4247 GI/2017

(4125)

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

WEEKLY

]

—

No. 29]

NEW DELHI, JULY 16—JULY 22, 2017, SATURDAY/ASADHA 25—ASADHA 31, 1939

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

II—

—

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

का.आ

1678

—जीवन बीमा ननगम अनिननयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शनियों का प्रयगग

करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री शनिकाांत दास के स्थान पर श्री सुभाष चांद्र गगग, सनचव, आर्थगक कायग नवभाग कग

तत्काल प्रभाव से अगले आदेशों तक उि ननगम के सदस्य के रूप में ननयुि करती है।

[फा. सां. 14/3/2003-बीमा-I]

एस. के. मगहन्ती, अवर सनचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017

S.O. 1678.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956

(31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Subhash Chandra Garg, Secretary, Department of Economic

Affairs as Member of the said Corporation vice Sh. Shaktikanta Das, with immediate effect till further orders.

[F. No. 14/3/2003-Ins.I]

S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.

4126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1679.—बीमा नवननयामक और नवकास प्रानिकरण अनिननयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की िारा 4 द्वारा

प्रदत्त शनियों का प्रयगग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री एन. श्रीननवास राव, आर्थगक सलाहकार, नवत्तीय सेवाएां

नवभाग के स्थान पर श्री रनव नमत्तल, अपर सनचव, नवत्तीय सेवाएां नवभाग कग तत्काल प्रभाव से अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय

बीमा नवननयामक और नवकास प्रानिकरण (आईआरडीएआई) के अांशकानलक सदस्य के रूप में ननयुि करती है।

[फा. सां. 11/6/2003-बीमा-I]

एस. के. मगहन्ती, अवर सनचव

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017

S.O. 1679.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi Mital, Additional Secretary,

Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance as Part-time Member of the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India (IRDAI) vice Shri N. Srinivasa Rao, Economic Advisor, DFS with immediate effect

and until further orders.

[ F. No.11/6/2003-Ins.I]

S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.

नवदेश मांत्रालय

(सीपीवी प्रभाग)

नई ददल् ली, 4 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1680.—राजननयक और कौंसुलीय अनिकारी (शपथ एवां फीस) के अनिननयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खांड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाननक आदेश।

एतद्द्वारा, केन् द्र सरकार भारत के सहायक उच चायगग, मगमबासा में श्री ब्रहम प्रकाश, सहायक अनुभाग अनिकारी

कग ददनाांक 4 जुलाई 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अनिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के ननवगहन के नलए प्रानिकृत करती

है।

[सां. टी. 4330/1/2015]

प्रकाश चन् द, ननदेशक (कोंसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2017

S.O. 1680.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Braham Parkash,

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

the Consular services with effect from 4 July, 2017.

[No. T. 4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

(ii)

4127

नई ददल् ली, 6 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1681.—राजननयक और कोंसुलीय अनिकारी (शपथ एवां फीस) के अनिननयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खांड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाननक आदेश।

एतद्द्वारा, केन् द्र सरकार भारत के उच चायगग,कम् पाला (युगाांडा) में श्री सौरभ आनांद, सहायक अनुभाग अनिकारी कग

ददनाांक 5 जुलाई 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अनिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के ननवगहन के नलए प्रानिकृत करती

है।

[सां. टी. 4330/1/2017]

प्रकाश चन् द, ननदेशक (कोंसुलर)

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2017

S.O. 1681.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Saurabh Anand,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Kampala (Uganda) to perform

the Consular services with effect from 5 July, 2017.

[No. T. 4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

नागर नवमानन मांत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1682.—केन्द्र सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्रानिकृत अनिभगनगयों का बेदखली) अनिननयम, 1971 (1971

का 40) की िारा 3 में प्रदत्त शनियों का प्रयगग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार, नागर नवमानन मांत्रालय की ददनाांक 21

नवम्बर, 2014 की अनिसूचना सांख्या एस.ओ. 3066 का अनिक्रमण करते हुए, ऐसे अनिक्रमण से पूवग दकए जा चुके कायग

अथवा पूरा दकए जाने के नलए छगड़ ददए गए कायों के अलावा, नीचे प्रस्तुत तानलका के कॉलम (2) में उनल्लनखत

अनिकाररयों कग, सरकार के राजपनत्रत अनिकारी के समान ओहदा हगने के कारण, उपयुगि अनिननयम के उद्देश्यों से एतद्द्वारा

सम्पदा अनिकारी ननयुि करती है जग, अपने सांबांनित क्षेत्रानिकार के दायरे में, प्रदत्त की गई शनियों का प्रयगग करते हुए

ऊपर उनल्लनखत तानलका के कॉलम (3) में नवननर्दगष्ट दकए गए सरकारी स्थान के सांबांि में अथवा उि अनिननयम के अांतगगत

सम्पदा अनिकारी कग ददए गए कायों का ननवागह करेंगे।

तानलका

क्र.सां.

