1364 GI/2017

(1583)

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- 12]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 19—ekpZ 25] 2017] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 28] 1938—pS=k 4] 1939

No. 12]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 19—MARCH 25, 2017, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 28, 1938— CHAITRA 4, 1939

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)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 iQjojh] 2017

dk-vk- 749-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds mPpk;ksx] bLykekckn esa Jh ftrsaæ dqekj 'kekZ] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 15

iQjojh] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2017

S.O. 749.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Sharma, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Islamabad to perform

the Consular services with effect from 15th February, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

1584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 750-&कोयला धारक क्षेᮢ (अजर्न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसमᱶ इसके प᳟ात् उᲦ

अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंᮢालय की अिधसूचना संख्यांक

का.आ. 86 (अ), तारीख 9 जनवरी, 2017, जो भारत के राजपᮢ, असाधारण, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii), तारीख 10 जनवरी,

2017 मᱶ ᮧकािशत की गई थी, उᲦ अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूची मᱶ विणत भूिम और भूिम मᱶ (िजसे इसमᱶ इसके प᳟ात् उᲦ भूिम कहा

गया है) या उस पर के सभी अिधकार उᲦ अिधिनयम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िवल्लंगमᲂ से मुᲦ होकर

आत्यांितक रूप से केन्ᮤीय सरकार मᱶ िनिहत हो गए थे;

और केन्ᮤीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है िक ईस्टनर् कोलफील्ड्स िलिमटेड, संकतोिड़या, पोस्ट- िदशेरगढ़, िजला –

ब᳍र्वान – 713333, पि᳟म बंगाल (िजसे इसमᱶ इसके प᳟ात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधनᲂ और शतᲄ का, जो केन्ᮤीय

सरकार इस िनिमᱫ अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए तैयार है;

अत:, अब, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, उᲦ अिधिनयम की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए, यह

िनदेश देती है िक इस ᮧकार िनिहत उᲦ भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के सभी अिधकार, तारीख 10 जनवरी,2017 से केन्ᮤीय सरकार मᱶ इस

ᮧकार िनिहत बने रहने की बजाय, िन᳜िलिखत िनबंधनᲂ और शतᲄ के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकारी कंपनी मᱶ िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथार्त् :-

(1) सरकारी कंपनी, उᲦ अिधिनयम के उपबंधᲂ के अधीन यथा अवधािरत ᮧितकर, ब्याज, नुकसानी और वैसी ही मदᲂ के संबंध मᱶ

िकए गए सभी संदायᲂ की केन्ᮤीय सरकार को ᮧितपूित करेगी;

(2) सरकारी कंपनी ᳇ारा शतर् (1) के अधीन, केन्ᮤीय सरकार को संदेय रकमᲂ का अवधारण करने के ᮧयोजन के िलए उᲦ

अिधिनयम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन िकया जाएगा तथा ऐसे िकसी अिधकरण और अिधकरण की

सहायता करने के िलए िनयुᲦ ᳞िᲦयᲂ के संबंध मᱶ उपगत सभी ᳞य, सरकारी कंपनी ᳇ारा वहन िकए जाएंगे और इस पर

ᮧकार िनिहत उᲦ भूिम मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के िलए या उसके संबंध मᱶ जैसे अपील इत्यािद सभी िविधक कायर्वािहयᲂ

के संबंध मᱶ उपगत, सभी ᳞य भी, इसी भांित सरकारी कंपनी ᳇ारा वहन िकये जायᱶगे;

(3) सरकारी कंपनी, केन्ᮤीय सरकार या उसके पदािधकािरयᲂ की, ऐसे िकसी अन्य ᳞य के संबंध मᱶ, क्षितपूित करेगी जो इस ᮧकार

िनिहत उᲦ भूिमयᲂ मᱶ या उस पर के अिधकारᲂ के संबंध मᱶ, केन्ᮤीय सरकार या उसके पदािधकािरयᲂ ᳇ारा या उनके िवरू᳍

िकन्हᱭ कायर्वािहयᲂ के संबंध मᱶ आवश्यक हो;

(4) सरकारी कंपनी को, केन्ᮤीय सरकार के पूवर् अनुमोदन के िबना, उᲦ भूिमयᲂ को िकन्हᱭ अन्य ᳞िᲦयᲂ को अंतिरत करने की

शिᲦ नहᱭ होगी ; और

(5) सरकारी कंपनी,ऐसे िनदेशᲂ और शतᲄ का, जो केन्ᮤीय सरकार ᳇ारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उᲦ भूिमयᲂ के िविश᳥ क्षेᮢᲂ के

िलए िदए जाएं या अिधरोिपत िकये जाएं, पालन करेगी।

[ फा.सं. 43015/14/2014-एलए एण्ड आईआर/िजल्द.II]

lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 24thMarch, 2017

S.O. 750.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 86(E), dated the 9^th January, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,

Sub-section (ii), dated the 10^th 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 and all rights

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

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

Act;

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

Dishergarh, District-Burdwan-713 333 (West Bengal) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing

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

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

Central Government hereby directs that the all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effects from the 10^th

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1585

January, 2017 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, 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 respects of

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

(2) A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under 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. 43015/14/2014-LA&IR/Vol.II]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 751-&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 ¼1) ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk

tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 198¼v½] rkjh[k 25 vxLr] 2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM

¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 21 tuojh] 2016 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa

ftldk eki 499-074 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1233-21 ,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 ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofgr dh xbZ mDr Hkwfe ds

,d Hkkx esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr 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 467-458 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1155-09 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k

ml ij lrgh vf/kdkjksa 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,e@Ikh,yth@Hkwfe@507]

rkjh[k 24 tuojh] 2017 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk “kgMksy ¼e/; izns”k½ 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 fd;k x;k

gS %&

^^8- vtZu dh ckcr vkifRr;kWa-& ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7¼1½ 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 fdUgh vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k-& bl /kkjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;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 dk ;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 ds ;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 fjiksVZas dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu”p; ds fy, nsxkA

1586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 gksrk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs 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

rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA

vuqlwph

[kSjgk Cykd] lksgkxiqj {ks=

ftyk&'kgMksy ¼e/; izns'k½

¼ js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e@ih,yth@Hkwfe@507 rkjh[k 24 tuojh] 2017 ½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%

Øe

la-

xzke dk

uke

iVokjh

gYdk

la[;k

cankscLr

la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=

gsDVj

esa

fVIif.k;ka

[kSjgk

203

cq<+kj

“kgMksy

271.459

Hkkx

[kUukFk

171

cq<+kj

“kgMksy

195.999

Hkkx

dqy % 467.458 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1155.09 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke [kSjgk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 2¼Hkkx½] 3] 4¼Hkkx½] 5¼Hkkx½] 6 ls 50] 41@1127]

51¼Hkkx½] 52¼Hkkx½] 53¼Hkkx½] 55¼Hkkx½] 56 ls 112] 113¼Hkkx½] 114] 117] 126¼Hkkx½] 127¼Hkkx½] 131 ls 135]

136¼Hkkx½] 137 ls 167] 167@1145¼Hkkx½] 167@1146] 168¼Hkkx½] 169 ls 175] 176¼Hkkx½] 177 ls 181] 182¼Hkkx½]

183¼Hkkx½] 184¼Hkkx½] 186¼Hkkx½ ls 188¼Hkkx½] 189 ls 192] 193¼Hkkx½] 195¼Hkkx½] 196] 197] 198¼Hkkx½] 200¼Hkkx½]

201¼Hkkx½] 202] 203¼Hkkx½] 204¼Hkkx½] 206¼Hkkx½] 207 ls 212] 213¼Hkkx½] 214¼Hkkx½] 219¼Hkkx½] 220 ls 230]

231¼Hkkx½] 232] 233¼Hkkx½] 275¼Hkkx½] 276 ls 289] 290¼Hkkx½] 291] 292¼Hkkx½] 293¼Hkkx½] 294 ls 297] 298¼Hkkx½]

299¼Hkkx½] 309¼Hkkx½ ls 311¼Hkkx½-

xzke [kUukFk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 6¼Hkkx½] 32¼Hkkx½ ls 34¼Hkkx½] 35 ls 37] 38¼Hkkx½]

39¼Hkkx½] 42¼Hkkx½] 43¼Hkkx½] 74¼Hkkx½] 75] 76¼Hkkx½] 77 ls 79] 80¼Hkkx½] 81] 82¼Hkkx½ ls 84¼Hkkx½] 114¼Hkkx½

ls 116¼Hkkx½] 117 ls 180] 181¼Hkkx½] 182 ls 189] 190¼Hkkx½ ls 192¼Hkkx½] 193] 194¼Hkkx½] 195 ls 217]

218¼Hkkx½] 220 ls 492] 493¼Hkkx½] 494 ls 497] 498¼Hkkx½] 499] 500¼Hkkx½ ls 502¼Hkkx½] 1134¼Hkkx½ ls

1137¼Hkkx½] 1138] 1139¼Hkkx½] 1140 ls 1154] 1155¼Hkkx½] 1156¼Hkkx½] 1157 ls 1162] 1163¼Hkkx½ ls 1166¼Hkkx½]

1167 ls 1222] 1223¼Hkkx½] 1225¼Hkkx½ ls 1228¼Hkkx½] 1229 ls 1242] 1243¼Hkkx½ ls 1248¼Hkkx½] 1249 ls 1264]

1265¼Hkkx½] 1266¼Hkkx½] 1269¼Hkkx½-

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk] fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 191] 190] 181] 6] 32] 33]

34] 43] 42] 38] 39] 74] 76 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk] fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 84] 83] 82] 80] 114] 115]

116] 500] 501] 502] 498] 493] 1139] 493] 1137] 1136] 1135] 1134] 1155] 1156] 1163]

1164] 1165] 1166] 1266] 1265] 1269] 1248] 1247] 1246] 1245] 1244] 1243] 1228] 1227]

1226] 1225] 1123 ls gksrh gqbZ xzke [kSjgk&[kUukFk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **x** ij feyrh

gSA

x&?k

js[kk] fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 176] 183] 184] 186 ls gksrh

gqbZ fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&?k1&?k2&?k3&?k4&?k5 js[kk fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 186] 187] 182] 1145]169]

136 ls gksdj 136 ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek] 126 ls gksdj] xzke [kSjgk&[kUukFk ds

Hkkxr%lfEefyr lhek] 117] 114 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ] 109] 113 ls gksdj 131] 132 ds

mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ] 127 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k5** ij feyrh gSA

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1587

?k5&?k6

js[kk] fcUnq **?k5** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 136] 168] 1145 ls gksdj

1146 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ 182] 187] 186 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k6** ij feyrh gSA

?k6&³

js[kk] fcUnq **?k6** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 186] 193] 195] 198] 200]

201] 203] 204] 206 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 206] 214] 213] 219] 231]

233] 275] 298] 299] 293] 292] 290] 300] 309] 310] 311] 55 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij

feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kSjgk ds IykV la[;k 55] 53] 53@2] 53] 52] 51]

2] 4] 5 ls gksrh gqbZ xzke [kSjgk&[kUukFk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&d

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kUukFk ds IykV la[;k 218] 194] 192] 191 ls

xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

[ Qk- la- 43015@13@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

lqthr dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24thMarch, 2017

S.O. 751.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

198(E), dated the 25^th August, 2015 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), and published in the Gazette of

India, part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 21^st January, 2016, the Central Government gave notice of its

intention to prospect for coal in 499.074 hectare (approximately) or 1233.21 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 467.458 hectare (approximately) or

1155.09 acre (approximately) and surface rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM/ PLG/ LAND/ 507, dated the 24^th January, 2017 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) 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(1) 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 that 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 20^th March,

1987, published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

1588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Khairaha Block, Sohagpur Area

District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/PLG/LAND/ 507, dated the 24^th January, 2017)

Surface Rights:

Sl.

No.

Name of

village

Patwari

halka

number

Bandobast

number

Tahsil

District

Area in

hectares

Rem-

arks

Khairaha

203

Burhar

Shahdol

271.459

Part

Khannath

171

Burhar

Shahdol

195.999

Part

Total: 467.458 hectare (approximately) or 1155.09 acre (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Khairaha (Part): 2(P), 3, 4(P), 5(P), 6 to 50, 41/1127, 51(P), 52(P), 53(P),

55(P), 56 to 112, 113(P), 114, 117, 126(P), 127(P), 131 to 135, 136(P), 137 to 167, 167/1145(P), 167/1146, 168(P),

169 to 175, 176(P), 177 to 181, 182(P), 183(P), 184(P), 186(P) to 188(P), 189 to 192, 193(P), 195(P), 196, 197,

198(P), 200(P), 201(P), 202, 203(P), 204(P), 206(P), 207 to 212, 213(P), 214(P), 219(P), 220 to 230, 231(P), 232,

233(P), 275(P), 276 to 289, 290(P), 291, 292(P) 293(P), 294 to 297, 298(P), 299(P), 309(P) to 311(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Khannath (Part): 6(P), 32(P) to 34(P), 35 to 37, 38(P), 39(P), 42(P), 43(P),

74(P), 75, 76(P), 77 to 79, 80(P), 81, 82(P) to 84(P), 114(P) to 116(P), 117 to 180, 181(P), 182 to 189, 190(P) to

192(P), 193, 194(P), 195 to 217, 218(P), 220 to 492, 493(P), 494 to 497, 498(P), 499, 500(P) to 502(P), 1134(P) to

1137(P), 1138, 1139(P), 1140 to 1154, 1155(P), 1156(P), 1157 to 1162, 1163(P) to 1166(P), 1167 to 1222,

1223(P), 1225(P) to 1228(P), 1229 to 1242, 1243(P) to 1248(P), 1249 to 1264, 1265(P), 1266(P), 1269(P).

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Khannath through plot number 191, 190,

181, 6, 32, 33, 34, 43, 42, 38, 39, 74, 76 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Khannath through plot number 84, 83, 82,

80,114, 115, 116, 500, 501, 502, 498, 493, 1139, 493, 1137, 1136, 1135, 1134, 1155, 1156,

1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1266,1265, 1269, 1248, 1247, 1246, 1245, 1244, 1243, 1228, 1227,

1226, 1225, 1123 and meets at point ‘C’ on the common boundary of villages Khannath-

Khairaha.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in Khairaha through plot number 176, 183, 184, 186

and meets at point ‘D’.

D-D1-D2-D3-D4-D5

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Khairaha through plot number 186, 187, 182,

1145,169, 136, along partly western boundary of plot number 136, through 126, along partly

common boundary of villages Khairaha-Khannath, eastern boundary of 117, 114, through

109, 113, along northern boundary of 131, 132, through 127 and meets at point ‘D5’.

D5-D6

Line starts from point ‘D5’ and passes in village Khairaha through plot number 136, 168,

1145, along northern boundary of 1146, through 182, 187, 186 and meets at point ‘D6’.

D6-E

Line starts from point ‘D6’ and passes in village Khairaha through plot number 186, 193, 195,

198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Khairaha through plot number 206, 214, 213,

219, 231, 233, 275, 298, 299, 293, 292, 290, 300, 309, 310, 311, 55 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Khairaha through plot number 55, 53, 53/2, 53,

52, 51, 2, 4, 5 and meets at point ‘G’ on the common boundary of villages Khannath-Khairaha.

G-A

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes in village Khannath through plot number 218, 194, 192,

191 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F.No. 43015/13/2017-LA&IR]

SUJEET KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1589

वािणज् य और उ᳒ोग मंᮢालय

(औ᳒ोिगक नीित एवं संवधर्न िवभाग)

नई िदल् ली, 23 माचर्, 2017

dk-vk- 752-—केन् ᮤ सरकार ᮧितिलप् यािधकार अिधिनयम, 1957 की धारा-10 की उपधारा (1) के तहत ᮧदत् त शिक् तयᲂ का

उपयोग करते हुए एत᳏ारा ᮰ी इकबाल िसह जुनेजा को तत् काल ᮧभाव से उप ᮧितिलप् यािधकार पंजीयक के रूप मᱶ िनयुक् त करती है।

ᮧितिलप् यािधकार अिधिनयम, 1957 की धारा-10 की उपधारा (2) के अनुसार, वे पंजीयक ᳇ारा समय-समय पर अिधिनयम के अन् तगर्त

उन् हᱶ सᲅपे गए पंजीयक के कायᲄ का ᮧितिलप् यािधकार पंजीयक के पयर्वेक्षण एवं िनदशर्न मᱶ िनष् पादन करᱶगे।

2. यह अिधसूचना, इसके सरकारी राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन की तारीख से ᮧभावी होगी।

[फा.सं. 27-6/2014-सी ओ/आई पी आर-VII]

सुशील के. सातपुते, िनदेशक (डी आई पी पी)

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2017

S.O. 752.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Copyright Act, 1957,

the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Iqbal Singh Juneja as Deputy Registrar of Copyrights with immediate

effect. As per the sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Copyright Act, 1957 he shall discharge under the

superintendence and direction of the Registrar of Copyrights such functions of the Registrar under the Act as the

Registrar may, from time to time, assign to him.

2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[F.No. 27-6/2014-CO/IPR-VII]

SUSHIL K. SATPUTE, Director (DIPP)

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 753-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

canwd dSfjt iSQDVjh] tcyiqj ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 116@2002) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@135@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 753.—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. 116/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15.02.2017.

[No. L-14012/135/98-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/116/2002

Shri Ramadhar Tiwari

S/o Late Shri Ksirsagar

H/No.Dhruv Kumar Pathak,

Village Kanjai (Simria),

Tehsil Gotegoan,

Distt. Narsinghpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23^rd day of January, 2017

As per letter dated 1-8-2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

14012/135/98-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Ramadhar Tiwari, T.No.2681/NIE, Hammerman w.e.f. 23-8-95 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workmen is entitled to?”

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

Case of workman is that he was appointed on compassionate ground on post of sweeper after death of his father late

Shivsagar. That he was successfully carrying his work. His service record was unblemished. That he met with accident

on 3-8-93 and suffered rigorous injury with fracture on his hand. Workman was hospitalized in military hospital in

same date for medical treatment. After workman was cured and was fit for duty, he submitted joining on 23-8-93

alongwith medical certificate. On same day, he was surprised that his services were terminated on 23-8-93 itself. He

had approached higher authority of the department requesting to allow him on duty but did not get any response from

the authorities. That the order of his termination was issued without reasons or showcause notice. Workman was not

given opportunity for defence in the enquiry conducted by the department. Principles of natural justice were not

followed while terminating his services. Order of termination of his services is void-ab-initio. On such ground, Ist party

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

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

was appointed as sweeper on compassionate ground after death of his father. As per clause 2(b) of appointment letter,

his appointment was on probation for period of two years. During probationary period, if his performance was not

satisfactory, his services could be terminated without notice. That 1 ½ years after his appointment. Ist party workman

was irregular in attendance. During period of 1 ½ years, he had not attended duty for 192 days which included 125

days LWP. Appointing Authority after six months reviewed his performance. The performance of Ist party was not

satisfactory. He was not shown interest in the work. It is reiterated that performance of workman was deteriority. He

absented from duty for 69 days. In last half yearly report for the month May to July 93, his performance was not

satisfactory. Since his appointment in September 1991, the workman had absented from work for 259 days. Workman

was allotted accommodation he submitted accommodation allotted to him. Workman was served with chargesheet on

26-11-92. The services of workman were terminated for poor performance during probation period. Government had

refused to make reference. The Writ Petition 1525/99 was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court on 9-7-99. In appeal

459/99, Honble High Court passed order on 27-6-02 and directed Government to make reference. 2^nd party referred to

ratio held in various cases. All the adverse contentions of workman are denied. 2^nd party prays that claim of workman

could not be allowed. Reference be answered in its favour.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

Workman died during pendency of reference proceeding. His LRs are brought on record.

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:-

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1591

(i) Whether the action of the General Manager, Gun

Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Ramadhar Tiwari, T.No.2681/NIE,

Hammerman w.e.f. 23-8-95 is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman. Case was

fixed for filing evidence of workman on 21-5-08, 18-8-08, 24-11-08, 8-2-09, 11-5-09, 10-8-09, 17-12-09. Workman not

adduced evidence. Workman reported dead on 22-4-2010. His LRs were brought on record. LRs also failed to adduce

evidence. Case was fixed on 4-2-2011, 2-6-2011, 10-10-11. Evidence of LRs was closed on 16-1-2012.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri A.K.Chourasia. from his evidence, documents M- to M-5 were

admitted in evidence. Management’s witness was not cross examined on behalf of Ist party. His evidence remained

unchallenged. Document M-1 to M-5 produced in the matter are destroyed by white ants. Therefore management was

asked to produce copies of those documents. As per Exhibit M-1, workman was absent for 148 days during 1992, 78

days during 1993. The workman was served with Exhibit M-2 warning for improving his work. The documents shows

that workman had subletted accommodation allotted to him. As per exhibit M-3, his services were terminated during

probation period on 28-8-93. Exhibit M-4 is the rules relating to appointment on probation period. Clause viii provides-

“while the normal probation may certainly be extended in suitable cases, it is not desirable that an employee should be

kept on probation for years as happened occasionally at present. It is therefore suggested that save for exceptional

reasons, probation should not be extended for more than a year and no employee should be kept on probation for more

than double the normal period.”

Workman has failed to adduce evidence. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of

Shri Ramadhar Tiwari, Hammerman w.e.f. 23-8-95 is proper and legal.

(2)

LRs of workman are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 754-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

xu dSfjt iSQDVjh] tcyiqj ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 289@99) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-02-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@42@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 754.—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. 289/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15.02.2017.

[No. L-14012/42/99-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/289/99

Shri Mewalal Lodhi,

House No.1193,

Lodhi Mohalla,

Gorakhpur,

Jabalpur (MP)

… Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 23^rd day of January 2017

As per letter dated 25-8-1999 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-

14012/42/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri

Mewalal Lodhi T.No. 5266/MM Section is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

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

7/ to 7/7. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as labour semi-skilled bearing T.No. 5266 of MM Section.

He was working with honesty. That chargesheet was issued to him alleging misconduct of attempting to commit theft

of Government property. Exparte enquiry was conducted against him. After enquiry, Disciplinary Authority vide order

dated 22-4-96 imposed punishment of removal from service by General Manager. Thereafter vide order dated 11-6-96

again Disciplinary Authority passed order of removal from service w.e.f. 22-4-96. That the order dated 11-6-96 was

passed by Dy.General Manager on behalf of General Manager. Said order refers to Disciplinary enquiryi initiated

against workman on chargesheet date 21-9-95 alleging admitting to steal Government property by workman. Workman

claims he was never informed by the superior authorities about chargesheet dated 21-9-95. Only after issuing

chargesheet, workman was asked by the management to submit his defence brief. Due to pressure by management

giving false assurance by Higher Authorities for confessing his fault, leniency would be shown. Workman accepted

charges against him. Enquiry was closed. He received order of removal dated 22-4-96. No enquiry was conducted

against him. Order of removal was issued twice. Order dated 11-6-96 was uncalled. That management adopted unique

method of imposing punishment. Appeal was dismissed. The action of management terminating his services is

malafide, void-ab-initio. Workman reiterates that no enquiry was conducted against him before imposing punishment

of removal. Punishment of removal was imposed twice is unwarranted. Action of management is perverse and deserves

to be set aside. On such ground, Ist party prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that Ist party was appointed as

labour bearing token No. 5266/IE, MM Section on 30-3-80. On 25-8-95, 3.05 PM while unauthorisely going out of the

main gate, workman was apprehended by security staff. On his search, steel bar concealed inside his pant was found.

The orderly officer referred items recovered from his possession- steel bar 6 inch long 3 inch diameter weighing 7.570

Kgs was seized. The seizure memo was signed by all including the workman. Chargesheet was issued to workman.

Vide his written explanation dated 15-12-95, workman accepted charges and expressed his remorse for his act

committed by him. Workman begged to be excused. Workman requested not to hold enquiry. Considering written

defence submitted and gravity of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal by order dated

22-4-96. Said order was published by factory on 11-6-96. 2^nd party reiterates that chargesheet is issued to Ist party on

31-8-95. Workman was suspended on 21-9-95. Workman issued reminder on 17-10-95, 2^nd reminder on 6-12-95 asking

workman to submit reply to the chargesheet. Workman had submitted unsigned reply accepting charges. Thereafter

workman submitted signed reply admitting charges. After receiving said reply, suspension of workman was revoked as

per order dated 21-1-96. As workman admitted charges, punishment was imposed without conducting further enquiry.

Appeal preferred by Ist party was rejected. In his reply dated 15-12-95, workman has not asked for any enquiry. In

Written Statement of defence, all charges are accepted by Government servant, Disciplinary Authority may take such

evidence as it may think fit and record its findings on each charge and take further actions as per Rule 65. W.r.t. 2 order

of removal issued, 2^nd party submits that it is an administrative channel that orders of Disciplinary Authority being

published by Administrative Officer for implementation by all concerned. The order of removal from service was

passed on 22-4-96 for the act of attempted theft inside the factory. It was not necessary to lodge FIR. Written Statement

submitted by workman admitting guilt was accepted. That revocation of suspension is not a final penalty or

exoneration. The contentions of Ist party w.r.t. revocate the suspension is incorrect. 2^nd party submits reference be

answered in its favour.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1593

Considering evidence adduced by parties including evidence of handwriting expert, as per order dated 19-1-16,

enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper.

Considering pleadings on record and orders on preliminary issue, 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 charges alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1: Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 19-1-2016. Said order has not

been challenged and as such the order has become final. Whether charges alleged against workman are proved from

evidence in enquiry proceedings needs to be decided from the record of Enquiry Proceedings. Report Exhibit M-1

given by Shri S.K.Dutta Security Officer refers to recovery of steel bar 6 inch long 3 inch diameter weighing 7.570

Kgs. The statement of K.S.Kori, Pradeep Jha, A.K.Shrivastava, Babulal, D.S.Bist Security, JCO and seizure memo

were sent along with his report. Exhibit M-1(2) It party workman was suspended on 30-8-95. The chargesheet Exhibit

M-1(3) was issued to workman on 21-9-95 alongwith memo of charges w.r.t. incident dated 25-8-95 attempt to commit

theft of steel bar 6 inch long 3 inch diameter weighing 7.570 Kgs. As per letter Exhibit M-1(4) dated 17-10-95

explanation of workman was called. 2^nd letter calling explanation was issued on 6-12-95. Workman submitted his

explanation Exhibit M-1(6) admitting the charges expressing his foolishness how he committed the act. However it was

noticed that Exhibit M-(6) was not signed by workman. Workman again sent his signed explanation Exhibit M-1(7)

merely admitting misconduct alleged against him. The suspension of workman was cancelled as per Exhibit M-1(9)

from 20-6-96. Said document finds reference to 31-8-95. The services of Ist party workman was removed from service

from 24-4-96 Exhibit M-10 by General Manager. So far as order of removal Exhibit M-11 dated 11-6-96 find clear

reference of order of removal dated 22-4-96 it cannot be said separate order of removal rather punishment order sent

for publication to all concerned. As Ist party workman has admitted charges, from evidence of handwriting expert,

documents Exhibit M-5 is proved. The opinion is clear that signatures on questioned documents and admitted

documents were of the same person. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 punishment of removal is imposed against workman for

admitted charge of committing theft of steel bar 6 inch long 3 inch diameter weighing 7.570 Kgs, whether punishment

of removal imposed for said admitted misconduct is proper and legal is to be decided.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence on other issues denying charges against him. That he had not admitted

charges. After his termination, he is unemployed. He and his family members suffers hardship. He has no other source

of income. In his cross, workman says his family consists of his wife and two children, daughter if of 15-16 years of

age, son of 4 years of age. They reside in ancestor kacha house , his children goes to school. Monthly expenses of his

family is about 8000 to 9000 Rs. That punishment of removal is imposed for admitted misconduct of admitted theft, the

hardship suffered by the family could not be a ground for setting aside the punishment.

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

Union of India and others versus B.K.Srivastava reported in 998(6)SCC-340. Their Lordship dealing with scope

of judicial review in the matter of Departmental Enquiry held that enquiry report and penalty based thereon set aside

by CAT for non-observance of principles of natural justice. On facts however found that sufficient opportunity was

given to respondent employee and that it was not a case of no evidence the interference by CAT was criticized.

In present case, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. The ratio cannot be beneficially applied to

case at hand.

Next reliance is placed in case between Vivekanand Sethi versus Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and others reported

in 2005(5)SCC-337. Ratio held in the case pertains to abandonment of service. VRs taken by 58 bank employees

pertain to clause (ii) of Bipartite settlement.

The facts of present case are entirely different, ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

1594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In case between Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri reported in

AIR-2010-SC-75. Their Lordship dealing with departmental enquiry delinquent admitting charges conclusion arrived

by Enquiry Officer abour proof of charges. Their lordship held absence of any procedure illegal or irregular in conduct

of DE, it has to be held that charges against workman held proved and wanted no interference.

In present case, workman admitted charges against him as per Exhibit M-1(6, 7). No evidence is adduced that

workman was induced or forced to admit charges. While dealing with order of preliminary issue, the detailed reasons

are discussed that workman had failed to disclose name of any of the Bank Officer pressurizing or inducing to admit

the charges. The punishment of removal imposed against workman cannot be said shockingly disproportionate to the

charges proved against him. No interference is called in the order of punishment of removal. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri

Mewalal Lodhi T.No. 5266/MM Section is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 755-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v/h{kd]

gsM iksLV vkWfiQl] eè; izns'k ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 197@99) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@102@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 755.—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. 197/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Superintendent, Head

Post Office, Madhya Pradesh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.11.2016.

[No. L-40012/102/98-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/197/99

Shri Kalusingh Verma,

C/o Shri R.K.Khanuja, Advocate,

28, Advocates Colony,

Idgah Hills,

Bhopal

…Workman

Versus

Superintendent,

Head Post Office, Agra Bombay Road,

Dewas (MP)

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 6-5-99 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-40012/102/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1595

“Whether the action of the Superintendent, Head Post Office, Agra Bombay Road, Dewas (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Kalusingh Verma is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

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

Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed as peon on 5-12-79 in 2^nd party department.

His service record was satisfactory. He was also selected for post of postman but malafidely appointment was not

given to him. He was posted at Dewas. He was illegally dismissed from service on 31-7-90. Ist party workman

reiterates that formal enquiry was conducted against him. He was not given reasonable opportunity for his defence.

Rules of natural justice was not followed. Chargesheet issued to him was vague. His request for specifying charges

were not considered. He alleged that false case was preferred against him by the department. Material documents were

not supplied to him with the chargesheet. He could not effectively submit his reply. Reply to the chargesheet was not

considered and domestic enquiry was initiated against him. He was not informed about appointment of Enquiry

Officer. Enquiry Officer was prejudiced against him. His request for change of Enquiry Officer was not considered. His

request for supplying material documents was not considered by the Enquiry Officer. The proceedings of enquiry and

statement of witnesses were not readover to him. He was compelled to sign the Enquiry Proceedings. The statements of

management’s witnesses were recorded in presence of other witnesses violating principles of natural justice. He was

not allowed opportunity to cross examine management’s witnesses. Enquiry Officer did not consider evidence on

record while holding that charges were proved against him. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The

punishment of dismissal imposed against him is excessive and amounts to victimization. Ist party also alleged unfair

labour practice and colourable exercise of powers by competent authority mechanically imposing punishment of

dismissal.

Ist party further submits that incident of theft had occurred on 1-1-1989 at Indore. The watchman dismissed

from service after DE was subsequently reinstated in appeal. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement

with backwages setting aside order of his dismissal.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/3 opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits

that workman was appointed as Grade D employee/ watchman in postal department at Dewas Head Office. Ist party

was assigned duty from 6 PM to 6 AM. However Ist party reported to duty at 8 PM- 2 hours after the schedule time.

On the relevant date, theft of cash Rs.1,05,514.90 was committed. Ist party workman failed to detect theft and

reporting to the police authorities. The incident was reported by Gaikwad, Assistant Post Master, Dewas at 11.30 AM

to police. The omission covered under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules 1965. The Disciplinary Authority appointed

Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. Workman was offered opportunity to

prove his innocence. Ist party failed to do so therefore he was removed from service considering his failure to perform

his duties. It is reiterated that punishment of removal imposed against workman is commensurate to the proved

charges. Management shown readiness to lead oral evidence about incident. It is reiterated that the action taken by the

management is proper and legal. The findings of Enquiry Officer were considered before imposing punishment of

removal from service. workman was given proper opportunity during Enquiry Proceedings. 2^nd party prays for

dismissal of the claim.

Ist party workman died on 27-9-05, his LRs are brought on record. Legality of enquiry was not disputed by Ist

party. The issues were framed as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether charges alleged against workman are

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 so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1- As stated above, legality of enquiry is not disputed by Ist party, question remains whether charges

alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charge alleged against workman are

proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charge alleged against workman pertains to on 12-2-89, he was

assigned duty in Head office from 6 PM. Workman attented duty at 8 PM. Due to dereliction of duty, theft of

Rs.1,05,514.90 was committed. 2^nd part of charge is that workman had also failed to report incident of theft to police.

The incident was reported by Shri Gaikwad at 11.30 PM. Workman lacked devotion in duty. During course of

argument, learned counsel for Ist party Shri Pranay Choubey reiterated that workman had attended duty of watchman at

1596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6 PM. The charges alleged against him were incorrect. Workman had not attended duty at 8 PM. Incident of theft had

not occurred during his duty period. My attention was also pointed out to the statements of 4 management witnesses

examined in the enquiry. As legality of enquiry is not disputed, it is not necessary to deal with the point of fairness of

enquiry. The evidence of management’s witness No.1 Pradeep Parokar has supported the charges that workman had

come to the office at 8 AM. He had told workman Shri Kalusingh Verma that the door of the cash was broken similar

evidence is given by witness Shri J.P.Dixit. statement of witness Shri Kalusingh was also recorded. He reiterated that

he attended duty at 6 PM and after noticing the door opened, he gone along with Pradeep Parokar had gone to house of

Dixit, they gone to house of clerk Mr. Parate. Statement of Parate and Gaikwad corroborates evidence of

management’s witnesses Pradeep Parokar. If entire evidence is carefully appreciated no reason is extracted in cross

examination of Pradeep Parokar and clerk Mr. Parate why they are telling lie against workman. Statement of workman

Kalusingh that they had gone to house of Shri Dixit and around 6.30 PM, they stayed there till 9 PM. Thereafter sister

of Shri Dixit came out and told that Shri Dixit had gone to Indore. Said statement of workman Kalusingh is not

corroborated by any of the witnesses during cross-examination. In Enquiry Proceedings, burden of proof is not strict of

a degree to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The matter needs to be considered on the basis of probabilities.

The findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence of management’s witness Pradeep Parokar. Only after

workman Kalusingh had come, they gone to house of Shri Dixit. The findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said

perverse. The evidence of management’s witnesses is sufficient to prove charge No.1 that workman had failed to attend

he was on duty at 6 PM. During course of argument, there was no dispute that workman was assigned watch duty. The

duty register is produced on record. The register of department of post is also produced. The charge against workman

doesnot pertain to workman committed theft. Rather he attended head office at 8 PM instead of 6 PM. Charge No.1 is

proved from evidence on record. W.r.t. charge No.2 the evidence on record shows that incident of theft was reported by

Shri Gaikwad, APM. Workman was on watch duty in Head office. It cannot be expected to report incident of theft to

police without informing his superior officers. Ist party workman could not be expected to know how much cash was

kept in the cash chest. His failure to report incident to the police therefore cannot be said dereliction in duty in my

considered view, charge No.2 cannot be proved against Ist party workman. To conclude, only charge No.1 is proved

against workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 that charge No.1 is proved against workman.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charge No.1 is proved against workman, workman attending

duty at 8 PM instead of 6 PM on 12-2-89 and shown dereliction in his duties, the question remains for consideration

whether the punishment of removal from service imposed against workman is legal or whether punishment imposed is

shockingly disproportionate. Charge No.1 against workman pertains to dereliction in duty attending duty two hours

late. There is no evidence on record that theft of cash occurred during his duty hours. At what time, the incident of theft

was committed, the evidence is not adduced. The proved charge is only Ist party workman attending duty two hours

late. The punishment of removal from service therefore is shockingly disproportionate.

Shri P.Choubey in support of his argument relies on ratio held in case between-

Rajinder Kumar Kindra versus Delhi Administration reported in AIR-1984-SC-1805. The facts of above cited

case are not comparable. In above cited case, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator is held that findings

of Enquiry Officer were based on no legal evidence therefore perverse and enquiry was vitiated.

In present case, legality of enquiry is not disputed by Ist party therefore the ratio held in the case cannot be

beneficially applied. Even the charges alleged in above case pertain to fraudulent use of the cheque.

Considering the proved charge No.1, Ist party workman had attended his watch duty 2 hours late 8 PM instead

of 6 PM, the punishment of removal from service is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate. In my

considered view, for proved charge No.1 punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would be

appropriate. Therefore dismissal of workman from service cannot be sustained. Further question remains for

consideration as to what relief can be granted in the matter. Ist party workman was dismissed from service on 31-7-90.

The dispute is referred as per letter dated 6-5-99 after almost 9 years. Though LRs widow of deceased workman filed

affidavit of her evidence, he failed to appear for her cross examination.

10.

Management’s witness Shri M.L.Verma filed affidavit of evidence. The witness of management was not cross

examined. His evidence remained unchallenged. There is no evidence on record after removal from service, workman

was employed or doing any work. Considering absence of such evidence, it would be appropriate to direct

reinstatement of workman with 40 % backwages from the date of order of reference 6-5-99. Accordingly I record my

finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in dismissing Ist party workman on 31-7-90 is not legal. The order of

dismissal is set aside. The punishment of dismissal is modified to punishment withholding two

increments of deceased workman Kalusingh with cumulative effect.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1597

(2)

2^nd party is directed to give retiral benefits and pay 40 % backwages of deceased workman Kalusingh to

his widow from date of reference 6-5-99 till age of superannuation or death of workman Kalusingh.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 756-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ftyk

izca/d] ch,l,u,y] eè; izns'k ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@08) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@11@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 756.—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. 69/08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Manager, BSNL, Madhya Pradesh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.11.2016.

[No. L-40012/11/2008-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/08

Shri Haricharan Balmik,

R/o Behind Dr.Kridesh Khare,

Ward No.12, Chhattarpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Chhattarpur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of October, 2016

As per letter dated 2-6-08 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-

40012/11/2008-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of District Manager, Telecom, BSNL Chhattarpur in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Haricharan Balmik w.e.f. September 2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

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

Case of Ist party workman is Telegraph office at Mahal, Tehsil area in Chhatarpur was established in October 1989. He

was then employed by Competent Authority of Telegraph office since October 1989 as part time sweeper calling name

from Employment Exchange. That he had rendered continuous service more than 240 days during all the years. The

certificate was issued that he continuously rendered service from 1992 to 1997. He was receiving wages Rs.12 per day

for working 4 hours duty of sweeper. Initially he was paid Rs.10 per day. BSNL issued direction dated 16-10-00 to the

1598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

authorities including TDE Chhatarpur for conversion of part time casual labors working 4 hours per day into full time

casual labours. Ist party workman got knowledge about said letter and immediately submitted representation dated 29-

11-00 requesting the conversion of part time labour to full time labour. The representations were also submitted on 6-

10-99, 20-9-00,29-1-00. Shri A.L.Kashyap, Incharge officer declined to provide the details of the service rendered by

workman to deprive full time casual status. Representations was also submitted by him on 31-7-02 to Divisional

Engineer, Adm. Office, District Manager, BSNL Chhatarpur for giving him status of Grade D post. Looking into

certificate of experience of 5 years. He was not given said benefit. His services were illegally retrenched in September

07 without issuing notice. He was not paid compensation in lieu of notice, termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. Ist party has reiterated that he rendered more than 240 days continuous service required under

Section 25 B of ID Act. On such ground, workman claims reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party reiterates that workman was not

employed by the management as part time sweeper. He was never engaged or employed by the management. There is

no question of Ist party workman completed 240 days continuous service. The certificate issued by Telegraph master is

not valid as he was not competent to issue the certificate. It is denied that workman was paid Rs.12 per day for 4 hours

working or earlier he was paid Rs.10 per day. It is denied that Incharge Officer declined to provide details of service of

workman when called by superior office. Workman was in continuous service as sweeper therefore he is not entitled

to any relief. Termination of services of workman in violation of Section 25-F, G,H of ID Act has been denied. 2^nd

party prays that claim of Ist party is liable to be dismissed.

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 District

Manager,

Telecom,

BSNL

Chhattarpur

terminating the services of their workman Shri

Haricharan Balmik w.e.f. September 2007 is legal

and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of workman. Ist party workman filed affidavit of

evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That from October 1989, he was employed as part time

sweeper by Competent Authority by Telegraph Officer, Chhatarpur. That he rendered continuous service more than

240 days during any calendar year. That certificate was issued in his favour about working as sweeper during 1992 to

1997. He was getting Rs. 12 per day for 4 hours working initially, he was paid Rs.10 per day. He submitted

representation after getting knowledge of directions issued by BSNL on 16-10-00 for conversion of part time casual

labours working more than 4 hours per day as full time casual labour. That the Incharge Officer L.Kashyap had

declined to provide details of his service rendered. In his cross-examination, Ist party says post on which he was

working was not advertised. He had received letter from Employment Exchange for part time employment in office of

2^nd party but he was not able to give explanation why zerox copy of appointment letter is not produced on record. That

he was paid wages by Kashyap and not by Account office. His signatures were obtained on MPR for payment of wages

to him. Correspondence from office of manageme3nt was made on its letter pad. He denies that appointment letter was

not given to him. Ist party workman produced document Exhibit W-1 directions issued on 16-10-00 for absorbing part

time casual labours working 4 hours per day into casual labours. Ist party workman has not produced letter of

appointment or his documents about working in the office of 2^nd party. He has not examined any co-employee.

2^nd party filed affidavit of Shri B.K.Pateria supporting contentions in Written Statement filed by 2^nd party. That

Ist party was never employed, there was no question of completing 240 days working workman was not terminated,

there was no question of giving him benefit of permanent status. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

denies that workman was engaged as part time sweeper from October 1989. Management’s witness claims ignorance

w.r.t. circular dated 16-10-00 of conversion of part time employees as full time employees. Management’s witness in

his cross examination reaffirms that workman was never employed, he was not paid wages under voucher. Workman

was not terminated without service from September 07. Evidence of Ist party workman is not corroborated by

documentary evidence or evidence of any co-worker. Therefore his evidence is not sufficient to establish that he was

working with 2^nd party as part time sweeper or he completed 240 days working. The engagement as well as termination

of his service by 2^nd party is not established. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1599

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Workman has failed to established his engagement or termination as illegal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 757-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

xu dSfjt iSQDVjh] tcyiqj ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@08) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@22@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 757.—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. 1/08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 02.11.2016.

[No. L-14012/22/2007-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/1/08

Shri Pushraj Kori,

House No. 1631, Khai Mohalla,

Hanuman Taal,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 7-12-08 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-

14012/22/2007-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services

of their workman Shri Pushpraj Kori w.e.f. 13-4-07 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

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 Ist party workman is that he was appointed in 2^nd party as labour on compassionate ground

after death of his father. Chargesheet was issued to him on 18-12-05 alleging misconduct of theft of Government

property and keeping government property is in possession. He had submitted reply to chargesheet on 2-1-06.

Management decided to conduct enquiry against him. Miss Midita Mishra was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri

Banerjee as Presenting Officer. Shri Doodhnath Singh was his Defence Assistant in the Enquiry Proceedings. The

statements of 5 witnesses of management were recorded in the Enquiry Proceedings. Statement of management’s

witnesses were inconsistent. He had submitted list of 5 defence witnesses. However management considered only

1600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shalini Devi as defence witness, other witnesses were not considered. Defence Witness was not called. Enquiry was

proceeded exparte. Ist party workman submits that Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charges against him

are proved. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Punishment of dismissal was imposed against him is illegal.

The appeal preferred by him was dismissed without speaking orders. Ist party workman reiterates that enquiry was

conducted in violation of procedure prescribed under CCS CCA rules. The defence witness was not called, enquiry

was conducted without giving specific notice. The Disciplinary Authority did not properly appreciate the evidence.

Appellate Authority also did not consider the evidence properly. On such ground, workman submits that order of his

dismissal is legal. He prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Workman was appointed on compassionate

ground after death of his father Heeralal Kori. Chargesheet was issued to him. On such workman was found in

possession of brass metal of different size. Enquiry was conducted against workman following the rules. Enquiry

Officer was appointed to Medita Mishra and Presenting Officer Shri Banerjee. Shri Doodhnath Singh was defence

Assistant for workman. Enquiry was conducted on various dates, details given in Para 10 of the Written Statement. On

application of workman, Hindi translation was submitted on the written proof submitted by management. Enquiry

Officer submitted his report on 18-12-05 holding charges against workman are established. The report was forwarded

to workman along with showcause notice. Considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and report of Enquiry Officer,

punishment of dismissal was imposed. The appeal preferred by workman was dismissed on 11-6-08. 2^nd party

reiterates that considering proved misconduct imposed against him is legal. 2^nd party submits that workman is not

entitled to any relief.

As per order dated 23-11-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and 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 charges alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As enquiry conducted against workman is found legal, question remains for consideration is whether charges

alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings or the findings of Enquiry Officer are

perverse.

Counsel for Ist party workman Shri P.Yadav did not advanced any argument on other issues.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management pointed out my attention to the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, evidence of

the management’s witnesses is disclosed in Enquiry Report. That Leeladhar, witness No. 4 on 28-11-05 had routinely

checked Pushpraj while he was going out of factory. He found tiffin box very heavy. Workman was taken to JCM. On

opening of tiffin, brass was found inside. In statement of witness No. MW-2, he had stated that after workman was

taken for search, his tiffin was opened, his tiffin was parked with packed with piece of brass. On search in person,

small brass was found inside the trouser of the workman witness No.1 Adverd in his statement says on 28-11-05, he

was in day shift at maingate, formeman at security office caught the workman at Vidyanagar gate. Shri Pushpraj was

confined at Vidya Nagar Gate. He along with Joshi Darban had confiscated tiffin at security office. Seizure memo was

prepared. The scope of judicial review is limited. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated though the workman in his

statement of claim had contented that there are inconsistency in evidence of management’s witnesses, re-appreciation

of evidence is not permissible. The findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by some evidence. Evidence of witnesses

of management discussed above is sufficient to prove charges against workman therefore for above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges against workman pertains to theft of brass material and explained

possession of articles with workman have been found, the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be

said shockingly disproportionate. The proved charges against workman are of grave nature. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1601

10.

Shri A.K.Shashi learned counsel for management relies on ratio held in

Case between R.S.Saini versus State of Punjab and others reported in 1999(8)SCC-90. Their Lordship dealing

with judicial review in the matter of DE held if there is some evidence to reasonably support finding of inquiring

authority, the court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not reverse the finding on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence.

The copies of award passed in R/38/90, 112/95 are also submitted for my perusal. Each matter needs to be

decided considering the evidence on record.

In present case from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, charges alleged against workman are proved. Proved

charges are of serious nature. The punishment of dismissal doesnot call for interference. Workman is not entitled to

any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in terminating the services of

their workman Shri Pushpraj Kori w.e.f. 13-4-07 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 758-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

vk;q/ fuekZ.kh] tcyiqj ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@14) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@15@14&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 758.—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. 47/14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

02.11.2016.

[No. L-14012/15/14-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/14

Shri Pratap Singh,

S/o Shri Bhairav Singh,

HQ.4/2, Khamaria,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

…Management

1602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 27-5-14 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-14012/15/14-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Pratap Singh S/o Bhirav Singh, Ex-Ward Sahayak on daily wages basis w.e.f. last week of May

2010 without complying with the provisions of ID Act, 1947 is just, reasonable and valid? If not, what relief he

is entitled to and from which date?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Despite repeated notices issued, Ist party failed to

appear. Workman is proceeded exparte as per order dated 12-4-2016.

2^nd party filed Exparte Written Statement in the matter. The contentions of 2^nd party in its Written Statement are

that after following recruitment process, 11 ward attendants including 6 male and 5 female was selected. However 4

attendants 1 male and 3 females were working at the relevant time. 7 Ward attendants were recruited in November

2009. Only 5 persons reported to duty therefore management decided to engage 3 ward attendants o n daily wages from

local market. The sanction was given as per the office note. Ist party workman was not selected in the recruitment

process. He was engaged on daily wages. He had not completed 240 days continuous service therefore Ist party is not

covered as workman and he is not entitled to any relief.

Management’s witness Shri S.K.Paitra filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in statement of

claim Ist party workman has not participated in reference proceeding. Evidence of management’s witness is

unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s witness. Management has also produced

documents relating to the selection and appointment of Ward Attendants, certified copies of documents in R/8/12 have

been produced. For reasons discussed above, award is passed as under:-

“Workman failed to participate in reference. The reference is answered in favour of the management.”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 759-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

nwjlapkj vkSj vU; Hkksiky ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 107@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@51@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 9th March, 2017

S.O. 759.—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. 107/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

General Manager, Telecom and other, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

02.11.2016.

[No. L-40012/51/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/2001

Shri Shiv Ram Singh,

S/o Shri Tulsiram Singh,

C/o R.S. Mishra, Gali No.5,

Gupta Colony, Anand Nagar,

Bhopal

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1603

Versus

General Manager, Telecom,

CTO Building, T.T.Nagar,

Bhopal

Assistant Engineer(Telecom),

Railway Electrification, E-3/79,

Arera Colony, Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5^th day of October 2016

As per letter dated 29-5-01 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-

40012/51/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager Telecom/ Assistant Engineer (RE), Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Shivram Singh S/o Shri Tulsiram Singh w.e.f. April 1990 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled for?”

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

Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as labour from 24-5-87 till 31-3-90. He was

discontinued in April 1990. He had continuously worked more than 240 days during calendar years. He acquired rights

of regular employee under Section 25-F of ID Act. That his services could not be terminated without following

mandatory provisions issuing one month’s notice. That he was not given one months notice before terminating his

services. The termination of his service is in violation of principles of natural justice and discriminatory. Ist party

further submits that he along with Shri Narendra Singh, Ajay Singh, Munir Khan, Shiv Singh, Jamuna Prasad and Jhali

Prasad were employed by 2^nd party shown in letter dated 9-6-89. In above referred letter, all other employees are

regularized only workman was denied regularization. Order of his termination is discriminatory. The attitude of 2^nd

party is unlawful. The representation submitted by workman were not decided according to law which resulted in

miscarriage of justice. Ist party workman further submits his services are terminated without giving reasonable hearing.

His wrongful termination cannot be sustained.

Ist party further submits that 2^nd party issued policy for regularization on 25-6-90. As per said scheme, services

of Ist party workman were liable to be regularized. Ist party workman was denied benefit of policy scheme. Employees

who were appointed after 1988 were also given benefit of the scheme. Benefit of regularization was denied to him.

That junior employees Birendra Singh was regularized in service as per order dated 24-8-93. 2^nd party acted arbitrarily

denying regularization benefits as per the scheme. As per letter dated 20-1-94, Ist party workman had requested to take

him in service, his applications for re-employment / regularization were not considered. Assistant Director, MP

Telecom, Bhopal issued letter dated 20-9-95 enquiring in the matter of regularization of casual labours like Ist party

workman. 2^nd party did not take any steps for regularizing his services. Ist party was facing hardship as a genuine claim

for regularization was not accepted. Ist party workman was also not accorded status of temporary employees. That

before transferring services to Railway Electrification project, he worked as regular employee under Divisional

Engineer (Adm) Telecom Bhopal. Electrification project was completed but workman was not transferred back to

Divisional Engineer (Adm). On such ground, Ist party is praying for appointment as regular employee.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party submits that workman was

never employed by Railway Electrification Project. Infact he was engaged as casual labour by the management. He

submitted that Railway Electrification Project was short term project which was given to the department of Telecom by

department of Railway. Under said project, work assigned for erection and dismental of lines and wires. The workman

was aware of the fact that from the beginning of his engagement that the project was temporary and for a short period.

2^nd party denies that workman continuously worked for 240 days in any calendar year. That workman has failed to

submit verified copy of ACG-17 of muster roll. Therefore his claim that he worked more than 240 days is not

acceptable. 2^nd party further submits that workman was engaged on daily wages subject to availability of work in RE

Project. There was no project for transfer of matter to the department of Telecom. Workman never worked under

Administration of DE(Adm.) Bhopal. On such ground, 2^nd party submits that workman is not entitled to any relief

claimed by him.

Ist party filed rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by 2^nd party reiterating his contentions in statement of

claim. That initially he was appointed as labor from 24-5-87. He was continued in employment till 31-3-90. That

Railway Electrification Project was not for short term. Workman reiterates that he worked more than 240 days during a

1604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

calendar year. He also refer to document submitted along with statement of claim. It is alleged that respondent has

committed act of perjury.

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

General Manager Telecom/ Assistant Engineer

(RE), Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri

Shivram Singh S/o Shri Tulsiram Singh w.e.f. April

1990 is justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of the termination of services of workman. Ist party workman field

affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That he was engaged as labor on 24-5-87 till

31-3-90. His services are terminated from -4-90. He had completed more than 240 days service. he was not issued any

chargesheet, no DE was conducted against him before terminating his services. His work was excellent. He was not

paid retrenchment compensation. His services are terminated violating provisions of ID Act. From evidence of Ist

party, documents Exhibit W-1 to 3 are admitted in evidence. Ist party in his cross says post on which he was working

was not advertised. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange,. He was directly engaged. He had not

received appointment letter. He was engaged in Railway Electrification Project. Attendance was recorded in Service

Card Exhibit W-1 by Attendance clerk. He had received wages for the working days shown in Exhibit W-1. Workman

denied that he had not completed 240 days working during any of the year. The service card Exhibit W-1 working days

of Ist party are shown till March 90. In said document, working days of workman till March 1989 are 200. Exhibit W-2

shows that as directed by Telecom Bhopal, following labours whose details are given below may be absorbed in place

of junior most labours engaged. Name of workman is appearing at Sl.No.4. his working days are shown 745 days. He

was directed to be absorbed on establishment of AE, Itarsi. In cross examination of workman, nothing is asked to Ist

party workman about the working days shown 745 days in Exhibit W-2. Therefore I find no reason to disbelieve that

the Ist party worked total 745 days. If his period of working from 24-5-87 to 31-3-90 is considered, said period comes

2 years and less than 10 months. Even if his working days 745 are divided by 3, working days of workman comes more

than 240 days during each of the calendar years.

Present reference is received as per order dated 29-5-01. 2^nd party had not appeared in the reference proceeding.

Application for setting aside exparte order was filed on 3-7-09. As said application was not objected, exparte order was

set-aside and Written Statement of management was taken on record.

Management filed affidavit of witness Syed Mehmood supporting contentions of 2^nd party in Written Statement

that workman was engaged in RE Project purely on daily wages subject to availability of work. Railway Electrification

Project was short term period for limited period. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. witness of

management in his cross examination says the affidavit filed by Shri J.K.Mishra earlier witness of management and

affidavit of evidence filed by him are identical, of the work. The record of the labours engaged for the work was

maintained. Witness of management was unable to tell when workman was dis-engaged. The witness of management

has not said anything about letter Exhibit W-2. As per Letter Exhibit W-2, 7 employees including workman were

directed to be absorbed in place of junior most labors engaged at the relevant time. Why workman was not absorbed in

service as per exhibit W-2 is absolutely not explained by the management. As stated above, Ist party had completed

more than 240 days continuous service during each of the calendar year, his services are terminated without notice, he

was not paid retrenchment compensation, termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

10.

Learned counsel for Ist party submitted written notes of argument. Learned counsel relies on ratio held in case

between R.M.Yellati versus the Asstt. Executive Engineer and other judgments on the point of adverse inference to be

drawn for failure of management to produce the documents. Perusal of record shows Ist party workman had not

submitted application for production of document therefore ratio relied by learned counsel for workman cannot be

applied. Ratio held in the case is relied by ist party workman cannot be applied. However as per Exhibit W-2, working

days of Ist party are shown 745 days, it comes more than 240days during each of the calendar year. Workman was not

served with notice neither he was paid retrenchment compensation, termination of his service is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1605

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No. termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Again document Exhibit W-2

needs to be considered. When 6 other employees were absorbed as per Exhibit W-2, there is absolutely no reason about

workman was not absorbed as per said document on establishment of AE, Itarsi. Instead of absorbing Ist party

workman as per Exhibit W-2, his services were terminated. The action of the management of Ist party is

discriminatory. Ist party also is entitled to parity along with other employees absorbed vide Exhibit W-2. Therefore Ist

party workman deserves reinstatement in service. Ist party workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated that after

termination of his service, he is unemployed. Said evidence remained unchallenged in his cross-examination. Evidence

of management’s witness is also silent about any gainful employment of Ist party workman after termination of his

service.

12.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Amit Dubey relies on ratio held in case between

Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus Hindalco Industries Ltd. Reported in 2014 STPL(Web) 337 SC. Their

Lordship held awarding compensation Rs. One Lakh instead of reinstatement with full backwages was upheld.

For reasons discussed above, workman deserves reinstatement with full backwages. Accordingly I record my

finding in Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of General Manager Telecom/ Assistant Engineer (RE), Bhopal in

terminating the services of Shri Shivram Singh S/o Shri Tulsiram Singh w.e.f. April 1990 is not legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service with full backwages.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 760-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iz/kukpk;Z

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] dksV~Vk;e 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 01@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 30-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 760.—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. 01/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Principal General Manager, BSNL, Kottayam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

30.11.2016.

[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

(Friday the 28^th day of October, 2016/06^th Kartika, 1938)

ID 1/2016

Workman

Shri A. Ganesan,

S/o Arumughom,

Muncipal Colony,

Fathimapuram PO,

1606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Changanacherry Taluk,

Kottayam Pin 686102.

By Adv. Smt. Tessy P. George

Management

The Principal General Manager,

BSNL,

BSNL Office,

Head Post Office PO,

Kottayam – 686101

By Adv. Shri. Saji Varghese

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The averments in the application in brief are as follows:-

The workman was employed as a casual labourer - as a scavenger (contingent) in Telephone Exchange, E10B

Exchange, Changanacherry from 1999 December to 06.01.2011. He had done the scavenging, cleaning and gardening

work under the management regularly from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The management paid @ `120/- per day to the

workman and his monthly income was `3,720/-. He has performed his duty sincerely, honestly and to the satisfaction

of the officials under the management. Every year he worked more than 300 days under the management.

On 06.01.2011 the Sub-Divisional Engineer – Shri Baby Vijayan, informed the workman that his services are no

longer required for the management. The employer denied employment to the workman without any reason

w.e.f.06.01.2011. The management has not issued any show cause notice or charge sheet to the workman. No enquiry

was conducted preceding the denial of employment of the workman.

The workman submitted representation before the General Manager, BSNL, Divisional Engineer(Vigilance), the

District Collector, Kottayam and before the Labour Commissioner. The Legal Services Authority, Changanacherry

directed the workman to file proceedings against the employer. On the basis of the complaint filed before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, notice was issued to the employer. The employer refused to reinstate the

workman. Therefore the workman has requested to pass an award directing the management to reinstate him in service

with all benefits including the arrears of wages due to him.

The management filed written statement contending as follows:-

They have denied all the averments in the application except those that are specifically admitted. Even as per

the admission of the workman, the management denied employment on 06.01.2011. The workman preferred this

application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 01.12.2015, which is after a lapse of more than

three years from the date of the alleged denial of employment. Therefore his claim is not sustainable in law as it is

barred by limitation.

Without prejudice to the contentions raised above, the management has stated that the contention of the

workman that he was employed as a casual labourer in E10 B Exchange, Changanacherry as scavenger from

December, 1999 to 06.01.2011 is absolutely false and incorrect. The further averment that he was discharging his

duties from 09:00 AM to 05:00 PM to the satisfaction of the management, is incorrect. After inviting competitive

tenders, housekeeping work of Kottayam SSA was awarded to a contractor namely, Mahatma Gandhi Charitable

Society. The period of their contract ended in June, 2010. The workman herein was employed under the said agency

along with other workmen as part of the contract awarded to the contractor for the housekeeping work. The wages for

the workman was paid by the contractor. The said agency is having the license under the Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition Act) and separate registration as provided under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act and Employees’ State Insurance Act. The Provident Fund and ESI contribution of all the workmen

engaged by the contractor are paid by the contractor. There was no employer-employee relationship between the

BSNL and the workman. The contention that the workman was employed by the management for more than 300 days

in a year is incorrect.

The allegation that Shri Baby Vijayan, Sub-Divisional Engineer working in the management denied

employment to the workman on 06.01.2011, is absolutely false. After the completion of the contract period with

Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Society in June, 2010, the workman was engaged on quotation basis by BSNL on payment

@ `120/- per day till the first week of January, 2011. From November, 2010 the workman was not willing to do any

other work other than the cleaning work for which he used to take hardly two hours per day. Therefore he was paid

@`75/- per day for those days he had done the cleaning work. After January, 2011 he did not turn up for the cleaning

work for the reason that he secured better employment. BSNL never engaged the workman for more than 240 days in

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1607

any year. He is not entitled to get an order directing reinstatement or to recover the arrears and other benefits as

claimed. The management has requested to dismiss the claim.

After filing written statement by the management the workman filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the

application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

10.

The management in the meantime filed IA No.88/2016 requesting to consider the maintainability of the

industrial dispute as a preliminary point. As requested by the counsel for the management IA No.88/2016 was heard

and a separate order has been passed on 18.10.2016 holding that the claim of the workman is barred by limitation in

view of Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

11.

In view of the disposal of IA No.88/2016 with the finding that the claim of the workman is barred by limitation,

the workman herein is not entitled to get an order as claimed in the claim application.

12.

In the result an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any of the relief claimed as per this

application for the reason that his application is barred by limitation under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

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 28^th day

of October, 2016.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 761-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d

(Vh)] ch,l,u,y] <saduky 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 16@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 14-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@36@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 761.—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. 16/2010) 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 General Manager (T), BSNL, Dhenkanal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

14.12.2016.

[No. L-40012/36/2010-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. 16/2010

Date of Passing Award – 11^th November, 2016

Between :

The General Manager (T), Telecom District,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dhenkanal.

1608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Bijay Kumar Sitha, Contractora,

At. Mahavir Bazar, Po./Distt. Dhenkanal – 759 001

…1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Santosh Kumar Rath,

At. Solabandha, Po. Champeswar, P.S. Ranpur,

Cuttack. – 754 037

…2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

Shri L.K. Sahu, S.D.E., Legal

…

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

Shri B.K. Sitha, Contractor

…

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

Shri Santosh Kr. Rath

…

For himself the 2^nd Party-Workman.

A W A R D

The award is directed against a reference with following schedule:-

“Whether the termination of the workman Shri Santosh Kumar Rath, Data Entry Operator by the management of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dhenkanal w.e.f. 01.02.2007 and followed by termination of his service by the

contractor namely Shri Bijay Kumar Sitha w.e.f. 28.2.2008, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment 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-

40012/36/2010 – IR(DU), dated 17.09.2010.

The case of the 2^nd party-workman as revealed from his statement of claim is that he was working in the

capacity of Data Entry Operator in the office of the 1^st Party-Management No. 1 from July, 1998 to 11.9.2009 on a

different pay structure from time to time raising to an amount of Rs. 4100/- per month. He was working directly under

the supervision of the Management No. 1 till he was retrenched with effect from 11.9.2009 without compliance of

provisions of Section 25-F or 25-N of the Act. According to him he was receiving the monthly wage from the

Management No. 1 till February, 2007. But, the amount and mode of payment of his wage was suddenly changed

showing an arrangement of his service under the disposal of the contractor Shri Bijay Kumar Sitha, Management No. 2

having E.P.F. Code No. OR/12770/59 with effect from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2008 and his wage was reduced to an

amount of Rs. 2000/- only per month. It is his claim that his service was again placed directly under the disposal of the

Management No. 1 from 01.03.2008 to 11.09.2009. As there was a change of service condition without a notice as

required under Section 9-A of the Act by showing him as a contract labourer under Management No. 2 and his

retrenchment with effect from 11.9.2009 was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-H and 25-N of the Act,

the 2^nd party workman has claimed to declare his retrenchment as illegal and unjust and asked for his reinstatement with

all back wages with effect from 11.9.2009 and payment of differential wages amounting to Rs. 61,600/- for the period

from 1.2.2007 to 10.9.2009.

Both the Managements have refuted the allegations raised by the workman. The Management No. 1 has denied

giving any appointment to the 2^nd party-workman against any post as there was a ban of direct recruitment. The work

of data entry was carried out through service providers/contractors. Salary/wage was never paid directly to such

contract workers and such contract workers were receiving their wages from their employer/contractor. As there was no

relationship of “employer and employee” the Management No. 1 is no way liable for any relief to the workman. The

Management No. 2 has filed its written statement taking a stand that it was not known to him if the workman was

giving service as a Data Entry Operator in the office of the Management No. 1 from July, 1998 on a monthly

remuneration of Rs. 4,100/-. It is his pleadings that the office of the Management No. 1 issued a work order to him

vide No. G-16/06-07/13, dated 27.1.2007 for supply of Data Entry Operator in Dhenkanal S.S.A. for the period

covering from 1.2.2007 to 28.2.2008. On being requested by the 2^nd party he employed him to work as a Data Entry

Operator on daily wage of Rs. 80/- with effect from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2008. After deduction of all statutory

contributions the workman was paid remuneration on monthly basis and his contribution towards E.P.F. was deposited

in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar. It is his stand that the workman left the job

on 28.2.2008 on his own volition and as such question does not arise for compliance of the provisions of the I.D. Act as

claimed by the 2^nd party-workman.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for proper adjudication of the

dispute.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1609

I S S U E S

Whether the termination of the workman Shri Santosh Kumar Rath, Data Entry Operator by the

management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dhenkanal, w.e.f. 1.2.2007 and followed by

termination of his service by the contractor namely Shri Bijay Kumar Sitha w.e.f. 28.2.2008, is legal

and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

The workman has examined himself and relied on documents like experience certificate/character certificate

dated 26.2.2008 issued by the Chief Accounts Officer and his letter dated 13.8.2009 addressed to the Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, BSNL in support of his claim, whereas three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the

Management No. 1 and one witness on behalf of the Management No. 2 and the Xerox copies of documents like ban

order dated 30.3.1985 issued by the office of the D.G. Posts and Telegraphs, work orders for supplying Data Entry

Operator, register of wages, list of contractors, xerox copies of some contract agreements executed from time to time,

payment bill for Data Entry Operator etc. have been filed by both the Managements to refute the allegations raised by

the workman.

F I N D I N G S

ISSUE NO. 1 & 2

The 2^nd party-workman has claimed that he was working as a Computer Operator in the office of the S.D.O.,

Telephone, Dhenkanal from July, 1998 till 11.9.2009 when his service was terminated without compliance of the

provisions of Section-25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereas it is the stand of both the Managements that he worked

as a Data Entry Operator from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2008 in the office of the S.D.O., Telephone Dhenkanal as a casual

worker through labour contractor (Management No. 2). It is the pleading of the Management No. 1 that there was no

relationship of “employer and employee” between it and the workman and as such he has no relief against the

Management No. 1 under the I.D. Act. The Management No. 2 has pleaded that the workman had left the job on his

own volition after 28.2.2008 and as such there was no scope of retrenchment or termination of his service by him.

Admittedly, no appointment letter or termination letter or wage slip has been filed by the 2^nd party-workman except his

oral assertion in support of his claim that he was working in the office of the Management No. 1 from July, 1998. The

workman has produced an experience certificate allegedly issued by W.W.-1, Shri Ramesh Chandra Das (Ext.-1) and a

copy of his representation made to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi (Ext.-2)

to establish his stand that he was working as a Computer Operator from July, 1998 in the office of the Management No.

1. The witnesses examined by the Management No. 1 including the person who is stated to have issued the Ext.-1 have

categorically claimed in their evidence that Ext.-1 was issued merely as a character certificate. According to them the

workman was not appointed by the Management No. 1 as there was a ban order for recruitment of new staffs by a

circular dated 30.3.1985 (Ext.-A). It has been asserted by them that data entry work being a voluminous computer

entries are being done through different labour contractors from time to time and the 2^nd party-workman was working

as data entry worker through such contractor from 1.2.2007 to 28.2.2008. The annexures filed along with the written

statement of the Management No. 1 and oral testimony of its witnesses suggest that the work of data entry of

Management No. 1 was given to different contractors from time to time and the Contractor-Management No. 2 being

given such work had engaged the workman for the period from 1.2.2007 to 28.2.2008. The Management No. 2 also

admits engagement of 2^nd party-workman as data entry operator in the establishment of the Management No. 1, but for

the period from 01.02.2007 to 28.02.2008. It has been revealed from the cross examination of Management witnesses

that the 2^nd party-workman was also working in the office of the Management No. 1 prior to 2007. If the oral evidence

of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management No. 1 is taken into consideration along with the elicitation

from the Management No. 2 Witness that he has no idea about the engagement of the workman in the office of the

Management No. 1 prior to 1.2.2007 and the contents of Ext.-1 it is emerging that Ext.-1 was issued for the purpose of

character certificate to the workman. At the same time the same discloses that the 2^nd party-workman was doing data

entry work in the office of the Management No. 1 from July, 1998. Perusal of the annexures filed along with the written

statement of the Managements and the oral testimony of the management witnesses further reveals that the work of data

entries was carried out in the office of the Management No. 1 through persons being shown as provided by contractors

and such contractors were changed from time to time. Though no credible document is produced by the 2^nd party-

workman to show that he was given appointment directly by the Management No. 1 prior to 1.2.2007 or after 28.2.2008

and he was receiving his salary/wage directly from the said Management during the above period, it is coming forth

that he was continuing to work as a data entry operator continuously for the Management No. 1 from July, 1998

onwards till alleged denial of service to him being shown as working under different contractors. Thus, it can be safely

held that the 2^nd party-workman was doing the work of data entry in the office of the Management No. 1 from July,

1998 onwards till his alleged retrenchment either by the contractor-Management No. 2 or by the Management No. 1.

