2856 GI/2017

(2733)

jftLVªh la

(,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

]

ubZ fnYyh]

ebZ 7

—

ebZ

] 2017] 'kfuokj@

k[k

—

k[k

] 193

No. 19]

NEW DELHI, MAY 7—MAY 13, 2017, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 17—VAISAKHA 23, 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

(

)

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)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेिाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2017

का.आ. 1187.—राष्ट्रीय कृवि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक अविवनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के

खण्ड (ग) द्वारा प्रित्त शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय ररजिव बैंक के परामशव से, श्री आर. गांिी के स्थान

पर, श्री बी.पी. कानूनगो, उप-गिनवर, भारतीय ररजिव बैंक को अविसूचना की तारीख से और अगले आिेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, राष्ट्रीय

कृवि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक (नाबाडव) के वनिेशक मण्डल में अंशकावलक वनिेशक नावमत करती है

[फा.सं. 7/2/2009-बीओ-I]

ज्ञानोतोि राय, अिर सवचि

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 28^th April, 2017

S.O. 1187.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation with the

2734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri B.P. Kanungo, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India as part-time

Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) from the date

of notification and until further orders whichever is earlier vice Shri R. Gandhi.

[F.No.7/2/2009-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2017

का.आ. 1188.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि एिं प्रकीणव उपबंि) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ परित

बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अजवन एिं अंतरण) अविवनयम, 1970/1980 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा 3 के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रित्त शवियों

का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री ए.िी. पाटील के स्थान पर, सुश्री अंजना िुबे, उप महावनिेशक, वित्तीय सेिाएं विभाग

को तत्काल प्रभाि से और अगले आिेशों तक, आन्द्रा बैंक के वनिेशक मण्डल में सरकारी नावमती वनिेशक नावमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

ज्ञानोतोि राय, अिर सवचि

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1188.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

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

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby

nominates Ms. Anjana Dube, Deputy Director General, Department of Financial Services as Government Nominee

Director on the Board of Directors of Andhra Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri A. V. Patil.

[F.No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1189.—राष्‍ट रीय आिास बैंक अविवनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की िारा (6) की उप-िारा (1) के खण् ड (ड.) द्वारा

प्रित् त शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ग्रामीण विकास मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली में संयुि सवचि, श्री प्रशांत कुमार

को

श्री राजीि सिानंिन, संयुि सवचि, ग्रामीण विकास मंत्रालय के स्थान पर तत्काल प्रभाि से और अगले आिेशों तक, राष्‍ट रीय आिास बैंक

के वनिेशक मंडल में वनिेशक वनयुि करती है।

[फा.सं. 24/17/2010-आईएफ-II]

राजीि शमाव, अिर सवचि

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2017

S.O. 1189.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prashant Kumar, Joint Secretary,

Ministry of Rural Development, as a Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank with immediate

effect and until further orders vice Shri Rajeev Sadanandan, Joint Secretary.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]

RAJIV SHARMA, Under Secy.

(ii)

2735

मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय

(उच् चतर वश्ा विभाग)

(राजभािा प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2017

का.आ. 1190.—केन्द् रीय सरकारज राजभािा (सं के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयमज 1976 के वनयम 10 के उप-

वनयम 4 के अनुसरण मेंज मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय (स् कूल वश्ा एिं सा्रता विभाग) के अंतगवत केंरीय विद्यालय संगिन

(मुख् यालय) के अिीन केंरीय विद्यालय, नुब्रा (वडवस्कट), वजला – लेह (लद्दाख), जम् मू ि कश् मीर – 194401 को ऐसे कायावलय के रूप मेंज

वजसके 80 प्रवतशत से अविक कमवचारी-िृन्द् ि ने वहन्द् िी का कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर वलया हैज अविसूवचत करती है -

[सं.11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर ससंह संिु, संयुक् त सवचि

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1190.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nubra (Diskit), Distt. Leh

(Laddakh), Jammu & Kashmir–194401 of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ) under the Ministry of Human Resource

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

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

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

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Jt. Secy.

lapkj

ea=kky;

(nwjlapkj foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh]

ebZ

] 2017

1191

-—

dsUnzh; ljdkj

]

jktHkk"kk

(la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 197

ds fu;e 10

ds mifu;e

(4)

ds vuqlj.k esa]

lapkj

ea=kky;

] nwjlapkj foHkkx

ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr

dk;kZy;

]

ftlds

ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk

dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS %

dukZVd nwjlapkj ifjeaMy ds iz/ku egkizca/d dk dk;kZy;] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fpdexyw: (dukZVd) rFkk

nwjlapkj ftyk izca/d] chnj (dukZVd)

;

g vf/lwpuk jkti=k esa izdk

u dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxh A

¹la

bZ&11016@

1@201

jktHkk"kk

lq/s

dqekj

kgh

]

mi egkfuns

d (leUo; ,oa iz

klu)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Telecommunications)

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2017

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

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

2736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi :

“Office of the Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chikmagalur (Karnataka)

and

Office of the Telecom District Manager, Bidar (Karnataka) under the Karnataka Telecom Circle”

This Notification shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[No. E-11016/01/2017-O.L.]

S. K. SHAHI, DDG (C & A)

स् िास् ् य और पररिार कल् याण मंत्रालय

(स् िास् ् य और पररिार कल् याण विभाग)

शुवि-पत्र

ubZ fnYyh]

izSy

] 201

1192

-—

bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la

;w&12012@

@201

&,ebZ

(

Hkkx

) fnukad

201

ds vuqØe esa

Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj

kn~ vf/fu;e]

1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk

iznRr

kfDr

;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

dsUæ

ljdkj

]

Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj

kn~ ls ijke

kZ djds mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr] vkSj la

'kksèku djrh gS] vFkkZr~

–

mDr

vuqlwph esa &

(Ä)

Lokeh jkek f

geky;u

ofo|ky;]

nsgjknwu

¸ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kfIrdj.k* dkye (3)

kZd ds varxZr

Mh,e

(

jsfM;k

Fksjsih

)

ds ctk; ,eMh (jsfM;k

Fksjsih) ^ekU;rk

izkIr vk;q£oKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g

fgeky;u

bafLV~V;wV vkWiQ

esfMdy lkabfll

] nsgjknwu

esa

2016 esa

vFkok

mlds i

pkr izf

kf{kr fd, x, Nk=kksa dks

Lokeh jkek fgeky;u

ofo|ky;] nsgjknwu

}kjk iznÙk gksxh A

¹la

12012@

@201

&,ebZ&

(

Hkkx&

)

jko] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2017

S.O. 1192.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (P. VI) dated

20.02.2017, and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the First

Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule –

(e) against “Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun”, under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

(column 3), the MD (Radiotherapy) instead of DM (Radiotherapy) qualification shall be a recognised

medical qualification when granted by Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun in respect of students

being trained at Himalayan institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun on or after 2016.

[No. U-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt. VI)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

(ii)

2737

उपभोक् ता मामले, खाद्य और सािवजवनक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक् ता मामले विभाग)

(भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो)

नई दिल् ली, 1 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1193.—भारतीय मानक ब यूरो (प्रमाणन) विवनयम 1988 के विवनयम (4) के उपविवनयम (5) के अनुसरण में

भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो एतद्द्वारा अविसूवचत करता है दक वजन लाइसेंसों के वििरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, िे स् िीकृत कर दिए गए

हैं -

अनुसूची

क्रम

संख् या

लाइसेंस संख् या

स् िीकृत करने

की वतवथ

लाइसेंसिारी का नाम

ि पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीिवक

भा मा

भाग

अनु

ििव

एल-

9512367123

02.12.2016

मै. पायल ज् िैलसव,

725-726, ओल् ड मार्कवट,

ओल् ड फरीिाबाि,

वजला फरीिाबाि – 121002,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512367822

01.12.2016

मै. कमपैक् ट प् लाई बोडवस

(प्रा.) वल.,

43 के. एम. माइलस् टोन,

दिल् ली रोहतक रोड,

एन एच – 10, रोहि,

बहािुरगढ़,

वजला झज् जर,

हररयाणा

लकडी के सपाट

िरिाजे के शटर (िोस

कोर प्रकार)

भाग 1 प् लाईिुड

सतहयुक् त पल् ले

2202

1999

एल-

9512367317

02.12.2016

मै. श्री शंकर ज् िैलसव,

2195, एयर फोसव रोड,

जिाहर कलोनी,

एन. आई. टी.,

वजला फरीिाबाि - 121005,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512367418

02.12.2016

मै. श्री लक्ष् मी ज् िैलसव,

पुरानी सब् जी मण् डी, सिर

बाजार,

वजला गुडगॉंि,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु

आभूिण/वशल् प िस् तुऍ–

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

एल-

9512367519

02.12.2016

मै. श्री लक्ष् मी ज् िैलसव,

पुरानी सब् जी मण् डी, सिर

बाजार,

वजला गुडगॉंि,

हररयाणा

चॉंिी एिं चॉंिी

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

2738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एल-

9512367923

06.12.2016

मै. एसीसीआईएल ऑटो

स् टील

प्रा. वल.,

प् लॉट नं. 6-13, ग्रोथ सैन्द् टर,

सैक् टर - 6,

बािल,

वजला ररिाडी – 123005,

हररयाणा

अतप् त ल ुकृत अल् प

काबवन इस् पात की

चािर एिं पत् ती

513

2008

एल -

9512368723

09.12.2016

मै. आईयूपी वजन्द् िल मैटल् स

एलोएस वल.,

िहकोरा रोड, गॉंि रोहि,

बहािुरगढ़,

वजला झज् जर - 124501,

हररयाणा

बतवनों और रसोई र

सावित्रों के वलए अल् प

वनकल ऑस् टेवनटीक

स् टेनलेस स् टील की

चािर एिं पत् ती

15997

2012

एल -

9512368024

14.12.2016

मै. जय बालाजी

इन्द् टरप्राइवसस,

खेिट नं. 958, खतौनी

नं. 1134,

रोहतक रोड, तहसील मेहम

के वनकट,

वजला रोहतक - 114112,

हररयाणा

खडंजे के वलए

पूिव ढवलत कंक्रीट

ब् लॉक

15658

2006

एल -

9512368117

16.12.2016

मै. िमव ज् िैलसव,

918, सैक् टर - 10,

वजला फरीिाबाि - 121006,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

10.

एल -

9512368218

16.12.2016

मै. िमव ज् िैलसव,

918, सैक् टर - 10,

वजला फरीिाबाि - 121006,

हररयाणा

चॉंिी एिं चॉंिी

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

11.

एल -

9512368420

19.12.2016

मै. श्री िमव ज् िैलसव,

829/24, कृष्‍ट णा कलौनी,

सैक् टर 7 एक् सटैनशन के

वनकट,

वजला गुडगॉंि - 122001,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

12.

एल -

9512368521

19.12.2016

मै. ए. एस. ज् िैलसव,

908/22, वशि नगर,

वजला गुडगॉंि - 122001,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु

आभूिण/वशल् प िस् तुऍ–

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

(ii)

2739

13.

एल -

9512368622

19.12.2016

मै. ए. एस. ज् िैलसव,

908/22, वशि नगर,

वजला गुडगॉंि - 122001,

हररयाणा

चॉंिी एिं चॉंिी

वमश्रिातु आभूिण/

वशल् प िस् तुऍ –

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

2112

2014

14.

एल -

9512369018

19.12.2016

मै. एजीआर स् टील सररप् स

(प्रा.) वल.,

69, िारूहेडा इण् डस् रीयल

एररया, िारूहेडा,

वजला ररिाडी – 123106,

हररयाणा

अतप् त ल ुकृत अल् प

काबवन इस् पात की

चािर एिं पत् ती

513

2008

15.

एल -

9512368319

20.12.2016

मै. कमपैक् ट प् लाई बोडव

(प्रा.) वल.,

43 के. एम. माइलस् टोन,

दिल् ली रोहतक रोड,

एन एच – 10, रोहि,

बहािुरगढ़,

वजला झज् जर,

हररयाणा

परतिार सजािटी

प् लाईिुड

1328

1996

16.

एल -

9512368824

21.12.2016

मै. श्री श् याम टाइल् स,

नैचाना रोड, गॉंि जलालपुर,

तहसील बािल,

वजला ररिाडी - 123501,

हररयाणा

खडंजे के वलए

पूिव ढवलत कंक्रीट

ब् लॉक

15658

2006

17.

एल -

9512369119

21.12.2016

मै. एस. एस. टाइल् स एण् ड

रेडसव,

गॉंि बह्रामणिास नूरगढ़,

वजला गुडगॉंि – 122504,

हररयाणा

खडंजे के वलए

पूिव ढवलत कंक्रीट

ब् लॉक

15658

2006

एल -

9512370718

21.12.2016

मै. जोनेजा ब्राइट स् टील् स

प्रा. वल.,

प् लॉट नं0 239, सैक् टर - 24,

वजला फरीिबाि - 121005,

हररयाणा

सामान्द् य इंजीवनयरी

अनुप्रयोगों के वलए मृिु

इस् पात की तार

280

2006

19.

एल -

9512368925

26.12.2016

मै. एस. ए. ज् िैल् सव,

मेन बाजार,

बहािुरगढ़,

वजला झज् जर – 124507,

हररयाणा

स् िणव एिं स् िणव

वमश्रिातु

आभूिण/ वशल् प

िस् तुऍ–

महीनता एिं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

2740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

एल-

9512374718

28.12.2016

मै. नीतू इन्द् टरप्राइवसस,

बालाजी मवन्द्िर के वनकट,

गॉंि साहूपुरा,

बल् लभगढ़,

वजला फरीिाबाि -121004,

हररयाणा

पैकेजबन्द् ि पेय जल

(पैकेजबन्द् ि प्राकृवतक

वमनरल

जल के अलािा)

14543

2004

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

सुनील कुमार, िैज्ञावनक एफ एिं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2017

S.O. 1193.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part

Sec.

Year

L-

9512367123

01.12.2016

M/s Payal Jewellers

725-726, Old Market,

Old Faridabad

Distt. Faridabad – 121002,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-

9512367822

01.12.2016

M/s Compact Ply Boards

(P) Ltd.,

43 K.M Mile Stone,

Delhi Rohtak Road,

NH – 10, Rohad,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

Wooden Flush Door

Shutters (Solid Core

Type) Part 1 Plywood

Face Panels

2202

1999

L-

9512367317

02.12.2016

M/s Shree Shankar

Jewellers,

2195, Air Force Road,

Jawahar Colony, N.I.T.,

Distt. Faridabad - 121005,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

L-

9512367418

02.12.2016

M/s Shri Laxmi Jewellers,

Old Sabzi Mandi, Sadar

Bazar,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

(ii)

2741

L-

9512367519

02.12.2016

M/s Shri Laxmi Jewellers,

Old Sabzi Mandi, Sadar

Bazar,

Distt. Gurgaon,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

L-

9512367923

06.12.2016

M/s ACCIL Auto Steel

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.6-13, Growth

Centre, Sector - 6,

Bawal,

Distt. Rewari – 123005,

Haryana

Cold Reduced Low

Carbon Steel Sheets

and Strips

513

2008

L-

9512368723

09.12.2016

M/s IUP Jindal Metals

Alloys Ltd.,

Dehkora, Village – Rohad,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar - 124501,

Haryana

Low nickel Austenitic

Stainless Steel Sheet

& Strip for Utensils

and Kitchen

15997

2012

L-

9512368024

14.12.2016

M/s Jai Balaji Enterprises,

Khewat No. 958,

Khatoni No. 1134, Rohtak

Road,

Near Tehsil Meham,

Distt. Rohtak - 114112,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

L-

9512368117

16.12.2016

M/s Dharam Jewellers,

918, Sector-10,

Distt. Faridabad - 121006,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

10.

L-

9512368218

16.12.2016

M/s Dharam Jewellers,

918, Sector-10,

Distt. Faridabad - 121006,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

11.

L-

9512368420

19.12.2016

M/s Shree Dharam

Jewellers,

829/24, Krishna Colony,

Near Sector-7 Extn.,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

12.

L-

9512368521

19.12.2016

M/s A. S. Jewellers,

908/22, Shiv Nagar,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

13.

L-

9512368622

19.12.2016

M/s A. S. Jewellers,

908/22, Shiv Nagar,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts –

Fineness and Marking

2112

2014

2742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

L-

9512369018

19.12.2016

M/s AGR Steel Strips (P)

Ltd.,

69, Dharuhera Industrial

Area, Dharuhera,

Distt. Rewari – 123106,

Haryana

Cold Reduced Low

Carbon Steel Sheets

and Strips

513

2008

15.

L-

9512368319

20.12.2016

M/s Compact Ply Boards

(P) Ltd.,

43 K. M. Mile Stone,

Delhi Rohtak Road,

N H – 10, Rohad,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar,

Haryana

Veneered Decorative

Plywood

1328

1996

16.

L-

9512368824

21.12.2016

M/s Shree Shyam Tiles,

Naichana Road, Village

Jalalpur, Tehsil Bawal,

Dist. Rewari - 123501,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

17.

L-

9512369119

21.12.2016

M/s S.S. Tiles & Traders,

Village Bramanwas

Nurgarh,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122504,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

2006

L-

9512370718

21.12.2016

M/s Joneja Bright Steels

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.239, Sector-24,

Distt. Faridabad - 121005,

Haryana

Mild Steel Wire for

General Engineering

Purposes

280

2006

19.

L-

9512368925

26.12.2016

M/s S. A. Jewellers,

Main Bazar,

Bahadurgarh,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124507,

Haryana

Gold and Gold Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

1417

1999

20.

L-

9512374718

28.12.2016

M/s Neetu Enterprises,

Near Balaji Mandir,

Village Sahupura,

Ballabgarh,

Distt. Faridabad - 121004,

Haryana

Packaged Drinking

Water

(Other Than Packaged

Natural Mineral

Water)

14543

2004

[No. CMD/13:11]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

(ii)

2743

नई दिल् ली, 1 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1194.—भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो (प्रमाणन) विवनयम, 1988 के विवनयम (5) के उपविवनयम (6) के अनुसरण में

भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो एतद्द्वारा अविसूवचत करता है दक वनम् न वििरण िाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे िशावयी गई तारीख से रि ि /स् थवगत

कर दिया गया है -

अनुसूची

क्रम

संख् या

लाइसेंस संख् या

सीएम/एल

लाइसेंसिारी का नाम ि पत्ता

लाइसेंस के अन्द् तगवत िस् तु/प्रक्रम

सम् बि भारतीय मानक का शीिवक

रि करने की वतवथ

एल-

9512353516

मै. इवण्डयन ओरवचड वमनरल् स,

62/4, डीएिी स् कूल के वनकट,

कुशलीपुर,

वजला पलिल - 121102,

हररयाणा

पैकेजबन्द् ि पेय जल

(पैकेजबन्द् ि प्राकृवतक वमनरल

जल के अलािा)

आई एस 14543:2004

07.12..2016

एल-1830753

मै. हैिल् स इवण्डया वल0,

14/3, मथुरा रोड,

वजला फरीिाबाि – 121002,

हररयाणा

कम िोल् टेज वस्िचवगयर और

कन्द् रोलवगयर भाग 3: वस्िवचस,

वडसकनैक् टरस और फयूज़ कॉम् बीनेशन

यूवनटस

आई एस 13947(Part 3):1993

14.12.2016

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

सुनील कुमार, िैज्ञावनक एफ एिं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 1st May , 2017

S.O. 1194.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No. CM/L-

Name & Address

of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant

Indian Standards covered by the

licence cancelled/suspension

Date of

Cancellation

L-

9512353516

M/s Indian Orchid Minerals,

62/4, Near DAV School,

Kushlipur,

Distt. Palwal - 121102,

Haryana

Packaged Drinking Water

(Other Than Packaged Natural

Minerals Water)

IS 14543:2004

07.12..2016

L-1830753

M/s Havells India Ltd.,

14/3, Mathura Road,

Distt. Faridabad - 121002,

Haryana

Low Voltage Switchgear and

Controlgear Part 3: Switces,

Disconnectors and Fuse

Combination Units

IS 13947(Part 3):1993

14.12..2016

[No. CMD/13:13]

SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head

2744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,oa

jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2017

1195

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

MCY;wlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljd

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks d

sUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@385@99&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O.1195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/385/99-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/57/2000

The President,

Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association,

PO Palachouri,

Distt. Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Ambara colliery of WCL,

PO Ambara,

Distt. Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31^st day of March 2017

As per letter dated 29-2-2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/385/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Manager, Ambara colliery of WCL, PO (Ambara, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

dismissing Shri Sunderlal S/o Chamori, General Mazdoor w.e.f. 17-6-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by Coal Mine

Engineering workers Association at Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of Ist party is that he was working on post of General Mazdoor

in Ambara colliery from 24-4-77. His date of birth is 1-7-55. Chargesheet was issued to him by Mines Manager on

1-11-95 alleging unauthorized absence from 23-9-95 to 22-10-95. It is not understood on whose complaint about

unauthorized absence of Ist party, chargesheet was issued. After chargesheet dated 1-11-95, he was permitted to work

and additional charges were paid to him. Ist party workman Sundarlal working as General Mazdoor had submitted

application dated 22-10-95 along with medical certificate. Ist party Union further submits that workman Sundarlal

remained absent because of illness. He was given benefits of quarter, electricity, water etc. the charge alleged against

him was not of serious nature. Workman had also prayed for excuse. Appointment of Enquiry Officer is illegal.

Punishment of dismissal against workman is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

(ii)

2745

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. It is contented that reference is raised

highly belated is not tenable. That the coal mines Engineering workers association has no locus to raise the dispute.

That workman was employed as General Mazdoor in WCL. He was in habit of remaining absent without sanctioned

leave or intimation. Warning was issued to him on 26-7-95. On 22-10-95, said workman submitted application

apologizing misconduct alleged on his part and permission for resuming duty. Reply of Ist party workman was found

unsatisfactory. Enquiry was conducted appointing Enquiry Officer. 2^nd party further submits if enquiry is found

vitiated, it be permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence. That punishment imposed against workman is proper

and legal considering serious nature of charge alleged against him. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 6/1 to 6/7 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 24-6-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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

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

(i) Whether the 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 Negative

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

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1 As per order dated 24-6-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal therefore question

remains for consideration whether charge of unauthorised absence alleged against workman is proved needs to be

decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

2^nd party has produced documents of enquiry at Exhibit M-1 to 6. Exhibit M-1 is warning letter issued to

workman Sundar Lal dated 20-1-95. In Exhibit M-2, workman has admitted he not attended duty since 23-9-95 because

of illness. He was absent for one month. In M-4, workman has stated that he had not given intimation about his absence

from 23-9-95 as no hand was available with him. Ist party has not produced any documents about his illness in Enquiry

Proceedings. He admitted his absence from duty. Documents noted above are sufficient to prove charge against Ist

party workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- Question remains for consideration whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman for

charge of unauthorized absence is proper and legal. Chargesheet issued to workman for absence from duty. In his

statement recorded at page 11 of Enquiry Proceedings, workman claims that he was suffering from illness and

receiving treatment from local Hakim, any documents are not produced. The proved charge against workman is for

unauthroised absence from 22-10-95 till 1-11-95 for short period , therefore punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman appears shockingly disproportionate. For workman remaining absent for such short period, punishment of

dismissal is not justified. In my considered view, punishment of dismissal deserves to be modified to compulsory

retirement. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in dismissing Shri Sunderlal S/o Chamori, General Mazdoor w.e.f.

17-6-96 is not proper and legal.

(2)

Order of dismissal of workman dated 17-6-96 is quashed. Punishment of dismissal is modified to

compulsory retirement. 2^nd party is directed to give all retiral benefits to the workman.

(3)

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] 28 vizSy] 2017

1196

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,lbZ

lh,y

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@

2004

&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

2746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/59/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2005

Secretary/ President,

Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh, (AITUC),

C/o Sanjay Mishra, Telephone Exchange,

Po Kotma Colliery, Distt. Shahdol

…Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Amadand Sub Area of SECL,

PO chokan,

Distt. Shahdol

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31^st day of March 2017

As per letter dated 17-1-2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

L-22012/59/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Amadand Sub Area of SECL in not promoting/ regularizing Shri

Mohan Mishra, Mechanical Helper to the post of Mechanical Fitter 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 3/3. Case of Ist party is that he was appointed as Mechanical Helper in January 1994. Lateron he was

regularized on post of Mechanical Helper on 17-9-98. While working on post of mechanical helper in the year 2000,

workman was directed to work on higher post of mechanical fitter since June 2000. Workman was continuously

working on post of mechanical fitter Grade IV. That SECL management framed policy laying down if workman is

employed to work on higher post and continues to work on such higher post for more than 240 days in surface, 190

days at underground, workman shall be entitled to the promotion to the post of higher scale. That he worked on post of

mechanical fitter which is higher post than the post of mechanical helper therefore he is entitled to be regularized on

post of mechanical fitter Grade IV.

Ist party further submits that management did not grant benefit of promotion to the post of mechanical fitter

despite his representation for several years. The dispute is raised under Section 10 of ID Act. After FOC, the dispute

has been referred. It is reiterated that he was denied promotion to the post of mechanical fitter as per policy of the

company. Similar benefit was granted to other employees on higher post of Fitter. On such ground, workman prays

for promotion/ regularization on the post of mechanical fitter since completion of 190 days work.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/5 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary

objection is raised that Ist party has not stated from which date he is entitled to get promotion. Claim of workman is

vague as such not tenable. The order of reference is not tenable on ground of delay and latches. Ist party workman was

initially appointed as piece rated labour from 29-12-1990. He was working as piece rated labour. Secretary of RCWF

Kotma branch raised the dispute claiming regularization. Management had arrived to settlement in Form H as per order

dated 13-10-99. Ist party was regularized on post of Electrical Helper Category II. Workman was not permitted to

work as mechanical helper. The services of coal employees are covered by NCWA. The cadre scheme is provided

under NCWA in the matter of promotion. Educational qualification, eligibility and mode ofr promotion etc. the DPC

was constituted for promotion in Mechanical Category IV from Cat-II and Ist party was given opportunity to appear

for consideration for promotion. Ist party was considered by DP along with other eligible candidates. Workman had

(ii)

2747

failed in trade test. DPC did not recommend his name. Therefore Ist party is not entitled to promotion to the post of

mechanical fitter claimed by him. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. That he was

denied promotion to the post of mechanical fitter Grade IV. He was denied charges of said post as such Ist party was

discriminated. He is not entitled for regularization.

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 Sub Area Manager,

Amadand Sub Area of SECL in not promoting/

regularizing Shri Mohan Mishra, Mechanical Helper

to the post of Mechanical Fitter is legal and

justified?

In Negative

(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 denial of promotion to Ist party to the post of Mechanical Fitter. Ist

party workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that he was working

continuously on post of mechanical fitter since June 2000. Other employees working on said post were regularized. Ist

party workman was discriminated. He was not paid wages for the post of mechanical fitter. The illegalities were

committed by the management denying promotion to the opost of Mechanical Fitter Grade IV. In his cross, workman

says on 29-12-90, he was appointed by department as loader on piece rat basis. There is no rule for promotion in coal

India. His services are governed by NCWA & cadre scheme framed under it. In 2002, he appeared before DPC. He was

found not fit. He was posted as mechanical helper in 1998. DPC conducted written exam. Document Exhibit M-1

pertains to examination conducted by DPC. He denies that he claims promotion as per cadre scheme. He denies that he

was regularized on post of electrical helper. He admits that he was regularized on post of mechanical helper. Ist party

had denied that he not passed examination conducted by DPC for mechanical fitter therefore he was not recommended

for promotion. Exhibit W-1 produced by Ist party pertains to reply dated 26-11-03 submitted by Ist party. Exhibit W-2

pertains to Ist party was working as mechanical helper Cat-II in underground mines from 11-8-98. He was also

working as mechanical fitter Cat-IV, wages for mechanical helper Cat-IV were paid to Ist party. That merely working

on said post doesnot give right for regularization to Ist party. Exhibit W-3 is order of promotion dated 22-7-05,

5 employee were promoted as mechanical helper Cat-II- name of Ist party is not appearing.

Affidavit of witness of Ist party is filed supporting claim of Ist party workman that he was appointed as

mechanical helper in January 1994. He was regularized on post of mechanical helper in January 1994. He was

regularized on post of mechanical helper on 17-9-98. While working in the year 2000, workman directed to work on

the post of mechanical helper since June 2000. Thereafter Ist party was continuously working on post of mechanical

helper. Ist party workman worked for 240 days on surface and 190 days in underground. Ist party was not granted

promotion as per order dated 29-11-02. Witness of Ist party in his cross examination says his affidavit is drafted by

Advocate. He resides at Govinda District, Annupur. In the year 2000, he had come for preparing his affidavit of

evidence before Oath Commissioner.

Management’s witness Shri S.R.Pandey in his affidavit of evidence stated that initially Ist party was appointed

as piece rated labour on 29-12-90. He was working as piece rated loader. The settlement was arrived on 13-10-98.

Workman was regularized as electrical helper Category II. The service conditions of coal industry are covered by

NCWA & promotion as per cadre scheme. DPC had given opportunity to Ist party for promotion to the post of

Mechanical Helper Cat-IV on the basis of seniority. DPC did not recommend case of workman for promotion.

Workman cannot take advantage of any circular prior to the introduction of cadre scheme. Management’s witness in his

cross says he was not member of DPC Committee relating to present dispute. He denies that he doesnot know facts of

the case. Witness reiterates he has knowledge as per available records. That test for promotion by DPC, it is necessary

that workman should appear before DPC.

10.

Management’s witness Shri P.K.Shrivastava also filed affidavit of his evidence reiterating that DPC was

constituted to consider promotion to the post of mechanical fitter Cat-IV. Ist party was also given opportunity by DPC.

