3669 GI/2017

(3457)

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]

twu

—

twu

] 2017] 'kfuokj@

T;s

—

kk<+

] 193

No. 25]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 18—JUNE 24, 2017, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 28—ASADHA 3, 1939

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

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

Hkkx

II—

[k.M 3—

mi&[k.M (ii

)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dk£ed

]

yksd f

'kdk;r

,oa

isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh]

5 twu

] 2017

1462

—

dsUnz ljdkj

,rn~}kjk

fnYyh fo

iqfyl LFkkiu

vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la

25) dh

/kjk 6

ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1)

}kjk iznÙk

fDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

mÙkj izns

jkT; ljdkj] x`g

(iqfyl)

vuq

Hkkx

y[kuÅ dh

vf/lwpuk

03lhchvkbZ@&ih&

&2017&1 (25)ch@2017 fnukad 24 ebZ] 2017 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk

gtjrxat] ftyk y[kuÅ] mÙkj izns

k esa iathÑr eq

0411 fnukad 22

017] /kjk 302

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 (1860 dk

vf/fu;e la

45)

ds v/hu n.Muh;] esa mn~Hkwr gksus okys rF;ksa ;k rF; ;k muds

laO;ogkj

ds Øe esa

fd, x,

mDr vijk/

laca/ esa ;k mlls

lalDr vijk/ksa@ekeyksa vkSj fdUgha vU; vijk/ksa] iz;Ruksa vkSj

kM;a=kksa

ds vUos

k.k

ds fy,

fnYyh fo

k iqfyl

LFkkiu

ds lnL;ksa dh

fDr;ksa

vkSj

{ks=kkf/dkj dk

leLr

mÙkj izns

jkT;

djrh gSA

[

iQk

228@

@2017&,ohMh&

II]

vkj

f=kikBh

] voj lfpo

3458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 15th June, 2017

S.O. 1462.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section-4, Lucknow vide Notification No. -03C.B.I./VI-P-4-2017-

1(25)B/2017 dated 24 May, 2017, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for further investigation of Case Crime No. 411/2017

U/s 302 of IPC registered at P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow.

[F. No. 228/22/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2017

का.आ. 1463.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, कारखाना अधिधनयम, 1948 (1948 का 63) की िारा 2 के खंड (ढ) के पहले

परन्द्तुक के खंड (iii) के अिीन प्रित्त शधियों के अनुसरण में कोल इंधडया धलधमटेड की समनुषंगी कंपनी सेंट्रल कोलफील््स

धलधमटेड (सीसीएल) धजसका रधजस्ट्ट्रीकृत कायाालय, िरभंगा हाऊस, रांची है, के संबंधित कारखानों या कमाशालाओं को

स्ट्तंभ (2) में यथाधिधनर्िाष्ट ‘अधिष्ठता’ के रूप में और यथाधिधनर्िाष्ट धनयुि अधिकाररयों को स्ट्तंभ (3) में नीचे िी गई सारणी

में िशााया गया है :-

सारणी

क्र.सं.

कारखाना/कमाशाला का नाम

अधिष्ठता के रूप में धनयुि अधिकारी का पिनाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

कथारा और सिांग िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक (कथारा)

करगली िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक ( बी एण्ड के )

धगड्डी िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक ( अरगडा)

धपपरिार सी.एच.पी./िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक ( धपपरिार )

राजरप्पा िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक (राजरप्पा)

केडला िोिनशाला

महाप्रबंिक (हजारीबाग)

सेंट्रल मरम्मत शाप( सीआरसी)

धिभागाध्यक्ष/ महाप्रबंिक (उत्खनन)

क्षेत्रीय मम्मत शाप (आरआरएस) डाकरा,

तधपन और जारंगडीह पर धस्ट्थत ।

धिभागाध्यक्ष/ महाप्रबंिक (उत्खनन)

सेंट्रल कोलफील््स धलधमटेड प्रेस

धिभागाध्यक्ष/ महाप्रबंिक (प्रशासन )

10.