No specific pleading or evidence has been advanced by either of the Managements that the service/job of the 2^nd

party-workman was for a specific time or for specific project or till completion of certain entries of data. On the other

1610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

hand pleading and evidence has been advanced by the Management No. 2 that the workman remained absent from his

duty after 28.2.2008 on his own volition and as such, the allegation of retrenchment is not genuine. Neither the

Management No. 1 nor the Management No. 2 has claimed that the workman was informed or noticed to join his duty

before treating him to have abandoned the job voluntarily. No evidence has also been led to suggest that the work of

data entries in the office of the Management No. 1 is already completed and no such work is being carried out presently

or there is no necessity of engagement of person to make such entries in its office. If the above facts and circumstances

as emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties are taken into consideration, an irresistible conclusion can

be drawn that the service of the 2^nd party-workman was dispensed with after 11.9.2009 without assigning any reason

and the plea that the workman remained absent voluntarily from his duty is not acceptable and believable.

Both the Managements have not pleaded or denied the assertion of the workman that he was working

continuously for 240 days in a calendar year for the period from July, 1998 to 11.9.2009. Be that as it may the

retrenchment or termination needs to be carried out complying the requirements as contemplated under section 25-F

and 25-H of the I.D. Act. There is no pleading as well as evidence on behalf of the Managements to show that the

workman was paid one month notice pay and compensation in lieu of his alleged retrenchment/termination. Therefore,

the said retrenchment is undoubtedly illegal and unjustified in the eye of law.

Now coming to the point to what relief to which the 2^nd party-workman is entitled to receive it is seen that the

Management No. 1 has taken the stand there exists no “employer and employee” relationship between it and the

workman and as such, the reference is not maintainable against them and they are not liable to indemnify the 2^nd party-

workman either in shape of reinstatement with back wages or compensation. The contractor-Management No. 2 has

testified that the workman has not claimed any relief from him and the grievance of the applicant is against the

Management No. 1 only. It is his further, evidence that he participated in the tender process for supply of data entry

operator for the period from 1.2.2007 to 28.2.2007 and being allotted the work order for the said period only he paid

the wages to the workman for the period from 1.2.2007 to 28.2.2008 and as such, he is not liable to the claim of the

workman. In the case of Hussai Bhai, Calicut –versus- Alath Factory Thozhiali reported 1978 AIR 1410 it has been

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following manner “that the presence of intermeditate contractors with

whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when, on

lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though

draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate

contractor. Myriad devices, half hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment

needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resort to when labour legislation casts

welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles, 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The

court must be astute to avoid mischief and achieve the purpoe of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal

appearances”.

10.

Keeping in view the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court if the evidence as analyzed and discussed in

supra with respect to engagement of the workman for doing data entry work in the office of the Management No. 1 is

taken into consideration it can be safely said that the contract and agreement between the parties, if any, including the

agreement with the Management No. 2 and other contractors apparently a sham and camouflage since various

contactors were changed to carry out the work of the data entry however, the workman continued to be the same. The

Managements did not lead any evidence in compliance of Section 7 and 12 of Contract Labour (R&A) Act. Though,

the workman is stated to have been paid wages through various contractors from time to time he is found to have been

working directly under the supervision of the Management No. 1. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Management

No. 1 is to be the real employer of the disputant workman and thus, liable to comply the award.

11.

It emerges from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the nature of work of the 2^nd party-workman was a

casual and temporary one on the daily wage basis. The Apex Court in the case of Asst. Engieer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp.

And Anr. V. Gitam Singh reported in 2013 LLR 225 has held that when the termination of a workman is held illegal, it

can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Supreme Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in all

cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the

view of the Court that there could be circumstance (s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement.

Hence, the normal rule that the dismissed workman is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been

held to be not without exception. The principles as relevant for granting relief of reinstatement when termination of

workman is held to be illegal. Before exercising his judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all

relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground

on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. Now there is no such

principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, and instead the

Labour Court can award compensation. Thus, while granting a relief of reinstatement to a workman whose termination

is held to be illegal i.e. violative of section 25-F of the Act the Labour Court has to keep in view all the relevant factors

including, the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the

termination has been set aside and the delay, if any in raising the industrial dispute. It is already discussed in supra that

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1611

no pleading or evidence has been advanced to suggest that no employment opportunity on daily wage basis is available

in the office of the Management No. 1 for doing the work of data entry after termination of service of the disputant

workman. The workman is held to have been working for more than ten years on daily wage basis for doing the work

of data entry. The workman is found to have raised the dispute immediately before the labour machinery soon after his

alleged termination. There is no evidence or claim on behalf of the Management that the disputant workman was in

any gainful employment after his termination. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled

principles of the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above I find it just and proper to direct the Management No. 1 to

either reinstate the disputant workman without any back wages for the work of data entry operator or to pay

compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in case of non-availability of such work in its establishment. In

case of reinstatement the disputant workman is to be treated to have been continuing in the service for the purpose of

service benefits, if any, to such temporary casual worker.

12.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 762-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

VsyhdkWe ftyk eSustj] dVd 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 83@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 03-01-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 762.—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. 83/2016) 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 M/s. Telecom District Manager, Cuttack and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

03.01.2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-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.__83/2016

Filed under section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act

Date of Passing Order – 1^st December, 2016

Between :

M/s. Telecom District Manager,

Cuttack

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Babaji Sethi,

S/o. Bina Sethi,

At. Madhipur (Totapada),

Po./Ps. Pipili, Dist. Puri, Odisha

…2^nd Party-Petitioner

1612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

O R D E R

This case is registered on presentation of an application under section 2-A(2) by one Shri Babaji Sethi with a

prayer for reinstatement in employment with back wages and other service benefits like his counterparts with effect

from 1.11.1983. Perused the office note wherein objection has been raised for registration of the case on the ground of

limitation the application having been preferred after lapse of three years from the date of alleged termination of service

by the Management. On a close reading of the application it is seen that the applicant has filed the present application

resorting to the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act pleading inter alia, that he was working as a mazdoor in the

establishment of the Management with effect from Sept., 1982 and he was not allowed to work on 1.10.1983 without

compliance of notice pay and compensation as contemplated under section 25-F of the Act and as such a prayer has

been made for his reinstatement in service with back wages and other service benefits. Section 2-A(2) provides that

where an employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the service of an individual workman, any

dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out, such discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman nor

any Union is a party to the dispute and the application regarding such dispute can be filed directly before the Labour

Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute after expiry of 45 days from the date the workman has filed

the application to the conciliation officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute and on receipt of

such application the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal shall have the powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute as it was a dispute referred to it by the appropriate government in accordance with the provisions of the I.D.

Act and as per Section 2-A(3) such application shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three

years from the date of alleged discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. Keeping in view

the period of limitation as provided in Section 2-A(3) of the Act, the applicant-workman was required to raise the

dispute before this Tribunal within three years of his alleged termination/refusal of employment. As per his own

pleadings the termination/refusal of employment of the applicant was on 1.10.1983 whereas the application raising the

dispute is filed today after a lapse of 33 years. The statute mandates that such dispute shall be raised within three years

and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the application. In that view of the matter

the application raising the dispute is time barred and the same is not maintainable under 2-A(2) of the Act. Hence the

case cannot be registered for adjudication of the dispute and accordingly the application is rejected.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 763-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

funs'kd] lsaVªy bafLVV~;wV vkWiQ izsQ'kokWVj ,DokdYpj] Hkqous'oj 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 17@2015) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@38@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 763.—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. 17/2015) 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 Director, Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture, Bhubaneswar and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.12.2016.

[No. L-42011/38/2015-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.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1613

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO.__17/2015

L-42011/38/2015-IR (DU), dated 26.05.2015

Date of Passing Order – 9^th November, 2016

Between :

The Director,

Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture,

Po. Kausalyagang, Bhubaneswar,

(Orissa) – 751 002

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

CIFA Shramik Sangh,

At./Po. Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar,

(Orissa) – 751 002

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None

…For the 1^st Party-Management

None

…For the 2^nd Party-Union.

O R D E R

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2^nd party-Union notice was

issued on 05.08.2016 fixing 21.09.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the 2^nd party-

Union caused appearance nor has filed any statement of claim. In order to give a last chance/opportunity to the 2^nd

party-Union the case was posted to 09.11.2016 for filing of statement of claim, but the 2^nd party-Union did not respond

and file the statement of claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its case.

However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no

other alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour unanswered for necessary

action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 764-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

ch,l,u,y] <saduky 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 18@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@121@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 764.—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. 18/2014) 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 General Manager, BSNL, Dhenkanal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

08.12.2016.

[No. L-40012/121/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2014

L-40012/121/2013-IR (DU), dated 26.02.2014

Date of Passing Order – 9^th November, 2016

Between :

The General Manager,

GMTD, BSNL, Dhenkanal

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Shri Gadadhar Nayak & 2 other workmen,

Jubilee Town, Mrudangasahi, Dhenkanal

…2^nd Party-Workmen.

Appearances:

None

…For the 1^st Party-Management.

None

…For the 2^nd Party-Workmen.

O R D E R

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

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

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

Workmen. As the Workmen failed to attend the proceeding as well as adduced any evidence in addition to their claim

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

The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 765-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ifj;kstuk

funs'kd] ,u,p,vkbZ] Hkqous'oj 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 18@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-12-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@40@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2017

S.O. 765.—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. 18/2015) 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 Project Director, NHAI, Bhubaneswar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

05.12.2016.

[No. L-42011/40/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1615

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2015

L-42011/40/2015-IR (DU), dated 26.05.2015

Date of Passing Order – 10^th November, 2016

Between :

The Project Director, NHAI,

1^st Floor, Setu Nirman Bhawan, (OBCC),

Near Kalyan Mandap, Nayapalli, Unit-8,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 752 012.

The Managing Director,

M/s. Zedking Security Services (P) Ltd.,

Plot No. E-124, H.B. Colony, Baramunda,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 003

…1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

The General Secretary,

All Orissa Security & Services Employees

Association, INTUC, At. Charigharia, Gopalsahi,

Po. Madav Nagar, Bhadrak – 756 181

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None

…For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None

…For the 2^nd Party-Union.

O R D E R

Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2^nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite sending

notices through ordinary as well as regd. post. In order to give a last opportunity to the 2^nd party-Union notice was

issued on 05.08.2016 fixing 21.09.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim, but neither the 2^nd party-

Union caused appearance nor has filed any statement of claim. In order to give a last chance/opportunity to the 2^nd

party-Union the case was posted to 10.11.2016 for filing of statement of claim, but the 2^nd party-Union did not respond

and file the statement of claim. As such it seems that the 2^nd party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its case.

However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no

other alternative except to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.

Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour unanswered for necessary

action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 766-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mi funs'kd]

tokgj uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr] Hkksiky ,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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 123@95) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-11-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@03@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2017

S.O. 766.—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. 123/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

1616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dy. Director, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 02.11.2016.

[No. L-42012/03/93-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/123/95

Shri Ved Prakash,

S/o Shri Kanhaiyalalji Sharma,

At & PO Rampura,

Distt. Mandsour (MP)

…Workman

Versus

The Dy.Director,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,

E-3/3, Arera Colony,

Bhopal

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3^rd day of October 2016

As per letter dated 30-6-95 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No.L-42012/03/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Jawahar Navodayala Samiti, Rampur , Distt. Mandsour in

terminating the services of Shri Ved Prakash is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

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

Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as peon with 2^nd party from 22-7-88 to 30-4-91. He

was receiving pay Rs.455 per month during the period 5-10-91 to 30-7-92, orally he was directed to work as peon. One

post of peon was vacant. There was need of peon. His services were illegally terminated on 30-10-91without issuing

chargesheet or issuing notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Oral termination of his service is illegal

though he had worked more than 240 days. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 7/1to 7/2. 2^nd party submits that it is not

covered by provisions of ID Act.2^nd party remains open 9 months in an year. It is engaged in free education, it is not

engaged in manufacturing or activities earning profits. Therefore the reference is without jurisdiction 2^nd party further

submits that for each academic year, staff is sanctioned by Regional Office. There was no sanctioned post of peon for

the year 1992-93, 1993-94. The Principal of the school engaged persons on contingency basis for particular period. The

workman was engaged on contingency basis for specific period of 89 days. Understanding was given to the workman,

his services could not be terminated without notice. There was no question of approval of terminating his services as he

was engaged as contingent employee. It is further contented that workman had not completed 240 days continuous

service, post was not sanctioned. Provisions of ID Act are not applicable.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

The award was passed by my predecessor on 8-3-99. The award was set aside by Hon’ble High Court in Writ

Petition No. 1799 / 2005 and matter has been remanded.

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

Jawahar Navodayala Samiti, Rampur , Distt.

Mandsour in terminating the services of Shri Ved

Prakash is legal and justified?

In Negative

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1617

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

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party. Ist party workman

filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim. In his affidavit, Ist party workman have stated that he was working

as peon in 2^nd party from 22-7-88 to 30-4-91 on pay Rs.455 per month. He worked during the period 5-10-91 to 3-6-97.

As per oral directions, his services were terminated without notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, his

services were orally terminated. That he worked more than 240 days. From evidence of workman, documents Exhibit

W-1 to W-7 are admitted in evidence. In his cross, workman says he passed 8^th standard, he was appointed on

temporary basis. He was paid wages at collector rate. He was doing work of peon. He denies that he not work for more

than 240 days during any of the year. The documents Exhibit W-1 is appointment letter dated 20-7-88 for 89 days, W-3

is appointment letter dated 1-7-90 for 179 days. Exhibit W-4 is appointment letter dated 9-3-90 untill further orders, he

wages were to be paid at collector rate. Exhibit W-5 is appointment letter dated 16-1-90 till 28-2-90. Exhibit W-6 is

appointment letter dated 24-11-89 till 16-12-89. Exhibit W-7 is certificate regarding working days of workman from

22-7-88 to 5-12-98. From those documents, evidence of workman is corroborated that he worked for more than 240

days preceding termination of service without paying compensation, therefore termination is in violation of Section 25-

F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration is whether Ist party workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Learned counsel for 2^nd

party Shri Praveen Namdeo submitted written arguments submitting that the school of 2^nd party is not governed by

provisions of ID Act. Relief claimed by workman cannot be allowed. Copy of notification dated 30-12-98 is submitted

alongwith notes of argument. Ist party was working as peon is certainly covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID

Act. The jurisdiction of labour court under Section 10 could not be taken away by such notification considering

termination of Ist party workman is illegal, workman was appointed on temporary basis vide different orders, he

completed more than 240 days service during each of the year . Termination of his service without issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation, relief of reinstatement would not be appropriate. However for violation of Section 25-F,

compensation Rs. 50,000 would be appropriate in the matter. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Jawahar Navodayala Samiti, Rampur , Distt. Mandsour in terminating

the services of Shri Ved Prakash is illegal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- to the workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 767-—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 12@1992 rkjh[k 2-1-2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15-03-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@159@1991&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 15th March, 2017

S.O. 767.—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. 12 of 1992 dt. 2.1.2017) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

15.03.2017.

[No. L-20012/159/1991-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[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. 12/1992

Employer in relation to the management of Kenduadih Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Shri Lallan Debey, Rep.

Industry : Coal

Dated : 02/01/2017

AWARD

By order no . L- 20012 /159/1991 /IR (C-I) dated Nil, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Ramadhar and 65 others contractor workers are workmen of Kenduadih Colliery of M/S

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, and whether the demand that these persons be regularized in the services of the said

management is justified ? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled?”

Annexure

List of workmen

Sl.No.

Name

Father’s Name

Vill

P.O

P.S

Distt.

Sri Ramadhar

Kenduadih

Colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

Sri Ram Autar

Ram

Sri Bitul Ram

Kendi nagar

Kanha Chatti

Chatra

Hazaribagh

Sri Ram

Charn Singh

Yadav

Sri Har

Nandan Singh

Yadav

Bahdura

Samanpur

Nandgunj

Gajipur

Sri Kanhaiya

Pd. Singh

Sri Bhagwan

Singh

Chanwath

Kaisath

Bhojpur

Sri Ajoy

Shankar

Bahadur

Sri Tara

Shankar

Bahadur

Nutanddih

Jagjiwan

Nagar

Dhanbad

Sri Radhey

Shyam

Paswan

Sri Somar

Paswan

Raundi

Karki

Ariyari

Munger

Sri Bilash

Rajbhar

Sri Nanho

Rajbhar

Putkee

Loyabad

Centre

Loyabad

Putkee

Dhanbad

Sri Udai Bhan

Yadav

Sri Ram

Karan Yadav

Ajorwa

Dumduma

Handi

Allahabad

Sri Arbind Kr.

Upadhya

Sri Ram Najar

Upadhya

Osanow

Tarka

Rohtas

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1619

10.

Sri Sanjay Kr.

Singh

Sri Balkrishna

Prasad

Bhuli Nagar

Q.N. B/22

Dhanbad

11.

Sri Raj Kumar

Sinha

Sri

R.K.Prasad

Jagjiwan

Nagar

Dhanbad

Sri Dipak

Chandra Paul

Lt Mahatab

Ch. Paul

Kenduadih

Basti

Kusunda

Dhanbad

Sri Upendra

Yadav

Sri Ram Das

Yadav

KauaKhap

Bhadwa

Rafigunj

Aurangabad

14.

Sri Subodh

Paswan

Sri Kashev

Paswan

Noni

Chandradih

Munger

15.

Sri Bechu

Rajbhar

Sri Tilak

Rajbhar

Putkee

Loyabad

Centre

Putkee

Loyabad

Dhanbad

16.

Sri Ashok Kr.

Yadav

Sri Malapati

Yadav

Bujuruk

Saidabad

Allahabad

17.

Sri Gobind

Yadav

Sri Prayag

Yadav

Kenduadih

colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

18.

Sri Bijay

Kumar verma

Sri Tarni Pd.

Verma

Matkuria

Dhanbad

19.

Sri Surendra

Paswan

Sri Manrup

Paswan

Tejpur

Tilkai

Jahanabad

20.

Sri Balmiki

Singh

Sri Bhola

Singh

S. Balihari

Colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

21.

Sri Karu

Yadav

Sri Gopal

Yadav

Uprwa

Uprawa

Bihar Sarif

Nalanda

22.

Sri Balmiki

Paswan

Kenduadih

colliery

Kusunda

Kenduadih

Dhanbad

23.

Sri Ram

Keshwar

Mistry

Sri

Brahamdeo

Mistry

Banke Bazar

Gaya

24.

Sri Surendra

Mistry

Lt.

Parmeshwar

Mistry

Turkadih

Lesligunj

Palamu

25.

Sri Nandlal

sharma

Sri Mahadeo

Mistry

Ghurwa

Poldih

Jagishpur

Husenabad

Palamu

26.

sri mahadeo

Lal

Lt. Barati Lal

Chute

Gomia

Giridih

27.

Sri Sanjay

Kumar Sinha

Sri Chandrika

Lal

New Area

Pipar Panti

Kotwali

Gaya (R.S)

Gaya

28.

Sri Rajendra

Yadav

Sri Ram

Baldeo Yadav

Pipari

Prithabipur

Handia

Allahabad

29.

Sri chhotelal

Passi

Sri Sukhu

Passi

Aura

Baraut

Handia

Allahabad

30.

Sri Nand Lal

Yadav

Sri Basdeo

Yadav

Kubi

Urij via

Bichhi

Gopigunj

Banaras

31.

Sri Balgovind

Thakur

Lt. Jagarnath

Thakur

Basupur

Handia

Allahabad

32.

Sri Ram Bilas

Pasi

Sri Faudar

Pasi

Balihari

Colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

1620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33.

Sri Mahendra

Ram

Lt. Sarjug

Ram

Bardan khar

Salanja

Atalsi

Munger

34.

Sri Sumiran

Yadav

Sri Nath

Yadav

Muflispur

Nawada

Muflispur

Jonpur (UP)

35.

Sri Satrughan

Pd. Bhuia

Kamdeo

Bhuia

Bania

Nagmatia

Madanpur

Aurangabad

36.

Sri Mahendra

Pratap

Sri Ram

Ugrah Rai

Naharchak

Jahanagunj

Sevata

Azamgarh

37.

Sri Sudhir Kr.

Kendua Pull

Kusunda

Dhanbad

38.

Sri Rajendra

Pd. Swarnkar

Budhanb

Swarnkar

Bishungarh

Hazaribagh

39.

Sri Jamir

Alam

Sri Ismall

Mian

Kenduadih

colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

40.

Sri Jai

Prakash

Mistry

Sri Arjun

Mistry

Mahudi

Brindaban

Hazaribagh

41.

Sri

Dhaneshwar

Yadav

Sri Sukh Ram

Yadav

Balihari

Colliery

(K.B.Sec)

Kusunda

Putkee

Dhanbad

42.

Sri Raj

Keshwar

Singh

Lt. Randeo

Singh

Behera

Poldih

Jagishpur

Husenabad

Palamu

43.

Sri Arbind

Prasad

Lt. Ram

Sewak Prasad

Uchauli

Rengania

Aurangabad

44.

Sri Satendra

Singh

Sri Dwarka

Singh

Bherhia

Kenbehari

Aurangabad

45.

Sri Arbind Kr.

Sinha

Sri Kedar

Sinha

Benia

Erki Via Deo

Aurangabad

46.

Sri Dilip Kr.

Singha

Kendua pull

Kusunda

Dhanbad

47.

Sri Ajit Kr.

Verma

Sri Bipin

Bihari verma

Gandhi path

Lane

Danapur cant.

Patna

48.

Sri Prem Kr.

Sinha

Sri

R.K.Prasad

Jagjiwan

Nagar

Dhanbad

49.

Sri Awadhesh

Prasad

Kenduadih

colliery

Kusunda

Dhanbad

50.

Sri Binod Kr.

Mishra

Sri Ramyad

Mishra

Saraiya

Malhara

Deo

Aurangabad

51.

Sri Pradip Kr.

Ambasta

Lt. Raghubar

Prasad

Darwan via

Goh

Darwan via

Goh

Aurangabad

52.

Sri Jai

Prakash

Sri

Chakradhar

Lal

Kenduadih

Basti No.5

Kusunda

Dhanbad

53.

Sri Ram

Sewak Ram

Lt. Lilo Ram

Ganga Ahar

Paudibara

Choparan

Hazaribagh

54.

Sri Sheo Kr.

Yadav

Sri Pun Yadav

Lalpur Bara

Dangara

Mahanpur

Gaya

55.

Sri

Ramchandra

Yadav

Ram Prasad

Yadav

Padumchak

Barachati

Gaya

56.

Sri Anup Kr.

Singh

Sri Basdeo

Nandan

Prasad

Red House

Compound

West Church

Road

Gaya

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1621

57.

Sri Muna Saw Sri

Ramchandra

saw

Repura

Daudnagar

Aurangabad

58.

Sri

Rameshwar

Saw

Sri Mahadeo

Saw

Papaur via

Siwan

Pach rukhi

Siwan

59.

Sri Pashupati

Saw

Sri Uma

Shankar Saw

Barhaka Gano

Papaur via

Siwan

Pach rukhi

Siwan

60.

Sri Krishadeo

Yadav

Sri Banwari

Yadav

Garhala

Basahi

Karchhana

Allahabad

61.

Sri Rabo Ram

Sri Munshi

Ram

Aijhi

Katari

Korina

Munghyr

62.

Sri Bhusan

Prasad

Lt.

Kameshwar

Prasad

Bhuli

townwhip

Dhanbad

63.

Sri Pradip

Kumar

Sri Girendra

Prasad

Kalaynpur

Badoli

Pratappur

Hazaribagh

64.

Sheo Nandan

Ram

Sri Balchand

Ram

Kandi nagar

Kalhaiya

Chatra

Hazaribagh

65.

Shri Shambhu

Singh

Sri Tribeni

Singh

Sultanpur

Mahadi Nagar Samastipur

66.

Sri Lalan

Singh

Sri Ghul

Singh

Araila

Manu Dihari

Jagdishpur

Bhojpur

2. This case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 24.01.1992. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. The sponsoring Union / workman files written statement on 07.02.1992. And the management also files their

written statement on 25.06.1992. Rejoinder and documents filed by the parties.

3. Nine witnesses examined on behalf of the workman and three witnesses also examined on behalf of the management.

Documents of the management marked as M-1 to M-1/1 as well as document of workman is also marked as W-1 to W-

4/1. But thereafter both sides were not interested in the case. From 2001 to 2014 neither the management nor the

sponsoring union moved for hearing of the case. Even issuance of Regd.notice in 2014 on both sides none responded

hence No Dispute award was passed on 13.01.2014.

4. The Sponsoring Union challenged the No Dispute Award before the Hon’ble High Court, Ranchi, Accordingly it was

remand back for fresh adjudication.

5. The case of the workman is that Kenduadih Colliery was a large coking coal mine under private ownership prior to

take over by Central Government w.e.f 17.10.1971 and its ownership, management and control were vested in M/S

BCCL w.e.f. 01.05.1972. There was a large and well equipped workshop in the premises of Kenduadih Colliery from

the time of the private ownership where more than two hundred persons were engaged in skilled category of

mechanical job in various permanent nature of work.

6. The concerned sixty six workmen of the present dispute were engaged in a group whose main function were to

manufacture new coal tubs complete on wheels, repair of partially damaged coal tubs, as well as mine machineries

required for day- to – day operation, engineering items for installing heavy structures and machines inside the mines,

preparing specified items of spares required for underground and surface tube lines which are all essential items of

daily requirement in mines operation.

7. It is also submitted by the workman that the concerned workmen continued in their respective duties till 1976 when

all on a sudden the BCCL management stopped the workmen from duty without any notice or assigning any reason for

such stoppage when the requirement of the services of the concerned workmen were very much necessary and the

material they were preparing in the colliery workshop were also required by the management and utilized.

8. It is submitted by the concerned workmen that they were paid at consolidated piece rated basis by the officers of the

colliery such as Agent, Manager and Engineer. In 1975 the BCCL management started regularizing the pay scale, grade

and categories of workmen throughout the collieries under the ownership, and control of BCCL as well regularizing

permanent workmen engaged through so-called contractors. But these concerned sixty six and other several other

1622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen in the kenduadih colliery workshop were shown engaged through different contractors. Thereafter the

management with certain intention close the Kenduadih Colliery workshop and the concerned workmen ought to have

provided duties in any other places within the Area which is now known as P.B.Area and the job performed by these

sixty six workmen are in existence all over the collieries and workshop of BCCL. Then this context concerned

workmen having lost hope of regularization by BCCL lodged a petition during April 1975 and Deputy Commissioner ,

Dhanbad was sent the matter to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C ), Dhanbad. Thereafter the Union started

Industrial Dispute on 23.06.1989.

9. On the other hand the case of the management is that in coal mines there was several jobs which are temporary and

casual nature for which no permanent staff is required to be kept for which job the management appoints contractors

and who engage their own men to do such jobs as and when given on work orders. The management has nothing to do

regarding appointment of such workers by contractors who work on contractors pleasure and who can change such

workers according to his will. Services of such workers get automatic terminated with the completion of the job given

to the contractors.

10. It is also submitted by the management that the union in its application dated 23.06.1989 to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner © asserted that Shri Ramadhar and 65 others have worked at Kenduadih workshop in the year 1975 as

contractor’s workers and their services were terminated consequent upon closure of the workshop in 1975. The

management did not maintain record of employment of contractor’s workers and at present it is quit difficult and

impossible to explain the detailed in the absence of particulars of employment. Thus there was never any employer or

employee relationship at any time between the management and the so-called job seeker workmen of the contractor.

11. It is also submitted by the management that the union has made a fantastic claim that 66 contractors workers were

engaged on blacksmith job at Kenduadih workshop under different contractors. In this connection it is submitted that a

blacksmith consists of one blacksmith, one hammerman and a helper total number being four and in a colliery for

carrying or repairing and maintenance job three to four gangs are more than enough. It is absurd proposition that as

many as 22 blacksmith gangs were engaged in a colliery workshop it is quite impossible.

12. It is further submitted that it has become very profitable proposition for union to collect unemployed persons

seeking job and to include their names it the list of contractors workers, delisted casual wagon loaders and with the help

of litigation to get them employed in the colliery. In this regard it is submitted that most of the concerned persons are

job seekers and were never on roll of any contractors. The blacksmith contractors were issued work orders for carrying

on blacksmith job as and when required.

13. It is also submitted by the management that no regular contractor were given work to any person by the

management of Kenduadih colliery at any time and as such no contractor engaged workmen on regular basis. The

contractors engaged purely on casual workmen as per their requirement and terminated their service as soon as the

work was completed under work order.

14. It is submitted by the management that it is a concocted case raised after 15 years designed to induct a large

number of fictitious persons after a lapse of 15 years in the employment of the management for reasons best known to

the union and the demand of the union is unreasonable , baseless, unjustified and illegal.

15. This is a case of regularization of contractor workers under the BCCL management. In this case a good number of

documents are marked. In this case also 9 nos of workmen and 3 nos of management witness examined.

16. It is the case of the workman that they were engaged by Private management through contractor . After taking over

the private mines by BCCL in the year 1972, the BCCL engaged them till 1976 and thereafter did not allow them to

work for which the present dispute.

17. In this case, three BCCL officer examined but the persons examined by the management have not stated that they

knew of the workmen. The workman examined in this case say, they were engaged by the contractor, and were getting

wage from management counter. They also say that they were not given any appointment letters.

18. The witnesses of the workman is examined in this case all are 40-42 years old at the time of evidence i.e 1994 it

mean this time all are 60 to 62 years old now. The Cross examination of WW-2 is quoted below:-

xxxxx

We did not get appointment letter since we were working under contractor. We did not complain in

writing either to ALC (C ) or to other authority before the dispute was raised.

Xxxxx

We had worked under the contractor- Mahadeo . It is a fact that Mahadeo used to do contract work

according to the work order and we were employed in those contract works.

Xxxxx

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1623

19. One witness of the workman say that I do not have any paper to show that I had worked in the workshop, and one

says that we were appointed to do the work by the contractor Mahadeo Mistry , and I don’t have any paper to show

that I was stopped from working in 1976

20. It is admitted by all witnesses of the workman that we are contractor worker. On perusal of all document, it is

noticed that there identity is not clear. Neither they file their I.D Card or age proof. Now this time all are about 62 years

old. Moreover, now the claim is wholly stale, Admittedly the union alleged that the workmen were stopped from

working from 1975. But the dispute was raised before ALC (C ) in june 1989 i.e 14 years after , there is no satisfactory

material to justifiy such a long delay, Even also from 2001-to 2014 they are also not moved even after regd. Notice. It

is admitted that limitation Act is not applicable to I.D Act. But long delay will creat doubt and regarding genuines of

the claim

21. In this regard learned Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Cooperative

Land Development Bank Vs Neelam reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91, wherein their lordships while dealing with the

issue of delay and latches observed that “ The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social

justice to the workmen but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would

automatically be entitled to relief.”

22.This being the situation this Tribunal unable to help them . Though two chances were given to them i.e. at the time

of trial and even after remand, they could not file any document to prove their case. This being the situation this

Tribunal is unable to give any relief to them.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that Shri Ramadhar and 65 others contractor workers

are not workmen of Kenduadih Colliery of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, and the demand of these persons to

regularise in the services of the said management is not justified, Hence they are not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 768-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vej

Dyh;¯jx l£oll izk- fy- ,oa eSllZ ,-,e-lh- ykstsLVhd bafM;k izk- fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 17@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&31011@07@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.

Amar Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. AMC Logistic(1) Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-31011/07/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/17 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

1) AMAR CLEARING SERVICES PVT. LTD.

2) AMC LOGISTIC (I) PVT. LTD.

1624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Director

Amar Clearing Service Pvt. Ltd.

11-A, Ida Mansion, 1^st floor

18, Vaju Kotak Marg, Ballard Estate

Fort, Mumbai 400 038.

The Director

M/s. AMC Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd.

11-A, Ida Mansion, 1^st floor

18, Vaju Kotak Marg, Ballard Estate

Fort, Mumbai 400 038.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Transport & Dock Workers Union

P. D’mello Bhavan

P. D’mello Road, Carnac Bunder

Mumbai-400 038.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYERS (1) & (2)

Mr. Shridhar Poojary, Advocate.

FOR THE UNION

Mr. A. M. Koyande, Advocate.

Mumbai, the 3^rd February 2017.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-31011/07/2009-IR (B-II), dated

01.02.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Amar Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. (CHA No.11/191) in terminating

the services of Shri Mahadev L. Mistry, Shri Pratap Rane, Shri Pradeep Sodye & Shri Kinkar M. Dukre w.e.f.

17.07.2009 and the action of the management of M/s. AMC Logistic (India ) Pvt. Ltd. (CHA No. 11/1967) in

terminating the services of Shri Vijay S. More, Ms. Rajshree M. Rane and Shri Jitendra M. Surve w.e.f.

17.07.2009 is legal, just and Proper? What relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

After receipt of the reference, both parties were served with notice of the Reference. The second party union

appeared through its legal representative and filed Statement of Claim at Ex-9. First party Management no.1 & 2

resisted the statement of claim of second party by filing their written statements at Ex-28 & Ex-15 respectively. Issues

were framed by my Ld. Predecessors at Ex-18. Second party Union filed affidavit of Shri M.L. Mestry and Shri J.M.

Surve and the matter was fixed for Cross examination.

Meanwhile today, i.e. on 03.02.2017 Second party Union filed purshis at Ex-39 stating that they have arrived at

amicable settlement and prayed to dispose of the reference as withdrawn. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of.

Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Date: 03.02.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 769-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 37@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@57@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1625

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Allahabad Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/57/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk 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.37/2013

Shri Dilip Kumar Kamat,

S/o Shri Mehant Lal Kamat,

R/o WZ-68, Dasgarha, Totapur,

Near Shiv Mandir, New Delhi – 110 012

…Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Zonal Office,

17, Parliament Street,

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), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-12012/57/2012-

IR(B-II) dated 06.02.2013, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in terminating services of the workman Shri Dilip

Kumar Kamat, who worked more than 16 years and not considering him for appointment as peon cum driver

as per tripartite settlement dated 17.06.2011 is fair and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?’

It is the case of the workman that he was never served with any kind of charge sheet nor any opportunity of

hearing was given to him by the management before his termination and this action of the management is grossly in

violation of principles of natural justice as well as violations of section 25-F of the Act.

Claim was contested by the management, who filed reply by taking preliminary objections that there was no

relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimant. Claimant was not an employee of

the management bank, as such, question of termination of the job does not arise. In para (b) of the preliminary

objections, it is specifically averred that the claimant was engaged as a personal driver by executives of the bank and

management gives allowance to the executives for engaging such personal dirvers. Claimant was working as personal

driver with Shri S.K. Widhani and then Shri K.S. Venkataraman, both Assistant General Managers of International

Branch of the bank. Management has in fact signed a settlement dated 17.06.2011 whereby it was agreed that personal

drivers of the Executives would be appointed as peon/driver in the subordinate category with the bank. There is also

provision in the said settlement that drivers who have completed 5 years of service with an Executive of the bank as on

31.03.2010 could be considered for appointment for the post of peon/driver. Since the claimant was not engaged on the

date of settlement dated 17.06.2011, as such could not be considered for the above post as per the settlement.

