhani as inquiry officer to inquire the charge-sheet vide letter no. KP/IR/62230/99 dated
02.09.1999 under the signature aforesaid S.P. Yadav. Inquiry officer Bhambhani fix the inquiry to be held on
16.09.1999 at 02:00 PM vide his letter dated 10.09.1999 but the inquiry officer commenced the inquiry at 12:15 PM of
16.09.1999 and concluded the inquiry on the same day. He has further alleged that the names of the witnesses were not
disclosed in the charge-sheet and he became aware of the witnesses on the date of the inquiry. He was not given ample
opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses. He has further alleged that the society issued show cause notice bearing
no. KP/IR/62230/99 dated 16.10.1999 by aforesaid S.P. Yadav seeking his explanation as to why the punishment of
dismissal of service be not awarded.
1264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
He further alleged in the statement of claim that he submitted explanation to the second show cause notice on
22.10.1999. The society vide its letter dated 17.12.1999 advised him to appear before Dr. Sanjay Barot for medical
examination. He appeared before the Dr. Barot as per the directions. The society vide its letter dated 29.01.2000
informed him that the society has received the report of Dr. Barot who has reported that he (workman) has been
suffering with reactive depression but the copy of the medical report was not supplied to him by Dr. Barot or the
society. He was also not asked to submit his explanation to Dr. Barot’s report and finally the society terminated his
services vide its order no. KP/IR/62230/2000 dated 08.05.2000 under the signature of Joint General Manager (KII). He
preferred appeal against the said order to the Managing Director of the society on 05.07.2000, same was rejected by the
society vide its order no. KP/IR/2000 dated 19.10.2000 under the signature of Sr. Manager (P&A).
4.
He has further alleged in the statement of claim that the society issued him a charge-sheet bearing no.
KP/IR/62230/99 dated 05.08.1999, appointing Mr. L.K. Bhambhani as inquiry officer, well-versed in labour laws being
law graduate and having held high offices in the management cadre in different company, charging him (workman) that
he had remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for 199 days for the period from 01.04.1998 to 03.07.1999. The said
inquiry officer made a formality of holding inquiry. He conducted the inquiry in haste and pre-pond the inquiry to
12:15 PM instead of 02:00 PM acting as a man of the society. He has further alleged that the sufficient, adequate and
reasonable opportunity to defend was not given to him. The presenting officer did not act fairly as he acted in dual
capacity by acting as presenting officer as well as a witness. He was not provided the copies of whole documents. The
appeal was also disposed of casually without following the basic tenets of law.
5.
The first party in his written statement Ex.9 brushed aside and denied all the averments made in the statement of
claim regarding unfairness made in the inquiry as well as in awarding the punishment. He further alleged that the
workman remained absent unauthorisedly for 98 days during the period from 01.01.1995 to 31.10.1995 for which he
was issued charge-sheet dated 27.12.1995 with a direction to improve and to remain regular in attending his duties.
Thereafter he remained absent unauthorisedly for 95 days during the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.09.1997 for which
he was issued charge-sheet dated 12.11.1997 with a re-direction to improve and to remain regular in attending his
duties. Thereafter again he remained absent unauthorisedly for 42 days during the period from 01.10.1997 to
31.03.1998 for which he was issued charge-sheet dated 14.15.1998 wherein after an inquiry he was punished with an
imposition of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 20.02.1999. It is further submitted
that principles of natural justice were not followed in the departmental inquiry was false. It was conducted in fair and
proper manner, after conducting the inquiry includes punishment was awarded.
6.
The first party vide its Ex. 10 submitted the documents copy of charge-sheet No. KP/IR/62230/99 dated
05.08.1999 Ex. 61, copy of reply dated 27.08.1999 by Shri M.D. Parmar Ex. 62, acknowledged copy of inquiry order
dated 02.09.1999 into the charge-sheet dated 05.08.1999 issued to Shri M.D. Parmar Ex. 63, acknowledged copy of
letter dated 10.09.1999 by inquiry officer fixing the inquiry on 16.09.1999 Ex. 64, copy of the inquiry proceedings
dated 16.09.1999 held into the charge-sheet dated 05.08.1999 wherein Shri M.D. Parmar has admitted the charges and
acknowledged the receipt of the inquiry proceedings Ex. 65, copies of pay slips of Shri M.D. Parmar showing the
deductions for his unauthorized absence Ex. 66 copies of muster roll showing the attendance/absence of Shri M.D.
Parmar Ex. 67, copy of the inquiry report/findings dated 04.10.2004 Ex. 68, acknowledged copy of second show-cause
notice dated 16.10.1999 issued by Shri M.D. Parmar Ex. 69, copy of reply dated 22.10.1999 by Shri M.D. Parmar Ex.
70, copy letter No. KP/IR/2000 dated 29.01.2000 to Shri M.D. Parmar regarding observation of his attendance for 3
months Ex. 71, copy of appeal dated 05.07.2000 preferred by Shri M.D. Parmar Ex. 72, copy of letter no. KP/IR/2000
dated 19.10.2000 to Shri M.D. Parmar regarding his appeal Ex. 73 and copy of termination letter no.
KP/IR/62230/2000 dated 08.05.2000 Ex. 74 as all are exhibited being admitted by the second party.
7.
The second party submitted the documents vide Ex. 13 original charge sheet no. KP/IR/62230/99 given by the
first party to the second party along with annexure ‘1’ Ex. 36, duplicate copy of the explanation given by the second
party with reference to the charge sheet dated05.08.1999 Ex. 37, original letter no. KP/IR/62230/99 written by the first
party to the second party regarding appointment of Shri L.K. Bhabhani as inquiry officer Ex. 38, original letter dated
10.09.1999 received by the second party from inquiry officer Shri Bhabhani fixing dated of inquiry on 16.09.1999 Ex.
39, original second show cause notice given by first party to the second party proposing punishment along with enquiry
officer’s report dated 04.10.1999 Ex. 40, duplicate copy of explanation submitted by the second party with reference to
second show cause notice Ex. 41, original letter no. KP/IR/99 written by the first party to the second party for
appearing for medical examination before Dr. Sanjay Barot Ex. 42, original letter no. KP/IR/2000 written by the first
party to the second party pursuant to the report of Dr. Sanjay Barot Ex. 43, duplicate copy of letter written by second
party to the first party in connection with treatment for reactive depression Ex. 44, original order no. KP/IR/62230/2000
given by the first party to the second party terminating the services w.e.f. 08.05.2000 Ex. 45, duplicate copy of appeal
made by the second party to the managing director of the first party Ex. 46 and original letter no. KP/IR/2000
dismissing the appeal of the second party Ex. 47 as all are exhibited being admitted by the second party.
8.
The second party workman M.D. Parmar did not challenge the illegality of the inquiry. He simply challenged the
quantity of the punishment which is alleged to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged/labelled in the charge-
sheet.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1265
9.
Therefore, on the basis of the pleadings and the charge-sheet, the following issues are to be addressed by way of
passing award.
Issue No. i : Whether the punishment of terminating of service of the second party workman M.D. Parmar from
services w.e.f. 08.05.2000 was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet?
Issue No. ii :Whether the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in terminating Shri M.D. Parmar, senior
technician from services w.e.f. 08.05.2000 is legal and justified?
10.
Both the issues no. i and ii are interrelated, therefore, are taken together for passing award. The burden to prove
these issues were lying on the second party workman. Therefore, he submitted his affidavit Ex. 42 as an examination-
in-chief which is absolute reproduction of the statement of claim Ex. 7 on oath.He has not said anything contrary to the
statement of claim.
11.
In rebuttal, the first party examined R.A. Ambwani, Deputy General Manager, Personnel and Administration by
way of filing the affidavit Ex. 60 as an examination-in-chief wherein he also reiterated the averments made in the
written statement Ex. 9. In his cross-examination he has not said anything contrary to the averments made in the written
statement.
12.
Both the parties have filed the written arguments Ex. 61and 62 respectively.
13.
It is noteworthy that the second party has challenged the legality of the inquiry in a cursory manner but has not
disclosed the grounds and reasons as to what illegality or regularity was committed by the inquiry officer in the
departmental proceedings. Therefore, I do not think necessary to go into the illegality or irregularity being committed
in the departmental proceedings because the second party workman in his affidavit/examination-in-chief as well as in
the cross-examination has not denied that he was not given the opportunity of submitting reply, cross-examining the
witness, producing his witnesses in rebuttal and appearance. Therefore, it can easily say that the inquiry officer
followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the departmental proceedings. It is also noteworthy that he
has also admitted that he was given the copy of the inquiry report as well as he was served with the show-cause notice
while awarding the punishment but he did not reply the show-cause notice.
14.
Thus in the light of the discussions made in the Para 13, the limited questions remain to be answered as to
whether the punishment awarded was adequate or was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct.
15.
The second party workman in his argument Ex. 62 has submitted in his Para 5 that the workman did not
challenge the inquiry but wanted to see that the justice is done. From the inquiry report that the inquiry officer was an
outsider representing the professional firm THE ODYSSEY to which he has no objection but the inquiry officer would
have been trained in conducting the inquiry but same has not been clear from the reply of the first party. The inquiry
officer gave his findings on the basis of the documentary evidence without any oral evidence and held him guilty. The
inquiry report was based on presumptions, therefore, perverse in the absence of the oral evidence.He has also
challenged the inquiry report on the ground that there was no formal charge-sheet, only show cause notice cum charge-
sheet was served on him to submit the explanation but he has also added that wanted early dispensations of justice so
not criticise the inquiry however finding and punishment his perverse being disproportionate to the misconduct.
16.
The first party management answered the arguments of the second party by way of submitting the written
arguments Ex. 61 stating that it was a case of long absence from the year 1995 to 1998 without authorisation. His
conduct was also obstinate that he did not dare to appear in any of the inquiry proceedings from 1995 to 1997
indicating that he was not scared of any inquiry or action. In my view, such obstinacy permits the management to
award the punishment of removal.
17.
The learned counsel of second party also submitted the written argument Ex. 62. He argued that the inquiry was
conducted in a hasty manner by conducting the proceedings in the day to day manner and therefore, violative of the
principles of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings were illegal. This argument has no force because it is
an admitted fact that the second party workman was served with the charge-sheet giving him the opportunity to submit
his explanation which he did not avail. Thereafter, he was also giving opportunity to appear and to participate with an
opportunity to cross-examine and to give evidence in defence which he also did not avail. Thus the challenging the
legality of the inquiry in a casual manner without disclosing the reasons without the support of an affidavit will not give
him a right to challenge the inquiry. Thus as the inquiry proceedings have not been challenged by giving solid reasons,
therefore, I find the inquiry proceedings as legal and just without violative of principles of natural justice.
18.
The second and the last argument of the second party workman is that the punishment awarded was
disproportionate to the misconduct or the charge labelled in the charge-sheet. This is an admitted fact that the second
party workman absented from duty for 98 days during the period from 01.01.1995 to 31.10.1995 for which he was
issued charge-sheet dated 27.12.1995 with a direction to improve and to remain regular in attending his duties.
Thereafter he remained absent unauthorisedly for 95 days during the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.09.1997 for which
he was again issued charge-sheet dated 12.11.1997 with a re-direction to improve and to remain regular in attending his
duties. Thereafter again he remained absent unauthorisedly for 42 days during the period from 01.10.1997 to
1266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31.03.1998 for which he was issued charge-sheet dated 14.15.1998 wherein after an inquiry he was punished with an
imposition of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 20.02.1999. Thus the second party
workman absented unauthorisedly for 235 days in the past and present too during the period from 01.01.1997 to
31.03.1998. This conduct indicates that the second party workman was habitual in absenting from the duty without
taking prior sanction. It is a noteworthy that second party workman was habitual absentee and it might be possible that
he would have been expressing his muscle power by absenting unauthorisedly showing that management cannot harm
him. Such conduct cannot be said to be tolerable in the best management of the industry because it is quite natural that
the other works force may follow him.
19.
The argument that the punishment is excessive has been supported by the learned counsel by way of his
judgement Sardar Singh Dev Singh V/s District Superintendent of Police 1995 Gujarat LH 940 wherein the Gujarat
High Court held that absence of 150 days unauthorisedly by a constable will not make the case of dismissal and the
penalty was treated as harass.
20.
The learned counsel of the second party has also referred that Mavji C. Lakum V/s Central Bank of India (2009)
1 SC C (L&S) 254 wherein the Industrial Tribunal interfered in the punishment awarded and reduced the punishment of
discharge from service to with-holding of one year increment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the
tribunal. He further referred Krishankant B. Parmar V/s Union of India (2012) 1 SC C (L&S) 609 wherein the apex
court held that the conduct of appellant who unauthorisedly absented from duty during the consecutive periods – 36
days, 32 days and 34 days was unlike of the government servant and if the absence was not wilful, relief can be
granted.
21.
The learned counsel of the second party workman further referred that General Manager V/s Dasrathbhai
Somjibhai Bhim, Civil Application Number 8604 of 2005 with Special Civil Application Number 18941 of 2005
wherein the Gujarat High Court held that there appears to be a limited scope of interference in Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, this court is unable to dislodge the findings otherwise the workman is also not appearing to be
so innocent, as it seems from the record that, he may be given a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Authority has stated that
he must be visited with some penalty, of course not that of dismissal, but it is reflected from records that he has
suppressed the fact of criminal case in which serious charge of theft was entangled and further there are specific finding
of the learned Presiding Officer in the course of inquiry that the charge levelled against the workman is proved. Of
course, it is a different matter that power under Section 11-A of the Act, to be exercised by the Tribunal, but the factum
of charge have proved during the course of inquiry, at least in the opinion of this court, he must be deprived of the full
benefits ant therefore, order passed by the learned Presiding Officer to that extent is just whereby 50% back wages
having been awarded. In the opinion of this court, the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer does not call for
any interference and this material fact to be taken note of that there is specific purshis given by the respondent
workman whereby the validity of the inquiry has not been questioned and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is
in consonance with the duty discharge to its statutory discretion and same is not required to be interfered with.
Therefore, looking to overall set of circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned
Presiding Officer is not required to be interfered with. The case law relied upon by the learned advocate for the
respondent workman is in different set of circumstance qua the case on hand and therefore, same are not of avail. It is
settled law that if slight change in facts, it would make world of difference in applying precedent. Therefore, in the
background of fact of those particular case, are quite distinct from the fact of the case on hand and therefore, this court
is of the opinion that the petition presented by the workman being devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed.
22.
The learned counsel for the first party referred number of decisions however I would like to refer UPSRTC V/s
Vinod Kumar 2008 LLR 121 SC wherein the apex court held that since respondents has not challenged the correctness,
legality and validity of the inquiry conducted, therefore, the labour court cannot go in to the findings recorded by the
inquiry officer. It was also observed that there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of judicial
forms to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Similar ratio was expressed in Employers Management, West
Bukaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. V/s workman Rampervesh Singh 2008 LLR 432 SC.
23.
In Chairman and MD B.S.T. and others V/s GopaRaju Shri Prabhakra Haribabu 2008 LLR 715 SC wherein the
apex court held that respondents was a habitual absentee. He had not submitted his explanation of illness of his mother
in the departmental inquiry despite granting opportunity to him and failure to comply the order of reporting on duty. He
also failed to explain his prior conduct; such conduct was held sufficient to pass order of dismissal.
24.
In General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union V/s The Managing Director, Kerala State
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., 2006 LLR 657 SC wherein the apex court held that Merely because the inquiry
officer is an employee of the management, it cannot lead to the assumption that he is bound to decide the case in favour
of the management since it is well-known that inquiries are generally conducted by officers of the employer companies
and in the absence of any special bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the inquiry is bad
just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. When the plea that inquiry officer was biased was not raised
during the inquiry or pleadings before the Labour Court or in earlier proceedings before the High Court hence no
cognizance is taken of the allegations. If the inquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimisation
or unfair labour practice, the labour court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Although Section 11
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1267
A of the Industrial Disputes Act givens ample power to the Labour Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced in the
inquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court/ Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of dismissal or discharge of a
workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself.
25.
In the State Bank of Mysore V/s M.C. Krishnappa 2011 (ii) CLR 859 apex court held that it is a well settled
principle that punishment is primarily a function of the management and the courts really interfere with the quantum of
punishment. Similarly in Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Subhas Chand 2011 LLR 341, the Delhi High Court held
that it is a well settled law that a court will not normally sit in the appeal over the findings arrived at by the inquiry
officer. Since the court is not required to examine or re-examine the evidence adduced before the inquiry officer and it
is only in exceptionable cases when the findings of the inquiry officer are found perverse or opposed to the principle of
natural justice. Only then interference is warranted by the courts since the jurisdiction of the court is ousted in such
cases.
26.
In State Bank of Bikaner V/s Nemichand Nalwaya 2011 LLR 634 SC wherein the apex court has held that in the
matter of disciplinary proceedings, the courts cannot sit as an appellate court to re-asses the evidence produced in the
inquiry. It cannot also interfere with the ground that any view is possible on the basis of the material on record. It was
also held that as and when the punishment has been imposed upon an employee after holding of an inquiry, the courts
have restricted powers and can interfere only when the finding was found perverse or based on no evidence and also
when the principles of natural justice are not follow.
27.
In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corporation V/s Ashappa 2006 LLR 744 and 2006 (J) SC C 137, the supreme
court held that long absence continuous and unauthorised of an employee from duty running public utility services to
the passengers by plying buses will amount to major misconduct as such the labour court wrongly directed the
reinstatement. Reinstatement of a driver absenting for a long period even without back wages is unjustified.
28.
In Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Sardar Singh 2004 LLR 953 SC, the apex court held that non approval of
dismissal of a workman by the Industrial Tribunal was not justified when the workman has frequently absented himself.
Merely because the absence of a workman was treated as leave without pay for the purpose of maintaining correct
record by the management, it does not absolve a workman from the misconduct of his absence. When an employee
habitually absents himself form duty even without sanctioned leave for very long, it prima facie shows negligence and
lack of interest in work and in departmental proceedings to trial it as misconduct was not unjustified view.
29.
I considered the evidence and arguments of both the parties. This is a case of repeated unauthorised long absence
from duty by an employee. His conduct of long absence appears to be of obstinate nature because he was thrice charge-
sheeted and admonished or punished with minor penalty but he did not try to improve his conduct, therefore, there is no
case of interference in the punishment awarded by the management. Thus the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in terminating Shri M.D. Parmar, senior
technician from services w.e.f. 08.05.2000 is legal and justified.”
30.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 613-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vlkulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@403@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/403/2004-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
1268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 94 OF 2005
PARTIES :
The management of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. E.C.L.
v/s
Sri Amritlal Satnamy
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri Indrajit Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri Amritlal Satnamy
Industry: Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 13.02.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-
22012/403/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Coalfields Limited not providing
employment to Sh. Amritlal Satnamy dependent of Late Malik Ram is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he
is entitled to? ”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/403/2004–IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2005 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 94 of
2005 was registered on 09.09.2005. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,
through their representative.
2.
The applicant Sri Amritlal Satnamy dependent son of Late Malik Ram, deceased employee of J. K. Ropeways of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed written statement. He has alleged in his written statement that Smt. Ganga
Bai the widow of deceased employee applied for employment by nominating Sri Amritlal Satnamy in place of her
deceased husband. On death of Late Malik Ram his dependent son Sri Amritlal Satnamy filed his application with all
documents for employment under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. But till now J. K. Ropeways of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited management has not provided him employment. J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited has violated rules and regulations. The applicant has prayed that action of management is illegal and
unjustified. The Award should be passed to provide employment to Sri Amritlal Satnamy, the dependent son of Late
Malik Ram.
3.
The Agent of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his written statement that
reference is misconceived and not maintainable. The workman Late Malik Ram son of Sri Halal Khole, resident of
Vill:- Bara Rubeli, Po: Pirdha, Dist: Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh was an employee of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited. He expired on 09.03.1998 at Parasea Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. After the death of
said workman his widow Smt. Ganga Bai applied for employment on compassionate ground by nominating her son Sri
Amritlal Satnamy in place of the deceased workman. Upon receipt of the said application for employment, the
management of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited initiated measures for processing the application. In
course thereof, a complaint was received by the management that the deceased workman Late Malik Ram was a
fake person. Deceased Late Malik Ram impersonated the real Sri Malik Ram who was still alive at his native village
within Bilaspur district in Madhya Pradesh. The management of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
requested the competent authority of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited for verification. Matter was
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1269
sent for police verification to Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Burdwan, West Bengal and Superintendent of Police,
Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. But even after successive reminders the management J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited did not receive any police verification report from both Superintendents of Police. Office of
Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Burdwan informed that such types of verification are entertained by them if the
request is received through the office of the District Magistrate of Burdwan. Therefore management of J. K. Ropeways
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited wrote Letter No. ECL/GM/JKR/PER/2000/2054/339 dated 08.05.2000 with a
request for verification of death of alleged Late Malik Ram. But even after successive reminders no police verification
was received. In absence of verification report the employment was not offered to Sri Amritlal Satnamy. The non-
employment of Sri Amritlal Satnamy is not at all illegal and unjustified. Sri Amritlal Satnamy can not be granted
employment. The Agent of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has prayed that workman is not entitled
for employment as prayed by him.
4.
The applicant has filed the following documents :-
(i) Photocopy of the Cremation Certificate of Late Malik Ram, (ii) Photocopy of the I.D. Card of Late Malik
Ram, (iii) Photocopy of the S.R.E. of Late Malik Ram, (iv) Photocopy of the Voter I.D. Card of Late Malik Ram, (v)
Photocopy of the Relationship Certificate of Sri Amritlal Satnami son of Late Malik Ram Satnami, (vi) Photocopy of
the No Objection Certificate from surviving family members of Late Malik Ram in favour of Amritlal Satnami, (vii)
Photocopy of the School Certificate of Sri Amritlal Satnami, (viii) Photocopy of the Affidavit of Sri Amritlal Satnami,
(ix) Photocopy of the Indemnity Bond signed by two literate permanent employees regarding geniunity of Relationship,
(x) Photocopy of the Letter for appearing before the screening committee for the purpose of employment, (xi)
Photocopy of the Relationship Certificate of Smt Ganga Bai wife of Late Malik Ram, (xii) Photocopy of the Pension
Settlement Letter in favour of Smt. Ganga Bai wife of Late Malik Ram, (xiii) Photocopy of the Voter Identity Card of
Smt. Ganga Bai, (xiv) Photocopy of the Photo Identity Certificate from Office of the Gram Panchayat, Bara Rubeli,
(xv) Photocopy of the Certificate dated 03.07.2013 from Gram Panchayat, Bara Rubeli, (xvi) Photocopy of the Letter
ECL/GM/JKR/Per/2000/2054/339 dated 08.05.2000, (xvii) Photocopy of the letter of Superintendent of Police, D.I.B,
Burdwan dated 25.04.2000, (xviii) Photocopy of the letter ECL/GM/JKR/Per/99 dated 29.09.1999, (xix) Photocopy of
the letter Ref. No. ECL/GM/JKR/Per/98/1001/1727 dated 14/15.10.1998, (xx) Photocopy of the letter Ref.
ECL/PC/P&IR/14/98-99/2025 dated 10.06.1998, (xxi) Photocopy of the Identity Card of Late Malik Ram issued by
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, (xxii) Photocopy of the S.R.E. dated 24.04.1987, (xxiii) Photocopy of the Death
Certificate of Late Malik Ram, (xxiv) Photocopy of the Ninth Schedule Form-I for Vocational Training of Late Malik
Ram, (xxv) Photocopy of the letter Ref. No. ECL/JKR/Screening/99/3263 dated 16/18.03.1999, (xxvi) Photocopy of
the Mines Vocational Training Certificate of Late Malik Ram
The applicant Sri Amritlal Satnami, the applicant has filed affidavit in his oral evidence and he has been cross-
examined by the learned advocate of the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
The Agent of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed following documents:-
(i) Photocopy of the claim of employment by Smt. Ganga Bai wife of Late Malik Ram, (ii) Photocopy of the
complaint received by the management, (iii) Photocopy of the letter to the Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Burdwan
for police verification, (iv) Photocopy of the letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh for
police verification, (v) Photocopy of the Reply from the office of Superintend of Police, D.I.B., Burdwan, (vi)
Photocopy of the letter Ref. ECL/GM/JKR/Per/2000/2031/98 dated 11/12.04.2000 (vii) Photocopy of the successive
reminders.
The Agent of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral evidence.
5.
Sri Amritlal Satnami, the applicant has appeared in person before the Tribunal and argued the case. He has also
filed written argument. Sri Indrajit Mukherjee, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the management of J. K.
Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and filed written argument. I have heard the argument of both sides.
6.
It is admitted fact by both the parties that the workman Late Malik Ram, son of Sri Halal Khole, resident of Vill:-
Bara Rubeli, Po: Pirdha, Dist: Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh was an employee of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited. He expired on 09.03.1998 at Parasea colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also admitted
by both the parties that on the death of the said workman his widow Smt. Ganga Bai applied for employment on
compassionate ground by nominating her son Sri Amritlal Satnami in place of the deceased workman. The basis of
denial of employment to the applicant Sri Amritlal Satnami, the applicant by J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited is that one Late Malik Ram son of Sri Halal Khole made a complaint that deceased Late Malik Ram the
employee of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was a fake person. He procured the job by
impersonation. The real Malik Ram is still alive. For verification of complaint J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited moved the application to Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Burdwan and Superintendent of Police
1270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh for verification of the facts. But due to non-availability of verification report the
employment to applicant Sri Amritlal Satnami was not offered rather it was kept in abeyance.
7.
Rule 9.3.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement - V entitles the dependent of deceased workman which is as
follows :-
“The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged
not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as
given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of
employment.”
8.
As per service excerpts maintained by J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and copy filed by the
applicant it is apparent that Late Malik Ram, the deceased employee was son of Sri Halal Khole. He was resident of
Vill:- Bara Rubeli, Po: Pirdha, Dist: Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. The name of his wife is Smt. Ganga Bai. The names of
his sons are Sri Hiralal Ram and Sri Amritlal Satnami. The copy of Voter I.D. Card has been filed. The applicant has
filed the Death Certificate of Late Malik Ram issued by the competent authority. In the records maintained by J. K.
Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited the paternity and address of the deceased employee is entered therein.
The applicant Sri Amritlal Satnami has filed copy of certificate issued by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
The father of Sri Amritlal Satnami is Late Malik Ram as per school certificate and his date of birth is 09.08.1974. The
Gram Panchayat, Bara Rubeli, Madhya Pradesh has issued certificate. The Sarpanch has certified that the father of Sri
Amritlal Satnami, Late Malik Ram was functioning in J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited for near
about 25 years. He expired on 09.03.1998. He has verified the photo of Late Malik Ram. The Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Bara Rubeli, Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda has issued certificate that Late Malik Ram the father of Sri
Amritlal Satnami expired on 09.03.1998 in West Bengal and cremation was performed in village: Bara Rubeli,
Madhya Pradesh at present in this village there is no other person named Malik Ram son of Sri Halal Khole. This
certificate is issued on 03.07.2013. The applicant has field affidavit in his oral evidence. He has supported the death
and relation certificate in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of J. K Ropeways of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The evidence of Sri Amritlal Satnami is trustworthy.
9.
It is evident form material available on record that complainant so called Malik Ram never appeared before
authorities concerned to substantiate his allegation. Even J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not
care to summon the complainant to verify the truthfulness of allegation. Even J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited did not care to verify the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bara Rubeli, Janpad
Panchayat Malkharouda who has certified that in village Bara Rubeli there is no other person in the name of Malik
Ram son of Sri Halal Khole. In government undertaking, only after police verification and other formalities any person
is allowed to join the job. At the time of joining of Late Malik Ram the deceased workman the verification and all other
formalities must have been completed. After verification the deceased workman Late Malik Ram must have joined in
J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is surprising that after death of Late Malik Ram, during service,
the employment to dependent of deceased workman is denied on basis of un-verified anonymous complaint. Personnel
Manager of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited by letter no. ECL/JKR/Screening/99/3263 dated
16/18.03.1999 informed Sri Amritlal Satnami son of Late Malik Ram ex-workman to appear before the Screening
Committee along with original documents on 26.03.1999 at 03:00 PM. This letter indicates that the employment
proposal of Sri Amritlal Satnami was considered by the competent authority on 26.03.1999. The date of birth of Sri
Amritlal Satnami, the applicant as recorded in certificate of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is 09.08.1974.
In year 1999 when his employment proposal was considered he was near about 25 years of age. As per National Coal
Wage Agreement - V at the time of consideration of employment dependent should not be more than 35 years of age.
Therefore at that relevant period Sri Amritlal Satnami was eligible for employment.
10.
In light of above discussion the action of J. K. Ropeways of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not providing
employment to Sri Amritlal Satnamy dependent of Late Malik Ram is illegal and unjustified. Sri Amritlal Satnamy is
entitled for employment.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 614-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1271
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 76@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@371@1998&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/371/1998-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 76 OF 1999
PARTIES :
The management of Khas Kajora of Kajora Area of M/s. E.C.L.
v/s
Sh. Paltan Munda
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri M. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
Industry: Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 09.02.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter
NO. L-22012/371/98 - IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of Kajora Area of ECL in dismissing
Sh. Paltan Munda, Underground Loader, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/371/98 - IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 76 of 1999 was
registered on 23.07.1999/18.09.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
On perusal of the record it is found that my predecessor (Late Jayanta Kumar Sen, the then Presiding Officer) of
this Tribunal had reserved an award in this case because the workman/union was neither appearing nor taking any step
since long (i.e. after 02.11.2006). It seems that the workman/union has now no more interest to proceed with the case
further. The case is also too old – in the year 1999 & I find no reason to keep this old record pending without any
outcome.
3.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
1272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 615-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@
Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@9@2008&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st March, 2017
S.O. 615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 28/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL,
and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/9/2008-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 28 OF 2008
PARTIES
:
The management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. E.C.L
V/s
Late Md. Jabbar Ansari
PEPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri S.K. Pandey, Union Representative
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Date : 08-02-2017
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter
No. L-22012/9/2008–IR(CM-II) dated 03.06.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. ECL by denial of employment to
the dependent of deceased workman, Late Sri Md. Jabbar Ansari, is legal and justified? To what relief is the
dependent of the deceased workman entitled? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/9/2008–IR(CM-II) dated 03.06.2008 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 28 of
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1273
2008 was registered on 11.06.2008/13.04.2009. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the
Tribunal, through their representative.
2.
The dependent, Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi widow of deceased workman Late Md. Jabbar Ansari has
stated in her written statement that her husband, Late Md. Jabbar Ansari was a permanent employee of Pure Searsole
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He was working as Under Ground Loader bearing U.M. No. 380270. He
expired on 24.05.1994 during service period of company. After the death of Late Md. Jabbar Ansari his widow Smt.
Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi applied for employment in place of her deceased husband as his dependent under the
provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement supported by all documents before the management relating to her claim
for employment in the prescribed proforma as per norms of the company. The management duly processed the proposal
for employment and the same was forwarded to M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Head Quarter for their approval by the
Area Authority after observing all formality. As per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement, 1 (one) dependent
member of the deceased employee is entitled to get employment. Said agreement is binding upon the management and
the same is fully enforceable as per provisions of law. Inspite of observing all formalities the management without any
justification turned down the employment proposal vide Letter No. JMR/Agent/per/05/212 dated 16/20.04.2005. The
management informed the widow of the deceased employee that her proposal for employment claim was not considered
by the competent authority of the company without assigning any reason for rejection of the claim of her employment.
The action of management was whimsical and arbitrary. The widow dependent was eligible for employment as per
National Coal Wage Agreement. The widow of the deceased employee is passing her days with acute financial
stringencies. She is helpless widow and has no means of her livelihood. She is at the stage of starvation. Due to
whimsical act of management the widow of the deceased employee has been deprived of her legitimate claim for
employment. The applicant has prayed that the tribunal may pass order by directing the management to give
employment to the dependent widow as well as to award adequate monetary compensation to the widow of deceased
employee for not giving employment.
3.
The Agent of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in his written statement that
the claim can not be adjudicated within the ambit of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Agent has
admitted in his written statement that Late Md. Jabbar Ansari was a permanent employee of Pure Searsole Colliery of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Under Ground loader and he expired on 24.05.1994 while he was in service of the
company. He has also admitted that the widow of the deceased employee has submitted her claim under National Coal
Wage Agreement. Her proposal for employer was forwarded stating inter alia all the details of ex-employee Late Md.
Jabban Ansari but the competent authority did not accord their consent on the proposal for employment of Smt. Akmar
Bibi alias Akman Bibi. The ground for refusal was that during life time of Late Md. Jabar Ansari he declared name of
his family member in S.R.E. but there was some glaring discrepancies towards the name and relationship. Due to
frivolous relationship ex-employee obtained L.T.C. and L.L.T.C., causing financial loss to the management. The action
of management by not offering employment is justified.
4.
The applicant has filed the following documents :-
(i) Photocopy of the letter of the Personnel Manager dated 16/20.04.2005, (ii) Photocopy of the certificate by Block
Development Officer, Dewri, (iii) Photocopy of the S.R.E. maintained by the Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited, (iv) Copy of the Voter’s Identity Card.
Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi the dependent widow of Late Md. Jabar Ansari has filed affidavit in her oral
evidence and she has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of the management.
The Agent of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral evidence.
5.
I have heard Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative on behalf of the dependent of the deceased
workman and Sri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate on behalf of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
6.
Sri S. K. Pandey, representative of the dependent of the deceased workman has argued that as per National
Coal Wage Agreement Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi widow of Late Md. Jabar Ansari is entitled for employment
in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The action of management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited has arbitrary and whimsically refused the employment proposal duly forwarded and recommended by General
Manger of concerned area. Even management has not assigned any reason for refusal. On the other hand Sri P. K.
Goswami, learned counsel of the management has argued that at present the dependent Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman
Bibi is over age. She is not entitled for employment as per National Coal Wage Agreement. In reply Sri S. K. Pandey
has argued that at the time of employment proposal when Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi applied for employment
she was very well within the age group prescribed by National Coal Wage Agreement. She is eligible for employment.
Delay has been caused by management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited for which dependent of deceased employee
must not suffer.
1274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
It is admitted fact by both her parties that the deceased workman Late Md. Jabar Ansari was a permanent
employee of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and he was working as Under Ground loader
bearing U. M. No. 380270. It is also admitted fact that Late Md. Jabar Ansari expired on 24.05.1994 during
employment of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also admitted fact by both the parties
that widow of deceased Late Md. Jabar Ansari i.e. Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi submitted her claim for
employment as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. The Agent of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited has admitted in Para - 5 of his written statement that Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi had
submitted her employment proposal under provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. Rule 9.5.0 of National Coal
Wage Agreement - VI is as follows :
“ Provision of employment / monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and
who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 would be regulated as under :
(i)
In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary
compensation of Rs.4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii)
In case of death / total permanent disablement due to cause other tan mine accident and medical unfitness
under clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept
the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment. ”
8.
Form perusal of above terms it is evident that female dependent of any employee is entitled for employment till
45 years of her age. If she is above 45 years of her age at the time of death of deceased employee she is only entitled for
monetary compensation. The applicant has filed Certificate of Block Development Officer, Dewri that Smt. Akman Bibi
wife of Late Md. Jabar Ansari, age 25 years, resident of Vill: Velwaghati, Po: Jagsimar, Ps: Dewri, Dist: Giridih,
Jharkhand. This certificate has been issued on 23.09.1994. The copy of S.R.E. has been submitted by the applicant. The
S.R.E. has been prepared after the death of deceased employee Late Md. Jabar Ansari in year 1998. The date of initial
appointment of Late Md. Jabar Ansari is recorded as 08.01.1991 and date of death is recorded as 24.05.1994. The name
Smt. Akman Bibi is recorded as wife of late Late Md. Jabar Ansari. Her date of birth / Age has recorded in S.R.E. as 32
years in the year 1998. It reflects that in S.R.E. maintained by Pure Searsole Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited the date of birth / age of Smt. Akman Bibi widow of deceased workman Late Md. Jabar
Ansari was recorded as 32 years. It is clear that when Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi applied for employment she
was under 45 years of her age. By the copy of letter Ref. No. JMR/AGENT/PER/05/212 dated 16/20.04.2005 the
Personnel Manager, Jemehari Admin Office has informed Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi that her employment
proposal was refused by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, vide letter no. SAT/PER/EMPL/8054/4038/05/1704 dated
11/12.04.2004. This indicates that in year 2004 when her employment proposal, though it was kept pending for a long
period, even in 2004 when it was refused the age of Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi was approximately 38 years.
Even the refusal was communicated after a long interval of 1 (One) year the in April, 2005.
9.
As per S.R.E. the age of Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi in 2005 would be 39 years. Therefore there is no
substance in argument of Sri P. K. Goswami, learned counsel of the management that at the time of considering
employment the widow Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi was ineligible due to over age. After failure of
reconciliation proceeding the ministry referred the dispute which is registered in the Tribunal as Reference. No. 28 of
2008. The date of birth of Smt. Akman Bibi as recorded in S.R.E. is 32 years in the year 1998. The dispute has been
referred by the competent authority in the year 2008. Therefore even at the time of referring the dispute the age of Smt.
Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi would be approximately 42 years. Whereas as per National Coal Wage Agreement
female dependent will eligible for employment below 45 years. If delay is caused the Agent of Pure Searsole Colliery of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited due to whimsical and arbitrary action then dependent can not be blamed without her
fault.
10.
Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi has filed affidavit. She has supported the allegation of written statement by
her affidavit. She has stated that after death of her husband she applied for employment which was duly forwarded to
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Headquarter but the management arbitrarily refused the employment proposal without
assigning any valid reason. The action of management violates the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. She
has no means of livelihood. She has no independent source of income. All other family members mentioned in the
S.R.E. are dependent on her and residing with her. She is still unemployed.
11.
The Agent of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in Para-7 of his written
statement that ground for refusal of her employment proposal is that during lifetime of Late Md. Jabar Ansari he
declared name of his family members in S.R.E. but there are some glaring discrepancies over the name and relationship.
The allegation contained in written statement of Agent of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is
absolutely in contradiction with the particulars mentioned in S.R.E. maintained by Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited and submitted by applicant. From perusal of S.R.E. there appears to be no discrepancies
which has been alleged by the Agent of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in his written
statement. Even the refusal letter dated 16/20.04.2005 there is no recital of discrepancies.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1275
12.
In view of discussion above the action of management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited by denial of employment to the dependent widow of the deceased workman Late Md. Jabar Ansari is illegal
and unjustified. The widow dependent of Late Md. Jabar Ansari namely Smt. Akmar Bibi alias Akman Bibi is entitled
for employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. She is also entitled for monetary compensation till joining
employment.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 iQjojh] 2017
dk-vk- 616-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@
Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@256@2002&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2017
S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Coalfields Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/256/2002-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/14/2006
General Secretary,
RKKMS (INTUC),
PO Chandametta,
Distt. Chhindwara
…Workman
Versus
The Area Manager,
Chandametta Colliery of WCL,
Pench Area, PO Dungaria,
Distt. Chhindwara
…Management
A W A R D
Passed on this 15th day of December, 2016
1.
As per letter dated 28-4-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-22012/256/2002(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
1276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of WCL, Pench Area, Distt. Chhindwara in not correcting the date of
birth of Shri Uma Shanker Pathak, the workman after 29 years of joining his service is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Union filed statement of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/4.
Case of workman is that he is working on post of loading Inspector at Chandametta colliery. While working on said
post, he had come to know that his date of birth was erroneously mentioned 12-5-46 in service register. That his correct
date of birth is 12-5-52 as per HSc issued by Competent Authority. That he passed HSc in 1988. Workman also relies
school leaving certificate dated 15-7-69. His date of birth is recorded 12-5-52. After workman found discrepancies in
date of birth, he had submitted representation. Union had also taken up issue regarding his grievances. The
representation was submitted on 29-3-96. After representation, no steps were taken for correction of his date of birth in
service particulars therefore he was compelled to raise dispute under Section 10 of ID Act. After failure report, dispute
has been referred .
3.
Ist party workman further submits that for determination of correct date of birth, IINo.76 has been issued. As
per I.I.No.76, if there is variation in age recorded in educational certificates issued by universities or Board, record
maintained in Form B, CMPF etc. the matter can be referred to Age Determination Committee for ascertaining the
correct date of birth. However the management has not referred the matter to Age Determination Committee as per
I.I.No.76. That in the matter of Baroda Prasad Deharia after Judgment by Hon’ble High Court, the matter was referred
to Medical Board for determination of age. Workman submits that as per I.I.No.76, it is mandatory for management to
send dispute about his date of birth to Medical Board for decision. Workman prays that respondents be directed to
correct date of birth as 12-5-52 and allow consequential benefits.
4.
2nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/8 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd
party submits that Umashankar Pathaki.e. workman was appointed as clerk on 1-1-73. At the time of his initial
appointment, he declared his date of birth 12-5-76. Accordingly his date of birth was recorded in official record. The
dispute is raised after 29 years of joining service. As per provisions of Mines Act and Rule 77, register of employment
i.e. Form B register is maintained. Date of birth of Ist party workman is recorded in Form B register including other
details name, father’s name, address and identification mark. After amendment of Mines Act in 984, photo of
employees were affixed in Form B Register. Entries in said register are made on the basis of information submitted by
workman. As per JBCCI-II, I.I.No.76 was issued as per Para B(i), date of birth shown in certificate of matriculation,
HSc etc is treated correct. Certificate of Mining Sirdarship or similar statutory certificates had to certify the date of birth
is treated authentic. Date of birth of workman was correctly recorded 12-5-46. The service record bear thump
impression of Ist party workman. It is reiterated that service excerpts of the employees were circulated in 1987.
Workman had not taken any objection about his date of birth recorded as 12-5-46. 2nd party has referred to ratio held in
various cases that date of birth cannot be corrected after 5 years period. It is reiterated that date of birth of workman is
correctly recorded. Ratio held in various cases by workman are not applicable.
5.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the management of WCL, Pench Area, Distt. Chhindwara in not
correcting the date of birth of Shri Uma Shanker Pathak, the workman after 29 years of
joining his service is legal and justified?
In Affirmative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman
is
not
entitled to any relief.
REASONS
6.
Point No.1 Term of reference pertains to not correcting date of birth of workman Uma Shanker Pathak.
Workman claims that his correct date of birth is 12-5-52. His date of birth was wrongly recorded as 12-5-46. Workman
filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in his statement of claim. He has also stated in his affidavit that in
school certificate issued from HSc., his date of birth is shown 12-5-52. After representation, the matter was not referred
to Age Determination Committee. His date of birth is wrongly recorded in service book as 12-5-46. In his cross-
examination, workman says he is of 60 year age, he has been retired. His first appointment was as General Mazdoor on
12-9-72. At the time of his initial appointment, he has not produced any documents. He did not remember whether
management had prepared for B Register in 1972 he admits that without preparing Form B, no one is allowed to work
in mine. He further says once his Form B was prepared but he did not recollect the period. He was promoted as clerk
and it was not by selection. In 1975, he submitted marksheet of passing 8th standard. In 1967, he passed 8th standard. At
that time, his age was 15-16 years. In 1996, he got knowledge that his date of birth 12-5-52 was not recorded rather his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1277
date of birth was recorded as 12-5-46. He claims ignorance when matter is required to be referred to Medical Board/
Age Determination Committee.
7.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri M.B.Kumbhare. Management’s witness in his affidavit has
reiterated that in Form B register, particulars of workman, name, sex, designation , address, date of birth 12-5-46 are
recorded. Workman has signed on it. In 1987, service excerpts were circulated to employees. Workman had not taken
objection to his date of birth 12-5-46. Management’s witness in his cross says workman did not work under him at any
time. He was not aware about correspondence made by workman. Form B register was prepared by office at the time of
appointment and transfer. Workman was not referred to Age Determination Committee or Medical Board.
8.
Documents produced by Ist party workman Exhibit W-1,2,3 shows date of birth of workman 12-5-46. There is
no overwriting. Exhibit W-4 is copy of Writ Petition filed by workman. Copy of I.I.No.76 is produced at Exhibit W-5.
Clause B(i)(a) provides- certificates of matriculation HSc issued by university or Board are treated to be correct. Ist
party workman had not proved the documents of school leaving certificate, marksheet, its zerox copies are produced by
him. As such workman has not proved his correct date of birth is 12-5-52 as there is no operation in his date of birth
recorded in Form B register and School Leaving Certificate. Management is not required to refer the matter to Age
Determination Committee. The documents Exhibit M-1 to 3 shows date of birth of workman is recorded 12-5-46
Exhibit M-4,5 are copy of I.I.No.76. Workman has not proved that his correct date of birth is 12-5-52. On the point of
correction of date of birth, Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case of G.M, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal
versus Shib Kumar Dushad and others reported in 2000(8)SCC-696. Their Lordship held where question regarding
correctness of date of birth as entered in service record raised by employee long after his joining the service and the
employer decided the question following the procedure prescribed by statute, stator rules or instructions held in absence
of any arithmetical or typographical error apparent on the face of the record. High Court should not interfere with such
decision of the employer in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
In case between State of Haryana versus Satish Kumar Mittal and another reported in 2011(1)MPLJ-302. Their
Lordship dealing with correction in service record held if time limit is not prescribed, then within a reasonable time not
to be entertained merely on the basis of plausible material.
In case of State of Tamil Nadu versus T.V.Venugopalan reported in 994(6)SCC-302. Their Lordship held dealing with
delay in seeking correction of date of birth, the correction would not be permitted to challenge by Government Servant.
As workman has failed to establish his correct date of birth as 12-5-52, Point No.1 is answered in Affirmative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Uma Shanker Pathak, the workman
after 29 years of joining his service is legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 iQjojh] 2017
dk-vk- 617-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,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 46@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@30@2009&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2017
S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Coalfields Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/30/2009-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
1278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/46/2010
The General Secretary,
Pench Kahan Koyala Khadan Karmchari Sangh,
PO Damua, Chhindwara
…Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,
Distt. Chhindwara
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of December 2016
1.
As per letter dated 22-9-2010by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No .L-22012/30/2009-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL in not regularizing the services of Shri Vijay Shankar
Tripathi, Auto Helper on the post of Crane Operator is legal and justified? To what relief is the concerned
workman entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.
Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as Tub Loader in Nandan Mines in 1983. Thereafter he was
transferred to Tandsi Project as tub loader on 28-12-87. He was working as Crane Driver in 1989 & 1991. He raised
dispute pertaining to his promotion. In conciliation proceeding, he was paid wages of Category V for working as
officiating period 22-4-89 to 29-7-89, his services were terminated. Order of his termination was set aside during
pendency of dispute. He was reinstated with backwages as per order dated 24-9-04 passed by Hon’ble High Court in
LPA 739/02. Thereafter he joined services of WCL. He was issued to drive train along with Anwar Khan on 16-2-06.
After 1 year, 7 months and 13 days, he was reverted on 30-9-97 without assigning any reasons. Thereby management
committed breach of clause 3.6 of certified standing orders.
3.
Ist party workman further submits he submitted representation claiming status of crane driver as he had
completed required period on post of crane driver. His representation was not responded by management. He had
approached Conciliation Officer claiming regularization of his service as crane driver. After Conciliation Officer
submitted failure report, Central Government refused to make reference. He filed Writ Petition in High Court and the
dispute has been referred after his Writ Petition was allowed.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Ist party workman was
initially appointed as tub loader in Nandan Mine No.1. He was not interested in job of tub loader as work of tub loader
is hazardous. Workman requested management to transfer him where light work is available therefore workman is
transferred to Tandsi Project. He was offered job of General Mazdoor. Workman accepted said job without any
objection. Workman however claimed wages of tub loaderwhich was not acceptable to the management. Job of tub
loader was not available in Tandsi Project. Said mine was fully mechanized, no manual labour was done. 2nd party
further submits there is cadre scheme for crane operators. Job of crane operator is skilled and experienced persons are
given said job. Cadre scheme applicable to crane operator. There is no post of crane helper. Workman claimed post of
crane driver and wages of said post. That no such designation of crane driver are available in cadre scheme. Workman
was never asked to work as crane operator because he was not qualified nor he had such experience.
5.
2nd party further reiterates that workman is in habit of raising dispute against management with a view to cause
harassment. He is not interested in discharging his duties. To escape from disciplinary Proceedings on the misdeeds
committed by him workman indulged in unnecessary litigation. Management had denied that workman worked as crane
driver during the period 89 to 1991. It is denied that workman was paid officiating wages for the period 24-4-89 to
29-7-89. Workman is silent about outcome of Conciliation Case No. CHA-1(32)/91. That workman was not terminated
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1279
during pendency of any dispute. Workman hidden facts to mislead this Tribunal. Management submits that workman
had tendered regularization from service, same was accepted. Workman was relieved from service. Relieving order was
challenged on the ground that the resignation was conditional and same was revoked before its acceptance. Vide order
dated -11-02, Writ Petition no. 5113/99 was dismissed. Workman filed LP No. 739/02. The Division bench
sympathetically considering his case and vide order dated 24-9-04 directing management to reinstate workman with
30% backwages. Order has been fully implemented. Workman was reinstated in service on same post. He was relieved.
Workman was not directed to drive crane by the authorities. Anwar Khan was not working alongwith workman.
Workman is unnecessarily trying to compare his case with Anwar Khan who was not appointed as crane operator. The
dispute has been referred after order dated 21-7-2010 in Writ Petition No. 123/09. 2nd party submits that workman
doesnot possess requisite qualifications and experience for appointment as crane operator. Claim of workman deserves
to be rejected.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the management of M/s.
WCL in not regularizing the services of Shri Vijay
Shankar Tripathi, Auto Helper on the post of Crane
Operator is legal and justified?
Parties failed to adduce evidence. Dispute couldnot be
decided on merit.
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7.
Term of reference pertains to denial of regularisation of services of workman on post of crane operator.
Though workman filed statement of claim, management filed Written Statement. Workman failed to participate in
reference. He failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of workman is closed on 31-3-2016. Counsel for management
submitted not to adduce evidence. Evidence of management is closed on 5-7-2016. As both parties failed to adduce
evidence, dispute under reference could not be decided on merit. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 iQjojh] 2017
dk-vk- 618-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 08@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@392@2007&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2017
S.O. 618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL,
and their workman, received by the Central Government on 27.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/392/2007-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
1280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 08 OF 2008
PARTIES : The management of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Baleswar Roy
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management :
Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union President
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated: 03.02.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter
No. L-22012/392/2007 - IR(CM-II) dated 05.03.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Baleswar Roy w.e.f. 20.04.2006 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?”
1.
Having received the Order No. L-22012/392/2007 - IR(CM-II) dated 05.03.2008 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 08 of 2008
was registered on 14.03.2008/26.03.2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate appears on behalf of the management. Sri Rakesh Kumar,
Union representative appears on behalf of the workmen.
3.
On perusal of the record it is found that the Union representative, Sri Rakesh Kumar, is not able to trace the
workman. He has also written it on the order sheet. Since the workman neither appearing nor sending any instruction to
union as well as written statement of the workman also not been filed yet. It seems that the workman is not at all
interested to proceed the case further. I have no option left but to close the case.
4.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1281
ubZ fnYyh] 27 iQjojh] 2017
dk-vk- 619-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,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;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 90@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@209@2007&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2017
S.O.619 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL,
and their workmen, received by Central Government on 23.02.2017.
[No. L-22012/209/2007-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 90 OF 2007
PARTIES : The management of Satgram Project of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Dayamoy Ganguly
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management :
Sri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Dated: 01.02.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter
No. L-22012/209/2007 (IR(CM-II)) dated 24.10.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication
by this Tribunal.
1282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL to extend the Training Period from 18 (eighteen) months
to 24 (twenty four) months and not regularizing Shri Dayamoy Ganguly w.e.f. 14.08.2002 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/209/2007 (IR(CM-II)) dated 24.10.2007 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 90 of 2007
was registered on 20.11.2007/03.12.2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate appears on behalf of the management. None appears on
behalf of the workmen.
3.
On perusal of the record it is found that the Union/Workman was granted 35 opportunities so far for filing their
Written Statement but they did not turn up even for a single day except on 31.07.2012 and did not file their Written
Statement so far. Registered notices were issued to the Union on 11.12.2007, 21.12.2011, 31.05.2012 and 14.10.2014
but all in vain. It seems to me that the workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case further.
4.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 620-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u
iQkeZlZ iQfVZykbtj dksvkijsfVo 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1202@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@289@2001&vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e&2)º
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the1st March, 2017
S.O. 620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1202/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Indian
Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited, and their workman, received by Central Government on 28.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/289/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 20th February, 2017
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1283
Reference: (CGITA) No- 1202/2004
The Sr. General Manager,
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd.,
Kandla (Gujarat) – 370210
…First Party
V/s
Shri D.V. Jadeja,
D-137, IFFCO Colony,
Udaynagar,Gandhinagar,
Kutch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Gogia
For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
42012/289/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 05.08.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in removing Shri D.V. Jadeja, Chief Operator from
services w.e.f. 04.05.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 05.08.2002 when the reference was received from the Ministry of Labour, Government
of India, New Delhi. Notices were issued to all the parties.
2. The second party workman DashrathsinhVerubha Jadeja submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 19.07.2010
wherein in short he has alleged that the first party, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd., Kandla, hereinafter
referred to as “The Society”, is a multi-state co-operative society registered under the Multi Unit Co-operative
Society Act, 1942 which was engaged in the manufacture of chemical fertilisers. It was established in the year 1975
with 1500 workmen including the staff members. The Society is also governed by various labour laws like Factory
Act, 1948, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948. The society has
also got its standing orders certified under the aforesaid Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948;
therefore, the relations between the society and its workmen are regulated by the said act.
3. The workman DashrathsinhVerubha Jadeja joined the society as Boiler Attendant on 16.12.1981 in the scale of
510-25-630-30-810 pursuance to the society order no. KP/PER/12/81 dated 12.11.1981. He was allotted permanent
personal number 62124. He was promoted in Grade 1 vide order no. KP/PER/40/86 dated 01.05.1986 in the scale
of 930-40-1130-45-1355 fixing his basic pay as Rs. 1130/- per month vide the aforesaid order. Therefore, he was
promoted to Grade H2. He was also called for interview for promotion to the post of Grade G1 but he was not
promoted. He was issued a certificate bearing number KP/PERS/Estt./62124/97 dated 04.01.1997 informing that he
has successfully completed uninterrupted service of 16 years in the society as on 15.12.1996 with a cash award of
Rs. 2000/- vide head quarter circular number 1081 dated 28.03.1992. He had been having a blotless meritorious,
clean, sincere and honest service throughout the service period except the period stated in the charge-sheet dated
05.08.1999 for which he had been having convincing satisfactory and sufficient reasons. It has been further alleged
that the society issued him a charge-sheet bearing No. KP/IR/62124/99 dated 05.08.1999, appointing Mr. L.K.
Bhavhani as inquiry officer, well-versed in labour laws being law graduate and having held high offices in the
management cadre in different company, charging him (workman) that he had remained absent from duty
unauthorisedly for 213 days for the period from April 1998 to July 1999.
4. He has further alleged that the aforesaid inquiry officer L.K. Bhavhani made a formality of inquiry in haste and
behaving like the representative of the society with a pre-determined mind. He was not offered adequate, sufficient
and reasonable opportunities by the inquiry officer to put his case, thus the inquiry proceedings were in total
violation of the principles of natural justice making the discharged order passed vide order KP/IR/62124/2000
dated 04.05.2000 against him(workman) was thus null and void, improper, illegal and also the act of victimisation
as the charge-sheet as well as the second show cause notice No. KP/IR/62114/2000 dated 18.01.2000 and also the
order of termination KP/IR/621/2000 dated 04.05.2000 were sent by the General Manager S.P. Yadav who does not
fall in the definition of the General Manager as defined him the standing order 2.1.5. He also does not fall in the
definition of the word “Management” as given in the certified standing order 2.1.8. There has been division of
power between the General Manager and Management of employer and the powers of dismissal, discharge and
suspension have been retained by the employee himself. The society has also not complied with the obligation cast
upon it by the certified standing order 6.2. The words “IFFCO” and “Managing Director” have been defined in the
standing order 2.1.6 and 2.1.9 respectively.The order of termination is also void, illegal and unjust because the
1284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
standing order 31.3(c) requires that the order of dismissal, discharge and suspension ought to have been passed by
the employer himself.Thus the order is also violative of standing order 31.3(c) being passed by the Joint General
Manager. The appeal was also rejected by the aforesaid S.P. Yadav on 04.05.2000 despite the fact that the General
Manager S.K. Mishra was not on leave or absent.