कोक ओिन संयंत्र, धगरीडीह

महा प्रबंिक (बी एण्ड के)

2. सेंट्रल कोलफील््स धलधमटेड के अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंि धनिेशक को, धजन्द्हें ऊपर यथा उपिर्शात अधिष्ठता के रूप में

पिाधभधहत दकया गया है ऐसे अधिकाररयों को अपने-अपने पिों पर नाम धनर्िाष्ट करने के धलए प्राधिकृत दकया जाता है ।

[फा.सं. 43022/3/2017-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

आर. एस. सरोज, अिर सधचि

(ii)

3459

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2017

S.O. 1463.- In pursuance of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (n) of section 2

of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints officers specified in column (3) of the

Table below as “Occupier” of the respective factories or workshops of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), specified in

column (2) of the said Table having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Jharkhand a subsidiary company

of the Coal India Limited, namely:-

TABLE

Sl. No.

Name of Factory/ Workshop

Designation of Officer appointed as

Occupier

(1)

(2)

(3)

Kathara and Sawang Washeries

General Manager (Kathara)

Kargali Washery

General Manager (B and K)

Giddi Washery

General Manager (Argada)

Piparwar CHP/ Washery

General Manager (Piparwar)

Rajrappa Washery

General Manager (Rajrappa)

Kedla washery

General Manager (Hazaribagh)

Central Repair Shop (CRS)

HOD/ General Manager (Excavation)

Regional Repair Shop (RRS) at

Dakra, Tapin and Jarangdih

HOD/ General Manager (Excavation)

Central Coalfields Limited Press

HOD/ General Manager (Administration)

10.

Coke Ovens Plant, Giridih

General Manager (B and K)

2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Central Coalfields Limited is hereby authorized to nominate by name

such officers to the respective positions who are designated as occupiers as indicated above.

[F. No. 43022/3/2017-LA & IR]

R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

,oa

jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 20

1464

—

Vªifr] Jh jatu dqekj lju] ihBklhu vf/dkjh] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k lg Je U;k;ky;]

/uckn&

dks dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] /uckn&II

ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds in ds dk;Zdky dk

vfrfjDr izHkkj 25

2017 ls N% eghuksa

d dh vof/

vFkok fu;fer vk/kj ij in ds Hkjs tkus rd vFkok vxys vkns

k rd]

tks Hkh igys gks rc rd] lkSairs gSa A

[

11016

lh,y,l

II]

¯lg

]

voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2017

S.O. 1464.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-II to Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer,

3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I for a period of six months with effect from

25.05.2017 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[No. A-11016/02/2015-CLS-II]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2017

1465

—

vkS|ksfxd

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

,llhlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k

;ky;]

gSnjkckn

ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

@20

)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

2012

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2017

S.O. 1465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2017.

[No. L-22012/39/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 12^th day of April, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 16/2012

Between :

The President (Sri R. Kashi Ramulu),

Telengana Trade Union Council (E/716),

H.No.3-5-247/3, Azmathpura,

Karimnagar (AP)

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,

Warangal District

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/39/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26.4.2012

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their

workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

(ii)

3461

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area in

terminating the services of Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-1 Incline, Bhupalapalli Area with

effect from 25.7.2005 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 16/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The workman was appointed as Badli Filler on 15.8.1993 and he was confirmed as coal filler in the year 2001. The

workman was regular to his duties till the year 2001. But during the year 2001, the workman suffered with ill-health

and other family problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 27.5.2002 was issued to the Workman by

the Respondent alleging that the Workman remained absent during the year 2001, which amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry,

the Workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such

lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the Workman was dismissed from service vide order No. BHP/PER/20D/2100 dated 15.7.2005. It is stated

that during the course of the enquiry the Workman has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties

regularly during the year 2001 was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without

considering any of his submissions, the Workman was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the

Respondent management in dismissing the Workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the

principles of natural justice. The Workman has rendered 8 years of continuous service in the Respondent’s

management. The Workman approached the Respondent to consider his case sympathetically, but the management

did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Workman was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned

order No. BHP/PER/20D/2100 dated 15.7.2005 issued by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the

same, and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other

attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 16.8.1993 as Badli Filler, and thereafter he was promoted as Coal Filler

with effect from 1.3.2000. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a

detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Workman has attended the enquiry fixed

and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the

enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the

evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled

against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Workman

by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry

report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted

was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record

and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was

constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Workman was irregular to his duties and

he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It

is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is

liable to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed on behalf of the workman, not to challenge the validity of the domestic enquiry, the

domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 10.11.2016.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman

submitted that due to ill-health and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Workman has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the

Workman. When the Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able

to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing

punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has given capital

punishment to the Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Workman has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

After dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 40 years, he is now aged

about 45 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondent, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Workman is a first offender and has worked

for more than 8 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management

should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the

management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna is not legal and

justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the

Workman has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he

should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless

and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances atleast the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondent’s management. But in this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of

service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition.