On merits,, bank has denied all the material averments made in the statement of claim. It is also denied that the

claimant was called by the Shri SS Uppal, Security Officer of the bank and any pressure was put on the claimant to

give anything in writing. Since the claimant was not an employee of the bank, question of his termination on

01.04.2011 does not arise.

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide an order dated 03.09.2013, framed the following

issues:

(1)

Whether claimant was personal driver engaged by Shri S.K. Widhani, Assistant General Manager

of the bank? If yes, its effects.

1626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

As in terms of reference.

Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in

evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW110. Management in order to rebut the

case of the claimant examined Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and tendered documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.

I have heard Shri Vinay Sabharwal, A/R for the claimant and Shri Rajat Arora, A/R for the management.

Findings on Issue No.1 and 2

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are interconnected and can be

conveniently disposed of. It was urged on behalf of the claimant by Shri Vinay Sabharwal, learned A/R for the

claimant that there is ample evidence, both oral as well as documentary on record to suggest that the claimant was

engaged as car driver of the management of the bank on 01.01.1994 and has been continuously working till the date of

his termination on 01.04.2011. Learned A/R for the claimant took pains to take the court through documentary

evidence particularly vouchers Ex.WW1/4 to Ex.WW1/10, which shows that that claimant was not personal car driver

of the management bank and he was being paid miscellaneous and other charges by the management from time to time

incurred on the maintenance of the said vehicle.

Consequently, it was contended that salary of the claimant was being reimbursed from the kitty of the bank and

paid to the claimant. Therefore , plea of the management that personal driver of the Executive Officer is totally false

and baseless and it is done with a view to deny permanent employment to the claimant. Lastly, it was urged that the

management has failed to examine two important witnesses, Shri S.K. Widhani And Shri K.S. Venkataraman, with

whom the claimant has worked as driver and this Tribunal, in the contention of the learned A/R for the claimant is

entitled to draw adverse inference against the management. During the course of arguments, reliance was also placed

by learned A/R for the claimant upon the case of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar,

Nainital vs State of UP and other (2007 (7) SCC 109) and I would be adverting to the ratio of this authority during the

course of my discussion in the subsequent paras.

10.

Per contra, Shri Rajat Arora, A/R for the management refuted the contentions of the claimant by urging that

there is no cogent or reliable evidence of relationship of master and servant, i.e. employer and employee between the

claimant and the bank. Simply because at one point of time Shri S.K. Widhani and Shri K.S. Venkataraman had

engaged the claimant as per driver would not mean that the claimant was in the service of the management bank.

Learned A/R for the management took pains to take the court through the testimony of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma

MW1 who was examined by the bank as well as settlement Ex.MW1/1 wherein authority has been given to the

Executives of the bank to engage personal drivers for driving the bank’s vehicles and the drivers who have completed

minimum service of 5 years continuous service as on 31.03.2010 were also to be considered for regular appointment as

peon/driver with the bank. Learned A/R for the management also invited the attention of the Tribunal of the judgement

dated 08.07.2004 of Calcutta High Court wherein Bank Drivers Association has filed writ perdition in the High Court

when an advertisement was issued for recruitment of drivers in the newspaper. Plea of the drivers in the said case for

their regular absorption in the bank was turned down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, matter was taken

in intra court appeal before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and writ appeal was also dismissed

vide judgement dated 25.04.2009. In the said case also there is reference to the settlement arrived at between the union

of the bank as well as the management . It was finally held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta that in view of the

settlement arrived at between the management and the bank union that no relief can be granted to the drivers. There is

also reference in the said judgement to the Uma Devi case wherein Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has dealt at

length with the question of regularization of employees who have been recruited against sanctioned post in violation of

the statutory norms. Even the SLP filed against the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in LPA was also objected by

the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.07.2009.

11.

After considering the lengthy submission of the learned authorized representatives for the respective parties as

well as perusal of record, first and foremost question in the present case is whether the claimant herein is a personal

driver of Shri S.k. Widhani, Assistant General Manager or the claimant was in the employment of the management

bank. During course of arguments, it was not disputed that the claimant was doing service in the bank irrespective of

the fact that whether he was personally engaged by the executive of the bank or otherwise. It is further clear from

perusal of affidavit Ex.WW1/A as well as applications Ex.WW1/1 that the claimant herein has applied for the post of

personal driver of the bank for Delhi State and as he was fulfilling eligibility criteria and the said application is dated

13.05.1999. There is no documentary evidence on record to suggest that the claimant was in fact engaged by the

management of the bank or otherwise in 1994. Perusal of vouchers Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/10 which are admittedly

issued by the management of the bank and it clearly shows the various amounts have been paid by the bank to the

claimant on account of miscellaneous types of wages. It was not disputed even by the learned A/R for the

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1627

management that whenever the vehicle required any kind of repair or expenses, the same were borne by the claimant

initially while using the said vehicle for official purpose. Later on, management of the bank was reimbursing the said

amounts from time to time. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that Shri S.K.. Widani has not got done any personal

work from the claimant while using the car belonging to the bank. In such a situation, when claimant was admittedly

doing service of the bank, material question which arises for consideration is how engagement of the claimant herein

can be said to be personal in nature for doing work of Shri S.K. Widani, Assistant General Manager, when the claimant

was doing everything for the bank.

12.

Perusal of the letter Ex.WW/2 issued by Shri M.N. Mehrotra, Chief Manager of the Bank shows that at the

relevant time, regular driver of the bank was on leave as such, claimant was deputed to collect currency from the

Currency Chest. The said letter is also signed by the claimant. If it is really so, then there is no merit in the contention

of the management that the claimant was doing personal work nor can it be said that he was doing work exclusively for

Shri Widani or Shri Venkararaman, Assistant General Managers of the bank as drivers. No inference can be drawn

from this letter that he was engaged as personal driver by executives of the bank. Moreover, there is no documentary

evidence regarding engagement of the claimant as personal driver of the executive. No doubt, as per statement of Shri

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, MW1 there is mention of engaging of personal drivers but that would not be enough so as to

hold that the claimant was not doing service for the benefit of the bank, which is purely a corporate body. If the

engagement of the claimant was in terms of any settlement or office order, in that eventuality it was incumbent upon

the management of the bank to have placed on record such documentary proof regarding engaging of the claimant as

personal driver by executives at any given point of time. The Tribunal cannot ignore a vital fact that the claimant has

worked under different Executives of the Bank.

13.

I have gone through the judgement dated 08.07.2004 of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in WP No.17/1980 and

in the said case, plea of the drivers association ws rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta for the simple reason

that they have not mentioned abut the directives issued by the Central Government on 23.06.1997 which superceded all

the previous orders issued by the Government. As discussed above, an advertisement was published in the newspapers

on 24.08.1998 to recruit drivers and it was against this background that the drivers have approached the Hon’ble High

Court of Calcutta, restraining the Government from making any recruitment on the basis of the above advertisement.

Intra court appeal filed by the association of drivers was also disposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta on

25.02.2009 and in the said order there is also specific mention that drivers association has not brought to the notice of

the court the decision of the Government of India issued vide order dated 23.06.1997. Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta

has dismissed the writ petition for the reason that management of the bank has right to make recruitment as per

advertisement already issued, but controversy in the present case is entirely different. Claimant herein is not seeking

any injunction against the recruitment to the post of drivers but he is simply challenging his termination, alleging the

same to be in violation of provisions of the Act.

14.

To my mind, in order to determine whether the claimant herein was really engaged as personal driver either by

the bank or by any Manager at any point of time, it was incumbent upon the management to have cited and examined

both or either of the two above Executives as witnesses.. Examination of such witness would have thrown ample light

on the nature of engagement and the work which was to be taken from the claimant. Non-examination of both these

material witnesses is really fatal to the cause of the management and the same has rather dealt a crippling blow to the

defence of the management to show that the claimant was engaged as personal driver by the aforesaid Executives.

The statement of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, MW1 is also of not of much help so as to resolve the controversy in the

present case. He is not aware of the material facts as the claimant herein was not engaged when he was posted in the

said branch. Claimant has not worked at any point of time under supervision of this officer. He has straightway stated

that there is no record available with the bank regarding appointment of the claimant as bank maintains records of

regular employees only. It is really strange that payment is made from kitty of the bank then how no such record is

being maintained by the bank. He also could not deny or confirm anything regarding letter Ex.WW1/2 dated

30.05.1998 issued by the Chief Manager of the bank to the Officer Incharge, Currency Chest. In the said letter,

admittedly the claimant has been entrusted delicate employment of the task of driving official vehicle so as to collect

currency from the currency chest. This also clearly shows that the claimant was not in fact doing any personal work of

any of the two executives but doing everything for the management of the bank. This fact , as discussed above, is

further fortified by the vouchers Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/10.

15.

The claimant has relied upon the ratio of the case is GB Pant University case (supra) and I have clearly tried to

grasp the ratio of the same. In that case also, employees were working in the cafeteria which was in the University for

the last several years. They were working in the University which happens to be a residential university having 14

hostels. There were about 175 employees working in this cafeteria and they claimed for regularization of their services

of regular employees of the University, which was denied by the University and ultimately matter reached before the

Industrial Tribunal. Plea of the union that they were under supervision of the cafeteria of the University was not having

any kind of control over them was rejected. The labour court directed to regularize services of the employees by

1628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

passing award in their favour. Writ petition filed against the said award was also dismissed, including intra court

appeal. Matter was finally taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein award passed by the Labour Court was upheld,

and strong observations against the practice of engaging employees on casual or adhoc manner and observed as under:

‘The continuing of the cafeteria employees to remain half fed and half clad is not consistent with the socialism

conceived by the founding fathers of the Constitution. The deprivation of the weaker section has continued

for long but time has now com to cry a halt and it is for the law courts to rise up the occasion and grant relief

to a seeker of a just cause and just grievance. Economic justice is not mere legal jargon but in the new

millennium, it is an obligation for all to confer this economic justice on a seeker. If society is to remain, social

justice is the order and economic justice is the rule of the day. A narrow pedantic approach to statutory

documents no longer survives. The principle of corporate jurisprudence is now being imbibed by industrial

jurisprudence and there is a long catena of cases in regard thereto --- the law thus is not in a state of fluidity

since the situation is more or less settled. As regards interpretation widest possible amplitude shall have to be

offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory documents under industrial jurisprudence. The draconian

concept is no longer available. Justice -- social and economic, ought to be made available with utmost

expedition so that the socialistic pattern of the society as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have

its foundation so that the future generation do not live in the dark and cry for social and economic justice.’

16.

In the above case also, University was having control over the employees of the cafeteria and such employees

were performing duties as per regulations and directions of the University. The position in the present case is also the

same as management exercised control over the duties to be performed by the claimant.

17.

Matter can be examined from another angle also. If it is assumed for the sake of argument that the claimant was

engaged or was performing personal work of executives in terms of settlement relied by the management in that

eventuality, it was incumbent upon the management to have come with specific evidence as well as proof regarding

such engagement which is completely lacking in the present case. Rather evidence on the contrary in the present case

has been adduced by the claimant, both oral as well as documentary, which completely goes to show that the claimant

was doing work for the management of the bank and not for a particular executive or official of the bank. In such a

situation, when admittedly no notice was served upon the claimant before his termination the same is held to be in

violation of principles of natural justice as well as section 25-F of the Act.

18.

Now, the residual question which requires consideration is whether the claim of the claimant for appointment to

the post of peon/driver as per tripartite settlement Ex.WW1/M1 is fair and legal. To my mind, case of the claimant is

liable to be considered in terms of the above settlement inasmuch as there is ample evidence on record to suggest that

the claimant was doing service for more than 5 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2010. The claimant has

specifically deposed while appearing as WW1 that he has been serving the management since 1994. Even if it is taken

that he was engaged in the year 1999, which is apparent from his application dated 13.05.1999 Ex.WW1/1, in that

eventuality also period of 5 years as per the above settlement would be covered and the case of the claimant herein for

appointment as personal driver is liable to be considered in terms of the above settlement dated 17.06.2011. There is

no evidence adduced by the management as to when the claimant was initially engaged by the Executives with the bank

and payment regarding miscellaneous charges was being made from kitty of the bank, it was also incumbent upon the

bank to have produced atleast some record so as to show that the claimant has not completed requisite service of five

years as on 31.03.2010.

18.

As a sequel to my discussion herein above, it is held that termination of services of the claimant, Shri Dilip

Kumar Kamat, is against principles of natural justice and is in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Thus,

the same is held to be arbitrary and illegal. Similarly, action of the management in not considering him for the post of

peon/driver as per tripartite settlement dated 17.06.2011 is also held to be not fair and legal. The workman is liable to

be considered for the post of peon/driver in terms of the tripartite settlement. 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 : March 3, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 770-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1629

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 118@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-

03-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@69@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/69/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032

ID.No. 118/2013

Sh. Arjun Singh,

S/o Kisori Lal,

R/o Village Badopur,

Post Dochana,

The Narnol, Distt. Mahndergarh,

Haryana

Versus

The Director,

Personnel,

Punjab National Bank,

7 Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-12012/69/2013-IR(B-II) dated 9.10.2013

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Arjun Singh

s/o Kisori Lal. Ex-Peon w.e.f. 14.11.2007 is justified or not? What relief will be given to the workman and from

which date?”

On 23.10.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 118/2013 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 17.01.2014 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-

“ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an award

in favour of workman and against management:

Holding that action of the management of Punjab National Bank terminating the services of the workman

from the post of Peon is unjustified, unreasonable and illegal and constitute an unfair labour practice.

Directing the management to reinstate the workman in service with all consequential benefits and pay

full back wages in accordance with the grade applicable him.”

After service of notice management filed written statement on 4.3.2014. Where-in management prayed as

follows:-

“Management denied the allegations of workman and prayed for dismissal of claim statement.”

1630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.

On 28.08.2014 following issues were framed:-

Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Arjun

Singh S/o Sh. Kisori Lal, Ex-Peon w.e.f 14.11.2007 is justified or not? If so its effect?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

And 27.10.2014 was fixed for workman evidence.

Workman in support of his case filed his affidavit on 27.10.2014. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the

management.

Which was tendered by workman as WW1 and he was cross-examined & his cross-examination was concluded.

Management Bank in support of its case filed affidavit of MW1 Smt. Rajshri Talapatra D/o Sh. N. Sanyal. Who

tendered his affidavit and his cross-examination is concluded on 30.05.2016 .

Thereafter management closed its remaining evidence then I fixed 26.07.2016 for oral /written arguments .

On 26.07.2016 management filed written arguments.

On 21.11.2016 workman filed written arguments in reply against written arguments of management.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings evidence and written arguments of

parties on record including rulings cited on behalf of parties as well as order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi in the W.P.(C) No. 7461 of 2012 . Through Which co-accused Sh. Rajesh Dabas challenged the

Award dated 31.07.2012 passed by this Tribunal. While dismissing aforesaid writ-petition his Lordship of Hon’ble

Court observed in para 17 , 18, 20 & 21 of his order as follows:-

17. Since, Sh. Arjun was the main culprit, therefore, he was removed from the service, whereas the petitioner

helped the above-named Arjun in the alleged theft, therefore the respondent establishment punished him with

lesser punishment.

18. Though, in the judicial review this court need not to appreciate the evidence, however, it is established by

the witnesses of the management and video cameras installed in the respondent Bank that the petitioner

alongwith other Arjun Singh was found stealing the mobile phone which admittedly was got recovered by the

petitioner. Had the petitioner not involved in the theft, this fact would have been disclosed by Arjun, another

staff member. However it was disclosed by the petitioner himself. Therefore, in any stretch of imagination , it

cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the theft.

20. However, if it is considered that the order dated 14.07.2011 is merged in the final order, even then , I do not

find any discrepancy in order dated 14.07.2011 and 31.07.2012.

21. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

On these grounds in addition other Ld. A/R for the management stressed that the enquiry conducted by the

enquiry officer in respect of charge sheet dated 26.11.2007 is fair and proper.

It is relevant to mention here that Ld. A/R for the workman vehemently argued and tried his best to argue the

case of workman but evidence on record reveals that role of workman in mobile theft was of main culprit and co-

accused Rajesh Dabas whose role was lesser than workman Sh. Arjun Singh.

It is also relevant to mention here that departmental enquiry was conducted against Sh. Rajesh Dabas for his

involvement in the theft of mobile and a punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits was

imposed upon him vide order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority . Which has been upheld by this

Tribunal while deciding Award dated 31.07.2012. Against which Sh. Rajesh Dabas filed the W.P.(C) No. 7461/2012.

Which was dismissed on 18.12.2014 on the basis of aforesaid observations.

During enquiry charge of Mobile theft against Sh. Arjun Singh was proved on the basis evidence led during the

enquiry proceedings which include CCTV footage of the incident on 13.11.2007 and confession letter of claimant

/workman Sh. Arjun Singh admitting the guilt.

The defence representative had perused the contents of the C.D. and then cross-examined the witnesses but

nothing could be extracted out in their cross-examination which could be harmful to management.

Moreover the C.D. was not only evidence. There was enough relevant and circumstantial evidence with

confession letter of Sh. Arjun Singh to prove his misconduct by way of committing theft of mobile of sh. K.G.

Balakrishnan, who had come to meet the CMD on 13.11.2007 in his chamber at about 1:20 P.M.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1631

Hence enquiry conducted by enquiry officer is just, fair and proper.

Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 2.06.2008 reduced the penalty from dismissal without notice under

para 6(a) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 to removal from service with superannuation benefits under para

6(b) of the aforesaid Bipartite settlement.

Through its evidence management proved aforesaid facts.

Moreover there is no evidence of workman to prove that enquiry proceedings are not just, fair , proper and

principles of natural justice were violated.

In these circumstances issue no. 1 framed by me on 28.08.2014 is liable to be decided against workman and in

favour of management.

Which is accordingly decided.

As issue no. 2 is relating to relief to workman. Which is also liable to be decided agiant workman and in favour

of management as issue No. 1 has already been decided in favour of management and against workman.

Which is accordingly decided.

Therefore reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management. Which is accordingly

decided and claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-21.2.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 771-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 283@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@147@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 283/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/147/1999-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/283/99

Shri B.Prabhakar Rao,

S/o Shri Satyanarayana, House No. 12/243,

Sikola Bhata, Premnagar,

Durg (MP)

… Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office, LIC Building,

Jeevan Beema Marg,

Raipur

…Management

1632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 16-8-99by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12012/147/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the order No. RO/RPR/11/VIZ/GF-12 of dated 17-12-97 of Regional Manager awarding punishment

of dismissal without notice to Shri B.Prabhakar Rao., Ex-Head Cashier and treating period of suspension as

period not spent on duty without increments are legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

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

Page 6/1 to 6/48 very extensively. In his statement of claim, workman contends that he was selected by Banking

Service Recruitment Board Bhopal in 1983. He was posted as clerk cum cashier in Dhamtari branch. Later he was

transferred to Durg branch in 1985. On 4-9-87, he was selected and posted as head cashier at Rural bank, Distt. Durg.

He was working as award staff. His services are governed by bipartite settlement applicable to employees of

Nationalised Bank, he is covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. That 2^nd party is nationalized bank. It is an

industry under Section 2(j) of ID Act. Workman has also exhaustively narrated duties and responsibilities of staff and

officers at Gurur branch. The duties of officers are to supervise each and every activities of staff worked under them to

check day to day entries in all account books, registers used in cash department, ledger abstract and voucher registers

etc. To check, verify and put initial sign on all debit and credit entries in each ledger account and pass book but before

keeping the cash into cash chest jointly with the head cashier as joint and first custodian of the branch. To maintain

proper records of all security forms, registers, vouchers, advices etc. To use discretionary powers in every respect

carefully and cautiously. The duty7 of clerical staff at Gurur branch was manned by two clerical staff both carrying

special allowances and were termed as headcashier “C” and Agricultural Assistant. The duty of head cashier was all

routine duties and functions holding the bank’s cash keys and or other valuables in safe custody jointly with an officer

and being accountable for them and being responsible for running of the cash department. The duty of subordinate staff

i.e. Daftary and peons as per requirement of the branch involving simple binding of books and registers, press keeping

filing independently letters and other papers in respective files etc. In para 6 of the statement of claim process about

opening of State Bank Account is given to approach Branch Manager or accountant in the branch. Branch Manager

obtains signature in the appropriate column in the account opening card and after that the manager first verifies the

account number and the signature of the introducer from the specimen signature card of the said introducer. Process of

receipt of cash from customers to deposit in their account, process of cash payment of any withdrawals or cheques etc.

particulars are given process for writing daily cash book, tallying balance is narrated with the responsibility of the

Manager, Head Cashier, Accountant. That services of Bank employees are covered by Bipartite Settlement entered time

to time. In para 8 of the statement of claim, procedure relating to DE in the Bank has been narrated in context of

19.2(a), 19.12(e) of Bipartite settlement 1966. The guidelines of RBI narrated in para-9. Ist party workman has also

pleaded about allotment of work and duties assigned to him were excessive. He was compelled to work excessively

doing all job of cash receipts and payment works of the branch, counting, recounting, sorting, packaging bundling and

accountability of daily cash of the branch, to supervise cash work done by cash peon like sealing and bundling the cash

packets. To undertake cash remittance, job of credit and debit of the vouchers into respective ledgers, complete all

clerical works regarding opening and closing of any account, to write daily supplementary, progressive cash books, to

calculate interests on saving bank accounts, to tally monthly balance of ledgers, to do any work advised of required by

the Branch Manager. That all the above routine works were required to be carried simultaneously one after another in

cash cabin 4x10ft size. Receipt and payment registers, about 19-20 saving bank ledgers, 7-8 recurring ledgers, 3-4 fixed

deposit ledgers and other work was discharged by him. Inspite of his request, his grievances were not redressed by the

Branch Manager. He requested for transfer from Gurur branch for family reasons. Mr. T.C.Tekam was posted in the

branch,. He wanted to occupy post of workman and as such was annoyed with him. His adversaries attempted to cause

harassment and they succeeded in the mission. 2^nd party victimized him from 27-12-89.

Ist party workman narrated about incident on 27-12-89. Staff member Mahorey, Accountant Godbole,

T.C.Tekam, Peon and Daftary were present. Branch Manager had left for outside duty and returned about 4 PM. He

also refers to deposit of amount of Rs.13000. at the same time few persons came to open new account with amount of

Rs.53050/- . He alleges that Mr. Godbole had come by side of his cabin window and tendered amount Rs.53050 that he

was asked to accept the amount and take entries etc. due to rush of work, workman could not take entries of all the

transactions. He claims to be innocent. He not committed any act intentionally. On 1-1-90 he applied for CL. Shri

T.C.Tekam had closed cash on 31-12-89. Workman had handed over cash charge, cash cabin keys etc. to Tekam on 30-

12-89 closing cash correctly. On 2-1-90, workman came to know that Shri Tekam had reported to Branch Manager

with original voucher of account No. 825 was found in cash cabin. That without contacting account holder No. 825 and

1259 and ascertaining genuiness of vouchers, only on report of Branch Manager investigation was started by the

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1633

Regional Office. Fact finding Enquiry Report was submitted by Shri S.P.Rajamany, Branch Manager Dhamtari. W.r.t

incident dated 27-12-89, Ist party workman contends that Shri S.P.Rajamany did not asked any question to Tekam,

Godbole why account No.825 for Rs.13000 had not been scrolled. How the Sl No. 29 was repeated to new account

named Anand Kumar Sahu? How last voucher bearing Account No. 1259 accounted and recorded in cashier receipt and

payment register. As there were two vouchers of Rs.13000 each and one is scrolled and another is not scrolled, so

where is the amount on that day? Chargesheet dated 8-8-90 was issued after lapse of 4 months. Workman submitted

reply to it on 22-10-90. Without considering his reply, Regional Manager initiated enquiry is illegal. With respect to

enquiry on the chargesheet, Ist party workman submits chargesheet was issued with malafide intention to victimize

him. Amount of Rs.13000 was credited in account No. 1259 & 825. He admitted his lapse vide letter dated 8-1-90. The

credit entries were revised on 4-4-90. The matter was closed.

That holder of account 825 & 1259 not suffered any loss initiating enquiry against him is illegal. Ist party

workman has reiterated that any customer had not lodged complaint. Enquiry Officer acted in bias. Several

representations were not considered. Chargesheet was issued without documents of list of witnesses. 10 documents

requested by him were not supplied. Enquiry was held in arbitrary manner. Enquiry was challenged in Writ Petition

246/94 for non-compliance of clause 19.2(e). Enquiry was stayed by Enquiry Officer at his will and enquiry continued

for 7 years. Enquiry Officer did not asked about relevancy of documents produced by management. Enquiry is in

violation of Para 19.1, 19.5, 19.11 , 19.14 of bipartite settlement. Principles of natural justice was violated. The cross

examination of management’s witnesses was restricted. The complaint against Enquiry Officer were not considered.

Enquiry Officer had demanded bribe of Rs.One Lakh before submitting his report. The request of Ist party for

investigation by police or CBI were not considered. Enquiry conducted against him is illegal. The request of Union that

to handover entire branch for investigation, the police of CBI was not considered. Workman submits act of

management is malafide.

Ist party further submits Accountant Sarangpure posted in Gurur branch was residing near to house of account

holder of A/C No.2981w.r.t. withdrawal of Rs.1000/-. The signature card was in custody of the Branch Manager and

passed the withdrawal. Intentionally he did not debit amount Rs.1000 in ledger of Account No. 2981. That on 8-2-93,

account holder had lodged complaint against Sarangpure. The entire cash payment process dated 13-6-92 was suffering

from omission on part of Sarangpure. In August 1992, balancing of ledger was done by workman, he noted difference

of Rs.10900 and intimated to Branch Manager. Inspite of locating the difference amount in ledger, Branch Manager

mentioned foot note difference of Rs.1000 in Account No. 2981. Ist party workman has contented that the accounts,

progressive books etc were tallied by Shri Koul. He claims to be innocent. He also submits that he is victimized by

issuing chargesheet and conducting enquiry. He is not involved for withdrawal of Rs.2000 from Saving Bank Account

2734. Amount was witihdrawn by Account Holder himself under duplicate pass book. Statement of claim is in the

nature of argument that the allegation in 2^nd chargesheet dated 15-11-93 pertaining to withdrawal of Rs.2000 and

withdrawal from Account 2408 of M/S Gunder and company. Entry of IR for Rs.43000 was not taken by him. Account

was not fraudulently opened. Shri O.P.Patel was financially sound. W.r.t. deposit entries dated 26-6-89, workman

claims that he was deputed to other branch at Dhamtari. On that day cheque of Rs.43000 was received by Mr.Godbole.

Shri Tekam and Godbole verified transfer rolls about credit of Rs.,43000 in Account No. 2408. Both credit and debit

transfer of Rs.43000 were correctly reflected in transfer scrolls, cash book etc. that debit voucher of Rs.5000 ,

withdrawal dated 18-9-89 was filled by account holder. It is checked by Mohre and passed for payment. Withdrawal of

Rs.2000 on 7-2-90 was filled by temporary peon on direction of Branch Manager. It was duly signed by Account

holder who received payment. Shri P.S.Godbole admitted having checked and initiated ledger account. Debit voucher

Rs.10,000 withdrawal dated 15-3-90 was singed by Account holder himself. The entry was correctly taken in ledger

account. The workman w.r.t. withdrawals dated 23-3-90, 7-5-90, 8-2-91 submits that management failed to submit

relevant vouchers during Enquiry Proceedings. The Banks Internal Investigation officer shown those withdrawals were

filled by S.Patel, Mohrey. The transaction were not fictitious or fraudulent. W.r.t. Rs.43000 management not produced

complaint of Account holder or cited any letter.

Workman further submits that charge about opening fictitious Account 2408 influencing O.P.Patel introducer is

false. Workman himself requested for enquiry by police or CBI. Account Holder had not denied withdrawal of amount.

Account Holder not submitted any complaint against him. Account Holder was not examined as witness. Introducer did

not deny introduction of Account holders et . it is reiterated that the related charge is not proved. Ist party further

submits that attending IBTA reconciliation was mostly done by Branch Manager or accountant. Branch Manager

received statement sometime in November 1990. He kept attending work for 10-12 days. Statement of claim is in the

shape of argument contending that the 2^nd party pertaining to chargesheet dated 25-11-93 is false, baseless. The

allegations pertaining to missing of bank records are false. 2^nd party chargesheet issued on 25-11-93 to coverup the

fraudulent acts 3 incidents pertaining to Account No. 2408, 2734, 2981. That he was never in possession of keys of

record room. The allegations about destruction of documents are false. He has not disobeyed lawful instructions. It is

reiterated that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer acted with bias. He

was not allowed to cross examine witness of the management. Chargesheet is issued to him is vague and defective.

1634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That he was suspended without calling explanation. He was denied assistance of the Advocate. The findings of Enquiry

Officer are illegal. The inconsistency in evidence was not considered. 2 chargesheet were illegally clubbed. The

suspension was prolonged till 27-12-97. That final order of punishment was passed. His appeals were not properly

considered. Ist party reiterates that punishment of dismissal imposed against him is illegal. He has not committed any

fraudulent act. At the most the lapses may be considered as clerical errors. The punishment of dismissal imposed

against him is illegal and workman prays for setting aside order of his dismissal. He further prays for his reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

2^nd party filed Written statemen opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that chargesheet was issued to

workman on 8-8-90 pertaining to act willful gross negligence act causing prejudice to the interest of the Bank, act

unbecoming on part of Bank giving particulars of the act committed on 27-12-89 accepting Rs.13000 from Shri Murli

Garg holder of SB Account No. 825 and not taking entry in scroll. On 27-12-89, SB Account was opened in name of

Arvind Kumar Shah depositing Rs.50 voucher No. 29. That cash receipt of Rs.13000 vide voucher No.40 favouring

Harath ram holder of Account No. 1259 was disowned by Mr. Metam. The charges against workman pertain to

fraudulent acts w.r.t. deposit of Rs.1000 in Account No. 2981 and act causing wrongful loss willfully causing damage

to the Bank w.r.t. difference of Rs.1000, ledger No. 20 entry dated 16-11-92 of Rs. 2000 SB Account No. 2734 opening

fictitious account 2734 in name of Kedar Sahu and withdrawn amount on various dates committing intentional act

destroying bank record etc. 2^nd party submits that Shri A.K.Digraskar was appointed Enquiry Officer, Goswami as

Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted. Presenting Officer was transferred to other region therefore Shri

S.Anthony was appointed as Enquiry Officer and G.Naraiya was appointed as Presenting Officer. At initial stage,

workman himself contested case and lateron defence representative Shri S.L.Joshi participated in enquiry. Ist party

workman had filed Writ Petition No. 246/94, 4069/93, 3964/94, MCC 55/94 directions issued by Hon’ble High Court

were complied. Enquiry was conducted from 6-11-90 to 4-12-96. Enquiry was prolonged due to various Writ Petitions

filed in the High Court. Enquiry Officer is not responsible for delay. Punishment of dismissal was imposed considering

findings of Enquiry Officer that charges against workman are proved. Appeal preferred by workman was also rejected

by Appellate Authority. It is reiterated that workman was given opportunity for his defence. Chargesheet issued to

workman are illegal. Proved misconduct of workman is of serious nature committing fraud. Provisions of bipartite

settlement were followed while conducting enquiry. The witnesses of management were cross examined extensively.

Request of workman for engaging Advocate was rejected is legal. Workman was supplied copies of documents. The

request of workman for enquiry by police or CBI could not be accepted. Management has conducted enquiry. Any

investigation by CBI or police may end in prosecution and connection of workman. In Enquiry Proceeding initiated by

management, punishment of different kind could be imposed. It is reiterated that from evidence of management’s

witness in enquiry, fraudulent acts of withdrawal of amount forging signatures and other acts alleged against workman

including withdrawal of amount from Account No. 2408 are proved. Ist party workman had influenced Omprakash

Patel for opening fictivious account in name of Shri Kedar Sahu. Punishment of dismissal is imposed for proved

misconduct. Action of management is proper. The allegations about demand of Rs.One Lakh by Enquiry Officer have

been made with intention to demoralize Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer. On such ground, 2^nd party prays for

rejection of claim of Ist party.

Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 14-7-2015, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

10.

Considering pleadings on record and order on preliminary issue, 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 are proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

11.

Point No.1- As per order dated 17-7-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal.

Chargesheet dated 8-8-90 issued to workman pertaining to on 27-12-89, he accepted cash of Rs.13000 from Murlibai

Garg holder of Account No. 825 marked voucher No. 29 and initiated pass book by crediting Rs.13000. however he

scrolls said voucher of Rs.13000 and not reflected in cash scroll. 2^nd charge was pertaining to opening State Bank

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1635

Account in name of Arvind Kumar Sahu depositing Rs.50/-. The voucher No.29 in cash receipt scrolled. 3^rd charge

pertain to that workman lastcash receipt on above scrolled by him voucher no. 40 was also for Rs.13000 favouring

Harathram holder of Account No. 1259 which was disowned by Metam in writing on 4-1-90. 2^nd charge issued to

workman dated 25-11-93. The charges pertain to on 13-6-92 while performing duties as cashier at Gurur branch,

workman accepted Rs.1000 against SB Account No. 2981 in name of Amar Yadav Sl.22 with cash payment register

without receiving any such withdrawal duly passed by passing officer. Amount was misappropriated causing peculiar

loss to Bank and gain to workman. Rest of the charges pertain to Ist party defaulted Bank by Rs. 43000/-. Charge No.2

pertain to entry in cash payment of Rs.2000 at Sl.No.16 S.B.Account No. 2734. Withdrawal was denied by Account

holder. Charge No.4 pertain to IBTA reconciliation statement report received by Gurur branch workman made noting

that all entries found correct as per IBTA statement ad vouchers. Mislead Bank by giving incorrect information. The

details of the fraudulent transactions alleged on part of workman pertains to payment of Rs.1000 dated 13-6-92,

payment of Rs,2000 dated 16-11-92 fradulent transactions in respect of Rs.43000/- etc.

12.

Record of enquiry pertaining to Ist charge is produced at Exhibit M-1 to M-17. The record of enquiry of 2^nd

chargesheet dated 25-11-93 is produced at Exhibit M-18 to M-40. Both the enquiries were conducted very elaborately

and enquiries were completed in the year 1997. Workman had filed several Writ petitions in High Court on different

points. After Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding workman guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority

imposed punishment of dismissal. Ist party workman in his statement has reiterated that he has not committed any

fraudulent acts, he was overburdened, he was not transferred on hi request to other branch. He had not destroyed the

documents from the record room. W.r.t. enquiry pertaining to Ist chargesheet dated 18-8-90, evidence of management’s

witness Smt. Murribai Garg is recorded at Page 11/102 onwards. Shehas stated in enquiry that on 27-12-89, she had

gone to the Bank for depositing amount in SB Account No. 825. She had deposited Rs.13000 with workman Shri Rao,

the entry in the pass book was made for the amount. Statement of Mr. M.V.Mohrey was recorded in Enquiry

Proceedings w.r.t. certain transactions in the Bank. Ist party workman Rao was working as Head cashier, Tekam was

appointed as Agricultural Assistant. Shri Sudarshan Patel working as cash peon/ daftary. The detailed procedure about

working is narrated by the witness. He had verified entry from cash book, supplementary register. Harathram had

personally come to the Bank and inquired why Branch Manager called him. Personally he confirmed about the

happenings. The detailed evidence w.r.t. transaction of Rs.13000 on 12-12-89 is narrated. Said witness was thoroughly

cross examined.