5. He has further alleged that he had been punctual, regular and faithful in the discharge of duties in the society from
the date of joining till 15.12.1996 as stipulated in society letter dated 04.01.1997. His wife had been suffering with
breast cancer leading to liver cancer being detected sometimes in 1993 which requires constant medical treatment
in Ahmedabad as the facility of treatment of cancer was not being available at the place of employment. He used to
go for the said purpose to Ahmedabad frequently by taking leave every time. The said fact was also within the
knowledge of society. Unfortunately his wife died of Carcinoma in February, 1994. He has further alleged that after
the said demise of his wife, he had to take care of his four minor children, three daughters and one son. His parents
were too old being more than 70 years. They also required medical care and his father died in the year 1998,
therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, he had been under mental distressed, pain, hardship and difficulties.
He was required to remain absent for certain days for the period from April 1998 to July 1999 for sound, just and
convincing reasons beyond his control. It is unfortunate that the society instead of showing sympathy and kindness,
took a drastic step of termination of his service which was very much harass, unjust, excessive, improper and also
against humanity. He has further alleged that in the past, number of employees like Surenderbhai Sharma and C.R.
Vaniar absented from duty unauthorisedly from their services for a long period of 400 and more days without any
convincing and valid reason. But no such action was taken against them and they are still in the employment of the
society, thus the society cannot adopt two yard-sticks for awarding punishment to his employees. Thus the action
taken against him is the violative of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 to 24 of the Constitution of India.
He has further alleged that during the period year 1986 to 1989, he had been the General Secretary of the IFFCO
Employees Union and had to meet one S.K. Mishra, the department head of Mechanical Maintenance Department
of the society who was later promoted to the post of Joint General Manager and later General Manager and who
also did not like him as a General Secretary of the union, therefore, aforesaid S.K. Mishra and S.P. Yadav were
prejudiced with him and victimised him by way of terminating his service and also by way of rejecting his appeal.
He further alleged that he is still unemployed and unable to secure any alternative employment, therefore, he has
prayed for reinstatement with back wages and such other relief, as the tribunal may deem fit.
6. The first party vide written statement Ex. 10 admitted the termination of the second party workman on the ground
of long unauthorised absence and also the rejection of the appeal. The first party has submitted in the written
statement that the second party does not have unblemished service. The truth is that he had remain absent
unauthorisedly for 68 days from 01.01.1995 to 31.10.1995 for which a charge-sheet was issued on 27.12.1995 with
a advice to improve and remain regular in attending his duties. He had been further absent for 71.5 days for the
period from 01.01.1997 to 30.09.1997 for which he was issued charge-sheet dated 12.11.1997 giving him one more
chance to improve and to remain regular in attending his duty. The workman was further issued charge-sheet on
14.05.1998 for a unauthorised absence from duty for 40 days during the period from 01.10.1997 to 30.03.1998 with
a stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide letter dated 20.02.1999. Again he was issued charge-
sheet on 05.08.1999 for being absent from duty for 213 days during the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.07.1999, said
charge was proved in the inquiry and consequently termination order dated 04.05.2000 was passed and issued to
him. It is wrong to say that the termination order vide letter No. KP/IR/62114/2000 dated 04.05.2000 was illegal
and passed violating the principle of natural justice and denying the opportunity to defend. The second party
workman was issued charge-sheet in to the aforesaid matter vide charge-sheet No. KP/IR/62114/99 dated
05.08.1999. He was given ample opportunity to defend before issuing the termination order. He failed to submit
explanation or reply in the inquiry. He did not attend the inquiry, therefore, the inquiry report with a proven charge
were also served on him. Thus the order of the termination by the appointing authority and the order passed in the
appeal were in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The allegation of violation of natural justice is
baseless and without any reason. The allegations in the statement of claim are also without any basis and false. It
has been further alleged that the workman after termination of service is gainfully employed and earning more than
what he was receiving from the first party.
7. The second party workman D.V. Jadeja did not challenge the illegality of the inquiry. He simply challenged the
quantity of the punishment which is alleged to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged/labelled in the charge-
sheet.
8. Therefore, on the basis of the pleadings and the charge-sheet, the following issues are to be addressed by way of
passing award.
Issue No. i : Whether the punishment of removal of service of the second party workman D.V. Jadeja from services
w.e.f. 04.05.2000 was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet?
Issue No. ii : Whether the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in removing Shri D.V. Jadeja, Chief
Operator from services w.e.f. 04.05.2000 is legal and justified?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1285
9. Both the issues No. i and ii are interrelated, therefore, are taken together for passing award. The burden to prove
these issues were lying on the second party workman. Therefore, he submitted his affidavit Ex. 12 as an
examination-in-chief which is absolute reproduction of the statement of claim Ex. 8 on oath. He in his cross-
examination stated that he was charge-sheeted for absence of 68 days, 71 days and 40 days without authorisation in
the year 1995, 1997 and 1998. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he was again re-charge-sheeted on
05.08.1999 for the absence of 213 days without authorisation which he did not replied by way of giving his
explanation. He has also admitted that in all the inquiries, he was issued notice to appear. He has also admitted that
the inquiry officer wrote him a letter to reply as to why he did not appear in the inquiry. To this question he said
that he did not remember as to whether he gave the reply or not. He further admitted that he was given the copy of
the inquiry reports on 18.01.2000. He was also issued a show-cause notice regarding the punishment. He has also
admitted that he did not disclose the reasons of absence from the duty by way of any reply or explanation but he
said that he absented from duty because of illness of his parents and his wife.
10. In rebuttal, the first party examined R.A. Ambwani, Deputy General Manager, Personnel and Administration by
way of filing the affidavit Ex. 44 as an examination-in-chief wherein he also reiterated the averments made in the
written statement Ex. 10. In his cross-examination he has not said anything contrary to the averments made in the
written statement.
11. Both the parties have submitted the relevant documents Ex. 17 to 41 and Ex. 64 to 69 which all are admitted and
not challenged by either of the parties.
12. Both the parties have filed the written arguments Ex. 56, 57and 60 respectively.
13. It is noteworthy that the second party has challenged the legality of the inquiry in a cursory manner but has not
disclosed the grounds and reasons as to what illegality or regularity was committed by the inquiry officer in the
departmental proceedings. Therefore, I do not think necessary to go into the illegality or irregularity being
committed in the departmental proceedings because the second party workman in his affidavit/examination-in-chief
as well as in the cross-examination has not denied that he was not given the opportunity of submitting reply,
producing his witnesses in rebuttal and appearance. Therefore, it can easily said that the inquiry officer followed
the principles of natural justice while conducting the departmental proceedings. It is also noteworthy that he has
also admitted that he was given the copy of the inquiry report as well as was served with the show-cause notice
while awarding the punishment but he did not reply the show-cause notice.
14. Thus in the light of the discussions made in the Para 13, the limited questions remain to be answered as to whether
the punishment awarded was adequate or was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct.
15. The second party workman in his argument Ex. 61 has submitted in his Para 5 that the workman did not challenge
the inquiry but wanted to see that the justice is done. From the inquiry report that the inquiry officer was an outsider
representing the professional firm THE ODYSSEY to which he has no objection but the inquiry officer would have
been trained and conducted the inquiry which have been not clear from the reply of the first party. The inquiry
officer gave his findings on the basis of the documentary evidence without any oral evidence and held him guilty.
The inquiry report was based on presumptions, therefore, perverse in the absence of the oral evidence.He has also
challenged the inquiry report on the ground that there was no formal charge-sheet, only show cause notice cum
charge-sheet was served on him to submit the explanation but he has also added that wanted early dispensations of
justice so not criticise the inquiry however finding and punishment his perverse being disproportionate to the
misconduct.
16. The first party management answered the arguments of the second party by way of submitting the written
arguments Ex. 57 and 60 stating that it was a case of long absence from the year 1995 to 1998 without
authorisation. His conduct was also obstinate that he did not dare to appear in any of the inquiry proceedings from
1995 to 1997 indicating that he was not scared of any inquiry or action. In my view, such obstinacy permits the
management to award the punishment of removal.
17. The learned counsel of second party submitted the written argument Ex. 61 argued that the inquiry was conducted
in a hasty manner by conducting the proceedings in the day to day manner and therefore, violative of the principles
of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings were illegal. This argument has no force because it is an
admitted fact that the second party workman was served with the charge-sheet giving him the opportunity to submit
his explanation which he did not avail. Thereafter, he was also giving opportunity to appear and to participate with
an opportunity to give evidence in defence which he also did not avail. Thus the challenging the legality of the
inquiry in a casual manner without disclosing the reasons with the support of an affidavit will not give him a right
to challenge the inquiry. Thus as the inquiry proceedings have not been challenged by giving solid reasons,
therefore, I find the inquiry proceedings as legal and just without violative of principles of natural justice.
18. The second and the last argument of the second party workman is that the punishment awarded was
disproportionate to the misconduct or the charge labelled in the charge-sheet. This is an admitted fact that the
second party workman absented from duty for 68 days during the period from 01.01.1995 to 31.10.1995 of which
1286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he was served with the charge-sheet dated 27.12.1995 giving him a chance to improve and advised to be regular in
attending his duty, unauthorisedly absented from 75 days from 01.01.1997 to 30.09.1997 of which he was also
served with the charge-sheet dated 12.11.1997 giving him one more chance to improve and advised to be regular in
perform his duties, unauthorisedly absented for 40 days during the period from 01.10.1997 to 30.03.1998 of which
he was also served with the charge-sheet dated 14.05.1998 stopping his one increment without cumulative effect
vide letter dated 20.02.1999 and unauthorisedly absented for 213 days during the period from 01.04.1998 to
31.07.1999 of which he was served with the present charge-sheet in question and the order of termination was
passed. Thus the second party workman absented unauthorisedly for 392.5 days in the past and present too during
the period from 01.01.1995 to 31.07.1999. This conduct indicates that the second party workman was habitual in
absenting from the duty without taking prior sanction. It is a noteworthy fact that second party workman was a
union leader and might be possible that he would have been expressing his muscle power by absenting
unauthorisedly showing that management cannot harm him. Such conduct cannot be said to be tolerable in the best
management of the industry because it is quite natural that the other works force may follow him.
19. The argument that the punishment is excessive has been supported by the learned counsel by way of his judgement
Sardar Singh Dev Singh V/s District Superintendent of Police 1995 Gujarat LH 940 wherein the Gujarat High
Court held that absence of 150 days unauthorisedly by a constable will not make the case of dismissal and the
penalty was treated as harass.
20. The learned counsel of the second party has also referred that Mavji C. Lakum V/s Central Bank of India (2009) 1
SC C (L&S) 254 wherein the Industrial Tribunal interfered in the punishment awarded and reduced the punishment
of discharge from service to with-holding of one year increment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the
judgement of the tribunal. He further referred Krishankant B. Parmar V/s Union of India(2012) 1 SC C (L&S) 609
wherein the apex court held that the conduct ofappellant who unauthorisedly absented from duty during the
consecutive periods – 36 days, 32 days and 34 days was unlike of the government servant and if the absence was
not wilful, relief can be granted.
21. The learned counsel of the second party workman further referred that General Manager V/s
DasrathbhaiSomjibhaiBhim, Civil Application Number 8604 of 2005 with Special Civil Application Number
18941 of 2005 wherein the Gujarat High Court held that there appears to be a limited scope of interference in
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this court is unable to dislodge the findings otherwise the
workman is also not appearing to be so innocent, as it seems from the record that, he may be given a cakewalk. On
the contrary, the Authority has stated that he must be visited with some penalty, of course not that of dismissal, but
it is reflected from records that he has suppressed the fact of criminal case in which serious charge of theft was
entangled and further there are specific finding of the learned Presiding Officer in the course of inquiry that the
charge levelled against the workman is proved. Of course, it is a different matter that power under Section 11-A of
the Act, to be exercised by the Tribunal, but the factum of charge have proved during the course of inquiry, at least
in the opinion of this court, he must be deprived of the full benefits ant therefore, order passed by the learned
Presiding Officer to that extent is just whereby 50% back wages having been awarded. In the opinion of this court,
the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer does not call for any interference and this material fact to be taken
note of that there is specific purshis given by the respondent workman whereby the validity of the inquiry has not
been questioned and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the duty discharge to its
statutory discretion and same is not required to be interfered with. Therefore, looking to overall set of circumstance,
this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not required to be interfered
with. The case law relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent workman is in different set of
circumstance qua the case on hand and therefore, same are not of avail. It is settled law that if slight change in facts,
it would make world of difference in applying precedent. Therefore, in the background of fact of those particular
case, are quite distinct from the fact of the case on hand and therefore, this court is of the opinion that the petition
presented by the workman being devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed.
22. The learned counsel for the first party referred number of decisions however I would like to refer UPSRTC V/s
Vinod Kumar 2008 LLR 121 SC wherein the apex court held that since respondents has not challenged the
correctness, legality and validity of the inquiry conducted, therefore, the labour court cannot go in to the findings
recorded by the inquiry officer. It was also observed that there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on
the part of judicial forms to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Similar ratio was expressed in Employers
Management, West Bukaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. V/s workman Rampervesh Singh 2008 LLR 432 SC.
23. In Chairman and MD B.S.T. and others V/s GopaRaju Shri PrabhakraHaribabu 2008 LLR 715 SC wherein the
apex court held that respondents was a habitual absentee. He had not submitted his explanation of illness of his
mother in the departmental inquiry despite granting opportunity to him and failure to comply the order of reporting
on duty. He also failed to explain his prior conduct; such conduct was held sufficient to pass order of dismissal.
24. In General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union V/s The Managing Director, Kerala State
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., 2006 LLR 657 SC wherein the apex court held that Merely because the
inquiry officer is an employee of the management, it cannot lead to the assumption that he is bound to decide the
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1287
case in favour of the management since it is well-known that inquiries are generally conducted by officers of the
employer companies and in the absence of any special bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held
that the inquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. When the plea that inquiry officer
was biased was not raised during the inquiry or pleadings before the Labour Court or in earlier proceedings before
the High Court hence no cognizance is taken of the allegations. If the inquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of
any allegations of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the labour court has no power to interfere with the
punishment imposed. Although Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act givens ample power to the Labour
Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced in the inquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in
imposing punishment. Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the Labour Court/ Tribunal to give
appropriate relief in case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself.
25. In the State Bank of Mysore V/s M.C. Krishnappa 2011 (ii) CLR 859 apex court held that it is a well settled
principle that punishment is primarily a function of the management and the courts really interfere with the
quantum of punishment. Similarly in Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Subhas Chand 2011 LLR 341, the Delhi
High Court held that it is a well settled law that a court will not normally sit in the appeal over the findings arrived
at by the inquiry officer. Since the court is not required to examine or re-examine the evidence adduced before the
inquiry officer and it is only in exceptionable cases when the findings of the inquiry officer are found perverse or
opposed to the principle of natural justice. Only then interference is warranted by the courts since the jurisdiction of
the court is ousted in such cases.
26. In State Bank of Bikaner V/s Nemichand Nalwaya 2011 LLR 634 SC wherein the apex court has held that in the
matter of disciplinary proceedings, the courts cannot sit as an appellate court to re-asses the evidence produced in
the inquiry. It cannot also interfere with the ground that any view is possible on the basis of the material on record.
It was also held that as and when the punishment has been imposed upon an employee after holding of an inquiry,
the courts have restricted powers and can interfere only when the finding was found perverse or based on no
evidence and also when the principles of natural justice are not follow.
27. In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corporation V/s Ashappa 2006 LLR 744 and 2006 (J) SC C 137, the supreme
court held that long absence continuous and unauthorised of an employee from duty running public utility services
to the passengers by plying buses will amount to major misconduct as such the labour court wrongly directed the
reinstatement. Reinstatement of a driver absenting for a long period even without back wages is unjustified.
28. In Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Sardar Singh 2004 LLR 953 SC, the apex court held that non approval of
dismissal of a workman by the Industrial Tribunal was not justified when the workman has frequently absented
himself. Merely because the absence of a workman was treated as leave without pay for the purpose of maintaining
correct record by the management, it does not absolve a workman from the misconduct of his absence. When an
employee habitually absents himself form duty even without sanctioned leave for very long, it prima facie shows
negligence and lack of interest in work and in departmental proceedings to trial it as misconduct was not unjustified
view.
29. I considered the evidence and arguments of both the parties. Thisis a case of repeated unauthorised long absence
from duty by an employee who is also union leader. He has tried to explain his absence from duty on the ground of
illness of parents and wife without support of any evidence. His conduct of long absence appears to be obstinate
nature because he was thrice charge-sheeted and admonished but he did not try to improve his conduct, therefore,
there is no case of interference in the punishment awarded by the management. Thus the reference is disposed of
with the observation as under: “the action of the management of IFFCO, Kandla in removing Shri D.V. Jadeja,
Chief Operator from services w.e.f. 04.05.2000 is legal and justified.”
30. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 621-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
fgUnqLrku f'ki;kMZ fyfeVsM o muds deZpkjh] 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 25@2003) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@130@2012&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 25/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
1288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. And their workman, which was received by Central Government on
16.02.2017.
[No. L-42011/130/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDEAR JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of October, 2016
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25/2013
Between :
1. The General Secretary
HS Labour & Staff Union, (Affiliated to CITU)
C/o Hindusthan Shipyard Ltd.,
Gandhigram,
Visakhapatnam-530005.
2. The General Secretary,
HS Employees Association, (Affiliated to TNTUC),
C/o Hindusthan Shipyard Ltd.,
Gandhigram,
Visakhapatnam.
…Petitioner Unions
AND
The General Manager,
Hindusthan Shipyard Ltd.,
Gandhigram,
Visakhapatnam-530005.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
General Secretaries of both petitioner unions
For the Respondent :
Ms. K. Udaya Sri & Sri P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/130/2012-IR(DU) dated 21.01.2013
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s Hindusthan Shipyard Ltd., and their workman under
section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the H.S. Labour & Staff Union (CITU), H.S. Employees Association (TNTUC) and
H.S. Sramilk Sangth (Affiliated to BMS) for payment of skilled wages and also equal pay for equal work on
par with the permanent employees, to contractual workmen appointed on Fixed Term/ L Series basis directly
by the management of Hindusthan Shipyard Ltd. Visakhapatnam is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
concerned workmen and the trade unions are entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 25/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The Petitioner Unions have filed their claim statement and Respondent did not file their counter, as such
Respondent is set-exparte.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1289
3.
Now, the case is posted for evidence of the Petitioner unions. Inspite of availing several opportunities, the
Petitioner unions and Respondent remained absent and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner unions as
well as the Respondent, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner unions has already been
settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner unions are not interested in pursuing the dispute.
Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected by me on this the 19th day of
September, 2016.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 622-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]
lsaVªy bafLV~;wV vkWiQ Dykfldy rfey psUubZ ,oa muds deZpkjh] ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 96@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@55@2015&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 96/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, Central Institute of Classical Tamil Chennai and their workman, which was received by Central Government
on 09.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/55/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
Thursday, the 29th December, 2016
Present :
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
1290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute No. 96/2015
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Central Institute of Classical Tamil and
their workman)
BETWEEN :
Dr. A. Arockia Doss
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Director
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Central Institutte of Classical Tamil
No. 40, IRT Campus, 100 Ft. Road
Taramani
Chennai-600113
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Sri T. Sundaravadanam, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
Sri R. Parthiban, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/55/2015-IR (DU)
dated 18.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of CICT, Chennai regarding refusal of legal rights of the Petitioner
Union is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 96/2015 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is the President of Semmoli Tamil Madhiya Nirvana Uzhiyar Sangam having 16 members. All
of them had joined the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore under Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil in
various disciplines as Resources Persons, Junior Resource Persons, Programmer, Data Input Operator, etc. in March
2006. The Respondent institution started functioning in Chennai in May 2008. All the concerned workmen who were
working in Mysore were transferred to Chennai alongwith others. An association was formed in 2012 and subsequently
it was formulated into present Trade Union Association, the petitioner. Though there were 86 earlier, the number of
employees were reduced unjustly and now there are only 54 employees. There is no permanent Director, Registrar or
Finance Officer for the Respondent institution. On 03.06.2014 the petitioner raised demands with the Respondent to
make those workers who were working in the Respondent for more than 480 days permanent, for basic pay, for dearness
allowance, for house rent allowance and other attendant benefits alongwith other demands. The demands were placed
before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central). The Respondent did not concede to the demands of the
petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Consequent to the failure of conciliation a failure report was
given and the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. An Award may be passed holding that the
demands of the petitioner are lawful and justified and direct the Respondent to pay the backwages and other benefits to
the concerned workmen.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Central Institute of Classical Tamil which was earlier functioning from Mysore was shifted to Chennai in
2008. The Respondent had engaged persons on contract basis to pursue research on Classical Tamil Language and
Literature. The Central Government had not approved any post for the Institute. So all the persons were engaged on
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1291
contract basis depending upon requirement. Subsequently, the Ministry of Human Resources Development sanctioned
certain posts and he Respondent took initiative to fill-up the posts. The petitioner and others filed Writ Petition before
the High Court and obtained an order of Interim Injunction not to proceed with the selection process. The Writ Petitions
are pending before the High Court. The purpose of the Respondent institute is to do research relating to the classical
phase of Tamil. The Institute which is a research institute is mainly funded by the Ministry of Human Resources
Development of Government of India. It is not carrying any trade or business. Its activities do not result in production or
distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes. It is not engaged in any commercial or
industrial activity. The activity carried out by the Respondent does not fall under the definition of Industry as given in
Section-2(j) of the ID Act. The dispute is raised by the petitioner alongwith a few persons. It has no representative
capacity to adjudicate the dispute. For these reasons itself the dispute is liable to be rejected. Some persons were
engaged by the Institute on contract basis depending upon their qualification and merit as Senior Resource Persons. A
daily honorarium was fixed for them. Junior Resource Persons were also engaged in this manner. Some persons have
left after the contract period was over. On the basis of the need fresh contracts were given to certain others. The
concerned persons are not entitled to regularization in the service of the Respondent in the absence of any sanctioned
post or vacancy and also because they are not having any qualification and they were not appointed through any regular
means. The Writ Petitions pending before the High Court are for the same relief as claimed in this dispute.
The petition is liable to be rejected.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W288
and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2.
6.
The point for consideration is:
‘Whether the concerned employees are entitled to absorption and other reliefs as claimed by them?”
The Point
7.
The petitioner is the President of the Sangam having 16 persons as its members, all of them working in the
Respondent institution. They are said to have joined the Institution in the year 2006. They have joined as Senior
Resource Persons, Junior Resource Persons, Data Entry Operators, etc. they were paid wages on daily basis alongwith
honorarium depending on their status. The Institute which had earlier been functioning from Mysore had been shifted to
Chennai in 2008. As seen from the Claim Statement the petitioner Union had decided to agitate the following issues, on
03.06.2014.
(i)
The workers who are working in the Respondent for more than 480 days shall be confirmed as permanent
workers.
(ii) Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and all other attendant benefits shall be provided to the
workers of the Respondent Institute as provided to the Government Servants.
(iii) The bias shown in the promotion, salary, increment and other benefits to the workers shall be removed and all
shall be provided with all the benefits on par with other employees working in the Institute.
(iv) The workers of the Institute shall be provided Casual Leave, Medical Leave, Earned Leave, Maternity Leave and
all other prescribed leave as per law.
(v)
The workers of the Institute shall be provided all the medical benefits as per law.
(vi) Low priced affordable canteen shall be opened in the Institute campus for the workers.
According to the petitioner, during the period from March 2006 to August 2015 several employees have completed 480
days of continuous employment but this was neglected by the Institution and pay was arbitrarily enhanced to the junior
most employees. The dispute is said to have been raised in this circumstance.
8.
The President of the Sangam has been examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W88 are marked through this
witness. All these documents are nothing but the mark sheets and certificate of qualification of the concerned
employees, 16 in number, apart from a few other documents including renewal of the contracts in respect of the
different employees.
9.
The practice of the Respondent seems to be to appoint persons on contract basis. It does not have even a
Director or other top persons of its own in the establishment. Those persons are taken on deputation. Those who are
supposed to do the research in Classical Tamil which is the object of the Respondent institute are being taken in on
contract basis. Ext.M1 and Ext.M2 are samples of the contract. Ext.M1 is the offer given to WW1 to engage him as
Senior Resource Person in the institute on contract basis for a period of 6 months. The terms and conditions of the offer
states that the position will be purely on temporary basis and co-terminus with the projects of the department. It further
states that the duration of the contract will be initially for a period of 6 months from 04.04.2013 or the period approved
1292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the Governing Board. Ext.M2 is the offer of contract for the year 2014-2015 given to WW1 himself in similar terms.
Thus it could be seen that the engagement in the Respondent Institute is on the basis of a contract for a particular period.
Ext.W218 to Ext.W230 are all offers given to different persons for work for a period of 6 months starting from
04.04.2013. In some of the documents contracts are shown to have been extended for a period of 3 months also. No
documents are produced to show from which date the concerned employees have been working in the Institute.
10.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in BHAVNAGAR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. SALIMBHAI UMARBHAI MANSURI reported in 2013-14-SCC-456 to argue for
the position that termination of service after expiry of the contract does not amount to retrenchment. It was held here
that on the basis of the contract entered into by the employer and the employee the employment was short-lived and was
liable to termination on expiry of the period mentioned in the contract of appointment. According to the counsel for the
Respondent the concerned employees having been appointed based on contract they are liable to be terminated on the
expiry of the period of the contract and they are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. Reference was also made
to the decision in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS VS. ANITA AND OTHERS reported in 2016 3 LLN
544 (SC) in this respect. In this the Apex Court has held that when the terms of the agreement specifically laid down
that the appointment is purely contractual the employee will not be entitled to claim any right or benefits whatsoever of
permanent service in the Government. In this case the appointment was initially made for 11 months but renewed twice.
The employees have challenged their termination. It was held that after having accepted contractual appointment the
employees are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment.
11.
The contracts on the basis of which the concerned employees were engaged were only for a particular period.
The contracts might have been renewed or extended for another period. However, the employees have accepted the
terms of the contract including the one for their automatic termination on the expiry of the period. They could not claim
any right in view of the very terms of the contracts by which they were engaged.
12.
Even otherwise the concerned employees are not entitled to any relief. The Respondent has taken a contention
that it is engaged in research in Classical Tamil and it is not a commercial or industry coming under Section-2(j) of the
ID Act and for this reason the dispute is not maintainable before this Tribunal also.
13.
In spite of the contention by the Respondent that it is not an industry the petitioner has not made any attempt to
prove that it is an Industry and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The Apex Court has held in the
decision in STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRATAM SING NARSING PARMAR reported in 2001 1 LLJ 1118 that if a
dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or a part of it wherein an appointment has been made is an
industry or not it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be an industry to give positive facts for
coming to the conclusion that it constitutes an Industry. Reference is also to be made to the decision of the Apex court
in PHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY VS. K.G. SHARMA reported in 1997 4 SCC 257 where it was held that
Physical Research Laboratory is an Institute doing research and could not be said to be carrying on any trade or business
and its activities will not result in production or distribution of goods or services calculated to satisfy human wants and
wishes. In the same manner the Respondent Institution is one devoted to research on Classical Tamil. The petitioner has
not established that it is carrying on any trade or business and its activities result in production or distribution of goods
or services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes. So there is no evidence to show that the Respondent is an
industry coming under Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this reason itself the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
In view of the discussion above, the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the
29th December, 2016,)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Exa
mined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri A. Arokiadaoss
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
March 1983
10th Mark Statement of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W2
March 1985
12th Mark Statement of P. Kannadhasan
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1293
Ext.W3
October 1985
12th Mark Statement of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W4
March 1986
10th Mark Statement of S. Geetha
Ext.W5
March 1989
10th Mark Statement of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W6
October 1989
10th Mark Statement of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W7
October 1989
B.Sc., Degree Consolidate Mark Statement of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W8
October 1989
B.Sc. Degree Convocation of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W9
Dec. 1989
Tamil Typewriting (Junior Grade) Certificate of S. Geetha
Ext.W10
30.09.1990
Computer Course (Data Entry Operation) Certificate Computer of
S. Geetha
Ext.W11
March 1991
Basic, Cobol & Dbase III Plus Course of S. Geetha
Ext,W12
April 1991
10th Mark Statement of S. Velmurgan
Ext.W13
April 1991
Diploma (Commercial Practice) Provisional Certificate of S. Geetha
Ext.W14
April 1992
10TH Mark Statement of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W15
April 1992
10th Mark Statement of K. Sankar
Ext.W16
March 1993
12th Mark Statement of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W17
April 1993
M.A. Degree Cumulative Marks Statemement of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W18
April 1993
10th Mark Statement of M. Susila
Ext.W19
April 1993
M.A. Degree Convocation of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W20
Dec. 1993
NET Certificate of P. Kannadhasana
Ext.W21
Feb. 1994
M.Phil. Degree Mark Statement of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W22
March 1994
12th Mark Statement of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W23
March 1994
12th Mark Statement of K. Sankar
Ext.W24
April 1994
10th Mark Statement of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W25
March 1995
12th Mark Statement of M. Susila
Ext.W26
March 1995
10th Mark Statement of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W27
March 1995
10th Mark Statement of P. Raja
Ext.W28
August 1995
M.Phil. Degree Convocation of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W29
March 1996
10th Mark Statement of T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W30
March 1996
10th Mark Statement of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W31
Sept. 1996
12th Mark Statement of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W32
April 1997
10th Mark Statement of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W33
April 1997
10th Mark Statement of V. Gayathri
Ext.W34
July 1997
Typewriting Tamil (Senior Grade) Certificate of K. Sankar
Ext.W35
Sept. 1997
Diploma in Sanskrit Mark List (Part-I) of M. Susila
Ext.W36
Feb. 1998
Diploma in Sanskrit Mark List (Part-II) of M. Susila
Ext.W37
Feb. 1998
Diploma in Sanskrit Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W38
March 1998
12th Mark Statement of T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W39
March 1998
12th Mark Statement of P. Raja
Ext.W40
April 1998
B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W41
April 1998
B.Lit. Degree Consolidate Mark Statement of M. Susila
Ext.W42
April 1998
B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of S. Velmurugan
1294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W43
April 1998
B.Lit. Degree Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W44
April 1998
B.Lit. Degree Convocation of M. Susila
Ext.W45
Oct. 1998
10th Mark Statement of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W46
Dec. 1998
Diploma Certificate (Electronics) of K. Sankar
Ext.W47
Jan. 1999
English Typewriting (Junior Grade) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W48
March 1999
12th Mark Statement of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W49
April 1999
B.E. Degree Convocation of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W50
May 1999
Certificate Course in Screen Printing of K. Sankar
Ext.W51
March 2000
10th Mark Statement of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W52
April 2000
M.A. Degree Consolidated Mark Statement of M. Susila
Ext.W53
April 2000
M.A. (Tamil) Degree Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W54
April 2000
M.A. (Tamil) Degree Convocation M. Susila
Ext.W55
April 2000
B.A. Degree Consolidate Mark List of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W56
April 2000
B.A., Degree Convocation of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W57
Nov. 2000
M.L.I.S. Degree Mark List (I-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W58
March 2001
M.Phil., Degree I-Sem. Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W59
March 2001
12th Mark Statement of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W60
15.04.2001
Manuscript Training Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W61
April 2001
B.A. Degree Consolidated Mark List of P. Raja
Ext.W62
April 2001
B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of P. Raja
Ext.W63
April 2001
B.A. Degree Convocationh of P. Raja
Ext.W64
May 2001
M.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of S. Selvamurugan
Ext.W65
May 2001
M.A. Degree Convocation S. Velmurugan
Ext.W66
May 2001
English Typewriting (senior Grade) of V. Gayathri
Ext.W67
May 2001
MLIS Degree Mark List (I-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W68
May 2001
MLIS Degree Mark List (II-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W69
June 2001
P.G. Diploma in Linguistics of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W70
August 2001
M.Phil. Degree II-Sem. Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W71
August 2001
M.Phil. Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W72
August 2001
M.Phil. Degree Convocation of M. Susila
Ext.W73
Nov. 2001
MLIS Degree Mark List (III-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W74
27.12.2001
Certificate of Diploma Computer (DCA) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W75
March 2002
12th Mark Statement of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W76
May 2002
MLIS Degree Mark List (III-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W77
May 2002
MLIS Degree Mark List (IV-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W78
May 2002
MLIS Degree Convocation of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W79
03.07.2002
Certificate Court in Computer Application of V. Gayathri
Ext.W80
2002
Ph.D. Degree Convocatiion of P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W81
Dec. 2002
M.Phil. Degree Mark List (I-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W82
April 2003
M.A. Degree Convocation of T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W83
April 2003
B.A. Degree Consolidated Mark Statement of A. Arockia Doss
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1295
Ext.W84
April 2003
B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W85
April 2003
M.A. (Ling.) Degree Consolidated Mark List of P. Raja
Ext.W86
April 2003
M.A. (Ling) Degree Provisional Certificate of P. Raja
Ext.W87
June 2003
M.Phil. Degree Mark List (II-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W88
Oct. 2003
M.Phil. Degree Provisional Certificate of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W89
October 2003
M.Phil. Degree Convocation of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W90
Dec. 2003
NET Certificate of T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W91
Feb. 2004
M.Phil. Degree Mark List (II-Sem) of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W92
Feb. 2004
M.Phil Degree Convocation of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W93
April 2004
B.A. Degree Cumulative Marks Statement of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W94
April 2004
B.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of. V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W95
April 2004
B.A. Degree Convocation of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W96
April 2004
M.Phil (Ling.) Degree Mark List of P. Raja
Ext.W97
April 2004
M.Phil (Ling.) Degree Convocation of P. Raja
Ext.W98
April 2004
M.Phil (Ling.) Provisional Certificate of P. Raja
Ext.W99
28.08.2004
Certificate Course in Malayalam Mark List of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W100
15.10.2004
Teaching
Experience
(22.01.2003–
31.03.2014)
Certificate
of
P. Kannadhasan
Ext.W101
April 2005
B.Sc. Degree Consolidated Mark Statement of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W102
May 2005
Hindi Typewriting (Senior Grade) of V. Gayathri
Ext.W103
June 2005
M.A. Degree Consolidated Statement of Grades of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W104
June 2005
M.A. Degree Course Convocation of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W105
10.06.2005
Bengali Language Intensive Course Mark Sheet of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W106
11.06.2005
Bengali Language Intensive Course Mark Sheet of M. Susila
Ext.W107
22.07.2005
Bengali Language Intensive Course Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W108
15.10.2005
Classical Tamil Programmer News Paper Advtersiment of D. Senthil
Kumar
Ext.W109
April 2006
M.Phil Degree Mark List of (I-Sem) A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W110
April 2006
M.A. Degree Consolidated Marks Statement of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W111
April 2006
M.A. Degree Provisional Certificate of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W112
April 2006
M.A. Degree convocation of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W113
21.04.2006
Appointment Order of D. Senthil Kumar Issued by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W114
29.05.2006
Position and Pay Order of D. Senthil Kumar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W115
August 2006
M.Phil Degree Mark List of (II-Sem) A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W116
April 2006
M.Phil. Degree Convocation of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W117
10.11.2006
Ph.D. Provisional Certificate of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W118
Nov. 2006
Ph.D. Convocation of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W119
30.11.2006
Research
Experience
Certificate
(01.11.2005
–
30.11.2006)
of
S. Velmurugan
Ext.W120
March 2007
M.Phil Degree Mark List (Part-I) of V. Alagamiuthu
Ext.W121
March 2007
M.Phil. Degree Provisional Certificate of V. Alagamuthu
1296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W122
April 2007
M.A.
(Ling)
Degree
consolidated
Mark
Statement
of
S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W123
April 2007
M.A. (Ling) Degree Convocation of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W124
23.05.2007
Call for applications
Ext.W125
31.05.2007
Renewal Order for the year 2007-2008 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W126
26.07.2007
Interview Call Letter of K. Sankar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W127
26.07.2007
Interview Call Letter of V. Gayathri by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W128
10.08.2007
Interview Call Letter of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W129
10.08.2007
Interview Call Letter of M. Susila by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W130
10.08.2007
Interview Call Letter of T. Poovai Subramanian by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W131
11.08.2007
Joining Order of V. Gayathri by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W132
13.08.2007
Interview Call Letter of P. Raja by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W133
27.09.2007
Joining Order of A. Arockia Doss by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W134
27.09.2007
Joining Order of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W135
27.09.2007
Joining Order of M. Susila by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W136
27.09.2007
Joining Order of S. Karumbayiram by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W137
Oct. 2007
M.Phil.Degree Mark List (Part-II) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W138
08.10.2007
P.hd. Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W139
Oct. 2007
P.hd. Convocation of M. Susila
Ext.W140
October 2007
M.Phil. Degree Convocation of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W141
22.10.2007
Joining Order of T. Poovai Subramanian by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W142
22.10.2007
Joining Order of P. Raja by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W143
08.11.2007
Joining Order of P. Kannadhasan by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W144
17.01.2008
Joining Order of S. Velmurugan by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W145
15.05.2008
Renewal Order for the year 2008-2009 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W146
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of V. Velmurugan issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W147
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of M. Susila issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W148
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of P. Kannadhasan issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W149
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of V. Alagamuthu issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W150
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of T. Poovai Subramanian issued by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W151
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of D. Senthil Kumar issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W152
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of S. Karumbayiram issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W153
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of V. Gayathri issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W154
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of S. Rajesh Kumar issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W155
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of P. Raja issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W156
16.05.2008
Transfer Order of S. Nagoorammal issued by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W157
May 2008
M.A. (Ling) I-Year Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W158
27.05.2008
Pay & Position Order of V. Gayathri by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W159
June 2008
M.A. (Eng) I-Year Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W160
August 2008
Ph.D. convocation of T. Poovai Subramanian
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1297
Ext.W161
Jan. 2009
M.A. (Eng.) I-Year Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W162
06.03.2009
Certificate of Diploma in Desk Top Publishing of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W163
02.04.2009
Renewal Order for the Year 2009-2010 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W164
May 2009
M.A. (Ling) II-Year Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W165
May 2009
M.A. (Ling) Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W166
May 2009
M.A. (Ling) Convocation of M. Susila
Ext.W167
06.05.2009
Work Assignment Order of D. Senthil Kumar by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W168
06.05.2009
Work Assignment Order of K. Sankar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W169
07.05.2009
Work Assignment Order of D. Senthil Kumar by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W170
June 2009
M.A. (Eng.) II Year Mark List of M. Susila
Ext.W171
June 2009
M.A. (Eng.) Provisional Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W172
June 2009
M.A. (Eng.) Convocation of M. Susila
Ext.W173
August 2009
Ph.D. Convocation of A. Arockia Doss
Ext.W174
24.08.2009
Pay Revision Order of D. Senthil Kumar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W175
02.12.2009
Work Assignment Order of S. Geetha by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W176
12.03.2010
Promotion Order and Pay Revised Order of K. Sankar by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W177
12.03.2010
Promotion Order and Pay Revised Order of V. Gayathri by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W178
01.04.2010
Joining Report of V. Gayathri
Ext.W179
26.04.2010
Renewal Order for the Year 2010-2011 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W180
2010
M.A. Degree Convocation of G. Gayathri
Ext.W181
27.06.2010
NET Certificate of M. Susila
Ext.W182
22.10.2010
Authorization letter of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W183
22.10.2010
Experience Certificate (12.10.2007 to 22.10.2010) of V. Alagamuthu by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W184
03.12.2010
Experience Certificate (12.10.2007 to 31.08.2009) of A. Arockia Doss by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W185
05.01.2011
Ph.D. Registration Approval Order of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W186
18.04.2011
Renewal Order for the Year 2011-2012 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W187
18.04.2011
Renewal Order for the year 2011-2012 of V. Gayathri
Ext.W188
03.05.2011
Authorization Letter of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W189
May 2011
M.A. Linguistics Degree Mark Statement (I-Year) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W190
26.07.2011
Eleven (11) Departments have been formed
Ext.W191
14.08.2011
State
Eligibility
Test
for
Lectureship
(SET)
Certificate
of
V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W192
04.11.2011
Disability Certificate of A. Arockia Doss by Government of Tamil Nadu
Ext.W193
Nov. 2011
B.Com. Degree Mark Statement of S. Geetha
Ext.W194
Nov. 2011
B.Com. Degree Provisional Certificate of S. Geetha
Ext.W195
08.12.2011
PGDCA Certificate of S. Rajesh Kumar
1298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W196
28.02.2012
Experience Certificate (24.01.2008 to 28.02.2012) of S. Velmurugan by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W197
28.03.2012
Ph.D. Convocation of P. Raja
Ext.W198
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W199
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W200
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W201
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of V. Alagamuthu Kumar
Ext.W202
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of M. Susilal Kumar
Ext.W203
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of K. Sankar Kumar
Ext.W204
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of V. Gayathri Kumar
Ext.W205
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of S. Nagoorammal Kumar
Ext.W206
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of S. Geetha Kumar
Ext.W207
03.04.2012
Renewal Order for the year 2012-2013 of S. Rajesh Kumar
Ext.W208
14.05.2012
Eleven Departments had to be restricted as Twelve Departments as per the
MoA
Ext.W209
May 2012
M.A. Linguistics Degree Mark Statement (II-Year) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W210
04.06.2012
Director approved for restructured twelve departments as per MoA
Ext.W211
Oct. 2012
12th Mark Statement of V. Gayathri
Ext.W212
Dec. 2012
M.A. Linguistics Degree Mark Statement (II-Year) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W213
Dec. 2012
M.A. Linguistics Provisional Certificate of V. Alagamuthu]
Ext.W214
05.12.2012
Experience Certificate (12.10.2007 to 05.12.2012) of V. Alagamuthu by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W215
05.12.2012
Experience Certificate (24.01.2008 to 05.12.2012) of S. Velmurugan by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W216
05.12.2012
Experience Certificate (13.08.2007 to 31.12.2012) of V. Gayathri by the
Respondent Institution
Ext.W217
05.12.2012
Experience Certificate (09.07.2007 to 31.12.2012) of S. Rajesh Kumar by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W218
20.05.2013
Renewal Order and Terms & Conditions for the year (04.04.2013-
04.10.2013)
Ext.W219
20.05.2013
Renewal
Order
for
the
year
(04.04.2013
–
04.10.2013)
of
V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W220
20.05.2013
Renewal Order and Terms and Conditions for the year (04.04.2013 –
04.10.2013) of M. Susila
Ext.W221
20.05.2013
Renewal Order and Terms and Conditions, Work Assignment order for the
year (04.04.2013 – 04.10.2013) of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W222
30.09.2013
Experience Certificate (29.10.2007 to 30.09.2013) of T. Poovai
Subramanian by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W223
18.10.2013
Renewal
Order
for
the
year
(04.10.2013
–
04.01.2014)
of
S. Velmurugan
Ext.W224
18.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year (04.10.2013 – 04.01.2014) of D. Senthil
Kumar
Ext.W225
18.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year (04.10.2013 – 04.01.2014) of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W226
18.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year year (04.10.2013 – 04.01.2014) of M. Susila
Ext.W227
18.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year year (04.10.2013 – 04.01.2014) of
S. Nagoorammal
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1299
Ext.W228
31.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year year (05.11.2013 – 04.04.2014) of
S. Velmurugan
Ext.W229
31.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year year (05.11.2013 – 04.04.2014) of M. Susila
Ext.W230
31.10.2013
Renewal Order for the year (05.11.2013 – 04.04.2014) of D. Senthil
Kumar
Ext.W231
04.01.2014
M.Phil., Degree Cumulative Marks Statement of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W232
06.01.2014
M.A., Degree Cumulative Marks Statement of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W233
17.01.2014
Experience
Certificate
(12.10.2007
to
17.01.2014)
of
V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W234
09.04.2014
Teaching
Experience
(06.1.22006-11.01.2008)
Certificate
of
S. Velmurugan
Ext.W235
11.04.2014
Renewal
Order
for
the
year
(07.04.2014
–
31.03.2015)
of
T. Poovai Subramanian
Ext.W236
11.04.2014
Renewal Order and Terms & Conditions for the year (07.04.2014 –
31.03.2015)
Ext.W237
15.04.2014
Renewal Order and Terms and Conditions for the year (07.04.2014 –
31.03.2015) of S. Velmurugan
Ext.W238
15.04.2014
Renewal
Order
for
the
Year
(07.04.2014
–
31.03.2015)
of
D. Senthil Kumar
Ext.W239
15.04.2014
Renewal
Order
for
the
year
(07.04.2014
–
31.03.2015)
of
V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W240
15.04.2014
Renewal
Order
for
the
year
(07.04.2014
–
31.03.2015)
of
K. Sankar
Ext.W241
15.04.2014
Terms & Conditions and Work Assignment Order of P. Raja by the
Respondent Institution
Ext.W242
15.04.2014
Renewal Order and Terms & Conditions for the year (07.04.2014 –
31.03.2015) of S. Nagoorammal
Ext.W243
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of S. Velmurugan by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W244
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of D. Senthil Kumar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W245
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W246
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of K. Sankar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W247
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of S. Rajesh Kumar by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W248
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of P. Raja by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W249
19.05.2014
Pay Revision Order of S. Nagoorammal by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W250
04.06.2014
General Demands raised under Section 2(k) Industrial Disputes Act 1947
by the petitioner
Ext.W251
28.07.2014
Reply given by Management
Ext.W252
27.08.2014
Authorization letter of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W253
30.09.2014
Conciliation Information Letter (2k)
Ext.W254
14.10.2014
Experience
Certificate
(09.10.2007
to
14.10.2014)
of
S. Nagoorammal by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W255
15.10.2014
Experience Certificate (12.10.2007 to 15.10.2014) of V. Alagamuthu by
the Respondent Institution
Ext.W256
13.11.2014
Conciliation Information Letter (2k)
Ext.W257
24.11.2014
Conciliation Information Letter (2k)
Ext.W258
11.12.2014
Labour Commissioner Conciliation Proceedings
1300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W259
17.12.2014
Ph.D. Thesis Submission Certificate of V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W260
22.12.2014
Rejoin defiled by petitioner
Ext.W261
30.12.2014
Memo filed by the petitioner
Ext.W262
03.03.2015
Experience
Certificate
(01.11.2007
to
03.03.2015)
of
S. Nagoorammal by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W263
03.03.2015
Experience
Certificate
(09.10.2007
to
03.03.2015)
of
S. Nagoorammal by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W265
31.03.2015
Request for engagement letter of S. Velmurugan by the Respondent
Institution
Ext.W266
31.03.2015
Engagement
Order
for
the
year
(06.04.2015-31.03.2016)
of
V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W267
31.03.2015
Engagement
Order
for
the
year
(06.04.2015-31.03.2016)
of
V. Gagathri
Ext.W268
31.03.2015
Engagement Order for the year (06.04.2015-31.03.2016) of P. Raja
Ext.W269
31.03.2015
Engagement Order for the year (06.04.2015-31.03.2016) of S.
Nagoorammal
Ext.W270
31.03.2015
Engagement Order for the year (06.04.2015 – 31.03.2016)
Ext.W271
31.03.2015
Engagement Order for the year (06.04.2015-31.03.2016) of D. Senthil
Kumar
Ext.W272
31.03.2015
Engagement Order for the year (06.04.2015-31.03.2016) of A. Arokiadoss
Ext.W273
31.03.2015
Engagement
Order
for
the
year
(06.04.2015-31.03.2016)
of
V. Alagamuthu
Ext.W274
31.03.2015
Engagement
Order
for
the
year
(06.04.2015-31.03.2016)
of
M. Susila
Ext.W275
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of S. Velmurugan by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W276
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of M. Susila by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W277
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of A. Arokaidoss by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W278
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of V. Alagamuthu by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W279
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of P. Kannadasan by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W280
21.07.2015
Work Assignment order of S. Geetha by the Respondent Institution
Ext.W281
April 2015 to
ID Card of A. Arokiadoss issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W281
April 2015 to
ID Card of A. Arokiadoss issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W282
April 2015 to
ID Card of S. Velmurugan issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W283
April 2015 to
ID Card of A. Alagamuthu issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W284
April 2015 to
ID Card of M. Susila issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W285
April 2015 to
ID Card of S. Geetha issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
Ext.W286
April 2015 to
ID Card of S. Karumbayiram issued by the Respondent Institution
March 2016
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1301
Ext.W287
April 2015 to
ID Card of D. Senthil Kumar issued by the Respondent
March 2016
Institution
Ext.W288
April 2015 to
ID Card of K. Shankar issued by the Respondent
March 2016
Institution
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
May 2013
Offer of Contract for the year 2013-2014 and Terms and Conditions and
acceptance
Ext.M2
April 2014
Offer of Contract for the year 2014-2015 Terms and conditions and
acceptance
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 623-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
,e@,l ds-,l-ts- Mk;ukfed lqj{kk izkbosV fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] la- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 114@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@32@2016&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 623.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 114/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, M/s K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, others and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/32/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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.114/2016
Shri Basudev Mishra, through
The Secretary,
Bhartiya Karamchari General Mazdoor Union(Regd.)
A-590, Gola Kuan, Tehkhand (Near F-22),
Okhla Phase I,
New Delhi – 110 020
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Director,
M/s K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.273, 2nd Floor, Old Delhi,
Gurgaon Road, Kapashera
New Delhi 110 037
1302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s F.M.E.C. Pratibha,
J.B.C.C.-23, Pushpa Bhawan,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi 110 062
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/32/2016-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether termination of services of the workman Shri Basudev Mishra with effect from 21.05.2014 by the
management of K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd./FMEC Pratibha is just, fair and legal? If not what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Basudev Mishra opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
merits.
4.
Section 10(1)(d) of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with or relevant to such dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second or
the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. When
a dispute is referred to the Tribunal, it is required to adjudicate the industrial dispute. Therefore, it is apparent that the
appropriate Government can refer an industrial dispute to the Tribunal, relating to any matter specified in the Second or
the Third Schedule of the Act. However, for making such a reference, Government making the reference to the Tribunal
should be appropriate Government for that industrial dispute. However, the Central Government is not the appropriate
Government for the dispute under reference. Consequently, it is clear that the reference of the dispute by the Central
Government is incompetent and this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. In view of this, it
is concluded that the reference of the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication is incompetent, since the Central
Government is not the appropriate Government for this dispute. When Central Government is not the appropriate
Government for making reference of the dispute for adjudication, this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issues on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudication. An award is passed, in
view of the observations made above. It be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
November 28, 2016
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 624-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
,e@,l ds-,l-ts- Mk;ukfed lqj{kk izkbosV fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] la- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 113@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@31@2016&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 624.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 113/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1303
Director, M/s K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, others and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/31/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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.113/2016
Shri Krishanpal Singh, through
The Secretary,
Bhartiya Karamchari General Mazdoor Union(Regd.)
A-590, Gola Kuan, Tehkhand (Near F-22),
Okhla Phase I,
New Delhi – 110 020
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Director,
M/s K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.273, 2nd Floor, Old Delhi,
Gurgaon Road, Kapashera
New Delhi 110 037
2.
M/s F.M.E.C. Pratibha,
J.B.C.C.-23, Pushpa Bhawan,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi 110 062
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/31/2016-IR(DU) dated 12.04.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether termination of services of the workman Shri Krishanpal Singh with effect from 18.07.2013 by the
management of K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd./FMEC Pratibha is just, fair and legal? If not what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?’
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Krishanpal Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
merits.
4.
Section 10(1)(d) of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with or relevant to such dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second or
1304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. When
a dispute is referred to the Tribunal, it is required to adjudicate the industrial dispute. Therefore, it is apparent that the
appropriate Government can refer an industrial dispute to the Tribunal, relating to any matter specified in the Second or
the Third Schedule of the Act. However, for making such a reference, Government making the reference to the Tribunal
should be appropriate Government for that industrial dispute. However, the Central Government is not the appropriate
Government for the dispute under reference. Consequently, it is clear that the reference of the dispute by the Central
Government is incompetent and this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. In view of this, it
is concluded that the reference of the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication is incompetent, since the Central
Government is not the appropriate Government for this dispute. When Central Government is not the appropriate
Government for making reference of the dispute for adjudication, this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issues on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudication. An award is passed, in
view of the observations made above. It be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
November 28, 2016
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 625-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vè;{k]
,e@,l Hkkjrh ,;jVsy lfoZlst fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] la- II fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 171@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@49@2015&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 171/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chairman, M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Limited New Delhi, others and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 26.12.2016.
[No. L-40012/49/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM No. 33,
BLOCK-A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032
Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. No. 171/2015
Sh. Paras Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Bajnath Singh,
R/o Sector-45, Sardarpur Colony, Near Som Bazar,
Gali No. 3, Moolchand High School, Noida,
Gautam Buddh Nagar (UP) -201301.
Versus
The Chairman/Managing Director,
M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited,
Regd. Office –Bharti Crescent , 1 Nelso Mandela Rd.
Vasant Kunj Phase –II,
New Delhi.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1305
The Managing Director,
M/s Telesonic Networks Limited,
A-27, 2nd Floor, Sigma Tower Infocity,
Sector-3, Gurgoan,
Haryana-122001
No DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-40012/49/2015 -(IR(DU)) dated 02.11.2015
referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for the adjudication :-
“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Paras Kumar Singh S/o Bajnath Singh have been terminated illegal
and /or unjustifiably by the management and if so to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?
On 18.01.2015 reference was received in this tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 171/2015 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.
After service of notice workman/claimant Sh. Paras Kumar Singh not filed claim statement but management in
response to reference filed response wherein it mentioned as follows:-
That the present dispute is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and is now listed for hearing on 11.08.2016.
That the Claimant has already left his services with the answering respondent after having taken all his dues and thus
relinquished his right over his employment much less over the re-employment/ reinstatement with the answering
respondent. After receipt of the terminal benefits in full and final settlement of his dues from the management in full,
nothing remains between the claimant and the management.
The claimant after having received all the benefits is not permitted to resile from the same. The copy of the experience
letter dated 31.07.2009 is annexed as ANNEXURE 1.
In view of the above submissions it is respectfully submitted that the Management never terminated the services of the
Claimant and the Claimant has received his full and final dues and thus relinquished his right over the employment
much less over the re-employment/ reinstatement with the answering respondent.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may answer the reference accordingly in favour of the
answering respondent and against the Claimant. The answering respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to submit
detailed submissions and lead evidence in case the statement of Claim is filed on behalf of the Claimant. It is submitted
that the Managements reserves its right to file detailed submissions and lead evidence in case the Claimant files his
statement of claim.
And/or any other order may please be passed in favour of the managements and against the Claimant as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
On the basis of non-interestedness of workman. The proceeding of this case is not liable to be proceeded further. Hence
proceeding of the case is liable to be dropped and no dispute award is liable to be passed.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-25.10.2016
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 626-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]
tokgjyky usg: fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] la- II fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
16@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@08@2016&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
1306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 16/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, others and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 15.02.2017.
[No. L-42011/08/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID .No. 16/2016
The General Secretary,
All India General Kamgar Union (Regd.),
H.O-U-90 , Shakar pur,
Delhi-110092.
Versus
1. The Registrar,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi-110067 .
2. M/s Rakshak Securitas Pvt. Ltd.,
T-25,Plot No. 12 Manish Plaza-III, Sector -10,
Dwarka, Delhi -110075.
NO DISPUTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide notification No L-42011/08 /2016-(IR(DU)) dated 09.03.2016
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the demand of the union for paying the salary, pay and allowances to the workmen concerned
mention in Annexure-A at par with their regular counterparts employed by the JNU is legal and /or justified
and is so to what relief the said workmen are entitled and what directions are necessary in this regarded?
Whether the demand of the union to provide the benefits of bonus to the workmen mentioned in Annexure –A
is legal and /or justified and if so at what rate and to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to and
what directions are necessary in this regard ? Whether the demand of the union to provide the benefits of
conveyance allowance (@ Rs. 2000/- per month), HRA (@ Rs. 3000/- per month). Health allowance (@
1000/- per month) DA over and above the basic wage, LTC to the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A is legal
and /or justified and if so at what rate and to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and what
directions are necessary in this regard?”
On 5.04.2016 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 16/2016 and claimants were
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.
After service of notice workmen/claimants, not filed claim statement inspite of several opportunities.
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.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1307
On the basis of which none of the parte can be directed to adduce its evidence.
No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-25/1/2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 627-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj
tujy] vkfdZ;ksykWftdy losZ vkWiQ bafM;k] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
130@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@112@2014&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 627.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 130/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 18.02.2017.
[No. L-42011/112/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before the LOK ADALAT/Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court, Kanpur
Present : Sri Shubhendra Kumar, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 130 of 2014
Between :
The President,
Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union (INTUC),
43/16, Sec. 15-A, Sector 16,
Sikandara,
Agra-282007.
AND
The Director General,
Archaeological Survey of India,
11, Janpath,
New Delhi.
1308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42011/112/2014-(IRDU) dated 02.12.14,
has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of ASI, Agra, in not providing employment to 1000 workers
who have got temporary status and daily wagers on the vacancies of Group ‘D: and non-maintenance of
seniority list of these workers and also termination of the services of Sri Jaipal son of late Shiv Shiv
Shaker Safai Karamchari with effect from 01.04.2011 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
worker is entitled to?