But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

RESULT

In the result, the reference is answered as under:

The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area in terminating

the services of Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-1 Incline, Bhupalapalli Area with effect from

25.7.2005 is neither fair nor justified.

Proceeding No BHP/PER/20D/2100 dated 15.7.2005 issued by the Respondent is declared as illegal and is

hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Sriramula Ramakrishna be taken into service as a fresh employee

i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by

the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is

also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman

shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the

management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short

fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will

be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice

and enquiry. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,

(ii)

3463

taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will

be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 12^th day of

April, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2017

1466

—

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;kst

dksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

11@2009)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks

izkIr gq

vk FkkA

[

,y&

22011

2009

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2017

S.O. 1466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. FCI and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2017.

[No. L-22011/22/2009-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 11/2009

Ref. No. L-22011/22/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2009

BETWEEN :

The State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh,

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

AND

1. The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

7, R Dalibagh,

Lucknow (U.P.)

3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The General Manager(UP)

Food Corporation of India,

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-22011/22/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2009 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 State Secretary, Bhartiya

Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, Lucknow (espousing cause of Sri Shailendra Kumar Srivastava) and the General

Manage(UP)/Area Manager, FCI, Lucknow for adjudication. Corrigendum dated 12.04.2010 was also issued.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT FCI IN IMPOSING PENALTY ON SRI

SHAILENDRA

KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA

VIDE

ORDER

DATED

21.08.2008,

26.11.2007,

07.03.2007,04.03.2008. 06.08.2008, 06.10.2007, 20.02.2007, 27.03.2007 AND 10.09.2007 IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN CONCERNED ENTITLED?”

As per the claim statement W-4 the workman has stated in brief that illegal and arbitrary charge sheet dated

26.03.2006 and 11.10.2006 have been issued by opposite party no.2 Area Manager, FCI for which detailed reply have

been submitted; vague charges were framed and the submissions made by the workman were not considered, and non

speaking and non reasoned penalty order dated 21.08.2008 imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.5000/- which was

arbitrarily passed. The Regulation enumerated as 54(1) to 54(iv) have been quoted in the claim statement. The

workman has asserted that the regulations have not been followed by the management. Seven charge sheets and

consequent penalty orders have been mentioned in the claim statement. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been

made to set aside the penalty orders dated 21.08.2008, 26.11.2007, 07.03.2007, 04.03.2008, 06.08.2008, 06.10.2007,

27.03.2007, 20.02.2007 and 10.09.2007. Several documents have been filed as per list W-6 by the workman.

The management while denying the allegations leveled in the claim statement have filed written statement

M-7 wherein it has been pleaded that the charge sheets referred here-in above were issued after following the due

procedure, reply submitted by the workman was properly considered and genuine order was passed by the

disciplinary/competent authority. Staff Regulations were duly followed and principle of natural justice was also taken

care of. The management has requested that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

While denying the grounds taken in the written statement, rejoinder W-8 has been filed by the workman

reiterating the facts mentioned in the claim statement. The management has filed documents as per list M--11.

The workman has filed affidavit W-9 in evidence. He was duly cross examined on behalf of the management.

The management has filed affidavit M-16 of Mr. Chanchal Kumar Trivedi, AGM (Vig) in its evidence.

Another list of documents W-17 has been filed by the workman. The management witness was cross examined on

behalf of the workman.

Later on list of documents W-26 was filed by the workman.

Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

10.

During the pendency of the case the workman moved an application W-28 dated 13.4.2017 alongwith affidavit

requesting therein that all the penalty amount imposed by the management has been deposited and he has sought

promotion to the manager cadre and the workman is no more interested to contest the case. The workman and his

learned AR have requested to permit for withdrawal of the case. The management also did not oppose the application.

11.

Since the workman himself has stated on oath in the affidavit dated 13.4.17 that the penalty sum has been

deposited by him and he sought promotion in his service, and he is no more interested to further contest the case.

Therefore, in such circumstances legality of the penalty order mentioned in the reference need not be adjudicated. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

12.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

28.04. 2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

(ii)

3465

ubZ fnYyh] 14

twu] 2017

1467

—

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

,iQlhvkbZ

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

pSUubZ ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

23@2015)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

22011

2014

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2017

S.O. 1467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. FCI and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2017.