13.

Statement of Shri T.C.Tekam was recorded in the Enquiry Proceedings, witness was cross examined thoroughly

w.r.t. transaction of Rs.13000/-. Statement of witness Pradeep Godbole was working as accountant. Said witness was

cross examined. Witness was also re-examined on certain points. Workman submitted defence brief at Exhibit M-13.

14.

Evidence of Shri V.M.Mohrey is recorded. Said witness was cross examined.

15.

In enquiry w.r.t. 2^nd chargesheet dated 25-11-93, statement of witnesses Amar Jadhav is recorded w.r.t.

withdrawal from Account No. 2981 dated 13-6-92. He had verified original pass book. One day Mr. Rao workman had

come to his home at Dhamtari whether he sent any letter to him. Again when he had gone for withdrawal of amount to

the Bank, Mr. Rao had shown him letter and asked him whether it was sent by him. Witness denied to have send the

letter. Witness was cross examined. Documents are produced in Enquiry Proceedings statement of P.S.Godbole

Accountant was recorded in the enquiry about staff working in the Bank. The evidence was w.r.t. pay slip dated

29-4-89 ME Ledger folio 2408 DME-5, IBT Statement Lead 82 dated 26-6-89 ME-21, withdrawal slip ME-22/23,

opening register folio ME-25, discharge- ME-26, the witness was cross-examined. At page 4 of his statement, this

witness says that it is a rural branch. Majority of the customers are uneducated persons who accept request of them for

filling the account opening form, paying slip etc. the cards are kept in card cabinet. He was unable to reply whether any

IR/BP was taken for SB Account holder in his tenure. In his further cross, management’s witness Godbole says there

is no practice to keep vouchers etc. in joint custody of Head cashier. He admits on 29-4-89 he was in Gurur branch.

Statement and cross examination of Godbole is recorded very extensively w.r.t. the transaction of Rs.40,000,

withdrawal of Rs.5000 and entries of cash receipt. Statement of management’s witness Shri Koul Branch Manager is

recorded w.r.t. the transactions in questions. Said witness was extensively cross examined. Though workman has made

contentions in his statement of claim in the nature of argument though he filed affidavit of his evidence w.r.t. legality of

enquiry, he remained absent for his cross examination. After legality of enquiry was decided, Ist party workman

remained absent, he failed to adduce evidence on other issues. The case was fixed for argument on 3-3-16, 7-7-16,

3-10-16, 5-12-16 & on these dates case was adjourned on applications. Thereafter workman remained absent.

Workman failed to effectively participate in reference proceeding. Therefore I donot consider it appropriate to discuss

evidence in Enquiry proceeding in detail. I have gone through report of Enquiry Officer Exhibit M-22, the evidence in

Enquiry Proceeding is considered while recording his findings. The disputed writing was referred to handwriting

expert Saroti. The report and opinion of expert was produced in Enquiry Proceedings. As per opinion of handwriting

expert, disputed writing was probably written by writer of standard writing marked R-1 to R-4. The standard writing of

B.P.Rao was marked as R-1 to R-4. Thus as per opinion of handwriting expert, the disputed documents were written in

1636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

writing of workman. Enquiry Report w.r.t. 2^nd charge is produced at Exhibit M-38. Enquiry Officer has discussed the

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings while recording his findings. Findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said contrary to

the evidence on record.

16.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between

State of Haryana and another versus Rattan Singh reported in 1977(2)SCC-491. Their Lordship dealing with

DE held that Enquiry Officer not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act but by fair play and normal practice. Only total

absence but not sufficiency of evidence before tribunal is ground for interference.

In present case considering the evidence in enquiry w.r.t. both the chargesheet, it is not a case of total absence

and evidence and therefore no interference is justified.

Next reliance is placed by Shri A.K.Shashi in case between State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh

Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212. Their Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review and interference in

DE held that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible dealing with scope of judicial review in the matter of

misconduct and punishment. Their Lordship held that plea of leniency on ground of long year of service was rendered

was rejected. The respondent as a Bank Officer hold the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt

requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.

Reliance is also placed in ratio held in case between Union of India versus Nagamalleshwar Rao reported in AIR

1998 SC-III. Their Lordship held Tribunal cannot examine evidence before Enquiry Officer as if it is Appellate Court.

After going through the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings and findings submitted by Enquiry Officer,

considering the evidence, I am convinced that the charges/ misconduct alleged against workman are proved. Therefore

I record my finding in Point No1 in Affirmative.

17.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges of misconduct alleged against workman are proved,

charges pertain to the fraudulent transactions and negligence in duties by workman, the punishment of dismissal cannot

be said shockingly disproportionate.

On above point Shri A.K.Shashi placed reliance in case between Commissioner of Police versus Jayasurian and

another reported in 1997(6)SCC-75. Their Lordship dealing with alleged to be based on unreliable evidence held

inconsistency very minor order of removal from service passed by Competent Authority on the basis of report , it was

held that there was no infirmity in appreciation of evidence adduced in the enquiry. Tribunal was not justified in

interfering with findings of competent authority.

In case between West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO) versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220(SC).

Their Lordship dealing with scope of Section 11-A of ID Act held that standard of proof in DE, proceeding is

different from that in criminal case. Industrial Tribunal set-aside dismissal of workman. The interference by Tribunal

was not warranted.

18.

Considering the proved misconduct involved huge amount and negligence punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal. No interference is called for. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Affirmative.

19.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management awarding punishment of dismissal without notice to Shri B.Prabhakar

Rao., Ex-Head Cashier is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 772-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 163@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@116@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1637

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 163/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/116/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/163/02

Shri Mukesh Kumar Nair,

Sanjay Nagar Colony, Gwaltoli,

Hoshangabad

…Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Above City Post Office,

Mangalwara, Hoshangabad

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 29-11-02 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

12012/116/2002-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Hoshangabad in

terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar Nair w.e.f. 11-3-02 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/

to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed on post of temporary safaikaramchari in 2^nd party in 1994 on

vacant post in upgrah branch Rasuliya, Hoshangabad. He was continuously working with devotion. He claims to be

employed under Section 25 B of ID Act. He had applied number of times for regularization on the post but his

representation were not considered. Initially he was paid Rs.15 per day. As per Bipartite Settlement, he was entitled to

minimum wages Rs.740 per month. In March 2002, his services were orally terminated by Shri M.M.Shirwad in

violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He was not served with one months notice. After termination of his service, he was

unemployed. His services were also terminated in violation of Section 25-G of ID Act while Shri Kodulal was picked

up and appointed on post of safaiwala. On such ground workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/10 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party reiterates

that workman as not appointed following recruitment rules, he not completed 240 days continuous service. Burden lies

on workman to prove continuous working for more than 240 days. Bank is incorporated under Banking Company’s Act

1970 having head office at Nariman Point Mumbai and carries its banking business through its Zonal offices, Regional

Offices and branches. As per the procedure prevailing in the Banks, appointment of cleaners, peon, daftary are made

after following procedure of recruitment by publication in newspaper and on the basis of the names sponsored by the

Employment Exchange. Ist party was not appointed following any such procedure. Workman was engaged for casual

nature of work temporarily. There is no employer employee relationship between the parties. Casual engagement of

workman doesnot give him right to the post. Ist party workman was doing cleaning work for only 2-2 ½ hours. He was

paid Rs.15 per day. He has not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman is not entitled to protection under

Section 25-F of ID Act. 2^nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases and prays that relief prayed by Ist party

workman be rejected.

Ist party filed rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/5 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

1638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

(i) Whether the action of the management of the

Regional

Manager,

Central

Bank

India,

Hoshangabad in terminating the services of Shri

Mukesh Kumar Nair w.e.f. 11-3-02 is legal and

justified?

In Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party workman. Though workman

filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his whole contentions in statement of claim, he remained absent for his cross

examination, his evidence could not be considered.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri M.Thakur Chief Manager supporting whole contentions in

Written Statement that workman was temporarily engaged for casual work. Workman was not appointed following

recruitment rules. He had not completed 240 days continuous service. Violation of Section 25-F,G is denied. The

witness of management has stated that disengagement of workman is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. In his

cross-examination, management’s witness says that workman was engaged as casual sweeper in Rasuliya branch on

daily wage basis. Documents relating to payments made to workman are not available in the bank. Witness denied that

workman had completed 240 days continuous service.

Application for production of document was filed by workman. 2^nd party was directed to produce documents as

per order dated 19-5-09. Management has failed to produce documents. The engagement of workman is admitted.

Workman has produced documents Exhibit W-1, 1(a),(b),(c)& (d) - applications by which workman has claimed that

he was working temporarily on part time basis since 1994. He claimed regularization on the post. He claimed benefit of

wages Rs.740-750 per month as per bipartite settlement. Area of the branch is 400 sq.ft. Exhibit W-2 filed by workman

w.r.t. working hours and payment of minimum wages. Exhibit W-3 is copy of pass book, workman was paid wages by

the Bank. Those documents clearly shows that workman was working continuously as part time sweeper in the Bank

since 1994 till termination of his services. The services of workman are terminated without notice. In his cross,

management’s witness says that he had not seen documents about payment of retrenchment compensation or issuing

notice to the workman. Though workman has not appeared for cross-examination, documents produced in record and

evidence in cross examination of management’s witness clearly established that workman worked more than 240 days

preceding one year of his termination. The services of workman terminated without notice, no retrenchment

compensation is paid to him. Termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above

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

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that termination of workman is illegal, question arises as to

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Workman was engaged as temporary sweeper in 1992

on wages Rs.15 per day. His services are terminated in the year 2002. Considering the period of his engagement on part

time basis, compensation Rs.75,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The management of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Hoshangabad in terminating the services

of Shri Mukesh Kumar Nair w.e.f. 11-3-02 is not legal and proper.

(2)

2^nd party management is directed to pay compensation Rs.75,000/- to the workman.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 773-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1639

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 7@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@66@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/66/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 9^th March, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 7/2016

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of

Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN :

Sri P. Gopi Ganesh

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Industrial Relation Department

Central Office

Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s T. Ramkumar, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent

M/s K.K. Sivashanmugam, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/66/2015-IR (B.II)

dated 05/13.01.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank is justified in not considering the case of Sri P.

Gopi Ganesh for his absorption into the bank? If so, to what relief is Sri Gopi Ganesh is entitled to?

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 7/2016 and issued notices to both sides.

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

The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement.

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below:

The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent Bank in September 1989. He had joined as Temporary

Sweeper in Padhirivedu Branch. The petitioner had been discharging his duties in a sincere and diligent manner. From

the year 1997 onwards the Respondent started engaging him as Sweeper-cum-Messenger. He was being assigned filing

work, post office work, sealing work, voucher stitching, etc. also. He was required to work on all days except Sundays.

1640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

He was paid wages calculated on daily basis, every week. From the date of his initial appointment he had been

employed continuously without any break. The nature of work discharged by the petitioner is permanent and perennial.

The Respondent Bank has entered into a settlement on 17.02.2011 for considering absorption of temporary messengers

and sweepers. The petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in service on the basis of a settlement. He submitted an

application to the Respondent in the prescribed format requesting that he should be absorbed in the service of the Bank.

But the Respondent has not taken any action on his application. The dispute is raised accordingly. An Award may be

passed holding that the action of the Respondent in not considering the petitioner for absorption is not justified and also

directing the Respondent to absorb him in the service of the petitioner with effect from the date on which he has

completed 480 days of continuous service in the Bank.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Respondent has entered into a settlement with All India Overseas Bank Employees Union on 17.02.2011

under Section-12(3) of the ID Act for considering absorption of temporary messengers and sweepers. The Bank has

issued a circular to all the branches regarding regularization of temporary messengers/sweepers who have worked 240

days continuously in the calendar year preceding 15.10.2010 which is the cut-off date as per the Settlement. As per the

settlement a candidate for the post of Sweeper should possess a pass in 5^th standard but should not have passed 8^th

standard and should have worked for 240 days in the relevant calendar year. The petitioner did not submit any

application in the prescribed format requesting for absorption as per the settlement dated 17.02.2011. The claim made

by the petitioner to this effect in the Claim Statement is not correct. The copy of the application and certificates

produced by the petitioner are concocted documents. Even assuming that the petitioner has applied for the post of

Sweeper he has not produced any documents to support his service details for having worked continuously for 240 days

preceding 15.10.2010, the cut-off date. The petitioner has produced the educational testimonial of having failed 10^th

standard which is over-qualification. Most of the vouchers produced by the petitioner in the Claim Petition are

tampered ones. Padhirivedu Branch had permanent messenger for the last 20 years. The service of the petitioner and

Geeta were utilized by the Branch as and when required. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The petitioner has field rejoinder denying the averments in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

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

Ext.W33 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M7

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the Respondent is not justified in considering the petitioner for absorption in the Bank?

(ii)

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

The Points

The petitioner has claimed that he has started to work in Padhirivedu Branch of the Respondent Bank from

September 1989. According to the petitioner he had been continuously working in the establishment from September,

1989. Though initially he was working as Sweeper, he was being engaged as Messenger also from the year 1997. In the

meanwhile, on 17.02.2011 the Respondent Bank had entered into a settlement regarding absorption of temporary

messengers and sweepers. The petitioner is said to have applied for getting absorption in the Respondent establishment.

It is his case that though he is eligible for absorption as per the Settlement his application was not considered by the

Bank. He has raised the dispute in the circumstance. The Respondent has stated in its Counter Statement that the

petitioner has not produced any records to show that he is eligible to be absorbed as per the settlement. He is said to

have not filed an application for absorption.

The Respondent or the petitioner have not produced the settlement dated 17.02.2011 on the basis of which the

petitioner is claiming absorption in the Respondent establishment However, the Respondent has produced its circular

dated 23.03.2011 on the basis of the settlement regarding absorption. As seen from this, casual / temporary messengers

/ sweepers are to be absorbed in bank service in a phased manner. Under Phase-I those who have worked for more than

5 years in any of the branches or offices in permanent vacancies and has completed 240 or more days continuously in a

calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and still working shall be absorbed before 30.06.2011 subject to their submitting the

required information and certificates. As per Phase-II those who have worked for more than 3 years but less than 5

years and have completed 240 days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and are still working are to be absorbed. As per

Phase-II those who have been engaged for less than 3 years but have completed 240 or more days as on 15.11.2010 and

are still working are to be absorbed. The educational qualification prescribed for Sweepers as per the circular is 5^th

standard or equivalent but should not have passed 8^th standard. Age limit prescribed for sweepers is 40 years.

10.

Though the Respondent has contended in the Counter Statement that the petitioner has not submitted any

application for absorption, the Respondent has itself produced the copy of the application. Ext.M4 the said document

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1641

claims that the petitioner has been working at Padhirivedu Branch from September 1993 and was still working on

21.04.2011, the date of the application. There is a certificate attached to the application which states that the petitioner

was being engaged since 1993 and has been engaged continuously for more than 240 days in the calendar year

preceding 15.11.2010. However, the certificate does not contain any signature. So it cannot be considered as a

certificate at all. MW1, the present Branch Manager of the Padhirivedu Branch has stated in the Proof Affidavit filed

by him that the petitioner has not worked as Messenger or Sweeper of the Branch. According to him, one Raman was

engaged as Messenger. He has been working as Permanent Messenger from 24.04.1995. It was one Geeta who was

temporarily engaged as Sweeper for cleaning the branch premises.

11.

The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 reiterating his case in the Claim Statement. However, the documents

produced by him are not sufficient to establish his case that he is eligible to be absorbed in the service of the

Respondent Bank. Ext.W1 is of course a letter by the Deputy Chief Manager in answer to a letter from Padhirivedu

Branch confirming the action of engaging the petitioner as Temporary Sweeper. This is in September 1989. Ext.W2 is

the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner and Ext.W3 is the copy of Secondary School Leaving Certificate which itself

makes him ineligible for absorption as he has become over-qualified as he has studied upto 10^th Standard. As per the

norms of the settlement, a person to be absorbed as Sweeper should have passed 5^th Standard but should not have

passed 8^th Standard. Ext.W1 to Ext.W9 are the representations said to have been made by the petitioner regarding

absorption. Ext.W20 to Ext.W29 are all letters from one or other Managers stating that the petitioner has worked for

some particular days in the Bank. However, all these are of the years in between 1994 and 1999. Ext.W30 to Ext.W32

are again representations said to have been given by the petitioner.

12.

Ext.W19 contains several vouchers showing engagement of the petitioner. It is to be seen from these vouchers

whether the case of the petitioner that he had worked in the establishment for 240 days preceding the cut-off date is

correct. If he is to become eligible for absorption he should have completed work of 240 days or more continuously in

the calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and should have been still working at the time when he sought absorption. So to be

eligible he should have worked for more than 240 days in between 15.11.2009 and 15.11.2010 and should have been

still working. The vouchers included in Ext.W19 are mostly of earlier years. There is one voucher of 2009 and two or

three of 2010. However, these are not continuous. It is not clear from these vouchers for how many days the petitioner

has worked. Apart from this is the fact that several of the vouchers produced by the petitioner are manipulated ones.

The name Geeta written on these vouchers are seen corrected as Gopi Ganesh which is the name of the petitioner. The

petitioner has admitted during cross-examination that his wife has been doing the work for some time. He stated that

there might have been alterations in the name written in some of the vouches. He also admitted that the name Geeta is

struck off in several of the vouchers. So it is clear that the petitioner has manipulated the vouchers issued to his wife as

that of his own. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has worked continuously in the Bank for more than 240

days preceding the cut-off date as per the settlement. Even otherwise he is not eligible to be absorbed as he does not

come within the educational qualification prescribed by the Respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the above discussion the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed

accordingly.

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

the 9^th March, 2017).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri P. Gopi Ganesh

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri Joel Ashirwad Kotha

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

08.09.1989

Letter of the Deputy Chief Manager to the Branch Manager recommending the

petitioner to be engaged as a temporary sweeper in Padhirivedu Branch

Ext.W2

Transfer Certificate of the petitioner

Ext.W3

March 1989

Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner

Ext.W4

21.04.2011

Application of the petitioner seeking absorption based on the settlement dated

17.02.2011

1642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W5

03.08.2013

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of Services

Ext.W6

04.11.2013

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W7

18.07.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W8

25.07.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W9

10.09.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W10

11.09.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W11

17.09.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W12

19.07.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W13

30.09.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W14

13.10.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W15

16.10.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W16

18.10.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W17

20.10.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W18

20.10.2014

Representation of the petitioner seeking absorption of his services

Ext.W19

September

Vouchers raised regarding engagement of the 1989 to petitioner 06.03.2015

Ext.W20

17.10.1994

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W21

23.10.1994

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W22

25.10.1994

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W23

22.11.1994

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W24

5/1996

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W25

28.05.1996

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W26

19.06.1997

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W27

28.06.1997

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W28

30.04.1998

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W29

08.11.1999

Letter regarding engagement of the petitioner

Ext.W30

17.09.2014

Representation given by the petitioner

Ext.W31

13.10.2014

Representation given by the petitioner

Ext.W32

01.07.2015

Representation given by the petitioner

Ext.W33

21.04.2011

Undertaking letter given by the petitioner to the Respondent Bank in terms of Clause

3(b) of the Settlement for absorption with the certificate from Branch Head

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

Copy of the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the Respondent regarding absorption

of messengers/sweepers

Ext.M2

Investigation report on complaint received from the petitioner dated 18.06.2015

Ext.M3

Copies of payment vouchers of 2010 for payment to temporary sweeper made on

weekly basis to Ms. Geetha

Ext.M4

Copy of Annexure A submitted by the petitioner dated 21.04.2011

Ext.M5

Copy of unsigned service certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 21.04.2011

Ext.M6

Copy of relevant page of dispatched register of Padhirivedu Branch from 09.02.2011

to 29.04.2011

Ext.M7

Copy of SSLC Certificate of the petitioner dated 15.06.1989.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1643

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 774-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 9@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@57@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12011/57/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D.9/2013

Reference No. L-12011/57/2012-IR(B-II) Dated: 22.11.2012

General Secretary

All Bank Safai karamchari sangh

Dehanwal Bhawan, Sitabari,

Kamani Road, Harijan Basti, Jhotwara,

Jaipur

V/s

General Manager

Punjab National Bank

Circle Office

Nehru Place, Tonk Road,

Jaipur

Present :

For the Applicant

Sh. C.D.Chaturvedi.

For the Non-Applicant

Sh. Rajendra Vaish, Advocate.

AWARD

Dated : 12.1.2017

The Central Government in exercise of 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 :-

“Whether the management of Punjab National Bank, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur has terminated the

services of Smt. Indira Devi, PTS w.e.f. 9.12.2011 and it is fair, legal and justified? If not to what relief she is

entitled?”

According to the brief fact of the case the workman Smt. Indira Devi was working as a temporary part time

sweeper at Currency chest, PNB, Nehru place, Jaipur w.e.f. 17.12.2008. She was performing the above duty to the

utmost satisfaction of the Bank management. Keeping in view of her more than three years’ continuous temporary

service, she applied to the bank management for her regularization in the Banks’ service vide her application dated

19.9.2011. When no positive response was given by the Bank management, she again applied to the Bank on 5^th Dec,

2011 and due to annoyance from her repeated representations, bank management terminated her services w.e.f. 9^th

1644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

December, 2011 without following the mandatory provisions of I.D.Act, 1947 and I.B.P. Settlement of Banking

Industry. Her services were terminated by the bank in contravention of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule no. 76 and 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1956. It has been alleged that details

relating to violation of section 25-F & 25-G will be submitted before the tribunal during further proceeding of the case.

It has been further alleged that there has been a cogent infringement of section 522 (4) of Sastry award

alongwith Section 22(12) and 22(8) of I.B.P. Settlement of Baking Industry which are meant for temporary Employees.

It has been prayed that termination of her services w.e.f. 9.12.2011may be declared unfair, illegal, void & unjustified &

bank management further be directed to reinstate her in the service with all consequential service benefits.

In reply to statement of claim preliminary objections raised by opposite party read as under :-

Without prejudice to the submissions, the answering respondents hereby raise the following preliminary

objections which goes to the root of the matter and needs to be decided at the thresh hold.

That the alleged claimant Smt. Indira Devi was never appointed by the respondent bank as a whole time

or even as part time sweeper. There was no recruitment whatsoever through the regular process of

employment and no appointment letter was ever issued to her. Since smt. Indira devi had never been

appointed/engaged as temporary part time sweeper, their exists no employer employee relationship

between the respondent bank and the claimant smt. Indira devi. Thus she is not a “ Workman” under

section 2 of the ID Act, 1947 and no dispute or claim rests against the respondent bank.

That the respondent bank has a procedure for recruitment of its employees whether full time or even

part time and as already stated Smt. Indira Devi was never appointed by the respondent bank as a whole

time or even as a part time sweeper. There was no recruitment whatsoever through the regular process

of employment and no appointment letter was ever issued to her. Without prejudice to the submissions

of the respondent bank, appointment through back door entry or dehores the rules does not entitle any

employee for any relief whatsoever. The view had been stated by the larger bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi in 2006 and catena of cases have been

decided thereafter affirming the above view. On this count alone the statement of claim filed by the

alleged claimant Smt. Indira Devi is liable to be rejected.

That the claimant has neither filed any document on record nor has made any specific submissions to

support her alleged versions and in absence of any documentary evidence or proof, mere allegations

raised in the statement of claim are liable to be rejected at the threshold.

Parawise reply

In parawise reply to statement of claim para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 of the statement of claim have been said to be

false, baseless, incorrect, misconceived & emphatically denied. It has been further alleged that claimant Smt. Indira

Devi was never appointed by the respondent bank as a whole time or even as a part time sweeper. There was no

recruitment whatsoever through the regular process of employment and no appointment letter was ever issued to her.

Smt. Indira Devi had never been appointed/engaged as temporary part time sweeper. It has been further alleged that

since their exists no relationship of employer-employee between opposite party and claimant the question or issue of

performing the duties with utmost satisfaction is of no avail. Further in reply to para 3 of statement of claim it has been

alleged that the respondent bank had received representations dated 5.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 wherein Smt. Indira Devi

had stated that she belongs to a poor society and learnt that some vacancy existed in the bank therefore she may be

appointed as part time sweeper. As already stated above claimant smt. Indira Devi was never appointed by the Bank

therefore no question of alleged termination whatsoever arises and there was no termination.

In reply to para 4 & 5 it has been alleged that claimant smt. Indira Devi does not fall in the ambit of section 2(s)

of the ID Act and further there exists no employer-employee relationship and there is no alleged termination hence,

violation of the mandate of Section 25-F of the ID act 1947 is of no avail and the matter is not of violation of Section

25-F. In reply to para 6 & 7 it has been alleged that claimant Smt. Indira Devi does not fall in the ambit of Section 2(s)

of the ID Act and further there exists no employer-employee relationship and there is no alleged termination ,hence,

violation of the mandate of Section 25-G,25-H of the ID Act is of no avail and the matter is not of violation of Section

25-G , 25-H. Accordingly there is no violation Rule 76 and 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 .

It has been further alleged in reply to para 8 of claim that the provisions of the Shastri Award are neither

applicable in the present case nor had been violated and reliance on these provisions by the applicant claimant is only

misconceived. She does not fall in the alleged category. It has been prayed that reply of the opposite party be taken on

record and after consideration of the submissions made therein statement of claim of the claimant may kindly be

dismissed.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1645

Reply to statement of claim was filed by opposite party on 20.11.2014 & next date for filing rejoinder &

document by applicant was fixed on 5.2.2015. From 5.2.2015 till 12.1.2017 thirteen opportunities were given to

applicant for filing rejoinder & document but till 12.1.2017 applicant has failed to act for further advancement of the

case proceeding. Since 15.6.2016 applicant stopped coming for further participation in the case yet further

opportunities were given to the applicant on 31.8.2016, 27.11.2016, 15.12.2016, 28.12.2016 & 12.1.2017 for filing

rejoinder & documents so that case may proceed further but applicant side has failed to file rejoinder & document &

participate further in the proceeding of the case. On all these dates for period of nearly 4 months case was adjourned by

tribunal suo-moto on its own motion in the interest of justice. After being satisfied that applicant is continuously not

appearing for further proceeding in the case & not interested in continuing it, further proceeding in the case was closed

on 12.1.2017 & case was reserved for award.

From the above fact & circumstances it is evident that applicant has failed to take part by continuously

absenting himself & failing to file rejoinder & document since 5.2.2015 till 12.1.2017. Due to absence applicant has

further failed to adduce evidence relating to reference under adjudication. In above circumstances & for want of

evidence tribunal is unable to adjudicate the reference in question. Accordingly, I am of the view that owing to lack of

evidence applicant has failed to prove that termination of services of applicant Smt. Indira Devi, PTS w.e.f. 9.12.2011

by management of Punjab National Bank, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur is not fair, legal & justified. Accordingly,

applicant is not entitled to any relief & the petition of the applicant is liable to be dismissed. The statement of claim of

the applicant is dismissed accordingly.

10.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 775-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 54@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@7@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/7/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^thFebruary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 54/2011

The Assitant General Manager,

Indian Bank, Circle Office,

Rudra Arcade, Helmate Circle,

132 Feet Road, Memnagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

1646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Shri Kantibhai S. Damor,

166, Shyam Bunglow, IOC Road,

Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia Associates

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/7/2011-

IR(B-II) dated 13.06.2011 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 Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Ahmedabad in removing

Shri Kantibhai S. Damor from service by way of compulsory retirement vide order dated 12.02.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 13.06.2011.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 08.10.2013

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 08.10.2013 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. Since

then the second party has been absent and has not been leading evidence despite given last opportunity even in his

absence. Thereafter, three dates were also given for leading evidence but to no result. Thus it appears that the second

party has not been willing to prosecute the reference.

Thus, in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, the reference is disposed of with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Ahmedabad in

removing Shri Kantibhai S. Damor from service by way of compulsory retirement vide order dated 12.02.2009 is legal

and justified.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 776-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 31@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@57@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National

Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12011/57/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 31/2009

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1647

jsQjsUl ua. ,y&12011@57@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II) fnukad 08/10/2009

General Secretary,

P.N.B. Workers Organisation,

C-13, Ojhaji ka Bagh,

Gandhi Nagar Mod,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)

v/s

The Zonal Manager,

Punjab National Bank

2, Nehru Place, Tonk Road,

Jaipur – Rajasthan

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh vkj- lh- tSu & izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

Jh jktsUnz vjksjk & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 30- 1- 2017

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1[k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad

08-10-2009 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 %&

“Whether Shri Rajeev Saxena Spl. Asstt. while posted in Kotwali Road, Sikar Branch of PNB is

entitled for officiating allowance for discharging his duties for higher post from 16/11/2006 to

30/5/2008 in the absence of written and specific order of the bank management? what relief the

claimant is entitled to?”

;kfpdk esa fn;s x;s rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk dFku gS fd Jh jktho lDlSuk iatkc

uS'kuy cSad 'kk[kk dksrokyh jksM] lhdj esa fo'ks"k lgk;d ds in ij dk;Zjr gS ,oa gekjs laxBu ds inkf/kdkjh gSa A

cSad esa dk;Zjr fyfidksa@fo'ks"k lgk;dksa }kjk mPp HkRrk izkIr inksa ls lEcfU/kr dk;Z djus ij mUgsa

LFkkukiUu HkRrk fn;k tkrk gS rFkk HkRrs dh jkf'k fofHkUu f}i{kh; le>kSrks esa r; dh gqbZ gSA

dkexkj V~sM ;wfu;u laxBuksa ,oa Hkkjrh; cSad la?k ds e/; lEiUu vkBosa f}i{kh; le>kSrk fnukad 02-06-

2005 ds iSjk 26 esa officiality pay ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s izko/kku fuEu izdkj gS %&

"In partial modification of paragraph III(I) of bipartite settlement dated 8th November 1973, if a

workman other than subordinate staff officiates in a post in higher cadre either for a continuous period

of 7 days or more or an aggregate of 7 days in a calendar month, he shall be paid with effect from

1st June 2005 officiating pay at the rates laid down in clauses 9.11(a)(i) or 9.11(a)(ii) of the Bipartite

settlement dated 19th October 1966."

Jh jktho lDlSuk 'kk[kk dksrokyh jksM] lhdj ls dEI;wVj ij vf/kdkjh laoxZ ts-,e-th- izFke dh ikoj

nsdj fnuakd 16-11-2006 ls gh vf/kdkjh ts-,e-th- izFke ds vf/kdkj {ks= ds uxnh fudklh :-2 yk[k rd

V~kUlQj :- 5 yk[k rd ,oa lek'kks/ku ds okmpj ikl djok;s tk jgs FksA ;g okmpj Ms ,.M ls iwoZ l{ke

vf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kd`r fd;s tk jgs gS rFkk ekfuZx pSfdax esa Hkh bu okmpjksa dks 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk vf/kd`r fd;k

tk jgk gSA

mijksDr dzekad 5 esa of.kZr vf/kdkjh laoxZ ds dk;Z djok;s tkus ds ckotwn Jh jktho lDlSuk dks fnuakd

16-11-2006 ls vf/kdkjh laoxZ dk LFkkukiUu HkRrk ugha fn;k tk jgk gS ,oa muls dfu"B fyfidksa Jh vfuy tSu]

Jh N=ifr laxrkuh ,oa Jherh deys'k jpsrk dks LFkkukiUu HkRrk fn;k x;k gS ftuds }kjk vf/kdkjh loaxZ dk

lanfHkZr fnolksa dks dksbZ dk;Z gh ugha fd;k x;k gSA

mijksDr dzekad 5 o 6 eas of.kZr ekeys ls voxr djokrs gq, Jh jktho lDlSuk }kjk fnukad 16-11-06 ls

vf/kdkjh laoxZ ds LFkkukiUu HkRrs dh ekax ofj"B izcU?kd 'kk[kk dksrokyh jksM] lhdj ls fnukad 10-12-2007 dks

dh xbZA

1648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mijksDr dzekad 7 esa of.kZr i= dk tokc ofj"B izcU/kd 'kk[kk dksrokyh jksM] lhdj }kjk i= fnukad

15-12-2007 ds ek/;e ls fn;k x;k ftlesa mUgksus voxr djk;k fd ;g 'kk[kk izHkkjh dk foosdkf/kdkj gS fd og

ofj"B LVkWQ lnL; dh ofj"Brk ykW?kdj dfu"B cSad dehZ dks LFkkukiUu HkRrk iznku djsaA muds }kjk ;g Hkh

voxr dj;k x;k fd tks fyfid lka; 5-00 cts ckn nsj rd cSBdj viuh lhV dk yfEcr fyfifd; dk;Z

lEiUu djrk gS og vksojVkbe ds LFkku ij vf/kdkjh laoxZ ds LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk vf/kdkjh gS] og Hkh ofj"B cSad

dehZ dh ofj"Brk yka?kdjA

izkFkhZ }kjk mijksDr lEiw.kZ fLFkfr ls i= dzekad jkt@LVkWQ@2008&05 fnukad 07-04-08 ds tfj;s ofj"B

{ks=h; izcU/kd orZeku ifjofrZr in e.My izcU/kd] vyoj {ks= vyoj dks voxr djk;k x;k ijUrq vizkFkhZ

Øekad&2 e.My izcU/kd }kjk Hkh vHkh rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ gSA mDr vk/kkj ij ;kph us okaf{kr vuqrks"k

gsrq ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gSA

10-

foi{kh dh rjQ ls oknksRrj esa dgk x;k gS fd Jh jktho lDlSuk] fo'ks"k lgk;d] cSad dh 'kk[kk ds ;w ,e

,l lhdj esa LFkk;h :i ls dk;Zjr FksA mUgsa fnukad 16-11-2006 dks 'kk[kk dksrokyh jksM] lhdj esa izfrfu;qDr

fd;k x;k Fkk tgkW fnukad 1-10-2007 ds vkns'k }kjk LFk;h :i ls rSukr dj fn;k x;kA Jh jktho lDlSukdks ts

,e th &1 esa inksUufr gsrq vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj esa fnukad 26-07-2006 dks cqyk;k x;k ysfdu os Loa; dh fcekjh

ds dkj.k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr ugha gq,A vr% mUgs cSad ds i= fnukad 1-12-2006 ftldh izfr izn'kZ ,d layXu

gS] ,d o"kZ ds fy;s ts-,e-th- 1 in ij LFkk;h inLFkkiuk ,oa LFkkukiUu gsrq fMckj dj fn;k x;kA Jh jktho

lDlSuk }kjk izLrqr vkosnu fnukad 18-12-06 ftldh izfr izn'kZ nks layXu gS] ij fopkj dj l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk

fnuakd 30-4-2007 dks fMckj fujLr fd;k x;k] ftldh izfr izn'kZ rhu layXu gSA

11-

Jh jktho lDlSuk dks fnukad 9-5-07 dks iqu% ts-,e-th- izFke esa lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k x;k ysfdu os iqu%

Loa; dh fcekjh ds dkj.k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr ugha gq, vr% mUgs cSad ds i= fnukad 23-05-2007 ds ek/;e ls

lwpuk Hkstdj ftldh izfr izn'kZ pkj layXu gS] ,d o"kZ ds fy, fnukad 9-5-07 ls 8-5-08 rd ts-,e-th- izFke in

ij inLFkkiuk ,oa lFkkukiUu gsrq fMckj fd;k x;kA rFkkfi Jh jktho lDlSuk ds vH;kosnu ftldh izfr izn'kZ

ikWp layXu gS] ij fopkj dj l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk fnuakd 29-5-07 dks fMckj fujLr dj fn;k x;kA bl i= dh

izfr izn'kZ N% ij layXu gSA blds ckn tokc esa izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ka izLrqr gS tks fuEu izdkj gS %&

izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ka %&

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr rFkkdfFkr fookn mfpr ,oa oS/k rjhds ftl

izdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 esa mYysf[kr gS] }kjk ugha mBk;k x;k gS] vr% ;g rFkkdfFkr

fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ifjHkkf"kr **vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh ugha vkrk gS] vr% bls Lohdkj

ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

II.