3.
Earlier the case was taken up for its regular hearing on 05.09.16, but none present from the side of the
union/workers nor filed its claim statement. However, one last opportunity was given to the worker for
filing claim statement, but when the case was taken up in LOK ADALAT on 30.09.16, again none
appeared from the side of the worker/union nor claim statement was filed.
4.
Considering the above circumstances of the case it is very much clear that the union is not interested in
prosecuting their grievance raised through present reference order.
5.
Therefore, after giving sufficient opportunities to the Union when they failed to avail the opportunities
and also failed to file their claim statement, the tribunal is left with no other option but to answer the
reference against the Union holding that the union raising the dispute is not entitled for any relief.
6.
The reference is therefore, decided through LOK ADALAT, against the Union.
Let two photocopies of this award decided through Lok Adalat be sent to the Mol & Employment for
publication soft copy of the same shall be sent soon on the availibility of Net Service.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 628-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j
tujy eSustj] vksnkZukal iQSDVªh dkuiqj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2014) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@38@2013&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 19/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Senior General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur, others and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 18.02.2017.
[No. L-14012/38/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT / CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR
COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 19 of 2014
Between :
Behari Traders,
through Sri Ram Ayodhya Singh,
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1309
Proprietor,
15/110, M.P. Mill Compound,
Sarvodaya Nagar,
Kanpur. U.P
Vikas Kumar son of Sri Ram Ji Lal,
House No. 3-B, Kachchi Basti Blok No.11,
Govind Nagar,
Kanpur U.P.
AND
Senior General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road,
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification L-14012/38/2013-IR (DU) dated 23.01.14
has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of M/s Behari Traders, Kanpur, in terminating the service of Sri Vikas
Kumar son of Sri Ram Ji Lal, workman with effect from 06.05.13 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?
3.
In this case after receipt of the notice of the tribunal the worker filed an affidavit along with application that he is
not interested to contest the present reference.
4.
The present case is pending since 08.02.2014, and considering period of the pendency of the case as well affidavit
of the worker filed on 07.08.14, in which he has clearly submitted that he is not interested to prosecute with the
case and of his own will he interested to withdraw the present pending case from this tribunal, therefore, the
Tribunal felt it to be put the present case before the LOK ADALAT, scheduled to be held on 30.09.16.
5.
The case was taken up in LOK ADALAT ON 30.09.16, and as observed above that the worker is not interested in
contesting his case before this tribunal and wants to withdraw the case of his case without assigning any cogent
reasons.
6.
Therefore, the tribunal during holding of LOK ADALAT, is constrained that the worker would prosecute his case
in view of his application and affidavit submitted in the case above case. Hence it is decided that the worker is not
interested in prosecuting his claim before the tribunal, therefore, his case in LOK ADALT, is decided against him.
7.
As such the case is decided against the workman through the LOK ADALAT and in favour of the Management.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 629-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj]
DokfyVh lfoZlst ,aM lksyw'ku xksok ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] la- 2 eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@41@2013) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@90@2013&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 629.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 2/41 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the Director, Quality Service and Solutions, Gao and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 03.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/90/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
1310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/41 of 2013
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. QUALITY SERVICES & SOLUTIONS
The Director
Quality Services and Solutions
Rukmini Tower, 2nd floor
Near Tilak Maidan
F.L. Gomes Road
Vasco-da-Gama
Goa 403 802.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN
The General Secretary
Marmagao Waterfront Workers Union
Mukund Building, 2nd floor, PO Box No.90
Vasco-da-Gama
Goa 403 802.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. G.K. Sardesai, Advocate.
FOR THE UNION/ WORKMAN
:
No appearance.
Camp : Goa, dated the 8th December, 2016.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42011/90/2013-IR (DU), dated
10.07.2016 and corrigendum dt. 23.05.2014 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 punishment of dismissal of the workman Shri Nilkanth Moratgi from service with effect from
16.01.2013 by the management of M/s. Quality Services & Solutions is disproportionate and hash? To what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. First party Management filed
Vakalatnama of Mr. Girish Sardesai. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by
second party/ Union. Notices were again issued and served on second part/ Union vide Ex-11. Second party/Union
neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot
be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Orders were passed on Ex-1. Accordingly I pass the
following order:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1311
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Date: 08.12.2016
Camp: Goa
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 630-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy
eSustj] baLVªwVesaVs'ku fyfeVsM] iyDdM ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ,.kkZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2012) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@53@2012&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 630.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 28/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Eranakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, Instrumentation Limited., Palakkad, and their workman, which was received by Central Government
on 02.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/53/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Friday the 30th day of September, 2016/08th Asvina, 1938)
ID 28/2012
Unions
:
1.
The General Secretary,
Instrumentation Workers Union (CITU),
Instrumentation Limited,
Kanjikode west,
Palakkad -
2.
The General Secretary,
Instrumentation Employees Union (INTUC),
Instrumentation Limited,
Kanjikode west,
Palakkad -
By Adv. Shri. C. Anilkumar
Management
:
The General Manager,
Instrumentation Limited,
Kanjikode west,
Palakkad -
By M/s. Menon & Menon
1312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This case coming up for final hearing on 30.09.2016 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.
2.
The dispute is:
‘Whether the demand of the unions for treating stagnation increment as part of basic for the purpose of
calculation DA, HRA, PF etc. is justified or not? If justified, what relief employees/union are entitled to?
3.
After receipt of the reference order No.L-42011/53/2012-IR(DU) dated 09.10.2012, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to parties to appear and answer all material points relating
to the dispute and produce the documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the
summons, union Nos.1 & 2 and the management entered appearance through counsel and submitted their
pleadings.
4.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the unions in brief are as follows:-
The Instrumentation Limited at Palakkad with its headquarters and registered office at Kota, Rajasthan is a
company wholly held by the Government of India. Right from the beginning the Palakkad unit of Instrumentation
Limited is a profit making venture. For all practical purposes and intent the Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode,
Palakkad is a separate unit and it has its own certified standing orders. Wage revision, bonus and other matters relating
to service conditions of the employees are in accordance with the terms of the agreements and settlements arrived at by
the local management and the respective unions on issue basis. Even though the employees were appointed on time
scale structure, it was altered, varied and modified and even the subsequent wage revision is effected by mutual
agreements. The last wage revision due for the year 1997 was given effect and implemented only on February, 2009
after a lapse of twelve years. In view of the time gap it cannot have effective wage revision settlement and there were
cases of stagnation in getting increments in cases where the employees have reached the highest point in the pay scale
provided in the agreement. Similar was the situation in relation to the employees who obtained promotion in the
intervening period. In several cases where the increment has been granted, the amount of increment granted were
specified separately in the wage slip and thereby denying the lawful benefit due to the employees.
5.
As per the guidelines issued by the Department of Heavy Industries, the procedure relating to the payment of
stagnation increment in the 1997 pay revision were specified in the OM dated 25.06.1999. Further as per the practice
followed, the stagnation increment is to be reckoned for computation of DA, HRA, PF etc. including pay on
promotion/pay revision. The management refused to implement the scheme. Therefore the union raised the issue and
submitted representation before the management. They have submitted letters dated 01.02.2011 and 20.04.2011
expressing their concern. Thereafter the management informed the unions that the practice followed by them was in
order and thereby turned down the request of the unions to reckon the increment granted on stagnation for computation
of DA, HRA, PF etc. including fixation of pay on promotion and pay revision.
6.
Due to the delay of twelve years in revision of the wage structure, as many years as 70 employees were
stagnated as on the date of filing the claim statement. If timely decision relating to wage revision had taken, the
question of stagnation in the pay scale would not have occurred to the employees. Many of the employees have lost the
benefit of timely wage revision. Apart from this the employees lost the benefit of stagnation increment for the purpose
of computation of Dearness Allowance, Provident Fund benefits, HRA etc. for the reason that the management has not
treated the stagnation increment as part of basic pay. Their terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Pension and
Gratuity also were affected by the unreasonable stand on the part of the management.
7.
As per the prevailing terms and conditions of service the employees are eligible and entitled for obtaining
annual increments and chances of promotion unless denied on specific grounds. The denial of increment due to
stagnation or consideration of stagnation increment as a separate entity without considering the same as part of basic
pay for the purpose of computation of DA/HRA/PF etc. are highly prejudicial to the interest of the employees and
adversely affected their pay package as a whole.
8.
The refusal on the part of the management to consider the stagnation increment as part and parcel of the basic
pay is an act of unfair labour practice and an act of victimization. Being a public sector undertaking the management is
expected to be fair and reasonable in all matters concerning the employees. In this case the employees are exploited by
the management. The stand adopted by the management is without any justifiable reason and it is unwarranted. They
are bound to follow the guidelines of DPE and the binding precedents in the matter of calculating the stagnation
increment.
9.
Therefore the unions have requested to pass an award holding that their demand in treating stagnation
increment as part of basic pay for the purpose of computation of DA, HRA, PF etc. is justifiable and to direct the
management to grant consequential benefits to all the affected workmen with arrears and interests thereon.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1313
10.
The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-
They have denied all the averments in the claim statement except those that are specifically admitted. The
Instrumentation Limited is a Government of India undertaking, incorporated as a company under the Companies Act,
1956, with its registered office at Kota in Rajasthan. It has got two units one at the registered office at Kota and other at
Palakkad in Kerala. The management as per this reference is the unit at Palakkad.
11.
The Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad unit is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of control
valves of different sizes and specifications for industrial applications. The unit at Palakkad is having 168 workers, 190
supervisors and officers on its rolls. The service conditions of the workers and the officers are governed by the
guidelines issued by the corporate office. The unit at Palakkad has got its own certified standing orders. The wage/pay
revision to the employees of the unit at Palakkad is effected under separate agreement in line with the agreement entered
into between the unions and the management at Kota in Rajasthan. The bonus as per the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is
paid annually on the basis of the profits earned by the company as a whole.
12.
The wages/pay of the employees in the unit at Palakkad was revised last in 1997 with prospective effect from
23.02.2009. The wage revision of workers were in line with the agreement entered into between the unions and the
management at Kota in Rajasthan and that of the supervisors and officers is governed by the guidelines issued by the
Government of India as applicable by the pay revision orders issued from time to time. Clause 3.2 in the conciliation
agreement dated 03.08.2009 entered into between the unions and the management at the Palakkad unit of
Instrumentation Limited specified the procedure for payment of stagnation increment. Clause 3.2 of the agreement
reads as follows:-
“3.2 STAGNATION INCREMENT
That if the basic pay of an employee reaches the maximum of the pay scale, he will be eligible for grant of upto a
maximum of three stagnation increments after one year of stagnation.”
13.
As per the stipulations in the agreement, stagnation increment was granted in accordance with the following
criteria:
(i) Stagnation increment is considered after one year after attaining stagnation ie. Maximum of the relevant grade in
which the employee is drawing his annual increment.
(ii) Stagnation increment is granted maximum 3 increments only.
(iii) Stagnation increment is not considered for ancillary benefits like P.F., DA, HRA etc. and is paid under separate
head in pay-slip.
(iv) On promotion stagnation increment is not taken into account for arriving the new basic pay in the promoted scale
instead only one notional increment is added to fix the new basic pay in the promoted scale.
14.
The union requested clarification from the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises regarding the
reckoning of stagnation increment for payment of ancillary benefits such as DA, HRA, PF etc. The Bureau of Public
Enterprises (BPE) by letter dated 27.10.2010 stated that stagnation increment has to be reckoned for payment of
ancillary benefits like DA, HRA, PF etc. The clarification letter by the BPE dated 27.10.2010 is not applicable to the
facts of this case for the reason that it relates to the 2007 pay revision which has not been implemented by the
management so far. The BPE letter dated 27.10.2010 is not relevant for all cases and it is not uniform in its application.
The Corporate Office at Kota, Rajasthan, after referring to the earlier order issued by the BPE has clarified as per letter
dated 13.12.2012 that the management is giving stagnation increment every year after stagnation with no other benefits.
15.
The contention of the union that considerable time is taken for wage revision settlement which resulted in
stagnation necessitating the grant of increments and the amount granted as increment was specified separately in the
wage slip denying the lawful benefit due to the employees are misconceived and without any merit. The stagnation was
not on account of the time taken for finalizing the wage revision settlement. The pay of each employee consequent to
the pay revision was fixed from 01.01.1997 and the revision was implemented from 23.02.2009 only. Even though the
pay was revised w.e.f.01.01.1997, the payment of arrears consequent to revision does not arise for the reason that it was
implemented with prospective effect from 23.02.2009. The stagnation increment is given as a relief to those who
attained the maximum of their pay scale and that there is no provision for further annual increment. The relevant
provision in the agreement will substantiate this factual aspect. The stagnation increment is paid in accordance with the
provisions in the agreement and as per the guidelines issued by the corporate office at Kota, Rajasthan. Therefore the
contention of the unions that the management is denying the benefits legally due to the employees is false and incorrect.
1314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
The contention of the unions that as per the practice followed, stagnation increment is to be reckoned for
computation of DA, HRA, PF etc., including pay on promotion, is not sustainable in law. The stagnation increment was
included for the first time in 1997 pay revision agreement and that there was no such practice followed in the past in the
unit at Palakkad. Formerly the employees were not entitled to get any annual increase in their basic pay once they
reach the maximum of their respective pay scale. To mitigate their hardship on account of this, a provision for
payment of maximum stagnation increment was introduced for the first time in the pay revision settlement in 1997.
Stagnation was not on account of the delay in effecting wage revision as alleged by the unions. It is a benefit given
exclusively for those employees who reach the maximum in their pay scale and for whom there is no further scope for
getting annual increments. The contention of the unions that 79 employees were stagnated and lost the benefit of timely
wage revision, is false and incorrect. So also the contention that the workmen are losing the benefit of stagnation
increment for the purpose of computation of DA, HRA, PF and their terminal benefits such as provident fund, gratuity
etc., are false and incorrect. The said contention of the union is against the terms and conditions of the agreement
relating to payment of stagnation increment. As on date only 18 employees are being given the benefit of stagnation
increment. The statement to the contrary, made by the unions is incorrect. The contention of the union that the
employees who are stagnated are losing the benefit of wage revision, is false and incorrect. Once the employee gets
promotion to the next pay scale the stagnation will not be there from the date of such promotion. The object and
purpose of payment of stagnation increment will reveal that the contention in the claim statement by the unions is
without any merit. The stagnation increment is a distinct and separate payment and it will not form part of basic pay
and hence not reckoned for computation of DA, HRA, PF etc.
17.
The contention of the unions that the refusal on the part of the management to consider stagnation increment as
part and parcel of the basic pay is an act of unfair labour practice and act of victimization and that the management is
exploiting the employees, etc are false and without any merit. The management has acted only in accordance with the
terms and conditions in the agreement relating to payment of stagnation increments and as per the guidelines issued by
the corporate office in this regard.
18.
The stagnation increment is a separate and distinct temporary payment only for a short period till the concerned
person gets elevated to the next pay scale on promotion and the same do not form part of basic wages and consequently
it cannot be reckoned for computation of DA, HRA, PF etc. as claimed by the union.
19.
After filing written statement by the management the unions filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the
claim statement. They are adhering to the claim put forward in the claim statement.
20.
As per the order in IA No.10/2016 dated 07.01.2016; additional written statement filed by the management is
received. The contentions in the additional written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-
The Board of Directors of Instrumentation Ltd. have resolved to refer the company to the Board for Industrial
Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
1985. The BIFR has declared the company as a “Sick company” and finalized the draft scheme for revival of the sick
company. Proceedings relating to the same are pending consideration before the BIFR.
21.
The Union Minister for Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises requested the Chief Minister of Kerala to
consider the takeover of the unit at Palakkad by the State Government. Pursuant to which a meeting was convened on
14.12.2015. The management is granting benefits such as long service reward, additional qualification allowance,
family planning incentive equivalent to increment to its employees. The management has requested to uphold their
contentions and pass an award to that effect.
22.
After filing additional written statement by the management opportunity was afforded to the unions to file
additional claim statement/replication. They have not filed any additional claim statement/ replication.
23.
After affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to take steps and produce documents, the matter was
posted for evidence. On behalf of the unions WW1 was examined and Exts.W1 to W10 are the documents marked. On
behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Exts.M1 to M16 are the documents marked. Heard both sides.
24.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i)
Whether the demand of the unions for treating stagnation increment as part of basic pay for the
purpose of calculation of DA, HRA, PF etc. is sustainable and justified as per the terms and conditions of the
agreement/settlement?
(ii)
If the claim of the unions is justified, what relief they are entitled?”
25.
Point No.(i):-
The management in this reference is the General Manager, Instrumentation Limited
Kanjikode West, Palakkad. The Instrumentation Limited is a Government of India undertaking, incorporated as a
company under the Companies Act, 1956. The registered office of the company is situated at Kota in Rajasthan. The
company has two units, one the registered office at Kota in Rajasthan and the other at Kanjikode West in Palakkad,
Kerala. The unit at Palakkad is engaged in the manufacture and sale of control valves of different sizes and
specifications for industrial applications.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1315
26.
The unions have stated that right from the beginning the unit at Palakkad was a profit making venture and for
all practical purposes and intent the Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode, Palakkad is a separate unit and it has its
own certified standing orders. The unions have stated that the wage revision, bonus and other matters relating to the
service conditions of the employees are in accordance with the terms and conditions in the agreements/ settlements
arrived at by the local management and the respective unions on issue basis. It is stated that the last wage revision due
for the year 1997 was given effect and implemented in February 2009, after a lapse of twelve years. Due to the long
delay in implementing wage revision settlement, there were instances of stagnation in getting increments in cases where
the employees have reached the highest point in the pay scale provided in the agreement. It is stated that in several
cases where the increment has been granted, the amount of increment were specified separately in the wage slip and
thereby denying the lawful benefit due to the employees. According to the unions as per the practice followed,
stagnation increment is to be taken into consideration for computation of DA, HRA, PF etc. including pay on
promotion/pay revision. It is stated that the terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, pension and gratuity payable to
the employees will be affected by the unreasonable stand on the part of the management. The unions have stated that
the refusal on the part of the management to reckon stagnation increment as part and parcel of the basic pay is an act of
unfair labour practice and an act of victimization. Therefore the unions have requested to uphold their demand as
justifiable and to treat the stagnation increment as part of the basic pay for the purpose of computation of DA, HRA, PF
etc. and to direct the management to grant consequential benefits to all the affected workmen with arrears and interest
thereon.
27.
The management has stated that the wages/pay of the employees in the unit at Palakkad was revised last in
1997 with prospective effect from 23.02.2009. Clause 3.2 of the agreement relates to the stagnation increment. As per
the stipulations in the agreement, stagnation increment was granted in accordance with the following criteria:
“(i)
Stagnation increment is considered after one year after attaining stagnation ie. Maximum
of the relevant grade in which the employee is drawing his annual increment
(ii)
Stagnation increment is granted maximum 3 increments only
(iii)
Stagnation increment is not considered for ancillary benefits like P.F., DA, HRA etc. and is paid
under separate head in pay-slip
(iv)
On promotion stagnation increment is not taken into account for arriving the new basic pay in the
promoted scale instead only one notional increment is added to fix the new basic pay in the promoted
scale.”
28.
The management has stated that the clarification letter dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Bureau of Public
Enterprises is not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that it relates to the 2007 pay revision, which has not
been implemented by the management so far. The contention of the unions that the management is denying the benefits
legally due to the employees is denied by the management. According to the management the contention/claim of the
union is against the terms and conditions in the agreement relating to payment of stagnation increment. The
management has stated that they have acted only in accordance with the terms and conditions in the agreement relating
to payment of stagnation increments and as per the guidelines issued by the corporate office in this regard.
29.
Ext.W1 is copy of the memorandum of settlement dated 26.06.1999 entered into between the management and
the unions. Ext.W3 is copy of the memorandum of settlement dated 03.08.2009 entered into between the management
and the unions. As per clause 1.1 of Ext.W3, the pay revision will be effective for a period of ten years
w.e.f.01.01.1997 i.e., upto 31.12.2006 and thereafter will continue to be in force till the next pay revision takes place.
Clause 1.2 provides that the arrears will be paid from 23.02.2009 along with the salary of June, 2009. Clause 3.2 in
Ext.W3 relates to stagnation increments. As per that clause the employee will be eligible for grant of upto a maximum
of three stagnation increments after one year of stagnation. Clause 14 of Ext.W3 document stipulates that the arrears
against pay revision, including all fringe benefits, effective from 01.01.1997 to 22.02.2009 shall be discussed and
decided between the management and unions separately.
30.
While examined as WW1, the General Secretary of the second union has stated that the salary and service
conditions of the workman are disbursed/decided in accordance with the terms and conditions of the settlement entered
into between the management and the unions. WW1 has stated that in Ext.W3 settlement there is mention regarding the
stagnation increment and as per that clause it is not stated that the stagnation increment shall form part of basic pay.
31.
MW1 is the Deputy Manager(HR) of the management. MW1 has stated that the benefits as per Ext.M1
(Ext.W3) document was given with prospective effect from 23.02.2009. He has further stated that the employees are
getting emoluments as per the wage structure in accordance with the terms and conditions in the Settlement Ext.M1
(Ext.W3). Exts.M6 and M7 documents reveal that proceedings are pending before the BIFR; for revival and
rehabilitation of Instrumentation Limited. The other documents produced by the management i.e., Exts.M8 to M11
reveal that discussions are held to consider the taking over of the Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad unit by the State
Government.
1316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
32.
On going through Ext.M1 (i.e., Ext.W3) and the evidence tendered by WW1 on the one hand and MW1 on the
other it can be seen that there is no specific provision in the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties
for treating the stagnation increment as part of the basic pay for the purpose of calculation of DA, HRA, PF etc. Clause
14 in Ext.W1 Memorandum of Settlement is to the effect that the arrears against the pay revision, including all fringe
benefits, effective from 01.01.1997 to 22.02.2009 shall be discussed and decided between the management and the
unions separately. Till such a discussion and decision thereof enabling the employees to claim all fringe benefits for the
period from 01.01.1997 to 22.02.2009 is arrived at between the management and the unions, the present claim by the
unions is not justifiable. Therefore the claim of the unions for treating stagnation increment as part of basic pay for
reckoning DA, HRA, PF etc. is not sustainable. It follows that the unions are not entitled to the relief claimed as per
this reference. Hence the point for consideration is answered against the unions.
33.
Point No.(ii):-
In view of the finding on Point No.(i) the unions are not entitled to the relief claimed by
them. The point is answered accordingly.
34.
In the result an award is passed holding that the unions are not entitled to the relief 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 30th day of
September, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K. Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the unions
WW1
22.01.2015
Shri. K. Unnikrishnan
Witness for the management
MW1
07.01.2016
Shri. T. Radhamohan
Exhibits for the unions
W1
-
True copy of the Memorandum Of Settlement dated 26.06.1999 entered into between the
representatives of the management and unions.
W2
-
True copy the letter No.ILP/ADMN/II-21/2008-09 dated 28.06.2008 issued by the Sr. Personnel
Officer, Instrumentation Limited (P & A Division), Palakkad.
W3
-
True copy of the Memorandum Of Settlement dated 03.08.2009 between the representatives of the
management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad and unions during the conciliation before the
Conciliation Officer-cum-District Labour Officer, Palakkad.
W4
-
True copy of the circular letter No.IL/CPD-I/135/P&R/2009-10 dated 13.10.2009 issued by the
Additional General Manager(CHQ), Instrumentation Limited, CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Kota.
W5
-
True copy of the minutes of discussion held on 02.04.2011 between ILP management and the
representatives of the unions before the Regional Labour Commisssioner(C).
W6
-
True copy of the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2012 of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad for the year
2011-2012.
W7
-
True copy of the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2013 of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad for the year
2012-2013.
W8
-
True copy the letter No.ILP/P&A/RTI/2013 dated 09.10.2013 issued by the Manager(Comml) &
Assistant Public Information Officer, Instrumentation Limited, Kanjikode West, Palakkad to Shri R.
Vinod Kumar, General Secretary, Instrumentation Workers Union(CITU), Kanjikode West, Palakkad.
W9
-
Long Term Settlement for the period from 01.081998 to 31.07.2008 in respect of Kochi Refineries
Limited, Ambalamughal.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1317
W10
-
True copy of DPE OM No.2(43)/93-DPE(WC) dated 15.03.1994 on Wage Policies & Related Matters
– Chapter IV
Exhibits for the management
M1
-
True copy of the Memorandum Of Settlement dated 03.08.2009 between the representatives of the
management of Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad and unions during the conciliation before the
Conciliation Officer-cum-District Labour Officer, Palakkad
.
M2
-
True copy of the Note No.ILP/ADMN/SI/2009-10 dated 13.10.2009 issued by the Sr. Personnel
Officer (P&A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad to the AGM(P&A) & Manager(F&A).
M2(a)
-
True copy of the Note No.ILP/ADMN/SI/2010-11 dated 20.10.2010 issued by the Sr. Personnel
Officer (P&A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad to the AGM(P&A) & Manager(F&A).
M2(b) -
True copy of the Note No.ILP/ADMN/SI/2010-11 dated 11.10.2011 issued by the Dy.
Manager(P&A) (P & A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad to the AGM(P&A) &
Manager(F&A).
M2(c)
-
True copy of the Note No.ILP/ADMN/SI/2012-13 dated 17.10.2012 issued by the Dy.
Manager(P&A), (P & A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad to the AGM(P&A) &
Manager(F&A).
M2(d) -
True copy of the Note No.ILP/ADMN/SI/2013-14 dated 21.10.2013 issued by the Sr. Officer(P&A),
(P&A Division), Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad to the Dy. Manager(P&A) & Manager(F&A).
M3
-
True copy of the Note No.IL/CPD-I/47/P&R/2010-11 dated 11.02.2011 issued by the AGM(CHQ),
Instrumentation Limited, CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Kota to the GM(PU)/AGM(P&A)-PU
M4
-
True copy of the Note No.IL/CPD-I/47/P&R/2011-12 dated 28.04.2011 issued by the AGM(CHQ),
Instrumentation Limited, CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Kota to the D(P)/D(F)/CMD
M5
-
True copy of DPE Guidelines (O.M. No.2(49)/98-DPE(WC) dated 25.06.99)
M6
-
True copy of the Note No.IL/CPD-I/47/P&R/2011-12 dated 28.04.2011 issued by the Director,
Ministry of Heavy Industry & Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, PE-VIII Section,
Government of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
M7
-
True copy of the Proceedings dated 02.01.2015 before the Board for Industrial & Financial
Reconstruction, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.
M8
-
True copy of the D. O. letter No.6-1/2014-PE-VIII-115F dated NIL addressed to Shri Oommen
Chandy, Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram by the
Hon’ble Minister of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Government of India.
M9
-
True copy of the letter No.27349/J1/2015/ID dated 09.12.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary for
Principal Secretary to Government, Industries(J) Department, Government of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.
M10
-
True copy of the letter No.27349/J1/2015/ID dated 19.12.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary for
Principal Secretary to Government, Industries(J) Department, Government of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.
M11
-
True copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14.12.2015 relating to Instrumentation Ltd.,
Palakkad.
M12
-
True copy of the Circular letter No.IL/CPD-I/115/82-83/52 dated 27.11.1982 issued by the Deputy
General Manager(P&A), Corporate Personnel Department, Genl. Admn., Policy & Rules Section,
Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
M13
-
True copy of the Circular letter No.IL/CPD-I/125/P&IR/88-89/68 dated 14.03.1989 issued by the
General Manager(CHQ), Corporate Personnel Department, Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
M14
-
True copy of the Circular letter No.IL/CPD-I/76/80-81/22 dated 10.07.1980 issued by the Deputy
General Manager(P&A), Corporate Personnel Department, Instrumentation Limited, Kota.
M15
-
True copy of the Note No.IL/CPD-I/47/P&R/2011-12 dated 13.12.2012 issued by the DGM(CHQ),
Instrumentation Limited, CPD(Policy & Rules Section), Kota to the GM(PU).
M16
-
True copy of the administration Circular No.15/2001 dated 26.02.2001 issued by the Deputy General
Manager(P & A), ITI Limited, Kanjikode West, Palakkad.
1318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 631-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vyxIik VsDlVkbYl (dksphu) feYl fFkzLlqj Mk;jsDVj] ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ,.kkZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
29@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 29/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Eranakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s. Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills, Thrissur, and their workman, which was received by Central Government on
14.12.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri. K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 18th day of January, 2017/28th Pausha, 1938)
ID 29/2011
Workman
:
Shri. Sukumaran. K. S.,
Ticket No.2003,
S/o Sankaran,
Kannamkulangara House,
Alagappa Nagar,
Thrissur – 680 302.
By Advs. Shri. Jolly John &
Shri. C. B. Mukundan
Management
:
M/s.Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills,
A unit of National Textiles Corporation,
(A Government of India Undertaking),
Alagappa Nagar,
Thrissur District – 680 302.
By Advs. Shri P. Ramakrishnan &
Shri. C. Anil Kumar
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.12.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.01.2017
passed the following:
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as
amended by Act 24 of 2010.
2.
The contentions in the application in brief are as follows:
The workman was appointed as a manual worker in the management establishment on 12.08.1978. Since then
he was working under the management. He was insured with the ESI Corporation, his insurance number being
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1319
911702/A/N. In the year 2009 he had ailment in his right eye and underwent treatment at the ESI Hospital, Olarikkara,
Thrissur. The ailment caused due to the handling of cotton while performing the duty as an employee under the
management. It was an occupational disease. As a result of the ailment the workman could not attend duty regularly.
From the ESI Hospital, Olarikkara he was referred before the Medical College Hospital, Mulamkunnathkavu, Thrissur
on 07.09.2009 for better treatment. On 01.10.2009 single field analysis was done to the workman at the Government
Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. From there he was referred to the Aswini Hospital Private Limited, Thrissur for
handling the case by specialty/super specialty medical officer. He underwent surgery at the Aswini hospital on
14.07.2010. A special investigation certificate was issued by the Assistant Insurance Medical Officer, ESI Hospital,
Olarikkara, Thrissur on 18.10.2010. As per that certificate the workman was referred to the Aswini Hospital for
specialty care in Ophthalmology and for Anti Glaucoma surgery. Again he was admitted at the same hospital on
18.10.2010 for another surgery ‘Trabeculectomy’ for Pseudophakia since he had secondary glaucoma and he was
discharged on the next day i.e., on 19.10.2010.
3.
While the workman was undergoing treatment for ailment to his eye, the management served memos requiring
him to submit explanation for his absence. Even though the workman intimated the management about his ailment
through the union, the management disregarded the same and proceeded against the workman. The management
ordered domestic enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer for conducting enquiry. The workman appeared before the
enquiry officer and explained the details of his ailment by producing necessary documents. The enquiry officer failed to
consider the documents produced with by the workman and submitted a report without considering his submissions.
After receipt of the enquiry report the management issued a second show cause notice dated 12.02.2010 along with
copy of the enquiry report. The workman submitted explanation dated 13.02.2010 intimating that his absence was due
to his ailment and requested the management to allow him to continue employment. Considering his request the
management as per notice No.5748/10 dated 13.02.2010 permitted the workman to continue employment under them.
Even after that the workman could not attend duties regularly due to ailment in his right eye. Without considering his
submissions and the factual state of affairs the management dismissed the workman as per order No.963/10 dated
07.06.2010.
4.
The union representing the workman made a representation before the management seeking permission to
allow the workman to continue employment. A letter to that effect dated 23.07.2010 was submitted before the
management. The management issued a letter dated 26.07.2010 and intimated the workman about the postponement of
the implementation of the dismissal order subject to certain conditions. As a result of the two major surgeries on
14.07.2010 and 18.10.2010 the workman could not comply the conditions in the order passed by the management.
Without considering the request made by the workman, the management dismissed him from the service as per office
order No.AL/2345/10 dated 17.09.2010 with effect from 07.06.2010.
5.
The action of the management in terminating the services of the workman while he was undergoing treatment
after the surgery, is illegal and unjust. Against the dismissal order the workman preferred a complaint dated 06.10.2010
before the Central Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, who conciliated the matter and the dispute could not be resolved
at his intervention.
6.
The dismissal of the workman during the continuance of treatment is violative of Section 73 of the Employees
Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore the workman has requested to set aside the dismissal order passed by the management,
to direct them to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, arrears of pay and all other attendant benefits.
7.
The averments in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-
The management has denied all the averments in the application except those that are specifically admitted.
The application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The workman was employed under the management. For
his unauthorized absence from duty from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2009, the management issued a show cause notice dated
16.06.2009 requiring him to submit explanation. During the aforesaid period there were 124 working days, out of
which the workman reported for duty only for 33 days. He remained absent without leave or permission from the
management for 91 days. The action of the workman is gross misconduct as per clause 17(ii) f of the standing orders
applicable to the workmen. Again he remained absent without permission from duty. He did not submit any
explanation to the two show cause notices. He continued to remain absent without submitting leave application or
obtaining permission from the management. In such circumstance the management decided to conduct domestic
enquiry against the workman. Shri. Jacob R. Pulikkottil, a practicing Advocate was appointed as the enquiry officer for
conducting a domestic enquiry in relation to the charges levelled against the workman. The enquiry officer issued
notice to the workman to appear before the enquiry. Altogether there were four sittings in the enquiry and the workman
was present on all occasions. The workman did not cross examine the management witness. He submitted a statement
before the enquiry. On his behalf two documents were marked by the enquiry officer. The report submitted by the
enquiry officer is to the effect that the charges levelled against the workman were proved.
8.
The management considered the enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and concurred with the finding of the
enquiry officer. Copy of the same was provided to the workman requiring him to make his submissions if any against
the report. A proposed punishment of dismissal from service as per clause 17(iii) of the standing orders was suggested
1320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the disciplinary authority. He submitted a reply dated 13.02.2010 pleading mercy. Considering his request the
management decided to postpone the implementation of the proposed punishment and an opportunity was afforded to
him to improve in his performance. In that order the management made it clear that the workman should attend duty at
least for 22 days in the succeeding month. The management had reserved the right to implement the proposed
punishment if the workman repeats the misconduct. Again the workman failed to report for duty. Therefore the
management issued notice dismissing him from the service as per clause 17(i), (iii) of the standing orders.
9.
Again the union representing the workman requested the management to reconsider the implementation of the
punishment order. The union made assurance that the workman will attend duty without fail. Again the management
took a lenient view and permitted the workman to join duty. Even after that the workman continued to remain absent
from duty. Therefore the management finally issued order dated 07.09.2010 dismissing the workman from service
w.e.f.07.06.2010 as per clause 17(i) (iii) of the standing orders.
10.
The enquiry conducted against the workman was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and by
affording fair and reasonable opportunity to him to substantiate his contentions. The management has reserved the right
to adduce independent evidence to prove the charges levelled against the workman if it is found that the enquiry is
vitiated on any of the grounds. The management has requested to uphold their contentions and disallow the claim of the
workman.
11.
After filing written statement by the management the workman filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the
application under Section 2A(2).
12.
As requested by the counsel for the management the validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as the
preliminary point. As per the Preliminary Order dated 18.01.2016 it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
management is valid, just and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for final hearing. Heard the counsel appearing
for the workman and that of the management.
13.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i)
Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the workman by the
management is just, legal and proper?
(ii)
Whether there is justifiability on the part of the workman in absenting from duty without
obtaining permission or leave from the management for the period mentioned in the charge
sheet?
(iii)
Whether the punishment imposed by the management is just or in proportion to the gravity of
misconduct committed by the workman?
(iv)
To what relief the workman is entitled?”
14.
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-
The workman involved in this matter Shri. Sukumaran. K. S was appointed as a
manual worker under the management on 12.08.1978. The contention of the workman is that in the year 2009 he
underwent treatment at the ESI Hospital, Olarikkara, Thrissur due to ailment in his right eye. According to the
workman the ailment was due to the cotton dust entered in his eyes and hence it is an occupational disease. It is stated
that from the ESI Hospital, Olarikkara, Thrissur, he was referred before the Government Medical College Hospital,
Mulankunnathkavu, Thrissur on 07.09.2009. The workman has stated that on 01.10.2009 single field analysis was
done. Subsequently on 09.06.2010 he was referred to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur for treatment. He has stated that from
the Aswini hospital, Thrissur surgery was done on 14.07.2010. He would further state that as per the referral for
specialty/super specialty/special investigation certificate dated 18.10.2010 issued by the Assistant Insurance Medical
Officer, ESI Hospital, Olarikkara, he was referred to the Aswini Hospital, Thrissur for specialty care in Ophthalmology.
He was admitted at the Aswini Hospital on 18.10.2010 and underwent another surgery ‘Trabeculectomy’ for
Pseudophakia and discharged on 19.10.2010.
15.
The workman has stated that while he was undergoing treatment for ailment to his eye the management served
memos one after the other directing to show cause for unauthorized absence. He received the second notice dated
12.02.2010 along with report of the domestic enquiry dated 19.11.2009. It is stated that the workman requested the
management to allow him to continue employment. He has stated that due to ailment in his right eye he could not
attend duty regularly.
16.
It is seen from the case records that considering the request made by the workman the management as per
notice No.5748/10 dated 13.02.2010 permitted the workman to continue employment with certain conditions. It is
stated that the workman could not comply the conditions for regular attendance as directed by the management.
Subsequently the management issued dismissal order No.963/10 dated 07.06.2010, dismissing him from service.
Thereafter at the request of the union the management decided to postpone the implementation of the dismissal order on
certain conditions – i.e., the workman should ensure to attend duty regularly at least for a minimum period in every
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1321
month. It is stated that the workman could not comply the conditions imposed by the management. Therefore as per
letter No.AL/2345/ 10 dated 17.09.2010 the management ordered to implement the dismissal order w.e.f.07.06.2010.
According to the workman he could not attend duty regularly for the reason that he was continuing treatment for the
ailment in his right eye. He has stated that the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed by the management is
unjust, illegal and highly disproportionate. He has requested to set aside the dismissal order on compassionate grounds.
17.
The management has contended that the workman was regularly irregular in attending duties and on several
occasions the management issued memos and directed him to be regular in attending duties. In relation to the matter
involved in this case, the management has stated that the workman unauthorisedly absented from duty without obtaining
permission or leave from the management for the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2009. It is stated that during the
aforesaid period there were altogether 124 working days and out of which he reported for duty only for 33 days and
remained absent for 91 days. Therefore the management issued show cause notice and proceeded against him after
conducting a domestic enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. It is stated that the enquiry officer conducted the
enquiry in a just, legal and proper manner affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his
contentions. The management has stated that they forwarded copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause
notice dated 12.02.2010. It is stated that the workman submitted a request to allow him to report for duty. He assured
that he will continue to attend duty regularly. Considering his request the management allowed the workman to attend
duty on condition that he will maintain a minimum attendance in future. It is stated that the workman again failed to
report for duty without applying for leave or obtaining permission from the competent authority. Therefore the
management imposed the punishment of dismissal from service without notice. The management has stated that the
punishment imposed by them is just, proper and in proportion to the gravity of misconduct committed by the workman.
18.
The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman was suffering from ailment in his right eye
and he was undergoing treatment and hence could not report for duty before the management. The learned counsel
submitted that the workman gave evidence before the enquiry officer and explained the reason why he could not
report for duty regularly due to ailment. The learned counsel for the workman submitted written argument notes
substantiating the plea of the workman. It is stated that as per Section 73 of the ESI Act the employer is not permitted
to dismiss or punish the employee during the period of ailment. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment
imposed by the management is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been
committed by the workman. The learned counsel referred to the Rulings reported in (2006) I LLJ 329 SC – Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R. Dhandapani; (1994) II LLJ 888 SC – Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited Vs. A.
Unnikrishnan and Another; (2005) I LLJ 1129 SC – Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. N. B. Narawade; (1983) II
LLJ 386 SC – Hindustan Machine Tools Limited Vs. Mohammed Usman; (1989) I LLJ 71 SC - Scooter India Limited,
Lucknow Vs. Labour Court and others and Writ Appeal No.142/2008 – Federal Bank Employees Union Vs. Federal
Bank Ltd. and Another. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the dictum laid down in the decisions referred
above this Tribunal is well within its right in evaluating the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the
management. It is submitted that dismissal from service for the act of unauthorized absence that too on the ground of
ailment in the right eye of the workman is highly disproportionate.
19.
The learned counsel for the management submitted argument notes stating that the management considered the
submission made by the workman and afforded several opportunity to the workman to correct his misdeed and to report
for duty. It is stated that on several occasions, at the request of the union and at the request of the workman, the
management postponed the implementation of the proposed punishment under certain conditions that the workman shall
report for duty at least for a minimum period during the ensuing months. It is stated that the workman failed to comply
the assurance and hence the management imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. According to the
management the punishment imposed by them is just, proper and in proportion to the gravity of misconduct committed
by the workman.
20.
On going through the contentions of the workman and the documents produced in this case it can be seen that
during the period of unauthorized absence for 91 days from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2009, the workman has not produced
any documents to prove that he was undergoing treatment for ailment in his right eye and thereby he could not attend
duty. From the documents produced by the workman it can be seen that he was referred before the Government
Medical College Hospital on 07.09.2009. Subsequently he was subjected to single field analysis on 01.10.2009.
Thereafter he was referred to Aswini Hospital on 09.06.2010. The workman has not produced any documents to prove
that for the period from 02.10.2009 to 08.06.2010 he was undergoing treatment. It can be seen that on 13.02.2010 the
workman submitted a mercy plea with an assurance that he will report for duty regularly without fail.
Considering his request the management allowed him to attend duty provided he should attend duty regularly. It is the
case of the workman that due to ailment he could not attend duty regularly. On going through the contentions raised by
the workman and documents produced in this case it is seen that the workman was regularly irregular in attending duty.
If in fact the workman was undergoing treatment and thereby prevented from attending duty, nothing prevented him
from submitting a leave application with necessary documents before the management requesting leave on medical
grounds. There is no material on record to prove that the workman submitted any leave application or obtained
permission from the management for not attending duty. From the conduct of the workman as revealed from the
documents produced, it is evident that he was not attending duty regularly. Instead he remained absent from duty with
1322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
obtaining permission or submitting leave application before the management. The action of the workman amounts to
gross misconduct as per the standing orders of the management.
21.
The management initiated proceedings against the workman for unauthorized absence of 91 days for the period
from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2009. The workman has not produced any documents to prove that during the aforesaid
period he was undergoing treatment for any ailment. In such circumstance it cannot be held that the management
initiated proceedings against the workman without any just, legal and proper cause. Therefore it is held that the
initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of punishment by the management are on the basis of valid and
justifiable cause. Therefore Point nos.(i) and (ii) are answered against the workman and in favour of the management.
22.
Point Nos.(iii) & (iv):-
The proportionality of the punishment is to be considered in the light of the
subsequent development in this case. Considering the fact that the workman underwent treatment after the issuance of
the show cause notice and he had to undergo surgery in his right eye, it is held that the punishment of dismissal from
service imposed by the management is disproportionate in relation to the gravity of misconduct committed by the
workman. Since the workman was regularly irregular in attending duty there is no justification in allowing him to
continue employment under the management. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the
ends of justice will be met by modifying ‘the punishment of dismissal from service’ into ‘compulsory retirement with
superannuation benefits’. Point Nos.(iii) & (iv) are answered accordingly.
23.
In the result an award is passed holding that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the
management is disproportionate. The workman shall be compulsorily retired from service with effect from the last date
he attended for duty and that he shall be entitled to superannuation benefits till that date.
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 18th
day of January, 2017.
K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
NIL
Witness for the management
MW1
08.12.2014
Shri. Jacob. R. Pulikottil
Exhibit for the workman
NIL
Exhibit for the management
M1
-
Enquiry File.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 632-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MkjsDVj]
vky bafM;k bafLV~;wV vkWiQ fiQftdy esfMflu ,aM fjgSfcfyVs'ku eqacbZ ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] uacj&2] eaqcbZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 2@22 vkWiQ 2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@182@1999&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 2/22 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the Director, All India Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Mumbai, and their workman, which was
received by Central Government on 17.01.2017.
[No. L-42012/182/1999-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1323
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/22 of 2000
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL
MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
The Director
All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Haji Ali Park
K. Khadye Marg
Mahalaxmi
Mumbai 400 034.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN
Shri Mohan Pandurang Gore
3/347, Jan Kalyan Society
New Model Talkies
CST Road, Kurla (W)
Mumbai 400 070.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 25th November, 2016
AWARD
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42012/182/99-IR (DU) dated
27/01/2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mumbai
by terminating the services of the workman Mr. Mohan P. Gore w.e.f 29/11/1997 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the Reference notices were issued to both the parties. Concerned second party workman files
Statement of Claim at Ex-7, contending therein that he was employed with the first party a semiskilled worker. He has
put in more than 5 years’ service w.e.f. August 1994 to 30.11.98. His past record is very clean and unblemished. The
last drawn wages were Rs. 3977/- per month.
3.
According to the second party workman he was never made permanent as such even though he had completed
as long period as five years. He was given the break for more than 26 times during the above period. The breaks were
artificial. As soon as the workman was given the breaks at that time the employer used to take another workman in his
place. There was the permanent vacancy, still he was given the breaks as many as 29 times during this period.
4.
According to second party workman he is working upto the satisfaction of the management. As such no any
reason is given why he was not permitted to continue the work. Action taken by management in not allowing him to
work is not legal and against the provision of I.D.Act 1947. Termination effected is not according to law. The
management has not followed due process of law as required. His termination of services is therefore illegal void-ab-
1324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
initio and void. He therefore is deemed to continue in service and entitled to full back wages. So, aggrieved by the
decision of the management the workman raised the dispute before ALC(C) but there also the management did not give
proper co-operation. Finally Dy Commissioner closed the matter vide letter dt. 31/8/1999 and have referred the dispute
to RLC. However the conciliation finally failed on 31/8/1999. It is prayed that the first party be directed to reinstate the
second party workman with full back wages and continuity of service and other reliefs.
5.
First party management resisted the claim by filing Written Statement Ex-22. It is contended that All India
Institute of Physical medicine and Rehabilitation (hereinafter referred to as “institute) is a department under the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and its activities include rehabilitation for the Physically handicapped. It is
submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this Reference.
6.
The management contended that the institute is subordinate Office to Director General of Health Services,
Government of India, a Public Utility Service Organization under Ministry of Health and Family welfare, the financial
resources to the institute are from consolidate fund of Government of India and all employees of the Institute are
governed by CCS Rules. The institute provides some of other things comprehensive rehabilitation programme for the
physically handicapped patients through its various departments under one roof. Applicant was offered appointment on
the post of semiskilled on pay of Rs 775/- p.m. on date 21/8/1995. The said appointment was liable to be terminated at
any time without notice. The second party workman accepted the said offer of appointment vide his letter dated
21/8/1995 and based upon acceptance of terms of conditions of offer of appointment he came to be appointed as a
semiskilled worker on ad-hoc basis for the period from 24/8/1995 to February 1996. Thereafter he was appointed from
time to time on ad-hoc basis taking into consideration the workload at the Institute for smooth functioning of its
prosthetic and orthopedic department. Since he was appointed on ad-hoc basis his services were terminated and
therefore there is no question of granting any reinstatement with back wages etc.
7.
First party management then contended that the Department of personnel, Public Grievances and pension has
issued instructions on optimization of direct requirement to civilian posts. Vacancies finally cleared by the screening
committees will be filled up duly applying the rules for reservation, handicapped compassionate quotas thereon.
Further, administrative ministries/departments/ units would obtain beforehand a no objection certificate from the surplus
cell of the department of personnel and training/director General, Employment and training that suitable personnel are
not available for appointment against the posts meant for direct recruitment to recruiting agencies. As such the
instructions have been imposed on ad-hoc appointment. Even Mr. M.P. Gore did not work for 240 days in any of the
proceeding years. Since the appointment of second party was for a limited period. It will not give any right of
regularization. Even as per CCS Rule there is no question of payment of one month salary for terminating the service of
party 2. It is therefore prayed that the Reference be dismissed.
8.
Following issues are framed for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether the management institute proves that it is not an industry under section
2j of the I. D. Act and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction?
No
2
Whether the workman proves that he worked continuously more than 240 days?
Yes
3
Whether it is proved that workman was terminated without following the
provisions of the I.D. Act?
Yes
4
Whether the action of the management of All India Institute of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, Mumbai by terminating the services of the workman Mr.
Mohan P. Gore w.e.f. 29/11/97 is legal and justifies?
No
5
What relief the workman is entitled to?
As per order
REASONS
Issue No 1.
9.
This issue was treated as Preliminary Issue as per order dated 18/5/2006. As per the order passed by this
Tribunal on the point of this issue, party no 1 is an ‘industry’ and therefore the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the
Reference. This order of this Tribunal was challenged by the first party before the High Court vide W.P. No. 1309/2007.
The said W.P. is dismissed. As per the observations of Hon’ble High court the dispute before the Tribunal is concerning
termination of respondent’s service in the year 1998. It is therefore appropriate to endeavour to dispose of the
Reference on merits.
10.
Ld. Counsel for the first party management submitted that the High Court in this writ petition has observed in
Para 11 of judgment as follows:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1325
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the issue of very applicability of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to employees whose service conditions are governed by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Umesh K Bhandari vs. Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Ltd &Ors 2005 (6) SCC 451, in such circumstances, Ld. counsel submits that liberty be
reserved in favour of the Union of India to raise such issue, if ultimately the Tribunal holds against the Union
of India, in the present matter. Such request is reasonable and accordingly liberty in this regard is expressly
reserved”.
11.
In the context the Ld Counsel for the first party management seeks to rely on the decision in case of MTNL
V/s Umesh K. Bhandari 2001 (3) CPMH51 to submit that the employee holding civil post as per the rules namely
recruitment and condition of service Rules, 1980 were not workman within the meaning of 2 s of I D Act 1947 and
Industrial Tribunal have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reference under section to 10 1(d) Act.
12.
In that case it was finding of fact that the employees appointed by the departmental canteen committee at
Prabha Devi telephone exchange have been in services for many years and they were declared as holders of civil post
under the Government of India notification no 6(2) / 23/77 welfare dated December, 1979, to the administrative
instructions that notification stated that all said post are to be treated as posts in connection with the affairs of the union,
and accordingly present and future incumbents of such post would qualify as holders of civil post under the central
government. Notification further stated that necessary rules governing the conditions of service of the employees would
be framed under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution to have retrospective effect from October 1, 1979.
Accordingly the service rules were framed under Article 309 as per notification no GSR 54 issued by the Government
of India Department of Personnel and training on December 23,1980. These rules contained both the recruitment rules
and conditions of service of the said employees including the procedure for disciplinary action to be taken against them.
The administrative instructions are run by all the ministries including the railway ministry unless they have previously
decided to be exempt from them and had framed their own rules in that behalf. Notifications which were issued by the
Government dated December 11, 1979 and December 23, 1980 were applicable to the employees of the railway
canteens and hence, the employees in the statutory and non statutory recognized canteens will have to be treated as
railways servants. In the circumstances it is held that these employees are civil servants regulated by these conduct
rules. Therefore by necessary implications, they do not belong to the category of workmen attracting the provisions of
the Act.
13.
In the instant case, so far the facts are concerned the Institute is not registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1960 as stated by the second party workman. It runs number of courses and taking fees from the candidate as
mentioned in “annual Report” submitted by the first party. Even in the booklet, it is stated that Institutes are run by the
first party which is of different levels, graduation level as well as post-graduation level. Fees are collected from the
students and courses or education is given systematically with the help of number of staff members. Rules and
regulations are there regarding appointments taking action of regularization of employees. There is carpentry
department, Smith Department, Metal Department, Buffing Department. Institute is not doing only attending work of
rehabilitation. It runs number of departments and other facilities as well as number of departments. There are rules and
regulation and these activities are done in systematic manner and controlled by rules and regulation.
14.
So far the facts of present case there is no specific notification showing that the employees are civil servant
regulated by CCS Rules framed Under “Proviso 2” Article of 309 of Constitution of India. As such the facts of present
case are quiet distinct and distinguishable.
15.
Ld counsel for the first party management submitted that tribunal has passed Award in Ref no CGIT-2/ 58 of
1998 in respect of Aliyavar Jung institute for hearing handicapped Mumbai which is a similar institute and the Tribunal
has ruled that the Aliyavar Jung National institute is not an industry within the meaning under Section 2 (j) of the Act.
But then there is no material placed on record to establish that Aliyavar Jung institute is similar to ‘All Indian institutes
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.’ Even it can be said that the submission that the institute is not profit making
institute and therefore is not the industry is not acceptable as per the observations of High Court in Para 7 WP. no1309
of 2007 with Reference to the judgment in case of Bombay Pinjrapole vs their workmen 1971 (2) LLJ 393 (SC) and
in case of Bangalore water supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa 1978 Lab IC 467 (SC).
16.
As per observations in Para 8 of Judgment the Institution is a ‘hospital’ which provides medical facilities to
physically challenged persons. Institute runs several courses at Graduate as well as post-graduate level for students, who
are charged fees for the same. It is observed therefore with Reference to decision in hospital Mazdoor Sabha v/s. State
of Bombay- 1957 1 LLJ 55 (Bom) (DB) that in the wider sense the expression ‘undertaking’ is used in the definition
and it would cover activities which have no commercial implication, such as hospital carried on with philanthropic
motives. The fact that the Government made no profit from the running of such activity was irrelevant to the case.
Ultimately the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the W.P. No 1309/2007. It can be said therefore that this Tribunal has
jurisdiction to entertain the Reference. It is an ‘industry’ Issue no 1 answer in negative.
1326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issues Nos. 2 to 4
17.
It is clear from the evidence of the workman and even from the cross-examination of the management witness
Dr. Smt. N.L. Wangdi that the concerned workman joined the institute through employment exchange. He was given
trade test on 11.8.91. He was given letter of appointment after interview on 22.2.95. Second appointment letter was
given to him on 23.3.95 and on 13.5.95 again appointment letter was given to him. Period of employment was
mentioned in all these letters on 8.5.95 another letter of appointment was given. Thereafter, on 4.7.95 he was given
another appointment letter. Admittedly by letter dt. 2.8.95, he was called for further trade test. On 21.8.95 he was
given the offer of appointment after trade test. On 13.9.95 he was given another appointment letter after trade test. All
these appointments were on adhoc basis. Letters of appointment were given on 5.9.96, Oct. 96, Dec. 96, Jan. 97, March
97, April 97, June 97 and July 97. Letter of appointment was given on Aug. 97. It is thus, clear from the evidence of
second party workman and evidence of management that as per office order dt. 22.2.95 he was appointed for the period
from 14.2.95 to 10.3.95 and it was extended from 11.3.95 to 12.4.95 i.e for 32 days vide office order dt. 22.3.95.
Appointment was further extended vide order dt. 1.5.95 to 8.6.95 i.e. for 38 days. Date was extended from 1.7.95. He
was again appointed for one year vide office order dt. 28.8.95 in the post as Jr. Food Worker. He was appointed in the
said post from 24.8.95 to 29.2.96 vide office order dt. 30.9.95. Again he was appointed in the said post from 4.3.96 to
31.5.96 i.e. for 180 days vide office order dt. 13.5.96. He was again appointed in the said post from 3.9.96 to 30.8.96 i.e.
for 89 days vide office order dt. 4.6.96. Again he was appointed in the said post from 2.9.96 to 15.10.96 i.e. for 44 days
vide office order dt. 6.9.96. He was again appointed in the said post from 17.10.96 to 29.11.96 i.e. for 44 days vide
office order dt. 4.11.96. He was appointed in the said post from 2.12.96 to 14.1.97 i.e. for 44 days vide office order dt.
4.2.96. Again he was appointed in the said post from 16.1.97 i.e. for 44 days vide office order dt. 18.1.97. He was again
appointed in the said post from 3.3.97 to 15.4.97 i.e. for 44 days vide office order dt. 15.3.97. He was then appointed in
the said post from 17.4.97 to 30.5.97 i.e. for 44 days vide office order dt. 2.5.97. He was again appointed in the said
post from 2.6.97 to 15.7.97 i.e. for 44 days vide office order dt. 16.6.97. He was then appointed in the said post from
17.7.97 to 16.7.98 vide office order dt. August 97. It is thus, clear from the these orders that he has worked All India
Institute of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation from 14.3.95 till 29.11.97 continuously with some artificial break in the
services for 1 or 2 days. Not only that but he has given trade test on 11.8.91 and even thereafter before he was given the
offer of appointment.
18.
Learned Counsel for the management submitted that in the appointment letter itself it has been especially
mentioned that appointment is on ad-hoc basis for the time being for the period which may be extended or curtailed at
the discretion of the competent authority and after receipt of offer of appointment the Second party workman has
accepted the terms of appointment and he was temporary appointed from time to time. According to Learned Counsel it
cannot be said that the second party workman has worked continuously for 240 days.