अनिकारी का पदनाम

सरकारी स्थानों का वगीकरण

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), वररष्ठ सहायक

महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), उप महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक),

कार्मगक नवभाग, पूवी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड,

कगलकाता।

असम, नबहार, मनणपुर, नमजगरम, नागालैंड, ओनडशा,

नत्रपुरा, पनिम बांगाल और अांडमान और ननकगबार

द्वीपसमूहों के राज्यों में एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से

या पट्टे पर ली गई सभी आवासीय पररसर

2. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), वररष्ठ सहायक

महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), उप महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक),

कार्मगक नवभाग, उत्तरी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, इांददरा गाांिी अांतरागष्ट्रीय हवाई अड्डा, नई

ददल्ली

ददल्ली के राष्ट्रीय राजिानी क्षेत्र और नहमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू

और कश्मीर, मध्य प्रदेश, पांजाब राजस्थान, उत्तराखांड,

उत्तर प्रदेश और सांघ शानसत क्षेत्र चांडीगढ़ में एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड की ओर से या पट्टे पर ली गई सभी आवासीय

पररसर ।

4128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), वररष्ठ सहायक

महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), उप महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक),

कार्मगक नवभाग, दनक्षणी क्षेत्र एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, चेन्नई।

आांध्र प्रदेश, कनागटक, केरल, तनमलनाडु और तेलांगाना

राज्यों में एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से पट्टे पर या

उससे सांबांनित सभी आवासीय पररसर।

4. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), वररष्ठ सहायक

महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक), उप महाप्रबांिक (कार्मगक),

कार्मगक नवभाग, पनिमी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, मुांबई

गगवा, गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश और महाराष्ट्र राज्यों में एअर

इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से पट्टे पर या उससे सांबांनित सभी

आवासीय पररसर

5. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (औद्यगनगक सांबांि), वररष्ठ

सहायक महाप्रबांिक (औद्यगनगक सांबांि), उप

महाप्रबांिक (औद्यगनगक सांबांि), औद्यगनगक सांबांि,

मुख्यालय, एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड, एअरलाइांस

हाउस, नई ददल्ली

एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से या पट्टे पर ली गई सभी

आवासीय पररसर और एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड, नई ददल्ली

के मुख्यालय के प्रशासननक ननयांत्रण के तहत।

6. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), वररष्ठ

सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), उप

महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), सांपनत्त और

सुनविाएां नवभाग, पूवी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, कगलकाता

असम, नबहार, मनणपुर, नमजगरम, नागालैंड, ओनडशा,

नत्रपुरा, पनिम बांगाल और अांडमान ननकगबार द्वीप समूह

के सांघ राज्यों में एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से पट्टे पर

ली गई पट्टे के अलावा अन्य सभी पररसर।

7. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), वररष्ठ

सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), उप

महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), सांपनत्त और

सुनविाएां, उत्तरी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड,

इांददरा गाांिी अांतरागष्ट्रीय हवाई अड्डा, नई ददल्ली।

ददल्ली के राष्ट्रीय राजिानी क्षेत्र और नहमाचल प्रदेश, जम्मू

और कश्मीर, मध्य प्रदेश, पांजाब, राजस्थान, उत्तराखांड,

उत्तर प्रदेश और राज्यों में एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर

से पट्टे पर ली गई पट्टेदारी के अलावा अन्य सभी पररसर

चांडीगढ़ का सांघीय क्षेत्र

8. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), वररष्ठ

सहायक प्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), उप

महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), सांपनत्त और

सुनविाएां दनक्षणी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड,

चेन्नई।

आांध्र प्रदेश, कनागटक, केरल, तनमलनाडु और तेलांगाना

राज्यों में एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से या पट्टे पर ली

गई पट्टे पर आवासीय पररसर के अलावा अन्य सभी

पररसरों

9. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), वररष्ठ

सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), उप

महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), सांपनत्त और

सुनविाएां नवभाग, पनिमी क्षेत्र, एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, मुांबई ..