LFkkukiUu HkRrk ,d fØ;kRed HkRrk gS] tks fd deZdkj dks fo'ks"k nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu djus ij gh

Hkqxrku fdk tk ldrk gSA fo'ks"k dk;Z nkf;Ro deZdkj ds fu;fer dk;Z nkf;Ro ls mPprj in dk

dk;Z nkf;Ro l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds vkns'kkuqlkj djus ij ns; gksrk gSA

III.

l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk Jh jktho lDlSuk dks fookn esa mYsf[kr vof/k esa vf/kdkjh in ij LFkkukiUu

dk;Z djus ds fy;s vf/kd`r ugha fd;k x;kA

IV. Jh jktho lDlSuk }kjk mYysf[kr vof/k esa dHkh Hkh vf/kdkjh ds in nkf;Ro okys dk;Z ugha fd;sA

mYysf[kr vof/k esa mudh inLFkkiuk izfrfu;qfDr ij gksus ,oa vf/kdkjh in ij mudh inLFkkiuk ,oa

LFkkiUu gsrq fMckj gksus ds vk/kkj ij Hkh Jh jktho lDlSuk LFkkukiUu HkRrs gsrq ik= ugha FkkA

12-

vr% Jh jktho lDlSuk dks mYysf[kr vof/k gsrq LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk mfpr] visf{kr ,oa

fof/k lEer~ ugha gSA rFkkfi ;fn mDr of.kZr izdj.k esa rF; ,oa izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ds fuLrkj.k mijkUr ekuuh;

U;k;kf/kdj.k bl izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k djuk mfpr le>s rks vizkFkhZ cSad dh vkSj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse dk fcUnqckj tokc fuEu izdkj izLrqr gSA

13-

Dyse ds iSjk ,d esa of.kZr dFku ds lUnHkZ esa ys[k gS fd Jh jktho lDlsuk] fo'ks"k lgk;d cSad] dh

dksrokyh jksM] lhdj 'kk[kk esa fnukad 16-11-06 ls izfrfu;qDr fd;s x;s ftUgsa fnukad 10-1-07 ds vkns'k ls mlh

'kk[kk esa inLFkkfir fd;k x;kA Jh jktho lDlSuk dk laxBu ds inkf/kdkjh gksus dk rF; ,oa dFku bl izdj.k

ls vizkFkhZ ds fy;s lqlaxr ugha gS] vr% bl ij dksbZ fVi..kh visf{kr ugha gSA

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1649

14-

Dyse ds nks ,oa rhu esa of.kZr dFku vfHkys[k ls lEcfU/kr gS] ftu ij vizkFkhZ dh fVIi.kh fo'ks"k visf{kr

ugha gSA rFkkfi ;gkW ;g mYys[k djuk izklafxd gS fd LFkkukiUu HkRrk rHkh fn;k tkrk gS tc l{ke izkf/kdkjh

}kjk fdlh deZpkjh ls mPp in ij dk;Z djokuk visf{kr gks rFkk mls ,sls dk;Z djus gsrq funsZ'k fn;s tk;s

ftudh vuqikyu esa deZpkjh }kjk mPp nkf;Ro ds dk;Z fu"ikfnr fd;k tk;s tcfd izLrqr izdj.k esa u rks Jh

jktho lDlsuk dks mPp in ds dk;Z djus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk funsZ'k fn;s x;s vkSj u gh mUgksusa mPp in ds

fdlh dk;Z nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu fd;k] vr% muds }kjk LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dh ekax djus dk

dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA

15-

Dyse ds iSjk pkj esa dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku lgh ugha gS fd Jh

jktho lDlsuk ls ts-,e-th- izFke vf/kdkjh dh ikoj nsdj udnh :i;s 2-00 yk[k rFkk V~kUlQj ,oa Dyh;fjax

:i;s 5--00 yk[k rd ds okmpj fnukad 16-11-2006 ls ikl djok;s x;sA cSad izcU/ku }kjk Jh jktho lDlsuk dks

mYysf[kr vof/k esa vf/kdkjh oxZ esa LFkkukiUu dk;Z djus gsrq uk dksbZ vkns'k fn;k x;k vkSj uk gh muls ,slk

dksbZ dk;Z fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk dsoy ek= ;g dFku djuk fd ;s okmpj Ms ,aM ls iwoZ l{ke vf/kdkjh

}kjk vf/kd`r fd;s tk jgs gS rFkk pSfdax esa Hkh bu okmpjksa dks 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk vf/kd`r fd;k tk jgk gS] Jh

jktho lDlSuk LFkkukiUu djus gsrq ik= ugha gks tkrs vkSj uk gh bl vk/kkj ij mUgsa LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku

fd;k tk ldrk gSA

16-

Dyse ds iSjk ikWp esa dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA tgkW rd Jh jktho lDlsuk dks

LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku u fd;s tkus dk dFku gS] mldk iwoZ iSjk esa mRrj fn;k tk pqdk gS fd mUgsa

LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk ns; ugha FkkA rFkkfi izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk ;g dFku fd muls dfu"B fyfidksa ;Fkk Jh vfuy tSu]

Jh N=ifr laxrkuh ,oa Jhefr deys'k :psrk dks LFkkukiUu HkRrk fn;k x;k ,d osx (vague) ,oa tujy dFku

gS ftldk mRrj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk iwoZ fooj.k miyC/k djokus ij gh fn;k tk ldrk gS fd fdl deZpkjh dks

fdl vof/k gsrq dc ,oa fdruh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fd;k x;kA

17-

Dyse ds iSjk 6 esa dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA Jh jktho lDlSuk }kjk vius i= fnukad

10-12-07 }kjk mUgsa fnukad 16-11-2006 ls LFkkukiUu HkRrs fn;s tkus dh ekax dh x;h fdUrq muds }kjk ;g ekax

yxHkx ,d o"kZ i'pkr foyEc ls ,oa vU; dfu"B deZdkjksa dks Hkqxrku fd;s x;s LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk iw.kZ fooj.k

miyC/k djok;s fcuk dh x;hA deZdkj }kjk foYkEc dk dksbZ dkj.k Hkh mYys[k ugha fd;k x;kA

18-

Dyse ds isjk 7 esa dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA ;|fi csSad ds i= fnukad 15-12-07 }kjk

deZpkjh dks tokc fn;k tkus dk dFku Lohdkj gS rFkkfi ;gkW ;g mYys[k djuk izklafxd gksxk fd deZdkj }kjk

mls vkoafVr dk;Z gh le; ij ,oa lgh <ax ls ugha fd;k tk jgk Fkk] ftldk Li"V mYys[k 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk

blesa fd;k x;k gSA 'kk[kk izcU/kd }kjk dh xbZ vU; fVIi.kh lqlaxr ugha gSA

19-

Dyse ds isjk 8 esa dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk rRdkfyu {ks=h; izcU/kd dks bl

izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr i= fy[kk x;k fdUrq e.My izcU/kd }kjk izdj.k dh rF;kRed tkudkjh izkIr dj fu.k;Z ls

iwoZ gh rFkkdfFkr fookn mBk;k x;kA rFkkfi ;gkW ;g mYys[k djuk izklafxd gksxk fd bl izdj.k dh rF;kRed

tkudkjh izkIr djus ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ij Jh jktho lDlSuk }kjk LFkkukiUu HkRrs ds Hkqxrku dh

ekax dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;kA foi{k us izkFkZuk dh gS fd ;kfpdk lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt

dh tk;A

20-

foi{k }kjk ;kph dh ;kfpdk dk tokc fnukad 28-9-2010 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA tokc ds fo:) ;kph

i{k dks U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk fjTok;UMj ,oa nLrkost izLrqr djus gsrq ikWp volj iznku fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk

fjTok;UMj ,oa nLrkost u izLrqr djus ds dkj.k rRdkfyu fo}ku ihBklhu U;k;kf/k'k }kjk fjTok;UMj ,oa

nLrkost izLrqr djus dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k gSA

21-

;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k izys[kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr gSA foi{k dh rjQ

ls fnukad 15-5-12 dks fQgfjLr ls dqy 13 vfHkys[kksa dh QksVksizfr izLrqr gS ftlesa i=kpkj dh QksVksizfr;ka]

fpfdRlk izek.k&i= vkSj LoLFkrk izek.k i= dh QksVksizfr vkfn vfHkys[k izLrqr gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ

ekSf[kd lk{; bl vk/kkj ij ugha izLrqr gS fd ;kph us dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS blfy, foi{k dks dksbZ

lk{; ugha izLrqr djuk gSA

22-

eSuas foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;~d voyksdu fd;kA ;kph i{k dh rjQ

ls cgl ds fy, dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vk;kA

23-

;kfpdk ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd ;kph us bl vuqrks"k gsrq ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS fd D;k Jh jktho

lDlsuk 16-11-06 ls 30-5-08 dh vof/k ds fy, mPp in ds dk;Z dk lEiknu djus ds dkj.k okaf{kr HkRRk ikus ds

1650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gdnkj gSasA fnukad 26-7-12 ls izkFkhZ dks lk{; izLrqr djus ds fy;s volj fn;k tk jgk gSA foIk{k }kjk ;kph i{k

dh rjQ ls lk{; u izLrqr djus dk 23-6-14 dks fojks/k fd;k x;k ftl ij ;g vkns'k gqvk fd vxyh frfFk

15-7-14 dks lk{; ugha izLrqr gksrk rks ,di{kh; lk{; dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sxkA blds ckn Hkh 29-10-14 dks

foi{k }kjk fojks/k fd;k x;kA blds ckn gtsZ ij eqYroh dj 3-12-14 dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;kA

fnukad 16-9-95 dks vfUre volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vxyh frfFk 10-11-15 dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj

fn;k x;kA blds ckn Hkh 10-11-15 RkFkk 8-12-16 ds chp yxHkx lkr volj iznku fd;s x;s ijUrq lk{; izLrqr

ugha gqvkA ;g ns[krs gq, fd ekeys esa ;kph i{k dks dksbZ :fp ugha gS] ;kph dks lk{; dk volj 8-12-16 dks

lekIr fd;k x;k ,oa vxyh frfFk fnukad 10-1-17 dks foi{k dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj iznku fd;k x;kA

foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us fnukad 10-1-17 dks c;ku fd;k fd ;kphi{k us dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS]

blfy, foi{k dks lk{; ugaha izLrqr djuk gSA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds mDr c;ku ds vk/kkj ij foi{k dk

lk{; lekIr fd;k x;kA mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr ls ;g izdV gS fd ;kph us bl rF; dks lkfcr djus ds fy,

dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS fd fnukad 16-11-06 ls 30-5-08 rd dh vof/k gsrq ;kph mPp in ij dke fd;k

gS] u gh ;g rF; lkfcr fd;k gS fd cSad izcU/ku ds fcuk fyf[kr ,oa fof'k"V vkns'k ds ;kph mDr vof/k gsrq

mPp in ij dk;Z djus ds cnys fdlh HkRrs (officiating allowance) dks ikus dk gdnkj gSA

24-

mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd ;kph i{k ;g rF; fl) djus esa vlQy

gS fd Jh jktho lDlsuk] Lis'ky vflLVsaV] iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds lhdj jksM+ czkUp esa fu;qDr jgrs gq, fnukad

16-11-06 ls 30-5-08 ds vof/k esa mPp in ds dk;Z dk dk;Z lEiknu djus gsrq cSad }kjk fcuk fyf[kr vkSj fof'k"V

vkns'k ds okaf{kr HkRrk (officiating allowance) ikus ds gdnkj gSa] vr% Jh jktho lDlsuk fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus

ds gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq

izsf"kr fjQjsUl dk mRrj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 777-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 60@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@60@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12011/60/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 60/2006

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua. ,y&12011@60@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II) fnukad 15/09/2006

egkea=h]

lsUVªy cSad odZlZ vkWjxsukbZts'ku]

lh&13] vks>k th dk ckx]

xka/kh uxj eksM+]

t;iqj & ¼jktLFkku½

---cuke

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1651

v/;{k ,oa izcU/k funs'kd]

lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k]

pUnz eq[kh] ufjeu ikbZUV] eqEcbZA

ofj"B izcU/kd ¼isa'ku½]

lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] ¼isa'ku foHkkx½]

,u-lh-,y- ckUnzk fizekblsl dks-vkS-lks- fy-]

IykV ua- lh&6] CykWd *bZ*] ikapoh eafty]

ckUnzk dqykZ dkWEIkysDl] ckUnzk ¼iwoZ½ eqEcbZ&400051

3- lgk;d egkizcU/kd]

lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k]

{ks=h; dk;kZy;] vkuUn Hkou]

lalkj pUnz jksM+] t;iqjA

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh vkj-- lh- tSu & izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh jkts'k 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV

% iapkV %

fnukad % 05- 01- 2017

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1[k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 15-09-2006 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 %&

“Whether the of the management of Central Bank of India through Assistant General Manager, Jaipur

in not giving the benifit of pension scheme to Sh. T.S. Mahawar, Clerk (Employment No.89721) is

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

;kfpdk esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd bl fookn ls lEcfU/kr Jfed Jh Vh-,l-egkoj dh cSad

esa fu;qfDr fnukad 12-02-1994 dks fyfid ds in ij gqbZ FkhA orZeku esa Jh Vh-,l-egkoj foi{kh cSad dh esMrk flVh 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr

gSA

foi{kh cSad ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s cSad us o"kZ 1993 esa ,d isa'ku Ldhe tkjh dh Fkh vkSj isa'ku jsxqys'ku 1993 tkjh fd;s FksA

isa'ku jsxqys'ku 1993 ds vuqlkj isa'ku Ldhe mu lHkh deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw dh xbZ Fkh ftudh fu;qfDr 01-11-1993 ds i'pkr

cSasd esa gqbZ Fkh] blfy;s os isa'ku Ldhe 1993 ds vUrxZr isa'ku dk ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

izkjEHk esa cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us ;g crk;k fd fnukad 01-11-1993 ds i'pkr fu;qfDRk deZpkfj;ksa dks ias'ku gsrq vkI'ku nsus dh

vko';drk ugha gSA ckn esa ;g lq>ko fn;k x;k fd 01-11-1993 ds i'pkr fu;qfDr deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh isa'ku vkI'ku nsuk pkfg;sA

bl vk/kkj ij Jh Vh-,l-egkoj us fnukad 14-9-994 dks isa'ku gsrq vkI'ku QkeZ Hkjdj izLrqr dj fn;k ftls 'kk[kk izcU/kd

esMrk flVh us vius i= dzekad ch-,e@94&95@34@201 fnukad 16-02-1994 }kjk {ks=h; dk;kZy; t;iqj dks vxzsflr dj fn;kA

fnukad 14-09-994 dks isa'ku gsrq vkI'ku izLrqr dj nsus ds ckotwn vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vlaxr dkj.kksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh egkoj dk

isa'ku vkI'ku Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk jgk vkSj mUgsa ih-,Q-vkWIVh ekuk tk jgk gSA

bl lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk tks vkifRr mBkbZ xbZ gS mu lHkh vkifRr;ksa dk Jh egkoj o 'kk[kk izcU/kd esMrk flVh }kjk

leqfpr mRrj nsrs gq;s fujkdj.k dj fn;k x;k gS ysfdu fQj Hkh Jh egkoj dk isa'ku vkI'ku Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA

10-

Jh Vh-,l-egkoj dk isa'ku vkI'ku] vU; dksbZ jkgr o eqdnesa dk gtkZ&[kpkZ tks mfpr le>sa mls fnyk;k tk;A

11-

foi{k dh rjQ ls oknksRrj izLrqr dj ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;kfpdk esa izLrqr en la- 1 Lohdkj gS ijUrq izkFkhZ esMrk flVh

'kk[kk ls LFkkukUrfjr gksdj orZeku le; esa tkyksjh xsV tks/kiqj esa dk;Zjr gSA

12-

en la- 2 ds dFku vLohdkj ugha gS ijUrq ;gka ;g dguk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ us tkucq>dj ;g dFku ugha fd;s gS fd og

isa'ku fofu;ekoyh 1993 fdl fnukad ls izHkko'kkyh gq;hA ;gka ;g dguk Hkh vko';d gS fd foi{kh cSad }kjk deZpkjh isa'ku

fofu;ekoyh 1995 tkjh dh x;h tks iw.kZ dkuwuh izfdz;k viukus ds mijkUr 29-9-95 dks vfUre rkSj ij izHkko esa yk;s tkus gsrq cuk;h

x;h vkSj budk izdk'ku fnuakd 29-9-1995 dks fd;k x;k vFkkZr deZpkjh ias'ku fofu;ekoyh 1995 fnuakd 29-9-1995 dks izHkko'khy

gq;hA lEcfU/kr fofu;ekoyh tokc ds lkFk layXu gSA

1652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13-

en la- 3 ds dFku vk/kkjghu ,oa xyr gS vr% vLohdkj gSA ;fn izkFkhZ Jh Vh-,l-egkoj 1995 ds deZpkjh isa'ku fofu;ekoyh

esa viuk vkI'ku ysrs rks vo'; gh mudk izLrko izcU/ku Lohdkj djrk vkSj mUgsa isa'ku ds ykHk dk vf/kdkjh ekuk tk ldrk FkkA

14-

en la- 4 ds dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr fd;s x;s gS] xyr gS vr% vLohdkj gSA izkFkhZ us bl en esa vius dFkuksa dk dksbZ

[kqyklk ugha fd;k gS vr% dFku xyr gSA

15-

en la- 5 ds dFku fjdkMZ ls lEcfU/kr gS ijUrq izkFkhZ ds dFku 1995 ls izHkko'khy deZpkjh isa'ku fofu;ekoyh ds foijhr gS]

vr% vLohdkj gSA

16-

en la- 6 ds dFku ftl izdkj of.kZr fd;s x;s gS xyr gS] vr% vLohdkj gSA vizkFkhZ izcU/ku ,oa deZpkjh fu;eksa ls ckf/kr gS

vkSj fu;eksa ds fo:) izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA

17-

en la- 7 ds dFku izkFkhZ us fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds of.kZr fd;s gS lgh rF; fu;eksa ds lUnHkZ esa foi{k us mij of.kZr fd;s gS]

vr% izkFkhZ ds vkjksi o dFku xyr gS vkSj vLohdkj gSA foi{k us izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dh ekaWx vk/kkjghu ekudj fujLr dh tk;A

18-

izkjfEHkd vkifRr eas dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh ekWax ,d O;fDr dh ekWax gksus ds dkj.k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2

¼ds½ ds vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS] vr% fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks isa'ku

fu;ekoyh 1995 ds izkfo/kku ds fo:) ek¡x mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj ;wfu;u ds ikl Hkh bl ek¡x dks mBk;s tkus dk dksbZ

dkj.k ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dks isa'ku fu;ekoyh ds psIVj f}rh; DykWt 3 ¼ch½ ds vUrxZr vkWI'ku dk vf/kdkj Fkk ftldk iz;ksx izkFkhZ }kjk

ugha fd;k x;k] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj blh vk/kkj ij fookn dks vkS|ksfxd fookn dh

laKk ugha nh tk ldrh gSA

19-

;kph i{k }kjk cgl dh frfFk fnuakd 19-12-16 rd u dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ izys[kh; lk{;

izLrqr fd;k x;kA foi{k dh rjQ ls izys[kh; lk{; esa lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bfUM;k deZpkjh isa'ku fu;ekoyh 1995 dh QksVksizfr izLrqr

dh x;h gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ O;fDr ekSf[kd lk{; esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

20-

eSuas foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls cgl gsrq dksbZ

mifLFkr ugha vk;kA

21-

foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd ;kfpdk ds dFku dks fl) djus dk Hkkj ;kph ij gS rFkk ;kph dh rjQ ls dksbZ

izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vr% ;kfpdk dsoy blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS

fd ;kfpdk ds vuqlkj fnuakd 14-9-94 dks ;kph us viuk ias'ku vkI'ku Hkjdj fn;k ftls czkUp eSustj us 16-9-94 dks {ks=h; dk;kZy;

t;iqj Hkst fn;k] tks fof/kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd isa'ku ;kstuk 29-9-95 dks ykxw gqbZ gS blfy;s 14-9-94 dks

vkWI'ku QkeZ Hkjus dk iz'u ugha mBrk gS D;ksafd 29-9-95 ds iwoZ cSad }kjk dksbZ vkWI'ku ek¡xs tkus dk iz'u ugha mBrk gSA

22-

mYYks[kuh; gS fd fu;ekoyh ds izLrj 3 esa isa'ku ykxw gksus ds fy, fofHkUu Js.kh ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, fu;e cuk;s x;s gSA

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDRk dh frfFk fnukad 12-2-1994 rFkk isa'ku fu;ekoyh ds ykxw gksus dh frfFk fnukad 29-9-1995 dks n`f"Vxr j[k ;g Li"V

gS fd izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ esa fu;e 3(a), (b) vkSj 3 (c) izklafxd gS tks fuEuor~ gS % &

Application :- These regulations shall apply to employees who -

3 (a) are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Bank on

or after the notified date; and

(b) Exercise an option in writing one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of

the Fund;

alongwith the interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund constitued for the purpose under Regulation 5:

mDRk izkfo/kku ls ;g Li"V gS fd lEcfU?kr deZpkjh }kjk viuk vkI'ku QkeZ 29-9-95 ds ckn dh gh fdlh rkjh[k esa Hkjuk gS tks izkFkhZ

}kjk ;kfpdk ds dFkukuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl rF; dks fl) djus ds Hkkj ;kph ij gS fd mlus fnukad 29-9-95 ds ckn dh

frfFk esa viuk QkeZ Hkjk gS tks ;kph }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gWw fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS

fd lgk;d egkizcU/kd] t;iqj ds ek/;e ls lsUV~y cSad vkWQ bfUM;k ds izcU/kd }kjk izkFkhZ Jh Vh-,l-egkoj fu;kstu la[;k 89721

dks isa'ku Ldhe dk ykHk u nsus dk d`R; U;k; laxr ugha gSA ;kph Jh Vh-,l-egkoj ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh

;kfpdk ;kfpr vuqrks"k gsrq [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS ,oa rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ekuuh; eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq izsf"kr fjQjsUl dk mRrj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1653

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 778-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@162@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/162/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 2001

Between :

Sri P.K.Chauhan,

S/o Late A.S.Chauhan,

4/439, Anand Nagar,Shuklaganj,

UNNAO (UP)- 209801

And

The Regional Manager

Central Bank of India

117/H-1/240, Regional Office,

Pandu Nagar,

Kanpur(UP)-208005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification no. L-12012/162/2001-IR(-II) dated 07/12/2001, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.

Whether the disputant, Shr P.K.Chauhan, Assistant Manager / sub Accountant belonging to Junior Management

Grade Scale-I in the Central Bank of India is a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act 1947? If so

whether the action of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Kanpur in dismissal of the service of Sri P K Chauhan

Ex-JMG-1 w.e.f. 22.05.99 on the charges of fraud is justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to?

After receipt of reference order registered notices were issued to the parties connected with the dispute and both

sides appeared and filed their authorities to represent the case. The representative for the worker sought several

adjournments on one reason or the other for filing statement of claim on behalf of the workman.

Worker has filed claim statement and in reply management has filed written statement. After exchange of

pleading parties have filed documents and preliminary issued regarding fair ness of enquiry was framed. During

pendency of the case worker sri P.K.Chauhan has died and after his death his wife Smt. Nirmala Chauhan was

impleaded as party in his place to contest the dispute.

Smt. Nirmala Chauhan has moved application A/1-2 stating her husband has filed this case and after his death

she was impleaded as party in his place. As she is old lady and suffering from various deceases, she is not able to

contest the present I D case and she has no interest in contesting the present dispute and she wants to not press

proceeding of the case. Learned A.R. for management has endorsed no objection on it.

1654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As Smt. Nirmala Chauhan wife of worker who is made party in this case after death of worker is not ready to

contest the case on her personal grounds and requested to close the proceedings this tribunal has no option but to decide

the case against the worker and to pass award accordingly.

Therefore the reference is decided against the worker and in favour of management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 779-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 30@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@43@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12012/43/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 2016

Between :

The General Secretary

Union Bank Employees Union (U.P.)

628/M-33, Murari Nagar, RSM Nagar P.O.,

Faizabad Road

Lucknow – 226016

And

The Field General Manager

Union Bank of India

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow

AWARD

Central Government, MoL, vide notification no.L-12012/43/2016-IR(B-II) dated 28.06.2016, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in imposing punishment of stoppage of two

annual increments with cumulative effect on Shri Vivek Singh is just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?

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

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

case.

On 30.01.17, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

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

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1655

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

want of pleadings and proof.

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

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

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 780-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 104@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-03-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@109@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.03.2017.

[No. L-12011/109/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^thFebruary, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 104/2005

The General Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Regional Office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Employees Union,

C/o Gujarat Bank Employees Union,

Rahbar, 8, Jagnath Plot,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri P.S. Chari

For the Second Party

Shri Y.N. Pandya

AWARD

The

Government

India/Ministry

Labour,

New

Delhi

reference

adjudication

Order

No. L-12011/109/2005-IR(B-II), dated 31.10.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

1656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the department of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement

from service on Smt. Vinita B. Shah, Ex. Spl. Asstt. is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 31.10.2005. The second party workman filed the statement of claim Ex. 5 on

18.12.2006/25.01.2007 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 6. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 7

along with written statement Ex. 8 on 31.07.2007 and also submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 13 on

26.02.2016. Since then the second party workman has been absent and failed to lead evidence. On 19.01.2017, the

junior advocate Shri Bharat R. Mali to Shri Y.N. Pandya, advocate for second party workman took notice of the case

and sought last opportunity for leading evidence, therefore, the case was listed for 16.02.2017 for leading evidence by

second party as last opportunity but again on 16.02.2017, neither the second party workman appeared nor his advocate

Y.N. Pandya or his junior Bharat R. Mali responded to lead evidence on behalf of the second party workman. Thus it

appears that the second party workman has not been willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the tribunal has no alternative but to dispose of the reference in non-prosecution of the case by the

second party with the observation as under: “the action of the department of Syndicate Bank in imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service on Smt. Vinita B. Shah, Ex. Spl. Asstt. is legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 781-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 112@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 112/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 112/2009

Between:

Sri S. Odelu,

S/o Odelu,

Flat No.337, Bhupalpally,

Subhash Colony,

Bhupalpally (V) & (M), Warangal District

…Petitioner

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director (P.A. & W),

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

(A Government company )

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1657

The Chief General Manager (Personnel),

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

The Deputy General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

KTK-I Incline,

Bhupalpally, Warangal District

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally, Warangal District

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udayasree, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Madhusudhan, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Sri S. Odelu, the workman,

who worked as Haulage Operator(Surface) at KTK-I & IA Incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalpally against the management for his reinstatement into the service of the management with full back wages

and other relevant benefits or consequential benefits, after setting aside his termination.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the Respondent company on 23.9.1985 as Badli Filler at

Goleti-I Incline, Bellampally and he was promoted as Coal Filler vide proceeding dated 16.10.1987. Again, the

Respondent company issued proceedings dated 14.3.1988 confirming as Petitioner’s services as a Coal Filler and his

name was figured in the said proceedings at Sl.No.7., his services were promoted as Haulage Operator (UG), IV

category with the pay scale of Rs.42.18-1.32-60.65, Petitioner’s name was figured at Sl.No.2 in the said order and

posted him to KK-I and IA incline, Bhupalpally RG-4. Thereafter, the Respondent company has issued office order

dated 1.9.2002 redesignated the Petitioner’s services as Haulage Operator (Surface) at same place and Petitioner has

been discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. While so, he was issued with a chargesheet dated

12.6.2006 alleging certain irregularities. The enquiry was biasedly conducted on the basis of charge sheet without

giving any opportunity to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of lop sided enquiry erroneously held the

charges as proved against him. On the basis of erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed

from his service as per the office order dated 20.11.2006. As such, the dismissal order passed against the Petitioner is

entirely illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice.

The case of the Respondent as stated in their counter statement is that their company operates some mines, of

which the Central Government is the appropriate Government. In accordance with the averments of the Petitioner,

admittedly the Petitioner was appointed on 25.9.1985. In fact the charge sheet dated 12.6.2006 was issued to the

Petitioner for his misconducts under the company’s Standing Order Nos. 25.4, 25.19, 25.20 and 25.23. The Petitioner

has submitted his explanation. Later, an enquiry was initiated. The Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry, in

which he was given full and fair opportunity for his deeds/grievance. The Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled

against the Petitioner as proved. As such, the Respondent company was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for

misconducts committed by him under the company’s Standing Order Nos. 25.4, 25.19, 25.20 and 25.23.

In the instant case, as per order dated 23.9.2011, the validity of the domestic enquiry was held as legal and valid.

During the midst of hearing of the case at the consent of both the parties, the present case is placed before the

Chairman, Lok Adalat Bench on 18^th day of November, 2016. Wherein a settlement was arrived between the parties.

The Respondent management has been directed to take back the Petitioner workman to duty as Badli Worker

(Underground) afresh. In agreement of the above, the Parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions

in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat Bench and the order so passed has been annexed to this award as it is.

In view of the settlement arrived before Lok Adalat Bench, a no dispute award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court and corrected by me on this the 18^th day

of November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

1658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 782-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 73@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@53@4&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/53/4-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2014

Shri Badlu Alias Shankar,

S/o Ganna Singh

C/o Bimal Kirana, Shobhapur Colony,

Kailash Nagar, PO Pathakhera,

Tehsil & Distt. Betul (MP)

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

WCL, Satpura Mine No.2,

Pathakhera Area,

Tehsil & Distt Betul (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 14-8-14 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-22012/53/4-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited, Pathakhera Distt. Betul in dismissing

the services of workman Shri Badlu Alias Shankar S/o Shri Ganna Singh w.e.f. 24-4-05 is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Despite repeated efforts, workman could not be

served with notice. Even effort was made to serve notice to District Judge, Betul vide letter dated 25-4-16. No response

is received. Workman is proceeded exparte on 31-8-16.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1659

2^nd party management filed exparte Written Statement as well as affidavit of evidence. 2^nd party has contented

that workman has not appeared in the matter and filed statement of claim. That 2^nd party had offered employment to

Badlu who reported for duty on 26-10-79. Form B register was maintained under Mines Act. Workman was working as

Dresser at Dresser at Satpura Mine No.2 of WCL, PKD Area. The complaint was received that name of Ist party

workman was Shankar, s/o Ganna Gond, R/o Koalgaon. He was working with the management in name of Badlu, S/o

Ganna Singh. The real Badlu is the sarpanch of Koalgaon village for the last several years Shri Shankar is brother of

Badlu. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 21-11-2001. Shri O.P.Yadav was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Anjani

Kumar was appointed as Management Representative. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. After recording

evidence of management’s witnesses, Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charge against workman

was proved. Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. After issuing showcause notice dated 5-1-

05, punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman.

Affidavit is filed by management’s witness Shri Nikhil Nimje supporting whole contentions in statement of

claim. Zerox copy of document of enquiry is produced.

As workman has not participated in reference proceeding and has been proceeded exparte, I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of management’s witness. For above reasons, I hold action of management is legal. Workman is

not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 783-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 83@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@40@97&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/40/97-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/83/98

General Secretary,

SKMS (AITUC) ,

Post Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Tandsi Project, WCL,

Post Rampur, Damua,

Distt. Chhindwara

…Management

1660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 17^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 24-4-98 & corrigendum dated 11-8-05 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-22012/40/97-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Tandsi Project of WCL, Kanhan Area, Post Office Rampur, Village

Damua, Distt. Chhindwara in terminating the services of Shri Dadulal and 350 other stone cutters instead of

regularizing their services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Order of reference dated 24-4-98 was amended by

corrigendum dated 11-8-05 pertaining to legality of termination of services of Daddulal and 350 others instead of

regularizing their services is legal.

Statement of claim is filed on behalf of Ist party by the Union. Case of Ist party Union is that it has membership

in Kanhan Area of WCL. The Union safeguards interest and welfare of working class of coal industry. That WCL is

Government of India undertaking. It is required to act in just, fair and reasonable manner and deal with working class.

It is declared policy of Government to give employment and look after welfare of the industry. It is alleged contrary to

the declared Government policy, WCL, Kanhan Area has acted in a most illegal manner in not paying wages and

terminate services of Daddulal and others. That names of claimants, father’s name, age and other particulars are

mentioned in the list. That there were more than 600 coal mines in India owned by private collieries. There was

complete unfair labour practice by the management. Central Government therefore constituted a Central Wage Board

for the coal mining industry for deciding the service conditions. That coal wage Board was to consider and recommend

the service conditions and wage construction of all persons employed in the mine while directing or through

contractors. The Wage Board Recommendations were accepted by the coal industry.

That coal industry was subsequently nationalized. The wage structure were revised by various NCWA and the

wages of all employees were fixed by such agreement. That Ist party claimant Daddulal and 350 others name shown in

Annexure A were employed by WCL in Tandsi Project, Kanhan Area from 17-10-92 for stone cutting, earth cutting

etc. The claimants were working in underground. All the persons were employed in mine. Their service conditions are

covered by Board NCWA. The claimants are in Group IV and were entitled to wages of Group IV since beginning. The

claimants were employed under direct supervision and control of WCL. There working was supervised by Manager,

Assistant Manager, Under Manager, Mining Sirdar, overman etc. that management is claiming that said work has been

given to MECL on contract basis is incorrect. The contract work is specifically prohibited in earth cutting, stone cutting

and other connected jobs in coal mines as per notification issued in 1975. Even otherwise the work is of permanent

nature and coal mines have employed permanent worker for such work in colliery whenever mine is open. The work

can only be given to regular employee. That management not obtained registration nor MECL had taken contract.

Management did not have any agreement with MECL. If such agreement is there, it is null and void. That all claimants

are employees of WCL. It is further contented that management was bound to give Group IV wages to the claimants.

The same was denied without justification. Management is liable to Group IV wages with interest to all the claimants

by WCL.