19.
It is not possible to countenance the view propounded by the learned advocate for the first party management.
It appears that in each year second party workman has completed 240 days attendance. The breaks which were given of
mostly of 1 or 2 days. Since it was an appointment on ad-hoc basis, it appears that these breaks were given which can
be termed as artificial breaks but then subsequently the appointment orders came to be passed and his services were
continued after giving short breaks of 1 or 2 days.
20.
It is in that circumstances, it does not prescribe any distinction between those who have been appointed on
regular selection process and those who have been appointed without calling due process of law. Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 is applicable to all these employees. These observations I borrow from the decision in the case of Municipal
Board Lakheri, Bundi and Smt. Mangli Bai & Anr 2008 III LLJ 907. In para 3 of the judgment it has been observed
that simply because the appointment of Respondent No.1 was not as per the rules that cannot be the ground for
committee to the conclusion even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. In the circumstances,
when the second party workman has completed 240 days during the relevant period of his service then as per section 25
of Industrial Disputes Act it was necessary for the management to give retrenchment compensation before terminating
his services. Admittedly in this case no inquiry was held and second party workman was not given one months notice
or wages in lieu of such notice he was also not given retrenchment compensation and as such there is violation of
section 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act.
21.
In the context Learned Counsel for the concerned second party workman seeks to rely on the decision in case
of Orissa High Court reported in 2008 LAB IC 1268 wherein petitioner was appointed as cook on ad-hoc basis. He
worked for 323 days during the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination with some artificial breaks. His
services were terminated on expiry of 80 days on 3 occasions and on expiry of 44 days on 10 occasions. He was being
appointed after some gap on completion of each term. It was held that the petitioner had worked for a continuous
period of one year and his reinstatement is directed.
22.
As a matter of fact, there are vacancies for the semi skilled workers in the department. The management has
recruited the new workers after termination of services of second party workman. Staff working as Peons were
appointed against his post. In his place one Shri Dapse who was peon was appointed. Management has also appointed
Shri Ramesh Wagh as Semi-skilled worker. Management has also appointed one Shri Ramesh Kadam, Shri Mughdam,
Shri Gharat, Shri Salunke, Shri Shinde, Shri Gura, Shri Yadav, Shri Maruti Kale, Shri Suresh Mane and Shri Choudhary
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1327
in the skilled category. One Shri P.B. Bhalerao, Shri M.C. Tolwarkar, Shri Sanjay Sutar, Shri Tanaji Awale, Shri N.S.
Kawali, Shri S.A. Karande, Shri Gautam Wasmani were appointed as semi skilled workers. It is in that circumstances it
appears that there was vacancy in the category of skilled and semi skilled workers and those vacancies were filled in.
23.
As per section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act wherein any workman is retrenched and employer proposes to
take his employment any person he shall in such manner as may be prescribed, given opportunity to the retrenched
workman who is citizen of India to offer himself for re-employment and he shall give offer for re-employment with
preference over the other persons. In this case the services of second party workman were retrenched and thereafter the
management has recruited other new hands in the category of skilled and semi-skilled workers. It appears that no offer
was given to the concerned workman. He was told that there was no post for him. In view of these facts there is
violation of section 25 – H of Industrial Disputes Act.
24.
Realizing these difficulties Learned Counsel for management Shri Joshi submitted that the letter was given to
the concerned workman from the department mentioning therein that when the vacancy would be created the order will
be issued on ad-hoc basis but then the concerned workman has not submitted any application to the department.
Submission is to the effect that the other workmen were reinstated since they have submitted application for reinstating
and those workers were issued letters from employment exchange after they were terminated those workers were given
call letter as per the availability of the vacancy and thereafter they were appointed as per Recruitment Rules. In this
view, the submission is that the vacancies were filled in on temporary basis as per recruitment rules and therefore
concerned workman cannot have claim on the said post as of right.
25.
It is not possible to accept this submission since it appears that there is violation of section 25 – F, 25 – H of
Industrial Disputes Act and as such the services of the second party workman are terminated without holding inquiry or
without giving notice to him. His termination is illegal especially when he has completed 240 days of his service in
each year and especially when there are other similarly placed employees, whose services have been regularized by the
management.
26.
In the circumstances, I hold that second party workman worked continuously for 240 days and his termination
of service is illegal and without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The above issues are therefore
answered accordingly as indicated against each of them.
27.
In the result the second party workman is entitled to reinstate with full back wages with continuity in service.
ORDER
(i)
Action of the management of All India Institute of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
in terminating the services of Shri Mohan P. Gore is not just and proper.
(ii)
Management to reinstate the workman in service and pay him full back wages with
continuity in service.
Date: 25.11.2016
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 633-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVs'ku
Mk;jsDVj] enzkl ,VkWfed ikWoj LVs'ku dyiDde] ,oa muds deZpkjh] ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 982014)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@88@2014&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 98/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Station Director, Madrass Atomic Power Station Kalpakkam, and their workman, which was received by Central
Government on 30.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/88/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
1328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
Friday, the 13th January, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute Nos. 98/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Madras Atomic Power Station and Another
and their workmen)
BETWEEN :
The General Secretary
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Kalpakkam Atomic Energy Contract Workers &
Labour Union
150, School Street, Mulikolathur & Post
Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram Distt.
Kanchipuram-603109
AND
1.
The Station Director
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Madras Atomic Power Station
Kalpakkam-603102
2.
The Special Officer
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Kalpakkam Industrial Coop. Service Society
Ltd. (KINCOSS), MAPS Campus
Kalpakkam-603102
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
M/s N. Ajoy Khose, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent
:
Sri V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
:
Sri S. Makesh, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/88/2014-IR (DU) dated
27.10.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management of MAPS, Kalpakkam and KINCOSS regarding non-consideration of
Charter of Demands raised by the representative of the Petitioner Union is justifiable or not? If not, to what
relief the contract workers are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 98/2014 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner
has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is a Trade Union affiliated to CITU. The workmen concerned in the dispute are members of the
petitioner Union. The Union is working for the cause and welfare of its members. The First Respondent is a unit of
Nuclear Power Corporation. It has two atomic power generation units. Originally all the Atomic Power Stations and
units were under the control of Department of Atomic Energy. In 1987 these were brought under the control of a newly
formed Company by name Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. When the nuclear plants were at the project stage,
the First Respondent had employed casual labourers and they were absorbed and made permanent. Later they started
employing workmen on HR payment. Though these workmen were directly and continuously employed in a permanent
and perennial nature of work they were not made permanent. In order to deny permanent status and privileges available
to permanent workers the First Respondent started the Second Respondent Society. Two officials of the First
Respondent were nominated as Directors of the Board of the Second Respondent. Two other Directors were workmen
representatives. 155 workmen were taken as members of the Second Respondent Society. Even after the formation of
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1329
the second Respondent, the very same work was carried out by these 155 workmen. Out of the 155 members a few were
absorbed and some died or retired from service. Now only 54 workmen are remaining as members of the Society. All of
them are members of the Petitioner Union. All these workmen are carrying out the very same work which they were
doing prior to the formation of the Society. They are doing the same work which are now carried out by the 25 persons
who were their colleagues and who were absorbed as Helpers. The 25 workmen who were absorbed are getting
Rs. 25,000/- per month, apart from various other benefits. On the other hand, the concerned workmen are getting only
Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- a month. This is contrary to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. the concerned
workmen are doing permanent and perennial work which are forming part of generation of electricity. The officials of
the First Respondent control and supervise the work of these 54 workmen. At the time when the Second Respondent
Society was formed and the 54 workmen were made members of the Society, notice under Section-9A of the ID Act
was not issued though there was alteration in the conditions of service. All the 54 workmen shall be treated to be the
direct employees of the First Respondent. The Society itself was formed only to avoid permanent status to the workmen
concerned. The so-called contract system is a sham and nominal arrangement. The Society is not the real employer of
the concerned workmen but only the First Respondent. The Society has no role in the allotment of work or control and
supervision of the work of these workmen. Though the contract is shown as renewed from year to year, the workmen
are doing the same work for more than 28 years, throughout the year. The work carried out by the concerned workmen
are permanent and perennial in nature. The concerned workmen are given training by the First Respondent. The First
Respondent arranged for study of ITI (Electrical and Fitter) trade courses by the workmen. The action of the
Management in not absorbing the concerned workmen, 54 in number while absorbing 25 others as Helper A is
discriminatory. The Petitioner Union had submitted a charter of demands claiming permanency, equal pay for equal
work and other benefits. Since the Management failed to settle the demands the Union had raised the Industrial Dispute.
The Management was not willing to concede to the demands of the Union before the Conciliation Officer also. The
Conciliation Officer recorded failure of the conciliation and submitted failure report to the Government. The
Government has referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication. An award may be passed holding that the demands
of the petitioner Union are justified and also directing the First Respondent to absorb and regularize the services of all
the 54 workmen as Helper A and to re-designate them as Work Assistant A on par with the 25 workmen already
absorbed.
3.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The dispute is not maintainable in law or on facts. The First Respondent is engaged in the business of design,
construction and operation of the Nuclear Power Stations throughout the country. The Petitioner is a Union consisting
of workers who are engaged by the Second Respondent Society, a Society incorporated under the Societies Registration
Act. The Society is not dependent on the First Respondent only for works. The objective of the Society includes raising
funds for business, to start and run minor works, to obtain contracts from the First Respondent and other DAE units of
Kalpakkam to carry out business, etc. The First Respondent had been awarding contracts to the Second Respondent
Society on annual basis for carrying out some activities which are not perennial in nature or incidental to the main
activities carried out by the First Respondent. The activities assigned to the Second Respondent are of short duration
which does not require any personnel to be recruited on regular basis. The Society has been created by its members for
the welfare of the members themselves. The Society is being controlled by an Executive committee constituted by the
members of the Society. The members have no locus-standi for appointment on regular basis on the payrolls of the First
Respondent. The concerned workmen are all contract labourers engaged by the Second Respondent. They are drawing
wages which is much higher than the notified minimum wages. The First Respondent is required to notify to the
concerned Employment Exchange to nominate personnel while recruiting Group “D” employees. The Second
Respondent was assigned work orders on nomination basis and it is for the Second Respondent to execute the contract.
The First Respondent has no control over the management of workmen engaged by the Second Respondent. Other than
wages the First Respondent is providing other welfare measures also to the workmen engaged by the Second
Respondent. The work done by the concerned workmen are not perennial in nature. The employees of the second
Respondent are deputed only on non-core areas like maintenance and servicing jobs such as loading, unloading,
pumping and repairing work. The First Respondent has not given any training to the members of the Society. The
Charter of Demands raised by the Petitioner Union is not justifiable. No vacancies or sanctioned posts are available to
accommodate the members of the Petitioner Union. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
In the year 1986 the Government of India issued an OM against recruiting persons on daily rated wages.
Subsequently the First Respondent mooted the idea of forming an Industrial Cooperative Society. It is accordingly the
Second Respondent Society was formed. As per the bye-laws of the Society 208 workmen who were directly employed
by the First Respondent were made members of the Second Respondent. Only those who were already employed by the
First Respondent were eligible to become members of the Society. Though as per the bye-law the Society can obtain
contract from the First Respondent as well as other DAE units, the Society did not get any contract except from the First
Respondent. Though the society was formed under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, it was virtually under the
control and management of the First Respondent. The members of the Society have been doing the same work both
before and after the formation of the Society. Initially the Office of the First Respondent was preparing the estimate
1330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
towards payment for carrying out the work. The wages payable to the members of the Society was always decided by
the First Respondent. After the year 1991, work order was given on year to year basis and was not issued based on any
tender. It was only on nomination basis. Though the work was permanent and perennial in nature, work order was
issued initially on month to month basis and later on yearly basis to make it appear as if the work is of a particular
duration. Pursuant to the repeated request for absorption of the members of the Society, 49 workmen were called for
interview. However, only 23 workmen were absorbed by the First Respondent. Out of the 208 workmen originally
admitted as members of the Petitioner Union, many have retired, died or left employment and only 69 were remaining
in service during the year 2008. The First Respondent had arranged for SDI-MES Training to 37 members in basic
fitting and measurement and basic electrical training through Government ITI. 9 persons were given training as
Electrical Assistant. The training courses were conducted with an assurance to absorb the members in the First
Respondent. All the members of the Second Respondent have been working in the First Respondent establishment for
more than 30 years continuously. Though they were doing the same and similar work like other regular workers, these
employees were not extended with same and similar pay and allowances and other benefits. They are deprived of equal
treatment and equal pay. The concerned workmen cannot be denied absorption only because they are members of the
Society. An Award may be passed based on the contention of the Second Respondent.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement of the First Respondent and
reiterating its case in the Claim statement.
6.
Complaint 3/2016 was filed by the Union during the pendency of the ID. The Respondent in the ID are the
Respondents in the Complaint. The averments in the complaint are as below:
The age of retirement for the employees in the First Respondent establishment is 60 years. The contention of
the Complainant/Union in the ID is that the concerned workmen are direct employees of the First Respondent. If this
demand is accepted the concerned workmen are entitled to continue their service till they complete 60 years. The bye-
law of the Second Respondent was amended to the effect that the age of retirement of the members of the Society is
fixed as 60 years. During the pendency of the dispute one of the concerned workman by name Arujunan submitted a
letter dated 29.08.2015 to the First Respondent informing that the age of retirement being 60 years he should be allowed
to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However, the First Respondent refused to provide him work
and will not allow him to enter the work spot from 01.09.2015 on the ground that he has completed the age of
retirement of 58 years. Though a representation was given by Arujunan, there was no response to this. The action of the
Respondents in not allowing him to work from 01.09.2015 without notice is against Section-9A of the ID Act and
violative of Section-33(1)(A) of the ID Act. The First Respondent was bound to maintain status-quo as on the date of
reference. They cannot alter the conditions of service to the detriment of the concerned workman. The action of the
First Respondent is malafide and is by way of victimization. An Award may be passed holding that the action of the
First Respondent in denying employment to Arujunan from 01.09.2015 is unjustified and also direct the First
Respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits.
7.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The First Respondent has been awarding contracts to the
Second Respondent on annual basis for carrying out some activities which are not perennial or incidental to the main
activities carried out by the First Respondent. These activities are of short duration and occasional in nature. The
Second Respondent Society has been created by its members for the welfare of its members. It is the responsibility of
the Executive Committee of the Society to ensure that the interests of its members are taken care of. The First
Respondent never intervened in the affairs of the Society. The members of the Society have no locus-standi to demand
for appointment on regular basis on the payrolls of the First Respondent. The contract having been awarded to the
second Respondent, the members are controlled by the Managing Director of the Second Respondent. The existing
members of the Society were trying to take shelter by raising the age limit. The amendment made in the bye-law of the
Second Respondent does not bind the First Respondent. As far as the First Respondent is concerned the age of
retirement of the members of the Society is 58 years as per the provisions of Provident Fund Act and employees
Insurance Scheme. Arjunan had competed the age of 58 years on 31.08.2015 and has retired as per the existing practice.
His pass was withdrawn by the Second Respondent and submitted to the First Respondent.
8.
The complaint being connected with the issues to be considered in the ID and the parties being the same both
are considered together.
9.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and also documents marked
as Ext.W1 to Ext.W46 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.
10.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the First Respondent in not considering the Charter of Demands placed by the Petitioner
Union is justifiable?
(ii)
What, if any are the reliefs to which the Petitioner Union is entitled on behalf of the workman concerned?
(iii)
Whether workman concerned in the complaint is entitled to reinstatement as claimed?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1331
The Points
11.
The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of 54 workmen who are members of the Union and also
members of the Second Respondent Society. The Petitioner Union had submitted a Charter of Demands to the First
Respondent claiming permanency in its service, equal pay for equal work, pay and allowances, quarters, medical
facilities, school facilities, educational allowances to their children, double wages for the work on national and festival
holidays, bonus, incentives, canteen subsidy, extension of radiation safety equipments and annual medical check-up and
check-up of cancer detection.
12.
WW1, the working President of the Petitioner Union has stated in his Chief Affidavit that if the workers are
given permanency and absorption there is no necessity for adjudication of Demand Nos. 2 to 13 and 16 separately.
However, Demands 14 and 15 are pressed in any case.
13.
The case that is put forth by the petitioner in the Claim Statement is that though they are purportedly working
as contract workers of the Second Respondent the contract labour system is sham and nominal arrangement and the real
employer is the First Respondent itself. It is on this basis that the relief of permanency is claimed by the petitioner on
behalf of the concerned workmen.
14.
The Petitioner Union had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras claiming the relief of
permanency. Ext.W11 is the order in Writ Petition No. 41/99 of 1999 filed by the 64 workmen who are members of the
Society seeking direction to regularize their services from their initial employment with the First Respondent. The High
Court has dismissed the Writ Petition observing that nothing has been brought to notice regarding the petitioner’s right
to have regularization. The petitioners filed Writ Appeal challenging this order. Ext.W13 is the order in the Writ
Appeal. As could be seen from this, the petitioners had sought to withdraw the Writ Petition itself and this was allowed.
It was observed in the Writ Appeal that permission having been given for withdrawing the Writ Petition the order in the
Writ Petition does not survive. Liberty was given to the petitioners to raise Industrial Dispute regarding the issue.
15.
Ext.W20 is the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for referring the dispute on the basis of
the Charter of Demands of the Petitioner Union. This itself or the strike notice marked as Ext.W45 do not make mention
of the right of the concerned workmen on the ground that the contract is sham and nominal. They have merely claimed
regularization as well alongwith other demands.
16.
The case of the petitioner in the claim statement, as stated, is that the labour contract system entered into with
the Second Respondent is sham and nominal and the concerned workmen are to be treated as direct employees of the
First Respondent. Apart from the evidence given by WW1 the Working President of the Union and that of WW2, one of
the concerned workman not much of evidence is available on the part of the petitioner to show that in spite of the
contract between the First and the Second Respondent control is exercised by the First Respondent or payment of wages
is also by the First Respondent. In fact there is no case at all for the petitioner that payment is made to them by the First
Respondent itself. This is because they were always paid by the Second Respondent Society. Even regarding exercise of
control the petitioner does not have a concrete case. Though, it is stated in the Claim Statement and is repeated in the
Proof Affidavits filed by the witnesses that control was exercised by the First Respondent itself, no documents are
available regarding this also.
17.
What is the basis upon which the petitioner is claiming that the contract system is sham and nominal? The
argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the very Society is a creature of the First Respondent and the
Officials of the First Respondent were always exercising control over the Second Respondent Society and the Society
was only a namesake one. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ext.W4 in support of his argument that the
Society is created by the Second Respondent. Ext.W4 is the communication by the Chief Administrative Officer of the
First Respondent to the Corporate Office at Mumbai. This letter refers to certain demands made by the Society.
Incidentally it is stated in the letter that the purpose of forming the Society has been explained in an earlier
communication. It is further stated that the service of the Society are a continuing requirement as far as the First
Respondent is concerned and for all practical purposes the Society is treated as a Contractor. There is reference to the
Board of Directors of the Society having been nominated by the Registrar of Industrial Cooperatives. This
communication by itself does not show that the Society is one created by the First Respondent.
18.
The counsel for the petitioner has been referring to Ext.M2-the bye-law of the Society also in support of his
argument that the Society is a namesake one and is under control of the First Respondent. The counsel has referred to
Clause-24 of the Bye-Law of the Society which states that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Society shall be
nominee of the First Respondent. The Managing Director is a nominee of the Tamil Nadu Government and two
members are to be selected from the members of the Society. According to the counsel for the petitioner the fact that
Chairman and Vice Chairman are nominees of the First Respondent itself would show that the Society does not have
any actual control on it but it is only the First Respondent who is controlling it. According to the counsel, this itself
would show that the contracts entered into between the First and Second Respondents are sham and nominal. However,
this is against the stand taken by the concerned workmen before the High Court. Ext.W11 order has referred to the
1332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit of the petitioners in which it was stated that the Society is an independent body formed under the Societies
Registration Act.
19.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain procedural defects said to have occurred while admitting
members to the Society also. Reference was made to Section-23(i)(c)of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. This
sub-section states that a person shall not be eligible for admission as a member of a Society if he is a paid Officer
or servant of the Society or of its financing bank or of any registered Society for which it is the financing bank.
According to the counsel, in view of the above bar the concerned workmen who are members of the Society could not
be treated as workmen of the Society. They are merely members of the Society and not the paid employees of the
Society. However, Clause-B of Sub-Section(3) of the same section provides an exception to Clause-(C) of Sub-Section
(i) which makes the argument redundant. This clause states that Clause-(C) of Sub-Section-(i) shall not apply to person
seeking admission to or to a member of a Registered Society which has as its principal object the provision of
employment to its members.
20.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in his attempt to make out that
the Society acting as Contractor is actually acting as a workman itself and for this reason also the concerned workmen
are to be treated as workmen of the First Respondent. Reference was made to the decision in DHARANGADHARA
CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA reported in 1957 SC 264 where it was held that a person
who works and makes other persons to work are also workmen. Reference was also made to he decision in GM,
ONGC, SILCHAR VS. ONGC CONTRACT WORKERS UNION reported in 2008 2 LLJ 1071. It is a case where the
leader of the Union was acting as the Contractor and he was also working and receiving wages from the employer. It
was found that all the workmen are the employees of ONGC, the principal employer.
21.
The decisions referred to above could not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Here it is not a case where a
particular individual has been acting as the Contractor. It is the Society itself which is the Contractor. The Society was
formed with the knowledge and consent of the workmen. They have been admitted as members of the Society on
payment of a fee.
22.
In any case the fact remains that the case that the contract is sham and nominal was raised only in the Claim
Statement after the reference. Before the Assistant Labour Commissioner the Petitioner Union had no such case at all.
This is clear from the documents filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Ext.W28 is the rejoinder filed there.
This states that the First Respondent has been awarding contract annually to the Society. The rejoinder also refers to the
areas wherein the contract labourers were working as per the contract. It is not on the basis that the contract is sham and
nominal they are claiming absorption. Ext.M8 contains a series of contracts entered into by the First Respondent with
the Second Respondent for doing works annually. True the works mentioned in the contract were for a period
throughout the year. However, never did the employees raise a contention that the contract is sham and nominal and
they are to be treated as employees of the First Respondent directly.
23.
The counsel for the First Respondent has referred to the decision in APSRTC AND OTHES VS. SRINIVASA
REDDY AND OTHERS reported in 2006 3 SCC 674. Here the claim of the workmen was turned down also for the
reason that there is no contention that the contract with the Contractor was sham and nominal. Such being the case the
claim of the petitioner for absorption and regularization could not be accepted.
24.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is claiming equal pay for equal work on behalf of
the concerned workmen also. However, no evidence is available in this respect. There is nothing to show that the
workmen of the Society are doing same kind of work that is done by the regular workers of the First Respondent or that
they are getting lesser pay when compared to those regular workmen for any particular kind of work so this claim also
could not be accepted. The petitioner will not be entitled to any relief in the reference.
25.
So far as the complaint is concerned, the allegation is that one of the workmen of the Society was not provided
work after he attained the age of 68 years though the age of superannuation for the First Respondent is 60 years. The
Second Respondent subsequently seems to have amended its byelaw raising retirement age of its workers as 60. Direct
employer employee relationship between the workman and First Respondent having not been established the
complainant is not entitled to any relief against the First Respondent.
In view of the discussion above, ID 98/2014 is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.
Complaint No. 3/2016 is dismissed.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the
13th January, 2017)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri K. Palanisamy
WW2, Sri V. Vadivel
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1333
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri B. Rathnashikamani
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Registration Certificate of the 1st Party Union
Ext.W2
06.07.1988
Civil and Service Maintenance Order was issued by the 2nd Party
Ext.W3
02.09.1988
Civil and Service Maintenance Order issued by the 2nd Party
Ext.W4
15.12.1988
Order was issued by Nuclear Power Corporation
Ext.W5
14.03.1989
Order issued by the Nuclear Power Corporation
Ext.W6
05.09.1997
Letter given by the 2nd Party No. 2 to 2nd Party/No. 1
Ext.W7
16.04.1998
Order in WA No. 1373/1993
Ext.W8
08.07.1998
18(1) Settlement between Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Central
Organization of Electricity Employees (CITU)
Ext.W9
18.06.1998
Order of recruitment to the post of Helper-A
Ext.W10
28.02.2003
Appointment Order issued by the Govt. of India, Department of Atomic
Energy
Ext.W11
15.10.2004
Order in W.P. No. 4199/1994
Ext.W12
13.05.2005
Holiday entry permit issued by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1
Ext.W13
09.11.2005
Order in W.A. No. 2015/2005
Ext.W14
16.05.2006
Representation given by the Tamilnadu Atomic Power Employees Union
for permanent appointment to the KINCOSS workmen
Ext.W15
07.09.2007
Representation given by the Tamilnadu Atomic Power Employees Union
for permanent appointment to the KINCOSS workmen
Ext.W16
13.11.2008
Order issued by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1
Ext.W17
03.12.2008
Order issued for training by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1
Ext.W18
27.10.2009
Letter given by the 2nd Party/Party No. 2 to 2nd Party/Party No. 1
Ext.W19
19.03.2011
Order relating to re-deployment of Attendants and Driver
Ext.W20
24.03.2011
2(k) dispute raised by the 1st Party Union before the ALC
Ext.W21
04.05.2011
Order in WP No. 12116/2011
Ext.W22
27.05.2011
Letter given by the 1st Party Union to the 2nd Party/Party No. 2
Ext.W23
09.06.2011
Letter given to the 2nd Party/by the 2nd Party/Party No. 2
Ext.W24
19.07.2011
Order issued by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1
Ext.W25
29.09.2011
Reply filed by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1 before the ALC
Ext.W26
29.09.2011
Rejoinder filed by the 1st Party before the ALC
Ext.W27
31.10.2011
Reply filed by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1 before the ALC
Ext.W28
14.11.2011
Rejoinder filed by the 1st Party before the ALC
Ext.W29
13.02.2012
Failure report
Ext.W30
15.05.2012
Minutes of the 1st Party Union
Ext.W31
22.05.2012
Representation given by the 1st Party Union
Ext.W32
05.09.2012
Letter given by the Principal Government Industrial Training Institute to
Ext.W33
02.11.2012
Letter given by the Principal Government Industrial Training Institute to
the Regional Director of Apprenticeship Training
1334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W34
20.12.2012
Certificates issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Regional
Directorat5e of Apprenticeship Training
Ext.W35
08.09.2014
Failure report
Ext.W36
27.10.2014
Order of Reference
Ext.W37
-
Members of the 1st Party Union who got radiation dose from 2nd Party
Reactor Building
Ext.W38
-
Radiological work permit order issued by the 2nd Party
Ext.W39
-
Advertisement given by the 2nd Party/Party No. 1 to fill up 42 posts
Ext.W40
-
Annual Maintenance Contract for the year 2015-2016
Ext.W41
05.12.2008
Documents showing the details of Training courses given to the canteen
employees and KINCOSS Employees conducted by the 2nd Party/Party
No. 1 On the Management’s side
Ext.W42
-
Hand Receipt Payment Measurement book from 1986 to 1987 pertaining to
one Mr. E. Ramu, who was employed alongwith the workmen concerned
in the 1st Party Management before the formation of the 2nd Party/Part No.2
Ext.W43
09.04.2012
Representations given by the TAPEU to 2nd Party Management and the
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Ext.W44
14.05.2012
Minutes of Meeting between the 2nd Party Management and TAPEU
Ext.W45
04.02.2013
Strike Notice issued by the TAPEU
Ext.W46
15.02.2013
Minutes of the Conciliation Proceedings
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
-
Letter of Authorization
Ext.M2
-
Bye-Laws of the KINCOSS (Exhibits.M1)
Ext.M3
-
Samples of Annual Agreements entered between MAPS and KINCOSS for
the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 634-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSusftax
tujy eSustj (,pvkjMh)] Hkkjr ,vFkZ eksoslZ fyfeVsM caSxyksj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 23@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@35@2015&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 23/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore and others and their workman, which was received
by Central Government on 18.02.2017.
[No. L-42011/35/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1335
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED
:
01st NOVEMBER, 2016
PRESENT
:
Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 23/2015
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
BEML Contract Workers Union,
No. 103, 1st Floor, East Wing,
2nd Cross, K.S. Building,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560009
1.
The General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Bharat
Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075.
2.
M/s. V.V Enterprises, EM Division and Medical Establishment.,
BEML Nagar Post, BEML KGF, Karnataka – 563115.
3.
M/s Ex-Serviceman Association, EM Division , BEML Nagar Post,
BEML, KGF, Karnataka- 563115.
4.
M/s A.V.R Enterprises, EM Division, BEML Nagar Post, BEML
KGF, Karnataka – 563115.
5.
M/s Praveen Electronics, C/o BEML Ltd, BEML Nagar Post, BEML
KGF, Karnataka – 563115.
6.
M/s Durgambal, C/o BEML Ltd, BEML Nagar Post, BEML KGF,
Karnataka – 563115.
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-42011/35/2015-IR(DU) dated 07.05.2015 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947
has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the charter of demands made by the BEML contract workers union against the management of
BEML KGF and the Contractors of BEML KGF are justified? If not, what relief the contract workmen
are entitled to?”
Charter of demands
Sl.
No.
Nature of demands
Details of Nature of demands
01
Component of Rates of wages
to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled categories.
02
Casual Leave
12 days in calendar year.
03
Earned Leave
02 days for each completed month of service.
04
Paid holidays
12days in a calendar year. The Specific dates will be declared
by the concerned office from time to time.
05
Uniforms
Gents – 4 sets once in two years
Ladies – 4sarees and material for 6 blouses, once in two years.
1336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
06
Stitching charges for the uniforms
Rs.500/- per set for Gents and Rs.500/- for four sarees plus six
blouses, once in two years.
07
Shoe Allowance
Rs.1500/- per annum to those who are not being provided with
safety shoes or any other kind of footwear by the Company.
08
ESI Facility
Will be given as per the Provisions of the ESI Act.
09
Employees Provident Fund
Will be covered as per the provisions of the EPF and MP Act
1952.
10
Group Insurance
Will be covered under LICs Group Insurance Scheme, in lieu of
employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme under the EPF
Act.
11
Accumulation of Earned Leave
Maximum of 60 days allowed.
12
Encashment of Earned Leave
Entitle to encash 50% of the Earned Leave at credit, subject to
minimum of 5 days and maximum of 30 days, while in service.
The encashment while in service allowed only once in a
Calendar Year. On retirement, death, termination of Services.
2.
After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have
been sent for both parties. None appeared for the Ist party and Ist party also called absent. Infact, notice of hearings
have been sent to the I party by RPAD through the Department of Posts, India. Still, no representation has been made
on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.
3.
On perusal of records, already notices have been sent to both the parties through the RPAD by this Tribunal.
Hence, it is found that inspite of giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I
party has not made any appearance. In such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of
entire records brought on record.
4.
Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I
party has no interest to contest the present matter, inspite of the issuance of notices of hearing to the I party by RPAD.
It is for the I party to make out a case that I party is entitled to the above mentioned benefits and that the management
has done a mistake by denying the said benefits. Under the above mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts,
this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the perusal of materials available on record.
5.
Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has
been made out by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in
view the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party by
way of RPAD and the conduct of I Party in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal
clear that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above
mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution and no
useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.
AWARD
Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 1st November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 635-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMIVh
bLVSfCy'kesaV vkWfiQlj ,aM ¯izfliy ,EIyk;j] o vU; eqacbZ ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] uacj 2, eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 2@91 vkWiQ 2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@70@2014&vkbZ-vkj- (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1337
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. Case No. 2/91 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the Deputy Establisment Officer and Principal Employer and others Mumbai and their workman, which was
received by Central Government on 09.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/70/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No .CGIT-2/91 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1) M/S. SHIVKUMAR ENTERPRISES
(2) (2) BARC (Principal Employer)
(1) The Proprietor
M/s. Shiv Kumar Enterprises
Conservancy and Housekeeping Contractor
Shivanam Building
Aziz Baug, Mahul Road
Chembur
Mumbai-400 074.
(2) The Dy. Establishment Officer & Principal Employer
BARC, Trombay HRD & SR & W
Central Complex
Mumbai -400 085.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN.
The President
Mumbai Shramik Sangh ‘Sangharsh’
Quary Road
Bhandup (W)
Mumbai-400 078.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. H. D. Rathod, Advocate
FOR THE UNION/ WORKMAN
:
No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 7th November, 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42011/70/2014-IR (DU),
dated 16.09.2014 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 23 contract labours for regularization in the services of Department of Atomic
Energy, BARC is justified? If so to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
1338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of Workers working at new training School Complex
1. Sakthivel
2. Raja Raman
3. G. Sakthi Kumar
4. Darmalingam
5. Archana
6. Fernandes
7. Vino Veera Swami
8. Moideen Basha
9. Arun Kumar
10. Ramesh Kolangi
11. Murugesh
12. Arjun Selvan
13. Vishnu Naidu
14. Kiran
15. Vijay Yadav
16. Sandeep
17. Anita
18. Sheetal
19. Bakthi
20. Morugan
21. Elavarason
22. Subhash
23. Amebdkar Swami
2.
After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on
the second party Union is at Ex-7. First party Management filed Vakalatnama of Mr. H.D. Rathod. Matter was
adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second party/ Union. Second party/ Union neither
appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. First party filed application (Ex-9) for dismissing the
Reference for default & non prosecution. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and
the same deserves to be dismissed. Orders were passed on Ex-9. Accordingly I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Date: 07.11.2016
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1339
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 636-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftls mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k; IV
(/kjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS) rFkk vè;k; V vkSj VI ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]
79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk if'pe caxky jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr ftyksa ds {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs]
vFkkZr~ %—
¶ufn;k ,oa eq£'knkckn ftyksa (if'pe caxky) ds lHkh {[email protected] {ks=k¸ A
¹la- ,l&38013@01@2017&,l-,l-&Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 636.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2017 as the date on which the
provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of
the said Act shall come into force in the following Areas in the State of West Bengal namely :—
“All the areas of the Districts Nadia and Murshidabad, West Bengal.”
[No. S-38013/01/2017-S.S.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 637-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2017 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftls mDr vf/fu;e ds vè;k; IV
(/kjk 44 o 45 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS) rFkk vè;k; V vkSj VI ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]
79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk >kj[k.M jkT; ds 15 ftyksa ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs]
uker%—
Ø-la-
ftyk dk uke
fuEufyf[kr ds v/khu lEiw.kZ {ks=
1
if'peh flagHkwe
E;qfufliy {ks= pkbZcklk
2
gtkjhckx
E;qfufliy {ks= gtkjhckx
3
x<+ok
E;qfufliy {ks= x<+ok
4
iykew
E;qfufliy {ks= iykew
5
ykrsgkj
uxj iapk;r {ks= ykrsgkj
6
yksgjnxk
E;qfufliy {ks= yksgjnxk
7
fleMsxk
uxj iapk;r {ks= fleMsxk
8
[kwaVh
uxj iapk;r {ks= [kwaVh
9
xqeyk
E;qfufliy {ks= xqeyk
10
prjk
E;qfufliy {ks= prjk
11
tkerkM+k
uxj iapk;r {ks= tkerkM+k
12
ikdqM+
E;qfufliy {ks= ikdqM+
13
xksM~Mk
E;qfufliy {ks= xksM~Mk
14
lkgscxat
E;qfufliy {ks= lkgscxat
15
nqedk
E;qfufliy {ks= nqedk
¹la- ,l&38013@06@2017&,l-,l-&Iº
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
1340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 637.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2017 as the date on which the
provisions of Chapter-IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and
VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of
the said Act shall come into force in the following Areas of following 15 Districts in the State of Jharkhand namely :—
Sl.No.
District
All the areas falling under
1.
West Singhbhum
Municipal Limit of Chaibasa
2.
Hazaribagh
Municipal Limit of Hazaribagh
3.
Garhwa
Municipal Limit of Garhwa
4.
Palamu
Municipal Limit of Medininagar
5.
Latehar
Nagar Panchayat Limit of Latehar
6.
Lohardaga
Municipal Limit of Lohardaga
7.
Simdega
Nagar Panchayat Limit of Simdega
8.
Khunti
Nagar Panchayat Limit of Khunti
9.
Gumla
Municipal Limit of Gumla
10.
Chatra
Municipal Limit of Chatra
11.
Jamtara
Nagar Panchayat Limit of Jamtara
12.
Pakur
Municipal Limit of Pakur
13.
Godda
Municipal Limit of Godda
14.
Sahebganj
Municipal Limit of Sahebganj
15.
Dumka
Municipal Limit of Dumka
[No. S-38013/06/2017-S.S.-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 638-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ U;w
bafM;k ,';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17025@2@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23.02.2017.
[No. L-17025/2/2017-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1341
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 25th day of January, 2017/05th Magha, 1938)
ID 20/2014
Workman/Applicant
:
Smt. Jainy. D,
Puthenveedu,
Kaithathukonam, Kurakkada P.O.,
Kizhuvilam, (Via)
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 104.
(Ex-parte)
Managements
:
1. The Regional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
36/707, Kandamkulathy Towers,
Opp. College Ground,
M. G. Road, P. B. No.1049,
Kochi – 682 011.
2. The Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Chandrasekharan Nair Stadium, Palayam,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033.
By M/s. Sheriff Associates (For Managements 1 & 2)
This case coming up for final hearing on 11.01.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 25.01.2017 passed
the following:
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
The averments in the application in brief are as follows:
The workman joined the services of the management company as an employee on 03.06.2002. She continued
employment under the management till 18.02.2013 without any interruption. She was removed from service by the
management on 20.02.2013 without any notice. Initially the management paid `50/- per day to the workman and later
it was increased to `100/- per day. From the year 2005 she was receiving `150/- per day towards wages. From the
year 2010 the daily wages was enhanced to `200/- and from January, 2013 she was getting `250/- per day as wages.
Apart from this the management paid bonus to the workman.
3.
The workman was employed through the recruitment agency namely, ‘Bharath Employment’, Attingal which is
registered with Government of India. During the tenure of employment the workman rendered a disciplined, faithful
and hard work to the management. While accepting payment from the management she issued vouchers. Even though
the workman was appointed as a peon under the management she had to perform the duty as a sweeper as well as a
clerk. The courier register and despatch register retained by the management will reveal this aspect. From the bank
account No. 852520100000380 at the Bank of India, Attingal branch in the name of the workman it can be seen that
she was an employee under the management.
4.
While removing her from service the management has not complied legal requirements preceding the
termination. The workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Thiruvananthapuram with a
request to resolve the issue. The matter could not be resolved at the intervention of the conciliation officer. Finally a
certificate evidencing the failure of conciliation was issued by the conciliation officer. There was no earnest effort on
the part of the management to resolve the dispute and to reinstate the workman in service. Therefore the workman has
requested to pass an award declaring that the termination of her service by the management as illegal, unjust, arbitrary
and against the principles of natural justice; to direct the management to reinstate her in service with continuity of
service, back wages and other attendant benefits.
1342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The averments in the written statement filed by the managements in brief are as follows:-
The management denied all the averments in the application under Section 2A(2), except those that are
specifically admitted. The workman never joined as an employee under the management and she never worked under
the management in that position. Therefore, there is no question of termination of her service by the management. The
management is a Government of India undertaking and governed by the provision of the General Insurance Business
(Nationalization) Act, 1972. Various posts in different categories of employees at various branches of the company
should be sanctioned by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director from time to time. In respect of the posts so
sanctioned, there is transparent selection procedure and recruitment rules in order to fill up the vacancies. The
management has to ensure reservation of all categories of persons as per the policies and guidelines issued by the
Government of India from time to time in this regard. The management has to comply the criteria for selection with
regard to age, educational qualification, experience etc. required for each such posts. The contention of the workman
that she was employed under the management is absolutely false. Even according to her contention, she was deputed
through an agency called ‘Bharath Employment’. Therefore there is no employer-employee relationship between the
management and the workman. The workman is trying to build up the case without even a letter of appointment. The
hand writing in the registers retained by the management is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the workman
was an employee under the management. The allegation that the management terminated her from service in order to
wreck vengeance against her is absolutely false.
6.
On some occasions in order to meet the local requirements of the office the management used to avail the
services of certain employment agencies approved by the Central Government who provide services of some casual
labourers. On such requests the agencies provide sufficient manpower to meet the temporary requirements. The
services of those persons were rendered by the agencies approved by the Central Government. None of those persons
who were employed to meet the local requirements are entitled to get employment of permanent nature under the
management. They are not entitled to make any claim for employment against the management. The management has
requested to disallow the claim of the workman.
7.
After filing written statement by the management the matter was posted for filing rejoinder by the workman. The
workman has not filed any rejoinder.
8.
After affording sufficient opportunity to both sides, the matter was posted for evidence. The workman tendered
evidence as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W5 are the documents marked on her behalf. No oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced on behalf of the managements. When the matter was posted for final hearing the workman remained
absent. There was no representation on her behalf. Hence she was set ex-parte. Heard the counsel for the
management.
9.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i) Whether the applicant in this application under Section 2A(2) is a ‘workman’ as defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get an order for reinstatement with back wages, continuity of
service and other benefits as claimed?
(iii) Reliefs and costs.”
10.
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):- This is an application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
amended by Act 24 of 2010. The applicant/workman has stated that she was employed under the management as a
peon for the period from 03.06.2002 to 18.02.2013. She would further state that her service was terminated by the
management without any notice, w.e.f. 20.02.2013. She has stated that initially she was getting a sum of `50/- per day
towards wages; later it was enhanced to `100/-; again it was enhanced to `150/- per day with effect from 2005. From
2010 it was enhanced to `200/- per day and from January, 2013 it was enhanced to `250/- per day. She has stated that
besides the daily wages, she received the bonus and other benefits from the management.
11.
The status of the applicant as a workman is disputed by the management. According to the management, they
never appointed the applicant as an employee under them and that there is no employer – employee relationship
between them. It is stated that they temporarily requested workforce from the approved agencies; who provided
sufficient manpower to them and for which they paid amount to the approved agencies. It is stated that there was no
appointment order or termination order issued by them to the workman. It is stated that the management is a public
sector undertaking and are governed by the rules, regulations and notifications for appointment of persons in the regular
posts. Further they have to ensure reservation for all categories of persons employed under them. It is stated that they
will have to follow selection procedure and recruitment rules. It is stated that the applicant was never an employee
under the management.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1343
12.
Even as per the admission of the workman she was employed through the recruitment agency by name the
‘Bharath Employment’, Attingal which is a registered agency with Government of India. While examined as WW1 the
workman has stated that she was employed through an agency on daily wage basis. She has stated that she has not
produced any documents evidencing her appointment by the management. On going through the evidence tendered by
WW1 and the documents marked on her behalf it is evident that she was never employed by the management as an
employee or workman. Instead it can be seen that she was deputed on daily wage basis through an agency approved by
the Government of India. She never underwent any selection process or recruitment process so as to claim the
benefit of employment/as a workman under the management. It follows that the applicant in this Industrial Dispute
will not come under the purview of “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
There was no employer – employee relationship between the management and the applicant in this case. Therefore the
applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed. Hence the points are answered against the applicant.
13.
Point No.(iii):-
In view of the finding on point Nos.(i) and (ii) the applicant is not entitled to the relief
claimed. The point is answered accordingly.
14.
In the result an award is passed holding that the applicant in this case is not entitled to the relief claimed and his
claim is rejected.
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 25th day
of January, 2017.
K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
WW1
Smt. Jainy. D
13.04.2016
Witness for the managements
NIL
Exhibits for the workman
W1
-
True copy of the donation receipt No.002083 dated 04.02.2008 for `100/- paid to The GIC
Employees’ Union Kerala, Kandomkulathy Towers, Ernakulam, Cochin by the workman/
applicant.
W2
-
True copy of the Disbursement Voucher No. 760503/83/09/0000000339 dated 08.01.2010 for
an amount of `750/- issued by The New India Assurance Company Limited, Main Road,
Attingal to the applicant.
W3
-
True copy of the receipt No. Nil dated 08.01.2010 for an amount of `750/- received from the
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited by the applicant.
W4
-
True copy of the inter-office correspondence letter No. 760503/2002 dated 27.09.2002
addressed to the The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Trivandrum by the
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Attingal.
W5
-
True copy of the Cheque Nos. 013113 dated 07.02.2013 for an amount of `1,385/- and
013117 dated 08.02.2013 for an amount of `1,724/- paid by the authorized signatory of the
management to the applicant.
Exhibits for the managements
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 639-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
ckyesj ykWjh da- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@18@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
1344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.03.2017.
[No. L-30011/18/2009-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 82/2012
Ref.No. L-30011/18/2009-IR(M) dated 14.09.2012
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Balmer Laurie Karamchari Sangh.
1B-34, Motikunj, Post Dhouli Pyau, Distt.
Mathura
AND
1.
The Managing Director
M/s Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd.,
21, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta
2.
The Managing Director,
M/s Anant Raj Industries Ltd.,
(Ex-M/s Anantraj Clay Products Ltd.,
H-65, Connought Circus, New Delhi
AWARD
1
By order No. L-30011/9/2009-IR(M) dated 14.09.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between General Secretary, Balmer Laurie
Karamchari Sangh, Mathura, and the Managing Director, Balmer Lawrie & Co. Kolkatta/ Managing Director, M/s
Anant Raj Industries, New Delhi for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LIMITED,
MATHURA (I) IN SELLING THEIR COMPANY TO M/S ANANTRAJ CLAY PRODUCTS LIMITED
NEW DELHI AFTER DECLARING LOCK OUT W.E.F. 2.5.1994 WITHOUT MAKING PAYMENT OF
STATUTORY DUES TO THE WORKMEN INVOLVED; AND (II) IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES
OF THE WORKMEN (AS PER ANNEXURE) WITHOUT LIFTING THE LOCK OUT AND NOT RE
ENGAGING THE ABOVE WORKMEN, AS PER MOU DATED 3.1.1994 WITH M/S ANANTRAJ
INDUSTRIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S ANANTRAJ CLAY PRODUCTS LIMITED), AFTER
TRASFER OF PROPERTY ALONG WITH WORKMEN W.E.F. 11.5.1994 VIDE SALE DEED DATED
25.3.1994; ARE LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMEN CONCERNED
ARE ENTITLED TO AND FROM WHICH DATE?”
3.
As per claim statement W-3 the workmen union has stated in brief that the petitioner union is registered with
registration no. 6595 and represents all working employees of Balmer Lawrie, and opposite party no.1 is registered
under Companies Act., and it deals with the manufacturing of LPC Gas Cylinders at Mathura, under Indian Oil
Corporation. The petitioner union has stated that as per certified Standing Orders service conditions of the employees
are being regulated, the land on which the factory of opposite no.1 is situated, has been leased out by UPSIDC, Agra in
the name of opposite party no.1, however, the transfer of the unit from opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.2 has
not yet been approved by the UPSIDC neither any lease has been executed in favour of opposite party no.2.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1345
4.
The applicant union has emphasized that mainly opposite no.1 is only unit of Central Government in U.P. which
is engaged in supplying LPC Gas cylinders to the 3 different companies engaged in the business. It was informed by
the employer during conciliation proceeding that merit was ignored knowingly by the administrative authorities in
giving preference to the items produced by the Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura, Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat
Petroleum and in order to conceal its short comings, without any disinvestment by the Parliament an agreement was
analyzed by opposite party no.1 with opposite party no.2 and in its consequence sale deed was written on 25.3.94 it
was not executed/registered at Mathura but it was got registered at New Delhi whereas the office of the Seller was
situated at Calcutta and all moveable and immoveable property was situated at Mathura, with ulterior motive/intention
in order to rectify the collusion in legal shape. The employer issued letter dated 30.1.1993 informing thereby that
production has been stopped and labourers were directed/advised not to enter in premises, information regarding
payment was also issued, and it was shown that the production had been stopped since August 1992. After about more
than a year, in order to ensure selling process of the unit, letter dated 30.1.1993 was issued mentioning therein
disbursement of salary without any work alongwith other facilities so that it might reflect that the company was running
in deficit.
5.
It has been asserted in the claim statement that later on opposite no. 1 issued a lock out notice dated 1.5.1994 with
forged and manipulated facts and concocted story. Lock out was purported to be effective from 2.5.94 till further
orders. Copy of the notice was endorsed to the UP Labour Department and its officers and Administrative Authorities,
Mathura. It has been emphasized that it was no where mentioned in the said letter dated 30.1.1993 that which
employees specifically were summoned in the office, and when and with whom their behaviour was improper,
impertinent and inappropriate, whereas since 1.2.93 all the employees used to visit office in order to receive salary and
other service dues and to move medical leave application etc., and at any point of time after 1.2.93 total number of
employees who had come to the office/Industry never exceeded 150, neither any employee misbehaved with any
officer nor any disobedience was expressed. It has been alleged that lock out notice was prepared fraudulently in
consultation with legal expert, absolutely false facts mentioned therein. The petitioner union has stressed that legally
lock-out can not be stretched for indefinite period, no FIR was lodged by the management with the Police Station
neither any complaint was made to DM, Mathura nor any information was sent to the Labour Department. Before
revoking the lock out notice and without payment of the dues for that period, the unit was sold to opposite party no.2 by
opposite party no.1 illegally and after the execution of sale deed information for lock out given on 1.5.94 by opposite
party no.1 was without any rationality, morality or any legal right. Moreover, no dues for the lock out period has sofar
been paid to the labourers. The aforesaid lock out has been alleged to be violative of the provision of I.D. Act., no valid
notice was given, directions of the Certified Standing Orders was not followed by the management of the opposite
party no.1.
6.
The union has emphasized that the so called sale/transfer process is improper, illegal and against the principle of
natural justice as well, before enforcing the transfer order of the employees no opportunity was given to them to submit
their version and the employees were treated as slaves of the management, service conditions mentioned in the
Standing Order have not been followed by the management, they were ignored/set aside by the management ex-parte.
Service conditions were binding on both the parties viz. employees as well management of opposite party no.1. The
petitioner union has stated that the judgment pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.10.2007 in Civil Appeal
no. 678,724,683,726,727/2006 is binding on all the courts of the country as provided in Constitution of India Article
141. It has been stressed that the MOU dated 3.1.94 executed between both the opposite parties was neither legal nor
ethical, rather it is improper and it is not binding on the employees of the opposite party no.1, since the management
has terminated the services of its employees against the provision of Certified Standing Orders and facts mentioned in
the appointment letter.
7.
The applicant union has further stated that several units of opposite party no.1 are still functional at Calcutta,
Mumbai, Kochin, Chennai, Banglore, Lucknow, Aswati, Dubai and London etc but the management did not transfer
any of its employers to other units while all administrative and Executive officers of the Mathura unit have been
transferred/adjusted in other units, which is against the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India. With the
aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the petitioner union to issue directions for reinstatement of the
labourers/employees mentioned in the enclosed list in other units of opposite party no.1 with continuity in service.
Prayer has also been made for payment of the salary and other service dues to all the employees accordingly. The union
has also requested this Court to declare the retrenchment/termination of the services of the employees after indefinite
lock out, as illegal, improper and against the principle of natural justice.
8.
As per the list W-4 several documents have been filed by the workman.
9.
The opposite party no.1 has been filed written statement M-10 and the allegations leveled in the claim statement
have been denied. The opposite party no.1 has emphasized that the reference sent by the Central Government is illegal
and bad in the eyes of law and without jurisdiction and the alleged matter in dispute can not be treated as industrial
dispute, in the letter of reference there is no annexure referred pertaining to issue no. 2, regarding issue no.1 legality
1346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and justifiability of the transfer of ownership of the unit can not form part of industrial dispute as per the provisions of
I.D. Act. It has further been stated that legality and justifiability of terminating the services w.e.f. 11.5.94 and the issue
of non re-engaging w.e.f. 11.5.94 are not industrial dispute since OP no.1 has never terminated the services of workmen
w.e.f. 11.5.94 and there was no question of re-engaging as well, opposite party no.1 is not employer of the workmen on
11.5.94 in view of transfer of undertaking.
10.
OP No.1 has asserted that the matter issue can not be referred in view of the judgment dated 18.7.94 passed by
Hon’ble High Court in Civil Misc. writ petition no. 6874/94 where in Hon’ble Court observed that the objection of
transferof undertaking ought to have been raised before the appropriate forum which deals with corporate matters and
Central Government has acted quite illegally and unauthorisedly in referring the present issues which are not existing
dispute and are virtually dead disputes. The present issue has been sent after more than 18 years from the alleged cause
of action which arose on 11.5.94, moreover reference was made at time when disputes do not exist at all, the Central
Government has not considered the fact that it is not possible for management to keep the track of such old records at
the present time specifically when the unit has been transferred. Protection of the past services of the workers, to an
independent concern in due compliance of Section 25FF of the I.D. Act., can not be examined by this Court in
furtherance of the reference sent by the Central Government. OP No.1 has asserted that in the present case services of
the employees were transferred on the same terms and conditions protecting past services of the workers, referring
authority has not applied its mind and the letter has been issued in mechanical manner under the garb of order of
Hon’ble High Court. Infact no cause of action has accrued to the union and the workmen for the alleged disputes
referred for adjudication.
11.
Opposite party no.1 has further submitted that it is a Government Enterprise having its registered office at
Callcuta, company established cylinder and stove division at UPSIDC, Mathura to manufacture LPG cylinders. The
unit witnessed serious I.R. problems, low productivity, poor quality of the product resulting in frequent suspension of
production by BIS, each division established having own accounting system and profit & loss maintenance record and
separate conditions of service. Cylinders were manufactured for domestic use. Units faced financial loss detected at the
filling plant. That from the very inception the erstwhile cylinder and store Division was incurring losses. The
cumulative loss of the erstwhile CSDM was approximately Rs11.00 crores up to 93-94 on capital investment of Rs.4.00
crores. The viability or erstwhile CSDM was adversely affected, company had no other alternative except to close the
plant, it was compelled to transfer the ownership to a buyer. The Bureau of Indian Standards suspended the
manufacturing activity of the unit with effect from 12..08.92. The majority union opposed the re-habilitation plan in
Nov. 92.
12.
It has been stated in the written statement by OP no.1 that duly constituted committee considered the matter. The
services of all the employees were to be transferred and the interest of the employees was safeguarded MOU was
finalized, letter dated 15.2.1994 was issued by the Company to all ex-workmen of the company bringing to their
knowledge about the proposed transfer to ARCPL. The buyer also wrote a letter to workmen and advised them to report
on duly on 11.5.94, 8 workmen opted for Retrenchment Compensation, but after getting information regarding transfer
of ownership of the unit, the workmen and the union went on a rampage and started agitation, gherao and dharnas. The
union and the workmen resorted to all illegal activities and destroyed the property of the company and their agitation
turned violent. Under these circumstances the management was compelled to declare a lock out w.e.f. 2.5.94 and
intimation as required under law was given to the concerned authorities.The OP No.1 sent the information to ALC,
Agra and other authorities regarding transfer of ownership. The union and two workmen had filed writ petition No.
6874 of 94 before the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad praying to quash the letter dated 15.2.94 and quash the MOU
between the company and buyer. The petition was dismissed by a Division Bench. The workmen filed a SLP and a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to quash the MOU and Sale
Deed with the buyer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and on request of the union allowed the writ
petition to be withdrawn. Subsequently a number of cases were filed under section 3 of UP Industrial Peace Act. 1978
before DLC, Agra who passed the recovery order against the company. The Company filed Writ Petition before
Hon’ble High Court and Honb’le High Court quashed the order with the direction to DLC, Agra to look into the matter
afresh and take decision in accordance with the law in light of observations made in the judgment. Review petition was
filed against the order dated 19.11.96 which was dismissed. Thereafter union approached to ALC through application
dated 1.11.07. The contention of the union is baseless and misconceived version for transfer of ownership of the unit
and non-payment of wages for the period of lock out till the possession to Anant Raj Clay Product Ltd. has been taken.
Review petition against the order dated 19.11.96 passed by Hon’ble High Court was also dismissed. Direction was
given to refer the matter to the appropriate authority to decide the legality and thereafter the Govt. referred the dispute
to Industrial Tribunal, Agra under Section 4(K)UP. I.D. Act.1947, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on
15.10.94 was not challenged by the union thereafter they approached to ALC through application dt. 1.11.07 with
baseless and misconceived version, transfer of ownership and non payment of wages for the period of lock out was
challenged. OP No.1 has emphasized that option was given to move for receiving compensation. Union filed Civil suit
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1347
before Civil Judge, Mathura. The company was compelled to file a writ petition no. 30977/97 before Hon’ble High
Court and direction was issued to DM, Mathura and SSP to provide security to the company.
13.