Workman failed in the trade test held by DPC therefore he was not recommended for promotion. In his evidence

Exhibit M-6, the record of DPC is produced. In his cross, management’s witness says meeting of DPC was held on

18-11-02. He was member of said committee. Ist party was called for trade test. The score of trade test is shown in

2748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit M-6. Other documents Exhibit M-7 to 29 are produced by management are admitted in evidence.

Management’s witness denies that because of enmity with Ist party, he was denied promotion to the post of

Mechanical Fitter Cat-IV. Cross-examination of Ist party shows promotion to the post of mechanical helper Category

IV are covered by cadre scheme on recommendations of DPC. Exhibit M-2 shows Ist party was appointed as dependent

on piece rated loader. Exhibit M-2 shows Ist party was regularized on post of Electrical Helper Category II on 13-10-

01. Exhibit M-4 is copy of service register of Ist party. Exhibit M-5 shows that Ist party was transferred to J&K Area

on 29-5-98. Exhibit M-6 is copy of cadre scheme. Clarifications for post of mechanical Fitter Cat-IV are provided. 7

employees were promoted to mechanical fitter Category IV, name of workman is not appearing in it. Ist party has not

produced documents that he passed trade test. Claim of Ist party for regularization to the post of mechanical helper

Category IV cannot be allowed. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Sub Area Manager, Amadand Sub Area of SECL in not promoting/ regularizing Shri

Mohan Mishra, Mechanical Helper to the post of Mechanical Fitter is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2

vizSy

] 2017

1197

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

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

vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

2006

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@3

2005

&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/338/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 66 OF 2006

PARTIES :

The management of Bahula Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Arjun Turi

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Sri S.K. Pandey, Union Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 13.04.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

(ii)

2749

No. L-22012/338/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication

by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Arjun Turi, Ex-UG Loader, U.M. No. 528902 w.e.f. 30.09.2004 is legal and justified?

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

1. Having received the NO. L-22012/338/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2006 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 66 of 2006 was

registered on 25.09.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

The workman Sri Arjun Turi has alleged in his written statement that he was in employment of the company as

Loader at Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing Man No. 528902. He was

seriously ill therefore he was absent from duty w.e.f. 04.04.2003. He was chargesheeted vide Chargesheet no.

AGENT/BC/C-6E/31/03/870 dated 11.7.03. The workman replied to the Chargesheet. He appeared before the Enquiry

Officer. The management did not follow the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. He was not afforded

reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. Not a single document was proved as per law. The Enquiry Officer and

management representative were highly prejudice and biased against the workman. The workman was dismissed from

the service of the company vide Dismissal Order No. PERS/KND/115/1129 dated 07.10.2004. The dismissal of Sri

Arjun Turi from service of the company is illegal and unjustified. Punishment is not at all proportionate to the alleged

misconduct. The workman belongs to the downtrodden community. He is sitting idle without any job and his whole

family is dying without meal without his fault. The workman has prayed that the management of Bahula Colliery under

Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to reinstate the him in service with payment of full back

wages for the period from the date of his forced idleness with all consequential benefits.

The Agent of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his written

statement that Sri Arjun Turi ex-U. G. Loader of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

remained absent form his duty unauthorizedly w.e.f. 04.04.2003 onwards without any prior permission or sanctioned

leave. As such he was chargesheeted by the management vide Chargesheet No. Agent/BC/C-6E/31/03/870 dated

11.07.2003 as per provisions of standing order under Clause of misconduct no. 26.29 of Certified Standing Order. The

reply submitted by the chargesheeted workman was found to be totally unsatisfactory. A domestic enquiry was held

into the said Chargesheet by the Enquiry Officer. Ex-workman duly participated in the enquiry proceeding. He was

given all reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend his case in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of enquiry submitted his Enquiry Report. The charge of misconduct was

fully established in the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Copy of enquiry proceeding and findings of Enquiry

Officer was issued to the concerned ex-workman by General Manager of Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited i.e. the disciplinary authority vide letter No. Pers/KND/115/883 dated 26/31.08.2004 asking him to submit his

comment. The disciplinary authority after careful consideration of Chargesheet, Reply to the Chargesheet, Enquiry

Proceeding , Enquiry Report and all other connected papers including his past record of attendance was fully satisfied

with the same and the ex workman was dismissed form service vide Order of Dismissal No. Pers/KND/115/1129 dated

30.09.2004 / 07.10.2004. The attendance of the dismissed workman: Nil in the year 2001, Nil in the year 2002, and 21

days in the year 2003. The Order of Dismissal is justified and is in accordance with the gravity of misconduct. The

workman was not ill. Management followed the principles of natural justice and afforded opportunity to the ex-

workman to prove his innocence. Agent of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

denied that Enquiry Officer and management representative were highly prejudice and biased against concerned

workman. The punishment awarded to the ex-workman is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

The workman has not filed any documentary evidence.

The workman Sri Arjun Turi has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned

advocate of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Agent of Bahula Colliery under

Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed the following documents :-

(i) Photocopy of the Chargesheet, (ii) Photocopy of the Reply to the Chargesheet, (iii) Photocopy of the Enquiry

Proceeding, (iv) Photocopy of the Enquiry Report, (v) Photocopy of the Show Cause on the basis of findings of

2750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chargesheet enquiry, (vi) Photocopy of the Reply of Show Cause on the basis of findings of Chargesheet enquiry, (vii)

Photocopy of the Order of Dismissal vide Ref. No. Pers/KND/115/1129 dated 30.09.2004 / 07.10.2004.

The Agent of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed affidavit.

I have heard arguments of Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative appearing on behalf of the workman,

Sri Arjun Turi and Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited

Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

argued that workman is habitual absentee. Habitual absence is serious misconduct. The punishment of dismissal is

justified. On the other hand Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative has argued that neither there is charge in the

Chargesheet against workman for habitual absence nor there is any evidence in enquiry proceeding. He has been

absent for merely 3 (Three) months under compelling circumstance of his sickness. It is his first incident. He has never

been absent before. He has not been afforded opportunity to defend himself. Domestic enquiry is vitiated, biased and

invalid.

It is undisputed that Sri Arjun Turi, delinquent workman was in employment as U. G. Loader at Bahula Colliery

under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He has been dismissed form service after domestic enquiry on

charge of unauthorized absence. The workman has challenged the proceeding of domestic enquiry. He has alleged that

departmental enquiry is vitiated and biased. He has not been provided opportunity to defend himself. Enquiry has been

conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, whereas the Agent of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.

The workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity. The workman has participated in the enquiry.

Unauthorized absence is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorized absence by an employee, two

courses are open to the Employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and

sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The

second is to treat the unauthorized absence as misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the

misconduct. An employee who remains unauthorizedly absent for some period, on reporting back to duty, may apply

for condonation of absence by offering an explanation for such unauthorized absence and seek grant of leave for that

period. If the Employer is satisfied that there was sufficient cause of justification for unauthorized absence, the

Employer may condone the act of indiscipline and sanction leave post facto. If leave is so sanctioned and the

unauthorized absence is condoned, it will not be opened to the Employer to thereafter initiate disciplinary proceedings

in regard to the said misconduct unless it had, while sanctioning leave reserved the right to take disciplinary action in

regard to the act of indiscipline. Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent does not report back to duty and

offer any satisfactory explanation or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the Employer

will take recourse to disciplinary authority in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such disciplinary proceeding may

lead to imposition of punishment.

The domestic enquiry commences with service of Chargesheet. Before proceeding with the domestic enquiry

against the delinquent workman, the delinquent workman must be informed clearly of the charges labelled against him.

If the Employer or the Enquiry Officer intends to rely upon any document or upon any witness or if the charges are

based on any document then in such case the disciplinary authority is duty bound to supply the copy of documents and

list of witnesses at the time of issuing Chargesheet to the delinquent workman. The Chargesheet should specifically set

out all the charges which the workman is required to show cause and should also state all relevant particulars without

which he can not defend himself. The object of this requirement is that the delinquent workman must know what he is

charged with and have the opportunity to meet the charge and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation after

knowing the nature of charge. Otherwise it will amount to his being condemned unheard. If the charges are indefinite

or if the copy of documents upon which the charge are based and list of witnesses are not supplied to the delinquent

well in advance, then the delinquent workman would not be able to understand the charges and defend himself.

Consequently the domestic enquiry will be unfair and vitiated. Not only this delinquent workman must be afforded

reasonable time to offer his explanation after service of Chargesheet. If delinquent workman intends to inspect any

document maintained by the Employer before submitting his explanation then the Employer or disciplinary authority

will insure the inspection of documents and records by delinquent workman before receiving his explanation. If the

workman has no opportunity to reply the charges, than the enquiry will not be in conformity with the rules of natural

justice.

10.

Chargesheet has been issued under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

for unauthorized absence without sanctioned leave of certified standing order of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Procedure for imposition of penalty has been mentioned under Clause 28.1 of Certified Standing Order of Bahula

Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Clause 28.1 provides that the employee will be given an

opportunity to submit his explanation in writing within a period not lees than 3 (Three) days, whereas from perusal of

(ii)

2751

Chargesheet the Agent of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has given only 2

(Two) days time for submitting explanation of the delinquent workman Sri Arjun Turi. The Agent of Bahula Colliery

under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not followed his mandate of Certified Standing Order. In the

Chargesheet there is no mention of any witness or any document. The delinquent workman has not been supplied with

the copies of documents and list of witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashinath Dikshita v/s Union of India &

Others (1986) 3 SC 229 has held that :-

“ No one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant

statement and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies the

concerned employees can not prepare his defence, cross-examine the witness and point out the inconsistencies

with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. Observance of natural justice and due opportunity has

been held to be an essential ingredient in disciplinary proceedings. ”

11.

The Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of Sri S. R. Tewari, management representative as witness. He

has stated that Sri Arjun Turi was absent from duty from 04.04.2003 without any permission and satisfactory cause. As

such he has been chargesheeted. Register and Form ‘GXH’ are produced as exhibit. It is apparent that such copy of

Hon’ble Apex Court. As per mines rules Register of Leave has to be maintained under Rule-53 and Register of Daily

Attendance has to be maintained under Rule-78. Copy these register has not been produced during enquiry preceding

which were very necessary for proving the absence of the delinquent workman Sri Arjun Turi.

12.

The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Sri S. R. Tewari, management representative on 26.03.2004. The

Enquiry Officer has recorded that the delinquent workman Sri Arjun Turi has declined the cross-examination. The

workman is a member of Schedule Cast community. He is illiterate as per his affidavit. Being illiterate he might not be

aware about his legal rights. Therefore the Enquiry Officer was required to postpone the date and fix a date for cross-

examination of the management witness by delinquent workman. Even if the delinquent workman did not avail the

opportunity of cross-examination, still he has right to lead defence evidence. But from perusal of enquiry proceeding it

is absolutely clear that the opportunity of defence evidence was denied to the workman. The enquiry proceeding

commenced on 26.03.2004 and completed on same date on 26.03.2004 without fixing a date for defence evidence of

the workman. The Enquiry Officer has clearly violated the principles of natural justice by denying the opportunity to

lead defence evidence to the delinquent workman. The departmental proceeding is quasi-juridical proceeding. The

burden of proof lies on the department which can be proved by collecting evidence as well as affording all reasonable

opportunity to concerned workman. In a departmental proceeding, if the allegation of unauthorized absence form duty

is made the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence was willful, in the absence of such finding the

absence will not amount to misconduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v/s Union of India & Others 2008

(117) FLR 1024 SC has held that:-

“ Natural justice is part of Article 14 of the constitution of India. ”

13.

From perusal of material available on record it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the

departmental enquiry against the delinquent workman in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry

Officer has not afforded opportunity of cross-examination to the delinquent workman, even the copies of documents

and list of witness upon which the Enquiry Officer has relied, has not been supplied to the delinquent workman at the

time of issuing Chargesheet. The charge is defective. The delinquent workman has been denied to lead his defence

evidence. The workman has been absent for near about 3 (Three) months only. The order of dismissal is a major

punishment. The punishment of dismissal without a valid, un-vitiated and un-biased enquiry for mere absence of 3

(Three) months is illegal, unjustified and quite disproportionate to the alleged un-proved misconduct which ought to be

set-a-side.

14.

The workman has alleged in Para-11 of his written statement that he belongs to downtrodden community. He is

sitting without any job. His whole family is dying without meal. This fact has not been denied by the Agent of Bahula

Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in his written statement. The workman has alleged in

Para-9 and Para-10 of his affidavit that he is jobless form the period of dismissal. Though he has been cross-examined

by the advocate of the Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited but his evidence is un-

shattered. Neither party to reference has filed document regarding age of delinquent workman Sri Arjun Turi. Sri Arjun

Turi has stated his age 43 years in his affidavit. He filed his affidavit in the year 2012. At present his approximate age

would be near about 48 years. He had been permanent employee. He has put sufficient service. He is jobless after

dismissal. Keeping in view all these facts there is no possibility of getting employment anywhere else.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasmer Singh v/s State of Haryana & Another, 2015 (144) F.L.R. 837 SC has

held that :-

2752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or

termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been

but for the illegal action taken by the Employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or

is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order

which has the effect of severing the Employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up.

Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source

of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement

in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These

sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the

Employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent

judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the Employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory

provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. ”

15.

In view of discussion above the action of management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Arjun Turi, Ex-U. G. Loader, U. M. No. 528902 w.e.f. 30.09.2004 is illegal and

unjustified. The dismissal order dated Ref. No. Pers/KND/115/1129 dated 30.09.2004 / 07.10.2004 of Sri Arjun Turi is

hereby set-a-side. The management is directed to reinstate Sri Arjun Turi. The workman Sri Arjun Turi will be entitled

to get full back-wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 30.09.2004. Sri Arjun Turi, Ex-U.G. Loader will also be entitled

for all consequential service benefits such as increments, promotions, etc. had he not been dismissed form service.

Sri Arjun Turi will be imposed of punishment of stoppage of 2 (Two) increments without cumulative effect.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2017

1198

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca

èk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

2006

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@266@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/266/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 56 OF 2006

PARTIES :

The management of New Kenda Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Kanna Kole

(ii)

2753

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Sri S.K. Pandey, Union Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 10.04.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-

22012/266/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 22.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Mr. Kanna Kole, U.G. Trammer, U.M. No. 097294 w.e.f. 11.12.2002 is legal and

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

1. Having received the No. L-22012/266/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 22.08.2006 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 56 of 2006 was

registered on 18.09.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

The workman Sri Kanna Kole has alleged in his written statement that he was in employment of the company as

Trammer at New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing Man No. 097294. He

was seriously ill therefore he was absent from duty w.e.f. 19.03.2001. He was Chargesheeted vide Chargesheet No.

PERS/NKC/CS/02/940 dated 24.08.2001. He replied to the Chargesheet. The management conducted the departmental

enquiry, but did not follow the principles of natural justice. He was not given opportunity to prove his innocence.

Neither a single document was proved nor a single witness was examined in the departmental enquiry against the

workman. The Enquiry Officer and the management representative were highly prejudice and biased against him. The

findings are not based on record. The workman was held only for not informing the management about his sickness and

as such the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct. The dismissal of the workman Sri Kanna

Kole from services of the company is illegal and unjustified. He belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. He is sitting

idle without any job. His whole family is dying without meal without his fault. The workman has prayed that the

Tribunal may kindly direct New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to reinstate the

workman Sri Kanna Kole in service with payment of full back wages with all consequential benefits.

The Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied the

allegation of the workman in his written statement. The Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his written statement that ex-workman was absent from duty since

19.03.2001 without any prior permission or leave, therefore the company’s work suffered. He was Chargesheet vide

Chargesheet no. Personal/NKC/CS/02/947 dated 24.04.2001 under clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order. The

workman appeared in the enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in compliance of natural

justice. The past performance of ex-workman had been unsatisfactory he was present only 202 days in the year 1999,

190 days in the year 2000 and 45 days in the year 2001. After conclusion of enquiry the disciplinary authority issued

2^nd Show Cause Notice, but the delinquent failed to submit reply to the said Chargesheet. The punishing authority after

perusing the Enquiry Report and connected papers passed the order of dismissal. It is wrong that ex-workman was

seriously ill or he is without any job. The enquiry had been conducted in compliance of principles of natural justice.

The punishment of dismissal is legal and justified. The action of management is totally justified and the ex-workman is

not entitled for reinstatement.

Workman has filed documentary evidences :-

(i) Photocopy of the Chargesheet, (ii) Photocopy of the Enquiry Report & Findings, (iii) Photocopy of the

Enquiry Proceeding and (iv) Photocopy of the Dismissal Order

The workman Sri Kanna Kole has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the

learned advocate of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

2754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed

any oral or documentary evidence.

I have heard the arguments of Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative appearing on behalf of the

workman Sri Kanna Kole and Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Sri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative for the workman has argued that so far as pervious absence is

concerned there is no Chargesheet in this regard. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry without giving him

opportunity to defend himself. No documentary evidence had been filed. The Enquiry Report is biased and vitiated and

devoid of principles of natural justice. Punishment of dismissal is too harsh for mere absence of few months. Workman

was absent due to illness. On the other hand Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management has argued that the

workman was unauthorized absence form duty. The workman participated in the enquiry. The punishment of dismissal

is justified.

It is not disputed the Sri Kanna Kole was U. G. Trammer at New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited . It is undisputed that delinquent workman Sri Kanna Kole had been dismissed form service,

after domestic enquiry on charge of unauthorized absence form duty. The workman has assailed the validity of

domestic enquiry. He has alleged that he was not afforded opportunity to prove his innocence. The dismissal is illegal.

On the other hand the New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged that

Enquiry Officer has afforded opportunity to the workman to defend himself. The enquiry has been conducted in

compliance of principles of natural justice.

The copy of Chargesheet has been filed by the workman. The workman has been issued Chargesheet Ref. No.

Pers/NKC/Chargesheet/02/940 dated 24.8.2001 for his continuous absence form duty without permission or sufficient

cause since 19.03.2001. There is no description of any document or witness in the Chargesheet issued to the workman.

The Enquiry Officer has examined Sri P. R. Singh, Personnel Manager as management witness but this witness has not

been named in the Chargesheet issued to the workman. The management representative Sri P. R. Singh has relied on

the documents Exibit-1 and Exibit-2 but is has not been mentioned in the Chargesheet. The domestic enquiry

commences with the service of the Chargesheet. The delinquent workman must be informed clearly, precisely and

accurately of the charges labelled against him. It is the duty of the employer to the delinquent employee not only the

precise nature of the charges but also the documents upon which the charges are based. If a delinquent employee

requires to answer a charge imposed upon him, not only he should know the acquisition but also the testimony by

which the acquisition is supported. If the Enquiry Officer intends to rely upon any document and any witness then those

documents and name of witnesses must be mentioned in the Chargesheet. The copies of those documents which are

intended to be relied must be supplied to the delinquent before calling his explanation. If this requirement is not

fulfilled it will obviously mean denial of reasonable opportunity to defend the delinquent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

Meenglas Tea Estate v/s Its Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 has observed that :

“ It is elementary principle that a person who requires to answer the charge must not know only the acquisition

but also the testimony by which the acquisition is supported.”

In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others v/s CH. Gandhi 2013 LAB.I.C 1652 Supreme Court has held

that :-

“ Framing the Chargesheet is the first step taken for holding the enquiry into the allegations on the decision

taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The charge-sheet is framed on the basis of the allegations made

against the Government servant; the charge-sheet is then served on him to enable him to give his explanation; if

the explanation is satisfactory, the proceedings are closed, otherwise, an enquiry is held into the charges; if the

charges are not proved, the proceedings are closed and the Government Servant exonerated; but if the charges

are proved, the penalty follows. Thus, the service of the charge-sheet on the Government servant follows the

decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not precede or coincide with that decision.”

10.

The Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of management representative Sri R. P. Singh, Personnel

Manager on 04.10.2002. The Enquiry Officer has recorded on 04.10.2002 that the chargesheeted the workman denied

the cross-examination on the very date 04.10.2002. The statement of delinquent was recoded on 04.10.2002. The

delinquent workman has stated on oath filed in his evidence in tribunal that he is member of Schedule Cast community

and that he is illiterate. This indicates that being illiterate he was not aware of right regarding cross-examination. The

Enquiry Officer is duty bound to inform him or his co-worker to aware about his right of cross-examination or at least,

ought to have differed the proceeding and fix another date for his cross-examination. Right of cross-examination is a

valuable right under Indian Evidence Act. It can never be curtained. Under Section 137 of the Evidence Act after

examination-in-chief the adverse party will have right of cross-examination. In purview of evidence both examination-

in-chief and cross-examination are included. If examination-in-chef is recorded but cross-examination has not been

recorded, the evidence will be inadmissible as per Evidence Act. From perusal of Enquiry Report it appears that Sri R.

(ii)

2755

P. Singh, management representative has relied on Exibit-1 and Exibit-2, but neither the copy of these given to the

delinquent nor filed on record.

11.

Even if the delinquent did not avail the opportunity of cross-examination, still he has right to lead defence

evidence. But it appears from perusal of enquiry proceeding that delinquent had never been afforded opportunity to

lead defence evidence. Even no date was fixed for his defence evince. The whole enquiry proceeding commenced on

04.10.2002 and completed on 04.10.2002 in one day only without affording opportunity to lead defence evidence to the

delinquent workman. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Houseless Harijan Employees’ Association v/s State of

Karnataka & Others (2201) 1 SCC 610 has held that :-

“ Without affording opportunity of being heard no order adverse to a person can be passed. Principles of

natural justice require that before taking action against the citizen, he must have a right to be heard. When the

statute is salient principles of natural justice can be read into it and unless a statutory provision specifically

dispenses with the principles of natural justice hearing must be given before passing any adverse order.”

12.

From perusal of material it manifest that after conclusion of enquiry and after submission of Enquiry Report the

disciplinary authority passed the dismissal order without issuing 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the delinquent workman, Sri

Kanna Kole. After conclusion of enquiry proceeding the disciplinary authority concerned was required to supply copy

of enquiry proceeding and Enquiry Report to the delinquent and call his explanation. After receiving his explanation

and before passing dismissal order the disciplinary authority was required to issue 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the

delinquent. But 2^nd Show Cause Notice has not issued to the workman. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghubir

Singh v/s General Manager Haryana Raodways, 2014 (143) FLR 469 has held that :-

“ Issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice is mandatory.”

The Coal India Limited by Circular No. CIL-C-5A(VI)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994 has instructed all authorities

concerned to issue 2^nd Show Cause Notice before passing dismissal order but the disciplinary authority did not follow

the direction of his own institution i.e. Coal India Limited.

13.

From perusal of Chargesheet it is apparent that the delinquent has been Chargesheeted for absence of 5 (Five)

months and 5 (Five) days. The copy of documents and names of witness had not been supplied to the delinquent at the

time of the issuing Chargesheet. The Enquiry Officer has neither afforded opportunity of cross-examination nor

defence evidence to the delinquent. The enquiry had been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

Even 2^nd Show Cause Notice has not been issued to the delinquent before passing the order of dismissal which is

mandatory in law. The order of dismissal is a major punishment the punishment of dismissal of any delinquent for mere

absence of near about 5 (five) months without a valid, un-vitiated and proper enquiry is not only disproportionate but

quite shocking which must be set-a-side.

14.

The workman has pleaded that he is sitting idle without any job. His whole family is dying without meal,

without his fault. Though the Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

denied in Para-16 of his written statement that the workman is sitting idle without any job and his whole family is

dying without meal. But Agent of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not

stated that after dismissal where the workman has been working. On the other hand workman has sated in Para-21 of

his affidavit that he intends to join the job for his livelihood. He has been crossed by the learned advocate of New

Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, but there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence

of workman that he is sitting idle without any job

15.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasmer Singh v/s State of Haryana & Another, 2015 (144) F.L.R. 837 SC has

held that :-

“ The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or

termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been

but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or

is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order

which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up.

Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source

of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement

in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These

sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the

employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi

judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or

the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. ”

2756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Neither party to the reference has filed any document regarding the age of delinquent workman. Even the

workman has not stated his age in his affidavit. His affidavit has been field in the year 2015. He has prayed in his

affidavit that he intends to join the job for his livelihood. It indicates that still he has not reached the age of

superannuation. He has been dismissed in the year 2002 still he is jobless. Keeping in view this fact there is no

possibility of getting job / alternate employment anywhere else.

17.

In view of the discussion above the action of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Kanna Kole U.G. Trammer, U. M. No. 097294 w.e.f. 11.12.2002 is illegal and unjustified.

The dismissal order dated 11.12.2002 is hereby set-a-side. The management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate Sri Kanna Kole. Sri Kanna Kole is entitled to get full back

wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 11.12.2002 with all consequential benefits e.g. Promotion, Seniority, increment,

etc. Sri Kanna Kole will be imposed a punishment of stoppage of 2 (Two) increments without cumulative effect.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2017

1199

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; lj

dkj bZlh,y ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 05@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

2017 d

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@55@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/55/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Ref.:

Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/55/2010-IR (CM-II) dated 21.01.2011

This office Reference No. 05 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011

Management of New Ghusick Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Sri Umeshwar Das

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 04^th April, 2017 at CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

(ii)

2757

ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2017

1200

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiq

j ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@11@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th April, 2017

S.O. 1200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern

Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.04.2017.

[No. L-22012/11/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/53/2008

Shri Karelal,

S/o Rajwa,

At/Vill./PO Harad,

Annuppur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,

PO Jamuna,

Annuppur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21^st day of March 2017

As per letter dated 13-3-08 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-

22012/11/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of SECL in dismissing Shri Karelal w.e.f. 4-6-05 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 4/1 to

4/2. Case of Ist party is that he was working in Jamuna and Kotma OCM. Workman has given his PF No. 537,

personal No. 2407349. That his services were illegally terminated vide letter dated 4-6-05. Ist party workman was

suffering from paralysis and remained absent from duty without his medical examination by Medical Board on his

request. Chargesheet was issued on 17-2-04. Without any kind of hearing or his medical examination, his service were

illegally terminated. His services are terminated illegally showing him unauthorized absent without any evidence. He

however contented that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. On the basis of findings of

such illegal enquiry, termination of his service is illegal. 2^nd party has withheld amount of Gratuity, PF. That on his

request, he was not examined by Medical Board to be declared unfit for work. To avoid appointment of dependents on

compassionate ground, the notice issued by Ist party was not considered. On such ground, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to 11/4 opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that Ist party

was habitual absent. He was given several opportunities to improve but no improvement was in his attendance.

Workman was absent from 1-4-02 to 17-2-04. Chargesheet was issued to him on 17-2-04 sent by RPAD. Reply

submitted by workman to the chargesheet was found unsatisfactory. Therefore it was decided to conduct enquiry. Shri

S.L.Soni appointed as Enquiry Officer, Management representative was also appointed on 6-5-04. The Enquiry Officer

issued memorandum dated 29-5-04 enquiry was fixed on 7-6-04, 28-8-04 and various other dates. Workman remained

absent on all the dates of hearing. Statement of management representative and management’s witness were recorded

on 31-1-05. Copy of attendance register was produced in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding

charges against workman proved. After issuing showcause notice dated 9-4-05 and considering representation of

workman, punishment of dismissal was imposed on 4-6-05. 2^nd party further submits that its employees are provided

medical facilities including the family particulars. The treatment in specialized hospital is also made available. That Ist

party workman was habitual absentee. Alleged signatures has not been reported to the management. Termination of

services of Ist party workman is legal. Reference be answered in favour of management.

Workman died during pendency of reference. His LRs are brought on record. As per order dated 19-6-15,

enquiry conducted against workman was found legal.

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 misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1 As per order dated 19-6-15, enquiry is found legal. Question whether charges alleged against

workman are proved needs to be decided considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Chargesheet Exhibit M-2()1)

issued to workman under clause 26.24 for habitual absence without sufficient cause. Clause 26.30 absence without

sufficient leave, clause 26.32 false claim of illness . clause 26.34 remaining absent without proper reasons. As per

document Exhibit M-1, reply given to the chargesheet, Ist party workman had admitted his absence on account of

illness. He had requested to sent him for proper treatment and medical examination. Workman denied charges alleged

against him Exhibit M-2/2 to 2/7 are intimation of memo of enquiry proceedings. In Enquiry Proceeding Exhibit M-3,

statement of management’s representative Sanjay Singh was recorded. As per his statement, workman was on duty for

85 days in 2002. His attendance in the year 2003-04, 05 was nil. Management’s witness Shri R.P.Mishra in his

statement says that workman was absent from 14-4-02 , any intimation was not received about his absence. Copy of

Form G register is produced in the Enquiry Proceedings. The attendance of deceased workman is shown 85 days in

2002. His attendance in the year 2003-04 , 05 was nil. Enquiry Report is produced at Exhibit M-5 holding workman

guilty. Rely Exhibit M-1 workman claimed that he was suffering from paralysis and he requested to be sent for proper

treatment is not considered by Enquiry Officer. The reasons are not given why workman was not provided treatment

about his illness. The reply given to the chargesheet Exhibit M-1 is silent whether application for leave was submitted

or intimation about illness of workman was given to the management. Workman produced zerox copy of medical

treatment but Isdt party has not adduced evidence to prove the zerox copy of documents. For absence of such evidence

only on the basis of reply to the chargesheet given by workman, it is difficult to uphold that workman was suffering

from illness. The evidence of management’s witness in enquiry is sufficient to establish charges. Therefore I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- The charegesheet issued to workman under various clauses of standing order Ist party workman was

absent from duty from 14-4-02 till chargesheet issued on 17-2-04 for about 1 year 10 months for long period. The

absence of workman was unauthorized. He not submitted application for leave neither sent medical certificate to the

management.

Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi on the point relies on ratio held in case between-

Eveready Industries India Ltd Jabalpur and others versus Shri P.S.Parihar and another reported in

2003(3)MPHT.257. Their Lordship held from documentary evidence, it is evident that Respondent No.1 remained

(ii)

2759

absent for long time. He committed various irregularities, he did not take interest in the work. There was reasonable

cause for dismissing his services.