[No. L-22011/58/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 18^th April, 2017

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 23/2015

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Food Corporation of India and their

workman)

BETWEEN :

The Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Chennai Port & Dock Workers Congress

No. 87 (45), Royapettah High Road

Chennai-600014

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Food Corporation of India

Regional Office

8, Sathyamurthy Salai

Chennai-600031

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri K.M. Ramesh, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Management

Sri M. Imthias, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-22011/58/2014-IR (CM.II)

dated 19.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Food Corporation of India, Chennai regarding non-implementation of 11 agreed

demands is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the members of the Union are entitled?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 23/2015 and issued notice to both sides.

Both parties have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statements respectively.

3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner are as below:

The petitioner represents the workmen employed in the FCI as Departmental Workers. The petitioner is having

substantial number of workmen employed in the FCI Port Wing. On 06.02.1997 the FCI had issued Circular No. 3

introducing a scheme called “Employees Benevolent-cum-Welfare Fund Scheme”. The scheme was intended to provide

limited relief in cases of death while in service or serious ailments forcing employees to retire from service. The

scheme was extendable to all departmental workers or other category of workers as found necessary. The members

have to contribute Rs. 10/- every month and the Corporation was to contribute a sum equal to the annual contribution

received from the members. Though the scheme was introduced in other parts of the country it was not extended to the

workers working in Port Wing of the Respondent Management. The Petitioner Union has submitted a charter of

demands including implementation of the benevolent-cum-Welfare Fund Scheme by letter dated 14.02.2007. In the

discussion held subsequently, the Management had agreed for some of the demands including implementation of the

scheme. However, steps were not taken to implement the scheme. The Petitioner Union again called for agitation on the

matter and a letter was given to the Management to this effect. In the discussion held subsequently, the Management

agreed to put up the file regarding implementation of the scheme within a week for taking action in consultation with

the Finance Department. However, the Management had not followed the matter or had taken any steps for

implementing the scheme. The dispute is raised accordingly. An Award may be passed directing the Respondent to

implement Employees Benevolent-cum-Welfare Fund Scheme with retrospective effect from the year 2000.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

Employees Benevolent-cum Welfare Fund Scheme introduced by the FCI by Circular No. 3 of 1997 is intended

for the regular employees governed under the FCI Staff Regulations alone. However, the Corporation has the discretion

to extend the benefits of the scheme to the Departmental Workers or any other category of workers. The FCI has

extended the benefit of the scheme to Departmental / DPS Workers. But this was not extended to the Port Workers on

whose behalf the dispute is raised since they are governed by the Standing Orders for Workmen employed at Madras

Harbours of FCI and their wages and service conditions are on par with Port and Dock Workers Labour employed at

Chennai harbours. The demand for implementation of the scheme by the Petitioner Union was forwarded to the

Headquarters of the Corporation but they have not taken any decision on that. It is a policy decision to be taken by the

Headquarters of the FCI. So the workers cannot raise the matter as an Industrial Dispute. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W23 and Ex.M1 to Ext.M5.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union for implementation of the Employees Benevolent-cum-

Welfare Fund Scheme is justifiable?

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the Union is entitled?

The Points

The subject matter of the reference by the Government is non-implementation of 11 demands raised by the

Petitioner Union. The Secretary of the Union examined as WW1 has stated in the Proof Affidavit filed by him that the

Management has already conceded for all the other demands except the one regarding implementation of the

Employees Benevolent-cum-Welfare Fund Scheme. So the only issue that now remains for consideration is whether the

scheme is to be implemented among the workmen working in FCI Port Wing.

The petitioner has claimed that as per the circular of 1997 the concerned scheme is to be implemented to the

Departmental Workers and other workers also. On the other hand, the stand of the Respondent is that only the regular

employees covered by the FCI (Staff) Regulations are entitled to the benefit of the scheme as a matter of right and it is

only at the discretion of the Corporation the benefit of the scheme can be extended to the Departmental Workers or any

other category of workmen. Thus according to the Respondent it requires a policy decision on the part of the

Management to extend the benefit of the scheme to the workmen in question. The dispute itself is not maintainable on

account of this, it is contended by the Respondent.

The Secretary of the Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress who has raised the dispute has given evidence

in tune with the contentions raised in the Claim Statement. An Officer of FCI has given evidence as MW1, denying the

claim of the Petitioner Union.

10.