It is clear that the reference made by the Central Govt. is not legal and is not maintainable either in law or on
facts and in any case, the issues referred can not form part of the industrial disputes and in fact no such dispute was
ever raised, espoused and converted into industrial disputes. Opposite parties deny and refute all allegations and
averments made in the claim statement by Balmer Lawrie Karamchari Sangh except those that are specifically admitted
above to be true. It is stated that M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co., transferred the ownership of its unit manufacturing cylinder
and store at Mathura where the workmen were employed to M/s Anant Raj Clay Products Ltd. and gave possession on
11.05.94, the union thereafter cannot claim itself to be an Union for the workmen employed in the concern. This union
can not represent those persons who are not its members at present. In any view of the matter the workmen employed in
the company cannot claim themselves to be employees of the company today and as such they can not remain member
of the union after transfer of ownership to Anant Raj Clay Products Ltd. It is stated that M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.
is a company registered under companies Act and is a Govt. of India undertaking. The unit at Mathura was established
for manufacturing cylinders and stoves. The cylinders manufactured were supplied to various oil companies. The
ownership of the said unit was transferred dto M/s Anant Raj Clay Product Ltd. and possession was handed over on
11.5.94. The said unit as registered under Factories Act and was having certified standing orders. It is further stated that
the company was supplying manufactured cylinders to IOLCL, BPCL,HPCL and IBP. The stoves manufactured were
sold in the market.
14.
It is further stated that as a matter of fact, the said unit since its inception witnessed serious I.R. problems, low
productivity, poor quality and frequent stoppages which compelled the company transfer the unit. As a matter of fact,
the company transferred the ownership of the unit as a going concern to M/s Anant Raj Clay Product Ltd, after
exhausting all options with due approval of the company Board. All other allegations have no substance. The company
made necessary compliance of Section 25FF of I.D. Act. As a matter of fact the operation in the unit was suspended
w.e.f. 12.08.92 as ordred by Bureau of Indian Standard, the company continued to pay wages and other
allowances/benefits to the workmen even in “no work situation” till April 94. The company declared lockout for legal
and valid reasons and the contention to the contrary has no substance. The allegations are foreign to the matters referred
for adjudication. The lock out was not for indefinite period as alleged. The detailed facts have already been stated by
the company. The allegations are foreign to matters referred for adjudication.
15.
OP No.1 has also submitted in the written statement that the company’s transfer of the ownership has got no
concern and under Section 6(O) of UP I.D. Act. (Section 25FF of I.D. Act.) offered their continuation of the employees
to the buyers, 8 workmen did not accept the employment they were paid their legal dues in accordance with law. The
reference of BCPP case has no substance, legality of MOU dated 3.1.94 is beyond the scope of order of reference and
without jurisdiction of this Tribunal. OP No.1 with the aforesaid pleadings has prayed that the reliefs sought by the
union and workmen can not be granted, the reference is not maintainable and the action of the management is neither
illegal nor unjustified.
16.
With strong denial of the allegations leveled in the written statement, rejoinder W-12 has been filed by the
petitioner union while reiterating the pleas taken earlier in the claim statement. With rejoinder W-12 several annexures
have been enclosed.
17.
With strong denial of the allegations leveled in the claim statement, Opposite party no. 2 has filed written
statement M-15, wherein certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of industrial dispute have also been
raised. Opposite party no. 2 has asserted that no dispute was ever raised and espoused by the applicant union at any
point of time, the matter has wrongly been referred to this Tribunal. It has been emphasized that the matter of transfer
of ownership of the unit to M/s Anant Raj Clay Project can not be treated as industrial dispute within the meaning of
I.D. Act., so the reference is bad in the eyes of law, moreover, the issue of ownership does not find place in 2nd and 3rd
schedule of the I.D. Act.
18.
Opposite party no. 2 has further stated that unit no. 2 has never terminated the services of members of the
applicant union w.e.f. 11.5.1994, there is no pleadings or cogent evidence; moreover option was given to the workmen
to continue with the employment of new undertaking or to receive the retrenchment compensation in accordance with
law. It has been alleged that the Central Government has acted in arbitrary, illegal and whimsical manner, dispute no.
2 does not come under the purview of the I.D. Act, Hon’ble High Court in its judgment has only observed that the
question of transfer of undertaking should have been raised before appropriate forum and not before the industrial
court. The government did not appreciate that the dispute has been referred regarding time barred claim of more than
18 years as the industrial dispute. Provision of Section 10 of the I.D. Act., or section 4K of the UP I.D. Act do not
apply, reference order is allegedly bad under the provisions of Section 25 FF of the I.D. Act and without appreciating
the material available on record, the referring Authority/Central Government has passed a stereotyped order in a
1348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mechanical manner under the garb of the order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in writ
petition no. C 23390/2010.
19.
Opposite party no. 2 has asserted that there is no question of respective engagement of the employees in the unit
of opposite party no. 1 w.e.f. 11.5.1994 since their services have admittedly been terminated, moreover no opportunity
was given to opposite party no. 2 before conciliation officer to place relevant material. Opposite part no. 2 has
mentioned the fact of award dated 15.10.97 given by Industrial Tribunal-IV, Agra.
20.
Opposite party no. 2 has stressed that it has purchased ownership from OP NO. 1 w.e.f. 11.5.1994 on the basis of
MOU dated 3.1.1994 and it was ensured to protect the existing as well as past terms and conditions of the employees
working under opposite party no. 1. Prior to execution of the sale deed, letter was circulated by opposite party no. 1 to
all the workmen to transfer their services to the buyer and it was also offered that they can also opt for retrenchment
compensation as per the provisions of I.D. Act., opposite party no. 2 has stated that as per information, 8 workmen had
opted for retrenchment compensation in lieu of the services being transferred to the new employer/opposite party no. 2
which was earlier named as M/s Anant Raj Clay Products Ltd., and new owner as M/s Anant Raj Industries Ltd.,
further opposite party no. 2 has also informed all the workmen to join duty w.e.f. 11.5.94 and matter was also brought
to the notice of DLC, Agra, Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Asstt. Director of Factories, Aligarh also regarding
transfer of ownership of the Unit of Opposite Party No. 1.
21.
Opposite Party no. 2 has further asserted that the workmen and the union continued with anti industrial activity,
Opposite Party no. 2 informed the District Authorities through letter dated 25.4.04 and Labour Authorities as well.
Request was made to the workmen to join the duties, 2 of the workmen of Opposite Party no. 1 approached the Hon’ble
High Court, Allahabad challenging the MOU and also to quash the letter dated 15.2.1994 but the petition was
dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 18.7.1994 and then a SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the said SLP was later on withdrawn by the workmen. The DLC, Agra allowed the applications and passed recovery
orders which was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and the matter was remanded back for fresh order. Order passed
by the DLC, Agra was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court through WP no. 23448/1996, writ petition filed by
Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court on 19.11.1996, review petition was also dismissed.
On the application of the trade union several disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Agra under Section 4K
of the UP I.D. Act. In case no. 29/97 the union has filed an affidavit that they do not want to pursue the reference as a
Writ petition is pending in the Hon’ble High Court and consequent to which Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal
passed the award on 15.10.1997? It was not challenged before any forum and the aforesaid award has attained finality.
The matter was also raised before ALC ( C ) through an application dt. 1.11.2007.
22.
Opposite Party no. 2 has stated that neither the workmen nor the applicant union has ever challenged the lock out
before any forum and the only challenge was transfer of ownership of the unit and non payment of wages, although the
option was given by opposite party no. 2 to the then employees to continue with the new employer but instead of
receiving compensation they violated industrial peace and indulged themselves in illegal activities. Certain allegations
have further been leveled by opposite Party no. 2 in para 34 to 51 of the written statement. Opposite Party no. 2 has
emphasized that the judgments referred by the union are not applicable on the present case, certain matters in the claim
statement did not relate to opposite Party No. 1; and the legality and justifiability of MOU dated 3.1.1994 cannot be an
issue to be adjudicated upon by this Tribunal and it is beyond the scope of reference as well. Opposite Party no. 2 with
the aforesaid pleadings has prayed that applicant union is not entitled to any relief against Opposite Party no. 2 and the
reference is liable to be decided negatively.
23.
Thereafter rejoinder W-17 was filed along with annexures by the applicant union, with strong denial of the facts
mentioned in the written statement, while reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement of the applicant. Applicant
union has specifically asserted that illegal lock out is still enforced and has not been abolished, and the direction given
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding.
24.
Certain documents have been filed by the management as per list M-22 which has been perused by the other
parties also. Further as per list W-26 the workmen have filed certain documents alongwith the copy of the petition and
orders of the Hon’ble High Court. Both the parties have perused documents available on record. Copy of the award
delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Agra has also been filed with M-29 by the management.
25.
The workmen have adduced affidavit of Sri Shiv Kumar Dwivedi in the evidence. He has been thoroughly cross
examined on behalf of both the opposite parties.
26.
The management has filed affidavit M-37 of Sri G.N. Mattu. He has been comprehensively cross examined by
the workmen.
27.
Opposite Party no. 2 filed affidavit of Sri Anil Mahendra as M2-41 consisting of a chart and other facts in support
of the written statement filed earlier. He has been cross examined at length on behalf of the workmen Opposite Party
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1349
no. 1 as well. Thereafter certain documents pertaining to CMWP etc. have been filed by the workmen before this
Tribunal.
28.
Arguments of Learned AR for the workmen and Learned ARs for both the opposite parties have been heard at
length. Record available before this Tribunal has been scanned thoroughly.
29.
Learned AR for the workman union has relied upon the following prouncements of Hon’ble Courts;
1.
1998 Vol. 80 FLR Page 681(SC) Municipal Committee.
2.
2006 Vol. III C.L.R Page 659(S.C.) Steel Authority of India.
3.
1981 Vol. 43 FLR Page 258(SC) Fire Stone Tyre
4.
2007 LLR Page 183(SC)Bhogpur Coorperative.
5.
2015 Vol. 144 FLR Page 830 (SC) Oshiar Pd.
6.
2006 LLR Page 747(SC) State Bank of Bikaner.
7.
2008 Vol. 108 FLR Page 824 (Alld) Engg. Kamgar.
8.
1995 Vol. 71 FLR Page 712(Pat) Badarpur Thermal.
9.
1980 Vol. I LLJ Page 806 (SC) U.P. Electric Supply.
10.
2007 Vol. 112 FLR Page 24 (AP) Mgt. of Divisional
11.
2008 Vol. I LLN Page 1 (SC) B.C.P.P.Mazdoor.
12.
2013 Vol. II C.L.R page 270(Bomp) Air India Aircraft.
13.
2002 Vol. 2 SCC Page 333 (SC) BALCO.
14.
2009 Vol. II CLR Page 261 (Kar) M.Shashi Kumar.
15.
2006 Vol 4 LLN Page 613 I.T.D. C. Case.
16.
1963 Vol. 6 FLR Page 1 (SC) Anakapallo Cooperative.
17.
1993 SCC (L&S) Page 180(SC) National Textile.
18.
1966 Vol. 12 FLR Page 231(S.C) Workn. Of U.P. State.
19.
1980 (40) FLR Page 373(SC) Santosh Gupta
20.
2007 Vol. 114 FLR Page 204 (SC) Hindustan Aeronautics.
21.
1996 Vol. 73 FLR Page 1722 (SC) HAL Employees.
22.
2011 Vol. 131 FLR Page 503(Pun) Punjab Tractors.
23.
1997 LIC Page 263(SC) HMT Ltd.
24.
1998 Vol. 79 FLR Page 107 (Pat) Pradeep Lamps.
25.
2011,Vol. 128,FLR, Page 121(SC) Kuldeep Singh
26.
2001 Vol. 90 FLR Page 754 (SC) Sapan Kumar.
27.
2016 Vol. 148 FLR Page 586 SC) Mgt. of Narendra & Co.
28.
2006 Vol. 110 FLR Page 803(SC) New Regional.
29.
2015 LLR Page 160 (SC) Bhav Nagar Municipal.
30.
Learned AR for the workmen Union has also referred UP Industrial Peace Act.1978 with relevant rules and
circular dated 05.01.1998 allegedly issued by opposite party no. 1 and another letter dated 08.09.1997 issued by Labour
Department (Central Government) pertaining to scope and authority of Appropriate Government.
31.
Learned AR for the opposite party no. 1 has relied on the following prouncement of Hon’ble Courts;
a.
General Manager, ONGC. Shikhar Vs ONGC Contractual Workers Union 2008(118) FLR 942 SC.
1350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
b.
Kuldeep Singh Vs General Manager, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another
(2011) 2, SCC (L&S) 524.
c.
The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow vs B.C. Verma & another 1994 (68) FLR-777
(Alld. High Court).
d.
Priya Laxmi Mills Ltd. Vs Mazdoor Mahajan Mandal Baroda (1977 LLJ(I) (S.C.) 22).
e.
The Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Others Vs G.R. Sapre and others (1981 (Lab.I.C. Page 271)
f.
Nellimarla Jute Mills Karmika Sangham Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1995(Lab.I.C.1041)
g.
Modistone Employees Union Vs Modistone Ltd. & Others (1999 (81)FLR-840)
h.
Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs GKW Ltd., & others (1998)(79)FLR-343)
i.
Northern Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. Vs Workman of Dem Dima Tea Estate (1964(I) LLJ-436).
j.
The Statesman Ltd. Vs Their Workman (AIR-1976SC 758).
k.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs National Union Water Workers and others (2001)7, S.C.C.,1.
l.
Delhi International Air Port Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 133
m.
Virendra Bhandari Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others (2002 (94) FLR-624 (SC)
n.
Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs Janardhan Singh & Others 2002(92) FLR-75 Calcutta High Court.
o.
BCPP Mazdoor Sangh & Another Vs NTPC & Others, Civil Appeal No. 678 of 2006 decided on
Oct.11,2997.
p.
Sunil Kumar Ghosh & Others Vs K. Ram Chandran and others (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 921.
q.
New Horizon Sugar Mills Vs Ariyur Sugar Mills Staff Welfare Union & others (2011)1 SCC (L&S) 708.
r.
Punjab National Bank vs Its workman; Civil Appeal No. 389 and 390 of 1962 decided on Jan.24,1963.
s.
Workmen through Hindustan Lever Sabha Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2008(118)FLR-957).
32.
Learned AR of opposite party no. 2 has emphasized the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in the
following cases:
1.
(1975), 4, SCC Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs R.S. Bhatia Page 696.
2.
(1976), 2, SCC Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union, page 82.
3.
(1975) 4, SCC Bombay Gas Co. Vs Jagnnath Pandurang page 690.
32. Directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts are very relevant and have got binding
effect. However, it is quite pertinent to keep in mind that the principles propounded by Hon’ble Courts, hereinabove,
have to be looked into taking into account the facts and circumstances of the matter in issue.
33.
The petitioner/workman’s union has emphasized on the alleged facts that the lock out notice was prepared
fraudulently in consultation with legal expert, absolutely false facts mothered therein. It has been submitted that lock
out cannot be stretched for indefinite period, no FIR was lodged by the management with the Police Station neither any
compliant was made to the District Magistrate, Mathura nor any information was sent to the Central Government
labour department. Also, before revoking the lock out notice and without making any payment of the dues for the lock
out period, the unit was sold by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2, illegally. It has been emphasized
that execution of sale has been done without any rationality or morality or legal right.
34.
While strongly refuting the allegations, the opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the issue of non re-
engagement of the workmen w.e.f. 11.05.94 is not industrial dispute since the OP No. 1 has terminated their services
w.e.f. 11.05.94 and as such the question of espousing and referring the alleged dispute does not arise and there was no
question of re-engagement by the OP No. 1 as the OP No. 1 was not the employer on 11.05.94 in view of the transfer of
undertaking. Further, the matter in issue cannot be adjudicated at this forum. It has been alleged by the management
that the so called dispute has been sent after 18 years as the matter under dispute pertains to the year 1994. It has been
submitted by the opposite party that due to serious industrial relation problems, low productivity, poor quality of the
product, resulting into frequent suspension of production by BIS, the Unit faced financial loss; and accordingly
decision was by the competent authority to transfer the ownership of the unit to the OP No. 2, with a pre-condition of
transferring the services of all the workers of the Unit on existing terms and conditions maintaining continuity of
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1351
service in accordance with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the memorandum of understanding
was arrived at between the company and OP No. 2 and a letter dated 15.2.94 was issued by the Company to all ex-
workmen of the Company bringing to their knowledge about the proposed transfer. It has been pointed out that
thereafter, upon execution of the transfer deed, the Company wrote to all the workers informing them that a deed has
been executed and their services will be transferred to the OP No. 2 on 11.05.94. The Company also informed the
workmen that if they do not wish to accept the transfer of their services to the OP No. 2, they can opt for retrenchment
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the ID Act; and accordingly, only 8 workmen opted for
retrenchment compensation. It has been submitted that rest of the workmen and union resorted to all illegal activities
and destroyed property of the Company and their agitation turned violent. The workmen filed a writ petition before
Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad praying to quash the letter dated 15.02.94 and to quash the memorandum of
understanding between the company and OP No. 2; however the petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court
vide order dated 18.07.94. The workmen filed a SLP and a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to quash the memorandum of understanding and sale deed with the OP No. 2. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and on request of the Union, allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn.
35.
Sri Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Joint Secretary of the workmen’s union in his cross-examination dated 22.08.2014 has
stated that he has no knowledge about cancellation of sale deed by any lower court. He further stated that the transfer
of the unit has neither been declared illegal nor has been declared legal by any court. He also denied of having any
knowledge of the letter dated 12.04.1994 through which all the employees were informed that the employees who do
not wish to go with OP No. 2 may receive compensation under Section 6(N). The witness also denied of having
written any letter by the union dated 24.02.94 about threatening the management of strike and agitation etc. He also
denied letter dated 01.03.94 (serial No. 30 of M-19). Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi in his further cross-examination has
avoided replying regarding acceptance of option by some employees and for receiving the retrenchment compensation.
36.
Further, the conditions leading to lock out and sale of the unit has been elaborated by the witness of the OP No.1,
Mr. G.M. Mattoo, Sr. Vice President (HR) who stated that the unit was severely affected due to very low productivity,
confrontation and non-co-operation of the of the workmen, high wages and overhead costs, frequent suspension of
manufacturing activity by Bureau of Indian Standards, lack of industrial culture amongst the workmen. He stated that
this situation led to sale of the unit with an option to the workmen either to go with the buyer or to receive retrenchment
compensation as per provisions of ID Act.
37.
Mr. Anil Mahindra, Vice President has appeared as witness on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 who has
thoroughly been cross-examined by the authorized representative of the workmen’s union. He stated that as per terms
for the sale deed the services of 227 workmen were kept continued and they were taken transferred as per conditions
given in memorandum of understanding. He stated that transfer was executed as per terms and conditions given in the
memorandum of understanding. He has shown his ignorance regarding question of jurisdiction of disputes with respect
to the workmen pertaining to transfer of their services. He could not answer as to whether the information regarding
transfer was given to the Labour Commissioner (Central) or not. The witness adduced by the OP No. 2 has admitted
that the interests of the employees of the union were duly protected and no undue practice was ever adopted.
38.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the learned authorized representative of the
parties and respective documentary and oral evidence, adduced by them in support of their stand, it is quite clear that
the OP No. 1 decided to sale the Unit under question due to heavy financial loss and deterioration of quality of
production, leading to suspension of manufacturing by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The workmen’s union has
alleged that the services of the workmen have been retrenched due to lock out declared by the management and
subsequent sale and transfer of property. In this regard, the submissions of the opposite party No. 1 seems justified
that the workmen were given notice prior to transfer of the Union of the decision of sale of the unit to the OP No. 2
with an option either to continue their services with the new employer/OP No. 2 or to receive retrenchment
compensation as per provisions of the Act. In this regard, the OP No. 1 has specifically pleaded and proved through
oral evidence that as many as 8 workmen opted for retrenchment compensation, on the contrary the union’s witness has
shown his ignorance to the fact and tried to evade the question during his cross examination. This goes to show that the
management took adequate steps to safeguard the interests of the workmen while sale of the unit/transfer of the unit to
the OP No. 2.
Further, as per provisions contained in the Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the definition of an
‘industrial dispute’ is as under:
2. (k)
“industrial dispute’ means any dispute or difference between employers and employer, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or
non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;
1352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the instant case the workman has disputed the validity of memorandum of understanding/sale/transfer of the
unit to OP No. 2; but the memorandum of understanding has been executed between OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 and the
workmen’s union is not a party to it, therefore, there is no dispute between the two managements over the validity of
memorandum of understanding; also, the interests of the affected section i.e. the workman, have adequately been
watched by the said memorandum of understanding, therefore, it is not open for the workmen’s union to dispute its
validity; also this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction on the issue as it does not fall within the definition of ‘industrial
dispute’ as provided in Section 2(k) of the Act.
39.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove, I am of
considered opinion that the workmen’s union has failed to establish that there was termination of services of the
workmen under question and that the memorandum of understanding, executed between OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 was
against the interests of the workmen and is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, the reference is adjudicated
against the workman’s union; and as such, I come to the conclusion that the workmen concerned are not entitled to any
relief.
40.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
17th February, 2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 640-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ LVhy
vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26011@35@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.03.2017.
[No. L-26011/35/2015-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 21st February, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 1/2016
(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 Steel Authority of India and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
The President
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
Steel Plant Employee’s Union
CITU and Steel Workers Federation of India
C-27/1, Mohan Nagar
Tamil Nadu
Salem-636030
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1353
AND
The General Manager (P&A)
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Salem Steel Plant
Salem-636013
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
In Person
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Sri Jagdish Prasad, AGM (Law)
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-26011/35/2015-IR (M) dated
14.12.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the Management of SSP, SAIL is justified in unilaterally deciding to conduct secret ballot election
for the Unions functioning in their establishment and the action of the Management is justified in terminating
all privileges and benefits extended to its Unions and its Office Bearers? If so, to what relief the union is
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 1/2016 and issued notices to both sides.
The petitioner has entered appearance in person and the Respondent through authorized representative and filed Claim
and Counter Statement respectively. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below:
By letter dated 13.07.2015 the Respondent requested the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai to conduct
election through secret ballot to arrive at the recognition of the Union in Salem Steel Plant. The Respondent had
withdrawn the recognition of the Petitioner Union and had terminated all the privileges and benefits extended to the
Petitioner Union and its Office Bearers. An Award may be passed restoring the recognition status of the Petitioner
Union and also restoring all the privileges and benefits that were enjoyed by the Petitioner Union as on 11.07.2015.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The dispute raised by the petitioner is not an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section-2(k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. No Industrial Dispute exists between the Petitioner Union and the Respondent. Recognition of
a Union falls within the purview of the employer under the Code of Discipline. The Code of Discipline lays down
certain criteria for recognition of the Union by the Management. All the Registered Unions in the Respondent
establishment have given their written consent for holding election through secret ballot system, in the meeting held on
10.08.2015. The decision to conduct election through secret ballot has been taken for maintaining industrial peace and
harmony. Two Unions were recognized by the Management in the year 1981 and 1990 respectively. Thereafter there
was no verification of the membership of the Unions. The procedure for giving recognition to the Union after election
is just and fair. Secret Ballot System is more scientific when compared to other system of election. It is open to all the
Unions including the Petitioner Union to prove their majority by facing the election. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
5.
In the rejoinder filed the petitioner has denied the allegations in the Counter Statement and has reiterated its case
in the Claim Statement.
6.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to
Ext.W12 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.
7.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the Respondent is justified in deciding to conduct election by secret ballot for the Unions
functioning in the establishment?
(ii)
Whether the Respondent is justified in terminating the privileges and benefits extended to the
Union and its Office Bearers?
(iii) What, if any are the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled?
1354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Points
8.
The petitioner is a Union recognized by the Respondent in its establishment. As seen from the Claim Statement
the Respondent addressed the Asstt Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai to conduct election through secret ballot
among its workmen for the purpose of recognition of Union. Consequently the Respondent has withdrawn all the
privileges and benefits that were so far extended to the Petitioner Union and its Office Bearers as well. This action of
the Respondent is challenged by the Petitioner Union. The Respondent, apart from contending that the decision to
conduct election by secret ballot is in accordance with the law has also stated that the dispute is not maintainable before
this Tribunal as it did not come under Section-2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
9.
WW1, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union has given affidavit in support of the case. Though the Claim
Statement itself is a very short one without giving the details, the Proof Affidavit is an elaborate one. It is seen
from the Affidavit that the Petitioner Union has been functioning as a recognized union in the Respondent
establishment for more than 20 years. It is claimed in the affidavit that the Petitioner has entered into several
settlements with the Respondent in its capacity as the recognized union. According to WW1, the Management has
decided to conduct election through secret ballot on the ground that the Petitioner Union was not duly elected by the
workmen of the Respondent. According to the Petitioner the decision for election by secret ballot was taken because of
the strike notice issued by the Petitioner Union on 11.07.2015. It is further stated by the witness that the Management
has withdrawn the facilities like telephone and also denied special casual leave that was so far given to attend
conciliation meetings and has also refused to sanction tour to attend All India Federation of Steel Workers.
10.
MW1, the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) of the Respondent has given evidence in support of the
Respondent. According to MW1, the Petitioner Union was recognized in the year 1990. No verification was done
thereafter. The decision of the Management to conduct election through Secret Ballot System is with the intention to
maintain industrial peace and harmony and also in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India. It is
further stated that all the registered Trade Unions of the establishment have given their consent for holding election
through Secret Ballot System.
11.
On consideration of the facts and evidence it is seen that there is no reason for the petitioner to challenge the
decision of the Respondent to conduct election by secret ballot. It could be seen from Ext.M5-the Minutes of the
Meeting held on 10.08.2015 that consent was given by the Unions to hold election by secret ballot system. This
contains the name and signature of WW1 also. Ext.M5 is of course subsequent to the letter of the Respondent to the
Asstt. Labour commissioner (Central) asking to conduct the election. However, having consented for the election
grievance for the petitioner on this count does not exist anymore.
12.
Even otherwise there was no reason for the petitioner for grievance. The recognition of the Petitioner union was
done 20 years ago. The Union has been enjoying all the benefits and powers of a recognized Union. It is high time that
the petitioner holds membership of a majority number of workmen in the Respondent establishment. Election by secret
ballot system is the mode of election recognized by the Supreme Court. Such a system gives more credence to the
election. So there is no scope for the Petitioner to raise a dispute on account of this.
13.
The next grievance of the petitioner is that all the benefits that were enjoyed by the Union as a recognized union
were withdrawn by the Respondent after it decided to conduct election for recognition of Unions. The case that is set
up by the Respondent is that it was on account of austerity measures such a decision has been taken. The recognized
unions seems to have been provided with telephone facility and also Special Casual Leave for attending conciliation
meetings and also other meetings. All these were taken away by the Respondent. This was done unilaterally by the
Respondent without any notice. Though it is stated that the recognition of the Petitioner Union is withdrawn consequent
to the decision to conduct election even thereafter the Petitioner was invited for meetings. It was only fair that facilities
that were enjoyed by the Petitioner Union were retained till election is conducted and the name of the new recognized
union are is declared.
In view of the above discussion an Award is passed as below:
The Respondent shall continue to provide the facilities that were enjoyed by the Petitioner Union till
election is conducted and the name of the new recognized union is declared. The reference is answered
accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court
on this day the 21st February, 2017)
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1355
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union
:
WW1, Sri K.P. Suresh Kumar
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri M. Subbu Rao
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
15.04.2007
Bilateral Agreement on Performance Incentive Scheme
Ext.W2
04.04.2015
Represented various issues of workmen before the Chairman, SAIL
Ext.W3
08.07.2015
Circular issued by the management of SAIL, Salem Steel Plant on Reconstitution
of Board of Trustees of Salem Steel Provident Trust as per the EPF Scheme, 1952
Ext.W4
11.07.2015
Strike Notice and statement of the case by our Union
Ext.W5
13.07.2015
Communication to our Union by the management of SAIL, Salem Steel Plant to
attend SA-8000 Workers Representatives Meeting
Ext.W6
13.07.2015
Management of SAIL, Salem Steel Plant requested the ALC (C) to ascertain
recognition of Union through secret ballot
Ext.W7
14.07.2015
Management of SAIL, Salem Steel Plant requested the ALC (C) to ascertain
recognition of union through secret ballot and intimating the formation of ad-hoc
committee of workmen
Ext.W8
20.07.2015
Conciliation notice by the RLC (C) against strike notice and advice the
management and union to restrain from their stand
Ext.W9
31.07.2015
Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai Communication for joint discussion
on strike notice and advice the management and union to restrain from their stand
Ext.W10
03.09.2015
Management reply stating that there is no change in status with respect to Union
Ext.W11
14.09.2015
Proceedings of conciliation and advice of the RLC (C) to advising the management
to restore all the facilities and privileges to the Union prior to the strike notice dated
11.07.2015
Ext.W12
15.09.2015
Letter by the GM (P&A), Management of SAIL, Salem Steel Plant to Dy. CLC,
Chennai
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
01.06.1958
Code of Discipline issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government
of India, New Delhi
Ext.M2
13.10.1981
Letter of DCPM to the Secretary of the SSNEU regarding recognition the Union in
the SSP/SAIL
08.07.1986
Joint Commissioner Labour letter to the management, SSP/SAIL regarding
recognition to the petitioner’s union in the SSP
16.02.1990
Letter of the management to the petitioner union regarding recognition in the SSP
Ext.M3
15.07.2015
Representation of the Petitioner Union to the GM (P&A) SSP/SAIL
17.08.2015
Notice of the ALC (C) Chennai to the GM (P&A) seeking comments of the
Management on the representation of the petitioner
24.08.2015
Complaint of the petitioner union before RLC (C) Chennai regarding unfair labour
practice of the management
1356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.M4
16.07.2015
Letter written by the management to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
New Delhi requesting to conduct election through secret ballot system
Ext.M5
10.08.2015
Consent given by all the Unions operating in the SSP/SAIL to the DCL (C), New
Delhi to hold a election through secret ballot system
Ext.M6
13.08.2015
DCL (C) Chennai letter to GM (P&A) for conducting Secret Ballot Election in the
Salem Steel Plant and seeking details information on Trade Unions in SSP/SAIL
03.09.2015
DCL (C), Chennai letter to all the Trade Union operating in SSP/SAIL a copy of
which is forwarded to ED, SSP for conducting Secret Ballot Election in the Salem
Steel Plant and seeking appointment of Returning Officer
14.10.2015
DCL (C) Chennai letter to CLC (C) New Delhi for conducting Secret Ballot
Election in the Salem Steel Plant and seeking appointment of Returning Officer
Ext.M7
14.08.2015
Management letter to all the unions including Secretary of the Petitioner’s Union
seeking details information about the Unions
Ext.M8
22.08.2015
Information regarding registration of the Trade Union in Salem Steel Plant to
DCLC (C) Chennai by the GM (P&A) SSP/SAIL
24.08.2015
Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Registry Authority) Salem letter to the Asstt.
General Manager (Personnel) SSP/SAIL regarding status of operating unions in
SSP/SAIL
Ext.M9
-
Information to the DCLC (Chennai) by GM (P&A) regarding status of the cases
pending in the High Court, Madras w.r.t. recognition of Unions in SSP/SAIL
Ext.M10
-
GM (P&A) consent letter to the CLC (C) New Delhi regarding conducting election
through Secret Ballot System
Ext.M11
09.04.2007
SAIL Corporate Office’s guidelines on Incentive Scheme
Ext.M12
08.11.2014
Request letter of Salem Urukkalai Thozhilar Munnetra Sangam to the Director
(Personnel) SAIL Co. Office for conducting Election through Secret Ballot System
29.04.2015
Request letter to Salem Urukkalai Thozhilar Munnetra Sangam to the Chairman
SAIL for conducting Election through Secret Ballot System
Ext.M13
08.02.2015
Attendance Sheet of the Apex Committee Meeting on Production/Productivity.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 641-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@26@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23.02.2017.
[No. L-17012/26/2012-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1357
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 13th February, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 3/2012
I Party
II Party
Sh. M.D. Seshadri,
1. The Chaiman, LIC of India, Central Office, “Yogakshema”,
No.6, Guru Krupa, III Cross,
P.B.No. 19953, Jeevan Bheema Marg, MUMBAI-400 021.
Devappa Garden, RMV II Stage,
2. The Disciplinary Authority/ The Sr. Divisional Manager,
Bangalore – 560094
LIC of India, Division II, Indiranagar, 2nd Stage, B’lore-38.
3. The Appellate Authority/ The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India, South Central Zone, Saifabad,
HYDERABAD.-500 063
CR No. 21/2013
I Party
II Party
Sh. M.D. Seshadri,
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
No.6, Guru Krupa, III Cross,
LIC of India, Division II,
Devappa Garden, RMV II Stage,
Indiranagar, 2nd Stage,
Bangalore – 560094
Bangalore.-560038.
COMMON AWARD
1.
ID No. 3/2012 :- The 1st party (Sh. M.D Seshadri) has filed ID No. 3/2012 by stating that he has worked as a
Development Officer in LIC of India, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore, since 1993. Further, the 1st party has prayed
to set aside/quash the orders of Removal of party No.1, by Party No.2(a) and also, to reinstate the 1st party with all
consequential benefits. However, in the statement of objection filed by the management, the preliminary objection,
regarding jurisdiction has been raised and also it is mentioned, that the 1st party is not a workman under the provision
of ID Act and hence, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try the matter.
2.
CR No. 21/2013 :- The Central Government vide Order No.L-17012/26/2012-IR(M) dated 02.05.2013 in exercise
of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Bangalore in imposing the penalty of removal
from service with penalty of Rs. 20,000 and 10,000 on Shri M.D. Seshadri, Development Officer w.e.f.
26/06/2010 is justified and legal? To what relief the said workman is entitled to ?”
3.
Further in the affidavit dated 17.08.2013 filed in CR 21/2013, the 1st party/Sh. Seshadri has categorically stated
that the matter pertaining to above mentioned CR No.21/2013 is one and the same as that of the ID No.03/2012 and
also requested to take the ID No.03/2012 with CR No.21/2013, jointly, in the interest of the justice and equity. Further
a memo dated 05.07.2013 has been filed in the CR No.21/2013 by the 1st party to treat the claim statement filed by the
1st party in ID No.03/2012 as part and parcel of CR No. 21/2013 to avoid the repetition in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the present common award is passed in the above mentioned matters.
4.
Further in the claim statement filed in the ID No.03/2013 at page 1, it is as stated as follows with regard to
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, “The party no.1 is residing at Bangalore in the place where he worked as development
officer of LIC and he has filed the case to quash/set aside the order of removal of service issued by the opposite party
and the claim statement is within the Jurisdiction of this Tribunal.” However, in the statement of objection filed by the
2nd party management to the claim statement filed by the 1st party, it is specifically stated in para No’s 2 and 3 as
follows:- “2nd party wishes to raise the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, which may be tried as preliminary
issue, since the same goes to the root of the matter, and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try the matter. 1st party is not
a workman under the provisions of ID Act. On this score also, claim is liable to be rejected.”
5.
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with
regard to the above mentioned matters as follows:- “Whether the 1st party, development officer of LIC of India is not a
1358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and consequently, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try the
above said matters?”
6.
Point :- On the said preliminary issue both parties have been allowed to extensively argue and also, to make their
submissions with the relevant citations. In the claim statement, the 1st party has categorically admitted that he has
worked as Development Officer of LIC of India, Kormanagala Branch, Bangalore since 1993 and he has developed
hundreds of Agents and he has got ample experience of 15 years in LIC and also the 1st party has worked as No.1
Development Officer in Koramangala Branch, Bangalore earning more than 18 lakhs income in the Assessment Year
2008-2009. Further, the 1st party has requested to set aside the orders of Removal from service passed by the 2nd party
and also requested to direct the 2nd party to reinstate party No.1, with full back wages and cost. However, in the
statement of objection, the 2nd party has categorically stated that the 1st party is not a workman under ID Act and hence,
this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to try the present matter. In the affidavit on the preliminary issue dated 06.06.2014,
also, the 1st party has admitted that he has served as Development Officer, LIC of India, since 1993 and during his
career as a development officer, he has developed hundreds of agents. Hence, it is crystal clear, that the 1st party/
Sh. Seshadri has served LIC as Development Officer from 1993, for more than 15 years.
7.
Further, In the judgment filed on behalf of 2nd party, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India , Civil Appellate
Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No’s. 5690-5691 of 2010 dated 11th March 2015, by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dipak Misra. J and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Prafulla C. Pant, it is clearly held as follows:- “In these appeals, the seminal question that
emerges for consideration is whether the High Court of Allahabad in Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.21164 of 1998
has justifiably overturned the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Kanpur
(for short, the Tribunal) on the singular foundation that the aggrieved persons, at whose instance a reference was made
under Sections 10(1) and 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was not adjudicable by the
Tribunal, for the aggrieved persons were working as Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)
and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the lis in question.” Further, it is also specifically held
at para 16 of page 15 as follows:- “As we find, the said judgment has been rendered in ignorance of the ratio laid
down by the Constitution Bench in H.R. Adhyanthya(1995) 5 SCC 737 and also principle stated by the three-judge
Bench in Mukesh K. Tripathi (2004)8 SCC 387, that the decision in S.K. Verma (1983) 4 SCC 214 is not a precedent,
and hence, we are compelled to hold that the pronouncement in R. Suresh(2008) 11 SCC 319 is per incuriam. We say
so on the basis of the decisions rendered in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602, Punjab Land Development
& Reclamation Corpn. Ltd Vs. Labour court (1990) 3 SCC 682, State of U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd
(1991)4 SCC 139 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2001)1 SCC 694. Para 17, in view of
the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold that the Development Officers working in the LIC are not the Workmen
under Section 2(s) of the Act and accordingly we do not find any flaw in the judgment rendered by the High Court.” In
the present matter also, it is absolutely clear that the 1st party, who has already served for more than 15 years as
Development Officer in the LIC is not a workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act and consequently, the present Tribunal
lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised by the 1st party. Further, it is found that the above mentioned
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the present case and the 1st party is unable to
disprove the same, though sufficient and adequate opportunities have been granted to the 1st party about the said
judgement, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the light of the above mentioned Hon’ble judgement of Supreme
Court, the judgements submitted on behalf of the 1st party are not helpful to the case of the 1st party. Further, this
Tribunal is not expressing any opinion on the various other issues raised by both the parties. In the written arguments
of the 1st party on preliminary issues filed by the 1st party, namely the above mentioned judgements of Sh. S.K. Verma,
and also Suresh case have been relied upon. However, in the above mentioned Civil appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has categorically held that the said Sh. S.K. Verma judgement is not a precedent and the said Sh. R. Suresh
judgement in per incuriam. Accordingly, it is seen that both the judgements relied upon by the 1st party has been
suitably answered by the above mentioned Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Said Civil Appeal itself. Further in the light
of the above mentioned judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No.s.5690-5691 of 2010,in the case
of Chauharya Trupathi and others Vs. LIC of India & others case, the other submissions and citations filed on behalf of
the 1st party are not applicable to the peculiar facts and special circumstances of the present matters.
8.
On a totality of the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the firm and clear opinion that, the present
Tribunal clearly lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature. Further, it is open to the 1st party to
urge all the contentions before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/ Court and also keeping
open the same, the present matters have to be disposed off on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone.
9.
Further this Tribunal is of the opinion that the 1st party will not fit in with the definition of workman as defined
under Section 2(s) of the ID Act so as to attract other positions of the said Act and accordingly, the dispute raised by
the 1st party, in respect of removal from service as Development Officer of LIC, cannot be an Industrial dispute as
defined under Section 2(k) ID act of 1947, giving raise to jurisdiction of this Tribunal for adjudication. Further, the
dispute raised by the 1st party in respect of his removal from the service of Development Officer LIC is not an
Industrial Dispute as defined under Sec 2(k) of ID Act, as such this court has no jurisdiction of adjudicate upon such
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1359
dispute. Further, the 1st party citations have been specifically answered by the above mentioned Hon’ble Supreme
Court judgment dated 11.03.2015 by the concrete observation that the decision in S K Sharma (1983) 4 SCC 214 is not
a precedent and hence the Hon’ble Supreme court has been compelled to hold that the pronouncement in R. Suresh
(2008)11 SCC 319 is per incuriam. Hence, it is seen that the citations relied on by the 1st party have been sufficiently
answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, in the judgement relied on, by the 1st party, in the case of Dashrath Rup
Singh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009) the Hon’bleSupremeCourt has observed as
follows only:
“The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and on the same cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the
Court to try the case will be determined by reference to place, where the cheque is dishonoured.” However, in
the light of the above mentioned judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.03.2015, the above
mentioned judgement is also not helpful to the case of the 1st party. Further, based upon the above mentioned
Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 11.03.2015 and also taking into consideration the points and principles
laid down by the Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal has no other alternative,except to follow
the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.03.2015. wherein, it is held that this Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the grievances of the 1st party, namely, Development Officer of the LIC and therefore, the
1st party cannot seek the protections and also reliefs, under the provisions of ID Act. At the same time, this
Tribunal is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both sides, as this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the present matter of this nature and also liberty is granted to the 1st party to raise the dispute before the
proper competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
present Award passed by this Tribunal in the best interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and the matters have to
be disposed of. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence the following Award is passed:-
AWARD
This Tribunal under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes
raised by the 1st party, namely, Development Officer of LIC of India, particularly, in the light of the judgement
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5690-5691 of 2010 dated 11th march 2015 by Hon’ble
Justice Sh Dipak Misra. J and Mr. Justice. Prafulla C. Pant, and the present matters suffer for want of
jurisdiction before this Tribunal and liberty is given to the 1st party to raise the dispute before the proper,
competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
present Award, by adopting the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good
conscience and fair play and this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues
raised by both the parties, as the present matters have been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction
point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 13th February, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 642-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-th-
lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 729@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@69@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 729/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30011/69/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
1360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 14th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 729/2004
1. The Group General Manager (Projects),
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2. M/s Globe Detective Services,
0-3-4, 1st Floor, Golden Trade Centre,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat) – 393002
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
ONG Mazdoor Sangh
C/o
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
Nr. Asian Paint Chokdi, GIDC,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu Associates
For the Second Party
:
Shri Amrish Patel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/69/2001-
IR(M) dated 04.07.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to absorb/regularize the services of Shri Gordhan S. Machi and 7 others as
permanent and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar from the date of their entry in the services as
contractual workman and all other benefits as enjoyed as the regular employees of ONGC Ltd., is legal, proper
and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date and what other
directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 04.07.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 on 14.02.2002.
The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 14 on 03.05.2002. Later the reference was transferred to this tribunal
on 15.01.2008. Though the second party had been absent since long but on 21.06.2016, Four of the workman out of 8
workmen through second party union namely
i.
Raj Yogendrasinh Balvantsinh
ii.
Patel Narsangbhai Bhikhabhai
iii.
Chasatiya Sandipsinh Prabhatsinh
iv.
Vasava Naginbhai Parsottambhai
Moved an application Ex. 50 annexed with 51 for withdrawal of the reference and to delete their names from the
reference. The said application was allowed and the names of the aforesaid workmen were deleted from the reference.
The references as regards remaining workmen was listed for 30.08.2016 but despite giving number of dates, the second
party union or remaining workmen failed to lead their evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not willing to
prosecute the case.
2.
It is noteworthy that the matter relates to the outsourcing of the workmen by the first party employer ONGC
through a contractor.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1361
3.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the remaining second party workmen
with the observation as under: “the demand of the union to absorb/regularize the services of Shri Gordhan S. Machi and
3 others as permanent and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar from the date of their entry in the services as
contractual workman and all other benefits as enjoyed as the regular employees of ONGC Ltd., is not legal, proper and
justified.”
4.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 643-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
dk.Myk iksVZ VªLV ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 962@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37012@2@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 962/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-37012/2/1993-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 14th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 962/2004
The Secretary,
Kandla Port Trust,
A.O. Building, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The Deputy Jan Secretary,
Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh,
T.C. X. – S 24, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.N. Gandhi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37012/2/93-
IR(Misc.) dated 01.03.1994 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
1362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri P.V. Parmar,
Khalasi is justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 01.03.1994. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 16.07.1995
in the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 25.02.1997 that too in
Industrial Tribunal Rajkot. Later the reference was transferred to this tribunal on 19.10.2010. Since then the workman
has been absent to lead evidence despite appearance of the first party. On 10.03.2011, both the parties were issued
notices to appear on 19.04.2011. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra of K.V. Gadhia Associates, Solicitor firm on
06.07.2011 but the second party failed to appear since then and also failed to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the
second party has not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri P.V.
Parmar, Khalasi is justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 644-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1306@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@82@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1306/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/82/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1306/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Kagdaila ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1363
V/s
Shri Chandrakant M. Patel,
At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/82/2000-
IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar Construction
in respect of the contractual workman Shri Chandrakant M. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Chandrakant M. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,
prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
Shri Chandrakant M. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 and 6 on
07.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 10.04.2001 in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The
reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the Government of India. Since then the
second party has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011
but since then the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been
willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar
Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Chandrakant M. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the
demand of the workman Shri Chandrakant M. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent
employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged
employment/work through the contract system is not legal and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 645-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1308@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@78@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1308/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/78/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
1364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1308/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Kagdaila ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Kirit D. Patel,
At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/78/2000-
IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar Construction
in respect of the contractual workman Shri Kirit D. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Kirit D. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,
prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
Shri Kirit D. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 and 6 on
07.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 10.04.2001 in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The
reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the Government of India. Since then the
second party has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011
but since then the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been
willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar
Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Kirit D. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand
of the workman Shri Kirit D. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd.
or from the date of notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the
contract system is not legal and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1365
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 646-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1311@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@73@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1311/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/73/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1311/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Kagdaila ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Pravin F. Patel,
At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/73/2000-
IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar Construction
in respect of the contractual workman Shri Pravin F. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Pravin F. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,
1366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
Shri Pravin F. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 and 6 on
07.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 10.04.2001 in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The
reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the Government of India. Since then the
second party has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011
but since then the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been
willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar
Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Pravin F. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand
of the workman Shri Pravin F. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC
Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through
the contract system is not legal and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 647-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1312@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@76@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1312/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/76/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1312/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza,
Kagdaila ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1367
Shri Girish B. Patel,
At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/76/2000-
IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar Construction
in respect of the contractual workman Shri Girish B. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Girish B. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India,
prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
Shri Girish B. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 and 6 on
24.10.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 10.04.2001 in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The
reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the Government of India. Since then the
second party has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011
but since then the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been
willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s Sagar
Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Girish B. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand
of the workman Shri Girish B. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC
Ltd. or from the date of notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through
the contract system is not legal and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 648-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1355@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@19@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1355/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/19/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
1368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1355/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Airon Corporation,
Rajmahal Road, Rhode’s Kancha Corner, Baroda
Surat (Gujarat) – 390001
…First Party
V/s
Shri Himanshu Harvadan Joshi,
At & Post Digas, Taluka Kamraj,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394330
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/19/2001-
IR(M) dated 22.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon Corp. in
terminating the services of Shri Himanshu Harvadan Joshi, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000, is
proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Himanshu Harvadan Joshi in considering him as direct/regular
employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.03.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 21.01.2002
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 02.01.2003 in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The reference
was transferred to this tribunal on 19.10.2010 after its creation by the Government of India. Since then the second party
has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011 but since then
the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to
prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon
Corp. in terminating the services of Shri Himanshu Harvadan Joshi, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000,
is proper and justified and the demand of the workman Shri Himanshu Harvadan Joshi in considering him as
direct/regular employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is not legal, proper and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1369
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 649-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1358@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@24@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1358/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/24/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1358/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s Paradise Refrigeration,
G-5, Orion House, Behind Resham Bhavan, Lal Darwaja,
Surat (Gujarat) - 395003
3.
M/s Airon Corporation,
Rajmahal Road, Rhode’s Kancha Corner, Baroda
Surat (Gujarat) – 390001
…First Party
V/s
Shri Mohammed Hussain Achha,
107, Govalia Falia, Holibangla,
Katargam,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/24/2001-
IR(M) dated 22.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
1370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon Corp. in
terminating the services of Shri Mohammed Hussain Achha, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000, is
proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Mohammed Hussain Achha in considering him as direct/regular
employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.03.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 11.02.2002
in the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The reference was transferred to this tribunal on 19.10.2010 after its creation by the
Government of India.The first party repeatedly sought time to file written statement vide applications Ex. 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 14, 15, 16 and 17 but no written statement was filed. Since then the second party has been absent, therefore, on
21.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011 but since then the second party has been
absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon
Corp. in terminating the services of Shri Mohammed HussainAchha, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000,
is proper and justified and the demand of the workman Shri Mohammed HussainAchha in considering him as
direct/regular employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is not legal, proper and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 650-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1363@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@23@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1363/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/23/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 15th February, 2017
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1371
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1363/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s United Refrigeration,
Bhavani Kunj (Ground Floor), Shahpur Mill Compound,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
3.
M/s Paradise Refrigeration,
G-5, Orion House, Behind Resham Bhavan, Lal Darwaja,
Surat (Gujarat) - 395003
4.
M/s Airon Corporation,
Rajmahal Road, Rhode’s Kancha Corner, Baroda
Surat (Gujarat) – 390001
…First Party
V/s
Shri Ahmed Mahmood Mulla,
8/116, Nagina Street Randergam, Rander,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.B. Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri S.T. Chaudhary
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/23/2001-
IR(M) dated 22.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon Corp. in
terminating the services of Shri Ahmed Mehmood Mulla, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000, is
proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Ahmed Mehmood Mulla in considering him as direct/regular
employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the
matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.03.2001.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 22.01.2002 in
the Industrial Tribunal Surat. The reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the
Government of India. The first party repeatedly sought time to file written statement vide applications Ex. 8, 9, 10, 11,
18 and 19 but no written statement was filed. Since then the second party has been absent, therefore, on 21.12.2010,
notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 04.05.2011 but since then the second party has been absent to lead
evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the
observation as under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat through its contractor M/s Airon
Corp. in terminating the services of Shri Ahmed Mehmood Mulla, Attendent/Operator (A/C Plant) w.e.f. 30.11.2000, is
proper and justified and the demand of the workman Shri Ahmed Mehmood Mulla in considering him as direct/regular
employee of ONGC Ltd., w.e.f. the date of his entry in the services is not legal, proper and justified.”
3.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 651-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
1372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1365@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@26@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1365/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/26/2001-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 14th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1365/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (Projects),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) - 394518
2.
M/s Sagar Construction,
301, Avenue Park, City Light Society, Opp. Agriculture Farm,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395007
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Union, Poobari Naka, Salatwada,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu Associates
For the Second Party
:
Shri Kurup
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/26/2001-
IR(M) dated 22.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to absorb/regularize the services of Shri M.I. Bhatporiya and 15 others as
permanent and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, Surat with time scale of pay of their category of
work equivalent to their similar placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., either from the date of completion of
240 days of continuous employment or from the date of prohibiting the employment by the appropriate
government by declaring the contract as ‘sham contract’ is fair and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.03.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 23.08.2001.
The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 18 on 27.01.2004. Later the reference was transferred to this tribunal
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1373
on 15.01.2008. Though the second party had been absent since long but on 25.07.2016, five of the workmen out of 16
workmen through second party union namely
i.
Hitesh Kanti Patel
ii.
Ashok Rama Patel
iii.
Manish C. Patel
iv.
Arjun Gareja
v.
Sunil L. Patil
Moved an application Ex. 31 for withdrawal of the reference and to delete their names from the reference. The said
application was allowed and the names of the aforesaid workmen were deleted from the reference. The references as
regards remaining workmen was listed for 16.12.2016 but despite giving number of dates, the second party union or
remaining workmen failed to lead their evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not willing to prosecute the
case.
2.
It is noteworthy that the matter relates to the outsourcing of the workmen by the first party employer ONGC
through a contractor.
3.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the remaining second party workmen
with the observation as under: “the demand of the union to absorb/regularize the services of Shri M.I. Bhatporiya and
10 others as permanent and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, Surat with time scale of pay of their
category of work equivalent to their similar placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., either from the date of
completion of 240 days of continuous employment or from the date of prohibiting the employment by the appropriate
government by declaring the contract as ‘sham contract’ is not fair and justified.”
4.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 652-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkbZ-
ch-ih- da- 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;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1405@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@45@2003&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1405/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. IBP Co. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/45/2003-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th February, 2017
1374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1405/2004
M/s IBP Co. Ltd.,
Allahabad Bank Building,
Bombay Samachar Marg,
Mumbai – 400023
…First Party
V/s
Shri Suresh C. Shukla,
A-3, Akhandand Apartments,
Krishnakunj Society,
Street No. 2, Palanpur Patia,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395009
…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-30012/45/2003-
IR(M) dated 11.12.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Suresh C. Shukla for reinstatement in service with 100% back wages
is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date and
what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 11.12.2003. Neither of the parties submitted their pleadings, therefore, on
05.01.2017, fresh notice was issued to both the parties to appear and submit their pleadings on 16.02.2017. Neither of
the parties appeared today on 16.02.2017.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the demand of the workman Shri Suresh
C. Shukla for reinstatement in service with 100% back wages is not legal, proper and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 653-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1417@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@3@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2017
S.O. 653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1417/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
01.03.2017.
[No. L-30012/3/2004-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1375
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 14th February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1417/2004
1.
M/s Guardwell Security Services,
103/113, Omkar Chambers, 1st Floor,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Group General Manager,
ONGC Ltd., WRBC, Makarpura Road,
Head Reg. Off.,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
…First Party
V/s
Shri Sureshbhai Mansinghbhai Parmar,
C-44, Priyadarshini, Opp. Novino Batteries,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu Associates
For the Second Party
:
Advocate J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/3/2004-IR(M)
dated 18.05.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the workman S/Shri Chhatrasingh Shivabhai Parmar and 11 others engaged through
various contractors in the establishment of ONGC Ltd., Baroda for treating them as ‘direct and regular’ employee
of the ONGC Ltd., is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled and from which
date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18.05.2004. The second party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 21.08.2009.
The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 08.01.2016. The reference earlier was pending in Industrial
Tribunal Ahmedabad and it was transferred to this tribunal on 01.11.2010. Both the parties appeared in this tribunal.
Since 30.01.2013, the second party has been failed to lead evidence despite making order to proceed ex-parte against
the first party since then. Thus it appears that the second party are not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
It is noteworthy that the matter relates to the outsourcing of the workmen by the first party employer ONGC
through a contractor.
3.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence and non-prosecution of the case by the
second party workmen with the observation as under: “the demand of the workman S/Shri Chhatrasingh Shivabhai
Parmar and 11 others engaged through various contractors in the establishment of ONGC Ltd., Baroda for treating
them as ‘direct and regular’ employee of the ONGC Ltd., is not legal, proper and justified.”
4.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
1376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 654-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ekfyd]
,e@,l f'ko dqekj mn~;e laj{k.k vkSj gkmldh¯ix Bsdsnkj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 2@97 dk 2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@118@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 2/97 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Proprietor, M/s Shiv Kumar Enterprises Conservancy and Housekeeping Contractor and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 22.02.2017.
[No. L-42012/118/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/97 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1)
M/S. SHIV KUMAR ENTERPRISES (CONTRACTOR)
(2)
BARC
The Proprietor
M/s. Shiv Kumar Enterprises
Conservancy and Housekeeping Contractor
Shivanam Building, Aziz Baug
Mahul Road,
Chembur
Mumbai-400 074
The Deputy Establishment Officer & Principal Employer
BARC, Trombay HRD & SR & W
Central Complex
Mumbai-400 085
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The President
Mumbai Shramik Sangh ‘Sangharsh’
Quary Road
Bhandup (W)
Mumbai-400 078
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
No appearance
FOR THE UNION/WORKMEN
:
No appearance
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1377
Mumbai, dated the 31st January, 2017.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-42012/118/2014-IR (DU),
dated 09.10.2014 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 15 contract workmen for regularization in the service of BARC, Tarapur is legal and
justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?”
List of 15 contract workmen :
1.
Dinkar J. Dhanpal
2.
N.L. Hadal
3.
Rakesh H. Sankhe
4.
Pramila P. Dumada
5.
Hiroo V. Baldha
6.
Ashish P. Dumada
7.
Sandip M. Kamdi
8.
Subash J. Jimbhal
9.
Kamli L. Ambath
10.
Sona N. Hadal
11.
Kamal S. Dumada
12.
Manok K. Patil
13.
Sunil A. Medha
14.
Shailesh R. Ambath
15.
Suman Shankar Dumada
2.
After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Acknowledgement of notice served on the
second party Union is at Ex-6. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second
party/Union. Second party/Union neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without
Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the
following order:
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Date: 31.01.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 655-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@38 dk 2005) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@127@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
1378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 2/38 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 05.02.2017.