गगवा, गुजरात, मध्य प्रदेश और महाराष्ट्र राज्य में एअर

इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से पट्टे पर ली गई पट्टे पर या

आवासीय पररसरों के अलावा अन्य सभी पररसरों

10. सहायक महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), वररष्ठ

सहायक प्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), उप

एअर इांनडया नलनमटेड की ओर से या एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड की ओर से ली गई पट्टे पर या एअर इांनडया

(ii)

4129

महाप्रबांिक (सांपनत्त और सुनविाएां), सांपनत्त और

सुनविाएां,

नवभाग मुख्यालय,

एअर इांनडया

नलनमटेड, एअरलाइांस हाउस, नई ददल्ली

नलनमटेड, नई ददल्ली के मुख्यालय के प्रशासननक ननयांत्रण

के तहत आवासीय पररसरों के अलावा अन्य सभी पररसर।

[फा.सां . ए वी. 17046/04/2017-एआई]

चांद्र दकशगर शुक्ला, अवर सनचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2017

S.O. 1682.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Civil

Aviation, notification number S.O. 3066 dated 21^st November, 2014, except as respects things done or omitted to be

done before such suppression, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the

Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be estate officer for

the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the power conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate

officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises

specified in column (3) of the said Table.

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Designation of officer

Categories of public premises

(1)

(2)

(3)

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Senior

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Deputy

General

Manager

(Personnel),

Personnel

Department, Eastern Region, Air India Limited,

Kolkata.

All residential premises belonging to or taken on lease

by or on behalf of Air India Limited in the States of

Assam, Bihar, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha,

Tripura, West Bengal and Union territory of Andaman

and Nicobar islands.

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Senior

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Deputy

General

Manager

(Personnel),

Personnel

Department, Northern Region, Air India Limited,

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi

All residential premises belonging to or taken on lease

by or on behalf of Air India Limited in the National

capital territory of Delhi and the States of Himachal

Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab

Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and union

territory of Chandigarh.

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Senior

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Deputy

General

Manager

(Personnel),

Personnel

Department, southern Region Air India Limited,

Chennai.

All residential premises belonging to or taken on lease

by or on behalf of Air India Limited in the states of

Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and

Telangana

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Senior

Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Deputy

General

Manager

(Personnel),

Personnel

Department, Western Region, Air India Limited,

Mumbai

All residential premises belonging to or taken on lease

by or on behalf of Air India Limited in the states of

Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

Assistant General Manager (Industrial Relation),

Senior Assistant General Manager (Industrial

Relation), Deputy General Manager (Industrial

Relation), Industrial relations, Headquarters, Air

India Limited, Airlines House, New Delhi.

All residential premises belonging to or taken on lease

by or on behalf of Air India Limited and under the

administrative control of the Headquarters of Air India

Limited, New Delhi.

Assistant General Manager (Properties and

Facilities), Senior Assistant General Manager

(Properties and Facilities), Deputy General

Manager (Properties and Facilities), Properties

All premises other than residential premises belonging

to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited

in the States of Assam, Bihar, Manipur, Mizoram,

Nagaland, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal and Union

4130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and facilities Department, Eastern Region, Air

India Limited, Kolkata

Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Assistant General Manager (Properties and

Facilities), Senior Assistant General Manager

(Properties and Facilities), Deputy General

Manager (Properties and Facilities), Properties

and facilities , Northern Region, Air India

Limited, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi.

All premises other than residential premises belonging

to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited

in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States

of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya

Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh

and Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Assistant General Manager (Properties and

Facilities), Senior Assistant General Manager

(Properties and Facilities), Deputy General

Manager (Properties and Facilities), Properties

and Facilities Southern Region, Air India

Limited, Chennai.

All premises other than residential premises belonging

to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited

in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala,

Tamil Nadu and Telangana.

Assistant General Manager (Properties and

Facilities), Senior Assistant General Manager

(Properties and Facilities), Deputy General

Manager (Properties and Facilities), Properties

and Facilities Department, Western Region, Air

India limited, Mumbai..

All premises other than residential premises belonging

to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited

in the State of Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and

Maharashtra.

10.

Assistant General Manager (Properties and

Facilities), Senior Assistant General Manager

(Properties and Facilities), Deputy General

Manager (Properties and Facilities), Properties

and Facilities, Department Headquarters, Air

India Limited, Airlines House, New Delhi

All premises other than residential premises belonging

to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Air India Limited

and under the administrative control of the Headquarters

of Air India Limited, New Delhi.

[F. No. AV. 17046/04/2017-AI]

CHANDRA KISHORE SHUKLA, Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1683-&dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa

blds i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh] Hkkjr ds jkti=]

Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼iia½] rkjh[k 29 ebZ] 2017 esa izdkf’kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh

vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 1708¼v½] rkjh[k 26 ebZ] 2017 ds izdk’ku ij] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu

vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr “wfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh

vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼a1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd

:i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir

jksM] iksLV ckDl la[;k 60] ftyk&fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ ljdkjh

dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krksZa dk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr

le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s rS;kj gS(

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs’k nsrh gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k Hkwfe;ksa ij ds lrgh vf/kdkj]

rkjh[k 29 ebZ] 2017 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj

’krksZa ds v/;/khu] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&

(ii)