The case of the Petitioner Union is that the Corporation has already taken the decision to extend the benefit of

the scheme to Departmental Workers as well but those workmen employed in the Port Wing alone were excluded from

the benefit of the scheme. It is claimed by the Respondent the particular section of workmen being those working in the

Port are governed by the Standing Orders for Workmen employed at Madras Harbour of FCI and they are having a

(ii)

3467

separate Welfare Scheme known as Labour Welfare Fund and for this reason also they are not entitled to the benefit of

the scheme as claimed by the petitioner.

11.

It is by Ext.W6 circular that the scheme in question was introduced by the FCI in 1997. This scheme in fact

replaced the earlier scheme and provided for more benefits to the employees. As per the circular the scheme was

available to all those who had membership in the scheme and membership were made compulsory for all the employees

covered by the FCI (Staff) Regulations 1971. The applicability clause of the scheme states that it shall be extended to

all the regular employees covered under the FCI (Staff) Regulations. However, there is an addenda that the Corporation

may in its discretion extend the benefit of the scheme to the departmental workers or any other category as it may deem

fit. As per the scheme the members of the scheme are to contribute at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month for a benevolent

fund to be constituted. The scheme provided for payment of amount to the family in case of death of a member and also

provided for refundable advances in certain contingencies.

12.

Ext.W9 is the circular dated 03.01.2006 by which the benefits of the scheme was extended to the Departmental

and DPS Workers on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the employees of the Corporation covered by Staff

Regulations. This Circular by the Corporate Office is seen communicated to all the Regional Centres. What is to be

deciphered from Ext.W9 is that the benefit of the scheme was extended to all the departmental and DPS workers also.

13.

In spite of Ext.W9 the workmen in FCI Port Wing on whose behalf the dispute is raised are not getting benefit

of the scheme. The Petitioner Union has been agitating for some time demanding that the benefit should be extended to

them also. It could be seen that on several occasions discussions were held with the Management consequent to notice

of agitation on the part of the petitioner. Ext.W12 is the communication enclosing a Minutes of the Meeting held on

22.02.2007 in the matter of discussion regarding implementation of the scheme to the workers in question along with

other demands. As seen from this, during discussion, the Area Manager has stated that there is no provision for

benevolent fund for departmental labourers of FCI for Chennai Port. It is not known why the workers of Chennai Port

alone were excluded while other departmental labourers were given the benefit. Ext.W9 in fact does not make any

distinction between those working in the Ports and other departmental labourers. It has come out in the discussion on

22.02.2007 that the workmen of Visakhapatnam were extended with the benefit. It could be seen from the subsequent

minutes prepared on discussion regarding the matter that the Management was postponing the issue on one or other

pretext. Ext.W14 is a communication enclosing copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14.05.2007. What is stated

in this is that it was assured during the discussion by the concerned Section of Chennai that it will put up the file within

a week for taking necessary action in consultation with the finance. Ext.W15 another minutes of the meeting held on

29.08.2007 states that with the concurrence of the Regional Finance Wing the issue would be sorted out soon. As seen

from Ext.W16 another minutes of the meeting held on 13.12.2007 the General Manager of Tamil Nadu had directed the

Area Manager to recover the benevolent fund amount from the salary of the labourers retrospectively from the year

2000 so that equal amount could be contributed by the FCI for the entitlement of the benefits of the scheme by the

concerned employees. In spite of all the above discussion held between the Management and the Unions the demand of

the workmen for implementing the benefit of the scheme to them had not materialized. It could be seen from the

discussion held that there was never a stand for the Respondent that the concerned workmen are not entitled to the

benefit. On the other hand there was always consent for the implementation but it was being postponed on one or other

reason. When the scheme was implemented for all other departmental workers there was no necessity to exclude the

men working at the Port alone from the benefit of the scheme.

14.

The case of the Respondent that being a policy decision to be taken by the Management the dispute could not be

raised by the Petitioner Union has no basis. As per Ext.W9 a decision has already been taken to extend the benefit to

departmental workmen. Even DPS workers are seen given the benefit. In that case it was discriminatory on the part of

the Respondent in not extending the benefit of the scheme to Dock Workers alone.

15.