[No. L-40012/127/2004-IR (DU)]
RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/38 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
The General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Goa Telecom District
“Goa Sanchar Bhavan”
EDC Plot No. 3
Patto Plaza, Panaji
Goa 403 001
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Suwas B. Pednekar
House No. 105
Takir Waddo
P.O. Cansaulim
Velsao, Goa
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. R. A. S. Kharangate, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. P. Gaonkar, Representative
Camp: GOA, dated the 27th September, 2016
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L-40012/127/2004-IR (DU) dated
22/12/2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Goa in terminating the services of Shri Suwas B. Pednekar
w.e.f. February 2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2.
Statement of Claim is filed by 2nd party at Ex-6 making out the case that, he worked with 1st party since January,
2002 in their Telephone Exchange at Cansaulin Salcete Goa. He states that, his duty hours were between 9 am to 5 pm
daily and he worked for more than 240 days. He states that his duties were allotted by JTO (Junior Telecom Officer)
and in his absence by SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer). He states that, his salary was paid every month by JTO and in his
absence by SDO. His duty was to attend complaints of customers recorded in the Complaints Book maintained by 1st
party. Besides said work, he was supposed to attend the work of Technicians e.g. Main Distribution Frame (MDF) and
Generator Operation. He states that, since June, 2002 to September, 2003, he was allowed to sign the muster roll
maintained in the Telephone Exchange by Cansaulim Telephone Exchange. He states that, due to change in officers,
new officer did not permit him to report on duty and he was not allowed to sign the muster from October, 2003 to
January, 2004 though he was attending complaints and doing work as usual. He states that, from February, 2004 he
was not allowed to even report on duty. He states that, workman by name Lamani is engaged in his place. It is stated
that, without following due process of law he was terminated. It is stated that, since he completed 240 days he became
permanent employee of 1st party and 1st party cannot terminate him without following due process of law. It is
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1379
submitted that, said act of the 1st party in refusing him to report on duty from October, 2003 be treated as termination
and direct 1st party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service.
3.
This is disputed by 1st party by filing written statement at Ex-8 stating and contending that, the Reference is not
maintainable as there is no employer-employee relationship between the 1st party and the 2nd party. It is stated that, 2nd
party was never appointed by 1st party. It is stated that, no recruitment rules were followed in allowing 2nd party to
work in the establishment of 1st party. Since there is no employee-employer relationships between the parties, question
of termination does not arise. It is stated that, 2nd party worked with 1st party through contractor who might have
terminated the service of 2nd party. Since 2nd party was not appointed by 1st party and since he is contract worker, he
cannot seek any relief against 1st party. It is denied that, he was attending work regularly. It is denied that, he worked
for more than 240 days. It is denied that, he is entitled to reinstatement with benefit of back wages and continuity of
service. It is denied that, 1st party terminated his services. It is stated that, the contractor might have asked the
concerned workman not to report on duty and or that 1st party cannot be held answerable for alleged termination. It is
stated that, since 2nd party was neither appointed nor terminated by the 1st party, the question of seeking any relief
against 1st party does not arise. So it is submitted that, Reference be rejected.
4.
Second party filed rejoinder at Ex-12 simply denying the contentions taken by 1st party in written statement para-
wise and prayed to reinstate him with benefit of back wages and continuity of service.
5.
This Tribunal has passed the Award on 18/11/2009. As per the Award passed by the Tribunal, it has directed to
take second party i.e. Mr. Suwas Pedneakar on his post on which he was working and permit him to work. As per the
Award passed by this Tribunal so far the prayer of the second party for back wages is rejected.
6.
Management BSNL has filed Writ Petition bearing No.16 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Court Bombay and
challenged the said Award passed by this Tribunal. Hon’ble High Court has modified the Award. As per the Order of
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 16 of 2012 the order to the extent of reinstatement is modified and the
Tribunal is directed to fix the compensation to be paid to the respondent in lieu of such reinstatement in the light of the
observations made by the Apex Court after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Both the parties are at liberty to
file additional pleadings in support of such claim for compensation.
7.
In view of that the second party workman has filed Additional Statement of Claim at Ex-53, making out the case
that he was the semiskilled worker employed as “Complaints Attendant” with the establishment of 1st party at
Cansaulim since January 2002 and subsequently the services were terminated. According to him his last drawn salary
was Rs 2000/-. However Department of Labour, State Government of Goa vide notification No. 24/12/2009-Lab dt-
15/12/09 published in Official Gazette, Series I NO. 39 dt 24/12/2009 has revised the rate of minimum wages to be
paid to a semi-skilled workman working in a commercial / industrial establishment and as per the said notification
semiskilled labour working in a commercial or industrial establishment engaged in commercial, manufacturing and
service activities must be paid Rs. 165/- per day, which is the minimum rate of wage prescribed by the State
Government. He was a semiskilled worker and he was paid monthly salary by 1st party. He was a sole earning
member of his family in 2004 and he has lost the Provident Fund and other benefits. He also lost the future earning of
remaining years of service which amounts to Rs 10 lakhs. So according to him compensation can be calculated based
on his back wages, loss of income in future and the expenses he has incurred in conducting this matter. He has prayed
for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs or more.
8.
In view of additional claim of Statement first party by filing written statement has stated that the payment was
made to the contractor who made the payment to party No. 2 workman. Since 1st party during the contract period from
January 2002 to February 2004 had hired the services of party 2 / workman. It is also denied that 2nd party is a semi-
skilled worker. It is denied that the last drawn salary by workman was Rs 2000. It is the denied that the compensation
to be paid to 2nd party / workman is to be calculated based on his back wages, loss of income in future and the expenses
he has incurred in conducting this matter. So it is submitted by the first party that the claim of compensation of Rs 10
lakh or more be rejected.
9.
In view of above pleadings following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the
reasons to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
What is the amount of compensation to be paid to respondent /
2nd party/workman?
Rs. 1,50,000/- to
be paid towards
compensation.
2
What order?
As per order
1380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
ISSUES Nos. 1 & 2:
10.
Both the parties have not led their evidence. Second party workman claims that the compensation has to be
determined based on his back wages, loss of income in future and the expenses he has incurred in conducting this
matter. Ld. Counsel for 2nd party workman submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has not modified the finding of
illegal termination and therefore there is finding of fact that first party has illegally terminated the services of 2nd
party/workman. Submission is to the effect that the purchasing power of rupees has been diminished to a large extent
since 2004 and that apart, the second party workman being the semiskilled workman the amount of compensation in
lieu of reinstatement must be in the light of guidelines given by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jasbir Singh V/s
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another AIR 2009 SC 3004.
11.
Ld. Counsel for second party workman seeks to rely on decision in case of Tapash Kumar Paul V/s BSNL and
Another 2014 STPL (Web) 345 SC to submit that ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with back
wages and therefore while calculating the amount of compensation, it is necessary to consider his back wages, loss of
income in future and the expenses he has incurred in conducting this matter.
12.
In my considered view while calculating the amount of compensation it is necessary to consider the factors, inter-
alia matter and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. So far manner of appointment of
the 2nd party workman is concerned it appears that he was contract worker. He was employed as “Complaints
Attendant” since 2002. His services were terminated w.e.f. February 2004. At the time of termination his salary was
Rs 2000 pay on the basis of one half of back wages of workman for the period from his termination till date of Award
passed by this Tribunal i.e. from February 2004 to November 2009 would be about Rs. 69000/-. Taking into
consideration for salary of workman at the time of passing Award and length of service and nature of employment, the
amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement for the loss of future employment would be Rs. 1 lakh. If that amount
had been paid to workman in 1984, he would have earned Rs 1000/- per year as interest amount during the period of
date of award till today which comes to Rs 7000/ considering all these factors including litigation expenses etc. I find
that workman is entitled to compensation of Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) in lieu of
reinstatement for loss of future employment. In the context Ld. counsel for the Union seeks to rely on the decision in
case of :
(I)
Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. and Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. & Anr.
(II) Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. And Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd & Anr.
13.
Taking into consideration the aspect no post is available to accommodate the workman in the employment, the
amount of compensation is to be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, I find that workman Mr. Suwas
Pednekar is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand rupees only) along with interest at
the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of this Award till payment.
14.
In view of above, I pass following order:
ORDER
1.
Application is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
2.
The first party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to second
party workman Shri Suwas Pednekar in lieu of reinstatement for loss of future employment along with interest @ of
15% p.a. from the date of award till payment.
Date: 27.09.2016
Camp: Goa
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 656-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Hkkjr ljdkj Vdlky] foÙk ea=kky; o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 2] eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@44 dk 2009)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&16011@1@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1381
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 2/44 of 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the General Manager, India Government Mint, Minsitry of Finance and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 05.12.2016.
[No. L-16011/1/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDAR JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/44 of 2009
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
INDIA GOVERNMENT MINT
The General Manager
India Government Mint
Ministry of Finance
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road
Fort
Mumbai-400 023.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri K.M. Kshirsagar & 9 Ors.
C/o. Shri M.S. Bait
2/69, C.N. Dhouse
Mint Colony
Parel
Mumbai- 400 012.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. N.J. Gonsalves, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. A.M. Koyande, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 7th September, 2016.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-16011/1/2009 (IR(DU)), dated
05.05.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the demand of Shri K.M. Kshirsagar, Shri S.P. Deolekar, Shri A.V. Nikam, Shri R.T. Masurkar,
Shri S.Y. Mondakar, Shri H.B. Barot (Deleted vide order on Ex-8) Shri C.N. Dharse, Shri M.S. Bait, Shri H.R.
Mahadik and Shri A.M. Shetye, for payment of gold allowance to them by the management of India
Government Mint, Mumbai, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from
which date?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice the second party
workmen filed their Statement of Claim at Ex-6. According to them they are working in Assay Department. They
have joined at the first party since 1/4/1971, 1/4/1973 19/1/1976, 31/3/1978, 1/12/80, 13/2/1989, 1/12/1984, 1/1/1973,
2/8/1971 and 1/12/1984 respectively as Laboratory Assistants. They are workmen working with the precious metal like
Gold, Silver etc, and doing work of testing, refining, cutting, rolling, weighing, furnacing, numbering, corneting,
parting, washing drying of gold etc since their appointment. India Government Mint has about 24 departments. Assay
department is one of the departments. According to them they are working in Assay department and dealing with the
precious metal viz. Gold, Silver and Platinum. Since the beginning, they are pursuing their grievance with the
Management. But Management did not take up their grievance seriously nor made any recommendations to the Pay
1382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Commission. They sent letter dt 17/10/1985 to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance through their Advocate but no reply
has been given. On 30/01/1990 one of workmen Shri M.S. Bait wrote letter to the then Finance Minster. On the
direction of Finance Minister the Under Secretary, Government of India on 24th July 1992 issued a letter to the
Management and directed them to examine the issue of the workmen. Even thereafter first party management has not
examined the issue nor sent recommendations. On 7/2/2008 the workmen sent letter to first party management calling
upon them to pay gold allowance to the second party workmen but nothing happened. The workmen also wrote letter
to their Union requesting them to take up their issue of Gold Allowance, but they had also not shown any interest in
workmen’s issue. Hence workmen wrote letter dated 8/7/2008 raised demand to the General Manager, India
Government Mint and thereafter raised dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and requested him to
look into their grievance. The management did not consider their demand and hence there could not be any settlement
in the matter. Hence Asst. Labour Commissioner (C) sent failure report to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
of Labour who referred the dispute for adjudication.
3.
According to the workmen they are working with the gold but they are not given gold allowance prior to 1996.
The workmen and staff working in Assay Department were also getting gold allowance but thereafter the same was
discontinued. As such these workmen are discriminated. The workmen concerned also carryout Assay of Gold,
Silver, Platinum samples received from Bullion, Gold Melting and Medal Departments and also from outside parties.
These workmen also carry out Assay and refining of Gold and Silver sent by Police department, customs and other
vigilance authorities all over India. Workmen of maintenance department working in Gold Melting and Medal
Department are also paid Gold Allowance even though they are not physically involved in the work of processing of
Gold. Workmen, supervisors, unskilled, skilled employees of Gold Melting Department and Medal Department are
getting gold allowance. The gold allowance is being paid to those who handle and do various work irrespective of
responsibilities of safe keeping and accurating of samples of the precious metals. The quantity of gold is not criteria for
payment of gold allowance. In the circumstances second party workmen are entitled to gold allowance. They pray
that it may be held that they are entitled to gold allowance w.e.f 17/10/1985 along with arrears with 12% interest
thereon.
4.
First party resisted the Statement of Claim vide their Written Statement at EX-7. According to them Assay
Department where the second party are working is an Officer oriented department, in which qualified officers having
M.Sc. Degree in inorganic chemistry only are appointed in this department. All the skilled work is done by the
Officers themselves with their own hand and the workmen merely help them in carrying out certain simple stage of the
process which involves work of semi skilled and unskilled nature. While carrying out the Assay samples, in all these
techniques the crucial factors like how much sample is to be chosen for analysis, which acid and what strength is to be
used for dissolution, which specific reagent of what strength is to be used for precipitation, which porosity paper or
crucible is to be used for filtration, which temperature is to be used for ignition is decided by the officers only. The
workmen of Assay department are non-tradesman and their entry point is from Assistant Class V from among the
labourers of this Mint, who have studied up to SSC with Science subject. They do not have any proficiency certificate
issued by an Institution (such as a Laboratory technician proficiency certificate issued by any recognized institution)
etc. They are not authorized to carry out any analysis work but only offer manual assistance/ help to the Assayer while
he is carrying out any analysis work. They do the only manual work involved in Assay process which is chalked out/
planned by the Assayer. When the gold refining work is not pertaining to Assay department the question of paying
Gold Allowance does not arise. The said Assay department is a small service department of the Mint doing the
analysis of metal & alloys for the Mint and Public. The day to day work consists of Gold, Silver, coinage alloys and
Pyx coins mainly and analysis of Gold, silver dross, analysis of samples of metals and alloys. No gold refining work is
being carried out in the Assay department. Therefore they are not entitled to gold allowance.
5.
According to them the Gold Allowance is paid to only those workmen who are working in Gold Melting
Department and Bullion department as per Government of India O.M.F. No. 11/2/90-Coin-II dated 24/7/1992 and
F.No. 11/2/98-Coin-II dated 15/12/1999. It is their contention that gold allowance Scheme was also available in Assay
department subject to some minimum number of Gold Assays. As the required minimum number could not be
achieved in the department, the Scheme lapsed. As regard Gold Allowance paid to one of the workmen who were
deputed to the Gold Collection cum Deliver Center, Ahmadabad, is due to the fact that the center was considered as a
single department and hence the allowance was extended to him at par with other employee belonging to Bullion and
Gold Melting Department and not in other department of Mint. The gold allowance is being paid to the goldsmiths
(tradesman) working in the Medal Department due to the fact that they physically handle large quantities of gold on a
daily basis for manufacturing of Gold medals, Gold lockets, Gold coins etc. The gold is paid to those workers who are
actually contributing their services where the gold melting and refining work is carried out. Gold melting and refining
work is not pertaining to the Assay Department. Hence the question of paying Gold Allowance to the Second party
workmen, does not arise. As such second party workmen are not entitled to Gold allowance. The first party prays that
Reference be rejected with cost.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1383
6.
In view of that now following are the issues for my determination. I record my findings there on for the reasons
to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the workmen under Reference are entitled to Gold
Allowance from the management of India Government Mint,
Mumbai?
No.
2.
If yes, from which date?
Does not survive.
3.
What order?
As per order.
REASONS
Issue No.1:
7.
Admittedly concerned workmen are working in Assay Department. So far work assigned to the workers working
in Assay Department is concerned it is as under:
Hammer and Rolling of Sample:
(a) Samples of the gold, silver dross, mint drosses brought through bullion Register are received by Mistry/
Laboratory Assistants.
(b) After the receipt the Mistry- Laboratory Assistants weigh the samples and compare the weight with that of
written in the Register. He notes down the actual weight on the muster papers. Thereafter, he enters in
this register the petitioners of samples and passes it on to the Laboratory Assistants.
(c) The Laboratory Assistant hammers the samples to prepare roll, of such samples, such rolls are prepared
for making it convenient to cut the sample. The Laboratory Assistant has to take utmost care so that it
would not break while making rolls. While hammering if broken; the Laboratory Assistant has to brush
out surrounding area and to find out the broken pieces. After hammering and rolling, the Laboratory
Assistant passes Rolls to the Mistry who verifies the weight.
8.
So far contentions go, it is contention of the first party that in Assay Department all the skilled work is done by
the Officers themselves with their own hand and the workmen merely help them in carrying out certain simple stage of
the process which involves work of semi skilled and unskilled nature. While carrying out the Assay samples, in all
these techniques the crucial factors like how much sample is to be chosen for analysis, which acid and what strength is
to be used for dissolution, which specific reagent of what strength is to be used for precipitation, which porosity paper
or crucible is to be used for filtration, which temperature is to be used for ignition is decided by the officers only. So
far the workmen of Assay department are concerned they are non-tradesman and their entry point is from Assistant
Class V from among the labourers of this Mint, who have studied up to SSC with Science subject. They are not
authorized to carry out any analysis work but only offer manual assistance/ help to the Assayer while he is carrying out
any analysis work. It is made clear that the gold refining work is not pertaining to Assay Department.
9.
In his evidence Mr. Manohar Bait has admitted that they used to work as per the work allotted to them and as per
the direction of the superior. He admits that he has not obtained any additional qualification. He also admits that gold
allowance is also paid to all and as such gold allowance is paid where the work is being done.
10.
In view of that it is to be seen whether concerned workmen are entitled to gold allowance. In the context we
have document to show that Ministry of Finance has sent letter dt 24/12/1998, wherein it is mentioned that there was
distinction in rates of Gold allowance in Gold Refinery Section and the Bullion Department and it is recommended that
the rates may be enhanced to the workmen and supervisors respectively in gold Refining Section and in Bullion
Department. In this letter it is specifically recommended that there is no justification for such allowance in India
Government Mint, Noida where precious metals are neither refined nor handled. So as per the recommendation of the
commission it appears that workers and non gazette supervisory staff in Mints and Security Presses are entitled to night
shift allowance not exceeding Rs. 2200 p.m. and in addition workmen and supervisors in Gold Refining Section of the
Mints are entitled to gold allowance of Rs. 3 per day and Rs. 6 per day respectively whereas those in Bullion
department are paid the allowance at the rate of 1.60 and Rs. 4.8 per day respectively are entitled to gold allowance.
There is no reference of entitlement of gold allowance to the workmen of Assay department.
1384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It appears that the Ministry of finance issued letter to the General Manager in respect of the increase in rates as per
recommendations of Vth pay Commission are in this letter. It is made clear that the rate of gold allowance to workmen
and supervisory staff in gold refining section and in Bullion Department was increased to Rs 5 for workers in gold
refining section and Rs. 10 to supervisory staff in gold refining section. It is enhanced to Rs. 2.50 to workers of the
Bullion department and Rs. 5 to supervisory staff in Bullion department. It appears that previously the workmen in
gold refining section were receiving Rs. 3 per day and supervisory staffs were receiving Rs 6 per day of Gold refining
section. The workmen in Bullion department were getting Rs. 1.60 per day and Supervisory Staff was getting Rs 4 per
day in Bullion Department. From these letters it is made clear that workmen and supervisory staff in Gold Refining
Section and in Bullion Department are being paid the gold allowance.
11. Ld counsel for the concerned workmen submitted that they had made representations and sent letters to Secretary
to the Government of India, making their demand for getting gold allowance to the workers in Assay Department. He
refers to letters Exhibit-18, 20, 21, to submit that they have raised their demand to get the gold allowance but then it
appears that they were informed that they are not entitled to gold allowance. The reasons have been stated by first
party for not paying gold allowance is that the quantity of gold samples sent for assay by the Bullion department is
minuscule. Out of each gold bar weighing 6 kg to 7 kg known as slipper bars, only a portion of that particular bar
weighing 5 gm to 15 gm is drawn as sample and sent to the Assay department for analysis which is done only by the
qualified officers and not by the Laboratory assistants. It is made clear in the said letter dt 9/1/2009 that the quantity of
gold sent as samples and being handled by the workmen in the Assay department is so small that a comparison cannot
be drawn with the quantity being handled by Bullion, gold melting and Metal departments which runs into hundreds
and thousands of kilograms. The fact remains therefore that the claim of workmen for getting gold allowance is all the
while rejected on the ground of nature of their work carried out by them and recommendations made by Commission.
12.
Ld. Counsel for the workmen submitted that earlier the gold allowance was paid to the workers of Assay
Department prior to 1996 but thereafter it was discontinued, though the second party workmen are doing similar nature
of work. It is also contended by them that Assay staff of gold collection cum Delivery Centre at Ahmadabad was paid
Gold Allowance. One of these, workmen was sent to Gold Melting centre at Ahmedabad and was doing similar work.
He was paid gold allowance. He submits that the workmen who are doing recovery of gold from Cynide solution
containing Sulphuric acid and also recovered maximum quantity of gold and therefore considering the nature of work
by the workers in Assay Department they are entitled to gold allowance.
13.
It is not possible to accept this submission because Gold Allowance Scheme which was available in Assay
Department was subject to some minimum number of Gold Assays. As the required minimum number could not be
achieved in the department, the Scheme lapsed. This is also made clear that workman Shri C.N. Dhavse who was
deputed to gold collection section was paid gold allowance due to the fact that the center was considered as a single
department and hence the allowance was paid to him at par with the other employee belonging to Bullion and Gold
Melting Department. So, that cannot be criteria of entitlement of concerned workmen to get the gold allowance
specifically when it is made clear that the gold allowance is being paid only to gold refining section and bullion
department, as per Ex-17 Government of India order and as per the recommendation of Pay Commissions. The
concerned workmen are not required to carry out any analysis work independently but they are required to help the
analyzer in carrying out the analysis work. As such they do manual work involved in assay process which is chalked
out by the analyzer. Considering their quality of nature of work, it appears that the commission has made
recommendations for paying gold allowance only to the workers and supervisory staff of gold refining section and
bullion department. In view of these facts, I find that the concerned workmen are not entitled to Gold Allowance from
the Management of India Government, Mint. Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative.
Issues Nos. 2 and 3:-
14.
In view of finding to Issue No. 1, Issue No. 2 does not survive. I find that the concerned workmen are not
entitled to get Gold Allowance from the management of India Government Mint, Mumbai and therefore the Reference
deserves to be rejected.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 07.09.2016
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 657-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1385
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@215@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 61/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/215/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 61/2016
Shri Dinesh Chander, S/o Shri Rmeshwar Dayal, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/215/2015-IR(DU) dated 06.01.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Dinesh Chander, S/o Shri Rmeshwar Dayal with effect from 28.10.2014 by
the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security
Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as
sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Dinesh Chander, S/o Shri Rmeshwar Dayal? If yes, what
relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Dinesh Chander opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
1386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 658-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@173@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 19/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/173/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 19/2016
Shri Umesh Chander S/o Shri Aidal Singh, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/173/2015-IR(DU) dated 30.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Umesh Chander S/o Shri Aidal Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1387
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Umesh Chander S/o Shri Aidal Singh? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Umesh Chander opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 659-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@182@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 28/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/182/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 28/2016
Shri Prakash Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Vipin Bihari Nayak, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
1388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/182/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Prakash Kumar Nayak S/o Vipin Bihari Nayak with effect from 28.10.2014
by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security
Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as
sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Prakash Kumar Nayak S/o Vipin Bihari Nayak? If yes,
what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Prakash Kumar Nayak opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 20, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 660-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@212@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 58/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/212/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1389
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. 58/2016
Shri Vinod Singh S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Singh, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
3.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
4.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/212/2015-IR(DU) dated 06.01.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Vinod Singh, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Vinod Singh, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Singh? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Vinod Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 22, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 661-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
1390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@183@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 29/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/183/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 29/2016
Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Suresh Chander Sahu, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/183/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Suresh Chander Sahu with effect from
28.10.2014 by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to
Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can
be construed as sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Suresh
Chander Sahu? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1391
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 20, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 662-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkfuns'kd
(oDlZ)] lhihMCY;wMh] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 237@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 237/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Director General (Works), C.P.W.D., New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14.12.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 237/2015
Shri Baldev Singh, S/o Shri Roshan Lal and Shri Roshal Lal,
S/o Shri Dhan Singh, through
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 011
…Workman
Versus
The Director General (Works)
C.P.W.D.,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management in not regularizing the services of the workmen as Motor Lorry
Drivers with effect from 04.04.2003 is legal and fair? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and
from which date?
2.
It is averred in the statement of claim filed on behalf of Shri Baldev Singh and Shri Bal Kishan, hereinafter
referred to as the claimants, that they were initially appointed as Motor Lorry Drivers (in short MLD) on daily wage
basis on 11.02.1988 and 05.10.1989 respectively. Later on, their services were terminated on 30.09.1992 and
1392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30.09.1993 respectively. However, they were reinstated by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court
vide its award dated 22.02.2006. It is further averred that award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was further upheld
by Single Judge as well as Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court , upholding stand of the
workmen that they are not employees of the contractor in the matter of Satpal Singh case. Further, the Courts have
given findings that they were work order employees and are also daily rated workers.
3.
Claimants herein are presently posted under Horticulture Division. M-314 and junior person, Shri Narayan Singh,
who was initially appointed on muster roll with effect from 24.09.1991 was regularized with effect from 02.04.2003.
Daily rated workers with the management have been getting wages in the minimum of pay scale plus all allowances but
the workmen herein were denied the said payment, as a result of which the workmen have filed the application under
Section 33-C(1) of the Act and the said order has been challenged by the management, which is pending before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
4.
It is the case of the workmen that in the establishment of CPWD, daily rated employees are being paid equal pay
for equal work and accordingly the claimants are also entitled for such wages from the management as per office
memorandum dated 21.10.1990 as well as 28.01.1991 as skilled workmen. Office memorandum dated 21.10.1990
reads as under:
‘References have been received from some of the Superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers etc. seeking
clarification regarding method of computing daily rates payable to daily rated workers of CPWD on the
concept of equal pay for equal work. It has been decided that the following formula may be adopted for the
purpose of wlrking out daily rates of wages of daily rated workers of CPWD.
The total monthly emoluments admissible to regular counter parts of daily rated workers at the minimum of
the respective scale of pay may be multiplied by number of days in a particular month after deducting there-
from the days of absence plus the days of rest falling in the week/weeks in which the worker remained absent
and the result may be divided by the number of days in the month. The figure so arrived will be the daily
rate of wages of the worker.
Illustration : Suppose number of days in a month is A, amount of emoluments in a particular month of a
regular counterpart is B, number of days of absence of worker in a month is C and the number of rest days
falling in the week/weeks on which the worker remained absent is D, then the formal for working out daily
rats of wages of a daily rated worker would be as under:
Daily rate of Wages = A – (C + D) x B
Note : If a worker works for all the working days in a month availing the admissible rest days, he is entitled to
full wages admissible at the minimum stage of the respective scale of pay, including DA/HRA/CCA
admissible to his regular counterparts.’
5.
It is further averred that as per settlement arrived at between the management and CPWD Mazdoor Union signed
before the Chief Labour Commissioner on 02.12.2002 is binding on both the parties under Section 18 of the Act and as
per this notification also, workman is entitled for equal wages. Finally, prayer has been made for regularization of
services of both the workmen as MLD with effect from 04.04.2003 alongwith all consequential benefits.
6.
Notice of the petition was already given to the management when matter was received from the Assistant Labour
Commissioner’s office. However, fresh notice was sent to the management. Despite service of notice, management
did not put up appearance. Accordingly, management was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.07.2016.
7.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management, examined Shri Baldev Singh as WW1 and tendered
in evidence their affidavits, Ex. WW1/A and Ex. WW2/A respectively and also relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to
Ex.WW1/4. Shri Bal Kishan examined himself as WW2 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. WW2/A and relied
on documents Ex. `WW2/1 and Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/3. It is clear from pleadings on record that Shri Baldev Singh
was initially appointed as MLD on daily wage basis with effect from 01.12.1988 and his services were later on
terminated on 30.09.1992. Later on, he was reinstated on the basis of award dated 22.02.2006.
8.
During the course of arguments, attention of this Tribunal was invited to office order Ex.WW1/1, which clearly
shows that on the basis of the said office order, services of Shri Vijay Chand was ordered to be regularized ante-date
as he joined management prior to joining of some of his juniors whose services were regularized. This also shows that
date of entry of Shri Vijay Chand on the muster roll is 13.01.1989.
9.
There is also office order Ex.WW1/2, which in fact deals with grant of equal pay for equal work to the daily rated
workers and compilation thereof. It has been clarified in the above office order that total monthly emoluments
admissible to regular counter parts of daily rated workers at the minimum of the respective scale of pay may be
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1393
multiplied by number of days in a particular month after deducting therefrom the days of absence plus the days of rest
falling in the week/weeks in which the worker remained absent and the result may be divided by the number of days in
the month. The figure so arrived will be the daily rate of wages of the worker and in case daily rated workers worked
for all the working days in a month including admissible rest days, he is entitled to full wages admissible at the
minimum stage of the respective scale of pay, including DA/HRA/CCA admissible to his regular counterparts. There
is also a memorandum of understanding Ex.WW1/5, which deals with the settlement vide which demands of the
workmen were considered and allowed. In clause 5 of the above memorandum, it is clearly mentioned that resultant
vacancies of workers working in the establishment of the management be filled up as per rules. Since matter was raised
by the workmen through the union, as is clear from Ex.WW1/6 whereby General Secretary of the Union raised an
industrial dispute regarding grievances of the workmen herein, as such, same was later on referred under section 10 for
adjudication by this Tribunal. Affidavit filed by both the workmen, Ex.WW1/A amd Ex.WW2/A are clearly on similar
lines as the averments made in the statement of claim.
10.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD (ATR 1986 SC 1976)
decided on 17.01.1986, dealt with the question of equal pay for equal work in respect of daily rated workmen
performing same duties which was being performed by their regular counterparts in the department. After discussing
the ambit and scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was held that there should be equal pay for equal work
of equal value. It makes no difference whether such workmen are employed against sanctioned post or not so long as
they are performing the same duties. They must receive same salary and conditions of service must also be the same.
Hon’ble Supreme Court also expressed anguish that most of the workers are kept in service on temporary basis as daily
wage workers without their service being regularized, which is completely against the spirit of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
11.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General Works, CPWD vs Devender Singh considered the
question of regularization as well as payment of equal wages for such daily rated workmen. Writ appeal filed against
judgement dated 18.04.2004 of the Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the management was dismissed and
award passed by Industrial Tribunal No. 2 was upheld. It was also the case of daily rated workers working on muster
roll who were posted in various Divisions of the CPWD. In the said case, there is clear cut mention in para 9 of the
judgment that when services of a junior has been regularized, there is no justification to deny such relief to workman
who was senior to such worker., otherwise it would amount to discrimination, which is not permissible under the law,
as has been held in Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 4 SCC 1).
12.
In the case on hand also it is clear from office order Ex.WW1/1 that Shri Vijay Chand, who was working on
muster roll was regularized ante date 04.04.2003 and he was muster roll on 13.01.1989. In the present case, workman
Shri Baldev Singh was engaged on daily wage basis on 11.02.1988. Since junior to him have already been regularized,
as such, there is no reason or basis to deny regularization to such workmen. Hon’ble High Court in Devender Singh
case(supra) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and
observed as under:
10. In service, there could be only one norm for confirmation or promotion of persons belonging to the same
cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation
from this principle will have the emoralizing effect in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the
Constitution.
13.
There is also judgement dated 04.04.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court which also deals with the same matter,
pertaining to the case of Vijay Chand. In the said judgement also, Tribunal has passed an award in respect of workman
Shri Vijay Chand on the premise that regularization was granted to equally placed other three workmen, and there was
no reason to deny the relief of regularization to Shri Vijay Chand who was similarly placed like the other three
workmen. As such, direction was made for considering the case of the workman for regularization. Thereafter, matter
was again taken by way of SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Union of India vs. Vijay Chand
decided on 07.01.2011. Contention of the management was rejected and order of regularization by the High Court and
that of the Industrial Tribunal was reaffirmed as under:
‘In our view, the direction given by the Tribunal for consideration of the respondent’s case for regularization
of service, as was done in the case of other three similarly situated persons, was legally correct and justified
and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it to be a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the
court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.’
1394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Lastly, reliance was placed on behalf of the workman in the case of Director General: Works, CPWD vs Karam
Singh and others. It was a case where the claimants were also party to the said case. Contention of the management
regarding denial of relief of regularization and equal wages to such workmen who were performing similar kind of
duties like their regular counter parts, was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the calculation of the wages
in terms of office order dated 21.10.1990 applicable for daily rated workers was upheld. It was further held when a
particular award has attained finality, such daily rated workers were direct employee and are entitled for equal wages,
there is no question of entertaining such plea time and again. Workman was held entitled to the recovery of amounts
due under the impugned recovery certificate as ordered by the Tribunal.
15.
It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers
and are working regularly since their initial appointment. When services of juniors to the workmen are regularized,
there is no legal basis or justification in the wake of clear cut pronouncement made by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
as well as Hon’ble Apex Court to deny regularization to the said workmen from the date mentioned in the petition.
16.
This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite
issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained
in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for
not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box. Accordingly, it is held that services of the
workmen, Shri Baldev Singh and Shri Bal Kishan are entitled to be regularized as Motor Lorry Drivers with effect from
04.04.2003, the date when junior to them were regularized, with all consequential benefits. An award is accordingly
passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : December 6, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 663-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@185@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 31/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.01.2017.
[No. L-42011/185/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 31/2016
Shri Prem Singh S/o late Shri Kamal Singh, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1395
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi 110- 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42011/185/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Prem Singh S/o late Shri Kamal Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Prem Singh S/o late Shri Kamal Singh? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Prem Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 20, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 664-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
fnYyh uxj fuxe (mÙkj)] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 224@2015)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@125@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 224/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North), New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 07.12.2016.
[No. L-42011/125/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
1396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 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. 224/2015
The President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),
Room No. 95, Barack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North),
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
Present case was received from. Ministry of Labour and Employment vide order No.L-42011/125/2015-IR(DU)
dated 27.10.2015 under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short the Act) for adjudication of the industrial dispute and the same is as under:
“Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation by not granting promotion to
the position of Garden Choudhary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with effect from
01.06.2002 to Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Lotan is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to and from which date? “
2.
As per averments contained in the statement of claim, Shri Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the claimant)
has been performing duties as acting Choudhary and was also denied promotion on the ground that he is not 10th
Agriculture and details of the workman are as under:
Sl.
No.
Name
Father’s name
Date of regular
mali
Date for working as acting
Chaudhary
Zone
1
Ashok
Kumar
Ram Lotan
02.03.1989
01.06.2002
Karol
Bagh
3.
Initially the workman was working under Karol Bagh Horticulture Zone as acting Chaudhary with effect from
01.06.2002 to May 2009 and thereafter his services were transferred to Civil Lines Zone with effect from 16.06.2009 to
08.01.2013. Now again, he has been transferred back to Karol Bagh Zone with effect from 09.01.2013 and is
continuously working as Garden Chaudhary till date. He was not allowed to participate in the promotion of Garden
Chaudhary as per the stand of the management that he is not 10th Agriculture arbitrarily. In fact, there is no recruitment
rule notified by the Government and the claimant belongs to SC category.
4.
It is also the case of the workman that similarly situated acting chaudharys were allowed pay scale of Chaudhary
from the date when they were performing duties as garden Chaudhary as per directions of the Tribunal in TA
No.1317/2009 titled Sultan Singh & others Vs. MCD . Subsequently, an SLP was filed against the said judgement,
which was also dismissed. Yet in another writ petition titled Sultan Singh Vs. MCD, Division Bench of Hon’ble High
Court dated 15.03.2013 again directed the management comply with order dated 12.11.2010 and relevant part of the
order is reproduced:
‘Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the order dated November 12, 2010 passed by the
Director (Horticulture). We direct the Director (Horticulture) to pass a fresh order after considering the
relevant evidence strictly within the directions issued by the Tribunal in para 5 of the opinion dated January
29, 2010 disposing of TA No.1317/2009.’
5.
It is necessary to mention here that order dated 12.11.2010 issued by the management was quashed by the
Hon’ble High Court on 15.03.2013 in which management has taken stand as under:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1397
‘As per Recruitment Regulations for the post of Garden Chaudhary, the method of recruitment to the said post
is by selection to be made on the basis of a Trade Test. The RRs also envisage minimum educational
qualifications as Matric or High School pass with agriculture as one of the subjects. Garden Chaudhary is a
Grade C post and the Commissioner, MCD is the Appointing Authority for such posts. The applicants would
be considered for promotion as Garden Chaudhary in accordance with Recruitment Regulation.’
6.
After quashing of the order dated 12.11.2010, management again issued another order for payment of wages of
higher post of Garden Chaudhary on 04.06.2013, copy of which is Annexure B, that under recruitment regulation
notified for the post of Chaudhary and the management has unlawfully not allowed the claimant to participate in the
selection/promotion process for the post of Chaudhary.
7.
It is further alleged that MCD General Mazdoor Union vide letter dated 04.05.2010 requested the management
not to alter recruitment rules in violation of provisions of Section 9A of the Act for promotion to the post of Chaudhary
from Mali, hedgemen, machinemen and chowkidar etc. and the workman connected with the dispute cannot be
discriminated on the ground of educational qualification. In many cases this Tribunal has held that recruitment rule for
appointment of Chaudhary are not notified and Hon’ble High Court in a bunch of writ petitions on 26.02.200 held that
50% of promotional posts in which educational qualification are not required. Workman is still performing duty of
Chaudhary in the establishment of the management. In similarly situated case of Shri Jai Chand Vs. MCD work of
Chaudhary was restored and management was directed not to change service conditions without following principles
of natural justice. Now, even junior persons to the claimant have been promoted as Chaudhary with effect from
04.03.201 4 under promotion quota in the pay band Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 Grade pay plus usual allowances without
providing opportunity to participate in promotional quota without imposing educational qualification as 10th
agriculture, which they were not possessing. Finally, prayer has been made to promote the claimant as Garden
Chaudhary under promotional quota with effect from 04.03.2014 and to grant pay scale of Chaudhary from 01.06.2002.
8.
Management did not put in its appearance despite issuance of notice, as a result of which it was proceeded ex-
parte vide order dated 0.04.2016.
9.
Thereafter, claimant in support of his claim, examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as WW2, whose
affidavits are Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 and also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW2/1 and
Ex.WW2/2.
10.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant.
11.
It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the claimant herein was initially employed on muster roll as mali and his
services were regularized as mali on 02.03.1989. Thereafter, he was allotted work as acting Chaudhary with effect
from June 2002. It is further clear from perusal of the list Ex.WW1/1 that name of the claimant appears at Serial No.14
of the list and the said list is issued by the management.
12.
It was strongly contended on behalf of the workman that juniors to the claimant was allowed to participate in the
promotional quote on regular basis but he was denied on the grounds that he was not possessing the requisite
qualification of 10th Agriculture. Learned A/R for the claimant also urged that in Sultan Singh vs. MCD, Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi has already issued clear cut directions that workmen who are officiating as acting Chaudhary are
entitled to be considered for promotional post and they are also entitled to the promotion of the said post. Management
instead of following the dicta laid down in the above judgement, framed recruitment rules for promotion to the post of
Chaudhary. In this regard, attention of the Tribunal was invited to letter Ex.WW2/2, which was submitted to the
Commissioner of MCD. In this letter, union has clearly clarified that recruitment rules shall not be applicable in case
of those departmental candidates who are already holding post of mali, hedgeman machineman and chowkidar on
regular basis. Order issued by the management to the contrary has been alleged to be wrong and illegal and violation of
section 9 of the Act.
13.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Sultan Singh Vs. MCD in WP(C)No.7947/2010 decided on 27.07.2011 werehin similar
question was involved. It was a case where workman was allotted duties of Garden Chaudhary though on substantive
rank of Mali. Workman in the present case were claiming wages of Garden Chaudhary as he was performing duties of
Garden Chaudhary. Industrial Adjudicator held that workman was entitled to salary of Garden Chaudhary and when
the matter was taken to the Hon’ble High Court, it was held as under:
“28.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as
they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they
worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not
competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed
to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents
1398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis
on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no
illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”
14.
Learned A/R for the claimant also urged that this judgement of the Hon’ble High was challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Situation in the case in
hand is in no way different from the above cited case. In above case, workmen were initially appointed as Mali and
later on they were performing duties of Garden Chaudhary or Garden Supervisor. As such it was held that they are
entitled to salary of Garden Chaudhary. There is another authority of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled ‘MCD vs.
Satender Singh, which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 23.03.2012 wherein similar question was involved
and a careful appraisal of the above judgement shows that direct reliance was placed upon judgement in. Sultan Singh
and others (supra) and workman was held entitled to the salary of Garden Chaudhary.
15.
Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher post, on adhoc or temporary post, then such an
employee is entitled to the salary/wages of such higher post unless rules or regulations provide otherwise. I find
support to this view of mine from the case of Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598).
16.
Reliance was also placed upon the case of Brijesh Kumar vs MCD in CWP No.7669 of 2002 decided on
26.02.2004 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the said case also, the undisputed facts wer that workmen who are
working as Chaudhary and as per serial No.7 of the notified Recruitment Regulations, educational qualification has
been mentioned for the direct recruits. Serial No.10 of the recruitment rules in the case of promotion, the candidate is
only required to undergo trade test and it is irrespective of his educational qualification. It was also brought to the
notice of the Hon’ble High Court that the MCD has not effected any direct appointment for the last 20 years whereas
Government of India is repeatedly issuing instructions to MCD that vacancies should be filled up in the year for which
vacancies arise. Even these directions appear to have been thrown to the wind, resulting complete chaos and adhocism.
Finally, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that for the promotion to the post of Chaudhary, workman would be
considered for promotion irrespective of qualification. MCD shall not club vacancies which have accrued year-wise
to fill up the same as single-lot vacancy. It was specifically in the above case that promotion to the post of Chaudhary
would be effected by the MCD amongst eligible malis.
17.
Having regard to the ratio of the law in Sultan Singh (supra ) case, as well as Brijesh Kumar case(supra), there is
hardly any escape from the conclusion that the claimant herein is entitled to be considered for the post of Chaudhary
from promotion quote. Equally forceful is the submission that junior persons cannot be promoted by ignoring the same,
even if they were possessing the same qualification.
18.
In the case of Bal Kishan vs Delhi Administration (1999 LLJ), wherein it was observed as under:
“In service, there could be only one norm for confirmation or promotion of persons belonging to the same
cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation
from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the
Constitution.
11. It is not shown that the seniors were not eligible for confirmation when the appellant was confirmed, Nor it
is shown that the seniors were not suitable for promotion when the appellant was promoted. The appellant
therefore could not complain against the corrective action taken by the respondents.”
19.
As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that the Shri Ashok Kumar, the claimant herein, it is held that the
workman Shri Ashok Kumar was doing the work of Garden Supervisor since 01.06.2002 and from that date he is
entitled to the wages of Garden Chaudhary and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages of
mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties and functions of
Garden Chaudhary and he be promoted as Garden Chaudhary under promotional quote with effect from 04.03.2014,
the date his juniors were promoted in the said category. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : December 1, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1399
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 665-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@211@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 57/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/211/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 57/2016
Shri Prem Chander S/o Shri Gokul Yadav, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No.8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi-110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/211/2015-IR(DU) dated 06.01.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Prem Chander S/o Shri Gokul Yadav with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Prem Chander S/o Shri Gokul Yadav? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Prem Chander opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
1400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 22, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 666-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@210@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 56/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/210/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 56/2016
Shri Hari Singh Mehra S/o Shri Aan Singh Mehra, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi 110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No.8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi 110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/210/2015-IR(DU) dated 06.01.2016, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Hari Singh Mehra, S/o Shri Aan Singh Mehra with effect from 28.10.2014
by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1401
Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as
sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Hari Singh Mehra, S/o Shri Aan Singh Mehra? If yes,
what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Hari Singh Mehra opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 22, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 667-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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] fnYyh la- ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@213@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 59/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/213/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 59/2016
Shri Rishi Pal S/o Shri Banku Ram, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi 110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No. 8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
1402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi 110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/213/2015-IR(DU) dated 31.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Vinod Singh, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Shri Vinod Singh, S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Singh? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
Vide letter No.L-42011/213/2015-IR(DU) dated 28.03.2016, Corrigendum was issued by the appropriate
Government, vide which the schedule of reference was corrected as under:
“Whether the termination of Shri Rishi Pal S/o Shri Banku Ram with effect from 28.10.2014 by the
management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as sham and
bogus as requested by the workman Shri Rishi Pal S/o Shri Banku Ram? If yes, what relief the workman is
entitled to?
3.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Ashok Kumar Bal opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
5.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 25, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 668-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@174@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 20/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/174/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1403
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. 20/2016
Shri Swatanter Veer Singh S/o Shri Nem Singh, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi 110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No.8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi 110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/174/2015-IR(DU) dated 30.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Swatanter Veer Singh S/o Shri Nem Singh with effect from 28.10.2014 by
the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE(Principal Employer) to Sentinels Security
Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can be construed as
sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Swatanter Veer Singh S/o Shri Nem Singh? If yes, what
relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Swatanter Veer Singh opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 669-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Ldksi vkSj vU;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@175@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
1404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
SCOPE and other, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/175/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 21/2016
Shri Sidheshwar Vehuria S/o Shri Nityanand Vehuria, through
The President,
Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union
Affiliated to CITU, BTR Bhawan,
13 A, Rouse Avenue
New Delhi 110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
SCOPE,
Core No.8, 1st Floor,
SCOPE - 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
2.
M/s Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd.
40/93, 40/92, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi 110 019
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/175/2015-IR(DU) dated 30.12.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of Shri Sidheshwar Vehuria, S/o Shri Nityanand Vehuria with effect from
28.10.2014 by the management of Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to? Whether the contract awarded by SCOPE (Principal Employer) to
Sentinels Security Pvt. Ltd. for employment of security guards in the establishment of principal employer can
be construed as sham and bogus as requested by the workman Shri Shri Sidheshwar Vehuria, S/o Shri
Nityanand Vehuria? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Shri Sidheshwar Vehuria opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No
claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : November 24, 2016
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1405
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 670-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@212@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1
Dhanbad
(I.D. No. 54/1996) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03.03.2017.
[No. L-20012/212/1995-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 54/1996
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra Coke Plant, M/S BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri U.N.Lall Advocate
For the workman .
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated : 06/01/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/212/1995-IR(C-I) dated 20/08/1996, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management to not provide employment to Shri Ram Karan Yadav
Watchman at the time of taking over Mohalbani Bungalow forming the part of Bhowra Coke Plant is
justified? If not, to what relief is Shri Yadav entitled? ?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 671-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
1406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
,oa Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@431@1997&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1
Dhanbad
(I.D. No. 06/1999) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03.03.2017.
[No. L-20012/431/1997-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 06/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra ( N) U.G. MInes of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman.
Present : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri U.N.Lall, Advocate
For the workman .
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated- 05/01/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/431/1997-IR(C-I) dated 08/01/1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) U.G. Mines of M/s BCCL in dismissing
Sh. Rameshwar Das from the services of the company w.e.f. 21/07/1995 is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to ?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K.SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 672-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@
Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@205@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1407
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1
Dhanbad
(I.D. No. 52/1996) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03.03.2017.
[No. L-20012/205/1995-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947.
Reference : No. 52/1996
Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Area M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman.
Present : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Sri D.K Verma , Advocate
For the workman .
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated : 4/01/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/205/1995-IR(C-I) dated 21/08/1996, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Area of M/s BCCL, in dismissing
Sri Mahanand Modi, Loader from the services of the company is justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 673-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@a
Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@305@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1
Dhanbad (I.D. No. 119/1996) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03.03.2017.
[No. L-20012/305/1995-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
1408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947.
Reference: No. 119 /1996
Employer in relation to the management of East Katras Colliery, M/s B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman .
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated- 5/01/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/305/1995-IR(C-I) dated 28/10/1996, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand by the Union for regularization as Night Guard of Shri Basudeo Chamar by the
management of East Katras Colliery of M/S. B.C.C.L. is Justified? If so, to what relief is the said
workman entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 674-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@
Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@1996) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@209@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2017
S.O. 674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1
Dhanbad
(I.D. No. 53/1996) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.03.2017.
[No. L-20012/209/1995-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference : No. 53/1996
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1409
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman.
Present : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman .
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated : 06/01/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/209/1995-IR(C-I) dated 21/08/1996, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union that Sh. Bachu Ram is the dependent son of Shri Baldeo Harijan and,
therefore, is eligible for employment under Para 9.4.3 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman
entitled?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.
Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 675-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ esVªks
jsy dkjiksjs'ku ,oa vU; muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 267@2015) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@133@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 267/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation
to
the
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and others, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/133/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 267/2015
Shri Shiv Kumar, through
Indian Steel & Metal Workers Union (Regd.)
46, Nehru Market (Patera), Badarpur,
New Delhi – 110 044
…Workman
1410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1. The Executive Director
M/s F.E.M.C. Pratibha JV,
C.-23, DMRC Project,
Near CNG Petrol Pump,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi 110 062
2. The Director,
M/s K.S.J. Dynamic Security Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 273, 2nd Floor, Old Delhi,
Gurgaon Road, Kapashera
New Delhi 110 037
3. M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Metro Bhawan, 5th Floor, A Wing,
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110 001
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/133/2015-IR(DU) dated 08.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether services of the workman Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Ram Khalifa has been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect’.
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Shiv Kumar opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated : November 24, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 676-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xks,y
daLVªD'ku ,aM bathfu;lZ ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@179@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID Case CR No. 22/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1411
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the M/s. Goel Construction and Engineers New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42012/179/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 22/2015
Shri Mahesh Kumar,
Through Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Goel Construction & Engineers,
C – 503, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension,
New Delhi-110 074
2.
Health and Family Welfare Centre,
Baba Ganga Nath Marg,
Munirka,
New Delhi–110 067
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/179/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following industrial
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Manohar Singh by the management of
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National Health and
Family Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?
2.
Claim Statement was filed wherein it is averred that Shri Mahesh Kumar, the claimant herein, was engaged by
National Health and Family Welfare Centre (hereinafter referred to as the management) through M/s. Goel Construction
and Engineers (in short the contractors) as helper and his last drawn wages was Rs. 7,254.00. The contractors were fake
and was interposed by the management so as to deprive the workers benefits under the labour legislation, viz. minimum
wages, ESI, PF, leaves, bonus, identity card etc. More than 25 workers were engaged by the management. Claimant
had a clean record and there was no kind of complaint against him.
3.
At the time of his engagement, the claimant herein was made to sign on blank papers, vouchers and
appointment letter, copies of which was not provided to him. Since the claimant herein demanded facilities of PF, ESI
etc., the management was annoyed and his services were done away with on 12.06.2013. The claimant has not been
paid wages for the period from 01.05.2013 to 11.06.2013. The claimed had put in 240 days of continuous service in
each year preceding his termination. No one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof was paid to the claimant before his
termination. Juniors to him are still employed with the Contractor and fresh appointments have also been made.
Demand notice was served on the management on 15.06.2013, but the management neither replied to the same nor was
taken back on duty. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, claiming that his services were
terminated in an illegal manner. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
1412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Claim was contested by the Health and Family Welfare Centre (Management No. 2) averring that there is no
industrial dispute between the workman and Management No. 2, who had in fact hat awarded contract for civil and
electrical maintenance to NPCC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, who in turn awarded the contract to M/s. Goel
Construction and Engineers (Management No. 1) for execution of civil maintenance work. Terms and conditions
regarding payment of wages, EPF, ESIC, bonus, leave etc. to the employees engaged by management No. 1 was made
by NPCC Ltd. The workman was never on the pay rolls of Management No. 2. Hence management No. 2 has no direct
control over them. Various other preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the
case, claim being barred by limitation etc. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Management No.1, despite affording various opportunities, failed to file its statement of defence and hence
was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2015.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2016 framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference herein is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections raised by
the management?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
7.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. In spite of affording three opportunities, evidence of
the claimant was not present. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merits.
8.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
November 25, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 677-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xks,y
daLVªD'ku ,aM bathfu;lZ ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@177@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 20/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the M/s. Goel Construction and Engineers New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42012/177/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 20/2015
Shri Gopi Lal,
Through Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension, Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers,
C – 503, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension,
New Delhi-110 074
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1413
2.
Health and Family Welfare Centre,
Baba Ganga Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/177/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Gopi Lal S/o Shri Kishori Lal by the management of M/s. Goel
Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National Health and Family
Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?
2.
Claim Statement was filed wherein it is averred that Shri Gopi Lal, the claimant herein, was engaged by
National Health and Family Welfare Centre (hereinafter referred to as the management) through M/s Goel Construction
and Engineers (in short the contractors) as helper and his last drawn wages was Rs. 7,254.00. The contractors were fake
and was interposed by the management so as to deprive the workers benefits under the labour legislation, viz. minimum
wages, ESI, PF, leaves, bonus, identity card etc. More than 25 workers were engaged by the management. Claimant
had a clean record and there was no kind of complaint against him.
3.
At the time of his engagement, the claimant herein was made to sign on blank papers, vouchers and
appointment letter, copies of which was not provided to him. Since the claimant herein demanded facilities of PF, ESI
etc., the management was annoyed and his services were done away with on 12.06.2013. The claimant has not been
paid wages for the period from 01.05.2013 to 11.06.2013. The claimed had put in 240 days of continuous service in
each year preceding his termination. No one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof was paid to the claimant before his
termination. Juniors to him are still employed with the Contractor and fresh appointments have also been made.
Demand notice was served on the management on 13.06.2013, but the management neither replied to the same nor was
taken back on duty. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, claiming that his services were
terminated in an illegal manner. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
4.
Claim was contested by the Health and Family Welfare Centre (Management No. 2) averring that there is no
industrial dispute between the workman and Management No. 2, who had in fact hat awarded contract for civil and
electrical maintenance to NPCC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, who in turn awarded the contract to M/s Goel
Construction and Engineers (Management No.1) for execution of civil maintenance work. Terms and conditions
regarding payment of wages, EPF, ESIC, bonus, leave etc. to the employees engaged by management No.1 was made
by NPCC Ltd. The workman was never on the pay rolls of Management No. 2. Hence management No. 2 has no
direct control over them. Various other preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to
adjudicate the case, claim being barred by limitation etc. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Management No.1, despite affording various opportunities, failed to file its statement of defence and hence
was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2015.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2016 framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference herein is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections
raised by the management?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
7.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. In spite of affording three opportunities, evidence of
the claimant was not present. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merits.
8.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
November 25, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 678-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xks,y
daLVªD'ku ,aM bathfu;lZ ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
1414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@173@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 16/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the M/s. Goel Construction and Engineers New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42012/173/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 16/2015
Shri Chhater Pal,
Through Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers,
C – 503, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension,
New Delhi - 110 074
2.
Health and Family Welfare Centre,
Baba Ganga Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/173/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Chhater Pal S/o Shri Molgu Pal by the management of
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National Health and
Family Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?
2.
Claim Statement was filed wherein it is averred that Shri Chhater Pal, the claimant herein, was engaged by
National Health and Family Welfare Centre (hereinafter referred to as the management) through M/s Goel Construction
and Engineers (in short the contractors) as helper and his last drawn wages was Rs. 7,254.00. The contractors were fake
and was interposed by the management so as to deprive the workers benefits under the labour legislation, viz. minimum
wages, ESI, PF, leaves, bonus, identity card etc. More than 25 workers were engaged by the management. Claimant
had a clean record and there was no kind of complaint against him.
3.
At the time of his engagement, the claimant herein was made to sign on blank papers, vouchers and
appointment letter, copies of which was not provided to him. Since the claimant herein demanded facilities of PF, ESI
etc., the management was annoyed and his services were done away with on 12.06.2013. The claimant has not been
paid wages for the period from 01.05.2013 to 11.06.2013. The claimed had put in 240 days of continuous service in
each year preceding his termination. No one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof was paid to the claimant before his
termination. Juniors to him are still employed with the Contractor and fresh appointments have also been made.
Demand notice was served on the management on 13.06.2013, but the management neither replied to the same nor was
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1415
taken back on duty. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, claiming that his services were
terminated in an illegal manner. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
4.
Claim was contested by the Health and Family Welfare Centre (Management No. 2) averring that there is no
industrial dispute between the workman and Management No. 2, who had in fact hat awarded contract for civil and
electrical maintenance to NPCC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, who in turn awarded the contract to M/s Goel
Construction and Engineers (Management No.1) for execution of civil maintenance work. Terms and conditions
regarding payment of wages, EPF, ESIC, bonus, leave etc. to the employees engaged by management No.1 was made
by NPCC Ltd. The workman was never on the pay rolls of Management No. 2. Hence management No. 2 has no
direct control over them. Various other preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to
adjudicate the case, claim being barred by limitation etc. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Management No.1, despite affording various opportunities, failed to file its statement of defence and hence
was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2015.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2016 framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference herein is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections
raised by the management?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
7.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. In spite of affording three opportunities, evidence of
the claimant was not present. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merits.