In case between Delhi Transport Corporation ve3rsus Sardar Singh reported in 2004(7)SCC-574. Their

Lordship dealing with habitual or continuous absence of duty without sanctioned leave for long, primafacie amounts to

habitual negligence of duties and lack of interest in work constituting misconduct under standing order. their Lordship

also held with negligence in duty.

Considering long period of absence discussed above, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot

be said disproportionate. Interference in the punishment of dismissal would not be appropriate. For above reasons, I

record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of SECL in dismissing Shri Karelal w.e.f. 4-6-05 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1201

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuql

j.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 132@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; l

jdkj dks 04

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@95@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of BCCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22012/95/1999-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 132 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The management of Khas Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL

Vs.

Sri Sarojit Majhi & 5 others

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Sri Gora Chand Chatterjee, Learned Advocate

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 03.04.2017

2760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/95/99–

IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 / 03.08.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL in not

regularizing/confirming Sri Sarojit Majhi and five others (list enclosed) as Dresser is justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled? ”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/95/99–IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 / 03.08.1999 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No.

132 of 1999 was registered on 18.08.1999. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said

order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

6 (Six) workmen namely Sri Sarojit Majhi , Sri Parag Warah, Sri Manoranjan Mondal, Sri Ananda Mondal, Sri

Rajesh Kumar and Sri Jayshree Singh have filed written statement through their union representative Sri Gora Chand

Chatterjee. The workmen have stated in their written statement that they are permanent employee of Begunia Colliery

of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. These employees have been selected for the post of

Dresser (T) after observing the procedure so design by the management. After completion of period of probation they

ought to have been confirmed. They have completed their probation period long back, but the management instead of

confirming them on their post, allowed them to continue as it is, thereby depriving them from their legal and lawful

benefits. The management again issued an Office Order and posted them at C.H.D. for period of 1 (One) year training

in the existing Pay Scale, though they have completed near about 5 (Five) years as Dresser (T) and maintaining all

three shifts at the company’s hospital. Workmen have prayed that tribunal may hold the action of management totally

unjustified in not regularizing 6 (six) employees by the management of Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited as dresser.

The General Manager of Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has

denied the allegation of workmen in his written statement. The management of Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria

Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has stated in his written statement that as per Cadre Scheme of Para-Medical

Staff, formulated by JBCCI in National Coal Wage Agreement-IV vide implementation Instruction No. 28, circulated

vide Circular No. CIL/JBCCI-IV-I.I.No. 21/90/22065 dated 01.08.1990 following is the criteria fixed for selecting

Dresser in Technical and supervisory Grade-F :

(i)

Minimum Qualification (Educational / Technical) :- Matriculate with 1 (one) year’s Training

Certificate from the company’s hospital / recognized institute / Government Hospital.

(ii)

Mode of Promotion :- Interview / Selection.

Sri Sarojit Majee, Trade Apprentice, Category-I, Sri Ananda Mondal, Timber Mazdoor, Category-II, Sri

Manoranjan Mondal, Elect. Helper, Category-II, Sri Rajesh Kumar, General Mazdoor, Category-I, Sri Parag Worah,

General Mazdoor, Category-I and Sri Jayshree Singh, Explosives Carrier, Category-II were selected for their

deployment in Medical Department as Para-Medical Staff in their existing capacity and were mainly deployed to work

as Dresser (T) vide various office order numbers with terms and conditions, mentioned in the respective office orders.

The Office order suffers form technical lacunas as the Cadre Scheme clearly specified for their training in the

company’s hospital / recognized institute / Government Hospital and, that, none of the dispensaries where they were

posted, where equipped with training facilities which was very much needed for imparting such training as being a

para-medical staff the concerned were supposed to deal with human which requires utmost care while treating them. In

absence of such proper training it is not possible for the management to regularize them as Dresser. The above stated 6

(Six) persons were called for an interview by the Headquarter for their selection and training as Dresser (Trainee) vide

Order No. BCCL/PA-VI/Regularisation/Dresser(T)/2001/1630 dated 04.05.2001 along with others who were also

working in the same capacity at various dispensaries of the Area.

Out of these 6 (six) persons of the present reference Sri Sarojit Majee , Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Jayshree Singh

and Sri Parag Worah were selected along with others who were found eligible for the said post and performed well in

the interview for selection vide Order No. BCCL/PA/V/Dresser(T)/2002/1110-60 dated 25/26.03.2002 and were sent to

the Central Hospital for 1 (one) year training as per the Cadre Scheme. After completion of the training period they

were regularize in Technical and Supervisory Grade – F as Dresser along with others vide Office Order No. BCCL/PA-

(ii)

2761

5/Regularisation/Dresser(T)2003/2837-2898 dated 10.11.2003 and posted at various dispensaries. Sri Ananda Mondal

and Manoranjan Mondal were not found suitable for their selection as Dresser(T). Sri Ananda Mondal, Timber

Mazdoor even does not posses required qualification necessary for the same as per the Cadre Scheme. None of the

workmen concerned are officiating on the post against permanent vacancy. They were just trainee and their absorption

was very much related to their performance and fulfilling the eligibility criteria needed for selection as per Cadre

Scheme of the company. In view of above facts and circumstances the action of management in not regularizing /

confirming service of Sri Sarojit Majee and 5 (Five) others as Dresser is not illegal or unjustified. The Begunia Colliery

of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has prayed that the Tribunal may hold the present dispute

as ‘No Dispute’.

The workmen have file the following documentary evidences :-

(i) Photocopy of the Letter of Agent, Begunia Project dated 15.10.1997, (ii) Photocopy of the Agent, Begunia

Project dated 14/15.05.1997, (iii) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 19.11.1997 / 02.12.1997, (iv) Photocopy of the

Office Order dated 08.10.1997 / 16.10.1997, (v) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 02.12.1997 / 03.12.1997, (vi)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 15.11.1997 / 17.11.1997, (vii) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 17.10.1997 /

19.10.1997, (viii) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 06.12.1997 / 21.12.1997, (ix) Photocopy of the Office Order

dated 05.09.2002 / 07.09.2002, (x) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 19.08.2002, (xi) Photocopy of the Letter of the

applicant addressed to the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, (xii) Photocopy of the Letter of Interview, (xiii) Photocopy of

the Office Order dated 30.08.2002

The workmen Sri Ananda Mondal and Sri Manoranjan Mondal have filed affidavit on their oral evidence. Both

of the workmen are cross-examined by the learned advocate of the Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s.

Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

The management of Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has not

filed any documentary or oral evidence.

After service of notice none appeared for workmen for near about 2 (Two) years therefore the reference is

reserved for award. The workmen have claimed their regularization on basis of their continuation on post of Dresser

(T). Their allegation is that after completion of their probation period they have not been regularized so far. They are

still working under their old existing post. Whereas the Begunia Colliery of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat

Coking Coal Limited has alleged that the candidates / workmen do not posses requisite qualification, therefore they can

not be regularized. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Other v/s Umadevi and Others,

2006 (109) FLR 826 has held that :-

“ If the appointment is illegal there can not be any regularization. Illegal appointments are those where

appointments are made without following due procedure or not against sanctioned post. Secondly, the persons

appointed do not posses the prescribed minimum qualification.”

The workmen have not alleged what is their qualification. They have not alleged in their written statement that

they posses required qualification for the post of Dresser (T). Even there is no allegation of workmen that there is

sanctioned post of Dresser (T). Therefore in view by law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court if the workmen do

not posses the necessary qualification for the mentioned post they can not be regularized.

In view of the discussion above the action of management of Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal

Limited in not regularizing / confirming Sri Sarojit Majhi, Sri Parag Warah, Sri Manoranjan Mondal, Sri Ananda

Mondal, Sri Rajesh Kumar and Sri Jayshree Singh is justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1202

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,elh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuq

aèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@35@2010&vkbZvk

j (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

2762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of MCL and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22012/35/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

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. 20/2010

Date of Passing Award – 3^rd March, 2017

Between :

The General Manager,

Bharatpur Area of MCL, At. Mahendrapur,

Po. N.S. Nagar, Bharatpur Colliery, Dist. Angul.

The Project Officer,

Bharatpur OCP of MCL,

Po. N.S. Nagar, Dist. Angul

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

The General Secretary,

Talcher Coal Mines Employees Union,

At. Qr. No. 1B-103, Po. South Balanda,

Dist. Angul

…2^nd Party-Union

Appearances :

Shri S.K. Bharadwaj,

…

For the 1^st Party- Management

Senior Manager, Personnel.

Shri Pramod Kr. Mohanty,

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union

AWARD

This award is directed against a reference with the schedule “whether the action of the management of

Mahanadi Coal Fields in fixation of wages in respect of Shri P.K. Mohanty, Dumper Operator, Grade-B is legal and

justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from what date?’’ made by the Government of India in

the Ministry of Labour 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 (herein-after referred to as Act) vide letter No. L-22012/35/2010 –

IR(CM-II), dated 24.112010 out of a dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharatpur Area

of McL and their workman represented through Talcher Coal Mines Employees Union.

The case of the 2^nd party-Union as revealed from its statement of claim is that the disputant workman Shri P.K.

Mohanty was initially appointed as Dumper Operator, Category-I on 6.11.1999 in the establishment of the Management

No. 1 and he was promoted to Operator of different categories. He was Dumper Operator, Grade-C with effect from

6.5.2000 by virtue of his promotion and he was eligible to get promotion to Dumper Operator Grade-D after three years

being in Grade-C category in Dumper Operator. However, he was given promotion to Dumper Operator of Grade-B

category on 01.04.2003 with an order that financial benefit in the said category would be extended with effect from

2.9.2003. His annual increment in the category of Grade-C fell on 1^st May. It is alleged by the disputant-workman that

due to his promotion before completion of three years in Grade-C Dumper Operator he was deprived of getting the

annual increment that fell on 01.05.2003 and instead his pay was fixed notionally in the promotional post of Grade-B

Dumper Operator with effect from 1.4.2003 and financial benefit in the said scale with effect from 2.9.2003. According

to him he became looser of getting benefit of one increment through-out his successive service carrier due to such

(ii)

2763

earlier promotion and fixation of pay in promotional scale on 01.04.2003. Hence, he made a representation to his

authority for deferring his promotion and fixation of pay to 06.05.2003 so as to enable him to avail of his annual

increment on 01.05.2003. As his appointing authority turned down his request to give effect to the promotion after

sanction of his annual increment with effect from 06.05.2003 he raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar which has ultimately resulted in the present reference.

In its written statement the Management has denied the claim

of the disputant workman taking a stand that

there was no hard and first rule to give promotion to the disputant workman after completion of three years in Grade-C

category of Dumper Operator. The promotion was recommended by the departmental promotion committee constituted

from time to time based on cadre skill provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement, eligibility criteria, qualification

and performance. The fixation of pay and subsequent date of annual increment in promotional cadre is governed as per

the National Coal Wage Agreement-II. As the pay of disputant workman was fixed in his promotional scale on

01.04.2003 on account of his promotion being effected on that day there was no scope of sanctioning annual increment

to him in his old scale on 6.5.2003 and, therefore the disputant workman is not entitled to any annual increment in

Grade-C category Dumper Operator on 01.05.2003. His claim being devoid of any merit should be rejected out-rightly.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties two issues as mentioned below have been settled for just and proper

adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

Whether the action of the Management is Mahanadi Coal Fields in fixation of wages in respect of Shri

P.K. Mohanty, Dumper Operator, Gr-B is legal and justified?

What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from what date?

The disputant workman has examined himself as W.W.-1 and filed copy of letter dated 9.12.1995 issued by the

Management of MCL, copy of letter issued by the Management dated 13.9.2013, copy of letter dated 20.2.2007 issued

by the Management of MCL and copy of letter dated 2.12.2009 issued by the Management of MCL which are marked

as Ext.-1 to 4 to establish his claim, whereas the Management has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to

refute the claim.

For the sake of convenience all the issues are dealt and answered simultaneously. The pleadings and evidence of

the parties go to show that there is no serious dispute between the parties to the fact that though the disputant-workman

was given promotion on 01.04.2003, he was extended financial benefit in his promotional cadre with effect from

2.9.2003. Accordingly his next annual increment was due on 1^st April, 2004 as per National Coal Wage Agreement-II.

It appears from the contention advanced by the Management that there is no optional provision in Coal Wage

Agreement to defer either the promotion or the pay fixation in the promotional cadre at the instance of a workman. As

per the stipulations and conditions of the wage agreement the scale of pay in promotional post is to be fixed from the

date of giving effect to the promotion and the annual increment becomes due on the completion of one year of such

promotion. Taking such stipulation in the agreement the Management is not prepared to accommodate the disputant

workman to avail his annual increment in Grade-B Dumper Operator and then opt for his pay fixation in the

promotional cadre. On going through the provisions and stipulations in N.C.W.A.-II it is seen that there is nothing in

the same to indicate that an employee is debarred to make a representation or to give an option to defer his promotion

or pay fixation in the promotional post keeping his financial benefit in view. Law of equity requires that an

employee/workman should not be deprived of any financial benefit likely to be conferred to him by his promotion

allowing him to opt his pay fixation in higher scale on a different date. Had his promotion was effected after

06.05.2003 soon after his annual increment, he could have drawn one annual increment in his old scale and he would

have been benefited in his pay fixation in the promotional scale. Stipulation, if any, in the agreement shall not be

construed and applied in detrimental to the interest of the workman more particularly in the matter related to pay

fixation. As per the law of equity and natural justice a workman or employee is required to be financially benefited in

the event of his promotion to higher grade/cadre and rules and circulars are required to be framed and interpreted to

protect such financial interest of the workman/employee. The provisions and the clauses as mentioned in the agreement

towards pay fixation in promotional scale and annual increment shall not be construed or interpreted in a manner

denying a legitimate claim to the workman provided he is entitled to the same otherwise. In the case at hand the

Management should have deferred the pay fixation of the disputant workman to 06.05.2003 in the promotional cadre or

at least the effect of promotion to such date on the request of the workman so that the disputant workman could be able

to get better financial advantage due to his annual increment being fell on 01.05.2003. In that view of the matter the

action of the Management in pay fixation in respect of the workman Shri P.K. Mohanty, Dumper Operator, Grade-B

does not appear to be justified and acceptable in the eye of law and equity.

For the reasons and discussions made above the pay fixation of Shri P.K. Mohanty in the Grade-B category

Dumper Operator should be given effect after allowing him to avail his annual increment on 01.05.2003. It is pertinent

2764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to mention here that his next annual increment shall be effected after completion of one year of his promotion as

provided in the National Coal Wage Agreement.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1203

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14

) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 55@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@257@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22012/257/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 55 OF 2006

PARTIES :

The management of Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Sri Raj Kumar Bhuiya

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated: 06.04.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-

22012/257/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 11.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ECL, Kajora Area in dismissing Shri Raj Kumar Bhuiya from

services vide order dated 17.0.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? ”

(ii)

2765

Having received the NO. L-22012/257/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 11.08.2006 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 55 of 2006 was

registered on 18.09.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

The workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuian has alleged in his written statement that he was a permanent employee of

Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Under Ground Loader bearing U. M. No. 543236. Due to

his sickness he was absented from duty from 23.02.2004. Sri Rajkumar Bhuian was sick. He was mentally disturbed,

due to this reason he left the colliery without giving information to the wife and other family members. His wife and

other family members lodged F.I.R. to this effect at Andal Police Station that Sri Rajkumar Bhuian was missing. The

wife of Sri Rajkumar Bhuian informed the management about the missing of Sri Rajkumar Bhuian and submitted a

copy of F.I.R. to the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Management decided to

hold enquiry. Enquiry Officer sent the information to the workman though Registered Post. After receiving the

information about the date of enquiry the wife of Sri Rajkumar Bhuian met the Enquiry Officer and informed that her

husband was missing and submitted the copy of F.I.R. lodged by her. The management did not wait and held the

enquiry ex-parte against the workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuian. Sri Rajkumar Bhuian was sick. He was mentally

disturbed. Therefore he left the colliery without informing the family members. After return and recovery from illness

Sri Rajkumar Bhuian requested to the management for allowing him to join the duty. But he was informed that he was

already dismissed from duty. The management awarded the punishment of dismissal which is disproportionate. Even

the management did not issue 2^nd Show-Cause Notice before passing Order of Dismissal and did not follow the

direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Sri Rajkumar Bhuian belongs to Schedule Cast community. He was not aware

about the rules and regulation of the company. Sri Rajkumar Bhuian is not having any other source of income. He and

his family members are at the stage of starvation. He challenged the enquiry proceeding. The workman has prayed that

he should be allowed to join the duty with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed written statement.

The workman has filed the following documentary evidence :-

(i) Photocopy of the Identity Card of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia, (ii) Photocopy of the Treatment Papers of Central

Hospital, Kalla & Area Hospital, (iii) Photocopy of the F.I.R. lodged / Application / Information given to O.C. Andal

about Missing of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia by his wife, (iv) Photocopy of the Application submitted to Agent, Khas Kajora

by the wife of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia, (v) Photocopy of the Newspaper cutting in which news was published about

missing of the workman, (vi) Photocopy of the Application of wife of the workman addressed to the Agent, Khas

Kajora Colliery dated 30.07.2004, (vii) Photocopy of the Information given to O.C., Andal Police Station dated

20.02.2005, (viii) Photocopy of the Application of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia requesting to allow him to join duty dated

09.03.2005, (ix) Photocopy of the Letter of the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery dated 17.03.2005, (x) Photocopy of the

Dismissal Letter dated 17.01.2005, (xi) Photocopy of the Application of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia Addressed to the Agent of

Khas Kajora Colliery dated 11.08.2005 for providing Enquiry Proceedings, (xii) Photocopy of the letter of the Agent

Khas Kajora addressed to Dy. CPM of Kajora Area, (xiii) Photocopy of the Enquiry Proceedings, (xiv) Photocopy of

the findings of Enquiry Officer, (xv) Photocopy of the Mercy Petition dated 29.12.2008 and 07.03.2009, (xvi)

Photocopy of the Letter of Personnel Manager of Khas Kajora Colliery addressed to Personnel Manager (IC) Kajora

Area recommending the reinstatement of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia.

The workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia has filed affidavit in his oral evidence and he has been cross-examined by the

learned advocate of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral or documentary

evidence.

I have heard arguments of Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative appearing on behalf of the workman

Sri Rajkumar Bhuia and Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative appearing on behalf of the workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia has

argued that Sri Rajkumar Bhuia was admitted in colliery hospital but he was mentally disturbed. He left the home. His

wife lodged F.I.R. that Sri Rajkumar Bhuia was missing. The wife of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia informed the management

that her husband was missing and requested to postpone the enquiry but the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in

absence of Sri Rajkumar Bhuia. The enquiry is vitiated, 2^nd Show-Cause Notice has not been issued. Punishment of

2766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissal is very harsh. On the other hand Sri P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Khas Kajora Colliery

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued that Sri Rajkumar Bhuia absented himself without any information. In

domestic enquiry he was held guilty for misconduct. Punishment of dismissal is proportionate.

The workman is permanent employee of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He has been

dismissed after domestic enquiry. The workman has challenged the domestic enquiry. The workman has pleaded that

he was mentally disturbed. Therefore not only he was absent form duty without information but also missing from

home. His wife lodged F.I.R. in Andal Police Station to this effect.

Every industry or establishment lays down certain rules and regulation apart form Government rules and

regulation for better, effective and efficient working of the industry. For such purpose an industry also constitutes its

own rules as per the provisions of labour and industrial laws so as to punish those employees who commits any wrong

or misconduct during the course of employment. Absence from duty without information is one of the misconduct

mentioned in the Certified Standing Order of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. For any misconduct the disciplinary

Authority / Employer can conduct departmental enquiry to prove the guilt of delinquent workman. Disciplinary

proceeding will judge the degree and consequences of misconduct committed by the employee. In deciding whether in

a particular case, an act of misconduct is serious enough to justify dismissal, the matter needs to be examined in the

light of all the surrounding circumstances. In the disciplinary proceeding the concerned authority has to keep in mind

the fact that all the necessary procedure has been followed.

It is needless to say that is the responsibility of the Employer / Department to prove the guilt of the delinquent

employee. The copy of Chargesheet has not been filed on record by Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited. Therefore it is not clear for which period and for how many days the delinquent was chargesheeted. After

issuance of Chargesheet to the delinquent employee the reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the

delinquent and this opportunity must be reasonable. Reasonable opportunity means after service of Chargesheet to the

delinquent and after receiving of the reply of delinquent employee, the delinquent employee must have notice of

proceeding of domestic enquiry. In order to be able to take part in the enquiry the chargesheeted employee must have

notice of the Date, Time and Place of the Enquiry. Even if the workman fails to submit his reply to the Chargesheet, the

Enquiry Officer is not absolved from his duty to send the notice to the delinquent employee, informing about the date,

time and place of enquiry which would enable him to produce his witness and cross-examine the witness produced

against him. Non-compliance of this requirement would be violation of rules of natural justice. Fairness demands that

the workman should be informed, sufficiently in advance, as to when and where the enquiry is going to be held, so that

workman has the opportunity to prepare himself to make his defence at the enquiry and to collect such evidence as he

wishes to lead in support of his defence. It will not be proper that the workman should be called on any date without

previous intimation and the enquiry should begin straight away.

10.

The wife of delinquent workman namely Smt. Tema Devi lodged F.I.R. in Andal Police Station regarding

missing of his husband Sri Rajkumar Bhuia. The copy has been filed in record by the delinquent workman. Smt. Tema

Devi the wife of delinquent workman informed the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

by letter dated 20.07.2004 and again 30.07.2004 regarding missing of her husband Sri Rajkumar Bhuia. The Enquiry

Officer in his enquiry proceeding on 20.08.2004 has recorded that Smt. Tema Devi wife of delinquent has lodged F.I.R.

The Enquiry Officer adjourned enquiry proceeding for 20.09.2004 and thereafter on 16.10.2004. The Enquiry Officer

on 20.11.2004 proceeded ex-parte against delinquent due to his non-appearance.

11.

The Enquiry Officer has mentioned in enquiry proceeding on 20.09.2004 and 20.11.2004 that notice has been

sent to delinquent workman at his home address but neither there is copy of notice nor postal receipt on record. Even

the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any finding to this effect that on which date notice was served to the delinquent.

Without insuring the service of notice to the delinquent the enquiry can not proceed ex-parte. Without service of notice

on delinquent ex-parte proceeding is not legal. Though off course, after service of notice, if delinquent workman does

not appear or does not participate in the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer can very well proceed ex-parte against

the delinquent workman. But before proceeding ex-parte against the delinquent workman the Enquiry Officer must

have insured regarding service of notice to the delinquent. When delinquent workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia was absent

and his wife Smt. Tema Devi lodged an F.I.R. in Andal Police Station to this effect and she informed the concerned

authority about missing of her husband than how the Enquiry Officer could presume the service of notice to the

delinquent ?

12.

The Enquiry Officer after proceeding ex-parte enquiry, after conclusion of management witness, concluded the

enquiry proceeding, without fixing a date for defence evidence. Even if the enquiry is ex-pate against delinquent

workman he has right to lead defence evidence. The Enquiry Officer must have fixed a date for defence evidence of the

delinquent workman before concluding the enquiry proceeding after service of notice. When a departmental enquiry is

conducted against the employee it can not be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceeding also can not be

conducted with a closed mind. The Enquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased, impartial and fair. The rules of natural

(ii)

2767

justice are required to be observed to insure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of

rules of natural justice is to ensure that an employee is treated fairly in proceeding which may culminate in imposition

of major punishment including dismissal from service.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v/s Sri C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 page 158

has held that :-

“Omission to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witness and lead evidence in his defence vitiates

the proceedings. Dismissal order has serious consequences and should be passed only after complying with the

rules of natural justice.”

13.

After conclusion of enquiry the disciplinary authority is required to supply copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report

with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges labelled against him. From perusal of

record it is apparent that the disciplinary authority has not supplied the copy of Enquiry Report to the delinquent after

conclusion of the enquiry proceeding.

In Managing Director, ECIL v/s B. Karunakar & Others AIR 1994 SC 1074 the Hon’ble Apex Court has

held that :-

“When the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a

copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the

guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the

employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Enquiry Officer’s

report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity

to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.”

14.

It is apparent that 2^nd Show-Cause Notice has not been issued by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent

workman as has been alleged by the workman in his written statement. In view of law propounded Hon’ble Apex Court

in Union of India & Others v/s Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 (61) FLR 376, 2^nd Show-Cause Notice to the proposed

punishment before passing the order of termination is mandatory.

15.

The departmental enquiry has been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry

Officer proceeded ex-pate against workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia without service of notice. The disciplinary authority

did not supply the copy of Enquiry Report to the delinquent workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia. Even the disciplinary

authority has not issued 2^nd Show-Cause Notice before passing order of dismissal. The punishment of dismissal without

valid and lawful enquiry is vitiated, and it is not only disproportionate to alleged misconduct but also shocking, which

ought to be set-a-side.

16.

The delinquent workman Sri Rajkumar Bhuia has alleged in Para-19 of his written statement that he has not

having any source of income. He and his family members are at that stage of starvation. The delinquent workman Sri

Rajkumar Bhuia has alleged Para-10 on his affidavit that he has not having any source of income to maintain his

family, he is at the stage of starvation. The workman has filed copy of Identity Card issued by Khas Kajora Colliery of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. His date of birth is 27.09.1963. He has entered into service on 19.01.1993. At present

his age is approximately 54 years. He has served sufficient period to the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He is a

permanent employee. He is jobless after dismissal. At this stage there is no possibility of getting alternate employment

anywhere else. Keeping in view all these facts he is entitled for full back wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others reported in 2013 LA.B. 4249

has held that :-

“ Cases in which the tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provision or

the principal of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or

Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. The courts must keep in view that in

cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee

/ workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of

the burden to pay to the employee / workman his dues in the form of full back wages.”

17.

In view of above discussion the action of management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sri Rajkumar Bhuia is illegal and unjustified. The dismissal order dated 17.01.2005 is hereby set-

a-side. The management of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to reinstate Sri Rajkumar Bhuia

with full back wages from the period of dismal i.e. 17.01.2005 with all consequential benefits e.g. Promotion,

Seniority, increment, etc. Sri Rajkumar Bhuia will be imposed a punishment of stoppage of 2 (Two) increments without

cumulative effect.

2768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1204

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lbZlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;ks

tdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 62@99) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@65@1998&

vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of SECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22012/65/1998-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/99

Jt. General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation,

PO Rajnagar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar RO of SECL,

PO Rajnagar Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of March, 2017

As per letter dated 22-1-99 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-

22012/65/98-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Rajgamar RO of M/s. SECL in demoting Shri Ramkhilawan from

Cat-V to Cat-II is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

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

through its Joint Secretary on behalf of workman Ram Khilawan. The case of Ist party is workman Ramkhilawan S/o

Hirwa was working as clipper Category IV in New Rajnagar colliery of Rajnagar RO Sub-area of SECL since 1-9-79.

On completion of 10 years of service in same category, he was upgraded to Cat-V under clause 2.11 of NCWA IV

w.e.f. 1-7-90 and given basic salary of Rs.57.46. On upgradation of claimant workman from Category IV to V, he

should have been given annual increment Rs.1.62 per day from 1-7-90 as per NCWA-IV. Workman was refused

annual increment after NCWA-V implemented from 1-7-91, his basic wages should have been Rs. 89.06 per day. Due

to exigency of work, claimant Ramkhilawan was asked to work as Welder Category V, he was allowed to work as

Welder Category from 1-1-1989. DPC was constituted for promotion of several workers along with welders/ welder

(ii)

2769

helpers instead of promoting claimant Ramkhilawan as Welder Cat-V, he was demoted to Cat-II from 1-1-1991. That

demotion of Shri Ramkhilawan from Cat V to Cat-II without his consent in writing is illegal. That change of Category

V to Cat-II without his consent in writing is illegal. That change of Category V to II till 1-5-96.

Ist party Union further submits that after changing Ramkhilawan from Cat-V to II and deducting his wages, is

in violation of Section 9-A of ID Act and also amounts to unfair labour practice. On such ground, Union prays action of

management demoting Ramkhilawan from Cat-V to II is illegal. Wages of category V be allowed with retrospective

effect.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party at 9/1 to 9/9. 2^nd party submits that order of

reference is factually incorrect. The order of reference is made without application of mind. The terms of reference are

contrary to the facts of the case. Ist party workman was working as Clipper Cat-V, he was re-designated to post of

Welder/ Helper Cat-II. Because of proved misconduct in DE claimed, workman was demoted to Welder Helper

Category-II post of General Mazdoor Category I. Order of reference pertains to demotion of workman from Cat-V to

II is incorrect. Therefore reference deserves to be rejected. Dispute is raised by workman challenging order dated 14-9-

96 demoting him from Welder Helper Grade II to the post of General Mazdoor Cat-I. It is further submitted that

claimant workman was working as Clipper. On completion of 10 years service, he was allowed SLU benefit and

upgraded to Clipper Category V from 1-7-90. As per clause 2.11 of NCWA-IV, basic wages of claimant were fixed

Rs.54.22 per day., while claimant workman was working as Clipper Cat-V, he had requested management to allow him

to learn the work of welder for his career growth. His request was considered. Workman was allowed to learn work of

welder as per order dated 1-1-1989. That for the purpose of promotion, selection committee was constituted . The

claimant workman had appeared before selection committee, he was selected to the post of Welder/ Helper Cat-II and

appointed on said post as per order dated 28-4-91. The wages of claimant workman on the post of Clipper Cat-V was

Rs.57.46 per day. Claimant was regularized to the post of Helper/ Helper Cat-II. His basic pay was fixed Rs.54.04 per

day. While claimant was working on the post of welder/ helper Grade II, he was involved in gross misconduct of

assault and threatening, abusing to co-worker. Chargesheet was issued to claimant workman on 4-5-96 under clause

26.8 of the certified standing orders. Chargesheet was issued on the basis of complaint received from Mr. Vinod

Nigam. Preliminary enquiry was conducted. Report was based on statement of several workers., Ist party workman

submitted reply to chargesheet. Reply given by claimant workman was found unsatisfactory. Shri Dwivedi was

appointed as Enquiry Officer, N. Dweep was appointed as Management Representative. Management Representative

was changed for administrative reasons. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. Statements of management’s

witnesses were recorded, they were cross-examined. It is reiterated that the charges against workman were found

proved. Considering proved charges, punishment of demotion of Category V to II was imposed. There is also incidental

pleadings w.r.t. wages fixed for the post of Clipper Category V. 2^nd party management had denied that wages of

claimant workman were not fixed allowing annual increments. While claimant workman was working in Clipper

Category V, he was re-designated to the post of Welder/ Helper Cat-II. Claimant has not raised any objection.