MW1 has stated in her affidavit that the Port and Dock Workers of FCI are governed by a separate Standing

Orders meant for the workmen employed in Madras Harbour and the scheme could not be extended to them. The

reason given is that there is already a welfare scheme for these workmen under the Standing Orders. However, it could

be seen from the admission of MW1 during cross-examination that the scheme is virtually non-existent now. She has

admitted during cross-examination that after 2007 amount is not coming to the Welfare Fund intended for the benefit of

the Port and Dock Workmen. According to her, in spite of this the workmen are getting benefits from the already

available accumulated fund. However, she admitted that once the fund exhausts they will not be getting anything from

the fund. Thus the existing fund, if any, in respect of the workmen is on the verge of a standstill. There is no necessity

to deny the benefit of the scheme to the concerned workmen on this basis. However, they shall not be entitled to the

benefit of both schemes. Even during discussion, the suggestion has been for replacement of the existing fund with the

scheme in question. As could be seen from the minutes the Union also was suggesting that the welfare fund could be

replaced by the scheme. Since the scheme is providing more benefit there is no justification for not-extending this to

the workmen in question. The Respondent can replace the existing fund with the scheme applicable to all other

employees.

3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Respondent has produced Ext.M5 to Ext.M10 giving the particulars regarding the disposal of request made by

labourers for financial help from the Labour Welfare Fund in different years. As could be seen from Ext.M10, even in

2014 requests are seen disposed. Thus it could be seen that so far the workmen were enjoying the benefits of the fund.

So there is no reason for implementing the scheme with retrospective effect as claimed by the petitioner. It would be

sufficient if it is implemented from the date of the award.

On the basis of the above discussion, an Award is passed as below:

The Respondent is directed to replace the Labour Welfare Fund now in existence with Employees Benevolent-

cum-Welfare Fund Scheme and implement it among the workmen employees attached to the erstwhile Port

Wing of the Respondent with effect from the date of the Award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 18^th April, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^stParty/Petitioner

WW1, Sri M. Vasudevan

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri A. Nagalakshmi

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

List of members of the Petitioner Union

Ext.W2

Labour strength all over India in the Respondent for the quarter ending 30^th

June, 2014

Ext.W3

The Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948

Ext.W4

Standing Orders for Workmen employed at Madras Harbour by the Respondent

Management

Ext.W5

Government of India Gazette containing Chennai Port Trust Employees’

(Conduct) Regulations, 1987

Ext.W6

06.02.1987

Circular No. 3 of 1997 issued by the Headquarters of Respondent Management

Ext.W7

30.05.2001

Letter from Senior Regional Manager, FCI, TN, Chennai to the District

Manager, FCI, Chennai

Ext.W8

07.06.2001

Notice issued by the District Manager, FCI, TN, Chennai

Ext.W9

03.01.2006

Circular No. 01/2006 issued by the General Manager (IR-L), FCI

Ext.W10

14.02.2007

Letter from petitioner to the Executive Director, FCI, Zonal Office, Chennai

Ext.W11

23.02.2007

Letter from petitioner to the General Manager, Regional office, FCI, Chennai

Ext.W12

05.03.2007

Letter from General Manager (IR), FCI, Chennai to the Area Manager.

Ext.W13

26.03.2007

Letter from petitioner to the Executive Director, FCI, Zonal Office, Chennai

Ext.W14

17.05.2007

Letter from General Manager (IR), FCI, Chennai to the Area Manager

Ext.W15

29.08.2007

Minutes of the Meeting held with INTUC by the Respondent

Ext.W16

13.12.2007

Minutes of the Meeting held with Transport & Dock Workers Union by the

Respondent Management

Ext.W17

17.12.2008

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section-12(3) of the ID Act, 1947

between the Management of FCI with Unions

Ext.W18

17.12.2008

Minutes of the proceedings held before the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner

Ext.W19

04.03.2008

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section-12(3) of the ID Act

between the Management of FCI and Transport & Dock Workers Union

(ii)

3469

Ext.W20

13.04.2009

Letter from petitioner to the General Manager, FCI, Chn.