8.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 194, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
November 25, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 679-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xks,y
daLVªD'ku ,aM bathfu;lZ ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@176@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 19/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the M/s. Goel Construction and Engineers New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42012/176/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 19/2015
Shri Bharat,
Through Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
1416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers,
C – 503, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension,
New Delhi-110 074
2.
Health and Family Welfare Centre,
Baba Ganga Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/176/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Bharat S/o Shri Shankar by the management of M/s. Goel
Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National Health and Family
Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?
2.
Claim Statement was filed wherein it is averred that Shri Bharat, the claimant herein, was engaged by National
Health and Family Welfare Centre (hereinafter referred to as the management) through M/s Goel Construction and
Engineers (in short the contractors) as helper and his last drawn wages was Rs. 7,254.00. The contractors were fake and
was interposed by the management so as to deprive the workers benefits under the labour legislation, viz. minimum
wages, ESI, PF, leaves, bonus, identity card etc. More than 25 workers were engaged by the management. Claimant
had a clean record and there was no kind of complaint against him.
3.
At the time of his engagement, the claimant herein was made to sign on blank papers, vouchers and
appointment letter, copies of which was not provided to him. Since the claimant herein demanded facilities of PF, ESI
etc., the management was annoyed and his services were done away with on 12.06.2013. The claimed had put in 240
days of continuous service in each year preceding his termination. No one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof was
paid to the claimant before his termination. Juniors to him are still employed with the Contractor and fresh
appointments have also been made. Demand notice was served on the management on 13.06.2013, but the
management neither replied to the same nor was taken back on duty. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer, claiming that his services were terminated in an illegal manner. Since conciliation proceedings
failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. He claims reinstatement in
service with continuity and full back wages.
4.
Claim was contested by the Health and Family Welfare Centre (Management No. 2) averring that there is no
industrial dispute between the workman and Management No. 2, who had in fact hat awarded contract for civil and
electrical maintenance to NPCC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, who in turn awarded the contract to M/s Goel
Construction and Engineers (Management No. 1) for execution of civil maintenance work. Terms and conditions
regarding payment of wages, EPF, ESIC, bonus, leave etc. to the employees engaged by management No. 1 was made
by NPCC Ltd. The workman was never on the pay rolls of Management No. 2. Hence management No. 2 has no
direct control over them. Various other preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to
adjudicate the case, claim being barred by limitation etc. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Management No.1, despite affording various opportunities, failed to file its statement of defence and hence
was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2015.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2016 framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference herein is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections
raised by the management?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
7.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. In spite of affording three opportunities, evidence of
the claimant was not present. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merits.
8.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
November 25, 2016
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1417
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 680-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xks,y
daLVªD'ku ,aM bathfu;lZ ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@172@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 15/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the M/s. Goel Construction and Engineers New Delhi, and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42012/172/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 15/2015
Shri Karan,
Through Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union,
1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,
Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110 019
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Goel Construction & Engineers,
C – 503, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension,
New Delhi-110 074
2.
Health and Family Welfare Centre,
Baba Ganga Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi
…Managements
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No. L-42012/172/2014-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Karan S/o Shri Ganesh by the management of M/s. Goel
Construction & Engineers a sub contractor of NPCC in the establishment of National Health and Family
Welfare Centre, Principal Employer w.e.f. 12.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?
2.
Claim Statement was filed wherein it is averred that Shri Karan, the claimant herein, was engaged by National
Health and Family Welfare Centre (hereinafter referred to as the management) through M/s Goel Construction and
Engineers (in short the contractors) as helper and his last drawn wages was Rs. 8814.00. The contractors were fake and
was interposed by the management so as to deprive the workers benefits under the labour legislation, viz. minimum
wages, ESI, PF, leaves, bonus, identity card etc. More than 25 workers were engaged by the management. Claimant
had a clean record and there was no kind of complaint against him.
3.
At the time of his engagement, the claimant herein was made to sign on blank papers, vouchers and
appointment letter, copies of which was not provided to him. Since the claimant herein demanded facilities of PF, ESI
etc., the management was annoyed and his services were done away with on 12.06.2013. The claimant has not been
paid wages for the period from 01.05.2013 to 11.06.2013. The claimed had put in 240 days of continuous service in
each year preceding his termination. No one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof was paid to the claimant before his
1418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination. Juniors to him are still employed with the Contractor and fresh appointments have also been made.
Demand notice was served on the management on 13.06.2013, but the management neither replied to the same nor was
taken back on duty. Subsequently, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, claiming that his services were
terminated in an illegal manner. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
4.
Claim was contested by the Health and Family Welfare Centre (Management No. 2) averring that there is no
industrial dispute between the workman and Management No. 2, who had in fact hat awarded contract for civil and
electrical maintenance to NPCC Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, who in turn awarded the contract to M/s Goel
Construction and Engineers (Management No. 1) for execution of civil maintenance work. Terms and conditions
regarding payment of wages, EPF, ESIC, bonus, leave etc. to the employees engaged by management No. 1 was made
by NPCC Ltd. The workman was never on the pay rolls of Management No. 2. Hence management No. 2 has no
direct control over them. Various other preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to
adjudicate the case, claim being barred by limitation etc. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Management No. 1, despite affording various opportunities, failed to file its statement of defence and hence
was proceeded ex-parte on 12.10.2015.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2016 framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference herein is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections
raised by the management?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
7.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. In spite of affording three opportunities, evidence of
the claimant was not present. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the case on merits.
8.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. An
award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
November 25, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 681-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ
dfe'kuj] lsaVªy ,Dlkbt ,aM lfoZl VSDl] Hkqous'oj ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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
52@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@99@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 52/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to
the
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubanewswar and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 18.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/99/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present : Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 52/2013
Date of Passing Award – 31st October, 2016
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1419
Between:
The Chief Commissioner,
Central Excise, Customs & Services Tax,
Bhubaneswar Zone, CR Building,
Rajeaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
Pin – 751 007. 1st Party-Management.
AND
The General Secretary,
Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax,
Shramik Sangh, Plot No. 32, Ashok Nagar,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 009
…2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
Shri Tapas Kr. Nayak,
…For the 1st Party
Asst. Commissoner (CCO)
Management.
Shri Banambar Lenka,
…For the 2nd Party- Union
AWARD
This award is directed against the reference on the following schedule:—
“Whether the claim of Central Service Customs & Service Tax Sramik Sangh that the action of Central Excise
& Customs & Service Tax Office, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of 104 workers (list enclosed)
without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? To what relief the
workmen are entitled to?
Made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment between the employers in relation to the
Management of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax and their workmen in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter No.
L-42011/99/2013 – IR(DU), dated 18.07.2013.
2.
The case of the 2nd party-Union, in short, as revealed during the adjudication of the reference is that the 1st
Party-Management is an establishment under the Ministry of Finance and Department of Revenue, Government of
India, New Delhi and it has offices of Commissionerates, Divisions and Range at Bhubaneswar and other places
through-out the State of Odisha. The listed 104 persons are stated to have been employed/engaged as casual/daily labour
temporarily in different offices of the 1st Party-Management to carry out the work of sweeping, cleaning, dusting, for
fetching of drinking water and for other purposes. They had been discharging their duties for the 15 to 20 years with
their sincerity and devotion till they are illegally terminated/retrenched/disengaged on 12.4.2013. During their
engagement they were paid minimum wages as fixed from time to time and expenditure towards their wage met from
different heads like wage head, contingent head and office expenses head by the offices of the 1st Party-Management.
The disputant workmen were receiving such wages directly from the 1st Party-Management. It has been alleged that the
Management has changed the service condition of those disputant workmen without following the due procedure of law
or any intimation to the workmen and treated them as contract labourer in pen and paper only in their office record.
None of such workmen was ever engaged to work in the office of the Management through any labour contractor or
service provider and no agreement or contract was ever executed between the Management and any labour
contractor/service provider for such alleged contractual appointment till their termination. It is the contention of the 2nd
party-Union that the workmen formed an Union and filed a petition before the Labour machinery on 23.07.2012 raising
several demands including regularization of their services and implementation of 1/30th wage scheme to the disputant
workmen. Inspite of issue of several notices to both the parties by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for an
enquiry into the matter and for an amicable settlement, the Management did not attend in any of the conciliation
proceedings held from time to time at the initiation of the labour machinery after submitting its show cause. In their
show cause to the labour machinery the Management took a stand that it was not coming under the purview of the
Industrial Disputes Act. In view of such attitude of the Management the Union served a notice to the Management on
18.3.2013 intimating to sit on dharana for fulfillment of their just, legal and genuine demands with a copy of the notice
to the labour machinery. According to the 2nd party-Union on receipt of such notice the Management did not allow any
of the disputant workmen to discharge their duties and refused employment to all of them which amounts to
termination/retrenchment/disengagement from service. It has been, further, pleaded that no notice pay or compensation
in lieu of retrenchment of their service was paid to them despite they had been employed for more than 15 to 20 years in
various offices of the Management and they were working continuously for more than 240 days in each year of their
1420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employment in the offices of the Management. After their such disengagement/retrenchment the Management invited
tender from service providers/labour contractor to carry out the work of cleaning, dusting, gardening etc. through
contract labourer. It is the stand of the 2nd party-Union is that the work/job for which the disputant workmen were
engaged are perennial in nature and required in day to day administration of the offices of the Management for which it
has employed contract labourers presently after refusal of employment to them. Such refusal of employment to the
disputant workmen without compliance of the provisions as enumerated in Section 25-F, G and H is amounting to
illegal retrenchment and as such prayer has been advanced on behalf of the Union that all the workmen should be
reinstated with all back wages and other benefits.
3.
In its written statement the 1st Party-Management has denied the allegations raised by the 2nd party-Union and
pleaded inter alia that none of the alleged workmen was ever employed either a casual or temporary worker in its
establishment. There was a contractual employment in the different offices of the Management for the purpose of
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and for supply of drinking water to its employees. They were given a fixed amount towards
their wages for part time job and their appointment was not against any sanctioned posts or for specific work. Thus,
their engagement was purely contractual for a fixed period. Hence, benefits under the scheme of temporary status
cannot be extended to such contractual labourers. According to the 1st Party-Management Writ as well as application
were filed before Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal for regularization of services of
such workmen. As their claim has no merit for consideration, the case preferred before the CAT as well as the writ
appeal filed in the Hon’ble High Court was dismissed. The workmen were neither appointed under any Recruitment
Rules nor their appointment was made against any sanctioned posts. They left their contractual job on their own volition
and sat in Dharana with effect from 10.4.2013 in the front of office of the Management at Bhubaneswar. There was no
employer and employee relationship between the disputant workmen and the Management. Having been appointed as
contract labour/contractually and failing to report to their duty on 10.4.2013, the Management had no option than to
engage other contract labours through service providers to carry out the works of cleaning, dusting, sweeping etc.
Besides, the job of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and supply of water etc. is being carried out through service
providers/contractors as per new policy of the Government and the disputant workmen being contractually appointed for
a specific period and their appointments being through labour contractor and as they left their jobs on their own volition,
the allegation of their illegal termination, retrenchment or disengagement is not correct and for the above reasons the
workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed in their statement of claim. Further, the maintainability of the
reference is also challenged by the Management on a stand that the office of the Central Excise and Customs under the
Ministry of Finance is not an “Industry” and there is no “employer and employee” relationship between the
Management and the disputant workmen in the event of their appointment was purely contractual.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for proper adjudication of the reference.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the claim of Central Excise, Customs & service Tax Shramik Sangh, that the action of Central
Excise, Customs & Service Tax Office, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of 104 workers without
complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified?
2.
To what relief the workers are entitled to?
5.
The 2nd Party-Union has adduced oral evidence by examining two disputant workmen namely Shri Dipti
Ranjan Nayak and Shri Babu Nayak as W.W.1 and W.W.-2 and filed a good number of documents like copy of
statement of claim, copy of union registration certificate, copy of list of 104 numbers of workmen, photo-copy of
Section 2(J) of I.D. Act, letter of 2nd party dated 23.7.2012 to R.L.C(C), Bhubaneswar, copy of notices issued to the 1st
Party by the R.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar, copy of notice dated 18.3.2012 issued by the Union, copy of reply of the 1st Party
dated 9.4.2013 to R.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar, copy of letter issued by the Union on 29.4.2013 addressed to R.L.C.(C),
Bhubaneswar, copy of FOC report dated 7.5.2013 of R.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar, copy of letter of R.L.C.(C),
Bhubaneswar dated 7.5.2013, copy of letter of Union to R.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar, copy of letter to R.L.C.(C), by the
Union dated 17.5.2013, copy of letter of Union to Dy. C.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar dated 22.5.2013, copy of notice of
hunger strike dated 4.6.2013, copies of notice issued by R.L.C.(C) Bhubaneswar to the 1st Party-Management, copy of
appeal date 20.5.2013 issued by Union, copy of hunger strike withdrawal letter of Union, copy of letters of 2nd party
dated 19.6.2014, copy of letter dated 30.5.2013 issued by the 2nd party, copy of letter dated 21.6.2013 issued by the
Union, copy of the letter of R.L.C.(C) BBSR to Field Officers regarding invitation of tenders by the 1st Party, copy of
information under R.T.I. Act, 2005 received from L,E.O(C) Bhubaneswar-II regarding his inspection in 1st Party-
Management, copy of F.O.C report of R.L.C.(C), BBSR dated 5.6.2013, copy of reference of Ministry dated 18.7.2013,
copy of letter dated 30.4.2014 and copy of letter dated 9.9.2014 which are marked as Ext. -1 to 27 without any objection
from the side of the Management to establish their allegations and reliefs. Except relying upon the Annexures filed
along with the written statement the Management did not like to adduce any sort of evidence during the adjudication
proceeding. The annexures are the correspondence between the Government of India, Ministry of Finance to the
Management, photocopy of the award and judgement of the Hon’ble High Court.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1421
FINDINGS
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2
6.
As per the oral testimony of the W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 they were engaged as a casual Farash and casual sweeper
with effect from 9.6.1997 and 9.1.1995 respectively in the office of the 1st Party-Management at Bhubaneswar and they
continued in their services till 10.4.2013 without any interruption and they were paid minimum wages as fixed from
time to time. Like them other workmen were also engaged as casual labours under the 1st Party-Management in its
different offices with effect from different dates and they were also receiving minimum wages fixed from time to time.
All of them worked with the Management for a period of 15 to 20 years continuously till their so-called disengagement
with effect from 11.4.2013. According to them when a memorandum was issued to the 1st Party-Management raising a
demand of implementation of 1/30 wage scheme to all of them and notice was issued appraising the Management for a
proposed Dharana after failure of conciliation proceeding before the labour machinery they were not allowed to work in
the offices of the 1st Party-Management which amounted to termination of their service. It is their further version that
all workmen were performing their duties with all sincerity and devotion completing 240 days continuous work in each
calendar year with a hope of regularization of their services. Despite their engagement for 15 to 20 years and discharge
of their service continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year they were refused employment without notice
pay and compensation violating the provisions of Section 25-F. It has been further stated by them that after refusal of
service to them the 1st Party-Management has hired and engaged about 100 fresh workmen through an outsourcing
agency and such deployment of workmen is a clear-cut violation of provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial
Disputes Act. While adducing their evidence the witnesses have proved and exhibited photocopies of documents
mentioned above. It is apparent from their cross examination as well as from the pleadings and contentions advanced
by the Management that there is no serious dispute to the claim of the 2nd party-Union that those 104 workmen were
employed and discharging different nature of jobs like sweeping, cleaning, dusting, gardening supplying drinking water
etc. in the offices of the 1st Party-Management situated at different locations. There is also no serious dispute in regard
to the length of their engagement as well as nature of works performed by them in the offices of the 1st Party-
Management except the nature of their employment and mode of their disengagement. The primary stand of the 1st
Party-Management is that the nature of employment of such workmen was purely contractual and time bound and their
engagement was contract labour.
As such, their alleged disengagement has no protection under any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
has also been contended that the Management was required to take the assistance of the service providers to do the jobs
of the disputant workmen when they failed to report their duty on their own volition and sat in Dharana. As such there
was no question of illegal retrenchment, termination or disengagement of the disputant workmen warranting any
interference by the Tribunal.
7.
Coming to the pleading of contractual employment as raised by the Management it is seen that not a single
scrap of paper is filed by the Management to support their view that the workmen were given contractual and time
bound employment. No document is also filed to establish that the workmen were contract labourer or they were paid
through contractor having engaged by the contractor for doing sweeping, cleaning, dusting and other works in the
offices of the 1st Party-Management. Neither any appointment letter or work order has been filed by the Management to
show that any of the disputant workmen was engaged contractually for a specific period. On the other hand some of the
documents relied upon by the 2nd party-Union, which are not been seriously disputed by the 1st Party-Management and
annexure No. 1/A, 1/B, 2 and 3 filed by the 1st Party-Management along with its written statement and the same being
various correspondences between the 1st Party-Management to their superior authorities more particularly letter No.
C.II(31)1/ET/BBSR-II/2007-13347 dated 15.01.2008 and letter No. C. No. II(22)/1/H.Q/B-II/2007, dated 25.2.2008
clearly indicate that the workmen/casual labourers had been engaged for more than ten years till 2005 and those workers
are now being shown as contract workers. The correspondence further reveals that there was neither any contract nor
any service contractor and their disengagement was not successful due to intervention of Hon’ble CAT who have
granted ad-interim stay in O.A. Case No. 606/2005, 634/2005, 855/2005. The contents of the above correspondences if
taken into consideration along with the testimony advanced by W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 and the failure on the part of the
Management adducing any evidence including non-filing of any agreement/work order issued to any contract labourer
or letter of contractual appointment, the Tribunal has no alternative than to accept the version of W.W-1 and W.W.-2
that the disputant workmen were engaged temporarily/casually for a considerable period before they are being shown as
contract labourer/contractual appointees as mentioned in various internal official correspondences of the Management.
No contractor has also been examined on behalf of the 1st Party-Management to prove that the disputant workmen were
engaged through service providers as a contract labourer. The orders of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble C.A.T.
arising out of Writ No. 17449/2008 and O.A. No. 278/2008 go to show that the orders were passed in different contexts
and the issue before them was related to regularization of the service of the disputant workmen or conferment of
temporary status. Whether the workmen were given contractual appointment or they were casual labourer was not an
issue before the Hon’ble Court/Tribunal and there is no specific findings in the orders relied upon by the 1st Party-
Management as to the status of those workmen. Therefore, the contentions raised by the 1st Party-Management that the
disputant workmen are purely contractual workers or contract labourer cannot be accepted on the basis of dismissal of
cases preferred by the 2nd Party-Union in the Hon’ble C.A.T. and the Hon’ble High Court wherein an issue was raised
1422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and prayer was made only for regularization of services of the disputant-workmen. Moreover, from the pleadings,
evidence and contentions raised by the parties as discussed above more particularly, the correspondences between
different offices of the 1st Party-Management, it can be safely held that the disputant workmen were engaged as
casual/temporary labourer under different offices of the 1st Party-Management for a considerable period and most of
them were working in the offices from the year 1995 to 2013 till their alleged disengagement.
8.
Argument has been advanced on behalf of the Management that burden lies on the workmen to prove their
employment for continuous period of 240 days in a year preceded to the alleged date of termination/retrenchment and as
the 2nd party-Union has failed to adduce any credible evidence except oral assertions of W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 to prove
the continuous engagement of the workmen and there is no need of compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act
in the instant case. But, it cannot be over-looked that engagement of the disputant workmen for last fifteen to twenty
years is not denied by the Management. No specific stand has been taken by the Management that the disputant
workmen were not engaged continuously for 240 days in a year and that the appointment/engagement of those workmen
was made intermittently. On the other hand it is the stand of the Management that engagement of the disputant
workmen is purely contractual in nature. In the above back-drops initial proof of engagement for 240 days of
continuous work in a calendar year is not required to be established by the 2nd party-Union in the instant case. As a
settled principle the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to a proceeding under the I.D. Act and initial
burden of proof is on the claimant-workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year before his alleged
dismissal/termination. This burden is discharged only upon the workman steeping in the witness box and adducing
cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there may not
be any letter of appointment or termination. There will also no receipt of proof of payment towards his daily wage.
Hence, the daily wager may not be expected in possession of any documents towards his employment for a period of
240 days continuously. In such engagement the employer is expected to maintain muster roll, the wage register and
other papers towards engagement and payment of wage to the workmen. The employer should have produced those
documents to refute the allegations of the workmen and to establish its claim. But, the Management has not preferred to
adduce either any oral or documentary evidence in the case in support of their pleadings and stand. Therefore, no
adverse view can be drawn against the 2nd party-Union for its failure to file documents relating to appointment and
nature of employment as well as period of their engagement. W.W.-1 and W.W-2 have been subjected to cross
examination by the Management and nothing substantial seems to have been elicited from their mouth to disbelieve
their oral evidence that they and other disputant workmen were working as a casual and temporary worker in the offices
of the Management continuously for 15 to 20 years. On the other hand if the stand of the Management that the
disputant workmen were given contractual appointment is taken into consideration it can be safely said that evidence
adduced on behalf of the workmen and pleading taken by the Management are sufficient to establish that the workmen
were engaged as casual and temporary labourers continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to
their alleged refusal of employment. The initial burden having been discharged by the workmen about their nature and
period of employment in the offices of the Management, the Management is required to establish their stand that the
workmen were not given appointment as casual and temporary labourer and their employment was never continuous for
a period of 240 days in a year. The Management is also required to prove that the engagement of the disputant workmen
was intermittent and the workmen were contractual labourers or they were not under the direct employment of the
Management. All the documents relating to engagement of the disputant workmen and expenditure incurred towards
their employment being in possession of the Management, it was for the Management who produced documents to
prove the nature of the engagement of the workmen. Having failed to lead any sort of evidence in support of their
pleadings the Tribunal is duty bound to accept the pleadings and evidence of the 2nd party-Union and to hold that the
disputant workmen were employed by the Management directly as casual/temporary labourers and they were in such
casual or temporary services for the last fifteen to twenty years and their such engagement was continuous for a period
of more than 240 days in each calendar year prior to their alleged disengagement/retrenchment/termination on
13.4.2013.
9.
The 1st Party-Management has also taken a stand that the disputant workmen were neither refused any
engagement nor their services were retrenched or terminated. It is its case that the workmen did not attend the offices
and they sat on Dharana as a result of which tender was floated to carry out the works of sweeping, cleaning, dusting
etc. through service provider/contractor. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on behalf of the Management
to show that the workmen were instructed either orally or in writing to report their duty before inviting tender for supply
of contractual labourer. W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 unequivocally have stated in their testimony that the Management did not
allow them to work and invited tender to carry out the works of cleaning, sweeping, dusting etc through service
providers. Their such oral version has not been demolished. Had the Management interested to allow the disputant
workmen to work as casual labourer in its establishments they could have been either approached orally or in writing to
the workmen to join their duties. Had the workmen abandoned their services voluntarily they are not expected to raise a
dispute for their disengagement and reinstatement. It cannot be over-sighed that pleading and argument has been
advanced by the Management to the effect that due to change of policy and executive instruction the cleaning,
sweeping, dusting and other works of the Management is given to service provider. Such stand also contradicts the
pleadings of the Management about the voluntary abandonment of service by the disputant workmen. Further, when the
Management has not led any evidence either orally or documentary it is not safe to believe that the workmen had left the
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1423
jobs on their own volition. Giving thorough consideration to the pleadings and evidence advanced by the parties and
facts and circumstances as discussed above it shall be presumed that in the instant case inviting tender for engagement
of contractual labourer through service provider/contractor without giving any notice either in shape of verbal or in
writing to the workmen to join duty can be held refusal of employment and such refusal of employment amounts to
retrenchment of services of the workmen as defined under section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. Admittedly no notice pay and
compensation as required under section 25-F of the Act was paid to any of the workmen before their retrenchment. It
further emerges from the pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties that some contract labourers numbering 100
are presently engaged by the Management through service providers/labour contractor to carry out the works of
sweeping, cleaning, dusting etc., in the offices of the Management located through-out the state. Sweeping, cleaning,
supply of drinking water etc. and other works similar in nature are bare necessity in day to day administration of the
Management-Office and Management is naturally expected to employ persons to do the above works manually. In the
above back-drops if there was any retrenchment for any reason, the employer is required to comply the provisions of
Section 25-H of the Act while giving appointment either contractually or as a daily wager. But the Management has
failed to give preference to the disputant workmen before giving contractual appointment to the new entrants through
service providers. Hence, it can also be said that there is an infringement of the provisions of the 25-H of the Act.
10.
The Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference also on a contention that the disputant-
workmen were contractual worker and there is no “employer and employee” relationship between them and the
Management. It is apposite to observe that definition of workmen does not make out any distinction between full time
and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plane language of Section 2(s)
of the Act from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or temporarily can only raise a
dispute. If the admission of the Management with regard to engagement of disputant workmen as contractual
employment is taken into consideration, their exists the relationship of “employer and employee”. Besides as per the
settled principle set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board –
Versus- A Rajjappa the Management can be counted to have been covered by the term ”Industry” as defined under the
Act. Hence, the argument advanced by the Management in regard to the maintainability of the reference has no force.
11.
Argument has also been advanced on behalf of the Management that the dispute was raised by the Union in its
original application bearing No. 278/2008 and the same having been dismissed on contest, the Union had preferred Writ
Appeal in the Hon’ble Court which was also dismissed on contest. In that view of the matter as a settled principle of
resjudicata the Tribunal is denuded from adjudicating the issue on appointment, dismissal and reinstatement of the
workmen. At the cost of repetition it is profitable to state here that retrenchment/removal/disengagement was not an
issue in the Hon’ble Court of CAT and High Court. Undisputedly public posts cannot be filled up in contravention of
Recruitment Rules and constitutional scheme of employment. However, in view of the specific schedule of the
reference made to this Tribunal for deciding if the action of the Management in terminating the services of 140
workmen without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute raised by the workmen. It is to be noted in the case of termination/retrenchment of casual employee what is
required to be seen is whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding twelve months or not. If sufficient
materials are shown that the workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving
notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25-F. Having regard to the discussions made above it can be
safely said that the alleged disengagement of the disputant workmen with effect from 11.4.2013 amounted to illegal
retrenchment for non-compliance of the provisions enumerated in Section 25-F and 25-H of the Act and as such the said
retrenchment is hereby declared illegal and unjustified.
12.
The next question for consideration is what relief to which the disputant workmen are entitled to. In this regard
the stand of the Management is that since the workmen are contractual, their reinstatement along with back wages are
not automatic in view of the principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in recent past. Argument has also been
advanced by the Management that in view of the principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi
–Versus Karnataka State Transport Corporation and the application and Writ Appeal preferred by the 2nd party-Union in
the Hon’ble CAT and in the Hon’ble High Court having been dismissed, the disputant workmen, who are contractual
and temporary worker, can neither be reinstated nor they can be given any compensation. As mentioned in supra the
application before the Hon’ble CAT and the Writ Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court were preferred in different
contexts i.e. for regularization of services of the disputant workmen. Close reading of the orders of the Hon’ble Courts
do not suggest that any dispute in regard to illegal termination or retrenchment or refusal of employment after 11.4.2013
was an issue or subject matter of adjudication before those Hon’ble Courts. Similarly in the case of Uma Devi
regularization of service of temporary workmen was the subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
No settled principle seems to have been propounded in the case that industrial Tribunal/Court is denuded from giving
award of compensation or reinstatement of a temporary worker or daily wager if service of such workman is taken
away by unfair labour practice or by way of victimization or termination/retrenchment is caused without complying the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. However, reinstatement of workmen along with back wages is not automatic in
all cases of dismissal/retrenchment/termination in case of violation of Section 25-F of the Act. If the principles set out
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases between Jagbir Singh –Versus- Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
(2009) 15 SCC 327, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd., -Versus- Uday Narain Pandey, (2006), 1 SCC 479 and in other
1424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
catena of decisions are taken into consideration it can be safely said that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of
Section 25-F although may be set aside, but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.
13.
It is clear from the meticulous reading of the above citations as well as decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the cases of Tapash Kumar Paul –versus- BSNL & Another (2014) 4 S.C.R. 875, Deepali Gundu Surwase –Versus-
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed) and others 2013 (10) SCC 324:2013 (9) SCR 1, Senior Superintendent
Telegraph, (Traffic), Bhopal –versus- Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. 2010 (6) SCC 773, Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd., -
Versus- Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. And Ors 1979 (2) SCC 80 : 1979 (1) SCR 563, Surendra
Kumar Verma & Ors –Versus- Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr. 1980 (4)
SCC 443 : 1981 (1) SCR 789 that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the
termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases . Such relief may be a position where service of
a regular/permanent workman is terminated illegally in malafide or by way of victimization and unfair labour practice
etc. But, when it comes to the case of termination/retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of provisions of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act, reinstatement with back wage is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation to meet the ends of justice. However, there may be cases in given situation reinstatement of a daily
wager/temporary worker with back wages may be appropriate. The power given to the Industrial & Labour Courts
under Section 30 is very wide and the affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive once
termination/retrenchment is, declared illegal due to unfair labour practice or on the ground of victimization, the
Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive direction to an erring employer. One
cannot over-sight the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Bharat Bank Ltd., -Versus-
Employees of Bharat Bank Limited (1950) LLJ 921.948-49 SC in which it is stated in the following manner:-
“In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the tribunal is not
confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party
which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It
has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create new
rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.”
At the same time, the aforesaid sweeping power conferred upon the Tribunal is not unbridled and is
circumscribed by this Court in the case of New Maneckckowk Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., -versus- Textile Labour
Association (1961) 1 LLJ 521.526 (SC) in the following words:-
‘‘This however, does not mean that an industrial court can do anything and everything when dealing
with an industrial dispute. This power is conditioned by the subject matter with which it is dealing and also by
the existing industrial law and it would not be open to it while dealing with a particular matter before it to
overlook the industrial law relating to the matter as laid down by the legislature or by this Court.”
14.
Thus, the Industrial Tribunal and the Court is required to strike balance while adjudicating an industrial dispute
relating to illegal retrenchment of a workman keeping in mind that industrial disputes are settled by industrial
adjudication on principle of fair play and justice. Furthermore, the principles and observations set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court suggest that in no uncertain terms it can be held that in case of termination in violation of Section 25-F of
the I.D. Act, relief of reinstatement may not be a natural consequence. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. It is not automatic in the facts of a given case, instead of reinstatement monetary compensation can be
granted. In most of the cases as mentioned in supra the workmen having employed for a stint of small period and the
industrial dispute having been adjudicated after a long lapse of period have been awarded compensation instead of their
reinstatement. Furthermore, there may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the
ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of “last come first go” while
retrenching such a worker/daily wager juniors to him were retained. There may be also a situation that persons junior to
him may be regularized under some policy but the concerned workman is terminated. In such circumstances the
terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement. Hence it cannot be said that in all cases of illegal
termination/retrenchment of a daily wager the Tribunal is denuded from giving an award of reinstatement. In the case of
Tapash Kumar Paul –Versus- BSNL & Another (2014) 4 S.C.R. 875 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no
doubt that the Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation, but the same
has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (i) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employees has superannuated
or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered
incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or (iv) when he has lost confidence of the
Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasized is that there may be appropriate case on facts which
may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal
and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of
compensation.
15.
In the case between Anop Sharma –versus- Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipath,
(Haryana) 2010 (3) SLR 663 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has set out that no workman employed in
any Industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that
employer until the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act as the provisions are
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1425
mandatory and such action of the employer is a nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his
service was not terminated.
16.
Coming to the instant case it is seen that the disputant workmen do not fall into any of the categories as
referred in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul – Versus – BSNL & Another which would justify compensation in lieu of
reinstatement. On the other hand it cannot be over-looked that the workmen were denied employment only three years
back i.e. on 13.4.2013 and most of them worked for more than 15 to 20 years by the time of their disengagement. All of
them were engaged for doing sweeping, cleaning, dusting, and supply of drinking water works, which are necessary in
day to day administration of the offices of the Management. Such works are now being done in the offices of the
Management either through service providers or contract labourers as per the own pleadings of the Management.
Hence, it can be safely inferred that the works carried out by the disputant workmen before their alleged disengagement
are being done by the Management through labourers provided by the service providers and the Management is required
to meet the expenditure for hiring the help of service providers. Therefore, it can be inferred that scope of temporary
employment/engagement is still available in the Management office for reinstatement of to the disputant workmen.
Such reinstatement of the disputant workmen may not be a financial burden to the Management. In course of argument
it has been submitted that due to change of government policy and issue of executive instruction, the Management
would find difficult to re-employ the disputant workmen directly in its various offices. Changing of policy matter or
official instructions and guidelines cannot over-ride the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. A government agency
is not expected to infringe the provisions of law in order to adopt a new policy, guidelines and executive instructions.
Having worked for more than fifteen to twenty years most of the disputant workmen may not be in a position to find out
a suitable employment elsewhere.
17.
Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as recorded above the disengagement of the
workmen can technically be held retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act and the said retrenchment being
made without compliance of the Section 25-F of the Act is illegal and unjustified and the Management being found to
have failed to comply the provisions of Section 25-H while giving engagement/employment to contract labourer
through service provider I am of the view that the disputant-workmen are entitled to reinstatement in the posts on which
they were engaged prior to their alleged removal on dated 10.4.2013. At the same time it should not be over-sighted that
the disputant workmen did not give any service to the Management during the period of their disengagement and the
Management took the assistance of Service Providers/Labour Contractor for doing the works carried out by the
disputant workmen and incurred expenditure for taking such assistance of Service Providers. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to give compensation or back wages to the disputant workmen while awarding their reinstatement and such
reinstatement should be carried out within one month. Hence, the Management is directed to reinstate the disputant-
workmen along with continuity of service for future contingency, if any within one month from the date of publication
of award in the official gazette.
18.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 682-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lknju dekaM
LVs'kujh fMiks iq.ks ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Southern Command Stationery Depot Pune and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 03.02.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
1426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT MUMBAI
Present : Justice S.P. Mehrotra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. CGIT-14 OF 2013
Employers in relation to the management of
Southern Command Stationery Depot
AND
Their workman
Appearances:-
For the first party/Management
: Mr. H.D. Rathod, Advocate
For the second party/Union
: Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate, holding brief for Mr. J. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated this the 04th day of October, 2016.
AWARD
The present Reference has been made by the Central Government by its Order dated 07/3/2013 passed in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. Terms of Reference as per the Schedule to the said Order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune by not promoting
Sh. R.T. Jawalkar even though he was willing to get the promotion is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
By the order dated 5/4/2013 passed by the Tribunal, notices were directed to be issued to the parties fixing
24/5/2013.
3.
Accordingly, Notices were issued to the parties fixing 24/5/2013.
4.
On 24/5/2013, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Mr. J. Sawant, Advocate put in appearance on
behalf of the second party/Union while Mr. H.D. Rathod, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the first
party/Management. Statement of Claim on behalf of the second party/Union was filed on the said date i.e. 24/5/2013,
and case was adjourned to 9/7/2013 for filing Written Statement.
5.
On 9/7/2013, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, Written Statement was filed on behalf of the first
party/Management.
6.
Since 8/10/2014, as will be evident from a perusal of the Order-Sheet, the case is being fixed for Framing of
Issues.
7.
The case was lastly put up on 16/9/2016.
8.
On 16/9/2016, as noted in the Order passed on the said date, the case was adjourned to 4/10/2016 (i.e. today)
on joint prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9.
Pursuant to the Order dated 16/9/2016, the case is put up today
10.
Mr. M.B. Anchan holding brief for Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/Union is present.
11.
Mr. H.D. Rathod, learned counsel for the first party/Management is also present.
12.
Shri R.T. Jawalkar, the concerned Workman in the present Reference is personally present before the Tribunal,
and he is identified by Mr. M.B. Anchan, holding brief for Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/Union.
13.
An Application has been filed today on behalf of the second party/Union, inter-alia, praying for disposal of the
reference proceedings as settled and withdrawn.
14.
The said Application is signed by Mr. M.B. Anchan, holding brief for Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the
second party/Union.
15.
The said Application also bears the signature of the aforesaid Mr. R.T. Jawalkar, the concerned Workman, and
his signature is also identified by Mr. M.B. Anchan, holding brief for Mr. J. Sawant, learned counsel for the second
party/Union.
16.
The Application is also signed by Mr. H.D. Rathod, learned counsel for the first party/Management, who has
also made his endorsement stating “No objection“ on the said Application.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1427
17.
Relevant portion of the contents of the said Application are reproduced below:
“The Second Party workman states that the industrial dispute in respect of the promotion of the Second Party
workman as covered in the Reference order dated 7/3/2013 has been resolved and settled. The First Party by
its order dated 30th June, 2016 has granted promotion to the Second Party from the post of Fireman to
LHF’A’ w.e.f 01/07/2016. The Second Party, therefore, has no claim or grievance against the First Party. A
copy of the order dated 30th June, 2016 is enclosed.
The Second Party, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to dispose of the reference
proceedings as settled and withdrawn.”
The aforesaid R.T. Jawalkar, the concerned Workman, who is personally present before the Tribunal, states that he has
got reliefs in respect of the grievances raised by him in the present Reference, and he does not want to pursue the
present Reference any further, and he wants to withdraw the same. The aforesaid R.T. Jawalkar has further stated that
the averments made in the aforesaid Application filed today are correct.
18.
Mr. M.B. Anchan holding brief for Mr. J.Sawant, learned counsel for the second party/Union states that in
view of the averments made in the aforesaid Application filed today and in view of the above statement made today by
the aforesaid R.T. Jawalkar, the concerned Workman before the Tribunal, the dispute forming the subject-matter of the
present Reference does not survive, and the Reference be decided accordingly.
19.
Mr. H.D. Rathod, learned counsel for the first party/Management states that the first party/Management has no
objection to the prayer made on behalf of the second party/Union being granted.
20.
In view of the above, it is evident that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference no longer
survives.
20.
Reference is, therefore, answered by stating that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the Reference no
longer survives.
21.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE S.P. MEHROTRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 683-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsØsVªh]
fnYyh MsoyiesaV] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh] 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;] ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 257@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@148@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUnz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case CR No. 257/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 30.11.2016.
[No. L-42011/148/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 257/2015
Smt. Saroj, W/o late Shri Muthu Swami, through
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees’ Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tiz Hasar, Delhi 110 054
…Workman
1428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, B Block, 1st Floor, INA,
New Delhi 110 023
…Management
AWARD
Central Government, vide letter No.L-42011/148/2015-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2015, referred the following
industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Whether the non-payment of pension to Smt. Saroj W/o deceased Muthu Swami by the management of DDA
with effect from 1987 that is the time of this death on the ground that he was not a regular employee is just,
fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Ms.Saroj opted not to file her claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither the
postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was
served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim
statement was filed on her behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in her appearance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove her cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated : November 22, 2016
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 684-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh esVªks
jsy fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 124@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@05@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6.3.2017.
[No. L-41011/05/2009-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 124/2011
The Secretary,
DMRC Employees Union
3, V.P. House, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Workman
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1429
Versus
The Managing Director,
DMRC, NBCC Place,
Bhism Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar,
New Delhi – 3
…Management
AWARD
A reference in this case was received in this case under sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication, vide letter No.L-41011/05/2009-IR(B-I) dated
07.03.2011 terms of which are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in not giving the benefit of
reservation of Ex-Servicemen to Shri Anil Kumar Joshi for his selection to the post of Station Collector, is
legal and justified? To what relief the union/workman is entitled to?
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and Shri Anil Kumar Joshi (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed
statement of claim with the averments that he is a post graduate and Degree holder in Electronic and
Telecommunications with 20 years of experience in Indian Air Force. The claimant joined Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the management) on 09.12.2012 as Electronic Mechanic and since then he has
been performing his duties with full devotion and sincerity to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and colleagues.
There has been no punishment to the discredit of the claimant nor any kind of complaint from any corner. Work and
conduct of the claimant has been appreciated by all on account of dint of his labour and professionalism.
3.
It is the case of the claimant that prior to joining the present assignment, he was serving in Indian Force in the
field of electronics and on account of his professional experience, he was allocated Computerized automatic fare
collection system by the management. Presently the claimant is posted at Automatic Fare Collection Project Wing in
the management. Appointment of the claimant has been in the General category as at the time of joining, he has not
availed benefit of reservation under ‘Ex-Servicemen’ quota, which is also clear from his admit card and offer of
appointment dated 29.10.2002, which is Annexure A-1. Copy of statement of marks which the claimant obtained at the
time of his interview is Annexure A-2.
4.
It is, further, alleged that in June 2003, management invited application to fill various posts, including the post
of Station Controller/Train Operator. Since the claimant was eligible for the said post, as such, he applied for the same
and also appeared in the written test as well as interview. However, to his surprise, his name was not in the final
selection list as is clear from the result statement Annexure A-3. Claimant sought to know the reasons for his non-
selection and he was verbally told that he was not selected on the grounds that he has already availed benefit of ‘Ex-
Servicemen’ quota at the time of his initial appointment, as such, there was no question of availing benefit of Ex-
Servicemen quota for the second time. Case of the claimant has been espoused in the meeting of the Executive on
20.04.2008 by DMRC Employees Union, as is clear from minutes Annexure A-4. Thereafter representation dated
20.05.2008 was submitted to the management by the claimant though the union protesting for the refusing him
appointment on the post of Station Controller/Train Operator and copy of the same is Annexure A-5. No reply was
given by the management to the above representation, as such, the claimant raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, challenging inaction on the part of the management, copy of which is Annexure A-6. Management,
before the ALC took the stand that the claimant has already availed benefit of Ex-Serviceman at the time of his initial
appointment. Claimant had also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the management. ALC, after conciliation of the
matter, sent failure report, copy of which is Annexure A 9. Thereafter, matter was referred under Section 10 of the Act
for adjudication with the above terms of reference. Finally, claimant has prayed that he be given benefit of reservation
under Ex-Servicemen quote in the selection held in June 2003 for the post of Station Controller/Train Operator against
his roll No.10018890.
5.
Claim was contested by the management by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections inter alia
of maintainability, non-espousal of the case through the union as well as the matter not being an industrial dispute as
defined under Section 2(k) of the Act have been taken. On merits, factum of initial appointment of the claimant herein
has not been denied. It has been specifically alleged that once an Ex-Serviceman has joined a Government job on civil
side after availing benefits given to him as Ex-Servicemen for his re-employment, his status as Ex-Servicemen
thereafter comes to an end and he cannot be permitted to seek further benefit in case a post falls vacant to which
otherwise the claimant is eligible. Claimant was inducted as an Ex-Serviceman in the management in civil employment.
Remaining averments regarding espousal and raising of demand etc. have already been denied by the management.
6.
No rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimant to the reply filed by the management.
7.
It is clear from order dated 13.07.2011 passed by my learned predecessor that no specific issue was framed as
he was of the view that no other issue except the one referred for adjudication arises for consideration. Accordingly,
plea of the management regarding locus standi to file claim etc. and claimant not being a workman was rejected by the
1430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Tribunal. It was also observed that the present dispute is an industrial dispute concerning service conditions of the
claimant, hence no issue on preliminary objections was required to be framed.
8.
Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and also tendered in evidence documents
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14. Averments contained in the affidavit are on the same lines as those alleged in the statement
of claim. Claimant also examined Shri Munna Lal, LDC from the Office of the Registrar Trade Unions as WW2,
whose statement was recorded on oath. He also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/3.
9.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Prem Pankaj Bhardwaj, as MW1, whose
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/7.
10
I have heard Shri K. Vishwanath Pankaj and Shri Malik, learned A/R for the claimant and the management
respectively and thoroughly perused the records.
11.
Main contention raised on behalf of the workmen is to the effect that the claimant has applied as general
candidate and was never considered as a reserved candidate(Ex-Servicemen) even by the management. In this regard,
attention of the Tribunal was invited to the advertisement Ex.WW1/M1 where there is no mention of reservation in the
category of Ex-Servicemen and only concession and relaxation has been given to SC ST category. It was also urged
that in case of Ex-Servicemen, regarding age concession, it is very specifically mentioned ‘upper age limit will be
length of service + 3 years, subject to maximum of 40 years. Learned A/R for the claimant also referred to the admit
card and final result published by the management, which shows that the claimant was considered as general category
candidate and not as reserved category. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant put reliance upon
the case of Bharat Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (SWP 1652 of 2008 J&K HC) Jitender Kumar Singh Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 119), K Manjusree Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512). I would be referring to
the ratio of these authorities in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.
12.
Per contra, it was strenuously urged on behalf of the management that the claimant joined services of the
management as Ex-Serviceman and it was his first civil employment after his discharge from Indian Air Force. He has
availed benefit, in the contention of the management, of being Ex-Servicemen, as such, he cannot now again claim
benefit for any subsequent employment from the management, though he can certainly be granted relaxation in age etc.
under the rules. It was also urged that the claimant has admitted that he had applied for the job in Ex-Servicemen
category as at the time of his joining, he was 36 years of age whereas age in the general category on the relevant date,
the age was 18-22 years. Attention of the court was also invited to DOPT, GOI circular dated 20.04.1992 Ex.MW1/4
and Ex.MW1/5 as well as subsequent circulars whichin the contention of the management clearly clarifies that a
candidate who avails benefit after discharge from defence services in civil employment for the first time, he may not be
given benefit of Ex-Servicemen in the subsequent employment except age relaxation etc.
11.
After hearing learned authorized representatives for the respective parties as well as well as perusal of
evidence, coupled with the case law cited by the respective parties in support of their respective pleadings, I am of the
view that the sole question which requires determination in the present case is whether the claimant herein joined
services of the management on 09.12.2012 in the capacity of Electronic Mechanic from general category or reserved
category meant for Ex-Servicemen.
14.
Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions raised on behalf of either of the parties,
it is necessary to refer to the facts germane to the controversy. Controversy in the present case in fact is purely legal in
nature and oral evidence adduced by the parties is of much relevance. It is clear from office order dated 09.12.2002
Ex.MW1/1 that the claimant herein had applied for the post of Electronic Mechanic from open market for different
posts and relevant extract of the office order is reproduced thus:
“As a result of direct recruitment from open market for different trades of Artisans/Maintainers and offer of
appointment sent to the medically fit candidates. In continuation of this office OO No.O&M/R&T-18, 22, 26,
27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 48 and 49 of 2002, the following candidate(s)who has/have reported for
training in this office on the dates indicated against each is/are appointed and placed under orientation training.
Orders of his/their posting on working posts will be issued separately only after completing by him/them
his/their training successfully:
S.
No.
Name & Father’s
Name (S/Shri)
Trainee’s
Trade
IDA
Pay
Scale and
Basic Pay
Date
of
Birth
Cate-
gory
Employee
No.
Roll No. &
Fit
Memo
No.
Reported on
1.
Anil
Kumar
Joshi, S/o Surjit
Singh
Electronic
Mechanic
3600-5500
3600
3-Nov-66
Gen.
5336
21030101
238050
09-Dec-02
2.
Narain
Dass
Khanna,
S/o
Electronic
3600-5500
8-Aug-64
Gen.
5337
27031599
09-Dec-02
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1431
Bhagwan
Dass
Khanna
Mechanic
3600
238119
3.
Rakesh
Kumar
Sharma, S/o Jyoti
Prasad Sharma
Electronic
Mechanic
3600-5500
3600
28-Mar-64
Gen.
5338
23031066
238104
09-Dec-02
Murali Dharan K,
S/o
R.
Sethumadhavan
Diesel
Mechanic
3600-5500
3600
20-Apr-64
Gen.
5339
31140429
238131
09-Dec-02
2. He/they should, however, note that final seniority to be assigned to him/them on completion of training would
be based on his/their merit position in the Direct Rectt. Panel and his/their performance in the various exams
during the period of Training.
3. Initially he/they will be on probation of a period of 2 years (including the period of training which may be
extended or curtailed at the discretion of competent authority.
4. He/they should also note that without prejudice to the above, his/their services will stand terminated in case
there is/are any adverse report against him/them from the police authorities on his character and antecedents, till
then his/their appointment will be on provisional basis only.
5. He/they will be governed by the terms and conditions as stipulated in the above-referred offer of appointment.
15.
After conclusion of the arguments, claimant has also filed OM dated 14.08.2014 issued by the Ministry of
Pension, Public Grievances and Pension and Clause 3 of the said memorandum reads as under:
3.
An Ex-Serviceman at the time of his release or discharge from the armed forces normally applies for more
than one vacancy, but in case he/she joins any civil employment due to early declaration of results/selection,
he/she is ,not entitled for the benefit of reservation for Ex-Servicemen for subsequent employment. It has been
brought to the notice of this Department that the aforesaid instructions are affecting the chances of Ex-
Servicemen in the case of direct recruitment for subsequent suitable employment.
16.
Chapter 15 of the DMRC rules also contains guidelines to be followed at the time of direct recruitment. Clause
IX deals with the method of recruitment from external sources. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed on
behalf of either of the parties that direct recruitment in the case of Ex-Serviceman is to be done in accordance with
Office memorandum dated 14.08.2014 and other notification and clarification issued by the Union Government from
time to time.
17.
It is further clear from the statement of Shri Prem Pankaj Bhardwaj MW1 that a total of 31 employees were
recruited for the post of Electronic Mechanics in the year 2002 and reservation quota for Ex-Serviceman was 14.5%. He
has further made a vital admission that out of 31 such employees, 4 employees would be Ex-Servicemen. He has
admitted that the claimant herein obtained 50 marks in the written test and 9 marks in the interview and his total marks
were 59. Further, in the year 2002, 10 Ex-Servicemen were recruited. He has also admitted that no fee concession was
given to the claimant. He has further admitted that OM No.36034 dated 10.10.1994 issued by the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pension is applicable to the management. He has also made reference to the roster at serial No.
26, wherein reservation was given to the claimant in the category of Ex-Servicemen. During the course of arguments,
this court wanted to know from the A/R for the management as to how name of the claimant is shown against post of
Ex-Servicemen in the so-called roster prepared by the management when his initial appointment as per MW1/1, name
of the claimant appears at serial No.1 and the said result pertains to the selection in respect of open market, i.e. general
category. However, no satisfactory reply was given, even by senior official of the management present in court.
18.
It is clear from matrix of the case that claimant herein joined the management on 09.12.2002 as Electronic
Mechanic and it is also not disputed that 31 posts was advertised by the management for direct recruitment from open
market for different trades and the claimant herein has applied and appeared in the test for the post of Electronic
Mechanic. During the course of arguments, claimant has invited attention of the court to the application, and it was not
disputed by either parties that he applied on the format, code No.3 and name of trade as Electronic Mechanic. There is
mention of category code in the said format which shows that the claimant has marked his category as general. Below
that there is mention of Ex-Servicemen, which the claimant has tick marked ‘yes’. He has also mentioned his
qualification in the application form as ITI - Electronics & Telecommunication (Radar Fitter). During the course of
arguments, it was also not disputed that that above post is Group ‘C’ category under the Central Government.
19.
It is, further, clear from perusal of office Order dated 09.09.2002 Ex.MW1/3 that the claimant has qualified the
above test for the post of Electronic Mechanic and he was asked to report for training in the office of the management.
There is also Annexure A attached with this list, which clearly shows that the claimant has obtained 50 marks in the
written test and 9 marks in the interview and his total marks are 59 and in the column ‘category’ it is mentioned Ex-
1432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Servicemen., which clearly shows that the claimant is an Ex-Serviceman under un-reserved category. Shri Rajbir
Kapasia, the person who topped the written examination has obtained 71.75 marks. Names of candidates who have
qualified the test and were called for interview were given in the order of merit. There is considerable contention in
submission of the claimant that he has applied as open category/general category candidate and that is why his name is
shown in the list of merit as Ex-Servicemen UR).
20.
Another document, Ex.MW1/2 which is in fact list of candidates called for medical test, name of the claimant
finds mention at serial No.7 and his category is shown to be ‘General’ being Ex-Serviceman, mention of roll number as
well as date of birth and his age at the time of the test is 35+. This list also clearly shows that name of the candidates in
the above list are shown in order of merit. Further, candidates mentioned at serial No.1 to 6 in Ex.MW1/2 are in the age
group of 35 to 38, except at serial No. 2, whose age is 24 years. Perusal of above list also shows that candidates at serial
No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are show as ‘General’ category Ex-Servicemen. There were admittedly only 31 posts as is clear
from advertisement and reservation in respect of Ex-Servicemen, as was submitted by the management also, for the
said post was 14%. This further shows that out of 31 posts, 4 posts have been allotted to the category of Ex-
Servicemen. If it were so, then also name of the claimant cannot be said to be in the category of Ex-Servicemen as
candidates at serial no.1, 3, 5 and 6, i.e. Rajbir Kapasia, Goga Ram Kanojia, and Bramjit Singh belong to general
category of Ex-Servicemen, who have also scored more marks than the claimant herein. In fact, number of Ex-
Servicemen selected in the above list Ex.MW1/2 comes to 10 and by no stretch of reasoning, there can be reservation
for 10 posts out of total 31 posts in the category of Electronic Mechanics. Contention of the management is to the effect
that the claimant has joined as an Ex-Servicemen, being his first Government employment , he has already availed
benefit of him being an Ex-Serviceman, as such he cannot claim benefit for the post of Station Controller/Train
Operator. Claimant, in the present case, admittedly appeared as an Ex-Servicemen for the post of Station
Controller/Train Operator. He has also undergone interview and psycho test but in the final selection list, claimant was
declared unsuccessful. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that management is a public sector
undertaking, is also following Central Service Rules, where office order/rules of the management are silent.
21.
There is also no merit in the contention of the management that while appearing as WW1, the claimant has
admitted that he has applied against the post of Ex-Servicemen. His statement, including his cross examination is
crystal clear that his age at the time of the test was 36 years as his date of birth is 03.11.1966. He has admitted the
advertisement issued by the management vide Ex.WW1/M1 and has appointment letter Ex.WW1/4. Admit Card of the
claimant also shows that he was not appearing in the above examination as reserved/Ex-Servicemen candidate as there
is no mention of this fact in the admit card nor there is any mention of this fact in the order of appointment attached
with letter dated 28.10.2002. It is necessary to produce the offer of appointment so as to appreciate controversy in
proper perspective:
Subject
Offer of appointment against direct recruitment from open market for the post of
IDA Pay Scale – Rs.3600-100-5500
Ref
(i) Advt. published in ‘The Employment News’ in June 2002 and
(ii) Written test held on 25..08.2002 and interview between 25.09.2002 and 28.09.2002
I am directed to state that you have been selected for appointment to the above mentioned post and pay scale.
Your basis pay will be initially fixed at the minimum of the above pay scale with usual allowances as
admissible under the rules as per the following terms and conditions:
1.
Your appointment is on temporary basis but may be made permanent later.
2.
Your appointment and continuance in the service shall be subject to your character and
antecedent being found satisfactory.
3.
Your appointment will be subject to production of the following documents, in original
4.
You will be on probation for a period of two years,(including training) from the date
………………
22.
No doubt, in the seniority list prepared by the management, the claimant is shown to be belonging to category
of Ex-Servicemen in the so called roster prepared by the management after declaration of results and joining of the
various candidates on the respective posts. The above roster is not at all in consonance with the documents. It does not
appear to be in accordance with law as there is no mention whether any tentative seniority list of candidates was
circulated before finalizing the list of seniority, which is required under the law so that if any candidate or Government
servant raised any grievance against the preparation/his placement in the list, as the same could be specifically raised by
such aggrieved candidate/Government servant. Learned A/R for the management could not satisfy this Tribunal as to
how the claimant could be shown to be belonging to Ex-Servicemen category when he has not availed benefit of the
same in his first civil employment. There is hardly any dispute with the proposition of law that when an Ex-Serviceman
has once availed benefit of being an Ex-Serviceman, that would not entitle such a person for further benefit of
reservation in subsequent employment. This fact is amply clear from perusal of E.MW1/4 and Ex.MW1/5.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1433
23.
The basic question is whether the claimant herein has really applied as an Ex-Serviceman candidate when he
has obtained is first civil employment when he applied for the post of Electronic Mechanic with the management vide
Ex.MW1/3. As discussed, mere relaxation of age to Ex-Servicemen would not mean that such candidate has applied
under Ex-Servicemen category. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the case of Jitender Singh case (supra). It
was case where direct competitive examination for filling post of Sub Inspector was conducted by UP Public Service
Commission and appellant in the said case had availed benefit of relaxation of upper age limit, being belonging to
reserved category. It was strongly urged on behalf of the management that such a candidate is to be adjusted against
reserved vacancy even if marks secured by such candidates was more than the marks secured by the general category
candidate in open competition. This contention did not find favour with the High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme
Court and it was held as under:
“reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates
had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the
concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall
within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the
reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list.”