Claimant did not express he desire to remain in Clipper Grade V. That there was no change in designation of claimant

in violation of Section 9-A of ID Act. For proved misconduct of assaulting, abusing supervisor, punishment of

demotion was imposed against workman. Secondly workman was designated as Welder Helper Grade II to General

Mazdoor Category I. Said order was not challenged by claimant workman. 2^nd party submits that the action taken by

management is proper and legal.

As per order dated 21-8-15, enquiry conducted against claimant/workman is found vitiated. 2^nd party

management was permitted to prove misconduct adducing evidence.

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 action of the management of

Rajgamar RO of M/S SECL in demoting Shri

Ramkhilawan from Cat-V to Cat-II is legal and

justified?

In Affirmative

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

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

2770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Point No.1 As per order dated 21-8-15, enquiry conducted against claimant workman is found vitiated.

Chargesheet was issued to claimant Ram Khilawan under Clause 26.18 of certified standing orders pertaining to

assault, threatening, abusing co-worker supervisor etc. Management was permitted to prove misconduct adducing

evidence. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Srinivas Dubey Foreman. The management’s witness in

his affidavit has stated that he was working in Rajnagar RO since 1981. On 1-5-96 morning, he was proceeding for

duty from his quarter. When he reached near Kalimandir, he had seen Vinod Nigam proceeding for duty from his

quarter. Ramkhilawan was coming from other side. Witness on his bicycle when he reached cycle store of

Vishwakarma, he heard Ramkhilawan saying that he had cut his attendance for Sunday. Ramkhilawan caught color of

Vinod Nigam and inflicted 2-4 kicks to Vinod. He had separated Vinod from Ramkhilawan. Ram Khilawan was also

giving abuses to Vinod and threatening to kill his whole family. Shrinivas Dubey management witness in his cross

says on 1-5-96, he was coming from his quarter. He was 20 feet distance from his place of incident. He heard voice of

Ramkhilawan. Ramkhilawan said to Vinod his attendance for Sunday was cut. By that time Vinod came closer,

Ramkhilawan had pulled him down. Witness further says he left his bicycle at the place and rushed for protecting

Vinod Nigam. His statement was recorded in Enquiry Proceedings. He denied that he deposed false statement against

Ram Khilawan as he belongs of Harijan.

Management’s witness Vinod Kumar filed his affidavit of evidence. He has narrated similar incident on 1-5-96

around 6 AM while he was proceeding for duty from his quarter and reached near bicycle store of Vishwakarma,

Ramkhilawan was standing there. Looking to him, Ramkhilawan rushed towards him, he twisted his hand and pulled

him down. Ramkhilawan had pressed him by neck and also inflicted blows, abuses given to him. Shri Srinivas Dubey,

Avdhesh Vishwakarma, Khagendra Yadav, Ajihummalah separated him from Ram Khilawan. The complaint Exhibit

M-7 is proved from his evidence. Vinod in his cross-examination says that incident occurred at 7 AM in May 96.

Several persons were present at the time of incident. Including Srinivas Dubey, Avdhesh Vishwakarma, Khagendra

Yadav, Ajihummalah. He reported incident to management and police. During Enquiry Proceeding, his report to police

was considered. He was not referred for medical examination. He claims ignorance what action was taken by police on

his complaint. Police has started investigation under Atrocities Act. He denies that as Ram Khilawan belongs to SC,

false report is submitted. Evidence in cross-examination of both witnesses of management is not shattered about their

evidence about the incident of assault and abuses. However particulars of abuses are not given in evidence of both

witnesses. Charge w.r.t. assault and threatening given by claimant Ram Khilawan, Vinod Nigam is corroborated from

evidence of Shri Shrinivas Dubey is sufficient to prove charge of assault and threatening. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- The punishment of demotion is imposed against workman. The pleading pertaining to not allowing

annual increment are beyond terms of reference. Ist party Union has alleged violation of Section 9-A of ID Act.

However the punishment was imposed against claimant Ram Khilawan conducting enquiry. It cannot be matter of

violation of Section 9-A of ID Act. Enquiry was found vitiated. Management was permitted to prove misconduct. As

per my finding on Point No.1, charge pertaining to assault and threatening by Ram Khilawan to Vinod is established.

As punishment of dismissal is not imposed against claimant Ram Khilawan in view of Section 11-A interference in the

punishment imposed against workman is not justified. Punishment of demotion imposed against claimant Ram

Khilawan is proper and legal. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The the action of the management of Rajgamar RO of M/S SECL in demoting Shri Ramkhilawan from

Cat-V to Cat-II is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1205

—

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

lhihMCY;wMh

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa 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

2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@08) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks çkIr gqv

k FkkA

¹la

,y&42012@138@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

(ii)

2771

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-42012/138/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 5/08

Sh. Mohd. Khalil, (Cook) , Now Messenger,

C/o All India CPWD (MRM) Karmachari Sangathan (Reg.),

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Gali No. 13 , Shahdra,

Delhi-110032

…Workman

Versus

The Director General of Works,

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi-110011

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour Vide Letter No. 42012/138/2005-IR(CM-II) dated

31.03.2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the demand of the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan, Delhi for allowing second ACP

benefit on completion of 24 years of services w.e.f 11.03.1971 and arrears of pay from 11.03.1971 to

14.05.1986 to Mohd. Khalil is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?

On 16.05.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D. No. 5/2008 and claimant was

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

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman filed claim statement on 16.05.2008. Through which he prayed as follows:-

Arrears of wages for the period from 11.30.1971 to 14.05.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 during

which he would as Cook on actual basis and pay of the post of COOK which has been revised

consequent upon implementation of arbitration award retrospectively.

Grant of second ACP scheme benefit by counting the service rendered in Nepal under the CPWD.

Award /relief as may be deemed fit and proper to meet the end of justice.

Against claim statement management filed written statement on 16.12.2008. Where-in management prayed as

follows:-

“Prayer clause of the statement of claim are wrong, false and hence denied as the same are neither maintainable

nor sustainable in the eyes of law, in the interest of justice.

Workman filed rejoinder on 16.02.2009 . Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.

On 5.6.2009 my Ld. Predecessor proceeded on the basis of question of determination mentioned in the schedule

of reference. So he fixed 5.08.2009 in reply by workman to the application of management and filing of affidavit of

workman.

Subsequently workman along with his Ld. A/R appeared and filed his affidavit along with its copy . Thereafter

case was fixed for settlement on 18.0.2013. On 18.02.2013 Ld. A/R Ld. A/R for the workman reported that workman

has expired. Wife of deceased workman was substituted in his place.

On 8.09.2014 w/o of deceased workman tendered her affidavit along with certain documents and fixed

19.11.2014 cross-examination. None turn up for cross-examination on 25.02.2015.

2772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hence right of cross-examination with WW1 has been closed.

Thereafter Ld. A/R for the deceased workman closed the remaining evidence of deceased workman and

9.4.2015 was fixed for management evidence.

On 9.4.2015 management moved an application for setting aside order for closing the right of cross-examination

of WW1. Application has not been opposed . Hence Allowed.

Subsequently WW1 was cross-examined and his cross-examination is concluded .

Thereafter Ld.A/R for the workman closed the remaining evidence of workman on 15.12.2015 Sh. Ashok Kr.

Aggarwal , MW1 tendered his affidavit and his cross-examination is deferred to 3.2.2016 .

On 3.3.2016 cross-examination of MW1 concluded . Thereafter Ld. A/R for the management on the instruction

of MW1 closed the evidence of management and Fixed 13.04.2016 for arguments.

Parties filed written arguments.

Through written arguments wife of Deceased workman stressed that her husband (Deceased workman) has been

victimized by department and financial loss has been caused to her husband by C.P.W.D due to which they suffered

financial loss of pension and other payable allowances so she is entitled for benefits on the basis order dated 20.7.1988

passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14784/1996. Copy of order is Exht. WW1/5.

She prayed that pay scale of her husband be fixed accordingly to aforesaid Award and arrears of pay shall be

paid to her alongwith interest of 18 % per annum since date on which such arrears were paid to other employees.

While on the other hand management filed written arguments.

Through it stated as follows:-

That it is submitted that workman Mohd. Khalil was appointed as cook with East West Highways Project,

CPWD in Nepal and due to the closure of above project, the staffs engaged were become surplus and they have been

transferred and absorbed with the respondent/management and it has been clearly mentioned in the terms of

appointment letter that the workman will accept the post as given to him in India and workman accepted the said

condition and joined the services of the management on the post of Messenger because there was no post of cook

available with the management at that time. It is submitted that it was the Govt’s welfare policy under the rehabilitation

scheme to absorb the workman after the closure of the project and further the consent was obtained from the deceased

workman at that relevant point of time and same is matter of record as well as admitted in the cross-examination of the

workman’s witness.

That the statement of claim of the deceased workman is highly time barred as well as in the fact and

circumstances of that the deceased workman gave his consent to the same without any force or undue pressure and on

his consent he was absorbed under the rehabilitation scheme and present statement of claim filed without any bonafide

cause under the true facts and circumstances.

That workman absorbed in the CPWD in India under the employees rehabilitation Scheme for surplus staff. The

workman accepted the post of Messenger in the CPWD w.e.f. 15.05.1986 in the scale of Rs. 196-3-20-EB-5-232

service book page No. 16, Part-I and further it the matter of record and same has not been denied by the workman at

any point of time.

It is submitted that workman had gave his consent and accepted the post of Messenger in the CPWD in India

w.e.f 15.05.1986 in the scale of Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232 service book page no. 16, Part-I, so the question of change of

the post and pay-scale does not arose at all and the same has not been come under the Unfair Labour Practice as the

workman was absorbed under the rehabilitation scheme in CPWD, India after the closure of the project in Nepal.

That deceased workman got one in –situ benefit and one ACP ; however , under ACP Scheme the incumbent got

benefit either Two ACPs or one in-situ and one ACP or two promotions , or one promotion and one ACP and further

deceased workman enjoyed all the benefits and never objected to the same at any point of time during his service time

and even after the several years of retirement from the service and after a very long period filed the present statement of

claim. That the facts mentioned above is also matter of record, admitted fact and same has not been objected by/or on

behalf of deceased workman.

That deceased workman was received the pay scale of cook for the period from 01.04.1973 to 14.05.1986 and

further after joining with the respondent management as messenger he was receiving the pay-scale of messenger as per

rules. It is again submitted that workman’s consent was been there and only after his consent he was absorbed under the

welfare scheme of rehabilitation of Government after the closure of project in Nepal.

(ii)

2773

It is further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present matter are altogether different from the

submissions stated by the workman. In the present matter workman was absorbed with the management in India when

the project was closed in Nepal and under the welfare scheme of rehabilitation of the Government for the surplus staff.

It is again submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that the workman will accept the post

as given to him/ available at that time in India and the deceased workman accepted the same and joined the services of

the management on the post of Messenger because there was no post of cook available with the management at that

time under the rehabilitation scheme of the govt. The copy of the service book of the deceased workman is Exht.

MW1/2 for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Tribunal.

That the A/R of the deceased workman has no authority to continue with the present statement of claim as there

is no authority on record from the legal heirs of the workman after demise of the workman. Further there is no death

certificate on record of the deceased workman and the same fact has been admitted by the workman’s witness during

his cross-examination.

That the claim of the workman is not tenable in the eyes of law as all the benefits were enjoyed by the workman

under the rehabilitation scheme as per rule for the post acquired by the workman, the present statement of claim is

liable to be dismissed.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions mentioned in written arguments of parties I perused the

pleading and evidence on record of parties.

Which shows that claim of the deceased workman is not tenable in the eye of law as all the benefits were

enjoyed by the workman under the rehabilitation scheme as per rule for the post acquired by the workman.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that question of determination No. 1 is liable to be

decided against deceased workman Mohd. Khalil and in favour of management . Which is accordingly decided.

As question of determination No. 1 has already been decided against deceased workman Mohd. Khalil. So his

wife as his L.R. is not entitled to any relief. Question of Determination No. 2 is accordingly decided against workman

and in favour of management.

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:-26.10.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1206

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e

] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2015

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22011@07@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of FCI and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22011/07/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 59/2015

Ref. No. L-22011/07/2015-IR (CM-II) dated 14.09.2015

2774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BETWEEN :

Sri Nasir Mohammad

S/o Late Sri Deen Mohammad

R/o C-5A, Vigyanpuri

Mahanagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

AND

The Chief Manager

Food Corporation of India,

District Office, Gomti Nagar

Lucknow- 226010 (U.P.)

The Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India, District Office

Chavni Mandi Road

Banda (U.P.)

AWARD

By order No. L-22011/07/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 14.09.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Nasir Mohammad S/o Late

Deen Mohammad and the Chief Manager/Regional Manager, Lucknow/Banda for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA KSHETRYA PRABANDHAN, BHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM, LUCKNOW BANDA DWARA

SRI NASIR MOHMMAD A.G-I(D) KO SEVA NIVRAT KO DANDADESH DATED 28.08.2013 DIYA

JANA NIYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHIN TO KAMGAR KIS RAHAT KO PANE KA

HAQDAR?”

After receiving the reference letter from the Ministry, the case was registered and notices were issued to both the

parties. Opposite Party no.2 sent a reply M-3 alongwith chart M-3/2. None appeared on behalf of the workman. Later on

corrigendum C-4 dated 20.11.2015 was received from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour informing thereby the

changed address of the workman. Therefore fresh notice was sent again through registered post to the workman on the

new address but it could not be delivered. The Postman endorsed on the envelope that the addressee does not reside on

the given address. Again the case was adjourned to another date.

On the request of the Learned AR of the management Sri Ashish Srivastava the case was fixed for hearing on

30.03.2017.

Arguments of the Learned AR of the opposite party have been heard at length. Record available before this court

has been scanned. It was asserted on behalf of the opposite party, perhaps grievance of the workman might have been

redressed out side the court, therefore none made endeavor to represent his case before the court. It is evident from M-

3/2 that the concerned workman Mr.Nasir Mohmmad has been paid Rs.90,521/ through account payee cheque, in

furtherance of the order dated 21.7.2015 passed by RLC(C) Lucknow in PG case No. LKO/36(12)/2014 in the capacity

of the Controlling Authority under “Payment of Gratuity Act.1972”.

After having heard the learned AR of the opposite party, and perusal of the record, it is inferred that the said

penalty order dated 28.8.2013 pertaining to the retirement of the workman, can not be adjudged as illegal or improper.

Therefore the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

31.03.2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1207

—

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

mÙkj

'pe

jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

(ii)

2775

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41012@52@2011&vkbZv

kj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/52/2011-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 42@2012

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua-

,y&41012@52@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I

) fnukad 13-02-2012

Shri Govind S/o. Late Shri Bhagchand,

R/o 320 / 33, Behind Shilanyas,

Jawahar Gadugar Colony,

Distt. - Ajmer (Rajasthan)

V/s

Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Carriage),

North Western Railway,

Ajmer (Rajasthan)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh nhid dqekj & ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh iw.kZsUnz 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV

iapkV

fnukad % 28- 02- 2017

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 13-02-2012 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 demand of Shri Govind S/o Shri Bhagchand, Ex-fitter, for his appointment on Compassionate

ground, is legal and justified? to what relief Shri Govind is entitled?”

LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse eas izLrqr rF; ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ Jh xksfcUn dk dFku gS fd mlds firk Lo- Jh HkkxpUn vizkFkhZ

ds ;gka fQVj III dSfjt] vtesj ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA

izkFkhZ ds firk Lo- Jh HkkxpUn dks vizkFkhZ }kjk vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds >wBs vkjksi yxk dj fnukad 31@3@2008 dks lsok ls

i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA

izkFkhZ ds firk Lo- Jh HkkxpUn ds fo:) mu ij yxs vkjksikas ij foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh Hkh dh xbZ ijUrq tkap vf/kdkjh us

Lo- Jh HkkxpUn dks cpko dk iw.kZ volj iznku fd;s fcuk gh tkap iw.kZ dj ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh dj nhA

vizkFkhZ us tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ Hkh Lo- Jh HkkxpUn dks ugha nh rFkk mudks muds fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ls oafpr j[kk] tks d`R;

izkd`frd U;k; fl)kUrksa ds fo:) gSA

vizkFkhZ }kjk xyr vkjksi yxk dj izkFkhZ ds firk Lo- Jh HkkxpUn dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS tks fof/k fo:) gSA

izkFkhZ ds firk Jh HkkxpUn dh e`R;q fnukad 2-5-2009 dks gks pqdh gSA

2776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izkFkhZ us vius firk dh e`R;q ds ckn vizkFkhZ ls ekSf[kd :i ls dbZ ckj vuqdEik ij ukSdjh nsus dh izkFkZuk dh ijUrq vizkFkhZ us

bl vksj dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;kA

izkFkhZ csjkstxkj gS rFkk mldh vkthfodk dk dksbZ lk/ku ugha gS o mldh vkfFkZd fLFkfr cgqr n;uh; gSA

10-

izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ls dbZ ckj ukSdjh ij ysus gsrq fuosnu fd;k ijUrq vizkFkhZ ges'kk VkyeVksy gh djrs jgs] blfy;s izkFkhZ dks

etcwju vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fof/kd dk;Zokgh djuh iMh] ftlds rgr~ izkFkhZ us vius vfHkHkk"kd ls fnukad 27-5-11 dks uksfVl fHktok;k]

tks vizkFkhZ dks izkIr Hkh gks x;k] ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk mDr uksfVl dk dksbZ larks"ktud tokc ugh fn;k x;kA

11-

izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ls dbZ ckj ekax djus ij tc vizkFkhZ us ukSdjh ugha nh rc etcwju izkFkhZ us lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;]

vtesj ds le{k fnukad 30-6-11 dks fuosnu fd;k ijUrq vizkFkhZ dh gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k le>kSrk ugha gks ldk blfy, lgk;d Je

vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj }kjk fookn dks vlQy okrkZ ?kksf"kr dj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lwpuk Hkst x;k tks fookn fu.kZ; gsrq Jh eku ds

le{k izLrqr gSA

12-

izkFkhZ cgqr gh xjhc O;fDr gS rFkk csjkstxkj gSA mlds ikl vk; dk dksbZ lzks= ugha gS] og Hkw[ks ejus dh fLFkfr esa gSA vr%

Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS izkFkhZ dks mlds firk ds LFkku ij vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa vuqdEik ij fu;qfDRk fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k U;k; fgr esa

iznku fd;k tk;A

13-

foi{k us oknksRrj izLrqr dj ;kfpdk ds izLrj ,d ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ xksfcUn ds firk Jh HkkxpUn fQVj

III dSfjt] vtesj ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks ftuds fVu uEcj fnukad 1-9-99 dks cUn dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk muds lEcU/k esa vuqHkkx

vfHk;Urk 131 }kjk vius i= fnuakd 3-6-09 }kjk fjiksVZ fd;k x;k Fkk fd Jh HkkxpUn fnukad 27-8-99 ls yxkrkj vukf/kd`r :ils

vuqifLFkr py jgs FksA

14-

foi{k }kjk Jh HkkxpUn ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap djk;k tkuk Lohdkj gS vkSj bl rF; dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd Jh

HkkxpUn dks cpko dk volj fn;s fcuk tkap dk;Zokgh iwjh dh x;hA ;g dgk x;k gS fd tkap dk;Zokgh esa ;kph ds mifLFkr gksus

rFkk cpko ds iw.kZ volj iznku fd;s x;s ftlds lEcU/k esa ikorh oknksRrj ds lkFk layXu gS ijUrq Jh HkkxpUn tkudkjh ds ckotwn

mifLFkr ugha gq, blfy, fu;ekuqlkj ,di{kh; tkap dk;Zokgh dh x;h tks i=koyh ij vkj@2 gSA izkFkhZ ds bl dFku dks >wBk dgk

x;k gS fd muds firk ij yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dk >wBk vkjksi yxkdj mUgsa 31-8-08 dks lsok ls eqDr dj fn;k x;kA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS izkFkhZ ds firk ds fo:) oknksRrj ds lkFk layXu vkjksi i= dh izfr ,l-,e-5 ¼cM+h 'kkfLr½ fnukad 2-8-07 tkjh dh x;h Fkh

D;ksafd og lsok ls fnukad 27-8-1999 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgs FksA

15-

;kfpdk ds izLrj N%] ukS vkSj nl ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izLrj 8 ,oa 11 ds dFku dks jsy foHkkx ls lEcfU/kr

ugha crk;k x;k gSA

16-

izkFkhZ ds firk ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap ds lEcU/k esa ;kfpdk ds izLrj 5@1 rk 5@13 esa dzeokj dh x;h tkWp ls lEcfU/kr

fooj.k ntZ gS tks fd fuEuor~ gS %&

**5@1

;g fd vuqHkkx vfHk;Urk@31 foHkkx ds i= fnukad 23-6-2007 ds }kjk fjiksVZ dh xbZ fd Jh HkkxpUn fQVj III

fV-ua- 57939 foHkkx dSfjt] vtesj fnukad 27-8-1999 ls yxkrkj vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA

5@2

;g fd l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'kkuqlkj fnukad 2-8-07 dks deZpkjh dks ,l ,Q 5 ¼cMh 'kkfLr½ la[;k lhbZ

308@2007@5@24 tkjh dh xbZA

5@3

;g fd mDr 'kkfLr deZpkjh ds ?kj ds irs ij jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk Hksth xbZ tks fd okil ykSVdj vk xbZA ftls

nks deZpkfj;ksa ds lkeus foHkkx ds uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dh xbZA

5@4

;g fd l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 1-9-2007 dks Jh ds-,y-oekZ dks tkap vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA

5@5

;g fd tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk fnuakd 19-9-2007 dks Jh HkkxpUn dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd fnukad 26-9-2007 dks tkap

dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gks ,oa vki 7 fnu ds Hkhrj vius cpko izfrfuf/k dk uke ,oa mudh fyf[kr lgefr izsf"kr

djsaA

5@6

;g fd ofj"B vuqHkkx vfHk;Urk@31 foHkkx us vius i= fnukad 25-9-2007 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k fd deZpkjh yEcs

le; ls vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr py jgk gS ,oa vkt fnukad rd fVfdV uEcj cUn gSA

5@7

;g fd tkap vf/kdkjh us vius i= fnukad 9-10-2007 dks ofj"B vuqHkkx vfHk;Urk dks lwfpr fd;k fd deZpkjh ds

?kj dk irk izsf"kr djs] ;fn deZpkjh M;wVh ij gS rks fnukad 15-10-2007 dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq

HkstsA

(ii)

2777

5@8

;g fd mDr lanHkZ esa ofj"B vuqHkkx vfHk;Urk us vius i= fnukad 11-10-2007 ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k fd deZpkjh

vkt fnukad rd vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkr py jgk gS] vkidks deZpkjh ds ?kj dk irk izsf"kr gSA

5@9

;g fd tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 25-10-2007 dks jftLVMZ ,-Mh-}kjk deZpkjh ds ?kj ds irs ij i= izsf"kr fd;k

x;k fd vki fnukad 29-10-07 dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gksos vU;Fkk vkids fo:) ,drjQk dk;Zokgh dj nh

tk;sxhA ftldh ikorh deZpkjh }kjk nh xbZA

5@10

;g fd tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 4-12-2007 dks deZpkjh Jh HkkxpUn ds ?kj ds irs ij iqu% jftLVMZ ,-Mh- }kjk

i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k fd vkidks fnukad 11-12-2007 dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gks vU;Fkk tkap dk;Zokgh

,drjQk dj nh tk;sxh] ftldh iwjh ftEesnkjh vkidh gksxh ,oa ;g lwpuk vkids uksfVl cksMZ ij nks xokg ls

pLIkk djokdj ykSVk;k tk jgk gSA mDr i= dh vkj-,-Mh ikorh deZpkjh Jh HkkxpUn ls izkIr dh xbZ ,ao fnukad

11-12-2007 dks lHkh iz'kklfud xokgksa ds c;ku ntZ fd;s x;s ,oa c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij deZpkjh ij yxk;s x;s

vkjksi dh iqf"V dh xbZA

5@11

;g fd tkap vf/kdkjh us vius i= fnukad 9-1-08 }kjk deZpkjh Jh HkkxpUn dks lwfpr fd;k fd vkidks fnukad

11-12-07 dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq cqyk;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu vki fnukad 11-12-2007 dks mifLFkr ugha

gq;sA vkidh vkj-Mh-i= fnukad 11-12-2007 dks izkIr gqbZ gSA vkidks ,d ekSdk vkSj fn;k tk jgk gS vki fnukad

14-1-2008 dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gks vxj vki fQj Hkh ugha vkrs gS rks vki ds fo:) tkap dk;Zokgh

,drjQk dj nh tk;sxh ftldh ftEesnkjh vkidh Loa; dh gksxhA mDr i= dh izfr nks xokgksa dh mifLFkfr esa

uksfVl cksMZ ij Hkh pLik dh xbZA

5@12

;g fd deZpkjh Jh HkkxpUn dks tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk iw.kZ volj iznku

djrs gq, tkap dk;Zokgh esa deZpkjh ds fo:) fnukad 14-1-08 dks viuh tkap dk;Zokgh dh fjiksVZ vuq'kklfud

vf/kdkjh dks Hkst nhA

5@13

;g fd tkap dk;Zokgh dh vfUre fjiksVZ dh ,d izfr deZpkjh Jh HkkxpUn dks fnukad 26-2-08 dks jftLVMZ ,-Mh-

}kjk Hksth xbZ tks fd vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk izkIr dh xbZA vkjksih deZpkjh }kjk tkWp fjiksVZ ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ

izfrosnu izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA

17-

vkxs ;kfpdk ds izLrj 2]4]5]7] ds dFku dks vLohdkj dj vfrfjDr dFku esa dgk x;k gS fd l{ke vf/kdkjh us fnukad 1-9-

2007 dks Jh ds-,-oekZ dks tkWp vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k rFkk tkap vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ ds firk dks tkap fjiksVZ iznku dh ftldh ikorh

fnukad 4-3-08 dks Jh HkkxpUn us nh tks oknksRrj ds lkFk layXud vkj@3 gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mUgsa fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ls oafpr

j[kk x;k ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Z fd;k x;kA

18-

;kph dh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij lsok esa fu;qfDRk dh ekax dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k gS fd jsy lsok ls fu"dkflr fd;s

x;s jsy deZpkjh ds vkfJr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDRk nsus dk dksbZ izkfo/kku ugha gS ,oa bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dks lwpuk foi{kh

}kjk i= fnukad 13-6-11 ¼layXud vkj@4½ }kjk nh tk pqdh gSA layXud vkj@4 izkFkhZ }kjk foi{k dks Hksth x;h uksfVl fnukad 27-5-

11 ds tokc esa Hkstk x;k gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd [kpkZ lfgr ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tk;A

19-

;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ;kph dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds lkFk fQgfjLr lfgr vuqdEik ij fu;qfDRk gsrq vius fo}ku vf/koDrk ds

ek/;e ls Hksth uksfVl] uksfVl dk foi{k }kjk Hksts x;s tokc rFkk vius firk ds e`R;q izek.k&i= dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh x;hA ;kph

us lk{; esa viuh 'kiFk&i= izLrqr dh gS ftl ij ;kph dh izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA

20-

foi{k dh rjQ ls ;kph ds firk ds fo:) tkap dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[kksa dh QksVksizfr;ka izLrqr dh x;h gSA foi{k ds

ekSf[kd lk{kh Jh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dh 'kiFki= izLrqr gS ftudh ;kph i{k us izfrijh{kk dh gSA i{kdkjksa dh rjQ ls dksbZ vU;

izys[kh; ;k ekSf[kd lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA

21-

eSuas mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA

22-

;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd ;kph dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr Bhd ugha gS rFkk mlds firk dh e`R;q Hkh gks pqdh gS

blfy, ;kph dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr fn;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko';d gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS ;kph ds firk dks tkWp

ds nkSjku cpko dk leqfpr volj ugha fn;k x;kA blds fo:) foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS ;kph ds firk lsok ds nkSjku

fujUrj fcuk lwpuk lsokls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k tkWp ds vk/kkj ij n.MLo:i lsokls eqDr fd;s x;s Fks vr% lsok ls gVk;s tkus

ds dkj.k fdlh vkfJr dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDRk ugha nh tk ldrh gSA

23- tgkW rd foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh esa ;kph ds firk dks cpko dk leqfpr volj u fn;s tkus dk iz'u gS bl lUnHkZ esa

mYys[kuh; gS fd vkjksi i= ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds firk fnukad 27-8-99 ls fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgs gS ,oa tkWp ds ckn fnukad 31-5-2008

dks mUgsa lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vkjksii= fnukad 2-8-07 dks fuxZr gS ftlesa rkfeyk ds ckotwn mUgksaus vkjksi i= dk tokc ugha