Ext.W21

02.08.2010

Letter from Area Manager, FCI, Chennai to the General Manager (IR), FCI,

Chennai

Ext.W22

01.01.2012

Settlement on Wage Revision & Allied matters of Port & Dock Workers at the

Major Port Trusts & DLB

Ext.W23

13.05.2014

Circular No. 10/2014 issued by General Manager (IR-L), FCI

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

25.11.2002

Letter from Food Corporation of India, Headquarters, New Delhi to Zonal

Manager, FCI (South), Chennai

Ext.M2

04.03.2008

Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section-123(3) of the ID Act

between the Management of FCI and Transport & Dock Workers Union

Ext.M3

05.04.2008

A letter return by the Petitioner Union to the Deputy Chief Commissioner of

Labour (Central), Shastri Bhawan, Chennai

Ext.M4

06.04.2009

A letter return by the Petitioner Union to the Deputy Chief Commissioner of

Labour (C), Shastri Bhawan, Chennai

Ext.M5

Particulars above disposal of request made by the labours of financial help from

Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2009

Ext.M6

Particulars above disposal of request made by the Labours for financial help

from Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2010

Ext.M7

Particulars above disposal of request made by the Labours for financial help

from Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2011

Ext.M8

Particulars above disposal of request made by the Labours for financial help

from Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2012

Ext.M9

Particulars above disposal of request made by the Labours for financial help

from Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2012

Ext.M10

Particulars above disposal of request made by the Labours for financial help

from Labour Welfare Fund in the year 2012

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2017

1468

—

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

,iQlhvkbZ

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

vgenkckn ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

1119@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

22012

1999

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2017

S.O. 1468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1119/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. FCI

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2017.

[No. L-22012/93/1999-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 25^th April, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1119/2004

The Joint Manager (PO),

Food Corporation of India,

Opp. Sector 5, Ganesh Nagar Cap Storage,

Gandhidham (Kutch) – 370201

…First Party

V/s

Shri SewakDaya Ram,

D.B.Z. – N – 55,

Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Sanatkumar Bhatt

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-22012/93/99-

IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Joint Manager (PO), FCI, Gandhidham in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri

Sewak Daya Ram, Khalasiw.e.f. 27.12.1997 is just, valid and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled and

what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 30.07.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 11.10.1999

along with number of documents and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 07.01.2002 along with

number of documents vide list Ex. 6.

The second party workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 12 in support of his statement of claim on 05.09.2011 but

the first party did not appear to cross-examine, therefore, the cross-examination of the second party was closed on

04.10.2016.

The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 2 has alleged that he was appointed in the Food

Corporation of India, Vacuvator Division as Khalasi on 07.04.1965 and was dismissed from service by the first party

Food Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as FCI vide order no. V/FCI/KDL/1/79 dated 12.02.1980 dismissing

him with retrospective effect from 27.12.1977. The workman filed his Civil Suit No. 165 of 1981 in the court of Civil

Judge Junior Division, Gandhigram against the order of dismissal which was passed by FCI for unauthorised absence

of workman from duty for a very long time since 1997 for which he was dismissed in the year 1980 with retrospective

effect. It is further alleged that after resuming duty on 26.12.1977, he fell sick and remained under medical treatment

for a long time of Doctor M.G. Buch, Rambagh Government Hospital. But despite submitting the applications for leave

along with medical certificate, his leave were not regularised on the ground of departmental inquiry. Same was also

misplaced in the FCI. Thus non-regularisation or rejection of leave leading into dismissal is flagrant violation of law

and provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act as no retrenchment compensation was pay to him. He has

submitted the copy of the dismissal order, judgement passed in Civil Suit No. 165/1981, written statement of FCI

submitted in aforesaid suit, judgements passed in appeal and as well as in Special Civil Application No. 3169/1986

passed by the High Court and as well as by the Supreme Court. Thus the workman mainly has challenged the dismissal

order on the ground that his leave application was supported with medical certificate and same were rejected with any

(ii)

3471

basis, therefore, he has prayed setting aside of the impugned dismissal order with reinstatement of the service and back

wages with all fringe service benefits.

The first party vide his written statement Ex. 5 admitted that he has been in service of FCI since 07.04.1965 and

he was terminated on 12.02.1980 making his termination effective from 27.12.1977 which was challenged by the

workman in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division which was set aside by the Civil Judge Junior Division but in

appeal by the District judge, the order of the Civil Judge Junior was set aside and the dismissal order was

confirmed.The High Court and Supreme Court did not interfere into the judgement of the Civil Judge. The FCI has

justify his action on the ground that the workman has been absent from duty for a very long time involving in anti-

national like smuggling and lacking sincerity and devotion to duty. It is further alleged by the FCI that the workman

never applied for a leave; therefore, no question arises of granting or sanctioning of leave. It is wrong to say that the

action of the FCI was violative of the provisions of the Section 25 F and Section 2 (OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

because before passing the termination order, he was giving opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry but he did not

avail the same. Thus, the prayer sought by the workman in his statement of claim is not maintainable and liable to be

rejected.