Ist party further submitted that 350 claimants were employed by WCL. WCL being a state in terminating

service of employees only by order in writing by Competent Authority. No order of terminating services of claimant

has been issued. Therefore they are deemed in service and entitled to wages. Claimant workman were employed for

unlimited period in regular vacancy on permanent post. They have completed more than 3 months service. Therefore

they are deemed to be permanent workman. Their services could be terminated without following laid down procedure

in standing order. The claimant workman were not served with notice of letter of termination. There was no termination

of their services. That management has provided employment given to the persons who work for few days as casual

employees. Management of WCL employed them. Work of earth cutting, stone cutting is done by permanent

employees of WCL.

Ist party further contends that by Agreement dated 17-7-84, 243 persons worked for few days as casual were

provided employment. By arbitration award by Shri S.D.Pandey, 334 persons were provided employment. It is

practice and procedure of the company to provide regular employment given through artificial contractor. The Union

has taken up case for giving regular employment to claimants. Management deliberately refused to give employment

to them only on political provisions as the workers represented by Union. When the workers were represented by

INTUC, BMS Union, employment was provided even if the present work for few days as casuals. Act of the

management is discriminatory, unfair. Government adopted unreasonable attitude not referring the matter. The ratio

held in AIR-1989-SC-1565 has been referred contending that all the claimants are entitled to regular employment.

Their oral termination of the services of claimants from 10-12-95 is illegal. The claimants be deemed in service orally

stopping claimants from work is violative of Section 25-F, G, H, N of ID Act. It amounts to retrenchment. No

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1661

permission for retrenchment was taken by 2^nd party therefore it is void up initio. That management has provided

employment to about 40,000 persons as per press statement. Union members were not given employment despite they

had preference in employment., management is continuing to give employment. The claimants are kept out of

employment without any justification. On such grounds, Ist party prays for reinstatement and regularization of all the

claimants.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 18/1 to 18/10 opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that the

term of reference is patently illegal as the appropriate Government has gone into disputed questions of fact while

making the reference. The reference is contrary to the dispute raised and submissions made by the management. The

reference being incorrect is liable to be rejected. Order of reference shows Government decided employer employee

relationship existing and there was a termination. This is factually incorrect. The claimants were never employed by

the management of WCL for any period. They cannot be regularized. The claimants were not in employment of WCL.

The reference is made mechanically without application of mind. It is further submitted that the particulars of the

beneficiaries are not given for purpose of identification. The identification of claimants is disputed as per the list

attached in statement of claim. The addresses of claimants are shown as address of Union. Individual’s present address/

permanent address is not given. Service particulars who engaged claimants, nature of job, period of deployment,

particulars of wages are not given. The reference is vague. It is reiterated that reference is highly prejudicial to the

management. Writ Petition No. 14081/05 was filed by management before Hon’ble High Court MP, Jabalpur. Hon’ble

High Court clarified that the Tribunal shall also decide all the disputed questions raised by the parties before it.

2^nd party further submits that reference was raised claiming regular employment by Shri Arun Kumar Dixit and

74 others in R/197/98 and present reference raised by General Secretary of SKMS Union. The names of 21 claimants

are identical as shown in Para-7 of the Written Statement. That even after application submitted by management. That

contractor is necessary party. Without impleading contractor, claim under dispute cannot be decided against principal

employer. It is contented that Ist party claimants who establish that they were engaged by contractor, their claim cannot

be sustained. That claim by Ist party Union is fabricated. Coal India is registered under Indian Company’s Act owned

by Government of India having several subsidiaries like SECL, WCL, NCL etc. the wage structure of the employees

are covered by NCWA. That appointment in CIL is covered by statutory rules and regulations. Person seeking

employment in CIL has to undergo the procedure prescribed for regular appointment. Appointment to the lower cadre

can be done through Employment Exchange. Claimants cannot violate constitutional right to employment of other

persons. It is violative of Article 16(1) of the constitution. It is reiterated that persons who are engaged purely on

temporary basis as stop gap arrangement without following procedure for permanent appointment. Recruitment in coal

industry is prohibited by Government except on compassionate ground. Union raised present dispute for securing

appointment to the claimants through back door entry is not permissible.

That management issued tender notice No.1 of 93-94 for execution of work of drivage of incline No.3,4 of

Tandsi Project. The details of work under tender are given in Para 18 of Written Statement. Work was awarded to M/S

Shanti Kumar Sancheti Engineers and contractors. The work order was issued to contractor on 8-2-94 for amount of

Rs.10,18,43,000. Letter of intent was issue3d on 5-11-83. Agreement was executed between management and

contractor on 8-2-94. The work completion certificate was issued on 23-3-96. The work awarded to contractor is not of

prohibited category. Notification dated 21-6-88 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour. Said notification

restricts and prohibits driving of stone in underground doesnot specifically or by implication prohibited driving of

stone drifts on surface. In said notification, driving of stone drifts underground which could not be detected has been

permitted. The work of driving of stone drift is of temporary nature and could be undertaken for winning coal. The

work of WCL is not mining of stone but it has to make arrangement for mining of coal by removing obstacles. It is

reiterated that the work under tender given to the contractor is not prohibited. The work awarded to contractor doesnot

fall within prohibited category of Notification dated 1-2-75. The contractor had obtained the valid licence under

CL(R&A)Act. The contractor engaged labours for execution of work. Labours engaged by contractor cannot claim

employment with Principal Employer. Management of SECL had no control over the labours engaged by contractors.

Management shad no role about engagement and termination of services of labours engaged by contractor. The

contractor was to follow labour legislations w.r.t. labours engaged by him as per the terms of agreements. The workers

engaged by contractor were engaged for civil construction job. Provisions of Mines Act 1952 is not sham. There is no

question of denial or depriving right of claimants. 2^nd party further reiterates that claim of Union that workers are

deemed as employees of WCL is incorrect. That notification dated 1-2-75 is amended on 26-6-88. The work carried out

by contractor is of civil nature. The workers deployed by contractor are not covered by NCWA. It is reiterated that

claimants were not engaged by WCL. NCWA is not applicable. It is admitted that contract was not given to MECL.

The arbitration award by S.C.Pandey is not applicable to the case. It is denied that the management provides

employment discriminating on political ground, the allegations are false. That management has not violated any law.

The allegations are made by claimants for serving employment through backdoor which is not permissible. On such

ground, 2^nd party submits that claim of Ist party is not tenable. Reference is bad. Union has no locus. Claim under

reference be rejected.

1662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide claim for

regularization. All adverse contentions made in the Written Statement have been denied. The contentions in Para 16 to

32, 34 to 50 have been denied.

11.

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 Tandsi

Project of WCL, Kanhan Area, Post Office Rampur,

Village Damua, Distt. Chhindwara in terminating

the services of Shri Dadulal and 350 other stone

cutters instead of regularizing their services is legal

and justified?

In Affirmative

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

Claimants are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

12.

As stated above, the order of reference was amended by issuing corrigendum. The term of reference pertains to

termination of services of claimants instead of regularising their services. In statement of claim, claimants have claimed

they were employed by WCL and management was claiming that the work was given to MECL on contract basis is

incorrect. In Written Statement Para 10 onwards, it is stated that issuing tender notice No. 1/93-94, work was awarded

to M/S Shanti Kumar Sancheti. Agreement was executed on 8-2-94. In rejoinder, 2^nd party has outright denied the

contentions. There is no pleading by Ist party that contract/ agreement between management and Shanti Kumar

Sancheti is sham, bogus rather all claimants claims to be engaged by WCL and as such employees of WCL itself.

13.

Affidavit of evidence are filed by Shri Chandrashekhar, Altab, Daddulal, Firoz. All the witnesses of Ist party

have stated that they were working in Tandsi Project during 93 to 95. Work of stone drifting was taken from them.

They were working in 3 shifts. Work of stone drifting was carried under directions of management. They were

disengaged from work on 31-12-95. All the witnesses of Ist party claimants were acquainted with other claimants.

Other claimants were working with them for project of stone drifting. They are unemployed after their disengagement

from 31-12-95. Chandrashekhar in his cross says he was doing work of stone drifting. Management had given

promotion. Management had taken back the letter of promotion from him. He denied to have given false evidence.

14.

Altab in his cross says he has studied Vth standard. He was working in 3 shifts. His shifts were changed. He

was doing work of drifting stone. He denied that 2^nd party was only engaged in coal products and not in stone drifting

work. He claims ignorance about contractor Sancheti. He was doing work of stone drifting underground. Appointment

letter was not issued to him by the management. He did not remember. He denies that the work of stone drifting was

given to the contractor. He denied that he was engaged by contractor. He was engaged on work by Mr. Subbarao. Since

long, he had not seen Mr. Subbarao. For purpose of work in mine, form were filled by him. I card was given to him

which was taken back. I card was with him for 5-6 days. He has not produced any documents in the case.

15.

Daddulal in his cross denies that he was working under contractor. Before engaging him on work, appointment

letter was not given to him. He carried work of drifting stone. He was not doing work of stone drifting under contractor.

He did not remember who had engaged him on work. He claims ignorance whether any form is required to be filled

before working in the mine. He denies that he did not work under the management.

16.

Shri Firoz in his cross says he had not received appointment letter. He denies that he was not engaged by the

management.

17.

Affidavit of evidence of Shri Bhatwat Arse is filed but he has not appeared for his cross, his evidence cannot be

considered.

18.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Subbarao. His affidavit is devoted on the point he was Manager

of Tandsi Project of WCL during 1988 to 1996. Claimants were not employed by the management. There was no

employer employee relationship. That particulars of claimants are not given in the list annexed with order of reference.

Their identification is not enough. That in coal India and its subsidiaries, appointment are covered by statutory rules

and regulations. Appointment should be done through local Employment Exchange. Claimants were not appointed by

Competent Authority , their names were not sponsored through Employment Exchange. In Para 10 of his affidavit, he

has given details of common names of 21 claimants in R/197/98, 83/98. That as per tender notice No. 1/93-94, work of

drivage of incline No.3,4 was given to contractor Shanti Kumar Sancheti. Particulars of work are to be executed are

given in para 13 of the affidavit. That on completion of work, notice was displayed inviting objections pertaining to

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1663

non-payment of wages. No objection was received. That Tandsi Project was opened in 1986, Form B Register of

employees were maintained. From evidence of management’s witness Form B Register Exhibit M-9 are admitted in

evidence. Management’s witness in his cross says original Form B Register is in custody of Personal Officer. The

zerox copy of Form B register was not obtained in his presence. He denies that zerox copies were not tallied with

original Form B Register. He had tallied zerox copies randomly. All the zerox copies were not tallied with Form B

also claims ignorance who was making payments to claimants. Claimants were not employees of 2^nd party. He was

regularly inspecting mine during his tenure. During his posting, Shri S.B.Katiyal was not working as Personal Officer.

In his further cross, management’s witness was unable to tell the claimants were doing work of stone drifting in Tandsi

Project during 93 to 95. He doesnot know whether claimants were working under contractor. Claimants were not

engaged for work of stone drifting by management. Management’s witness in his further cross admit that Form B

in custody of personal officer of contractor.

19.

Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 is intimation about publication in newspaper. M-2(a to e) are

tender notice. Exhibit M-2 is tender notice No. 1 of 93-94, In M-3, the details of tender notice No. 1/93-94 are given.

The work is shown drivage of incline shaft estimated value is 5.5 crore. The terms and conditions are annexed with it.

Exhibit M-4 is the article of agreement. M-5 is letter of intend dated 5-11-93. The distribution of work is shown drivage

of incline Shaft No.3,4. The details of the work to be executed. Exhibit M-6 is letter dated 8-2-94 issued to the

contractor Shanti Kumar Sancheti details of work to be executed quantity, rates and amount is mentioned. Exhibit M-7

is completion certificate. The details of the work completed, period are mentioned. Exhibit M-8 is copy of M-7.

20.

The claimants have not produced any document that they were engaged by WCL. Evidence of the witnesses of

Ist party is silent about the contractor M/S Shanti Kumar Sancheti engaged, said contractor was sham and bogus.

Evidence of management’s witness is silent w.r.t. under whose supervision, they were working, who were making

payments to them, who were giving instructions for their work. Any document about appointment and payment of

wages is also not produced by the claimants. Management produced documents Exhibit M-1 to 8,. No suggestion is

given to the management witness that the contractor was bogus or sham.

21.

When the case was fixed for argument, learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.Yadav though present not submitted

any argument.

22.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submitted copies of award in R/197/98, 60/2004 for my perusal.

The dispute under reference needs to be decided considering the evidence adduced on record.

23.

Shri A.K.Shashi submitted bunch of citation in case between

Oshiar Prasad and others versus Employers in relation to management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of BCCL,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand reported in 2015-I-LLJ-513(SC), General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills,

Rajnandgaon versus Bharat Lal and another reported in 2011(1)SCC-635. The ratio held in the case deals with

absorption of contract labours and control, supervision etc. employee has to aver and prove that he was paid salary by

principal and not by contractor. No such pleadings and evidence is found on record.

24.

Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case between-

State of Himachal Pradesh versus Suresh Kumar Verma reported in 1996(2)SLR-321., Accounts Officer (A&I),

APSRTC & ors versus KJ.V.Ramana and others reported in AIR-2007-SC-1166, Surendra Nagar District Panchayat

versus Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750, State of Rajasthan versus Sarjeet Singh and another

reported in 2007-I-LLJ-236, International Airport Authority of India versus International Air Cargo Workers Union

and another reported inn 2009(13)SCC-374. The detailed discussion of ratio held in all those cases is not necessary as

the evidence of Ist party about engagement of claimants by WCL is not supported by any documents. Evidence of

witnesses of Ist party is silent about the contract between management of WCL & contractor Shanti Kumar Sancheti is

sham, bogus or who was paying wages to them etc. Evidence of Ist party cannot establish that they were employees

of WCL or their services were illegally terminated violating ID Act. Claimants have failed to establish that they were

employees of WCL. Therefore their claim for regularization cannot be upheld. Contractor is not impleaded as party

despite application submitted by management. Though clear averments made in statement of claim, in rejoinder, Ist

party has not pleaded that the contract between management of WCL and contractor was sham and bogus. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

25.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The engagement or termination of the claimants/ workmen by management of WCL is not established.

(2)

Claimants are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

1664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 784-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@313@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/313/2002-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2003

Shri Bechanram S/o Shri Najaruram,

Sr.Clerk,

C/o Western Coalfields Ltd.,

PK.I Mine, Post Pathakhera,

Distt. Betul (MP)

Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

PO Pathakhera,

Distt. Betul (MP)

Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 7^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 9-5-2003 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-

22012/313/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Western Coalfields Ltd., Pathakhera in dismissing Shri Bechanram from services

w.e.f. 25-3-2002 and not granting the consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 8/1

to 8/6. Case of workman is that he was employed as Sr.Clerk in WCL at Pathakhera, Distt. Betul. He was initially

employed as time keeper in 1964. Workman was dismissed from service while holding post of Sr.clerk. He claims his

service record was excellent free from any stigma. That workman was associated with Union holding post of General

Secretary of RKKMS, INTUC while workman was posted at PK-1 Mine of WCL. Chargesheet was served on him on

29-9-01 alleging misconduct that alongwith chargesheet, any document was not received by him pertaining to articles

of charges. On 3-10-01, he had requested management of PK-1 Mine Pathakhera to supply copies of articles pertaining

to the charges to enable him to prepare his defence. However his request was not considered. He was forged to submit

reply. Workman had denied charges against him. He had alleged the action of management was malafide on instigation

of certain unwanted persons.

Ist party workman further submits one Anil Garg President of Pathakhera was declared personal non-grata by

administration. Ist party workman was having family relations with Anil Garg and used to visit his house. Management

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1665

of WCL was annoyed by it. The workman was directed not to visit house of Anil Garg who is lawyer at Betul. Writ

Petition 3946/98 was filed by Anil Garg vide order dated 5-8-02. The order declaring Anil Garg Person on non-grata

was set aside. Management of WCL was not happy with decision and orders passed by Hon’ble High Court.

Management decided to hold enquiry against workman. Enquiry was only paper arrangement. Management had

decided to dismiss him from service. Chargesheet was issued on 29-1-01. Enquiry commenced on 20-11-01 and

concluded on 4-3-02. Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority did not provide him copies of articles of charges and

documents despite his request. Meanwhile workman fell seriously ill and requested to adjourn enquiry. He also wanted

further expert treatment. He was admitted in medical college hospital, Nagpur and not attend Enquiry Proceeding on 6-

12-01. He had not received notice of enquiry held on 29-1-01, 25-2-02. Public notice was not received by him. Enquiry

was fixed on 2-3-02. On 7-3-03, he requested management to postpone enquiry. However the enquiry was proceeded

exparte. Enquiry Officer Manoj submitted his findings on 4-3-02 holding workman guilty. It is reiterated that enquiry

conducted against him without giving him proper opportunity is illegal. Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. There

is no cogent evidence to support punishment against him. That without submitting Enquiry Report alongwith

showcause notice, punishment of dismissal imposed against him is illegal. Order of dismissal order dated 25-3-02 was

passed in casual manner. Enquiry is vitiated. Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. On such ground, workman prays

for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that initially

workman was appointed on 25-11-65 at Pathakhera mine No.1 of WCL. He was working as Sr. Clerk in said mine.

Management had issued order dated 5-5-98 declaring Anil Garg as person non-grata for his involvement in antisocial

activities. He was prohibiting from entering in premises of WCL. As per news item published in “Rohit Prakashan”

chargesheet was issued to Ist party workman dated 29-9-0. The misconduct alleged against workman was under clause

26.3, 22, 35 of standing orders. Reply submitted by workman was found unsatisfactory. As per order dated 18-10-01,

Shri G.C.Pandey personal Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Manoj Mishra Survey Inspector was appointed

as Management Representative. Enquiry was held on 20-11-01, 21-12-01, 29-1-01, 25-2-01. Memos of enquiry sent to

workman were received unserved. After notice was issued in Daily Nav Bharat on 26-5-02, workman or his defence

representative not appeared in Enquiry proceedings. Management Representative adduced evidence of witness Shri

S.K.Mudafare, Ramkishore Pawar, Suresh Pandaya, Devdatt Vohra, Hariram Chouhan after enquiry was proceeded

exparte. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding workman guilty. The findings of Enquiry Officer were issued

alongwith showcause notice dated 7-3-02 to workman. Showcause notice was issued by RPAD. Envelope was received

back undelivered. As per order dated 25-3-02, workman was dismissed from service.

Workman had filed Writ Petition 1247/03 before Hon’ble MP High Court contending his appeal was not

decided by the management. Hon’ble High Court directed management to consider his appeal and pass the order. The

Appellate Authority considering the facts ad circumstances gravity of misconduct committed by workman dismissed

appeal vide order dated 17-2-02. Workman was involved in anti management activities, disobedience of lawful orders,

creating problems in business of the management. 2^nd party has reiterated that despite of repeated notices issued to Ist

party workman, he remained absent, enquiry was proceeded exparte.

Considering findings of Enquiry Officer and charges proved against workman, punishment of dismissal was

imposed. Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. It is denied that findings of Enquiry Officer are

perverse. On such ground, 2^nd party management reiterates that claim of workman be rejected.

As per order dated 24-10-13, enquiry conducted against Ist party was found proper and legal.

Considering pleadings between parties and orders on preliminary issue, 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 are proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Negative

(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

Vide order dated 24-10-13, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper. In view of my

finding that enquiry conducted against workman is legal, question remains for consideration is whether charges alleged

1666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charges alleged against workman pertains to

disobeying orders of superior authorities under Clause 26.30 committing act of indiscipline , clause 26.22 disclosing

confidential information by employees of company under clause 26.36. the substance of allegation against workman

was that Shri Anil Garg who was declared as person non-grata i.e. person unwanted in the premises of the 2^nd party was

prohibited from entering the premises. In Enquiry Proceedings, statements of management’s representative Shri

S.K.Mudafare, Ramkishore Pawar, Suresh Pandaya, Devdatt Vohra, Hariram Chouhan were recorded on the point that

Ist party workman CSE was in contact with Anil Garg and used to hold meeting with him at his residence engaged in

activities against the company. The order declaring Anil person non-grata is set-aside by Hon’ble High Court in Writ

Petition No. 3946/98 vide order dated 5-8-02, copy produced at Exhibit W-3. In para 14 of the judgment, their Lordship

observed respondents have no right to change the moment of petitioner i.e. Anil Garg at public places. The respondents

can restrict only in their office and actual work place where treatment is required. The very basis for the charges

alleged against workman has been set-aside by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3946/98. Therefore the charge against

workman cannot be said proved.

10.

At this stage, learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submitted application under Rule-15 requesting

permission to lead evidence on other issues. The record shows after DE against workman was held proper and legal

vide order dated 24-10-3, evidence of workman on other issues was closed on 13-8-14. Shri A.K.shashi for

management submitted not to adduce evidence on other issues. Case was repeatedly fixed for argument from 18-11-14

to 2-2-17. The application is not justified. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No1 in Negative.

11.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, misconduct alleged against workman are not proved. Question

remains for consideration whether Ist party workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Ist party workman

has not adduced evidence in the reference. There is absolutely no evidence whether after dismissal of Ist party

workman, he was in gainful employment. Normally when workman is dismissed and charges are not proved,

reinstatement with backwages needs to be allowed. As workman has not participated in reference proceeding, there is

absolutely no evidence about his unemployment after dismissal from service. Considering those aspects, reinstatement

of Ist party with 25 % backwages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Western Coalfields Ltd., Pathakhera in dismissing Shri Bechanram from services w.e.f.

25-3-2002 and not granting the consequential benefits is not legal and proper.

(2)

Dismissal of workman is set-aside. 2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service

with 25 % backwages.

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

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

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 785-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@9@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/9/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1667

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2014

Joint Mahamantri,

Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Shramik Shakti Bhawan,

PO Chandametta,

Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,

Tehsil Junnardev,

Chhindwara

…Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 17^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 27-3-14 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-

22012/9/2014-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager, WCL, Kanhan Area, Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara in not paying

half Daily Allowance since July 2012 as per Rule 11.2.2 of Regulation of Daily Allowance applicable in WCL

to Shri Mohd. Yakub S/o Mohd. Usman- Driver, Sher Mohd. S/o Sher Amjad- Driver, Smt. Dasharibai S/o

Sukku and Smt.Jheeni bai w/o Suresh is proper and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Despite notice dated 30-3-14, 6-4-15, 29-12-15, 21-

7-6, 18-10-16, Ist party workman failed to appear. Ist party workman was proceeded exparte in the reference as per

order dated 24-11-16.

2^nd party management filed exparte Written Statement as well as evidence on affidavit. In exparte Written

Statement filed by management of 2^nd party, it is contented that the relief claimed by Union under Rule 11.2.2 of

Regulation of Daily Allowance, the claimants are not entitled to such allowance. Union has misunderstood and

misinterpreted said regulation resulting in present dispute. That the Drivers and conductors of the school bus are

divided into two shifts. Their duty hours are 8 hours in a shift. The Drivers and Conductors deployed in school bus are

required to report for duty by 6 AM and leave with bus by 6.30 AM from Nandan by collecting the students from

Damua, Ghorawari, Dungaria and Sukri and to reach Chandametta around 8.15 to 8.30 AM. The said bus leave the

school premises alongwith small children/ students around 12 pm reach Dungaria by 12.40 to 1.00 PM. The 2^nd shift

second staff drivers/ conductor board the bus by at Dungaria. The first shift staff driver/ conductor receive Nandan by 2

pm. Accordingly the first shift staff are deployed from 6 am to 2 pm. The 2^nd shift conductor/ cleaner conductor put

their attendance by 12 pm reach Dungaria by 1 pm. They leave for Chandametta to bring the children. The second shift

bus leave Chandametta by 2.30 pm to 3 pm reach back by 5.00 to 5.30 pm after leaving the children/ students. Thereby

the 2^nd shift staff also deployed for 8 hours duty. 2^nd party submits that claimants are not entitled to allowances as per

the regulation.

2^nd party filed affidavit of evidence of Shri R.S.Pawar supporting above contentions in Written Statement filed

by management.

Ist party have not participated in reference proceeding. For above reasons, I hold that action of management is

proper and legal.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, WCL, Kanhan Area, Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara in not paying half

Daily Allowance since July 2012 as per Rule 11.2.2 of Regulation of Daily Allowance applicable in

WCL to Shri Mohd. Yakub S/o Mohd. Usman- Driver, Sher Mohd. S/o Sher Amjad- Driver, Smt.

Dasharibai S/o Sukku and Smt.Jheeni bai w/o Suresh is legal and proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

1668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 786-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@188@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/188/2002-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/2003

Secretary,

Bhartiya KhadanMazdoor Sangh,

PO Haldibadi,

Distt. Korea (Chhattisgarh)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL,

PO Chirimiri, Distt. Korea,

Korea, Chhattisgarh

…Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 15^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 9-5-2003 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-22012/188/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, E&M Helper, Category II at Chirimiri Colliery of SECL

(represented by Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh) for regularization as Turner Category-V with retrospective

effect i.e. since 1996 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief he is entitled to?”

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

Page 6/1 to 6/4 on behalf of workman Jai Prakash Sharma. The case of Ist party is that workman was appointed as

Trade Apprentice in 1991. After completion of apprenticeship, he was observed as Mazdoor Category I vide order

dated 9-7-92. Workman was promoted as E&M Helper Category II w.e.f. 1-4-96 order dated 24-4-96. Since very

beginning of absorption of workman as Category -I mazdoor, he was engaged to work as Turner. Since 1996,

workman was continuously performing work of turner efficiently. He was paid acting allowance of turner Category V

regularly. It is further submitted that because of his regular appointment in work of turner since date of his appointment

and his designation as E&M Helper is out of scope of cadre scheme. That several representations were submitted by

workman in his personal capacity, through Union claiming regularization on post of Turner category V but there was

no response from the management. Union taken up the matter with the management in a meeting dated 2-11-96 for

discussion no conclusion was reached. The matter was also taken for discussion in meeting dated 20-11-98, 4-2-99.

Strike notice was given dated 5-2-99 pursuing demand for regularization to workman Jai Prakash on behalf of Turner

Category V. during discussion held on 17-3-99, management had undertaken to regularize workman in post of Turner

Category V within 2-3 months. However said promise was not acted by the management. Union had given letter dated

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1669

8-9-00 pursuing the demand for regularization of Ist party workman. As the claim was not settled, dispute was raised

and reference has been made. Ist party Union prays that workman Jaiprakash be regularized on behalf of Turner

Category V since 1996.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party management contends that it is

registered under Company’s Act. The service conditions of the employees in coal industry are covered by NCWA.

Cadre scheme is formulated in the matter for promotional channels for each cadre. Decision of JBCCI are followed by

Implementation instructions. The promotional channel of E&M Helper to Turner is circulated by II No.30 dated 26-6-

84. For promotion, minimum qualifications, eligibility etc. ae provided. Claimant workman as initially appointed as

Trade Apprentice on 17-9-90. After one year apprentice, he was absorbed as Mazdoor Category I vide order dated 9-7-

92. Service Book of claimant workman is maintained as per recommendations of DP. The claimant workman was

promoted to the post of E&M Helper Category II from 1-4-96. He was also promoted to Turner, Category IV. On 26-1-

2006, claimant workman was promoted from Turner Category V to Turner Category VI. The matter was discussed with

the Union for redressing the claim by Union. 2^nd party submits that promotions are governed by cadre scheme.

Workman was given opportunity to learn work of turner for gathering experience competing for promotion. Because

the complainant workman was given opportunity to learn the work of turner doesnot give him right for regularization,

claimant is not entitled for any relief. 2^nd party submits workman has no right for regularization. The claim of workman

be rejected.

Ist party Union filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

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 Shri Jai Prakash Sharma,

E&M Helper, Category II at Chirimiri Colliery of

SECL ( represented by Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh) for regularization as Turner Category-V

with retrospective effect i.e. since 1996 is legal and

justified?

In Negative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of demand of Union for regularization of claimant Jai Prakash Sharma

on post of Turner Category-V. claimant workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in statement of

claim. That he was appointed as trade apprentice in 1991. He was absorbed in Category I mazdoor on 9-7-92. Since day

of his absorption, he was performing work of turner. He was paid acting allowance of Turner Category V and relies

copies of pay slips. His representation for regularization on post of Turner Category V were not considered though he

was paid acting allowance, management informed Union that they had promoted all workers who were acting on

higher post in July 1995, remaining workers would be promoted on the basis of vacancy. In his cross-examination, he

says his affidavit is in English. He is not aware of whole of its contents. Claim is raised by him for seniority for 1996,

dispute raised in 2001. The promotions are given under cadre scheme, cadre scheme for different categories are

introduced. He is not aware which cadre scheme is applicable to him. He was appointed as apprentice in 1990. He was

absorbed as General Mazdoor in 1992. On recommendation of DPC, he was promoted as E&M Cat-II in 1996. He was

promoted to Electrical Category IV. In 2006, he was promoted to E&M Category VI. E&M Turner can be promoted to

the post of turner. Seniority and promotions are different. After his re-examination documents Exhibit W-1 to W-9

copies of representations are admitted in evidence. His cross examination is devoted on the point that he had submitted

Exhibit W-2 to the management. Exhibit W-43,5 were handed over by him to dispatch clerk.

The evidence of management’s witness Shri B.M.Rao on the affidavit supports the contentions of the

management in Written Statement. That claimant workman was promoted on recommendations of DPC as per the

cadre scheme. Witness of management remained absent for cross examination, as such his evidence could not be

considered.

Management’s witness Harendra Singh filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions in Written

Statement filed by the management. From his evidence, documents Exhibit M-3 to M-7 are admitted in evidence.

Management’s witness in his cross says claimant was working as turner Category V. he also admits that workman was

promoted to the post of Turner Cat-V in 2003. Order is not produced on record. Entry is taken in service book. Prior to

promotion of claimant in Category V, he was paid acting allowance. Management’s witness was shown willingness to

1670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

produce documents relating to payment of acting allowance. Witness of management admitted that amount of acting

allowance was paid to workman as he worked in Turner Category V. he has no personal information. Workman

worked as turner since 1992. He admits as per demand of Union, workman was paid acting allowance from 1996.

Documents produced by claimant workman Exhibit W-1 pay slip, Exhibit W-2 to 5 are representations

submitted pursuing permission to the post of turner Category V. Exhibit W-6 is copy of discussion between Union and

management dated 14-11-96. Exhibit W-8 is notice for strike. Exhibit W-10 is letter dated 31-8-95 send by the

management informing that the workers working on higher post were promoted in July 1995. The promotions to the

employees acting in 1996 would be given on available vacancies.

10.

The documents produced by management Exhibit M-3 is cadre scheme, eligibility prescribed for post of

Turner Category V is literate, skills is required in wage board and trade test specifications, 4 years experience as helper

in Category II, 2 years experience in case of ITI and Matriculate as Trainee Helper in Cat-II, the mode of promotion is

on recommendation by DPC. Exhibit M-4 is appointment letter of claimant workman as apprentice, Exhibit M-1 is

order dated 9-7-92 absorbing claimant workman as Mazdoor Category I. Exhibit M-2 is copy of service book, M-5 is

office order dated 24-4-99 workman was absorbed as E&M Helper Category II. Exhibit M-6 is order dated 16-4-96.

Workman was promoted as Turner Helper Category II. Exhibit M-7 is order dated 26-1-06 claimant workman was

promoted to Turner Category-V. The mode of promotion to the post of Turner Category V is on recommendation by

DPC. Claimant workman was not recommended by DP in 1996. The claimant is promoted to the post of Turner

Category V in 2006 on recommendation of DP. The evidence on record clearly shows that for working as Turner

Category V, acting allowance was paid to the workman. Merely performing the work of Category V does not give

claimant right for promotion to said post. For above reasons, demand of Union for regularizing claimant Jai Prakash

Sharma on post of Turner Category V from 1996 is not legal. Point No.1 is answered in Negative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The demand of Union for regularization of Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, E&M Helper, Category II at

Chirimiri Colliery of SECL as Turner Category-V with retrospective effect i.e. since 1996 is not legal

and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 787-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 92@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@41@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/41/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2008

Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,

S/o Shri Umadatt Shukla,

Guard, J&K Area,

Annuppur

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1671

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,

PO Jasmuna,

Annuppur (MP)

…Management

A W A R D

Passed on this 10^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 30-6-08 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-22012/41/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Rajendra Prasad

Shukla from service w.e.f. 21-6-05 is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?”

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

Page 2/1 to 2/7. Case of workman is that he was appointed as security guard in 1975 at SECL, J&K Area. He was

residing in Qr. No. 524 double storied. Workman further submits on 29-3-05, he was out of station. Ramawati Kewat

was in his quarter as a lady servant. Around 9.15 AM, Security Officer P.S.Gill entered in his house and tried to

outrage the modesty of Smt. Kalavati. He committed heinous crime and escaped. When he returned to his house,

Kalavati narrated said incident to him. Out of humanity, he helped Kalavati for lodging FIR to police filing complaint

before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Said proceeding was progressive. He further submits that because of said incident,

Shri Gill, Security Officer was annoyed as Ist party workman helped Kalavati. It is alleged that workman was

malafidely implicated alleging assault in drunken condition on Gill as chargesheet was issued to workman on 31-3-05

alleging misconduct under clause 26.4, 26.18 of standing orders of SECL. That he was not on duty on the day of

alleged incident. That enquiry was conducted against him and punishment of dismissal was imposed against him vide

order dated 25-6-05. Ist party workman submits that enquiry was not conducted following principles of natural justice.

The punishment of dismissal imposed against him is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Enquiry

was conducted against him with malafide motive to coverup the heinous act committed by Mr. Gill Security Officer.

FIR was lodged against Mr. Gill on 30-3-05. Chargesheet was issued on 31-3-05 alleging incident of 29-3-05. That the

chargesheet issued to him and the order of his dismissal is outcome of the incident. Act committed by Gill on 29-3-05

outraging modesty of the lady. There were many complaints against officer Mrt.Gill. Smt. Kalavati was the important

witness. Workman had given application for recording her statement. Said application was rejected. Enquiry was

conducted in violation of natural justice. Before imposing punishment of dismissal, his past service record was not

considered. Workman had no adverse record. The authorities did not act imparsively. The chain of incident was not

considered. The witnesses produced by management were subordinate employees under Mr.Gill, Security Officer.

Though the charge was alleged that workman was drunken, he was not referred for medical examination, said charge

could not be proved. Punishment of dismissal imposed against him is illegal. Appellate Authority also failed to

consider all those aspects. On such ground, workman prays for setting aside order of his dismissal and reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

2^nd management filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/7 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that

workman was working as security guard, he was initially appointed on 3-12-75. On 29-3-05, he was on duty around

10 PM, workman was found intoxicated by Area Security Officer during night patrolling. Security Officer asked him

why workman come consuming liquor. It is alleged that on that workman starts abusing in filthy language at place of

his duty. Thereafter workman went to residence of Security Officer, abused Area Security Officer at his residence. The

acts committed by workman amounts to misconduct. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 31-3-05 under clause

26.24, 25.16 of certified standing orders. Ist party workman submitted reply to chargesheet, reply given by workman

was found unsatisfactory. Shri R.R.Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri S.Parida was appointed as

management representative. On 5-4-05, enquiry was conducted against workman. Ist party workman participated in

enquiry. He admitted to have received charghesheet. Workman was allowed Defence Assistant as a co-worker.