2778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izLrqr fd;k gS u mifLFkr gq, gSA mudh e`R;q fnukad 2-5-2009 dks gqbZ gS] vr% tkWp ds fo:) mifLFkr gksdj dqN dgus dk vf/kdkj

dsoy ;kph ds firk dks Fkk ftlds fy, i;kZIr volj e`rd ds ikl Fkk vkSj mUgs ;g vf/kdkj Hkh Fkk fd tkWp ds fo:) tkWp ds

nkSjku ;k mlds ckn os dqN dgrs ijUrq mUgksaus dqN ugha dgkA ;kph us Hkh ;kfpdk esa dksbZ lkjoku ckr ugha dgh gS fd oks dkSu lh

ckr gS ftlds dkj.k izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr dk guu gqvk gSA tkudkjh ,oa rkfeyk ds ckotwn tc os tkWp esa mifLFkr gh ugha

gq, rks tkap dk;Zokgh ,di{kh; djuk vifjgk;Z FkkA mUgksusa lsokls eqDr gksus ds ckn jsy foHkkx ls viuk cdk;k /kujkf'k Hkh izkIr

fd;k gksxk ijUrq mUgksusa ml le; Hkh lEHkor% dksbZ vkifRr ugha izLrqr dhA

24-

izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds firk ds fo:) yxs vkjksi >wBs Fks bl rF; dks lkfcr djus ds fy, muds

ikl dksbZ izek.k ugha gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 'kiFk i= esa mlus ;g ckr vius eu ls fy[kok;h gS fd mlds firk ij >wBk

vkjksi yxkdj mUgsa lsok ls fudky fn;k x;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlds firk ds fo:) dh x;h foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lEcU/k esa mls

tkudkjh ugha gSA ;kph us izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd mlds firk dh e`R;q dh frfFk fnukad 2-5-2009 rFkk ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh

frfFk fnukad 31-8-12 ds chp jsy foHkkx ls mlus dksbZ i=kpkj fd;k ;k ugha] bl ckr dh mls tkudkjh ugha gS vkSj mls bl ckr dh

Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mlds firk jsy foHkkx esa fnukad 27-8-99 ls jsy foHkkx dks dksbZ lwpuk fn;s fcuk rFkk fcuk Lohd`r vodk'k

ds vuqifLFkr jgsA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mls foHkkxh; tkWp nkSjku vius firk ,oa jsy foHkkx ds chp i=kpkj dh tkudkjh ugha gS vkSj

bl ckr dh Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd tkap ds ckn mlds firk dks jsy lsok ls fudkyk x;kA mDr lk{; ,oa lEcfU/kr rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd izkFkhZ vius firk ds fo:) tkap dk;Zokgh ,oa vkjksi dks >wBk lkfcr djus esa

vlQy gSA

25-

tgkW rd izkFkhZ dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij jsy lsok esa ukSdjh ij j[ks tkus dk iz'u gS Loa; ;kph ds lk{; ls ;g izdV gksrk

gS fd ;kfpdk esa >wBs vkjksi yxkdj izkFkhZ ds firk dks lsokls fudkyus ds lEcU/k esa dFku mldh diksy dYiuk gSA ;wWa Hkh vuqdEik

ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDRk ekWxus dk vf/kdkj dsoy ,sls vkfJr dks gS ftlds vfHkHkkod dh lsok ds nkSjku e`R;q gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa

vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDRk ds izkfo/kku fdlh Hkh izdkj vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gSA izkFkhZ ds firk ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dk mudh

e`R;q ls Hkh dksbZ lEcU/k fdlh Hkh izdkj LFkkfir ugha gksrk gSA

26-

foi{kh lk{kh dh lEiw.kZ izfrijh{kk ,slk dksbZ lkjoku ckr ugha izdV gksrh ftlls izkFkhZ dks rkfdZd ,oa fof/klaxr ykHk izkIr gks

ldsA

27-

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk muds leFkZu Ik{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr izys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{;ksa ds lE;d voyksdu rFkk mudh

mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwW fd vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij Jh xksfcUn iq= Jh HkkxpUn] HkwriwoZ fQVj dh

ekax mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr ugha gSA ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ekuuh;

eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fjQjsUl fnuakfdr 13-2-12 dk mRrj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr

fd;k tkrk gSA

28-

iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tk;A

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1208

—

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

mÙkj

iwoZ

jsyos

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds ch

p] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

@201

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&4101

@201

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] v

uqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/31/2015-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

(ii)

2779

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 45/2015

Ref. No. L-41011/31/2015-IR (B-I) dated 15.05.2015

BETWEEN :

Smt. Ram Kumari W/o Late Sri Ram Lakhan

C/o Sri Sanjay Awasthi, Advocate

49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow-226004 (U.P.)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

North Eastern Railway, DRM Office

Ashok Marg

Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/31/2015-IR(B-I) dated 15.05.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Smt Ram Kumari Widow of Late Sri

Ram Lakhan and the Divisional Railway Manager, NER, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PURVOTTAR RAILWAY PRASHAN, LUCKNOW DWARA SMT. RAM KUMARI WIDOW

OF LATE SRI RAM LAKHAN, KO MEDICAL SUVIDHA KA BHUGTAN NA DIYA JANA

NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHIN TO VADINI KIS RAHAT KO PANE KA HAQDAR

HAI?”

After receiving schedule letter from the Ministry, notices through registered posts were sent to both the parties.

Learned AR for the workman appeared before the court and sought time for filing claim statement. On behalf of the

opposite party Sri Rahul Nigam filed authority M-3. On the request of the workman several dates were given, but later

on workman or his representative did not attend the court on any of the dates.

Learned AR for the opposite party management pointed out that perhaps the grievances of the petitioner might

have got redressed. He requested to adjudicate the matter in favour of the management.

Since no claim statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner regarding the schedule referred, neither any

evidence was adduced for the same, in view of the submissions made by the Learned AR for the opposite party Sri

Rahul Nigam, Advocate, it is inferred that the impugned order referred in the schedule regarding denial of medical

facilities to the petitioner, can not be treated as illegal or improper. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW

27.01. 2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1209

—

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

dksudu

jsyos

dkiksZjs'ku fy

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk es

a fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua

2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41012@183@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkk

x vf/dkjh

2780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2006) 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 Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/183/2005-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/18 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED

The Regional Railway Manager

Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. Karwar,

Karnataka – 581 306

Karwar.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

Shetye Sankul, 3^rd Floor,

Tisk - Ponda

Goa.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. P. Gaonkar, Representative.

Mumbai, dated the 11^th January 2017.

AWARD

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its order No. L-41012/183/2005 – IR (B-I) dated

16.03.2006 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 have referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in not regularizing the

employment of 44 workers engaged through contractor in Train Lighting and Air Conditioning Department of

Konkan Railway Corporation at PITLIE Coach Care Centre at Madgao, Goa is legal and justified ? If not, to

what relief the workers are entitled for ? “

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

workmen vide statement of claim Ex.7 contended that Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is a registered trade union of the

workmen employed in various industries in Goa and all the workers in reference are the members of Sangh. It is

contended that these 44 workers working in the Train Lighting and Air Conditioning Department of party No.1. Party

No.1 is a Government of India undertaking and operates railways. It is then contended that party No.1 has employed

thousands of employees and there are several trains running on said route and to carry out the day today electrical

maintenance of the said trains, party No.1 has established a maintenance workshop and repairs departments. The

Madgaon maintenance workshop is one of the workshop established by party no.1. It is submitted that to carry out the

maintenance work, party No.1 has employed several employees. The wages and other facilities of the workers

employed by party No.1 are governed by the wages and other facilities applicable to employees of Indian railways in

the country. The working of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning in the Indian Railway are being carried out by the

permanent workers and they are paid wages and extended other benefits as per the pay commission. The work of Train

Lighting and Air Conditioning in Konkan railway is of perennial nature and therefore workers working in the said

department ought to be the permanent workers of party No.1

(ii)

2781

According to the party no.2, the work of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning is carried out by the workers

whose names are referred in para 9 of the statement of claim and their work is being supervised by the Jr. Engineer and

other supervisors of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. The duties and the work allotted to workmen are done by the

supervisors / Jr. Engineer of party No.1. Two Air Conditioner mechanics are escorting each train and their supervision

and job allocation is done by the supervisor of party No.1. The workmen in the reference are having requisite

qualification and experience of work. The work of Train Lighting and coach maintenance is necessary and of

permanent nature. The work is done through regular workmen in most of the railways in the country.

According to party No.2, these workmen are continuously working since 1998 and they are posted on each jobs

every day. From the duty allocation it is clear that these numbers of workmen are required as whole time workers to

party no.1 to carry out the work of Train Lighting and coach maintenance [electrical].

It is submitted that nature of relationship between Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and party no.2 workmen

were that of employer-employee and only to deprive these workers the benefit of permanency, their wages are paid

through a camouflage contractor. The said contract is not only camouflage but also an artificial arrangement on papers

as no licence is obtained as required under the contract labour act 1970. The contractors has not maintained the

registers as required under the law. The second party workmen are, therefore asking for a declaration that the workers

in the reference are regular workers of party no.1 and entitled to all benefits of regular workers under the party no.1 and

for order or direction directing the party no.1to absorb the said workers as permanent workmen of party no.1.

First party has resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.8 contending therein that second party workmen

who made the representation through Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh are neither the employees of party no.1 nor does there

exists an employee-employer relationship between party no.1 and party no.2. It is contended that party no.2 /

concerned workmen are working with M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd., J.J. Metal Industries compound, 83, LBS Marg,

Bhandup [W], Mumbai. They are employees of said M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. is not a party to

the present reference and therefore reference is liable to be dismissed on that count.

It is then contended that since there is no employer-employee relationship existing between party No.1 and party

no.2 and as party no.2 are not the workmen of party no.1, no industrial dispute is existing in the present case. 44

workers who have made representation through Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh are not employees of party no.1. They are

employees of M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. It was therefore the case of employer party no.1 that there was no industrial

dispute as no dispute is raised by any of the workmen of party no.1.

It is submitted that Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. is a company with equity participation of Indian Railways,

Govt. of Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala formed by BOT concept to construct the 760 kms. long Roha-Thoqur

broad gage railway line and are operating the train services. The National Railway Mazdoor Union is a recognized

union of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and the said union represents all the employees of Konkan Railway

Corporation Ltd. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is not recognized trade union of the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

It is contended that Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. as a principal employer has instructed the contractor of

M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai to strictly comply with the relevant labour laws and rules. The said contractor has

confirmed that they have complied with relevant law and rules in force. M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. vide their letter

bearing No. ASPC/B/AKCP/2005/455 dated 24.08.2005, addressed to employer party no.1 have confirmed that the

minimum wages are being paid to their employees as per the prescribed time schedule. It has also enclosed payment

vouchers for the period June & June 2005 along with said letter. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. is carrying out only

day to day maintenance for identification and unit replacement at the Train Lighting and Air Conditioning Depot at

Margaon by awarding the work on annual maintenance contract. The major activities are being done at the railway

workshop since Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. does not have facility for the same. It is thus, denied that the work

of the Train Lighting and Air Conditioning in Konkan Railways is of perennial nature and therefore worker in the said

depot ought to be permanent workers of party no.1.

10.

It is contended that Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. has its own permanent staff in electrical department for

Train Lighting and Air Conditioning. The work awarded by way of annual maintenance contract to M/s. Airserco Pvt.

Ltd. is being carried out at the coach care centre. The workmen / party No.2 are the employees of M/s. Airserco Pvt.

Ltd. The work of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning depot at Madgaon is of specialized nature involving repairs of

hermetically ceiled compressors, brushless alternators, magnetic amplifiers, IGBT controlled invertors, regulators etc.

for which expertise as well as infrastructural facilities are not available with Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and

hence the said work are given on annual maintenance contract. The said annual maintenance contract involves the

supply of spare parts, equipment, routine preventive maintenance fault identification, co-ordination for repairs and /

overhauling with OEMS / outside agencies, escorting of AC coaches etc. which is comprehensive in nature and not

labour contract.

2782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

It is contended that annual maintenance contract is awarded to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. who are under obligations

to fulfill the contractual liability. The work of 44 workers concerned in the reference is assigned and supervised by

M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. The overall quality control and safety check of the contractors work is done by Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. supervisors in lying with other AMC work. As such there is no employee-employer

relationship between the 44 workers and Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

12.

First party has thus prayed for rejection of the reference.

13.

Following are the issues for my consideration. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether there exists employer-employee relations ?

No.

Not proved.

Whether reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary party ?

Whether 44 workmen involved in the reference are employees of

M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and nothing to do with first

party Konkan Railway ?

Yes

Whether employees involved in the reference are entitled to get

relief of regularization as a employee of Konkan Railway ?

What order

As per final

order

REASONS

Issue No. 1 & 3

14.

The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine the relationship is the existence of right of control in

respect of manner in which the work is to be done. The distinction is also drawn between contract for service and

contract of service. In one case master can order or require what is to be done while in another case he can not only

order or require what is to be done but how it shall be done. The principle which emerges from the authorities is that

prima-facie test for determination of relationship between master and servant is the existence of right in the master to

supervise and control the work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but

also manner in which he shall do his work. The correct method approach would be to consider whether having regard

to the nature of work there was due control and supervision by the employer.

15.

So far as facts of the present case are concerned, 44 workers purported to be engaged through contractor.

Admittedly the contract agreement is signed by contractor, 2M Engineer and Chief Electrical Engineer vide document

at Sr. No.4. page 75 – 86 [Ex.11]. The document at Sr. No.5 are the letters of acceptance of contract signed by the

contractor of M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. and Chief Electrical Engineer [Ex.47]. The document at Sr. No. 6 [Ex.48] are the

copies of Labour licence issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. for annual

maintenance of contract work. Ex.48 is the document to show that M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. has sent a letter to Konkan

Railway Corporation Ltd. along with list of their clients. The document at Sr. No.8 is a circular issued by Railway

Board and document at Ex.18 is a copy of letter received from M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. which they have issued to

workers. The said copy bears signature of Shri AKG Pillai, General Manager. The document at Sr. No. B with list

Ex.30 is a letter sent by Chief Electrical Engineer to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. It bears signature of Krishna Lambani.

Ex.53 is a copy of letter received from S.K. Raja, worker of M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. Ex.54 is the copy of letter received

from M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. Ex.30 is a letter sent by M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. to workers. Ex.56 is a letter sent by

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. Ex.60 is the document at Sr. No. M with list. Ex.30, it is

a copy of letter sent by 47 workers to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. Ex.61 is office copy of the letter sent by the Chief

Electrical Engineer to M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. All these documents are admitted and exhibited.

16.

From these documents it can be seen that there was agreement between M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. and the party

No.1 in respect of the contract work. In view of this, it is to be seen whether party no.1 has controlled and supervised

over the workmen concerned. In this respect, if we see the evidence of Puti Gaonkar who admits that union is not

recognized by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and the employees involved in the reference are not having

appointment letter of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. He admits that wages of these workers are paid through

(ii)

2783

contractors. He being the representative of the union claims that the party no.1 has employed workmen but then as

seen earlier, it appears that there is no appointment letters issued to these workmen by party no.1.

17.

In this respect, if we see the evidence of Shri Sayyed Kazim [Ex.22], he also claims that he is employed by the

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. on 20.09.1998 as a AC Mechanic in Train Lighting and Air Conditioning Depot at

Margaon. In cross-examination he admits that no appointment letter was issued to him by the first party and that

contractor was making the payment to him after obtaining his signature on revenue stamp. It appears from his evidence

that there is no document to show that he was appointed by party no.1 as the worker in the first party company. Even it

is admitted by him that there was no attendance register for him and at the Railway station he was signing the register

maintained by the Central Railway at CST Mumbai when he used to reach there.

18.

From the above evidence, it is clear that the responsibility casts upon the contractor to make the payment of

wages and the contractor used to make payment to them after obtaining their signatures on the revenue stamp. It is in

that circumstances it is to be seen whether inspite of appointment of these workmen by the contractor, party no.1 has

any control and supervision over the work of these workmen.

19.

For it is clear that the work assigned to these workmen was work of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning. From

the evidence of witnesses of party no.1, it is clear that Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. is carrying out only day to day

routine maintenance, fault identification and unit replacement at the Train Lighting and Air Conditioning Depot at

Margaon by awarding the work of annual maintenance contract. Major activities is being done at railway workshops

since Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. does not have the facility for the same. If this sort of evidence is to be

accepted then it can be seen that there were no facilities in respect of work of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning in

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Then it cannot be said that the said work of Train Lighting and Air Conditioning is

of perennial nature and it was being carried out by the workers of party no.1. I say so because we have documents to

show that there was the contract between party no.1 and M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. to carry out the said work of Train

Lighting and Air Conditioning and it is comprehensive contract.

20.

Even then Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that the Junior Engineer of first party and

other supervisors were supervising the work. Even the allotment of these duties was done by party no.1 and there is no

evidence to show that the contractors were allotting the duties to these workmen. Submission is to the effect that there

are regular and permanent workmen supervising the same job of maintenance of coaches done by workmen and

therefore the contact is sham and bogus to deprive the workers of the benefits given to regular workmen.

21.

However, the in context the evidence that has come on record show that the contractor was making the payment

to these concerned workmen. M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. was assigning and supervising the work of the said employer.

Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that overall quality control, safety check of the contractors work and the

management of the work was done by the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. which is lying with any other work then

also it cannot be said that there was an employee-employer relationship between Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and

the said workers of M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. Infact, there is no evidence to show that the Junior Engineer of the first

party and supervisors were supervising the work and that the allotment of duties to these workmen was done by the first

party. From various documents taken on record, it can undoubtedly be said that they were workers / employees of M/s.

Airserco Pvt. Ltd. to whom monthly wages and allowances were paid by M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. It is a matter of record

that these workers have not undergone any of the recruitment process at Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. nor applied

for the employment against any of the notification of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

22.

Learned Counsel for the second party workmen seeks to rely on the decision in the case of Hussaibhai, Calicut

v. The Alath Factory, AIR 1978 SC 1410 to submit that where a worker or group of workers / labours to produce the

goods or services and these goods and services are for the business of another that other is infact the employer. He has

economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he for any reason chokes off, the

worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate 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 arrangement that the real

employer is the management and not the immediate contractor.

23.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of General Manager [P&A], HPCL v. General Secretary, General

employees association and others 2010 LLR 957 to submit that even though the certain amounts were paid by the

contractors, in the real sense ultimately it is a management which pays the amount and the fact shows that contract was

sham and bogus and mere comafledge then the workmen is entitled to regularization.

24.

In the cited case supra, it is finding of the fact that the notification dated 9.12.1976 was applicable to petitioner

company and prohibiting the employment of Central Labour in the works mentioned in schedule annexed thereto with

effect from March 1996 would not have employed contract labour for attending the job of sweeping, cleaning, dusting,

value operative. Therefore another notification dated 30^th January 1976 came to be issued. As such the respondent was

2784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

prohibited under the said notification for the employment of contract labour. Even it was finding of the fact, that the

work carried out by the management is of permanent and perennial nature for which services of the workmen were

required. In the circumstances, it has been observed that the contractor had no role to play as far as workmen are

concerned and everything was supervised and controlled by management. In the circumstances, it has been observed

that the contract was sham and bogus.

25.

Here in the instance case there is no such notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour. There is

no sufficient evidence to show that the contract between M/s. Airserco Pvt. Ltd. and the management is sham and

bogus and therefore mere supervision by the officers and the management cannot be taken as evidence of direct

employment of these contract workers under the principal employer. In the context hand can be laid on the decision in

the case of International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Aircargo Worker Union and Anor. 2010 III CLR

140.

26.

In the light of above discussion I hold that there exists no employer-employee relationship between first party

and second party employees. As such the 44 workmen involved in the reference are the employees of M/s. Airserco

Pvt. Ltd. and they have nothing to do with the first party Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. The above issues are

therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.

Issue No.2

27.

Contractor Airserco Pvt. Ltd. is not party to the reference. However, on going through the statement of claim it

appears that 44 workmen involved in the reference are claiming themselves as employees of first party management so

the burden shifts on them to prove the employer-employee relationship in between them and first party management.

The burden has not been properly discharged by second party workmen showing that they are the employees of first

party and they were appointed by first party or that they were terminated by the first party. When the contention is

taken by the second party workmen that they are employees of first party in that case as seen earlier the burden shifts

on them to prove the relationship. In view of that the reference is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Issue

No.2 is answered accordingly in negative.

Issue No.4 & 5

28.

In view of my findings to Issue No.1 & 3, I find that second party workmen cannot seek any relief against the

first party. They have sought relief of regularization under the first party and to observe them as permanent workers of

the first party. They are not entitled to sought relief when infact second party workmen have not established that they

are employed by the first party company. There never existed relationship of employer-employee between first party

and second party workmen and therefore they are not entitled to any relief. The reference is liable to be rejected.

ORDER

Reference is rejected as to no order as to costs.

Date: 11.01.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1210

—

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

Hkkjrh;

LVsV cS

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 309@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04

2017

dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@291@99&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 309/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/291/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

(ii)

2785

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 03^rd day of February, 2017/14^th Magha, 1938)

ID 309/2006

(Formerly ID 73/1999 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman

Shri T. R. Sethumadhavan,

Thanisseery House,

Panjal – P. O.,

Cheruthuruthy – Via,

Thrissur Dist.

By Advs. Shri. K. A. Abraham & Shri. Biju Martin

Management

The Asstt. General Manager,

Region-II, State Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

ERNAKULAM – 682011.

By Adv. Shri. George Thomas Mevada

This case coming up for final hearing on 31.01.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 03.02.2017 passed the

following:

REVISED AWARD

This is a reference under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication is:

“Whether the action of management of State Bank of India in dismissing the service of Sri. T. R.

Sethumadhavan, Clerk, Chowannur branch w.e.f.10.2.98 for certain alleged charges is justified. If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Originally as per Order No.L-12012/291/99/-IR(B-I) dated 11.11.1999 the Ministry of Labour, Government of

India referred the matter for adjudication before the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ernakulam and the matter was numbered as

ID No.73/1999(C). Subsequently as per order in WP(C) No.1069/2006 dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala, Ernakulam the matter was transferred to this Court and it was re-numbered as ID 309/2006. The

parties entered appearance through counsel and submitted their pleadings. Originally, this Tribunal adjudicated the

matter and passed an Award on 22.12.2008. Against which the management preferred WP(C) No.10514 of 2009(H)

before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. As per the Judgment dated 16.08.2016 the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala set aside the award passed by this Tribunal and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. Both parties

were allowed to produce documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Copy of the

Judgment in WP(C) No.10514/2009(H) was produced by the counsel for the management before this Tribunal on

05.10.2016. Thereafter notice was issued to the parties to appear before this Tribunal in order to comply the directions

in the Judgment in WP(C) No.10514/2009(H) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.

The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:-

The workman Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan, while working as clerk in the State Bank of India was dismissed from

the service as per order No.Dis/con 284 dated 10.02.1998. The management has alleged five charges against the

workman. In the domestic enquiry it was found that three charges alleged against the workman were not proved. The

charges stated to be proved against the workman in the enquiry are:

“Charge .1

“Shri. R. V. Siddhi, Account holder of S.B.A/c No.7/2724 had sent Rs.1000/- through his son on 29.5.95 to

remit to his S.B.A/c No.7/2724. You were sitting near the “May I help you” counter on that day. After filling

up the pay-in-slip, accepted cash of Rs.1000/- and returned the pass book after duly entering and

authenticating the credit entry. A similar entry was made by you in the concerned ledger account also. On

2786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.6.95 the Branch Manager, while scrutinising the account No.7/2724 found the above unauthorized entry.

He verified the day books, cashiers receipt scroll, and vouchers and found that no such credit was

received on that day. The customer was then interrogated when he produced his pass book on 5.6.95. On

scrutiny of the pass book it was found that on 29.5.95, you had made a credit entry of Rs.1000/- in the pass

book and also authenticated the entry. When questioned by the Branch Manager on 5.6.95 you admitted to

Branch Manager in the presence of the customer Shri.Siddhi that you had accepted Rs.1000/- from the

customer’s son on 29.5.95 and forgot to remit the amount”.

Charge (ii)

“On verification of the pass book of Smt.Lissy Jose, S.B.A/c.4/1933 by the Branch Manager, it was found that

you have made a credit entry of Rs.5000/- in the pass book on 15.5.1995, but you have remitted the amount

received by you from Smt.Lissy Jose only on 9.6.1995”.”

The domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, in an unfair and prejudicial

manner, without affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions. The

workman has challenged the enquiry on the aforesaid ground. He has stated that the enquiry is vitiated. In course of

enquiry the defacto-complainant was not examined to prove the allegations against the workman. In the course of

domestic enquiry the handwriting of the workman was not identified or proved in the documents produced by the

management. The documents produced before the enquiry officer were not proved properly. The punishment of

dismissal from service imposed on the workman is shockingly disproportionate in relation to the charges levelled

against him. The workman has requested to set aside the entire enquiry proceedings and requested to pass an award

directing the management to reinstate him in service with back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits.

The averments in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-

The workman Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan while working as a clerk in the State Bank of India, Chowannoor

branch has committed gross irregularities. On 29.05.1995 one SB account holder of the branch namely Shri. R. V.

Siddhi, Account No.7/2724 sent a sum of `1,000/- through his son for remitting the amount to the credit of his account.

At that time the workman was sitting near the “May I Help You” counter. The son of the account holder who was not

familiar with the procedures for remittance of money; sought assistance from the delinquent. The delinquent filled up

the pay-in-slip and obtained signature of the account holder’s son and accepted the sum of `1,000/- for accounting in

the Bank. The workman returned the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip and the passbook of the account holder after making

necessary entries evidencing the remittance of the amount on 29.05.1995. The said sum of `1,000/- was to be credited

to the SB account of the account holder towards processing charges in respect of a housing loan availed by him from

the branch. On the date of sanctioning the loan the account holder was not having sufficient money in his account to

pay towards the processing charges. He promised the branch Manager that he will remit the amount within a week. It

is towards the processing charges in respect of the housing loan, the account holder remitted the sum of `1,000/- on

29.05.1995. The branch Manager subsequently verified as to whether the account holder deposited the processing

charges as promised by him. At that time it was revealed that the amount has not been deposited and hence the

Manager enquired the matter with the account holder/borrower as to why he failed to remit the amount as agreed. At

that time the account holder informed the Manager that he had already remitted the amount to the credit of his account

and that the staff of the bank made necessary entries in the passbook evidencing the receipt of the amount on

29.05.1995. The branch Manager directed the account holder to reach the branch with the passbook. On verification of

the passbook the Manager realized that the statement given by the account holder was correct. Subsequently the branch

Manager verified the bank records. On verification it was noticed that the pay-in-slip relating to the deposit of the

amount was not seen. The ledger retained in the bank did not show any entry relating to this remittance on that

particular date. The cashier’s receipt scroll on that particular day also did not reveal any entry relating to the remittance

of the amount aforesaid. At that time the bank Manager called the workman in presence of the account holder and

enquired the matter. At that time the delinquent workman admitted the receipt of the amount, admitted the making of

the entry in the passbook and that he has not accounted the same in the Bank. He informed that he forgot to do so.

On finding this irregularity, the branch Manager reported the matter to the controlling authority – Zonal Office,

Ernakulam. Shri. C. P. Rajagopal, Manager of PB Division, SBI Town branch was deputed by the Zonal Office to

enquire the matter. He along with the branch Manager verified the pay-in-slip, cashier’s receipt scroll, Day Book and

other documents. In the course of enquiry they noticed three other irregularities as detailed below:

“(i)

R.D. Account No.506 relate to a customer by name Mrs.Rosy George. As per the scheme

Rs.1000 was to be deposited in a particular day in each month in the said account. On verifying her

account, it was seen that there is no deposit in the month of April 1995. All other remittances were

correctly and punctually made by the account holder. The account holder was seen by the officer

deputed by the Zonal Office along with the Branch Manager. On asking about the non-remittance of

the amount for the month of April 1995, she told them that all remittances were made by her in time

(ii)

2787

and there is no instalment remaining unpaid. She has also shown her Pass Book showing entry made

by the delinquent employee to the effect that remittance of the required amount is made in April 1995

but the date of deposit was not entered in the Pass Book.

(ii)

The remittance of Rs.5000 made by Smt.Lissy Jose, SB Account holder of Account

No.4/1933 on 15/5/1995 was not accounted and the amount was not paid in the counter. In this case

also the amount was received by the delinquent employee on the date. This account holder was also

met by the officer deputed by Zonal Office along with the Branch Manager and she had told about

the deposit of the amount on 15/5/1995 and had also shown her Pass Book showing entry made by

the delinquent employee on that particular date.

(iii)

A SB Account No.4/2085 relate to another customer by name C. S. Pushpakaran. He had

also paid an amount of Rs.1000 to be deposited in his SB Account. This was also not accounted by

the delinquent employee and the amount was also not paid in the counter."

The officer deputed from the Zonal Office questioned the delinquent workman in the presence of the branch

Manager. At that time the delinquent admitted the guilt and his explanation was that he forgot to remit the amount in

the cash counter. SB account holder Shri. R. L. Siddhi, Account No.7/2724 submitted a written complaint relating to

the irregularities in his bank account. At that time the delinquent tried to remit the amount in the accounts of the

respective account holders. In relation to RD Account No.506, the account holder remitted `1,000/- in April, 1995 and

the delinquent received the sum and he failed to account the same. The said amount was remitted to the account of the

account holder after detecting the misappropriation of amount in the account of Shri. R. L. Siddhi. So also a sum of

`5,000/- was deposited in the account of Smt. Lissy Jose on 09.06.1995.

After detecting the misappropriation of amount in relation to the account numbers of Smt.Lissy Jose and Shri. C.

S. Pushpakaran, the account holders informed the bank Manager that they have remitted the amount much earlier and

the amount was deposited to the credit of their account only on 07.06.1995 and 09.06.1995 respectively.

10.