“Concessions falling within Section 8 of the Act of 1994 cannot be said to be relaxations in the standard
prescribed for qualifying in the written examination. Relaxation in age limit is merely to enable the reserved
category candidate to compete with the general category candidate, all other things being equal. The State has
not treated the relaxation in age and fee as relaxation in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the
candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written Test followed by Interview. Therefore, such relaxations cannot
deprive a reserved category candidate of the right to be considered as a general category candidate on the basis
of merit in the competitive examination.
Relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field”. The concessions are provisions
pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the
concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who
fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are
permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved
candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open
competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which
category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the Preliminary
Test as also in the Physical Test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to
participate in the open competition.”
24.
In K Manjusree case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question whether selection criteria which has
already been prescribed in advance can be changed afterwards and this contention did not find favour of the Hon’ble
Apex Court. It was held that original criteria in which examination was conducted wherein minimum qualifying marks
were prescribed, both for the test as well as interview, should not have been changed as it amounts to change of rules of
the game midway. In the case in hand also, when the claimant has appeared as an open market candidate as is clear from
the application form as well as Admit Card, including declaration of results wherein he has been show to be general
category candidate, status of such a candidate cannot be later on converted to reserved category belonging to Ex-
Servicemen, when he has obtained higher marks in the open competition and he was placed at serial No.7 in the order of
merit. Neither in the offer of appointment nor in any other subsequent letter, there is mention by the management to the
effect that the claimant herein has been selected as candidate against reserved category of Ex-Servicemen.
25.
Statement of Shri Prem Pankaj Bhardwaj MW1 is not of much value so as to explain the norms followed in
preparation of roster by the management. He has admitted that reserved quota for Ex-Servicemen is 14.5% and there
were 31 candidates in the category to which the claimant belongs if 4 posts would be for Ex-Servicemen. He, further,
admitted that marks obtained by the claimant was 50 in the written test and 9 in the interview and his total marks
aggregated to 59. Further, he admitted that there were as many as 10 Ex-Servicemen recruited in the said test. Though
he denied the suggestion that all the 10 have come in the open quota on the basis of their respective performance being
meritorious candidates. As discussed above, but it is clear from declaration of result that merit list was prepared on the
basis of marks obtained by the respective candidates in the test and in the said declaration of the result, claimant herein
has been shown belonging to general category. He has further made a vital admission that no fee concession was given
to the claimant, which is again suggestive of the fact that the claimant had applied for the post under General category
of Ex-Servicemen. He has also admitted that Office Memorandum dated 10.10.1994 is applicable to the management.
He further deposed under the SC/ST roster at serial No. 26, reservation was given to the claimant under the category of
Ex-Servicemen. To my mind, merely showing the claimant as Ex-Serviceman in the roster register would not confer
him status of having availed status of Ex-Servicemen when he has applied for the post from open market as a direct
recruit and even in the declaration of result, management has shown him to be belonging to open category/General
1434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
category. The roster system filed by the Local Commissioner does not appear to be at all in consonance with the
judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabharwal case and all subsequent pronouncements, wherein
Sabharwal has been followed consistently by the various Courts. In view of this, there is nothing on record to show
that any tentative seniority list was ever prepared and circulated amongst the employees so as to invite their
objections/grievances for making the same final. Hence, it is held that it is held that the seniority list prepared is not at
all in accordance with law and the same cannot be used so as to use so as to decide the question whether selection of
the claimant was made against reserved General category/open market post.
26.
As a sequel to my detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is held that appointment of Shri Anil Kumar Joshi,
claimant herein to the post of Electronic was against the open/general post. He has not availed benefit of reservation at
the time of his first appointment with the management. Resultantly, it is held that the action of the management in not
giving benefit of reservation to the claimant herein against the post reserved for Ex-Servicemen for his selection to the
post of Station Collector is neither legal nor justified. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the
appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Dated : January 6, 2017
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 685-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cMkSnk
jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad 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] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk
FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@99@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Gramin
Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-12011/99/2014-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 7/2015
Reference No.L-12011/99/2014-IR(B-I) dated: 2.1.2015
The General Secretary
United Fourm of B.R.K.G.B Unions,
B-124, Sethi Colony, Jaipur.
V/s
The President
Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank
Head Office, City Plaza,
Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
AWARD
30.12.2015
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1435
“D;k ;wukbVsM Qkje vkQ ch-vkj-ds-th-ch- ;qfu;ul }kjk izca/ku cMkSnk jktLFkku
xzkeh.k cSad] vtesj dks izsf"kr ekax i= fnukad 10-01-2014 ,oa 30-09-2013 esa ls
vuqyXud ^v^ esa mYysf[kr ekax U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gS\ ;fn gk¡] rks cMkSnk
jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad ds deZpkjh fdl jkgr ,oa dc ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were sent to both the parties as per the order of
the tribunal dated 15.1.2015 fixing 23.6.2015 for filing statement of claim by applicant. On 23.6.2015 applicant was
served but statement of claim was not filed. Learned representative for opposite party Sh. Surender Singh, Advocate
came in appearance & filed authority on behalf of opposite party on 23.6.2015. 7.9.2015 was next date fixed by tribunal
on its own motion for filing statement of claim by applicant adjourning the case on 23.6.2015. On 23.6.2015 neither
applicant or anyone on his behalf came in appearance nor statement of claim was filed. Learned representative for
opposite party was present. In interest of justice case was again adjourned by tribunal on its own motion providing
opportunity to file statement of claim on 23.11.2015. Order was also passed directing the applicant to file Annexure-A
to the reference containing demands of the applicant.
3.
On 23.11.2015 when case was taken up for hearing none appeared from both the side. Statement of claim was
also not filed from the side of applicant. Looking into the fact that applicant is not taking interest in filing statement of
claim & does not appear to be interested in further proceeding of the case, file was reserved for passing award without
statement of claim.
4.
It is pertinent to note that reference dated 2.1.2015 was sent by Ministry to applicant with direction to file
statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on
the direction of Ministry nor on notice & knowledge of the proceeding pending before the tribunal. It appears that
applicant is not interested & willing in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the circumstances & in the absence of
material evidence brought on record, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit.
Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
5.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 686-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad fy-] 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] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks
çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@93@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-12012/93/2015-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 87/2015
Reference No.L-12012/93/2015-IR(B-I) dated: 7.9.2015
Shri Kishangopal Meena
S/o Chaganlal Meena
Gram Saklai, Post Kanvada,
Tehsil Dunia Jila Tonk,
Jaipur.
1436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
1. Dy. General Manager
Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd.
201 Senestar, Central Sapine,
Vidhadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Security Officer
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Sardar Patel Marg, Near BJP Office
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
AWARD
30.6.2016
1.
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 and 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:-
ßD;k izca/ku vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fy-] t;iqj ds flD;ksfjVh Bsdsnkj eS- ckWEcs baVsyhtsal flD;ksfjVh ¼bafM;k½ fy-]
t;iqj dk deZdkj Jh fd'kuxksiky eh.kk] flD;ksfjVh xkMZ dks ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 01-01-2015 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls
fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\Þ
2.
Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to the parties fixing 1.3.2016 for
filing statement of claim. On 1.3.2016 applicant was absent. For Bombay Intelligence Security (India Ltd.), Jaipur,
Administrative Officer was present & authority for the Company was filed by him. None appeared for I.C.I.C.I. Bank
Ltd. Order was passed to re-issue the notices against applicant & bank fixing 11.4.2016 for filing statement of claim.
3.
On 11.4.2016 Presiding Officer was on leave. Applicant was present. None appeared for I.C.I.C.I. Bank.
Representative of opposite party No. 2, Bombay Intelligence Security (India Ltd.), Jaipur, was present. 15.6.2016 was
next date fixed for filing statement of claim. On 15.6.2016 presiding officer was on leave. Applicant was absent.
Sh. Rajvir Singh Yadav, Administrative Officer, was present for Bombay Intelligence Security (India Ltd.), Jaipur.
None appeared for I.C.I.C.I. Bank. Documents were filed by Sh. Rajvir Singh Yadav which were taken on record.
28.6.2016 was next date fixed for filing statement of claim & further proceeding.
4.
On 28.6.2016 applicant was absent. DJM & Sh. Rajvir Singh, Administrative Officer were present for Bombay
Intelligence Security (India Ltd.), Jaipur. None appeared for I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. Service was held sufficient against
I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. Sh. Rajvir Singh, Administrative Officer alleged that applicant is not to contest the case because all
the dues against the applicant have been cleared. Looking into the next date 30.6.2016 fixed for Lok- Adalat, Sh. Rajvir
Singh, alleged that this case may be fixed for disposal in Lok-Adalat & he will ensure the presence of applicant in Lok-
Adalat on 30.6.2016. Accordingly, after perusal of file & earlier documents submitted by security agency about
clearance of dues of the applicant case was fixed for disposal in Lok-Adalat on 30.6.2016.
5.
On 30.6.2016 Sh. Rajvir Singh Yadav, Administrative Officer for Bombay Intelligence Security (India Ltd.),
Jaipur appeared & submitted application for disposal of case. None appeared for & on behalf of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. &
applicant. Heard the applicant Sh. R Sh. Rajvir Singh Yadav, Administrative Officer on his application to decide the
case in Lok-Adalat. It has been alleged in his application dated 30.6.2016that the security agency has cleared the
demands made by applicant & dues of the applicant against the security agency & applicant has no complaint against
the company now. He has further alleged that he contacted the applicant who assured his appearance on 30.6.2016 in
Lok-Adalat but he has not turned up in spite of assurance. It has been further alleged that applicant does not want to
contest the case & the case may be closed. From perusal of file it is evident that on 15.6.2016 Sh. Rajvir Singh Yadav
Administrative Officer has filed following six documents as mentioned below :-
(I).
Information to the tribunal by security agency indicating that five employees namely Lala Ram
Meena, Moti Lal Meena, Kishan Gopal Meena, Nawal Kishor & Maya Ram Meena have resigned from the
service of the company & relieved on 31.12.2015 & they have been paid their dues in full & final settlement &
nothing is due against the company. It has been further alleged that applicants are no more employee of the
company hence case may be closed. Kishan gopal Meena is the applicant in the present case.
(II).
This is an application by applicant Kishan gopal Meena dated 31.12.2015 addressed to Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur requesting that complaint dated 2.3.2015 made by applicant against the
company may be dismissed. It has been alleged that company has cleared the dues of the applicant &
applicant now has no complaint against the company. He had made a complaint dated 2.3.2015 before the
RLC(C), Jaipur & applicant is withdrawing his compliant & he will not make any complaint in future against
the company before any court or Labour Court.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1437
(III).
This document is Photocopy of Adhar Card of the applicant to support the genuiness of the
application of the applicant.
(IV).
This is an application of resignation addressed to the security company wherein it has been alleged
that due to domestic problems applicant does not want to serve the company anymore & he has no complaint
against the company. He is withdrawing his complaint which he had made earlier hence, it is requested that his
full & final payment may be made.
(V). Receipt of full & final due from company signed by applicant on revenue stamp in presence of two
witnesses.
(VI). Cheque of corporation Bank relating to money received as full & final satisfaction.
6.
After perusal of above documents it appears that applicant is not interested in pursuing the case further hence,
instead of passing “No Claim Award” case was disposed in the Lok-Adalat with order as mentioned below :-
30.06.2016
i=koyh vkt yksd vnkyr esa izLrqr gqbZA iqdkj ij foi{k dh rjQ ls cEos bUVsfytsUl
flD;wfjVh ¼bf.M+;k½ fyfeVsM ds fy, Jh jktohj flag ;kno] iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh mifLFkr gSA 'ks"k i{kdkj
vuqifLFkr gSA
vkt foi{kh cEos bUVsfytsUl flD;wfjVh ¼bf.M+;k½ fyfeVsM dh rjQ ls vkosnu izLrqr gqbZ fd eqdn~es ds izkFkhZ
eqdn~ek ugha yM+uk pkgrs gSa blfy, eqdn~es dks cUn dj fn;k tk; D;ksafd ;kfpdkdrkZ )kjk fd;s x;s ek¡x vkSj
mudk cdk;k fglkc dj fn;k x;k gSA ;kph dks dEiuh ls dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gS rFkk ;g eqdn~ek ugha yM+uk
pkgrs gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ;kph ls lEidZ dj izkFkhZ us U;k;ky; esa lqyg gsrq mifLFkr gksus ds fy, dgk ysfdu
ßgkaWÞ dgus ds ckn Hkh os U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gq,A
eSaus i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij foi{k us mHk; i{k }kjk fookn lekIr gksus dh fyf[kr ?kks"k.kk rFkk
{ks=h; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ t;iqj dks izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fookn dks fujLr djus dh vkosnu izLrqr dh gS tks
fnukafdr 31.12.2015 gSA mDr fLFkfr ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ dks eqdn~ek vkxs pykus esa :fp ugha gS] vr% vkxs
dh dk;Zokgh cUn dh tkrh gS rFkk i=koyh ,okMZ+ gsrq vkjf{kr dh tkrh gSaA
7.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 687-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj eè;
jsyos 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] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 107@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@40@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Central
Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-41012/40/2009-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 107 of 2010
Between :
Smt. Manju Devi,
D/o Sri Ramesh Chandra,
House No. 83/129 Chhoti Juhi,
Kanpur.
1438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
The Principal,
Electric Training Centre,
North Central Railway,
Fazalganj, Kanpur.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification No. L-41012/40/2009-IR (B-1) dated 18.11.2010, has
referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Principal, Electric Training Centre, Fazalganj North Central Railway
Kanpur ad DRM North Central Railway Allahabad in terminating the services of Smt. Manju w/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra
w.e.f. 6.6.2000 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned applicant is entitled?
3.
The case of the applicant is that she was appointed at the post of washer lady on 11.09.90 under the opposite
party. It is also alleged that in the Electric Training School Electric Driver resides and the bed sheets, cartons etc. were
used to be washed by washer men which were in all 5 in numbers. The wages were paid separately to the workers by the
management after obtaining the signatures. It is further alleged by the applicant that her services were removed by the
without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the applicant has not mentioned the date from
which she was removed from the service of the management in as-much-as she was neither given any notice, or notice
pay or retrenchment compensation thereby the removal of the workman is against the rules of provisions of Industrial
disputes Act, hence it is prayed by the worker that she be reinstated in the service of the management with full pay
allowances, back wage and with continuity of service.
4.
On the contrary the opposite party has filed its reply denying the claim of the applicant stating therein that they
have never given appointment to the applicant against any regular and permanent post, she was never given wages as is
given to the regular and permanent employee of the management, she had never performed the work of permanent and
regular nature, she had never been removed or terminated from the services of the management therefore, the provisions
of Industrial Dispute Act are not applicable in the case of the applicant and thus she is not entitled for any relief as
claimed by the applicant.
5.
The applicant has filed certain documents in the form of photocopy which was rejected by the court by order
dated 28.05.15 as not pressed.
6.
It is pertinent to mention here that neither party has adduced any evidence in the case in support of their
respective claim; therefore, it will be presumed that it is a case of no evidence.
7.
Having concluded that the present case is a case of the nature in which neither of the parties have adduced their
evidence nor have argued their case, therefore, the tribunal having no option left but to decide the reference against the
applicant for want of evidence and proof.
8.
Accordingly it is held that the applicant in the present case is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence
and proof.
9.
Accordingly reference s answered against the applicant holding that the applicant is not entitled for any relief
pursuant to the present reference order.
10.
Reference is answered accordingly.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 688-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad
vkWiQ bankSj 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@24@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 79/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1439
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
Indore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-12011/24/2009-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/79/2009
General Secretary,
Pratharit Karmachari Kalyan Manch,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engg.College,
Sanwer Road, Ujjain
…Workman/Union
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Kampel, Distt. Indore
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 5th day of January, 2017
1.
As per letter dated 24-9-09 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-12011/24/2009-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the applicant Shri Hukum Chand Parmar is justified to claim for the payment of
difference of wages as per Bipartite settlement? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General
Secretary of Daily Wage Employees Union. Case of Ist party is that workman Raj Kumar Parosia was engaged as peon
in 2nd party Bank from 14-12-93. He was working 8 hours every day. He completed 240 days continuous service. He
was initially paid wages Rs.20 per day. Rates were increased to Rs.25, 30, 35, 40, lastly Rs. 3500 pm. When workman
had claimed bonus and regularization in service, payment of revised pay scale, his services were terminated without
notice in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman raised separate dispute challenging termination of his service.
That he was working from 14-12-93 to March 98. He was not paid wages as per 6th to 9th bipartite settlement. The
details of the pay scales under the settlement are given in para 4 of the statement of claim. Ist party workman claimed
that he is eligible for receiving scale wages. Management did not pay him wages as per bipartite settlement. He claimed
difference of wages as per 6th to 9th bipartite settlement. That violation of settlement is punishable under Section 29 of
ID Act, it also amounts to unfair labour practice. On such ground, workman prays for difference of wages as per 6th to
8th bipartite settlement.
3.
2nd party filed written statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that State Bank of Indore is
merged in State Bank of India vide notification dated 20-7-2010. BranchManager has no power to appoint peon,
messenger, security guard. Such appointments can be made on regular basis as per rules and regulations of the Bank. Ist
party workman was not appointed as peon. He was not working 8 hours in a day. Claim of workman is false and
imaginary. That as per practice prevailing in the Bank for work of cleaning, sweeping, labours were engaged on
contractual basis as regular peon were not doing such work. Ist party workman was engaged on contractual rate. He was
engaged on casual basis working one hour before opening and one hour after closing of the Bank. Workman was not
engaged as permanent peon or part time peon. Work of regular peon was not taken from him. He is entitled to scale
wages. Dispute is raised by General Secretary of Employees Welfare Organisation is not competent to raise the dispute.
Claim of workman for difference of wages deserves to be rejected.
4.
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 the applicant Shri Hukum
Chand Parmar is justified to claim for the payment
of difference of wages as per Bipartite settlement?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
1440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
5.
The term of reference pertains to demand of difference of wages as per pay scale under bipartite settlement.
Management has opposed claim of workman filing Written Statement. Though filed affidavit of his evidence on 8-0-14,
representative Shri Nagwanshi submitted not to give evidence. Workman could not be cross examined. His evidence
cannot be considered.
6.
Ist party has produced certified copies of affidavit of evidence of Kiran Kumar in R/199/98 between workman
Hukumchand and State Bank of Indore. The witness of management in his cross examination said that he had not taken
information from Branch Managers. Work of cleaning, sweeping was done morning evening in the branch except
Sunday and Wednesday. The area of the branch is around 250 sq.ft. muster roll of workman was not maintained.
Workman was working 3 days in a week. He was paid Rs.20 per day. Certified copy of affidavit of evidence of
Shri Sunil in R/199/98 is produced. Said witness in his cross says that appointment letter was not given to workman. He
claims ignorance what procedure was filed before engagement of workman. Payment was made to workman under
voucher. Workman was not paid bonus for the year 1993 to 1998. Certified copy of affidavit of management’s witness
Shri Yogesh Gandhi in R/199/98 is produced. Witness of management admitted settlement Exhibit W-4 in said
reference. Witness claimed ignorance whether bonus was paid to workman from 1993 to 99. In his further cross, he
admitted document Exhibit W-2,3 regarding payment of bonus. Certified copy of affidavit of workman in other
reference is filed.
7.
Management’s witness filed affidavit of his evidence supporting whole contentions in Written statement filed
by management. In his cross, management’s witness says he was not posted in branch during 1993 to 1999. He was
unable to tell area of the branch. He was unable to tell sanction post of sub staff. He was unable to tell rate of dailyw
ages during 1993 to 99.
8.
Workman has not produced any documents. In Bipartite settlement, prescribed rates of wages payable to daily
wage employees . therefore claim of workman for difference of wages as per scale wages under bipartite 6th to 8th
settlement is not established. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in point No.1 in Negative.
9.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The demand of the applicant Shri Hukum Chand Parmar is justified to claim for the payment of difference
of wages as per Bipartite settlement is not legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 689-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad 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 tcyiqj] ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@62@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-12011/62/2011-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/7/2012
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Ujjain
…Workman/Union
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1441
Versus
Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
LHO, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 5th day of January, 2017
1. As per letter dated 15-12-2011by 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-12011/62/2011-
IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Parishad for payment of wages as paid to
permanent peon for the period from 7-10-94 to 31-3-09 to Shri Rajkumar Parosia is legal and justified? To
what relief the workman/Union is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by General Secretary of
Daily Wage Employees Union. Case of Ist party is that workman Raj Kumar Parosia was engaged as peon in 2nd party
Bank from 7-10-94. He was working 8 hours every day. He completed 240 days continuous service. He was initially
paid wages Rs.10 per day. Rates were increased to Rs.15, 20, 35, 40, 80, 115 lastly Rs. 3500 pm. When workman had
claimed bonus and regularization in service, payment of revised pay scale, his services were terminated without notice
in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman raised separate dispute challenging termination of his service. That he
was working from 7-10-94 to 22-3-2010. He was not paid wages as per 6th to 9th bipartite settlement. Thedetails of the
pay scales under the settlement are given in para 4 of the statement of claim. Ist party workman claimed that he is
eligible for receiving scale wages. Management did not pay him wages as per bipartite settlement. He claimed
difference of wages as per 6th to 9th bipartite settlement. That violation of settlement is punishable under Section 29 of
ID Act, it also amounts to unfair labour practice. On such ground, workman prays for difference of wages as per 6th to
9th bipartite settlement.
3. 2nd party Bank filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary objection that
workman was not appointed following recruitment rules. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.
Workman was engaged purely on daily wages or casual basis for one to two hours in a week. That the workman was
engaged maximum 10-12 days in a month. He was free to come on next day. Management was at liberty not to engage
him on next day. Workman was not employed in the Bank as regular peon. He was engaged for work of cleaning,
sweeping etc. He was paid remuneration from contingency fund of the Bank. Workman not worked more than 240 days
during any calendar year. His services were not terminated by the Bank. Only employee appointed on regular basis is
entitled to benefit of bipartite settlement. Persons engaged on daily wages depending on exigencies is not entitled to pay
scales as per bipartite settlement. It is reiterated that the workman had not worked for 240 days during any of the year.
His services were not terminated violating Section 25-F of ID Act. Branch Manager have no control over affairs of
workman as he had no occasion to supervise his work. 2nd party submits that claim of workman for difference of wages
be rejected.
4. 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 the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari
Parishad for payment of wages as paid to permanent peon for the
period from 7-10-94 to 31-3-09 to Shri RajkumarParosia is legal and
justified?
In Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
5. The term of reference pertains to legality of demand of Union for payment of wages as paid to the permanent peon.
Claim of workman is denied by management filing Written Statement. Workman did not adduce evidence. On
10-12-2014, representative of workman submitted he doesnot want to file evidence. Evidence of workman was closed.
6. Management’s witness Shri Tiwari filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in written statement filed by
management. That workman was not engaged by the Bank. His engagement was on daily wages as per exigency.
Workman was not continuously working from 7-10-94 to 23-3-2010. Workman is not entitled to get regular pay scale/
difference of wages for above said period. Management’s witness in his cross examination says he was not posted at
1442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Amla branch during 1994 to 2010. Amla branch comes under protected area. Security passes are issued for
identification and entering in the Bank. Two post of sub staff were sanctioned in the Bank. The peon is paid salary as
per bipartite agreement. Workman was paid Rs. 25/- per day. Document about payment to workman are not produced.
Management’s witness admitted documents Exhibit W-4,5. Workman was doing work of cleaning, sweeping,
gardening and hammal. Workman was paid wages as per information available in the Bank. He was not paid wages as
per the pay scale. Document Exhibit W-4 prescribed norms for sanction for post, full time part time sweepers. In para-2
the rates of wages payable to part time workers is prescribed. Rs. 80 per day to part time employee working upto 6
hours per week when branch area is less than 1200 sq.ft. 1/3rd scale wages when working hours are 6 to 13 hours per
week and branch area above 1200 to 2000 sq.ft. workman has not adduced evidence w.r.t. area of the Bank for his exact
working hour in the Bank. Exhibit W-2 admitted by 2nd party intermittent payment sof wages made to workman from
18-7-07 to 25-3-09. Union Representative Shri R. Nagwanshi produced copy of Ist bipartite settlement of 1996. Para
20-7 of said settlement deals with part time employees engaged in the Bank. Para 4.5 deals with payment of wages to
part time employees on the basis of working hours 3 to 6 hours per week, 6 to 13 hours. Evidence of workman isnot
cogent how many hours in a week he was working in the Bank. There is no evidence that workman was engaged as part
time employee therefore claim of workman for difference of wages as per bipartite settlement 6 to 9 cannot be accepted.
Copy of award in R/53/2010 cannot be relied even for persuasion purpose as the workman has not adduced evidence
about his weekly working hours and wages paid to him. In said reference, area of the branch was 7000 sq.ft. for reasons
discussed above, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Parishad for payment of wages as paid to
permanent peon for the period from 7-10-94 to 31-3-09 to Shri Rajkumar Parosia is not legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 690-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos
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
tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 195@01) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@133@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 195/01) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and
their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-41012/133/1997-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/195/01
Shri Watson Masih,
S/o Narbad Masih,
Railway Quarter No. K-14D,
Kudwara, Tehsil Katni,
Jabalpur (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur (MP)
…Management
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1443
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of January 2017
1.
As per letter dated 14-12-2001 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-41012/133/1997-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri
Watson Masih w.e.f. 14-3-89 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned applicant is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as casual labour under Carriage and Wagon
Superintendent, New Katni Junction from 9-5-82 to 13-3-89. That carrier and wagon Superintendent NKJ is under
administrative control of 2nd party DRM, Jabalpur. That he was medically examined on 15-3-84 and qualified in Class
B-I. consequent to passing his medical examination in class B-I, he was brought on monthly rated pay and awarded
temporary status. That he was orally stopped from work on 14-3-87 without assigning any reasons. That he submitted
several representations and personally approaches requesting for duty to the General Manager but nothing was done.
He was not paid retrenchment compensation. His dues were not settled. His services are terminated without following
proper procedure under Railway Discipline Appeal Rules 1968.
3.
He raised dispute before ALC, Jabalpur. Failure report was submitted on 23-3-97. Despite failure report
submitted to Chief Labour Commissioner, dispute was not referred under Section 10 of ID Act. He filed Writ petition
no. 4937/97 in High Court at Jabalpur. On 5-12-97, Hon’ble High Court directed 2nd party to consider failure report
within 3 months. The direction by Hon’ble High Court were not followed. Chief Labour Commissioner, Delhi declared
not to make reference as per letter dated 8-1-88. Again workman filed Writ Petition No. 1400/98 Hon’ble High Court
vide order dated 23-11-01 directed Government to make reference. Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement with
full backwages.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 12.1 to 12/4 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party submits
that vide letter dated 12-12-1980, Railway Board had imposed ban on recruitment of fresh casual labours. Only in case
of extreme emergency obtaining prior permission from General Manager, engagement was permitted. That many
persons on the basis of fake labour cards indicating date of employment prior to cut off date 18-12-80 sought
employment. Subsequently such fact was detected that fake card holders got employment. Their services were
dispensed. Workman is one of them. Ist party workman is holder of fake card got himself screened. However he was
not empaneled because of casual labour card in his possession found fake after verification. That during time of
screening, he produced record of having worked as casual labour w.e.f. 9-5-82 to 13-3-89 under Carriage and Wagon
Superintendent, New Katni Junction on verification found fake. Workman was not engaged as casual labour by Carriage
and Wagon Superintendent, New Katni Junction.
5.
2nd party further contends that person who can play mischief in the beginning, what more can be expected in
future. That workman was considered screened for purpose of regular employment but on verification, his card found
fake , therefore he was not employed. Workman did not take any action since 1989. The dispute is raised after 10 years
is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that on the basis of fake card, workman sought employment and worked in
broken period 89 days in 1982, 49 days in 1983, 80 days in 1984 in one spell and 144 days in 2nd spell only. As casual
card produced by workman was found fake in verification, the workman was not empanelled. 2nd party requests
permission to prove card of workman was fake. It is reiterated that dispute was raised belatedly. On such ground, 2nd
party prays reference be answered in its favour.
6.
Workman filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/3 reiterating contentions in statement of claim. He further contends
that the pleadings of fake card taken in Written Statement are not sustainable. The services of workman were
terminated without enquiry or following principles of natural justice. Hon’ble High Court has condoned delay. The
reference is not belated. Action of the management is arbitrary.
7.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Watson Masih w.e.f. 14-3-89 is justified?
In Negative
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
As per final order.
1444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
8.
The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Ist party workman filed
affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that he was working as casual labour under Carriage and Wagon
Superintendent, New Katni Junction from 9-5-82 to 13-3-89. As per entries in service card No. 54970, he was medically
examined on 15-3-84 and was declared fit for class B-I. He was brought on monthly rate of pay and was awarded
temporary status. On 14-3-89, his services were arbitrarily stopped without notice or assigning any reasons. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation after attaining temporary status, his services could not be terminated without following
procedure under Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 & Article 31 of the Constitution. He has also stated about disputes
raised before ALC and filing Writ Petitions. Only after direction by Hon’ble High Court, dispute was referred.
9.
In his cross-examination, workman says he passed 10th standard. He was engaged as casual labour. He not
submtted any application to the management. From persons in his locality, he got knowledge about engagement of
casual labours. From his evidence, casual card Exhibit W-1 is admitted inn evidence. Workman in his cross examination
says Exhibit W-1 doesnot bear his signature, he has put his thump mark on it. He denies that photo on Exhibit W-1 is
subsequently affixed. He has denied that earlier photo of some other person was affixed on the card. Workman admits
that before issuing casual card, enquiry used to be made. He was unable to tell name who had made enquiry with regard
to him. He denies that Exhibit W-1 is forged by him and produced on record.
10.
Management filed affidavit of witness of Shri Munnalal Thakur. He has supported contentions in Written
Statement that workman had obtained employment producing fake card. In screening card in his possession was found
fake therefore his services were dispensed. That workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. Engagement
of workman on the basis of fake card was in broken period 89 days in 1982, 49 days in 1983, 80 days in 1984 in one
spell and 144 days in 2nd spell. In Written Statement as well as in affidavit of the management’s witness, 144 working
days of Ist party are admitted. Management’s witness in his cross says that casual card produced by Ist party is not in
his record. The signature appearing on said casual card appears not of the officer. After looking live register, he said that
casual card produced by workman is bogus. Casual card is printed only at Bombay. Sl. Nos used to be printed on cards.
No enquiry was conducted about Sl. No. of the card or whether the card produced by workman was printed in the
concerned press. Card No. 182678 was issued to workman is not produced on record. Any enquiry was not conducted
w.r.t. casual card. Casual card Exhibit W-1 shows entries of period of engagement from 9-6-84 to 30-10-84, 25-11-84
till entry is not clear. Further entries of working period are from 25-1-84 to 23-12-87, 7-6-88 to 31-10-88, 6—89 to
25-1-89, 30-1-89 to 3-3-89.
11.
Management has produced substitute casual register. The entry of name of workman is at Sl. No. 7. His card
No. 182678 working days 328, he was found serviceable but regularized. In Written Statement and evidence of
management’s witness, there is clear admission of Ist party workman working for 144 days in 2nd spell supports
evidence of workman. After completion of 144 days, he acquired temporary status.
12.
Shri H. R. Bharti Advocate submitted judgment by Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench in the matter between
A. Parasuraman versus Union of India and another. The termination of services of casual labourer acquired
temporary status without notice or enquiry was held arbitrarily and illegal. Though judgment by CAT has no
burden precedent, I agree with the principles held in the matter. When services of workman are terminated
without enquiry is arbitrary.
13.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri Sohane submitted copy of Railway Establishment Manual.
Para 2001(1) defines casual labour refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short
periods or continued from one work to another. The conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff donot apply
to casual labour. Clause (b) of Para 2001(1) provides such of those casual labour engaged on open line works, who
continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work of some time for more than 150 days without
break will be treated as temporary i.e. given temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous employment.
Para 2004 provides except where notice is necessary under any statutory obligation, no notice is required for
termination of service of casual labour. Their services will be deemed to have been terminated when they
absent themselves or on the close of the day.
14.
Advocate for 2nd party Shri Sohane relies on judgment in case between
S. M. Asif versus Virender Kumar Bajaj reported in 2016(2)MPLJ-30. Ratio held in the case pertains to Order
12 Rule 6 CP. Judgment on admission not a matter of right. The facts of the case are not comparable.
Principles cannot be applied to case at hand.
15.
Admission in Written Statement and affidavit of management’s witness is Ist party workman had worked 144
days in 2nd spell on admission of facts about working days of workman.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1445
Reliance is also placed by learned counsel for 2nd party on ratio held in case between Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor
Sangh versus State of Bihar reported in AIR 989-SC-1565. Ratio held in the case is that Government while considering
question whether reference should be made or not cannot delve into merits of the dispute and determine the lis itself.
Their Lordship held submission of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended is not the same
thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits.
Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand. Dispute between parties has been referred by Government only after directions
issued by Honble High Court.
16.
Mr. Sohane also relies on ratio held in case between-
M. P. Bijali Meter Readers Karmachari Sangh and others versus Stte of Advisory Contract Labour Board and
another reported in 206(3)MPLJ-426. Their Lordship held it is sole prerogative of employer to prescribe
eligibility criteria and employee not entitled to question it contractual employee has no right to claim
permanency or regularization of service after expiry of contract.
Ratio held in the case not relate to the controversy between parties.
17.
As Ist party workman had worked more than 144 days in 2nd spell. No enquiry was made about casual card
issued to him. Management’s witness in his cross examination says that no enquiry was made w.r.t. Sl.No. of the card.
No doubt the number on Exhibit W-1 casual card is shown 54970 whereas in substitute casual register, his card number
is shown 182678. The entries in register are not proved by valid evidence. Any witness is not examined. As workman
has worked for more than 144 days, he acquired temporary status. His services are terminated without enquiry.
Termination of services of workman is illegal and arbitrary. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Negative.
18.
In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of Ist party is illegal, question remains for
consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Services of Ist party were terminated in
14th March 1989. The dispute is referred in the year 2001. Management has contented that thereference is highly belated
and not tenable. However pleadings and evidence of Ist party after failure report was submitted on 20-3-97 he was
required to file Writ Petition 4937/97. 2nd party not complied with direction by Hon’ble High Court. Again he was
required to file Writ Petition 1400/98 only after order dated 23-11-01, the dispute has been referred on 14-12-01. The
delay in raising dispute cannot be said fatal. The legal position is settled that in case dispute is belatedly raised, the
relief can be suitably moulded. In present case after termination of workman on 14-3-89, the dispute is raised in the
year 2001 after order by Hon’ble High Court. Consequent to the delay, 2nd party could not be expected to preserve the
documents. The workman cannot be allowed backwages. However claim for reinstatement deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
19.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Watson
Masih w.e.f. 14-3-89 is not legal and justified.
(2)
2nd party directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service but without back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 691-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@1@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Life Insurance
Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-17012/1/2005-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
1446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/99/2005
General Secretary,
Insurance Employees Union,
296, Anoop Nagar,
Indore.
..Workman/Union
Versus
Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, 19, MG Road,
Indore.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of January 2017
1.
As per letter dated 14-9-05 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-17012/1/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India imposing the penalty of removal from services on Smt.
Meena Baghel w.e.f. 30-3-03 is just, fair and legal. If not, to what relief she is entitled to and from which
date?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 6/1 to 6/7. Case of Ist party Union is that Smt. Meena Baghel was appointed on the post of Assistant in office of
2nd party management LIC Divisional office, Indore on 28-3-92. Her appointment was on the post of her caste “Paul”a
ST. some unknown persons submitted complaint against her that she had submitted bogus caste certificate for securing
said job. Said compliant was sent by Personal department of LIC to Collector Indore. The copy of complaint was sent
by personal department to the Disciplinary Authority. Enquiry was entrusted to SDO. In his report SDO had reported
that Meena Baghel had earlier shown her caste Dhanghad (ST). On the basis of fabricated document, caste certificate
was issued. On the basis of report submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Disciplinary Authority from LIC issued
chargesheet under Regulation 39 on 9-12-98. The substance of the chargesheet was prior to her marriage. Smt. Meena
had obtained caste certificate submitted bogus document that she belong to Paul/ Dhangad caste. Meena had given reply
to the chargesheet denying the charges against her. She had reiterated that she belong to Paul/ Dhangad caste. She had
rerquested documents on which basis the enquiry was conducted by SDO. Smt. Meena contented that he was not
supplied documents. Enquiry was not conducted properly. Statement of SDO on complaint was not recorded in
Enquiry Proceedings. The charges are not proved. Enquiry is vitiated. She was not given proper opportunity for his
defence. Order of removal issued by Disciplinary Authority is illegal. It is prayed that Meena be reinstated in service.
3.
2nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2nd party contends that it is
corporation established under LIC Act. 2nd party carries insurance business through different offices including
Divisional Office, Gwalior. Vide employment notice dated 7-6-92 by. Sr. Divisional Manager, applications were
invited for post of Assistant belonging to ST. that Meena Baghel workman had submitted application for said post
enclosing caste certificate issued by Tehsildar Indore. That Meena represented herself belonging to ST and caste
certificate was enclosed alongwith her application that she belongs to Dhangad caste. In school certificate issued by
head master dated 18-2-98, caste of Ku. Meena was recorded as Paul. Complaint was received from Jamuna Lad in
zonal office, Bhopal that Meena obtained employment producing false certificate of her caste. The matter was referred
to Collector Indore for deciding correctness of caste certificate issued by Tehsildar Indore. The enquiry was conducted
by Divisional officer who written letter to Meena. Enquiry was also made from the concerned school authorities. SDO
in his enquiry found that Meena did not belong to ST category. That certificate issued to her as ST- Dhangad was not
correct. Copy of report was sent by SDO to Collector, Indore. Said report was forwarded to Divisional manager of LIC.
After receiving report from the Collector Indore, chargesheet was issued to Meena Baghel. She denied the charges
against her. Her explanation was not found satisfactory. Enquiry was conducted against Meena Baghel. Enquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 26-2-01. Notice was issued to Meena on 14-10-02 alongwith the copy of enquiry report.
Meena Baghel submitted reply to the report of Enquiry Officer. Considering Enquiry Report, punishment of removal
was imposed. Appeal preferred by Meena was dismissed on 2-9-03. Meena submitted memorial to Chairman which was
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1447
dismissed on 13-2-04. 2nd party submits that certificate issued by tehsildar in collision with Meena was incorrect. She
did not belong to Dhangad caste. Caste certificate earlier issued is deemed to have been cancelled. The caste certificate
issued by Nayak Tehsildar is superseded as per report of SDO. LIC is governed by rules and regulations of LIC Act
1956 approved by Government. 2nd party reiterates that punishment of removal imposed against workman is legal. That
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter under reference.
4.
As per order dated 4-9-2015, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
5.
Considering pleadings on record and order 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 removal 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
6.
Point No. 1- As per order dated 4-9-15, enquiry conducted against workman Meena is found legal. Question
remains for consideration is whether charges alleged against Meena are proved from evidence in enquiry proceedings.
Management has produced documents. Exhibit m-1 is the application submitted by Meena for post of assistant. Her
caste is shown Dhangad. The enclosures in Exhibit M-1 shows copy of caste certificate was produced. The report
submitted by SDO Indore dated 4-9-97 shows Meena had failed to produce documents about her caste. The information
received from Educational and caste of Meena was shown Paul among Dhangad caste. The document secured by Meena
that she belong to Dhangad caste was bogus. Chargesheet Exhibit M-2 was issued to Meena Baghel that she had
submitted bogus caste certificate as ST for securing post of Assistant. Exhibit M-3 reply given by Meena to the
chargesheet. She contented the documents requested by her were not supplied. Enquiry proceedings dated 9-12-98
shows that as per letter received from SDO, caste of Meena Baghel was Dhangad (OBC). Meena had obtained
certificate of ST Dhangad caste on basis of fabricated documents. Her caste certificate was not cancelled. In Enquiry
proceedings dated 22-2-00, management’s representative was directed to collect notifications about the caste. Meena
had produced caste certificate issued by Gopikrisihnan MLA that she belong to Dhangad caste. She also produced
certificate issued by Primary school Nehru Nagar, Indore. Her caste was shown Paul. The certificate issued by
secondary education board was also produced by meena. Document D-1 to 8 were produced by Meena in the Enquiry
Proceedings. Certificate issued by Gopikrisihna Meena MLA was not accepted. The certificate issued by school shown
Meena belong to Paul caste, Dhangad. Certificate issued by social organization that Meena belong to Dhangad caste
was not accepted. I donot find any illegality committed by Enquiry Officer not accepting certificate issued by MLA or
social organizations that Meena belong to Dhangad caste. Ist party workman has not adduced any evidence on other
issues. The record of enquiry proceedings is proved by management’s witness Prem Verma which are marked M-1 to
M-11. As certificate issued by school and educational board, caste of Meena is shown Paul whereas Meena had
produced application claiming that she belong to ST Dhangad caste. The charges alleged against workman are
supported by evidence. The findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. Therefore no interference is called for.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1, charge against Meena Baghel that she obtained certificate of
ST Dhangad caste fabricating the documents, punishment of removal is proper. No interference is justified. I record my
finding in point No. 2 in Affirmative.
8.
In the result, award is passed as under:
(1)
The action of the management of LIC of India imposing the penalty of removal from services on Smt.
Meena Baghel w.e.f. 30-3-03 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
1448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 692-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; eè; jsyos 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
tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@105@99&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway
and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-41012/105/99-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/44/2001
Shri Anand Kumar Dubey,
S/o Shri Jeevanlal,
C/o Smt. Anita Dubey, 903, Gole Bazar,
Mohanlal Hargovind das ka Makaan,
Near Shahid Bhawan,
Jabalpur, MP
…Workman
Versus
Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Power),
Central Railway,
Jabalpur.
Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Power),
Central Railway, Jabalpur.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of January, 2017
1.
As per letter dated 18-1-2001 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-41012/105/99-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Power), Central Railway,
Jabalpur MP in terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar Dubey w.e.f. 12-12-86 is justified? If not, what
relief he is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/6. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed as casual Khalasi in Locoshed NKJ in November
1978 at age of 19 years. He hold educational qualification Vth standard pass. He worked with devotion. He was
regularized as alderman in 1983. He was suspended from duty during 2-7-85 to 17-7-85 for unauthorised absence.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1449
Minor penalty of stoppage of passes for the year 86-87 was imposed against him as per order dated 23-9-85. Said
punishment is unjustified and illegal. As per rule, stoppage of passes should be ordered in terms of number of sets and
not number of years. Workman further contented that due to some unavoidable family problems, he was suffering from
mental and financial stress. He was suffering from illness and physically unfit to perform the duty during the period
22-10-85 to 25-10-85, 28-10-85 to 15-11-85. He had sent leave application for above said period. He had availed leave
in anticipation of its sanction. Railway did not sanction his leave. He was not informed about it. It caused prejudice.
3.
Workman further submits that chargesheet was issued to him for unauthorized absence of 41 days during the
period of 9 months April 85 to November 85. It was covering broken period of his alleged absence. Earlier period of
unauthorised absence was also covered for which punishment of stoppage of passes was imposed against him. He
denied charges in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry Officer did not ensure copies of listed
documents, statement of witnesses submitted with the chargesheet. Workman reiterates that enquiry was not properly
conducted. Enquiry Officer not ensured attendance of his Defence Assistant. He was not supplied documents relied in
support of the chargesheet , principles of natural justice were not followed. Enquiry Officer had given oral assurance
that he was absent from duty and did not perform any duties. It would be beneficial for him to admit charges seeking
mercy and sympathy. It is reiterated that he was not given reasonable opportunity for his defence. Enquiry was first
held on 24-9-86 and Enquiry Officer immediately submitted his findings on 30-9-86. That his earlier absence 37 days in
1983, 160 days in 1984, 48 days in 1986, was considered while imposing punishment. Said period was not included in
the chargesheet. Punishment of removal imposed against him is illegal. Railway estopped from removing workman
from service inflicting punishment of removal dismissal or discharge. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at page 8/1 to 8/5. 2nd party submits that
workman was in habit of remaining unauthorisely absent. Minor penalty was imposed against him for obstructing
loading in engine. Workman was suspended for the period 2-7-85 to 17-7-85. His suspension was revoked on 17-7-85.
Workman was unauthorisely absent from 24-4-85 to 13-11-85. Therefore major penalty of removal was imposed.
Punishment is imposed for unauthorized absence for 41 days. Enquiry was conducted. Workman was given opportunity
for attending his Defence Assistant did not attend the enquiry despite the enquiry was adjourned 4 times. 2nd party
reiterates that workman was given full opportunity, he remained absent unauthorisely punishment of removal is proper.
Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice.
5.
Written Statement was amended requesting permission to prove misconduct if enquiry is found vitiated.
6.
Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
7.
As per order dated 18-7-14, enquiry 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 Negative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
As per final order.
REASONS
8.
Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 8-7-2014, question remains for
consideration whether misconduct alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings. The
record of enquiry is produced. Chargesheet was issued to workman for unauthorized absence of 41 days during the
period April 85 to November 85. The particulars of leave of workman is produced at Page 31. It is clear that the
chargesheet was issued only for unauthorized absence of 41 days in broken period, its details are given in para 22 of the
Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Proceedings dated 24-9-86 at Page 14 shows workman was explained about charges of
unauthorized absence of 41 days and asked whether he admits said charge. Workman replied that due to social reasons,
he was absent during above said period. That in future , he will take care not to repeat such incident. The authorities
showing leniency may impose whatever punishment will be acceptable to him. He has further added he should be given
one chance. He has to look after his family and old mother, his father is dead, mother is dependent on him. If he is
removed from service, it will be difficult to maintain his family. Workman has admitted his absence from duty and
1450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
prayed for leniency. Though in his statement of claim, workman pleaded that he was given promise of lesser
punishment for accepting charge, such evidence could not be accepted. Enquiry is found legal. As workman has
admitted charge of unauthorized absence, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
9.
Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charge for unauthorised absence of 41 days is proved,
question remains for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper. Leave
particulars of workman for the period 1-1-84 to 12-12-86 are submitted. The leave period cannot be said unauthorized
absence. It is suffice to say that the unauthorised absence of workman was only of 41 days. As details shown at Page 22
of Enquiry Proceedings.
10.
Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K. Shashi emphasized that the dispute raised after 15 years of the
dismissal is not tenable. In support of his argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in case between-
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Versus Madhavankutty and others reported in 2000-I-LLJ-561. Their Lordship dealing with
Section 10 of ID Act held purpose of reference of dispute to court/ Tribunal is to keep industrial peace. Power to make
reference to achieve above purpose cannot be exercised at any time say after delay of 7 years and there being no
industrial dispute existing or apprehended.
In above cited case, the workman was dismissed from service on 11-8-72 for charges of misappropriation. The penalty
of dismissal was imposed. His appeal preferred by workman was dismissed on 30-1-73. The dispute is raised in January
1980.
Next reliance is placed by Shri A.K. Shashi on ratio held in case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka versus
shivalinga reported in 2002-I-LLJ-457. Their Lordship dealing with delay of more than 9 years in approaching Labour
Officer was upheld.
In case between Assistant Engineer Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal Construction versus Chandrappagol A.G reported in
2004-II-LLJ-460. Their Lordship held the appellant never raised dispute nor made any request to take him back or
sought for enforcing any remedy. It was held that for deciding whether a claim is stale or not, the period between the
date of termination and date on which conciliation is started has to be taken into account.
In present case, record of enquiry is produced. The dispute was referred after judgment by Hon’ble High Court in LPA.
It is indicative that the Writ Petition filed by workman was decided against him. The conciliation proceeding has taken
place between parties. When record of enquiry is available, delay in raising the dispute pursuing the remedies before
High Court in Writ Petition as LPA cannot be said fatal.
Shri A.K. Shashi also relied on ratio held in case between Indian Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. versus Prahlad Singh reported in
2001(1)SCC-424. Their Lordship held no reasonable explanation given for such delay. In such circumstances, held the
Industrial Tribunal rightly refused to grant any relief.
11.
Learned counsel for workman Shri P.C. Chandak on the point relies on ratio held in case between—
Sapan Kumar Pandit versus UP State Electricity Board and others reported in 2001(6)SCC-222. Their Lordship dealing
with the point held forming opinion as to existence of any industrial dispute relevant factors to be taken into account,
subsistence of conciliation proceedings held is one of such factors.
In above cited case, Dy. Labour Commissioner condoned delay and conciliation proceedings were held. Though facts of
present case are not comparable, record of enquiry conducted against workman is produced and therefore the delay inn
raising dispute cannot be said fatal.
Shri P.C. Chandak also relies on ratio held in case between Shahaji versus Executive Engineer, PWD reported in
2005(12)SCC-141. Their Lordship dealing with effect of delay and latches held even if there is delay, Labour Court
comes to the conclusion that termination was illegal, it can suitably mould relief to be granted to workman.
While imposing punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence for short period, length of service of workman was
not considered. In my considered view, punishment of dismissal is not justified. Punishment of dismissal deserves to be
modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Power), Central Railway, Jabalpur,
MP in terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar Dubey w.e.f. 12-12-86 is not proper and legal.
(2)
Punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is modified to compulsory retirement.
(3)
Management 2nd party is directed to allow all retiral benefits as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1451
ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2017
dk-vk- 693-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe eè;
jsyos 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@122@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2017
S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour
Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway and
their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.03.2017.
[No. L-41012/122/2004-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/11/2005
Shri Ramcharan,
S/o Shri Katahur,
Village Hardi, Post Jhal,
Tehsil Manpur,
Distt. Umaria (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
West Central Railway,
Jabalpur.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of January 2017
1.
As per letter dated 12-1-2005 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-41012/122/2004-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP)
in terminating the services of Shri Ramcharan S/o Katahur, Ex-MRXL while retaining in service from 3-8-79
to 16-6-89 and not regularizing him from services and terminating him w.e.f. 13-6-89 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 4/2 to 4/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as MRCL of 2nd party. He entered service on 3-8-79
& worked till 12-6-89 for 10 years. Workman submits that after completion of 10 years service, he acquired temporary
status. His medical examination was carried. He was working as MRCL employee, his services were terminated on
30-6-89 without issuing showcause notice or giving any opportunity to him. That termination of his service is illegal.
3.
In July 2003, recruitment of old card holder employees was undertaken by 2nd party management. Workman
was not reinstated in said recruitment process. 350 old card holders were taken in service. Ist party workman further
submits after his acquiring temporary status, his services are covered by Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Railway.
1452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2017/PHALGUNA 20, 1938
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Without following discipline and appeal rules, his services cannot be terminated. The act of management is
inappropriate. Workman should have been regularized in service. It is further submitted that in 2003, applicant had filed
application. He approached ALC on 25-5-04. After failure report submitted to Ministry, dispute has been referred. That
Ist party workman is class IV employees that presently he is unemployed. He has no source of income. He prays for
his reinstatement/ regularization in service.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/8 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary
objection that terms of reference are incorrect. The order of reference is highly prejudicial to the management. The
dispute is beyond jurisdiction. The Government made reference of disputed facts for adjudication. Appropriate
Government wrongly held claimant was in employment during 31-8-79 to 12-6-89. The disputed questions could not be
decided by Government. The dispute is raised in the year 2005 after lapse of 16 years is not tenable. 2nd party has relied
ratio held in various cases on point that belated reference is not tenable.
5.
2nd party further submits that Ist party was engaged as casual labour. Attendance was 6 days during the period
29-4-80 to 31-5-88. 6 ½ days during 28-5-88 to 3-6-88, 30 days during 4-6-88 to 3-7-88. Workman stopped coming for
job. Workman has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Workman has not qualified to become MRCL.
Workman has no right to claim regular employment. Workman was not engaged as per laid down procedure for
engagement of casual labours. That appointments in Railway is governed by rule and regulations. Railway has to
follow procedure prescribed for appointment. Only such persons are entitled to regular employment. Management has to
follow reservation policy under the constitution. It is mandatory to comply reservation for SC/ST OBC, Handicapped
and ex-servicemen. The persons who are engaged for stop-gap arrangement are not entitled to be appointed. 2nd party
relied on ratio held in various cases contending that daily wager has no right to hold post. Foundation for engagement
on daily wagers indicates subject to availability of work. That working continuously cannot to allowed to over reach the
law.
6.
On facts, 2nd party submits that Ist party was engaged for few days as casual labour but it is denied that Ist
party was working during the period 3-8-79 to 12-6-89. The services of Ist party were terminated as he stopped coming
for the job after 3-7-88. Ist party is not entitled for reinstatement in service. He had not obtained temporary status. 2nd
party admits that the dispute was raised in the year 2004. Rest adverse contentions have been denied. 2nd party prays
reference be answered in its favour.
7.
Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim that he completed 10 years service and
gained temporary status. Termination of his service be set-aside and his claim for reinstatement be allowed.
8.
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 dispute raised by Ist party is highly
belated and whether reference is tenable?
Dispute raised belatedly after 15 years is not tenable.
(ii)
Whether the action of the management of
Divisional
Railway
Manager,
West
Central
Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri Ramcharan S/o Katahur, Ex-MRXL while
retaining in service from 3-8-79 to 16-6-89 and not
regularizing him from services and terminating him
w.e.f. 13-6-89 is legal and justified?
In Affirmative
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
9.
Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman has stated that he worked with department of 2nd
party from 3-8-79 to 12-6-89. His services were arbitrarily terminated on 13-6-89. In July 2003, 350 card holders were
appointed. In his cross examination, workman says in 1989, some persons were taken in service. He raised dispute
before ALC in 2004.
10.
Counsel for workman remained absence and failed to advance any argument.
11.
Learned counsel for 2ndparty Shri A.K. Shashi relies on ratio held in
Writ Petition No. 6232 of 2014 by Bombay High Court, Bench Nagpur. The ratio held in case of Nedungadi
Bank Ltd versus K.P. Madhavankutty was relied. Considering the workman was dismissed from services on
15-7-91, workman approached conciliation officer after lapse of 20 years in the year 2012 withut explaining
the delay.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 11] 2017@iQkYxqu 20] 1938
1453
In case between Nedungadi Bank Ltd versus K.P. Madhavankutty and others reported in 2000-I-LLJ-561, their
Lordship considering delay of 7 years held no industrial dispute existed or apprehended .
In case between Chandrappagol A.G versus Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal
Construction, Belgaum District reported in 2004-II-LLJ-457. Their Lordship considering delay more than
9 years in approaching Labour Officer held in cases of serious dispute as to relationship of employer
employee, record of employer would come in the way of maintenance of employers record. The delay was held
fatal to the case.
In present case, workman was terminated in 1989. The dispute is raised in 2004 after lapse of 15 years. The
dispute under reference has become stale. The reference is not tenable. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No.1 that reference is not tenable.
12.
Point No. 2- The term of reference pertains to denial of regulation and legality of termination of services of
workman. Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman. He stated that he worked from 3-8-79 to 12-6-89. On completion
of 10 year service, he gained temporary status. After gaining MRCL status, his services were arbitrarily terminated on
13-6-89. In 2003, 350 card holders were taken in service. In his cross, Ist party workman says he was appointed as
MRCL. He was appointed in 1984. Appointment order was not received by him. He not received order about granting
temporary status. Written order of termination was not issued to him. He admits that first time, he was appointed on
29-4-99. He denies that he worked only 42 ½ days during 29-4-88 to 3-7-88. Ist party admits that he was paid wages for
his working days. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. The post was not advertised. Copy of
casual card is produced, no valid evidence is adduced to prove said document. Even if the entries in zerox copy of
casual card are considered, workman has not completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of
termination of his service in 1989.
13.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri M.C. Mehra supporting contentions in Written Statement. That
the witness of management was working as PWI, Beohari during 1986 to 1990. Working days of Ist party are shown
21 days and 48 days during April 88 to July 88. From evidence of management’s witness, documents Exhibit M-1 is
admitted in evidence. Management’s witness in his cross says Ist party workman was working as Gangman under him
in 1988. During 1979 to 1989, Ist party was working at Jhansi and Jabalpur division. Workman had not worked 240
days during any calendar year. Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. Exhibit M-1 register of thump
impression show Ist party working during the period April 88 to 18-5-88, May 88 to November 88. Exhibit M-1 does
not show Ist party workman was continuously working for more than 240 days during the year 88 to 89. The burden
lies on workman to prove 240 days working preceding 12 months of his termination. Workman has failed to establish
240 days working preceding termination. Therefore workman is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.
Evidence is not sufficient to establish his services is illegally terminated. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in
terminating the services of Shri Ramcharan S/o Katahur, Ex-MRXL while retaining in service from
3-8-79 to 16-6-89 and not regularizing him from services and terminating him w.e.f. 13-6-89 is legal
and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
SARVESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Digitally signed by SARVESH
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2017.03.24 23:34:31
+05'30'