Enquiry was conducted on 21-4-05, 27-4-05, 28-4-05, 29-4-05, 30-4-05. The statements of management’s witnesses

were recorded and cross examined. The statements of defence witnesses Bhogilal Soni, Dinesh Kumar were recorded

on 2-5-05 & 4-5-05. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding workman guilty of the charges. Enquiry was

conducted following principles of natural justice. For proved charges, punishment of dismissal imposed against Ist

party workman is proper and legal. 2^nd party submits that workman had not only consumed liquor but also abused in

filthy language to his superior officer. The proved misconduct is of serious nature. Relief prayed by workman be rejected.

Workman submitted rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 27-2-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

1672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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?

Misconduct under clause 26.18 only is established.

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Negative

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

As per final order

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 27-2-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal and proper.

Question remains for consideration whether misconduct alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. Chargesheet Exhibit W-1 is produced. Charge No.1 under clause 26.4 pertains to gambling, drunkenness,

fighting or riotous disorderly indecent behavior either at his place of work or at colliery establishment or company’s

residential settlements. 2^nd charge under clause 26.18 pertains to assault, attempt of assault, threatening to assault,

abuse, a co-worker or subordinate or supervisor while on duty or otherwise in connection with employment.

The statement of Mr. Gill recorded in Enquiry Proceedings shows that on 29-3-05, workman was on duty from

9PM to 5 AM patrolling duty. Around 10.30 PM, witness had proceeded in bolaro from security camp towards CGM

complex. He was accompanied by Security Officer Rubel, Rinku. After they reached CGM complex, the patrolling

party was found walking ahead. He given direction to proceed for patrolling. Workman was found intoxicated wearing

chappals. He given directions to workman, he cannot perform duty in such conditions he should meet him in office in

the morning. On that workman got annoyed, caught collar and started abusing. Witness had pushed and workman fell

on the ground. Workman had abused him. He also threatened of serious consequences saying that he was local person

of Kotma. After 1-2 minutes, workman went on motor cycle abusing and threatening him. In his cross, Mr. Gill says

that there was no question of beating him. The workman had caught his collar and he had pushed him for separating

from him.

Statement of management’s witness Ramvridh shows that on 29-3-05, he was in night duty. Officer had come

in vehicle at 10.30 PM. Workman was found intoxicated in civil dress wearing chappal. Officer said in such condition,

no duty would be given to him. On that workman caught collar of the officer. The officer pushed him. Workman fell on

the ground. He started abusing and threatening. They left the place around 11.30 AM. Evidence of other witnesses of

management Sohanlal Pancholi, Rakesh Thakur have also similar statement with some variations. Statement of Ist

party workman was also recorded. He has alleged that workman had committed rape on Ramvati Bai who was residing

at his house when he return from Kotma at 9.50PM. She was lying unconscious, she disclosed that Mr. Gill had

committed rape with her. The incident was reported to police on next day morning.

10.

The defence witnesses Dinesh Kumar Mishra and Modilal were examined in Enquiry Proceedings. Evidence of

management’s witnesses in cross examination shows some discrepancies at the time of incident and leaving the place.

Their evidence appears improved but statement was given by Mr. Gill before Enquiry Officer. If whole statement of

Gill is accepted, only 2^nd charge under clause 26.18 assaulting and abusing officer can be established. Charge under

26.4 cannot be established. Evidence on record is clear that workman was not referred for medical examination. Charge

of drunkenness cannot be proved.

11.

Shri R.K.Soni during course of argument pointed out the variation about the time of incident and the vehicle in

which officer had come and leaving the place.

12.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi submits that evidence cannot be re-appreciated. Learned counsel

relies on ratio held in case between-

State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212. Their Lordship

dealing with scope of judicial review held reappreciation of evidence is impermissible.

Case between West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220(SC)

under Section 11-A of ID Act held standard of proof in departmental proceeding is different from that in a criminal

case.

Considering ratio in above cases, reappreciation of evidence is not appropriate on my part. Considering the

evidence on record in my considered view, only 2^nd charge under Clause 26.18 is established committing assault,

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1673

indecent and abusive act is established. Charge under Clause 26.4 against workman cannot be proved. Accordingly I

record my finding in Point No.1.

13.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, 2^nd charge under clause 26.16/18 is proved against workman

committed act of assault and abusing Security Officer. Ist party in his evidence before Enquiry Officer has deposed that

Mr. PPS Gill was annoyed because he had helped lady Ramabai for lodging the report about rape committed on her.

Ramabai is not cross examined in the case. However certified copy of FIR is produced at Exhibit W-2. Said FIR was

submitted by Ramabai in police station on 30-3-05. The time of incident is shown 21.15 hours of 29-3-05.

14.

2^nd party has produced documents issued from JMFC Kotma shows that Mr. Gill was acquitted of the offence

under Section 354 in Criminal Case No. 699/2005.

15.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Soni submits that Mr. Gill was acquitted. The acquittal of Mr. PPS Gill in

criminal case is clear that he was prosecuted on report of the lady. Therefore defence of the Ist party workman appears

genuine about involvement of Mr. PPS Gill in criminal offence. As per pleadings, workman was appointed in the year

1975. Workman had completed about 30 years service.

16.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi about interference in order of punishment relies on ratio held in

case between—

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. versus N.B.Naravade reported in 2005-I-LLJ-1129. Their Lordship considering

facts use of abusive, filthy language against superior officer held did not call for lesser punishment than dismissal.

However in present case, Officer Mr.Gill was prosecuted in criminal case and he was acquitted of the offence

under Section 354 IPC. The circumstances are made out. Considering above aspects, in my considered view,

punishment of dismissal imposed against workman after completing about 30 years service is harsh and therefore

punishment of dismissal deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in point

No.2.

17.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Rajendra Prasad

Shukla from service w.e.f. 21-6-05 is not legal and proper.

(2)

Punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is modified to compulsory retirement.

(3)

2^nd party is directed to allow retiral benefit to workman as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 788-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@209@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/209/2000-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2003

1674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Secretary,

MP Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU),

PO West Chirimiri,

Distt. Korea,

Korea (Chhattisgarh)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL,

PO Chirimiri, Distt.Korea,

Korea (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 13-5-03 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-22012/209/2000-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL, Distt. Korea in not giving pay

protection to Shri Anurudh Dubey and 11 others (as per list enclosed) in the grade of Security Guards of

Chirimiri Area of SECL, Distt. Korea is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workmen submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/5. Case of Ist party workmen is that they were working as daily wage mazdoor. They were called by letter dated

10-4-89 for interview as departmental candidates in Chirimiri Area for selection to the post of Security Guard.

Thereafter on recommendation by Committee, they were selected on post of Security Guard, they were sent for six

months training vide different orders commencing from 4-10-89 by management. After completion of six months

training, they were regularized in post of Security guard in T&S Grade “G” in pay scale of Rs.1050-27-1428. Ist party

claimants were getting monthly pay on daily rate who were regularized on the post of Security Guard T&S Grade “G”

in pay scale 1050-27-1428. Their basic pay was fixed Rs.1050 without protecting their basic salary they were getting

before their regularization. Workman further submits that the details of the wages drawn by them before regularization,

basic pay should have been fixed at the time of their regularisation. Instead of Rs.1050, it should have been Rs.1401,

1428 & 1401 respectively. That management had issued letter dated 4-8-93 issuing guidelines to all concerned for

refixation of pay of workman in case of regularization. That the pay should be fixed at the appropriate stage of pay

scale of employees regularized on the post enabling pay protection. Ist party claimants further submits in similar cases,

the person who were selected on the post of Security Guard on recommendation of Selection Committee posted in

Baikunthpur area, pay protection was given to such security guards. That it is alleged that management avoided to

follow guidelines in their case. That MPKMS, CITU, BKMS brought said matter to the notice of the management.

GKMS submitted demand notice on 25-7-96 for revised pay scale with arrears. The meeting between management and

CITU was held on 7-7-96. The demand of pay protection for Ist party workman was considered by the management to

dispose off at Area Level but no action was taken in that regard. On such ground, Ist party are claiming arrears on

benefits of pay protection with 24 % interest.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/4 opposing claim of Ist party. Preliminary objection is raised

that earlier dispute was raised by CITU Union before Conciliation Officer. However BKMS has submitted statement

before this Tribunal. It is further submitted that 2^nd party management invited applications from departmental

candidates for selection to the post of security Guard T&S Grade “G” vide letter dated 10-4-89. In response to said

letters, same departmental candidates including claimant submitted application for their selection to the post of

Security Guard. After compliance of necessary formalities vide office order dated 4-10-89, claimants were selected to

the post of security guard T&S Gr “G” with initial pay Rs. 1050-27-1428 under NCWA-IV. The condition was that

selected candidates will be under training for period of six months. On completion of six months, they will continue in

present grade. After completion of probation period, they will be retained as security guard. That where certified

standing orders not exists, model standing order for coal industry will be operative. It is reiterated that on completion of

training and probation period, claimants were retained as security guard Grade G in pay scale Rs. 1050-27-1428 per

month. Their initial pay was fixed at Rs.1050 per month. The claimants were selected to the post of security guards as

per advertisement. Accordingly they were given initial basic pay for the post. The claimants are not entitled to pay

protection. It is reiterated that the claimants were confirmed in pay scale of Rs.1050 as per advertisement. Claimants

are not entitled to benefit of pay protection. That claimants not supplied circular dated 4-8-93 and no comments are

offered about the same. The management submits that claimants are not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1675

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 Chief General

Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL, Distt. Korea in

not giving pay protection to Shri Anurudh Dubey

and 11 others (as per list enclosed) in the grade of

Security Guards of Chirimiri Area of SECL, Distt.

Korea is legal and justified?

In Negative

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

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to denial of pay protection to claimants Anurudh Dubey and 11 others enclosed in

the list. Affidavit of evidence filed by Anirudh Dubey supporting contentions in statement of claim. That Ist party

workman were promoted after departmental interview to the post of security guard. Their existing pay was Rs.1371,

405, 104, 1212, 1104, 1104, 1371, 1371, 1104 respectively. However their pay was fixed on promotion at Rs.1050

instead of their existing pay. The claimants had submitted representation claiming pay protection. That they have not

given option for pay of security guard at lower pay scale than their existing pay. That Bisrampur area considered such

cases and vide order dated 1-12-99, the employees were allowed pay protection benefit. That Director (P) had issued

guidelines dated 4-8-93 for pay protection. Those guidelines were not followed by the management.

Affidavit is filed by Swaminath Pandey that he was working in Mazdoor Cat-II from 7-8-92. After interview by

screening committee, he was promoted to the post of security guard on completion of training on 5-5-92, he was

appointed as security guard. His ay was fixed at Rs.1500 which is less than his existing pay. He had not given option

for post of security guard on pay less than his existing pay.

Shri Anurudh Dubey in his cross says he is acquitted with service conditions of all the claimants. He was

initially appointed as Category I Mazdoor to CCM Helper. The dispute is raised for claiming pay protection. He

rendered 15 years service. He was promoted as security T&S Grade “G”, he received payment. From 1991, he is

receiving pay reducing basic. In his further cross examination, Shri Anirudh says promotion are given as per cadre

scheme by DPc. That post and pay of all employees working in the mine are fixed. He received pay for the post of

security guard, T&S Gr “G” for the days he had worked. Above witness was re-examined and documents Exhibit W-5

to 10 are admitted in evidence. In his further cross, Arvind says the order of his conversion was issued by GM office,

Bilaspur. He has admitted he had not sent Exhibit W-7 to GM office. He denies that pay slip produced by him was of

the post he was working. In 1992, pay scale of security guard was Rs.1050/-. In 1992, he had completed 3 years

working on post of security guard. He was unable to tell year and month of the pay slip Exhibit W-9. From his further

re-examination Circular Exhibit W-11 is admitted in evidence. Anirudh Dubey in his further cross examination denies

that Exhibit W-11 doesnot apply to this case.

Shri Swaminath Pandey in his cross says he studied 7^th standard. He claims ignorance about NCWA and cadre

scheme in the matter of promotion. He was appointed as General Mazdoor. The promotional channel of General

Mazdoor provides promotion from Category I to Cat-VI upto Cat-VI. He was promoted in Cat-II and thereafter as

Security Guard. He had received order of promotion to the post of security guard. Again he explained that he was

appointed as security guard. He was unable to tell pay scale of security guard. In 1993, his pay was reduced. He was

brought to Grade “G”.

Shri Mohd. Gaush, Vishnu Bahadur, Ramawatar filed affidavit of evidence that on recommendation of selection

committee, the claimants were promoted to security guard T&S Grade. After completion of six months training, they

were posted as security guard. He was getting pay Rs. 1371/-. After promotion, his pay was fixed Rs.1050/- instead of

Rs.1401/-. The representation and demand notice were submitted for claiming pay protection. In his cross examination,

he says he was appointed as General Mazdoor, cadre scheme is framed excluding General Mazdoor. He claims

ignorance about cadre scheme for post of security guard. He claims ignorance whether promotion to the post of security

guard are given as per rules. In 1989, applications were invited for post of security guard Category “G”. he was paid

pay of security guard. Prior to it, he was working as tyndal mazdoor Category IV. His pay was reduced after six months

training of security guard. He had raised objection in writing,. After his pay was reduced, he was willing to go to post

of Category IV. He not submitted application in writing for it. If he gets his fullpay, he is willing to go to the original

post.

1676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Shri Vishnu Bahadur has also filed similar affidavit. In his cross examination, he says 11 claimants were

appointed on different dates. He was unable to tell about his service record. In 1989, he was appointed as Khalasi

Category III different from General Mazdoor category. There is cadre scheme for Khalasi. He denies that there is no

cadres scheme for the post he was working. He denies that Khalasi is not promoted to the post of security guard.

Applications were called for post of security guard. He had also submitted applications. He was appointed on Grade

“G” on recommendation of selection committee. After his appointment as security guard Grade “G” and he was given

six months training. Thereafter he was not promoted. He was paid less pay. He submitted representation to the

management. Since 2000, he is working as driver.

11.

Shri Ramavatar filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim. In his cross examination however he says

he doesnot know the contents of his affidavit.

12.

Shri Abadh Bihari Sukla though filed affidavit, he has not appeared for cross examination. Therefore his

evidence cannot be considered.

13.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri M.Sen, Area Personal Manager. Affidavit is devoted on the

point service conditions of coal mine workers are covered by NCWA. The departmental candidates eligible are given

preference in the matter of promotion as per cadre scheme. Departmental candidates are selected by selection

committee, necessary orders are issued. Pay is fixed according to cadre scheme. There is no compulsion on

departmental candidates to accept post they are selected. They may or may not accept new post they are selected. The

substance of his affidavit is the security guard selected on recommendation of the Committee for post of security Guard

Grade “G” as their pay was fixed Rs.1050 as per NCWA. The claims were confirmed after selection. The initial pay

Rs.1050 was accepted by claimants. From re-examination of Shri A.M.Sen, documents Exhibit M-8(a), (b) are

admitted in evidence. In his cross, witness of the management says before their selection, security guard were working

in time rated category. After their selection as security guard Grade C, pay of some security guard was reduced. Notice

issued for post of security guard, basic pay for the post was mentioned. Document is at Exhibit M-1. He denies that the

pay of security guard Grade “G” at Bisrampur area pay protection was allowed. There is no provision or rule for pay

protection after the selection of candidates. Management’s witness says Anjani Sharan, P.K.Pandey, KA Sunder,

Kumar Gaurav, Avdhesh Tiwari filed affidavit of their evidence. From their evidence, documents Exhibit M-10 to

15,12,17 are admitted in evidence. From evidence of Avdhesh Tiwari, documents M-18,19 are admitted. Anjani in his

cross admits documents M-10 to 15 were submitted in response of office letter dated 9-8-12. He had seen that letter. It

is not produced along with his affidavit. He claims ignorance whether any of those workers had not given evidence on

8-2-2011. The workman may have given application in view of document Exhibit M-1. In document M-1 , pay scale

for post is not ogiven. It is interview call. In his further cross, management’s witness says before selection, Swaminath

pandey was working as Category II, Awadh Bihari in Category I, Ram Jiban in General Category I, Hari sankar in

General Mazdoor Category I, Mohan Singh in General Mazdoor. He was unable to tell whether all those persons were

getting more salary prior to they were appointed as security guard.

14.

Samuel in his cross says letter dated 5-10-12 is not produced on record but he claims that said letter was with

him. Letter was issued by Area Personal Manager.

15.

Shri V.K.Pandey in his cross says letter dated 13-8-12 was forwarded by him to workman. Letter was not

produced on record.

16.

Shri K.A.Siunder in his cross says before selection of workman, Mohd Gaush was working in Category IV.

Then he was appointed as Security Guard.

17.

Kumar Gaurav in his cross examination did not give specific reply whether he produced letter referred in

Exhibit M-18. Awadhesh Tiwari in his cross claims ignorance what were the reasons for issuing letter Exhibit M-19.

18.

Turning to documentary evidence, Exhibit W-3 is office order dated 24-11-99 issued by Bisrampur area on

designating the employees, pay protection was allowed. Said letter finds clear mention that the employees had not

given option for the post of security guard and were designated to the post of Security guard T&S Grade G. Exhibit W-

4 is corrigendum dated 13-12-90 pertains to the pay protection to the post of piece rated/ time rated workers on their

selection, appointment as fitter, Sirdar, shot firer. Said document doesnot help claim of workman as they were not

working in piece rated, time rated category neither claimants were appointed as fitter, Sirdar, shotfirer post. Exhibit W-

5 is order dated 4-4-92 Shri Salik Ram and 5 other General Mazdoor were designated as security guard on

recommendations of selection committee. Said documents provides for six months training and appointment on

probation of six months. Service conditions are covered by standing orders. Document is silent about the pay

protection. Document doesnot support claim of Ist party. Documents Exhibit W-5,6 are the representations. W-7 is

charter of demand. Those documents donot support claim of Ist party. The pay slips Exhibit W-8 to W-10 also donot

support claim of pay protection.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1677

19.

Management produced documents M-1 to 7 the interview calls and applications submitted by the claimants

giving undertaking to accept the service conditions. In Exhibit M-1, pay scale of post of security guard is not

mentioned. M-8 is order dated 4-10-89 designating 46 candidates as security guards in pay scale Rs.1050-27-1428.

Exhibit M-8(a) is order regularizing 44 security guards on post of security guard T&S Grade in pay scale Rs.1050-27-

1048. Exhibit M-8 is office order dated 13-4-920 discriminating 1 employees as security guard after completion of six

months training which was followed by recommendation of screening committee pertains to the claimants. Their

appointment was on probation for six months. The order is silent about pay protection. Exhibit M-10 to 17 are

applications submitted by Swaminath Pandey, Awadh Bihari, Ramavatar Pramod S.Sen, Harisankar, Mohan Singh,

Vishnu Prasad. That they have not agreed to go back to the original post in pursuance of letter dated 13-8-12. Exhibit

W-18 is application submitted by Mohd Goush that he was not willing to work on the post of tyndal mazdoor. He was

willing to work on his present post. During course of argument, learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.C.chandak heavily

relied on document Exhibit W-11 in support of his claim for pay protection. Para 2 of Exhibit W-11 pertains to pay

protection to piece rated employees while converting into monthly/ daily rated employees. All the claimants were not

working as piece rated workers neither they were converted into monthly/ daily rated employees. Said document

doesnot support claim of Ist party for pay protection.

20.

I may also refer to letter dated 4-8-93 produced on record at Page 8/19. It appears inadvertently filed. Workman

did not take care to prove the said document. However on careful perusal of said letter, it is clear that the matter

pertains to re-fixation of pay of workers in case of regularization in other categories. The pleading and evidence of Ist

party shows all the claimants were working in different categories of General Mazdoor. On recommendation of

committee, they were selected for the post of security guard T&S Grade “G”. It is not therefore case that they were

regularized to said post. In statement of claim, there is reference of letter dated 4-8-93. The above letter doesnot support

claim of Ist party as it pertains to regularization and not appointment after selection.

21.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri P.C.Chandak during course of argument submits that there is no rule or order

allowing pay protection to claimants. If there would have been such rule, the claimants would have approached for

recovery under Section 33(C)(2) of IID Act instead the dispute under Section 10 has been raised and Tribunal therefore

needs to decide their claim of pay protection. I am not convinced with above submissions. The dispute is raised w.r.t.

claim of Anirudh Dubey and 11 others. Dispute under reference pertains to general payment of pay protection to all

employees, therefore requires to be decided whether the claim for protection of pay is established by any existing rule

or regulation. The claim for pay protection could not be decided as general demand for all the employees working with

2^nd party management.

22.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held judgment by MP High Court between-

Makhanlal Tamrakar versus SECL reported in Writ Petition No. 826/97. In said case, their Lordship did not allow the

claim for pay protection. Management was directed not to make recovery of excess payment. Similar view was taken

by my predecessor in R/79/94 & in R/76/04- award relied by Shri A.K.Shashi. From reasons discussed above, claim of

Ist party for pay protection is not established. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

23.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL, Distt. Korea in not giving pay

protection to Shri Anurudh Dubey and 11 others in the grade of Security Guards of Chirimiri Area of

SECL, Distt. Korea is legal and proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 789-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 31@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@16@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

1678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/16/2011-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2011

Shri Ramesh Sahu,

S/o Shri Moji Lal Sahu,

R/o Village Bagdona,

Post Pathakheda, Thana Sarni,

Distt. Betul (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Superintendent of Mines,

Satpura Mine No.2, WCL,

Pathakheda,

Distt. Betul (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16^th day of February 2017

As per letter dated 19-4-2011 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-2202/16/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL in terminating the service of Shri Ramesh Sahu S/o

Maujeelal Sahu w.e.f. 28-2-09 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

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 working as Mining Sirdar in 2^nd party. He was appointed on 26-6-71. Since

his appointment, he was working in Mine No.3,4 till 30-10-73. Then he was transferred to Satpura Mine No.1. he was

working in said mine till 1996. Thereafter he was transferred to Mine No.2 where he worked till 28-2-09. He was

illegally retired under the guise of completing 60 years of age.

At the time of his appointment, his father told his date of birth was 5-2-50. Accordingly his date of birth was

recorded in service book. He was not retired as per date of birth recorded in service book. he was illegally retired on

28-2-09 instead of 15-2-2010. It is alleged that management had illegally corrected his date of birth and retired him

from service. On such ground, workman prays his reinstatement as per his date of birth 15-2-1950.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that terms of reference is illegal.

There was no termination of services of workman. Ist party claimed his date of birth was 15-5-50. As per the statutory

record, his date of birth was recorded 15-2-49. After completing 60 years service, workman was retired on 28-2-09. 2^nd

party submits that workman was initially appointed on 1-11-73. He was transferred to different units of Pathakhera

area. Workman was issued Gas Testing Certificate, Mining Sirdar Certificate by BGMS. His date of birth was recorded

15-2-49. It is denied that the date of birth of workman is 15-2-50. Workman had not submitted authentic record about

his date of birth as per I.I.No.37/76. That workman was not terminated. Section 25-F of ID Act is not applicable. 2^nd

party submits that workman himself had declared his date of birth 15-2-49 before BGMS. At the time of appearing

exam of Gas Testing Certificate, Mining Sirdar Certificate. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Case was fixed for evidence of workman on 23-1-14, 17-4-14, 30-7-14 till today on several dates. Learned

counsel for workman Shri Ashok Shrivastava submits that the workman could not be located and shown his inability to

file evidence. Learned counsel for management submitted that he doesnot desire to examine any witness. As such both

parties not adduced evidence in the case. Consequently dispute could not be decided on merit. No dispute award is

passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1679

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 790-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 8@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@81@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22012/81/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 2^nd day of February, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 8/2015

Between :

The President,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana),

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh(RCMS),

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial – 504 208.

Adilabad Distt.

…Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur-504 303.

Adilabad

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/81/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 23.1.2015

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company 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 action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,

Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Adduri Elliah, Ex-Coal Filler, S R.K-5 Inc., Sreerampur Area

with effect from 10.08.1999 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 8/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

1680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case is posted for filing of claim statement of the Petitioner union. Inspite of availing several

opportunities, the Petitioner union remained absent and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union

which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances

stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union is not interested in pursuing the dispute. Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is

passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the

2^nd day of February, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 791.—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-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 21^st day of November, 2016

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2016

Between :

Sri Kolipaka Narender

S/o Sambaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1681

The Director (P.A. & W),

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RK-1A Incline,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

…Respondents

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S.Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec.2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Sri Kolipaka Narender, the

workman, who worked as Badli Filler at M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri against the

management for his reinstatement into the service of the management with full back wages and other relevant benefits

or consequential benefits, after setting aside his termination.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the Respondent company on 26.2.2007 as Badli Filler.

While so, he was issued with a chargesheet dated 5.1.2013 alleging certain irregularities. The enquiry was biasedly

conducted on the basis of charge sheet without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer on the

basis of lop sided enquiry erroneously held the charges as proved against him. On the basis of erroneous findings of

the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from his service as per the office order dated 10.11.2013. As such,

the dismissal order passed against the Petitioner is entirely illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice

and he prays to direct the Respondents for his reinstatement into service with all attendant benefits etc..

During the midst of hearing of the case at the consent of both the parties, the present case is placed before the

Chairman, Lok Adalat Bench on 21^st day of November, 2016. Wherein a settlement was arrived between the parties.

The Respondent management has been directed to take back the Petitioner workman to duty as Badli Filler

(Underground) afresh. In agreement of the above, the parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions

in presence of the members of the Lok Adalat Bench and the order so passed has been annexed to this award as it is.

In view of the settlement arrived before Lok Adalat Bench, a no dispute award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court and corrected by me on this the 21^st day

of November, 2016.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

IN THE LOK ADALAT

(for settlement of cases relating to CGIT cum labour court at Hyderabad Under Section 20

of the legal Services Authorities Act,1987)

Saturday the 21^st day of November, Two Thousand and Sixteen

PRESENT: 1. Sri Murlidhar Pradhan : Presiding Officer

2. Sri C.Niranjan Rao : Member

3. Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy : Member

(Constituted U/s 19 of the LSA Act,1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No.186/LSA/2006 dt.22-8-2006)

In the matter of case No. LCID No.1/2016/PLAC No. 6/2016

(On the file of CGIT-cum-Labour court at Hyderabad)

1682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between :

Kolipaka Narender [EC No.237344],s/o Sambaiah,

Aged about 31years,worked as Badli filler at RK-1A Incline ,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Mandamarri, Mancherial District

…Petitioner

AND

The Director [PA&W],

Singareni Collieries Company limited,

Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

The Singareni Collieries company LTD.,

Rep.by its General Manager ,

Mandamarri ,Mancherial District.

The colliery Manager,

RK- 1A Incline,singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri ,Mancherial District.

…Respondents

This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 21-11-2016 for settlement in the presence of the applicant

appearing in person /represented by his counsel Sri K.Vasudeva Reeddy and the Respondent too,being present in

person/represented by his councel,Sri P.A.V.V.S.sarma .on a perusal of the case record,after considering and hearing

both sides and with the consent of both sides ,the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the

following;

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.ACT,1987

The petitioner had agreed to the following proposals of the Management ,as the petitioner had put in 100 musters

in the two years of the preceding 5 years of dismissal and raised the dispute within three years from the date of

dismissal from service .the contents are read over and explained to the petitioner in his language and agreed by signing

the same.

a. the petitioner workman agreed to treat his appointment as fresh appointment as Badli Worker [Underground]

without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by company Medical Board.

b. Irrepective of past designations,petitioner workman agrees to the appointment as Badli Worker [Underground]

afresh and need not be posted to the same place ,where the workmen was last employed .

c. The petitioner workmen agrees for obsolutely 20 musters every month and review every three months is

absolutely essential .In the event of any short fall attendance during the 3 months period, his services will be

terminated without any further notice and enquiey .

d. Respondent Management agreed that any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents /natural

disease/illness,treatment taken at Company”s Hospitals, will be deemed as attendance during the trial period.

e. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of

rest, vholidays, etc., for appointment afresh .

This LCID is disposed of accordingly .The respondent management is directed to take him back to duty as Badli

Worker [Underground ] afresh .

In agreement of the above ,the parties /councel have affixed their signatures /thumb impressions in the presence

of the member of this Lok Adalat Bench .

-Sd- Illegible

Signature of Applicant[s]

Signature of Respondent[s]

-Sd- Illegible

Signature of Counsel for Applicant[s]

Signature of Counsel for Respondent [s]

Signature of presiding Officer & Members of the Bench

-Sd- Illegible

2. -Sd- Illegible

3. -Sd- Illegible

Note : This award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section

21(2) of LSA. ACT 1987.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1683

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 48@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2007) 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. SCCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17^th day of February, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 48/2007

Between:

Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah,

S/o Late Ramaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RG-I Area, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District.

The Superintendent of Mines/ Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

GDK-2A Incline, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S.Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah who worked as Badli filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., seeking for declaring proceeding No. P.RG.I/32/99/3012 dated 15.4.1999 issued by Respondent No.1

as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into

service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant

benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

1684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as Badli Coal Filler and subsequently he was promoted as Coal Filler. While the matter

stood thus, a charge sheet was issued to him by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during

the year 1997, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25 and it is also stated that the

charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner’s house which was returned undelivered, as such a paper advertisement was

issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for the enquiry and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the

scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner was undergoing

treatment in his native village on account of mentally disturbed status, under going depression and he was not aware of

either issuance of charge sheet or other proceedings. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if

really he was in receipt of the notice of the enquiry. It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties

regularly during the year 1997 only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend

his duties sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide

office order dated 15.4.1999. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the

Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has

rendered about 7 years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. He remained absent from duty only

on account of his sickness which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the

above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service

vide office order dated 15.4.1999. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically

but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to

declare the impugned order No. P.RG.I/32/99/3012 dated 15.4.1999 issued by the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary

and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly

granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in

brief which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner has been

dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following

the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient

cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 1997. A charge sheet was sent to

his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned undelivered.

As such, the notice of enquiry was published in Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi dated 3.11.1998 advising the Petitioner to

attend the enquiry fixed on 10.11.1998. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor

attended the enquiry, as such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 10.11.1998 wherein the charges levelled against the

Petitioner were proved. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that

basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the

charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent

to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the

enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment

warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his

past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1

was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties

and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is

further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be

dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 2.2.2009, in

view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, stating therein, not to challenge the validity of the domestic

enquiry.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service to Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

But on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the Petitioner. When

the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to illness he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1685

absent, the authority should have considered his case but, without considering any of the submissions of the Petitioner,

the authority has passed one cryptic and unreasoned order and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when

several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondents’ management is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to

illness the Petitioner could not be able to regular in his duty. In fact, due to illness the Petitioner has remained absent

in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the

Petitioner did not participate and the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment

has been imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to

his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 35 years, he is

now aged about 45 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When

the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked

more than 7 years under the Respondents. When punishment has been imposed, his past conduct has not been

considered. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the

worker as well as his family members so also his past conduct. In this case, the punishment imposed by the

Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action of the management

in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah is not legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from

service to Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the

Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the Tribunal with a prayer for reinstatement into service he

should be given a chance to serve for his family members. Now, after dismissal of service the Petitioner has become

jobless and he being the sole earning member of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members.

In such a circumstances, atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under

the Respondents’ management. But, in the circumstances stated above, the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief

as claimed in his petition. But the Petitioner is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. P.RG.I/32/99/3012 dated 15.4.1999 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set

aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Pulipaka Lingaiah be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in

Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company

Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed

to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have

to either maintain minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall

have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance

during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to

improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during

one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry. The

management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment

in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e.,

transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17^th day of

February, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

1686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 85@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : SRI MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17^th day of February, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 85/2007

Between :

Sri Pittala Saidulu,

S/o Ramulu,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapalli Area, Bhupalapalli,

Warangal District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

KTK No.5 Incline, Bhupalpalli,

Warangal District.

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1687

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

IK.1A Incline, IK & CHNR Area,

Srirampur, Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S.Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Pittala Saidulu who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. BHP/PER/20-D/2140 dated 31.5.2007/6.6.2007 issued by Respondent

No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner

into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 25.11.2003 and after undergoing basic training in the underground, he

was posted to work at Chennur 1 & 1A Incline. The Petitioner was regular to his duties. But during the year 2005,

the Petitioner suffered with abdominal trouble, for which he has undergone treatment at Chennur Dispensary. While

the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 10.4.2006 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the

Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2005, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order

No.25.25 and 25.31. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was

not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner

was dismissed from service vide order No. BHP/PER/20-D/2140 dated 31.5.2007/6.6.2007. It is stated that during the

course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties regularly during the

year 2005 was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his

submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management

in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner has rendered three years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached

the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the

Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No.BHP/PER/20-D/2140 dated

31.5.2007/6.6.2007 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to

direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as

continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was

appointed in the Respondents’ company on 1.4.2004 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges

of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and

reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of

natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and

the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make

representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and

it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone

through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a

lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact

the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him,

and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified

and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 21.12.2011.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

1688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service to Sri Pittala Saidulu is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No. I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in

his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of the

enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner.

When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend

his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment.

The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the

Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 24 years, he is now aged

about 34 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked

for more than three years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the

management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment

imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action

taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Pittala Saidulu is not legal and

justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from

service to Sri Pittala Saidulu is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner

has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be

given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he

being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondents’ management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service.

In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he

is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. BHP/PER/20-D/2140 dated 31.5.2007/6.6.2007 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as

illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Pittala Saidulu be taken into service as a fresh

employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical

fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The

management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman

shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the

management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short

fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will

be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice

and enquiry. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,

¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 25] 2017@pS=k 4] 1939

1689

taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will

be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17^th day of

February, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 16 ekpZ] 2017

dk-vk- 794-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 140@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-03-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th March, 2017

S.O. 794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.03.2017.

[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7^th day of February, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 140/2006

Between :

Sri Nune Ramesh,

S/o Venkati,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

…Petitioner

1690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 25, 2017/CHAITRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramakrishnapur (Presently Sreerampur Area),

Adilabad District.

The Superintendent of Mines/Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RK-5 Incline, Sreeerampur,

Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Nune Ramesh who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. P/RKP/16/98/2735 dated 28.9.1998 issued by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service

duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits

etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 5.2.1991 and later he was promoted as Coal Filler in the year 1995. The

Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 1996. But the Petitioner suffered with illness and other family

problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 2.3.1998 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents

alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 1997, which amounts to misconduct under company’s

Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner

was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry,

the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the

Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. P/RKP/16/98/2735 dated 28.9.1998. It is stated that during the

course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties regularly during the

year 1997 was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his

submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management

in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner has rendered five years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached

the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the

Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. P/RKP/16/98/2735 dated

28.9.1998 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the

Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of

service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was

appointed in the Respondents’ company on 8.2.1991 as Badli Filler under dependent employment scheme and he was

regularised with effect from 1.9.1995 as Coal Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The