Based on the reports submitted by the branch Manager to the Zonal Office and on the basis of the report by the

officer deputed from the Zonal Office, the delinquent was suspended from service w.e.f.13.10.1995. Thereafter a

charge sheet was served on him with a statement of allegations explaining the whole instances of misappropriation

apart from the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. He has submitted an explanation refuting the charges alleged

against him. He has denied the charge of unauthorized absence and stated that he had submitted leave applications on

all occasions. The delinquent misappropriated the amount from the customers of the bank as aforesaid and made

incorrect entries in the passbook of the concerned customers in order to cover up the misappropriation. He made

entries in the passbook of the account holders with fraudulent intention.

11.

The management appointed an enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry in presence of the presenting officer

after affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions. After obtaining report

from the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority complied the procedural aspects and passed final order of ‘dismissal

from service without notice’. The delinquent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which also ended in

dismissal.

12.

The management has requested to consider the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and sought

permission to adduce independent evidence if it is found that the enquiry is vitiated on any of the grounds alleged by

the workman.

13.

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

claim statement.

14.

As per the Judgment in WP(C) No.10514/2009(H) the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala set aside the award dated

22.12.2008 passed by this Tribunal in this case and remanded the matter for consideration afresh. The Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala granted permission to the parties to adduce independent evidence to substantiate their respective

contentions. After remand order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, on behalf of the management MW2 was

examined on Commission and Exts.M2 to M28 are the documents marked. The workman has not adduced any oral

evidence nor produced documents after remand. Heard both sides.

15.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the management has succeeded in proving the charges levelled against the workman?

(ii)

Whether the defence sought by the workman is true and correct?

(iii)

Whether the punishment imposed by the management is disproportionate in relation to the

charges levelled against the workman?

2788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iv)

To what relief the workman is entitled?”

16.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

The workman involved in this reference Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan was employed

as a clerk in the management bank. While working at the Chowanoor branch of the management bank certain

irregularities were detected and the management bank charge sheeted him for committing the misconduct. As per the

charge sheet five charges were levelled against the workman. The management appointed an enquiry officer to conduct

an enquiry and submit report. The enquiry officer has found that the charge Nos.1 and 3 in the charge sheet were

proved and charge Nos.2, 4 and 5 were not proved. The charges levelled against the workman stated to have been

proved in the enquiry are:

“Charge .1

“Shri. R. V. Siddhi, Account holder of S.B.A/c No.7/2724 had sent Rs.1000/- through his son on

29.5.95 to remit to his S.B.A/c No.7/2724. You were sitting near the “May I help you” counter on

that day. After filling up the pay-in-slip, accepted cash of Rs.1000/- and returned the pass book

after duly entering and authenticating the credit entry. A similar entry was made by you in the

concerned ledger account also. On 3.6.95 the Branch Manager, while scrutinising the account

No.7/2724 found the above unauthorized entry. He verified the day books, cashiers receipt scroll,

and vouchers and found that no such credit was received on that day. The customer was then

interrogated when he produced his pass book on 5.6.95. On scrutiny of the pass book it was found

that on 29.5.95, you had made a credit entry of Rs.1000/- in the pass book and also authenticated

the entry. When questioned by the Branch Manager on 5.6.95 you admitted to Branch Manager in

the presence of the customer Shri.Siddhi that you had accepted Rs.1000/- from the customer’s son

on 29.5.95 and forgot to remit the amount”.

Charge (ii)

“On verification of the pass book of Smt.Lissy Jose, S.B.A/c.4/1933 by the Branch Manager, it was

found that you have made a credit entry of Rs.5000/- in the pass book on 15.5.1995, but you have

remitted the amount received by you from Smt.Lissy Jose only on 9.6.1995”.”

17.

The workman has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground it is vitiated for want of fairness,

impartiality, denial of natural justice and failure to afford fair and reasonable opportunity. The management has

contended that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is just, proper and legal in accordance with the principles

of natural justice, affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions.

18.

While passing the remand order the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed this Tribunal to consider the

sustainability of the punishment of dismissal if the charges are proved by the management. As already stated, after

remand, on behalf of the management, MW2 was examined and Exts.M2 to M28 were marked. The learned counsel

for the management submitted that the charges levelled against the workman are proved on the basis of the evidence

tendered by MW2 and the documents marked on their behalf. The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the

evidence tendered by MW2 will not establish the charges levelled against the workman. In this regard the evidence

tendered by MW2 has to be analyzed in detail on the basis of Exts.M2 to M28 documents marked on behalf of the

management.

19.

At the time of the alleged incident MW2 was the branch Manager of Chowannur branch. He has explained the

procedure for remittance followed in the branch while he was working as Manager at the Chowannur branch. He has

stated that the Exts.M2 is the complaint submitted by one Shri. R. V. Siddhi to the Assistant General Manager, Zonal

Office, Ernakulam. MW2 has stated that at the time when the incident as stated in Ext.M2 document occurred; Shri. T.

R. Sethumadhavan was working in the “May I Help you” counter of the branch. MW2 has stated that the son of the de-

facto complainant who was not having adequate experience in banking transactions enquired the matter with the

delinquent Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan. At that time the delinquent accepted the passbook and the sum of `1,000/- from

the son of the de-facto complainant. Thereafter the delinquent made entry in the passbook and returned the same to the

son of the complainant. MW2 has stated that on subsequent verification he came to know that the said amount was not

actually credited to the account of the complainant. At that time MW2 contacted the complainant over phone and the

complainant informed that he had already remitted the amount and the remittance is recorded in the passbook. MW2

has stated that he requested the complainant to reach the branch of the management bank. Then the complainant along

with his son reached the branch of the management bank. They brought the passbook also. MW2 enquired the

complainant and his son as to whom they paid the amount and at that time the son of the complainant identified the

workman Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan. MW2 has stated that immediately he called the workman and enquired the

matter and at that time the workman admitted the receipt of the sum of `1,000/-. He also informed that he forgot to

deposit the amount and promised that he will pay the amount immediately.

(ii)

2789

20.

MW2 has stated that Ext.M3 is the passbook issued to Shri. R. V. Siddhi, the complainant, in which there is an

entry on 29.05.1995 evidencing the remittance of a sum of `1,000/-. Ext.M4 is copy of the ledger sheet pertaining to

SB account No.7/2724 in the name of Shri. R. V. Siddhi. MW2 has stated that in the ledger sheet there is an entry by

the delinquent workman to the effect that he received the sum of `1,000/- on 29.05.1995. MW2 has stated that Ext.M5

is the cashier’s receipt scroll for 29.05.1995 retained in the bank. MW2 has stated that in Ext.M5 document there is no

entry relating the remittance of `1,000/- on 29.05.1995 as noted in Ext.M4 ledger sheet. Ext.M6 is the duplicate copy

of the charge sheet issued to the workman from the office of the Assistant General Manager of the management bank.

MW2 has stated that Ext.M7 is the reply to the charge sheet submitted by the delinquent workman. He has stated that

Ext.M8 is copy of the show cause notice dated 21.06.1995 issued by the Assistant General Manager to the workman.

Ext.M9 is the reply submitted by the workman to Ext.M8 show cause notice. MW2 has stated that Ext.M10 is the

proposed punishment order dated 06.12.1997 for “dismissal without notice” issued to the delinquent workman.

Ext.M11 is the final punishment order issued to the delinquent workman after considering his submissions. Ext.M12 is

the order passed by the appellate authority in the appeal submitted by the delinquent workman.

21.

MW2 has stated that as per Ext.M6 document, apart from the complaint of Shri. R. V. Siddhi, there were

allegations regarding non-remittance of amount in RD A/c No.506 in the name of Mrs.Rosy George. It is stated that in

the passbook issued to Mrs.Rosy George there is an entry regarding remittance of a sum of `1,000/- in April, 1995,

whereas the said amount was actually credited in the account of the bank only on 07.06.1995. MW2 has stated that

Ext.M13 is the passbook in respect of RD A/c No.506 in the name of Mrs.Rosy George. MW2 has further stated that

Ext.M14 is the cash voucher for payment of `1,000/- on 07.06.1995 to RD account No.506. He has further stated that

the said cash voucher was prepared by the delinquent workman. Ext.M15 is the cashier’s receipt scroll for 07.06.1995,

in which it is noted that in relation to RD account No.506, there was remittance of a sum of `1,000/- in the name of

Mrs.Rosy George. It is to be noted that in Ext.M13 passbook, in the name of Mrs.Rosy George, there is no

corresponding entry on 07.06.1995.

22.

MW2 has stated that the next charge against the delinquent workman is relating to the remittance entry in SB

account No.4/1933 in the name of Smt.Lissy Jose. He has stated that as per the passbook in the name of Shri. M. P.

Jose and Smt.Lissy Jose, which is marked as Ext.M18; there is an entry on 15.05.1995 evidencing the remittance of a

sum of `5,000/-. MW2 has stated that the said sum of `5,000/- was actually credited to the SB account of Smt.Lissy

Jose only on 09.06.1995. MW2 has stated that Ext.M16 is the ledger sheet retained in the bank relating to the SB

account No.4/1933. MW2 has stated that the entry prior to 09.06.1995 as noted in Ext.M16 ledger sheet is dated

05.01.1995 and as per that entry a sum of `198.60 was credited towards interest in that account. MW2 has stated that

Ext.M17 is the cash receipt voucher dated 09.06.1995 evidencing the remittance of a sum of `5,000/- to the credit of

SB A/c No.4/1933 in the name of Smt.Lissy Jose. MW2 has stated that Ext.M17 was prepared by the delinquent

workman. Ext.M18 is the duplicate passbook in respect of Account No.4/1933 in the joint names of Shri. M. P. Jose

and Smt. M. G. Lissy. MW2 has stated in Ext.M18 document an entry is made on 15.05.1995 evidencing the

remittance of a sum of `5,000/-. He has stated that in Ext.M19 cashier’s receipt scroll dated 09.06.1995 there is an

entry evidencing the remittance of `5,000/- towards the account No.4/1933.

23.

MW2 has stated that the 04^th paragraph in Ext.M6 document is relating to the transactions relating to the bank

account in the name Shri. C. S. Pushpakaran, SB a/c No.4/2085. Ext.M20 is the ledger sheet pertaining to SB a/c

No.4/2085. MW2 has stated that even though the workman received the sum of `1,000/- from Shri. C. S. Pushpakaran,

prior to 07.06.1995, he remitted the amount to the credit of the SB account of Shri. C.S. Pushpakaran only on

07.06.1995. MW2 has stated that Ext.M21(a) is the credit voucher relating to the remittance of a sum of `1,000/- to SB

a/c No.4/2085 in the name of Shri. C. S. Pushpakaran and it was prepared by the delinquent workman. Ext.M22 is the

passbook in the name of Shri. C. S. Pushpakaran. MW2 has stated that Ext.M24 is the report submitted by him to the

Zonal Office relating to the unauthorized acceptance of cash from customers by the delinquent workman.

24.

MW2 has stated that Ext.M25 is the leave register retained in Chowannur branch of the management bank for

the period from 1993 to 1995. MW2 has stated that page Nos.1, 2 and 18 in Ext.M25 document is pertaining to the

leave details of Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan, the workman. MW2 has stated that Ext.M26 is the SB account Day Book

retained in the Chowannur branch of the management bank for the period from17.04.1995 to 30.10.1995. MW2 has

mentioned about the remittance of sum of `5,000/- towards account No.4/1933 on 09.06.1995 and it is noted in

Ext.M26 document. He has stated that Ext.M27 is the day book pertaining to RD accounts. He has stated that as per

the entry in Ext.M27 Smt.Rosy George, RD No.506 remitted `1,000/- on 07.06.1995.

25.

During cross examination MW2 has stated that he was working in the Chowannur branch of the management

bank for about two years. MW2 has stated that Shri. R. V. Siddhi and his son identified Shri. T. R. Sethumadhavan

who committed the mischief. He has stated that he reported the matter that the complainant identified the delinquent.

He has stated in Ext.M24 report it is noted that the complainant identified the delinquent and he reported the matter to

the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office. MW2 has denied the suggestion that the complainant filed the complaint

before the Zonal Office and copy of the same was given to him. MW2 has stated that the person who receives the cash

2790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the branch is the cashier and he is the person who is issuing the counterfoil in respect of the pay-in-slips to the

customers. MW2 has stated that the entry in Page 1 of Ext.M3 document was made by him and the remaining entries

were made by Shri. Sethumadhavan. He has denied the suggestion that the entries in Ext.M3 document were not made

by the delinquent. He has also denied the suggestion that Ext.M3 is a concocted document. MW2 has denied the

suggestion that he is saying falsehood in relation to the Ext.M4 document.

26.

MW2 has stated that Ext.M28 is the book containing the enquiry proceedings against Shri. Sethumadhavan

relating to the period from 10.01.1996 to 11.10.1996. MW2 has stated that in Ext.M13 passbook all entries except the

entry dated 31.01.1995 were made by Shri. Sethumadhavan. MW2 has stated that Ext.M13 passbook was produced by

Smt.Rosy George while conducting the enquiry. MW2 has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the

workman and foisted false case against him. MW2 has stated that from Ext.M25 it can be ascertained as to whether an

employee was on unauthorized absence. According to MW2 leave without pay marked in Ext.M25 is unauthorized

absence. He has further stated that in the leave register authorized as well as unauthorized absenteeism are noted.

MW2 has stated that in relation to unauthorized absence steps were initiated against the delinquent but no such

documents are seen produced in this case.

27.

On an evaluation of the evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked through him, it can be seen that

the management has succeeded in proving beyond doubt the allegation of misconduct relating to delayed payment and

the making of incorrect entries in the passbook of customers as detailed in the charge sheet issued against the workman.

It is true that the management has not taken steps to examine the defacto complainant Shri. R. V. Siddhi. The Manager

who was in charge of the branch at the relevant time i.e., MW2, tendered evidence regarding the delayed payment and

making of incorrect entries in the passbook of customers by the delinquent workman. From the documents marked

through MW2 and on going through the evidence tendered by him it is evident that the workman accepted amount from

the customers while he was working in the Chowannur branch of the management bank and failed to account the same

in the books of account of the branch on the same day of accepting the cash from the customers. It is true that in cases

detected by the manager and the investigating officer in the course of inquiry, the delinquent remitted the amount to the

credit of the respective customers’ account at a later date.

28.

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that MW2 is a retired employee of the bank and now aged more

than 70 years and he cannot recollect the incident which occurred in the year 1994-1995. It is submitted that the

evidence tendered by MW2 cannot be relied on to arrive at a conclusion regarding the involvement of the delinquent

workman in the alleged incident. The learned counsel for the workman referred to the Ruling reported in

M/s.Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others – AIR 1972 SC 330 and the decision in M. C.

Charati Vs. Personnel Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Syndicate Bank and others – 2001 (1) LLN 590 and

submitted that the procedure adopted by the management is irregular and improper.

29.

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents

marked and proved through him are sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion regarding the culpability of the

delinquent workman in relation to the charges levelled against him.

30.

On an evaluation of evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked through him it is evident that the

workman has accepted the amount from the son of a customer of the bank – Shri.R. V. Siddhi and failed to remit the

same to the account of the bank at the relevant time. He remitted the amount to the credit of the account of Shri. R. V.

Siddhi only after the Manager detected the non-payment of the amount to the credit of the account of Shri. R. V.

Siddhi, the account holder. Regarding the acceptance of amount from the other customers mentioned in Ext.M6 charge

sheet and the delayed remittance to their respective accounts by the delinquent workman after detecting the mischief by

MW2 is also proved from the evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked through him. Therefore it is

evident that the workman has committed the misconduct as alleged by the management.

31.

Ext.M8 document marked through MW2 is copy of the show cause notice issued to the workman from the bank.

In Ext.M8 document it is noted that the workman received amount from the customers of the bank and failed to remit it

to the credit of the customers in the books of account retained in the bank then as and there. There is willful delay on

the part of the workman in accounting the amount received from the customers to the credit of the respective customers

in the books of account retained in the bank. Ext.M9 is the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the workman.

In Ext.M9 the workman has denied the allegations levelled against him. He has stated that knowingly or unknowingly

he never committed the misconduct as alleged in the show cause notice. He has mentioned about the practice followed

in the branch regarding the making of entries in the passbook and handing over the same to the respective customers.

He has requested leniency if it is found that there is any mistake or omission on his part. He promised that he will be

more careful in future while dealing with the customers.

32.

Ext.M6 is copy of the charge sheet issued to the workman. In Ext.M6 document the management has listed the

acts of misconduct committed by the workman. Ext.M7 is the reply to the charge sheet submitted by the workman. In

Ext.M7 reply the workman has denied the charges levelled against him. He has stated that he followed the wrong

(ii)

2791

practice followed in the branch and ultimately he has been made as a scape goat. He has also stated that purposefully

he has not done any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Regarding the unauthorized absence he has stated that he

was suffering rheumatic ailments and had to undergo treatment for the same. He has stated that he had submitted leave

applications on all occasions and the bank had granted the leave treating the same as loss of pay.

33.

Regarding the allegations of unauthorized absence against the workman MW2 has stated that from Ext.M25

document the details regarding the unauthorized absence of delinquent can be ascertained. He has stated that the

branch is retaining absentees register. The management has not produced the same to prove the allegation of

unauthorized absence against the workman. Since the bank has ratified the unauthorized absence by treating his

absence as leave without pay it cannot be held that the workman has committed the misconduct initiating disciplinary

action against him in this regard.

34.

In relation to the charge of delayed remittance of amount received from the customers to the credit of their

respective accounts in the registers retained in the bank there is ample evidence to substantiate the contention of the

management. The evidence tendered by MW2 and the documents marked through him probabilise the fact that the

workman has committed the misconduct relating to non-remittance of amount to the credit of the customers of the bank

as alleged by the management. Therefore the points for consideration are answered against the workman and in favour

of the management.

35.

Point Nos.(iii) & (iv):-

The incident alleged in Ext.M2 complaint occurred in May, 1995 and the

disciplinary proceedings were pending against him before the various Forums. The learned counsel for the workman

submitted that the workman attained the age of superannuation in the year 2010 and the proceedings are pending

against him even now. Considering the fact that the workman remitted the amount to the credit of the respective

customers immediately after detecting the mischief and considering his request to pardon him it is held that the

punishment of ‘dismissal from service without notice’ ordered by the management is disproportionate. Considering the

fact that the workman failed to account the amount received from the customers then and there and there was delay or

negligence or willful default on his part in remitting the amount to the credit of the respective customers in the books of

account retained in the bank; he is liable to be proceeded for the act of misconduct on his part. On evaluating the

materials on record, the facts and circumstances of the case, the considerable delay in arriving at the final decision, it is

held that the ends of justice will be met by awarding a lesser punishment than the one ordered by the management.

Considering the nature of misconduct committed by the workman it is held that the ends of justice will be met by

awarding the punishment of “compulsory retirement of the workman w.e.f.10.02.1998 with superannuation benefits till

that date”. The period of suspension will be treated as such for calculating the superannuation benefits. The points for

consideration are answered accordingly.

36.

In the result an award is passed holding that the order of dismissal from service, passed by the management

against the workman is disproportionate and hence it is set aside. The workman shall be compulsorily retired

from the service of the management w.e.f.10.02.1998. He shall be entitled to get superannuation benefits till that date.

The period of suspension will be treated as such for calculating the superannuation benefits. The management is

directed to disburse the benefits due to the workman within three months from the date of publication of the award in

the Official Gazette.

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 03^rd day

of February, 2017.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

NIL

Witness for the management

MW1

12.05.2008

Shri. T. N. Ramachandran Nair

MW2

28.01.2017

Shri. M. Raveendran

Exhibits for the workman

NIL

Exhibits for the management

Enquriy file.

Complaint letter dated 07.06.1995 addressed to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank

of India, Zonal Office, Ernakulam by Shri. R. V. Siddhi.

2792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Savings Bank passbook bearing account No.7/2724 in respect of Shri. R. V. Siddi in the

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

Savings Bank Ledger Sheet for the account No.2724 in respect of Shri. R. V. Siddi for the

period between 25.05.1995 to 29.06.1995 maintained at the Chowannur branch of the

management bank.

Cashier’s Receipt Scroll dated 29.05.1995 maintained by the Cash Officer and the Cashier

of the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

Duplicate copy of the Charge Sheet bearing No.DIS/CON/153 dated 30.08.1995 issued by

the Assistant General Manager(Disciplinary Authority), State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Region II, Ernakulam to the workman.

Reply letter dated 20.10.1995 submitted to the Assistant General Manager, Region II, State

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ernakulam through the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Chowannur branch, Trichur by the workman.

Copy of the Show Cause Notice bearing No.2418-13 dated 21.06.95 issued by the

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Reg-II, Ernakulam to the

workman.

Reply letter dated 22.07.95 submitted to the Assistant General Manager, Region II, State

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ernakulam through the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Chowannur by the workman.

M10

Disciplinary proceedings under Para 521 of the Sastry Award read with Para 18.28 of the

Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements bearing No.Dis/Con 226 dated 06.12.1997 issued

by the Disciplinary Authority(Assistant General Manager, Region II), Zonal Office, State

Bank of India, Trichur to the workman.

M11

Disciplinary proceedings under Paragraph 521 of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph

18.28 of the Desai Award bearing No.Dis/Con 284 dated 10.02.1998 issued by the

Disciplinary Authority(Assistant General Manager, Region II), Zonal Office, State Bank of

India, Ernakulam to the workman.

M12

Order dated 01.06.1998 issued by the Appellate Authority (Deputy General Manager),

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ernakulam rejecting the appeal given by the workman.

M13

Passbook for Recurring Deposit Account No.RD-506 in respect of Smt.Rosy George

maintained at the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M14

Recurring Deposit Pay-in-Slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,000/- against RD-506 in respect of

Smt.Rosy George in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M15

Cashier’s Receipt Scroll dated 07.06.1995 maintained by the Cash Officer at the

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M16

Ledger Sheet for SB A/c No.4/1933 in respect of Shri.M.P. Jose and Smt.M. G. Lissy

(Eors) for the period between 02.09.1986 to 04.08.1995 maintained at the Chowannur

branch of the management bank.

M17

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 09.06.1995 for `5,000/- against account No.4/1933 in

respect of Smt.Lissy Jose in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M18

Duplicate Savings Bank passbook account No.4/1933 in respect of Shri. M. P. Jose and

Smt.M. G. Lissy maintained at the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M19

Cashier’s Receipt Scroll dated 09.06.1995 maintained by the Cash Officer at the

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M20

Savings Bank Ledger Sheet for the account No.2085 in respect of Shri. C. S. Pushpakaran

for the period between 04.07.1988 to 18.10.1995 maintained at the Chowannur branch of

the management bank.

M21

Debit Voucher No.Nil dated 07.06.1995 for `281/- against A/c No.C2/332 of Chowannur

branch of the management bank.

(ii)

2793

M21(a)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,000/- in SB ledger 4/2085 of Chowannur

branch of the management bank.

M21(b)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `281 in SB ledger C2/332 of Chowannur

branch of the management bank.

M21(c)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `4,000/- in SB ledger C-II/330 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(d)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,000/- in SB ledger C2/332 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(e)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `10,000/- in SB ledger C2/334 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(f)

Debit Voucher No.486911 dated 25.04.1995 for `1,321.90 against SB ledger C2/364 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(g)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `4,000/- in SB ledger C2/406 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(h)

Debit Voucher No.602165 dated 06.06.1995 for `5,000/- against SB ledger C2/418 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(i)

Debit Voucher No.602742 dated 07.06.1995 for `300/- against SB ledger C2/435 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(j)

Debit Voucher No.024225 dated 27.05.1995 for `5,000/- in respect of Smt.Carmelina

Rangel E D’Souza of Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(k)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `5,000/- in SB ledger NRF/173 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(l)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `3,750/- in SB ledger C2/1014 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(m)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `266.41 in SB ledger C2/1061 of

Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(n)

Savings Bank withdrawal form dated 07.06.1995 for `300/- in respect of Smt. Ammukutty

Sree in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(o)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 in respect of Smt. Chinnu for `500/- in SB

Account No.1757 in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(p)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,600/- in SB ledger 4/1840 in respect of

Shri. K. Balan in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(q)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,094/- in SB ledger 4/2040 in respect of

Shri. C. Gopalan Nair in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(r)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `1,500/- in SB ledger 5/2173 in respect of

Shri. Komalan in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(s)

Savings Bank withdrawal form dated 07.06.1995 for `1,500/- in respect of Smt. Komalam

of Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(t)

Savings Bank withdrawal form dated 07.06.1995 for `500/- in respect of A/c No.7/2610 in

the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(u)

Savings Bank withdrawal form dated 07.06.1995 for `4,500/- in the Chowannur branch of

the management bank.

M21(v)

Savings Bank pay-in-slip dated 07.06.1995 for `144/- in respect of Shri. K. C. Kumaran,

staff A/c No.S.30 in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M21(w)

Savings Bank withdrawal form dated 07.06.1995 for `150/- from Shri. K. C. Kumaran,

A/c No.S.30 in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M22

Savings Bank passbook account No.2085 in respect of Shri. C. S.Pushpakaran maintained

at Chowannur branch of the management bank.

2794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M23

Filled up account opening form for individuals dated 25.05.1995 given by Shri. R. V. Siddi

bearing account No.7-2724 in the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M24

Report No.AGM-II-16-41 dated 08.06.1995 regarding the unauthorized acceptance of cash

from customers submitted by the Branch Manager of the Chowannur branch, State Bank of

India to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region II,

Ernakulam.

M25

Leave Register (Code No.3073) from 01.01.1993 onwards maintained at the Chowannur

branch of the management bank.

M26

SB Account Day Book from 17.04.1995 to 30.10.1995 (Item Code No.3148) maintained at

the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M27

RD Day Book (Code No.8148) from 03.04.1990 to 16.05.1996 and RD interest from

11.05.1990 to 06.04.1996 maintained at the Chowannur branch of the management bank.

M28

Enquiry proceedings from 10.01.1996 to 11.10.1996 submitted by the Regional Manager-

II, Disciplinary authority.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1211

—

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

iQMjy

cSad

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;

kstdksaaaaaa 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 339@2006 vkSj 72@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 04

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@54@95&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

,y&12012@75@98&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 339/2006 & 72/2006) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/54/95-IR (B-I),

No. L-12012/75/98-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 14^th day of December, 2016/23^rd Agrahayana, 1938)

ID 339/2006

(Formerly ID No.17/1996(C) of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Union

The General Secretary,

Federal Bank Staff Union,

No.2, Champion Bldg.,

Bank Junction,

Aluva – 683101.

By Advs. Shri. Ashok B. Shenoy & Shri. Anish V. Hassainar

(ii)

2795

Management

The Chairman,

M/s.Federal Bank Ltd.,

Head Office,

Aluva – 683101

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

ID 72/2006

(Formerly ID No.47/1998(C) of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Union

The General Secretary,

Federal Bank Staff Union,

Champion Buildings,

Bank Junction,

Aluva – 683101

KERALA

By Advs. Shri. Ashok B. Shenoy & Shri. A. J. James

Management

The Chairman,

Federal Bank Ltd.,

Head Office,

Alwaye – 683101

KERALA.

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

These cases coming up for final hearing on 14.12.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day

passed the following:

C O M M O N A W A R D

These are the disputes referred by the Central Government as per clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947).

The dispute referred for adjudication in ID 339/2006 is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Federal Bank Ltd. in imposing the penalty of censure

and stoppage of increment for a period of 6 months without cumulative effect on Shri C. C. Dinesh is

legal and justified? If not to what relief is the workman entitled?”

As per reference order No.L-12012/54/95-IR(B-I) dated 22.07.96, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India

referred the aforesaid dispute for adjudication before the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ernakulam. Before the Hon’ble

Labour Court, Ernakulam the matter was numbered as ID No.17/1996(C). Subsequently as per the Order of the

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, the matter was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal afresh. After receipt

of the records from the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ernakulam, notice was issued to the parties. The parties entered

appearance through counsel. The union as well as the management filed the claim statement and written statement

respectively setting forth the contentions and the defence thereof. Subsequently as per the Award dated 09.07.2008 this

Tribunal held that:

“the action of the management in imposing the penalty of censure by Ext.M-8 order dated 22.04.1991 is

illegal and in violation of Clause-3(iii)(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 31.10.1979 and is set aside.

However the punishment of censure as per Ext.M-5 order dated 05.02.1991 is legal and justified and shall

remain.”

Against that award the management preferred a WP(C) No.2850/2009 (L) before the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala, Ernakulam. As per the Judgment dated 19.03.2015 in WP(C) No.2850/2009-L & and O.P.(L.C.)No.2 of 2011-

O, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam held as follows:

“Ext.P1 award in I.D.No.339 of 2006, impugned in W.P.(C).No.2850 of 2009, would be upheld as a

preliminary order and the award in I.D.No.72 of 2006 would be set aside for reason of the remand ordered

in the earlier case and also for the reason of this Court having set at naught the finding of the Tribunal that

the punishment of stoppage of increment takes the misconduct out of the definition of “habitual act ”.

The Writ Petition and the Original Petition are allowed with the above observations.”

2796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The dispute referred for adjudication in ID 72/2006 is:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Federal Bank Ltd. in dismissing the services of

workman Sri C. C. Dinesh, Clerk w.e.f.30.04.97 for the alleged charge of absenting without leave, is

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

The matter was originally referred by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for adjudication before the

Hon’ble Labour Court, Ernakulam vide reference order No.L-12012/75/98-IR(B-I) dated 30.10.1998. The matter was

numbered as ID No.47/1998(C) before the Hon’ble Labour Court, Ernakulam Subsequently as per the Order passed by

the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, the matter was transferred to this Tribunal and it was renumbered as ID

72/2006. After receipt of the case file before this Tribunal, summons was issued to the parties. On receipt of which the

parties entered appearance through counsel. The union as well as the management filed the claim statement and written

statement respectively setting forth the contentions and the defence thereof. As per the Award dated 28.10.2008 this

Tribunal held that:

“the action of the management in dismissing the workman Sri.C.C. Dinesh from service is illegal and

unjustified and the punishment of dismissal is reduced to stoppage of increment for a period of six months

without cumulative effect as per Clause 19.8(C) of First Bipartite Settlement. The management is directed to

re-instate the workman in service with continuity of service and back wages from 30.04.1997 and all other

statutory benefits within one month after the award becomes enforceable.”