The workman in support of his statement of claim submitted his affidavit Ex. 12 and the first party did not prefer

to cross-examine.

I heard the arguments of the parties present in the tribunal and have gone through the oral as well as

documentary evidence. The second party workman has filed the copies of the judgement of the Civil Judge Junior as

well as the District Judge which reveals that the District Judge in the appeal set aside the order of the Civil Judge Junior

Division and dismissed the aforesaid Civil Suit denying the relief sought therein. It is also noteworthy that the High

Court as well as the Supreme Court did not interfere into the order of the District Judge passed in the appeal. Thus the

order of the District Judge has the effect of res-judicata.

The argument of the workman that he wrongly chosen the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the matter relates to

the I.D. Act, therefore, he is entitled for the relief sought and the judgement passed in the appeal by the District Judge

has no legal binding in the matter. The argument is baseless because he himself chosen the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court, therefore, the reference is barred by the principle of estoppel.

Thus the reference has no force. Therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the

action of the Joint Manager (PO), FCI, Gandhidham in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Sewak Daya

Ram, Khalasi w.e.f. 27.12.1997 is just, valid and legal.”

In the light of the aforesaid observations, the reliefs sought by the workman are also rejected.

10.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2017

1469

—

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

,llhlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

22012

2012

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2017

S.O. 1469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2017.

[No. L-22012/6/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

3472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 12^th day of April, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24/2012

Between :

The President (Sri Raiz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),

C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District (A.P.)-505209

…Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,

Warangal District

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner Union :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/6/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 19.4.2012

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their

workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area in

terminating the services of Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-1 Incline, Bhupalapalli Area

with effect from 19.8.2006 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 24/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The workman was appointed as Badli Filler in the year 1992 under compassionate appointment and he was posted to

work at Health Department, Kothagudem and later he was confirmed as coal filler in the year 2000 and posted to work

at Bhupalapally. The workman was regular to his duties till the year 2003. But during the year 2003 the workman

suffered jaundice and bed ridden for prolonged time, due to which, his wife and relatives took him to his native place

for ayurvedic treatment. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 15.7.2004 was issued to the Workman by the

Respondent alleging that the workman remained absent during the year 2003, which amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry,

the workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such

lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the workman was dismissed from service vide order No. BHP/PER/20-D/3226 dated 13/19-8-2006. It is

stated that during the course of the enquiry the workman has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties

regularly during the year 2003 was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without

considering any of his submissions, the workman was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the

Respondent management in dismissing the workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the

principles of natural justice. The workman has rendered 11 years of continuous service in the Respondent

management. The workman approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management

did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the workman was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned

order No. BHP/PER/20-D/3226 dated 13/19-8-2006 issued by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside

the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the workman into service duly granting all other

attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

(ii)

3473

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the workman was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 11.6.1992 as Badli Filler, and later he was drafted as Cartman in Cat. I, and

subsequently as Coal Filler with effect from 4.3.2000. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

workman has attended the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and

reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of

natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and

the enquiry proceeding was sent to the workman by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make

representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the workman is proved and

it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone

through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a

lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the workman from service. It is stated that in fact

the workman was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him,

and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the workman is justified

and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed on behalf of the workman, not to challenge the validity of the domestic enquiry, the

domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 14.8.2014.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman

submitted that due to ill-health and other family problems, the workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the workman has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the

Workman. When the workman has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able

to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing

punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the workman, and has given capital

punishment to the workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that when the

workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, the workman has remained

absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the

enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After

dismissal of service, the workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He

has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 38 years, he is now aged about 43 years

and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the workman being an

able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondent,

atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are

enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The workman is a first offender and has worked for more than 11 years

under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the

condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for

dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in

imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

3474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 24, 2017/ASADHA 3, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the

workman has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he

should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the workman has become jobless

and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances atleast the workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondent’s management. But in this case, the workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of

service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim

statement. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

RESULT

In the result, the reference is answered as under:

The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area in terminating

the services of Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-1 Incline, Bhupalapalli Area with effect from

19.8.2006 is neither fair nor justified.

Proceeding No BHP/PER/20-D/3226 dated 13/19.8.2006 issued by Respondent is declared as illegal and is

hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Madikanti Narasimha Rao be taken into service as a fresh

employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical

fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The

management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.