Against this award in ID 72/2006, the management preferred an OP(LC) No.2/2011 (O) before the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. As per the Judgment dated 19.03.2015 in WP(C) No.2850/2009-L & and

O.P.(L.C.)No.2 of 2011-O, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam held as follows:

“Ext.P1 award in I.D.No.339 of 2006, impugned in W.P.(C).No.2850 of 2009, would be upheld as a

preliminary order and the award in I.D.No.72 of 2006 would be set aside for reason of the remand ordered

in the earlier case and also for the reason of this Court having set at naught the finding of the Tribunal that

the punishment of stoppage of increment takes the misconduct out of the definition of “habitual act ”.

The Writ Petition and the Original Petition are allowed with the above observations.”

After the remand order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the parties entered appearance before this

Tribunal through their respective counsel. As suggested by the parties, the matter was referred for consideration before

the Lok Adalath. The matter came for consideration in the Lok Adalath. On 07.12.2016 when the matter was taken up

for consideration, the management and the workman involved in this reference filed a joint statement setting forth

the terms and conditions of settlement in full and final settlement of all the claims in ID 339/2006 and ID 72/2006.

The matter was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalath on 14.12.2016. On that day the union as well as the

management filed a joint statement for settlement of all the claims between the union and the management in respect of

the disputes referred in ID 339/2006 and ID 72/2006. The joint statement filed by the union and the management is

recorded. The joint statement filed by the workman and the management is also recorded.

In view of the joint statement filed by the union and the management involved in these two references it is

evident that the parties have settled the dispute once for all and a finality has been arrived in relation to the matter in

dispute. Therefore it is held that the matter in dispute in ID 339/2006 and ID 72/2006 has been settled between the

parties, in the Lok Adalath, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the joint statement filed by the

union and management and the joint statement filed by the workman involved and the management.

10.

In the result a common award is passed in ID 339/2006 and 72/2006 as detailed below:

“that the disputes referred for adjudication in ID Nos.339/2006 and 72/2006 are answered as settled between

the parties. The terms of settlement as per the joint statement signed by the parties and as per the joint

statement filed by the management and the workman involved is recorded and it shall form part of the

Common Award. Handover the Demand Draft for `17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs and fifty thousand

only) produced by the management vide DD No.22220648dated 07.12.2016 in favour of the workman

involved in these two references to the union/workman after obtaining proper acknowledgement in full and

final settlement of all the claims in ID 339/2006 and ID 72/2006”.

The common 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 14^th day

of December, 2016.

SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

NIL

(ii)

2797

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ebZ] 2017

1212

—

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

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa 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

2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@64 vkWiQ 2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&11012@42@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&

)º

flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2017

S.O. 1212.—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. 2, Mumbai (Ref.

No. 2/64 of 2005) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. Air India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.04.2017.

[No. L-11012/42/2004-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/64 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Chairman-cum Managing Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 029.

M/s. Jaymit Enterprises

C/o. M/s. Awale Corporation,

34, Vincent Court, 3^rd Floor,

Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar [East],

Mumbai – 400 014

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Motilal Rupam Kuril

Represented by

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha,

Smt. Rama Gulab Joshi Niwas,

Parleshwar Road,

Vile Parle [East],

Mumbai – 400 057.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ms. Geeta Raju, Advocate.

i/b. M/s. Kini & Co.

FOR THE WORKMAN

Shri A.P. Kulkarni, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 16^th March, 2017.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/42/2004-IR (C-1) dated 24.03.2005. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

2798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the contract between Air India and the Contractor M/s. Jaymit Enterprises is sham

and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive Shri Motilal Rupam Kuril of the benefits available to

permanent workmen of Air India Ltd ?”

“1. Whether Shri Motilal Rupam Kuril should be declared as permanent / regular worker of Air

India ?“

“2. What are the wages and other consequential benefits to be paid to Shri Motilal Rupam Kuril

and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. Second party union filed

statement of claim Ex.9. According to the union, the workman concerned viz. Shri Motilal Rupam Kuril joined the

first party company in September 1997 as Carpenter. At that time he was paid wages @ Rs.125/- per day and presently

he is getting wages @ Rs.144/- per day. His wages are paid on the basis of actual days work. The workman concerned

is employed at Air India Company which is adjacent to the old Airport. There are around 47 buildings and 952 flats at

the said place where the second party workman is working.

According to the union, the first party company is engaging workman concerned in the present reference, under

various contractors such as M/s. Jaymit Enterprises, M/s. Famous Building Contractor, M/s. Mahendra Sanitation.

New contractor by name M/s. Shiva Construction has been introduced. Even after change of the contractors there was

no change in the nature of the work and duties performed by the concerned workman. The duties of the concerned

workman are integral part of the day to day activities of the first party company M/s. Air India Ltd. They are regular,

permanent, essential and perennial in nature.

According to the union, earlier first party company was giving some artificial and normal breaks to the workman

concerned. However, for the last around 6 – 7 years the first party company did not give any break to him and he is

continuously working with the first party company without any break in his service. Duty hours of the workman

concerned are from 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. He is required to work under the supervision, control and directions of the

officials of the first party company. As such so-called contracts were not genuine and the same were sham & bogus.

Even there is gross discrimination in the wages of permanent workmen employed in the first party company and the

workman concerned.

According to the union, the workman concerned is performing the duties of repairing doors, windows, putting

handles, repairing hinges and other carpentry work in respect of various flats / premises occupied by the employees in

the staff colony of the first party company. By performing the aforesaid duties for years together, the workman

concerned has acquired the necessary experience and knowledge to do the permanent nature of the duties. So-called

contracts entered into between first party company and so-called contractors are paper arrangements only to deprive the

concerned workman of the benefits available to the permanent workmen employed by the Air India Ltd. He has been

in continuous employment of the first party company for last several years and has completed continuous service of

more than 240 days in the employment of the first party company. The union is therefore asking for declaration that

the contracts between Air India Ltd. and respective contractors are sham and bogus and are camouflage to deprive the

concerned workman of the benefits available to the permanent workmen in the employment of the first party company.

Union is also asking for declaration that the concerned workman be declared as direct employee of the first party

company and to direct the first party company to give the status, benefits and privilege of the permanent workmen to

the concerned workman and to pay the arrears arising there from along with interest @ 18% per annum. The union is

also asking for consequential benefits to the concerned workman.

First party company has resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.12. According to the first party

company, the reference is not maintainable. There is no employer-employee relationship between Air India Ltd. and

Mr. M.R. Kuril since he was employed by various contractors who are entrusted to work on maintenance of colonies

which were established as measure of welfare activity of the first party company of its employees. The first party

company has no control of whatsoever nature upon the activities of the maintenance of the colonies and the workman

concerned have no relation with the first party company. The activities of maintenance of residential colonies are

neither incidental to the business activities of the first party company nor permanent or perennial in nature. Such

activities are specialized activities and none of the employees of first party company are engaged for similar activity.

It is thus contention of the first party company that the selection, recruitment and appointment of the concerned

workman has not been done by the first party company through the process of inviting tenders from various agencies to

carry out the work of electrical maintenance, plumbing work, carpentry work etc. in the colonies is awarded to the

contractors for specific, determined cost. In the course of above process the job was assigned to various contractors to

carry out carpentry work in housing colonies. The workman concerned has been appointed by the above contractors to

attend the complaints from the residence of Air India colonies with regard to carpentry work which is not a job of 8

hours duration on each day and it depends upon the number of complaints received.

(ii)

2799

It is then contention of first party company that initially first party company had assigned responsibility through

the process of tenders to M/s. Famous Building Contractors. On expiry of said contract fresh tender was floated. The

wages are paid by the agency to their employees in presence of officers of the first party company and overall

supervision and control of the duties performed by the workman was done by the agencies. As such there is no

permanent employee of the first party company for doing the said and similar work.

It is also contention of first party company that as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court, the management can

change the contractor but the contractor has to deploy the same workman. The contractor used to maintain the wage

and subterfuge in the employment of the concerned workman. It is also denied that there is paper arrangement between

the first party company and so-called contractors and therefore concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. It has

thus sought the rejection of the reference with costs.

10.

The following issues are framed at Ex.19. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the contract between Air India and the Contractor M/s.

Jaymit Enterprises is sham and bogus and is a camouflage ?

Whether the employees involved in the Reference required to

declare as permanent employees of the first party ?

Whether the employees involved in the Reference are entitled for

monetary benefits as given to the permanent employees of the 1^st

party ?

As per

final order

What Order ?

As per

final order

REASONS

Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3

11.

It is submitted by second party union that the concerned workman is working since September 1997. He is in

continuous service since that date and duties performed by him are of perennial, permanent and regular in nature.

12.

So far contentions go, it is specifically contended by the union in the statement of claim itself that the concerned

workman is engaged under various contractors such as M/s. Jaymit Enterprises, M/s. Famous Building Contractor, M/s.

Mahendra Sanitation. The new contractor by name Shiva Construction has been introduced and brought back by the

first party company. It is mainly contention of the union that the first party company is engaging the concerned

workman for doing the work of the activities of the first party company which are integral part of day to day activity of

the first party company. In view of this it is to be seen whether the so-called contracts are genuine or not?

13.

We have documents showing the work orders issued by the first party company. Ex.29 collectively are the work

orders showing that in 1998, 1999, 2000 the work orders were issued in favour of M/s. Jaymit Enterprises for engaging

carpenters and masons to carry out miscellaneous carpentry and masonry works such as fixing of hinges, rectifying

doors, windows, plaster repairs and other miscellaneous works. The work order was issued on 24.2.98 for completing

the above work for the month of January 1998. Work order was issued on 20.7.1998 for completing the work for the

month of May & June 1998. Work order was issued on 4.9.1998 for completing the work of July 1998. Subsequently,

the work orders are issued on 9.10.1998, 5.11.1998, 9.11.1998, 9.12.1998, 29.1.1999 till 7.12.1999 to M/s. Jaymit

Enterprises for completing the work of this nature for those particular months as are mentioned in the work orders.

Subsequently, also the work orders are issued in the name of M/s. Jaymit Enterprises up to 16.4.2000 for completing

the work of that nature as are mentioned in the orders for particular months. It appears that concerned contractor

submitted bills pertaining to that period consisting work done by them. Those bills are at Ex.30 collectively. Ex.31

collectively are the copies of attendance register maintained by the contractor. It is pertinent to note that the attendance

concerned workman was paid wages by the contractor as per the attendance register. This attendance register bears the

signature of concerned proprietor for companies viz. M/s. Able Corporation, M/s. Famous Building Contractor etc.

This would show that the concerned workman was never appointed at any time by the first party company nor first

2800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party company has paid him wages at any time and that the concerned workman was engaged under the various

contractors for doing the work assigned to the contractors by the first party company under these work orders.

14.

This is precisely, the evidence of the concerned workman also. In statement of claim, the concerned workman

has stated that he was engaged under various contractors such as M/s. Jaymit Enterprises, M/s. Famous Building

Contractor, M/s. Mahendra Sanitation etc. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the contractor used to make

the payment to him in cash. He admits that Air India Ltd. has never made payment to him. He even admitted that Air

India Ltd. has not issued any appointment letter to him. Admittedly previously there was M/s. Able Corporation and

now it is Settu Contractor. He even admits that M/s. Jaymit Enterprises was the earlier contractor. The contractor has

contract of one year with the company. As per his own admission he has signed the attendance register of contractor.

He admits that he has signed the documents of contractor for attendance and receiving payments etc. In view of these

admissions given by the concerned workman in his cross-examination it is clear that he was engaged by the contractor.

The contractor used to maintain his attendance register, contractor used to make the payment of wages to him. That

would show that the concerned contractor was supervising his work.

15.

We have no document to show that the concerned workman was engaged in 1997 by the first party company.

But then it appears that the second party workman has filed W.P. No. 1086/2003 and in view of protection granted by

the Hon’ble High Court he is continued though the contractors are changed. But then the fact remains that since from

inception he was engaged by the contractor for doing the work entrusted to the contractor under the work order and his

work was supervised by the contractor who engaged him from time to time. Admittedly, initially there were breaks in

his work but then in view of protection by the Hon’ble High Court, no such breaks were given and he is continued for

doing the said work.

16.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that the work that has been carried out

by the concerned workman is perennial, permanent and regular in nature and the said work is integral part of the

activities of the first party company. In this respect if we see the evidence of concerned workman, he states that he was

performing all sort of carpentry work in the colony consisting of around 47 buildings and 952 flats of the first party

company. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he was mainly doing the work of repairing doors, door frames

and windows. He worked in the staff colony which is situated besides the office of the company and then we have

documents to show that as and when there was requirement of the work of the carpenter, residents of the colony used to

make complaints which are registered in the register to carry out the said work. It is thus evidence of the witness of

first party company Shri R.L. Patil that the work of the concerned workman was not regular work and he is required to

attend the duty only when there is any work as per the complaint given by the residents of the colony. From the nature

of the work which has been carried out by the concerned workman, it is clear that his work is not of permanent and

perennial in nature. He was required to work only when there was some complaint in respect of doors, windows etc.

for which carpentry work is required. From the documents it is clear that the said services like electrical maintenance,

plumbing, carpentry etc. provided to the residents of the colonies are entrusted to the contractors and therefore it cannot

be said to be core or integral part of the activities of the first party company.

17.

We have documents i.e. certificates of registration under Contract Labour [Regulation & Abolition Act], 1970

issued to Air India Ltd. by the Labour Commissioner. These certificates are pertaining to the year 1989 for

transportation of work and then there are work orders issued to the different contractors. It is thus clear from the

evidence and documents on record that the nature of work carried out by the concerned workman was not of perennial

in nature. He was engaged by the contractor and his work is also supervised by the contractor for which the contractors

used to pay wages to him as per attendance register maintained by them. In the circumstances it can be gathered that

the concerned workman is not regular worker of Air India Ltd. for doing the carpentry work. Even though it is

admitted that regular workers are there for doing the carpentry work but then it is made clear that these workers are

appointed or engaged after following due process. Since the concerned workman is not an employee of first party

company, he cannot take advantage of the fact that he is continued to work as per the protection given to him in view of

order of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 1086/2003. In the context, hand can be laid on the decision in case of Bharat

Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Anil Kumar & Ors. 2007 I LLJ (SC 619).

18.

Even then Learned Counsel for the second party union submitted that the concerned workman has acquired

necessary experience and knowledge etc. to do the duties of permanent nature i.e. duties of carpenter and engaging

such skilled labour under contractor by the first party company amounts to unfair labour practice defined under item 10

of the Vth Schedule read with section 2 (RA) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The concerned workman was paid the lowest

wages which would show that he was required to do the work of carpenter on lowest wages which also amounted to

unfair labour practice. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board and

Suresh & Ors. 1999 (2 LLN 612) to submit that even though the work is awarded to a contractor such work cannot be

said to be a work of seasonal nature especially when regular employees are engaged for doing the same work.

(ii)

2801

19.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Vegoils P. Ltd. V/S. The Workmen 1972 LAB I.C. 760 to submit

that

“if the work for which the contract labour is employed is incidental and closely connected with main activity

of the industry and is of perennial and permanent nature, the abolition of the contract labour would be

justified.”

20.

In this respect Learned Counsel for the first party company submitted that in the case cited supra, the nature of

work was not of seasonal nature. Contract itself was stipulating number of employees to be engaged for the same

work. Overall control of the working of the contract labour including administrative control remained with the Board

i.e. first party company. In the circumstances, it is held that so-called contract system was a camouflage. In the instant

case the nature of work is not of a perennial nature since only after receiving the complaints from the residents of the

colonies, some repairs of the doors and windows were to be made and therefore the contract labour is employed.

Therefore, in my considered view, the facts of the present case are quite distinct and distinguishable.

21.

Learned Counsel for the union also submitted that if the contact is sham and not genuine the workman of so-

called contractor can raise industrial dispute for their absorption by the principal employer. He seeks to rely on the

decision in case of Gujarat Electricity Board V/S. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. 1995 (5 SCC 27) to submit that

“the appropriate Government vests with the authority to abolish the genuine labour contract”.

22.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of G.M., ONGC Chilchar V/S. ONGC Contractual Workers Union

2008 AIR SCW 96 to submit that award of the tribunal holding the workers to be the employees of principal employer

and granting the relief of regularization is not outside the jurisdiction. In para 13 of the judgment it has been observed

that,

“real issue was as to status of the workmen of employees of ONGC or of the contractor and it

having been found that the workmen were the employees of ONGC, they would be ipso-facto be

entitled to all benefits available in that capacity and the issue of regularization to their pale into

insignificance. We find that in this situation the industrial tribunal and the Division Bench of H.C.

were justified in lifting the veil in order to determine the nature of employment in the lights of

judgment quoted above. We therefore find that judgment in Umadevi’s case would not be applicable

and the facts of Pandey’s case are on the contrary more akin to the facts of the present case”.

23.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of ONGC V/S. Petroleum Employees Union 2011 III CLR 590 to

submit that,

“once the appropriate Government issued notification under section 10(1) of Contract Labour

[Regulation & Abolition] Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of the contract labour to carry out

certain operations of the factory or establishment in particular industries or public undertakings and

still the management engages labour through the contractors to carry out such operations, such

workers can contend and that such contracts of the management with the contractor are sham and

bogus and mere camouflage.”

24.

However, in the instant case there is no such notification under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour [Regulation

& Abolition] Act, 1970 and even after considering the nature of work of the concerned workman it cannot be said that

said work is of perennial nature and he is continued on the basis that the work is integral part of the activity of the first

party company. Therefore the facts in the present case are different.

25.

In the light of above discussion I hold that the contract between the Air India Ltd. and the contractor Jaymit

Enterprises is not sham and bonus and camouflage. The concerned workman is not entitled to get declaration as a

permanent employee of the first party company nor he is entitled to the monetary benefits as given to the permanent

employees of the first party company. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each

of them in terms of above observations.

26.

In view of above findings, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

“Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.”

Date: 16.03.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

2802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 e

bZ] 2017

1213

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v

kS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,

oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41012@44@99&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/44/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 29/2005

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Divisional Office, Kothi Compound,

Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001

The Dy.Chief Engineer

O/o Chief Project Manager (C),

Western Railway, B.G. Station Building, 2^nd Floor,

PO Railwaypura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Saurashtra Employees Union,

Umesh Commercial Complex,

Office No. 213 and 214,

2^nd Floor,

Near Chaudhar High School,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.B. Shah

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/44/99-

IR(B-I) dated 09.03.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

(ii)

2803

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by Saurashtra Employees Union against the management of D.R.M.

Western Railway, Rajkot over re-instatement with full back wages to Shri Prabhat Singh Jashubha Jadeja

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

The reference dates back to 09.03.2005. The workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 08.08.2005

and the first party filed the written statement Ex. 9 on 16.09.2009. The case was listed for evidence of the second party

on 29.09.2011. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence despite giving several opportunities and

issuing notice Ex. 8 to appear on 26.06.2011. Today, the workman’s advocate is present but second party workman is

absent which makes very much clear that the workman is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the industrial dispute raised by Saurashtra Employees Union against the management of D.R.M.

Western Railway, Rajkot over re-instatement with full back wages to Shri Prabhat Singh Jashubha Jadeja is not

justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1214

—

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

Hkkjrh;

LVsV

cSad

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 154@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dk

s çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@188@98&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/188/98-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 154/2004

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region 11, Zonal Office,

C.N. Vidhyalaya Campus, Ambawadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380015

…First Party

V/s

Shri Narendra M. Parmar,

C/o Active Labour Association,

Shmabhu Nivas, Opp. Parag Society,

Odhav,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382410

…Second Party

2804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party : Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party : Shri G.K. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/188/98-

IR(B-I) dated 22.01.1999 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 State Bank of India, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Narendra M. Parmar w.e.f. 20.09.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 22.01.1999. The second party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 5 and statement of

claim Ex. 4 on 05.04.1999. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 on 10.03.1999 and written statement Ex. 7

on 14.10.1999. The second party workman was examined vide Ex. 10 on 20.05.2001 and his another witness at Ex. 27

on 04.07.2002 but since then the second party workman has been absent and it has also been pointed out by the first

party that the workman has already expired on 09.09.2005. Since then the legal heirs of the second party workman have

not moved any application for their substitution in place of the workman. Thus the first party has requested that the

reference should be declared as abate in the absence of the substitution of the legal heirs.

Thus the reference is hereby abated.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1215

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v

kS|k

sfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 127@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41011@32@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 127/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/32/2008-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 127/2010

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

DRM Office,

Kothi Compound,

Rakot (Gujarat)

…First Party

(ii)

2805

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

134, Near Vishwakarma Mandir,

Opp. Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri B.K. Sharma

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-

41011/32/2008-IR(B-I) dated 03.12.2009 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 DRM, Western Railway, Kothi Compound, Rajkot in removing Shri Ramubhai M.

Cleaner, A.M.E., Rajkot from his services w.e.f. 20.05.1996, is legal and justified? To what relief is he

entitled?”

The reference dates back to 03.12.2009. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 16.02.2010

but the first party despite number of directions, failed to submit the written statement. On 26.11.2013, the second party

workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 9 in support of statement of claim Ex. 2. The affidavit is ambiguous and vague.

Since 21.12.2015, when the second party was given last opportunity to lead evidence as ex-parte failed to appear

on 28.04.2016, 06.09.2016, 21.12.2016 and 15.02.2017. Still today on 17.02.2017, he is absent. Thus it appears that the

second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case for leading his evidence.

Therefore, the reference is dismissed in non-prosecution of the case by both the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1216

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|

ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41011@83@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/83/2008-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd February, 2017

2806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference : (CGITA) No. 28/2010

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

DRM Office,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

134, Near Vishwakarma Mandir,

Opp. Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.J. Acharya

For the Second Party : Shri B.K. Sharma

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/83/2008-IR(B-

I) dated 18.06.2009 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 Divisional Railway (Estt.), Western Railway, DRM Office, Ahmedabad in

dismissing/removal from Railway Service of Shri Vijay Kumr S. Shamra, ex-Khalasi, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 18.06.2009. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 20.07.2011

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 13.06.2012. The case was listed for evidence of the second

party who submitted his affidavit Ex. 12 as examination in chief on 28.11.2013. Since then the second party workman

has been absent for his cross-examination by the first party employer. On 23.12.2016, the second party workman was

given last opportunity for cross-examination in absentia but even on 23.02.2017, the next date, the workman is again

absent.Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as

under: “the action of the Divisional Railway (Estt.), Western Railway, DRM Office, Ahmedabad in dismissing/removal

from Railway Service of Shri Vijay Kumr S. Shamra, ex-Khalasi, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad is legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1217

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstd

ksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 670@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41011@4

2@98&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 670/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/42/98-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

(ii)

2807

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 670/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

The Assistant Engineer (North),

Western Railway,

Bharuch (Gujarat) – 392001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Ramaswamy N.,

C/o R.D. Pillai,

Railway Quarter No. 312/ G,

Railway Colony, Padhari,

Anand(Gujarat) – 38800

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri Mavlankar

For the Second Party : Shri J.K. Ved

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/42/98-

IR(B-I) dated 04.05.1999 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 Railway Administration, Western Railway, Baroda Division through its officers in

discontinuing the services of Shri Ramaswamy N., Gangman without giving any legal terminal dues, after

finding him medically unfit in all the categories is justified, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for?”

“Whether the demand of the workman for the employment of his dependent after his being totally medically

unfit for Railway Services is just and proper? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what other

directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 04.05.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 09.05.1999

along with documents vide list Ex. 3. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 5 and written statement Ex. 6 on

04.03.2001. Second party was examined at Ex. 9 on 28.01.2003. Now today on 23.02.2017, Shri J.K. Ved, the union

leader on behalf of the second party workman requested to withdraw the case, same is allowed.

Therefore, the reference is decided as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1218

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 125@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41011@22@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

2808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/22/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 125/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Power),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

The Sr. Section Engineer (P),

Western Railway,

Baroda (Gujarat)

The Sr. Section Engineer (RAC),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Nr. Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41011/22/2013-IR(B-I) dated 05.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Baroda to cancel the promotion lists dated

16.11.2010 and 29.11.2010 and to give the posting to the employees, whose name was appeared in the

promotion list is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

(ii)

2809

The reference dates back to 05.07.2013. The second party has not filed the statement of claim. Today on

17.02.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad has expressed

unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1219

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v

kS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2013) d

ks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41011@104@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41011/104/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 11/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

The Asstt. Divisional Engineer (South),

Western Railway,

Pratapnagar,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Shastri Pole, Nr. Kothi,

Baroda (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.J. Acharya

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia

2810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41011/104/2012-IR(B-I) dated 31.01.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to give the posting of lower category i.e. Safaiwala to Shri Amit Bharatbhai

Solanki at any Section is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 31.01.2013. The second party has not filed the statement of claim. Today on

17.02.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad has expressed

unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1220

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1188@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41012@106@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1188/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/106/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 1188/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kothi Compound,

Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,

209-E, Sarvottamnagar, Nr. New Railway Colony,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

(ii)

2811

For the First Party : Shri Janak R. Pandya

For the Second Party : Shri B.K. Sharma

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41012/106/2001-IR(B-I) dated 27.12.2001/12.02.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the denial of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot in granting Hospital Leave to

Shri Mohmed B. Nagori, Sr. Khallasi for the period from 08.06.1998 to 22.08.1998 while he remained under

continuous treatment w.e.f. 04.06.1998 for his eye injury during the course and out of employment and also the

denial of compensation for his eye injury are legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned employee is

entitled?”

The reference dates back to 27.12.2001/12.02.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on

22.09.2003. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of his advocate Shri Janak R. Pandya on 13.01.2010 who

did not prefer to submit the written statement till date. Therefore, on 16.09.2016, the tribunal ordered to proceed ex-

parte against the first party and the reference was listed for 23.12.2016 for leading evidence by the second party. On

23.12.2016 and today on 23.02.2017, the second party workman and his union Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad

Ahmedabad did not appear to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as

under: “the denial of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot in granting Hospital Leave to Shri

Mohmed B. Nagori, Sr. Khallasi for the period from 08.06.1998 to 22.08.1998 while he remained under continuous

treatment w.e.f. 04.06.1998 for his eye injury during the course and out of employment and also the denial of

compensation for his eye injury was legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1221

—

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

Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 769@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@21@2002&vkbZvkj

(ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 769/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/21/2002-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 769/2004

2812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kevadia Colony Branch,

Narmada (Gujarat) – 393151

…First Party

V/s

Shri KanubhaiAndolbhaiParmar,

A-78, Opp. Government Hospital,

Taluka Nandod,

Kevadia Colony,

Narmada (Gujarat) – 393151

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates

For the Second Party : Shri Sudhir Shah

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/21/2002-IR(B-I) dated 30.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through The Branch Manager, Kevadia Colony

Branch, Distt. Narmada in terminating the services of Shri KanubhaiAndolbhaiParmar, Peon from 1993, is

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.04.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 26.06.2003.

The first party also submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 18.06.2012. After receiving the reference from the

Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad, fresh notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 16.03.2011 but the second

party failed to appear and to lead evidence despite giving number of opportunities. Thus it appears that the second party

has not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the remaining second party workmen

with the observation as under: “the action of the management of State Bank of India through The Branch Manager,

Kevadia Colony Branch, Distt. Narmada in terminating the services of Shri KanubhaiAndolbhaiParmar, Peon from

1993, is justified.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1222

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu

£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 989@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&41012@16@94&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 989/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/16/94-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

(ii)

2813

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^st February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 989/2004

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Ajmer Division,

Ajmer (Rajasthan)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,

T.B.Z. 17, Gurunagar, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.J. Acharya

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia (as representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/16/94-

IR(B-I) dated 30.11.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham for grant of temporary status and

permanent/regular appointment to Shri Ramji Lal Bhorilal, Gangman working under PWI-BCO since

29.06.1986 continuously, valid, justified and legal? If so, to what benefits the workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 30.11.1995. In response to the notice, the second party workman Ramji Lal Bhorilal

through General Secretary, Western Railway Kamdar Sangh submitted his statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he

was engaged in Railway Service under permanent way Inspector, Bhachu in the year 1969-70 in broken period against

the leave and sick vacancies. He had been working regularly/continuously since 29.06.1986 and continued to work till

the filing of this statement of claim Ex. 2 on 09.01.1986 on daily wages rates. As per the orders of the Railway

Ministry/Railway Board, it had been provided that the casual labour in open line section of the Indian Railway has to

be granted temporary status on the completion of 4 months (120 days) continuous service but he was not granted the

temporary status and was also denied of regular rate of wages, increments and paid holidays etc. He has further alleged

that under the existing railway rules, the casual labour is required to appear before the standing committee for filing up

the regular and permanent vacancies in every year. The casual labour junior to him had been screened and made

permanent every year from 1986 till the filing of the statement of claim but he had been deprived of the said benefits.

He made number of representations to the management through various channels but to no result. Thus he has prayed

for following reliefs:

To declare the action of the management in not granting the temporary status & making the workman

permanent in the Railway Service as illegal & unlawful.

ii.

To order the management to grant the temporary status & make the workman as permanent in railway

service with back effect & back wages.

iii.

To grant any other relief, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems just fair and proper in

favour of the second party workman.

iv.

First party be ordered to pay cost of reference to workman, amend and alter the statement of claim at any

stage of the proceedings.

2814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 05.12.1997 denied all the averments made in the

statement of claim alleging that it is correct that after the completion of 120 days of service, casual labour is given

temporary status but in this case, the workman has impersonated a man named Ramji Lal Bhorilal as the left thumb

impression of this person was not matching with the real Ramji Lal Bhorilal, therefore, the matter was referred to the

vigilance department for investigation. Thus on this vary ground, temporary status was not granted pending the

vigilance investigation. It is further alleged that the western railway is not industry under Section 2 J of the Industrial

Disputes Act, therefore, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this reference.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:

Issue No. i: Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham for grant of temporary status

and permanent/regular appointment to Shri Ramji Lal Bhorilal, Gangman working under PWI-BCO since 29.06.1986

continuously is valid, justified and legal?

Issue No. ii: To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled?

The workman was examined on 04.03.1997 while pending in the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot. He was also cross-

examined and he reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim. Nothing contrary was said by him in his

examination/cross-examination.

On 25.06.2008, advocate Rakesh K.P. Sharma and on 03.02.2010 again the advocate Rakesh K.P. Sharma

submitted his vakalatnama Ex. 11 and 15 respectively. But the first party failed to lead any oral evidence however

submitted some documents like lodging of filing first information report in the police station on 17.09.2012 as a

camouflage to the illegality and irregularity committed by the western railway.

The second party workman submitted his written argument Ex. 29, copy of same was received by advocate

Rakesh K.P. Sharma.

I considered the argument. The disputes in the matter are very narrow. All the facts of employment and rule of

continuous service of 120 days making the workman as temporary employee and thereafter for consideration of

regularisation have been admitted by the first party western railway. Only thing which is to be adjudicated in this

matter is that as to whether this workman impersonated the workman named Ramji Lal Bhorilal. It is noteworthy that

the fact of impersonation came into light in 1986 but the fact does not reveal as to whether for such a long period what

outcome of the investigation of the vigilance department as well as the police department came out. Thus I come to the

conclusion that the defence of impersonation is nothing but a camouflage to the illegality committed by the Divisional

Manager, Western Railway for the same his conduct is censored.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the workman has been illegally, without

valid and just reasons is denied the temporary status as well as permanent status. Thus this issue no. i is decided

accordingly.

The workman be given due benefits of temporary or permanent status as per the rules with retrospective effect.

10.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1223

—

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

Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1371@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@121@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1371/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/121/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

(ii)

2815

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 15^th February, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 1371/2004

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, L.H.O.,

Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj,

Baroda – 390005

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Timalya Wad Branch, Timalya Wad,

Surat (Gujarat)

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Service Branch, Second Floor,

Akshar Complex, Behind Rang Upuvan,

Nanpura, Makaipul,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395003

…First Party

V/s

Shri Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya,

Suthar Falia, at & Post Amari, Taluka,

Navsari (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/121/2001-IR(B-I) dated 16.10.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the concerned workman Shri Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya has put in ‘continuous service’ in the

bank as per provisions of Section 25-B? If so, whether the action of the management of State Bank of India,

Ahmedabad through its officers in terminating the services of the workman Shri Dineshchandra Manilal

Maisuriya w.e.f. 31.01.1997 with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference dates back to 16.10.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on

16.02.2002. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 07.01.2003 along with the documents vide list

Ex. 14. The reference was transferred to this tribunal on 15.01.2008 after its creation by the Government of India.Since

then the second party has been absent, therefore, on 24.12.2010, notice was issued to both the parties to appear on

22.02.2011 but since then the second party has been absent to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has

not been willing to prosecute the reference.

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 State Bank of India, Ahmedabad through its officers in

terminating the services of the workman Shri Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya w.e.f. 31.01.1997 with the plea of

abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is justified.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

2816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2017

1224

—

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

'pe

jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac

¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

&41012@171@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1224.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.05.2017.

[No. L-41012/171/2004-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th March, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 74/2005

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Railwaypura, Kalupur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Om Shakti Labour Association,

Opp. Hudco Indira Vasahat,

Singarva Road,

Nr. Bhuriba School, PO Chinubhainagar,

Ta – Daskroi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382430

…Second Party

For the First Party :

For the Second Party : Shri K.K. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-41012/171/2004-IR(B-I) dated 26.08.2005 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 Western Railway for non-regularisation of the services of Shri M.M.

Nayak, Senior TC for the period from 25.06.2003 to 18.06.2004 and down gradation of scale due to D.A.R. case

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to and to what extent?”

The reference dates back to 26.08.2005. The second party union Om Shakti Labour Association submitted the

statement of claim Ex. 4 on 12.12.2005 along with number of documents. Despite service on the first party, the first

(ii)

2817

party did not prefer to submit the written statement till 27.06.2016 after giving number of last opportunities to file

written statement. Therefore, on 27.06.2016, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party but

the second party did not prefer to lead evidence.

Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party is disposed of with the observation as

under: “the action of the management of Western Railway for non-regularisation of the services of Shri M.M. Nayak,

Senior TC for the period from 25.06.2003 to 18.06.2004 and down gradation of scale due to D.A.R. case is legal and

justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh]

8 ebZ

] 201

1225

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,iQlhvkbZ

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj

ksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

;k;ky;]

dksVk

ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la

1997

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&22012@166@

1994

&vkbZvkj (lh,e&

)º

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017

S.O. 1225.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/1997) of the Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.05.2017.

[No. L-22012/166/1994-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kkh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh txeksgu 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad % vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&23@1997

fnukad LFkkfir % 21@11@97

izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

dza-,y&22012@166@94&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½ fnukad 1@6@95 ,oa lifBr vxzs"k.k i= fn- 1@9@97 rFkk 16@12@98

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947

e/;

ukjk;.k iq= fd'kuyky cSjok oxSjg dqy 11 Jfedx.kA

&&izkFkhZx.k Jfed

,oa

ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe dksVk] Hk.Mkj.k lokbZek/kksiqj ¼jkt-½A

&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr %

izkFkhZx.k Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k

Jh Mh-vkj-f}osnh

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k %

Jh lh-ch-lksjy

2818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad% 24@3@2017

%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 1@6@95 ,oa lifBr vxzs"k.k i= fn-1@9@97 rFkk

16@12@98 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½

dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&

^^D;k Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe Hk.Mkj.k] lokbZ ek/kksiqj izcU/kd }kjk fuEufyf[kr deZdkjksa dks Bsdk Jfed ij dke ij u

ysus dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gSA ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k ds gdnkj gSa vkSj fdl rkjh[k ls\

uke Jfedx.k

1& Jh ukjk;.k iq= Jh fd'kuyky cSjok

2& Jh ckcwyky iq= Jh jke ukjk;.k cSjok

3& Jh ghjkyky iq= Jh ekaxhyky cSjok

4& Jh txnh'k izlkn iq= Jh ekaxhyky cSjok

5& Jh guqeku izlkn iq= Jh ';ksjke cSjok

6& Jh jsoM~;k iq= Nhrj gjhtu

7& Jh jkethyky iq= Jh dtksM+ey

8& Jh fpjathyky iq= fd'kuyky cSjok

9& Jh txnh'k izlkn iq= Jh ekaxhyky

10&Jh ckcwyky ehuk iq= Jh cnzhyky ehuk

11&Jherh foeyk nsoh iRuh] iq= vej] iqf=;ka fdj.k o T;ksfr

dk;eeqdkeku vkRet ujsUnz dqekj iq= cnzhyky cSjok

e`rd Jfed^^

funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k

x;kA

funsZ'k@jsQzsUl ds lkFk layXu lwph vuqlkj gLrxr funsZ'k ukjk;.k oxSjg dqy 11 izkFkhZx.k Jfed ds lEcU/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k

dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izkIr gqvk gS] ftl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr Dyse LVsVesUV esa of.kZrkuqlkj os vizkFkhZ Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe

ds [kk| laxzky;] j.kFkEHkkSj jksM+] lokbZek/kksiqj esa o"kZ 1986 ls Jfed@deZdkj ds :i esa fu;ksftr Fks tks o"kZ 1993 rd xsgw ds

xksnkeksa esa HkjkbZ dk dke djrs Fks rFkk vizkFkhZ ds ;wfuV bUpktZ gh mudh mifLFkfr vafdr djrs Fks vkSj mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij

Jfedksa dk osru Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj ds }kjk djk;k tkrk Fkk] fdUrq Bsdsnkj izkFkhZx.k Jfed dks muds vf/kdkjksa ls oafpr djus gsrq

uke/kkjh O;fDr FkkA izkFkhZx.k Jfed dks o"kZ 86 rd yxkrkj fu;ksftr j[kdj] Hkqxrku dk rjhdk cnydj fcuk uksfVl o eqvkotk

fn;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q o vU; vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk dj lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k tks lsok ls gVk;k@i`Fkd fd;k

tkuk mfpr ugha gS rFkk u;s Jfedksa dks dke ij yxkuk vuqfpr Je vkpj.k gSA vUr esa izkFkhZx.k Jfed dks mDr izdkj ls lsok ls

gVk;k tkuk vuqfpr ?kksf"kr djrs gq, fiNys lEiw.kZ osru] ykHkksa o lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk

dh x;h gSA

mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dFku fd;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks dHkh fu;kstu

esa ugha j[kk x;k] ,slh fLFkfr esa muds e/; dksbZ vkS|ksfxd fookn mRiUu gksus dk iz'u mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZx.k vf/kfu;ekUrxZr

deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa Hkh ugha vkrs gSaA izkFkhZx.k }kjk vius Dyse esa dk;Z ij j[ks tkus ;k gVk;s tkus dh dksbZ fuf'pr frfFk Hkh ugha

cryk;h x;h gS] uk mUgsa vizkFkhZ }kjk dHkh dksbZ fu;qfDr vFkko gVkus dk dksbZ i=@vkns'k gh fn;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW [kk|ku

dks yknus@mrkjus o ifjogu vkfn dk dk;Z Bsdsnkj i)fi vk/kkj ij lEikfnr gksrk gS ftl gsrq vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk nks lky ds fy,

fn-18@4@92 ls eS-caly bUVjizkbZtst dks vuqcaf/kr fd;k gqvk Fkk ftlds fo:) izkFkhZx.k }kjk fookn ugha mBk;s tkus ls ekeyk

Lor% gh fujLruh; jgk gSA vUr esa Dyse izkFkhZx.k fujk/kkj rF;ksa dk gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA

;gka ;g mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk lehphu o mi;qDr gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl ds lkFk layXu izkFkhZ Jfedx.kksa dh lwph esa

dze la-11 ij vafdr izkFkhZ Jfed ujsUnz dqekj dh nkSjku fopkj.k e`R;q gks tkus ls mlds fof/kd okfjlku dh izkFkZuk&i= ij vknsf'kdk

fn-7@4@2001 esa of.kZrkuqlkj mldh iRuh foeyk nsoh] iq= o iqf=;ksa dze'k% vej] fdj.k o T;ksfr dks vfHkys[k ij izkFkhZx.k ds :i esa

lafLFkr fd;k x;kA

(ii)

2819

lk{; esa izkFkhZx.k fpjathyky] txnh'k izlkn cSjok iq= ekaxhyky] ukjk;.k] ckcwyky iq= cnzhyky] jkethyky] guqeku izlkn]

txnh'k izlkn iq= ekaxhyky] ckcwyky iq= jkeukjk;.k] ghjkyky] jsoM~;k rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh tkSgjhyky eh.kk] izcU/kd

ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, gSa] ftuls nksuksa i{kksa ds izfrfuf/kx.k ,d&nwljs i{k ds 'kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;hA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls

izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr dh x;h] vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha gqbZA

fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k i{kdkjku dh cgl vfUre lquh x;h] mudh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h] ftldk rFkk i=koyh

dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA nkSjku cgl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g rF; tkudkjh esa vk;k gS fd lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa

vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k deZdkjksa dks Bsdk Jfed ij fdl frfFk dks dke ij u ysus dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h] ml frfFk dk dksbZ mYys[k

ugha gSA vr% ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugha gS fd ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k deZdkjksa dks Bsdk Jfed ij dke ij u ysus dh

dkSulh frfFk ekudj vizkFkhZ ds d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk

ikfjr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`”B 424& egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd

lsokvksa ds i;Zolku dh frfFk dk jsQzsUl esa mYys[k ugha gksus ls Je U;k;ky; fdlh deZdkj ds dFkukuqlkj i;Zolku dh frfFk dks

Lohdkj dj funsZ'k@jsQzsUl dh 'krksZ esa lq/kkj] la'kks/ku ;k mikUrj.k djus esa l{ke ugha gS ,oa uk gh U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr

ls ,slh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gksrh gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa deZdkj dh lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk of.kZr ugha

gksus ls vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj fn;k x;kA bl mDr U;k;fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlkj tgkW funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa lsok ls

gVkus] eqDr djus ;k i`Fkd djus dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rks Je U;k;ky; dks ml frfFk dks lgh djus ;k la'kks/ku djus dh

vf/kdkfjrk i{kdkjksa }kjk ,slh frfFk lq>kfor fd;s tkus ij Hkh izkIr ugha gks tkrh gSA vFkkZr ;fn funsZ'k esa lsok ls eqfDr] i`Fkd ;k

gVkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugh gS o nksuksa gh i{kdkj ,slh frfFk ;fn crk Hkh nsrs gksa rks Hkh Je U;k;ky; dks ml crk;h x;h

frfFk dks ekudj mlds vk/kkj ij funsZ'k@jsQzsUl mRrfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrk gSA bl U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la-11 esa

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ^^enuikyflag cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; o vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000 ,l-lh- 537^^ ds fu.kZ; dks foosfpr

fd;k x;k gS rFkk vUr esa ;g fu”d”kZ fudkyk x;k fd Je U;k;ky; funsZ'k esa of.kZr fcUnqvksa rd gh lhfer {ks=kf/kdkj j[krk gS ,oa

mldks i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa esa funsZ'k ls ijs tkdj la'kks/ku vkfn dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ;fn ukeksa ;k frfFk vkfn esa dksbZ

ifjorZu ;k vadu djkuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds le{k bl ckcr i{k j[kdj mlesa la'kks/ku djkuk gksxk] ijUrq Je

U;k;ky; dks ,slk la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA vr% blh fu.kZ; dks vk/kkj ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr

ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ekurs gq, vikLr dj fn;k x;kA

vc ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k deZdkjksa dks Bsdk Jfed ij dke ij u ysus dh dkSulh

frfFk ekudj vizkFkhZ ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk rFkk D;k ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h

frfFk ekudj izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; dj ldrk gS vFkok funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gS\ bl

lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`”B 424&egkohj d.MDVj

cuke uUnfd'kksj** ds isjk la[;k 12 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk jsQzsUl ds fucU/ku ;k

lsok lekfIr frfFk esa la'kks/ku vkfn ckcr fuEu fLFkfr izdV dh x;h gS%&

"Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no

competence to correct/modify/amend /alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of

termination etc., or proceed with the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested

by the workman and in case it does so, the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction,

based on the bad reference."

vr% ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr U;k;n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa gLrxr ekeys esa ;g U;k;ky; i{kdkjksa }kjk

lq>k;h x;h frfFk@uke vkfn dks la'kksf/kr frfFk@uke ekudj izdj.k dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha

j[krk gSA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPpre ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Åij foosfpr fd;s x;s U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds

vuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k esa bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ,sls i{kdkjksa dk la'kks/ku izLrko Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls bl

U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ;fn dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr Hkh djrk gS rks og {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksdj 'kwU; gksxkA

bu U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds [k.Mu esa ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;fu.kZ; ,slk is'k Hkh ugha fd;k x;k ftlesa fd Åij of.kZr fLFkfr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh

U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k vf/kfuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksA vr% dqy feykdj fLFkfr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds gh vHkh rd izHkko'khy

gksus dh ik;h tkrh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa

ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vkc) gSA vr% ,slh ifjLFkfr esa lEiw.kZ foospu ds mijkUr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS

fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k deZdkjksa dks Bsdk Jfed ij fdl frfFk dks dke ij ugha fy;k x;k gS] ,slh frfFk

dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ,sls funsZ'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk

gS ,oa ;fn i{kdkj l{ke ljdkj ls bl ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djrs gSa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k ,slk

la'kks/ku izkIr gksus ij izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldsxk] ijUrq bl izdze ij fQygky ;g ekeyk bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds

{ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ik;k tkrk gSA

2820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 1@6@95 ,oa lifBr vxzs"k.k i= fn-

1@9@97 rFkk 16@12@98 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku

mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 McY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`”B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa

izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlj.k esa gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa of.kZr ukjk;.k oxSjg dqy 11 izkFkhZx.k deZdkjksa dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk

dkSulh frfFk dks Bsdk Jfed ij dke ij u ysus dh dk;Zokgh x;h gS] ,slh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls o bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k

tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn l{ke ljdkj ls mDr frfFk ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku@vadu

djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k djsaxsa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vkxs izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh

dj ldsxkAds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

txeksgu 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k

'kqf¼i=k

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

1226

—Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k ¼dk-vk 637½] Hkkx&II] [kaM&3] mi [kaM&ii fnukad 05&11 ekpZ] 2017 esa izdkf'kr

bl dk;kZy; dh lela[;d ¼la[;k ,l&38013@06@2017-,l-,l&I½ vf/klwpuk ds i`

"B la[;k- 1339 fganh esa mfYyf[kr dze la[;k

4 esa E;qfufliy {ks+= iykew fy[kk x;k Fkk ds txg E;qfufliy {ks+= esfnuhuxj i<+k tk, %&

la[;k ,l&38013@06@2017&,l-,l-&I½]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ

] 2017

1227

—

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

Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad

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

vfèkdj

.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@271@93&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1227.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/271/93-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd March, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 60/2004

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Office, C.N. Vidhyalaya Road,

Ambavadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…First Party

(ii)

2821

V/s

Shri Santoshkumar H. Tiwari,

Amaraji Nagar, Room No. 559/2,

Nr. Defence Colony, Kubernagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.J. Sheth

For the Second Party : Shri Prashant Chaudhary

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/271/93-

IR(B-I) dated 16.01.1998 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 management of State Bank of India, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Santoshkumar H. Tiwari is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 16.01.1998. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, the second party

workman submitted his statement of claim Ex. 2 on 26.03.1998 and the first party management submitted his written

statement Ex. 8 on 23.02.1999.

The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 2 alleged that the first party bank recruited large

number of employees and simultaneously also terminated the services of the existing employees under the garb of

Badli employees in utter violation of Section 25 G and H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The service conditions of

the employee in the banking industry are always governed by Sastri/Desai Awards and neither of these awards permits

engagement of Badli workmen. The so called Badli workmen worked uninterruptedly but the bank management

applied artificial intermittent brakes with a view to avoid various fringe benefits. It is noteworthy that this workman

had been working for a period since 1990 to 1991 as sub-staff on temporary basis in State Bank of India, Maninagar

Branch till 12.06.1991. The branch manager of the said branch also issued an experience certificate dated 15.05.1991

for the work done during the aforesaid period which is enclosed herewith this statement of claim. He has further alleged

that various trade unions in the State Bank of India were agitating for absorption/regularisation of the temporary

employees who were put in minimum 60 days of service. Therefore, the bank management took a decision to conduct

the written examination cum interview for the purpose of absorption of temporary/Badli employees who have worked

for minimum 60 days. The workmen approach the branch manager at the time of terminating of his service for asking

the reasons of termination more particularly when worked was very much available and existing and new hands were

recruited on temporary casual basis to do the same job which he was performing. The branch manage did not give a

satisfactory and verbally informed that bank has taken the decision not to allow any workman to work for a

considerable long period with a view to avoid the claims for regularisation/absorption. He was also informed that he

will be given a reasonable opportunity in the written test to qualify for regular absorption in the bank and advertisement

appeared in the newspaper asking the temporary/Badli/casual candidates to apply for regularisation or absorption. He

submitted the application for regularisation but he was not considered, thus, non-consideration of his application makes

his a case of constructive termination of employment without any notice in writing or notice pay in lieu thereof. He has

further alleged that the Desai awards governing the service conditions of the bank employee stipulated that the services

of the temporary employee can only be terminated by 7 days’ notice and if a temporary employee wishes to leave, the

employment he also has to give 7 days’ notice or deposit 7 days’ pay leave thereof. The management kept the matter

waiting for consideration for regularisation/absorption but his case was not considered. Therefore, he moved for

conciliation proceedings and therefore, the present reference. He has further alleged that termination of his service and

denial of absorption is illegal and against the law provided under Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Thus he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages with all fringe benefits like leave, bonus, gratuity, provident

fund and other perks and perquisites.

The first party management State Bank of India in his written statement denied all the averments made in the

statement of claim saying that the reference being non-maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It has also been

submitted that the settlement dated 27.10.1988 entered into between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of

India Federation under Section 2 (P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, proposing to give a chance for consideration for

permanent appointment in the bank service against

full time and part time

vacancies including

messengers/farrashes/Cash Coolies/Sweepers and Bank Guard etc. who were paid daily wages on mutually agreed

basis and who were put in minimum 240 days temporary service in any continuous block of 12 calendar months or less,

or 270 days aggregate service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months or 30 days aggregate temporary service in

2822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

any calendar year or minimum of 70 days temporary service in block of 36 calendar months after 01.07.1975 and up to

31.07.1988 at any one or more branches/offices under a module(regional office) as existing or defined as on

31.07.1988. Accordingly an advertisement was published in the leading newspapers on 01.05.1991 asking all the daily

wagers who fulfil the aforesaid eligibility criteria to submit the application for the regularisation/absorption. The

applicants were advised in the advertisement that the eligible daily wagers will be interviewed and those found suitable

will be waitlisted and appointments will be offered in the nature of full time and part time as per the availability of the

vacancies in the year 1995 and 1996 and this wait list will remain valid up to 1996. Subsequently, on 20.08.1991, the

eligibility date was extended up to 14.08.1991 thus the daily wagers who put in requisite period of temporary service

on daily wage basis for the period from 01.07.1975 to 14.08.1998 were made eligible to apply. It is admitted that this

workman worked in full time capacity as a badli watchman for 88 days in the year from 1990 to 1991 and he submitted

an application despite the fact that he was not a daily wager and did not fulfil the requisite criteria of eligibility,

therefore, his application was rejected being not eligible for the consideration. It is wrong to say that his application

was rejected in the grab of badly employee and his services were terminated in violation of the Section 25 F, G and H

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus the action of the bank was not discriminatory, unfair, unjust, improper and

illegal. Therefore, the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed.

The statement of claim is annexed with the copy of the reference, a judgement of the High Court dated

23.12.1997, a certificate issued by the State Bank of India, Maninagar Branch showing that in the year 1989 he worked

for 18 days and in the year 1990, he worked for 70 days and in the month of January and February, he worked for 6

days.

The written statement is enclosed with the copy of the settlement, copy of the notice for inviting applications

from daily wages workmen etc.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:

Issue No. i : Whether the action of management of State Bank of India, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of

Shri Santoshkumar H. Tiwari is legal and justified?

Issue No.ii : To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled?

Both the parties submitted their written arguments Ex. 21 and 22 respectively.

Issue No. i & ii :The burden of prove of this issue was lying on the second party workman who in his statement

on oath Ex. 16 stated that he joined as reliever watchman in Maninagar Branch of State Bank of India on 14.07.1990 on

daily wages at the rate of Rs. 55/- per day, thereafter, Rs. 60/- per day and lastly when he was relieved by an oral order

at the rate of Rs. 65/-. He was not given any notice or notice pay at the time of relieving/terminating. He tried to find a

job after termination but failed to obtain any employment. He applied to be appointed as permanent employee in State

Bank of India but he was not called for interview. Another man was appointed in his place after his termination. He

was issued a certificate Ex. 4/4 duly signed and issued by the branch manager of Maninagar Branch of State Bank of

India showing that in the year 1989 he worked for 18 days and in the year 1990, he worked for 70 days and in the

month of January and February, he worked for 6 days. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that he had been working

as full time reliever watchman when the permanent watchman absents from duty. He also stated that he was paid wages

for performing duty as reliever in the absence of a permanent watchman. He further stated that in the bank, daily wager

workman and permanent employee are be engaged. The bank has not given certificate for working. The certificate for

his working in his last 2 months up to 15^th May of 1991 but it is true that these certificates have given him as reliever

watchman. He was not a daily wager. He had been given wages for the days during which he performed duty. The

opposite first party did not prefer to give any oral or documentary evidence in rebuttal.

The bank vide index Ex. 9 submitted the copy of the settlement dated 27.10.1988, the copy of the

notice/advertisement for recruitment of daily wagers and the work experience of one Ramesh Pratap Singh as badli

watchman who is not a party in the case instead of submitting the work experience certificate of this workman Santosh

Kumar S. Tiwari. Thus in the said circumstances, it can be said that the work experience certificate Ex. 4/4 regarding

94 working days of this second party workman can be said to be true as the rebuttal has not been filed.

10.

The advocate of the second party argued that this workman worked for 94 days in 19 months in the year from

August 1989 to February 1991. On the basis of these working days period, the advocate argued that as per the

settlement and advertisement, he was eligible to be called for interview on the ground that eligibility criteria of the

temporary employee was based on the working of daily wages employees who have worked as follows: “(i) 240 days’

temporary service in 12 months or less after 01.07.1975 or (ii) 270 days’ aggregate temporary service in any continuous

block of 36 calendar months after 01.07.1975 or (iii) a minimum of 30 days’ aggregate temporary service in any

calendar year after 01.07.1975 or 70 days’ aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months

after 01.07.1975.”

(ii)

2823

11.

The advocate for the first party countered the arguments of the second party workman vide his argument Ex. 22

on the ground that the second party workman was not in temporary service of the bank. He was simply a badli

watchman on the daily wage basis, therefore, the discontinuation of his service does not violate the provisions of

Section 25 of F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but he has admitted in his argument that as per the

settlement, any adopt employee or employee on fix remuneration basis against leave/casual vacancies of

messengers/farrashes/cashcoolies/water boy/sweeper/bodyguards etc. having worked for 38 days’ aggregate temporary

service in any calendar year after 01.07.1975 or 70 days’ aggregate temporary employee in any continuous block of 36

calendar months after 01.07.1975 was eligible for consideration for regularisation as per the settlement. In the present

case, the second party workman has worked for 94 days in 36 block months and 30 days in one calendar year.

12.

The only question remains to be resolved that whether badli employees were eligible for appointment on

permanent basis or not. In Ram N. Ravat V/s Ashwani Ray 2017 1 CLR 658 the apex court observed as under:

“(5) Learned counsel who appeared for these petitioners have drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of

the standing orders on the basis of which they were classified as permanent. It is standing order no. 2 which

deals with classification of the employees and reads as under:

“2. Classification of Employees – Employees shall be classified as (i) permanent, (ii) permanent seasonal, (iii)

probationers, (iv) badlies, (v) apprentices, and (vi) temporary.

(i)

A ‘permanent’ employee is one who has completed six months’ satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in

one or more posts whether as a probationer or otherwise, or a person whose name has been entered in the

muster rill and who is given a ticked of permanent employee.

(ii) A ‘permanent seasonal employee’ is one who has completed service for a period equal to 2/3^rd of the

duration or a season or three months whichever is less in a clear vacancy and shall be deemed to be a

permanent employee for the purpose of these order.

(iii) A ‘probationer’ means an employee who is provisionally employed to fill a clear vacancy, and who has not

completed six months’ satisfactory service in the aggregate.

(iv) A ‘badli’ employee means an employee who is employed on the post of a permanent seasonal

employee, or a probationer or a permanent seasonal employee who is temporary absent.

(v) An ‘apprentice’ means a learner, provided that no employee shall be classified as an apprentice if he has

had training for an aggregate period of one year provided further that a longer period of apprenticeship

shall be required if prescribed by a law or an award, or by agreement with the representative of employees.

(vi) ‘Temporary employee’ means an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a

temporary character, or who is temporarily employed as an additional employee in connection with the

temporary increase in the work of a permanent nature, provided that in case such employee is required to

work. Continuously for more than six months he shall be deemed to be a permanent employee, within the

meaning of clause (i) above.”

(6) Once the labour court classified them as permanent, which classification had attained finality, it necessarily

follows that they are entitled to all benefits which are to be given to regularly appointed employees.”

13.

The advocate for the first party concentrated his arguments only on the point that this workman was a badli

employee, therefore, his retrenchment was violative of the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and also that he being a badli employee was not eligible to be considered for regularisation as per

the settlement. These arguments have no force because in Ram N. Ravat Case (Supra), the definition of the badli

employee is very much defined who are always employed on the post of a permanent seasonal employee or a

probationeror a permanent seasonal employee who is temporary absent. Thus the arguments that the badli employees

were not eligible, has no force.

14.

The second party workman has proved that he worked for more than 30 days in 12 calendar months and 94 days

in 36 block months which are not countered by way of rebuttal by the first party bank manangement.

15.

Thus, in the light of the above reasons, second party workman was eligible for consideration for regularisation

for the permanent post and he was illegally denied the said opportunity to be considered for regularisation. Therefore,

he is entitled to be appointed as permanent employee in the bank on the post to which he has eligible qualification;

however, on the basis of the principles of no pay for no work, he will not be entitled for any arrear of wages.

16.

Thus, the reference is decided with the observation as under: “the action of management of State Bank of India,

Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Santoshkumar H. Tiwari was not legal and was unjustified.”

2824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 13, 2017/VAISAKHA 23, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

On the basis of the principle of no pay for no work, he will not be entitled for the wages till the date of the

publication of the award. From the date of the publication of the award, he will be appointed as regular employee and

be entitled for the normal wages.

18.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2017

1228

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

(1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad

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

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;

k 61@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09

2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&12012@270@93&vkbZvkj (ch&

)º

] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2017

S.O. 1228.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/270/93-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd March, 2017

Reference : (CGITA) No. 61/2004

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Office, C.N. Vidhyalaya Road,

Ambavadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Kaushal Kumar H. Tiwari,

Amaraji Nagar, Room No. 559/2,

Nr. Defence Colony, Kubernagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.J. Sheth

For the Second Party : Shri Prashant Chaudhary

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/270/93-IR(B-I)

dated 16.01.1998 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 management of State Bank of India, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Kaushalkumar H. Tiwari is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

(ii)

2825