4131

¼1½

ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa

vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh;

¼2½

mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ’krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus

ds iz;kstu ds fy;s mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls

fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj ,sls vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kksa esa mixr lHkh

O;;] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa

ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/k esa lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa ftlds v/khu vihy Hkh gS] ds laca/k esa] lHkh O;; Hkh]

blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs;

¼3½

ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa] {kfriwfrZ

djsxh tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds

in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko’;d gks;

¼4½

ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa vkSj vf/kdkjksa dks

fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh ’kfDr ugha gksxh; vkSj

¼5½

ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs’kksa vkSj ’krksZa dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko’;d gks] mDr

Hkwfe;ksa ds fof’k"V {ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxhA

[Qk- la- 43015@29@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017

S.O. 1683.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, Number S.O. 1708(E), dated the 26^th May, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 29^th May, 2017 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and surface

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

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

the said Act;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

P. B. No. 60, District-Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to

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

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

Central Government hereby directs that the surface rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the

29^th May, 2017 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

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

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government company under condition (1), and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the Government

company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings, including appeals, for or in

connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its

officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

4132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and the rights to any other persons

without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 29/ 2017 – LA&IR]

R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

पेट्रगनलयम और प्राकृनतक गैस मांत्रालय

नई ददल् ली, 5 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1684.—केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसा प्रतीत हगता है दक लगक नहत में यह आवश्यक है दक तेलांगाना राज्य में

पेट्रगनलयम उत्पादों के पररवहन के नलए पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पररयगजना के दक्रयान्वयन हेतु इांनडयन ऑयल

कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई जानी चानहए;

और केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के प्रयगजन के नलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत हगता है दक ऐसी भूमी में जग इस से

ऊपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णगत है, और नजसमें उि पाइपलाइन नबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयगग के अनिकार का अजगन

दकया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रगनलयम और खननज पाइपलाइन्स (भूनम में उपयगग के अनिकार का अजगन) अनिननयम 1962

(1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शनियों का प्रयगग करते हुए उस भूनम में उपयगग के अनिकार का

अजगन करने के अपने आशय की घगषणा करती है;

कगईभी व्यनि, जग उि अनुसूची में वर्णगत भूनम में नहतबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, नजसकग इस अनिसूचना में युि भारत के

राजपत्र की प्रनतयााँ सािारण जनता कग उपलब्ि करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) ददन के भीतर, भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

नबछाए जाने के नलए उसमें उपयगग के अनिकार के सांबन्ि में श्री एम. नारायणा राव, सक्षम प्रानिकारी (तेलांगाना), इांनडयन

ऑयल कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पररयगजना, प्लॉट सांख्या 264/ए, दूसरी

मांनजल, कैनरा बैंक के ऊपर, मागग सांख्या 10, जुनबली नहल्स, हैदराबाद-500033, तेलांगाना राज्य कग नलनखत रूप से आक्षेप

भेज सकेगा|

अनुसूची

नजला: सुयागपेट

राज्य: तेलांगाना

मांडल का नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सवे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पेन्पहाड़

चीदेल्ला

433

432

431

430

(ii)

4133

पेन्पहाड़

चीदेल्ला

429

452

453

406

460

461

377

380/1

372

375

373

371

357

358

353

347

348

340

341

343

342

328

329

323/1

323/5

322

320

319

4134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पेन्पहाड़

चीदेल्ला

318

313

314

312

311

286

285

282

नाला

887

886

885

884

881

पेन्पहाड़

गाजुलमल्कापूरम

239

241

242

244/1

पेन्पहाड़

माचारम

164

163

166

161

151

150

149

(ii)

4135

पेन्पहाड़

माचारम

148

पेन्पहाड़

94/1

94/39

94/40

94/43

94/42

94/38

94/23

94/25

94/20

94/22

94/37

94/17

पेन्पहाड़

महम्मदापुरम

108/2

109

130

115

129

128

143

4136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पेन्पहाड़

महम्मदापुरम

नाला

146/25

146/1

108/4

108/3

पेन्पहाड़

ससांगारेड्डी पालेम

182

181

180/10

180/11

180/1

180/16

180/27

180/30

180/31

180/32

175

180/34

176

180/35

180/37

180/38

कच्चा रास्ता

(ii)

4137

पेन्पहाड़

ससांगारेड्डी पालेम

146

105/5

105/11

118

119

121

114

113

125

126

128

[फा. सां. आर-25011/3/2017-ओआर-आई/48335]

पवन कुमार, अवर सनचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2017

S.O. 1684.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Telangana a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip -

Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip - Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M.

Narayana Rao, Competent Authority (Telangana), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip

Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 264/A, 2^nd Floor, above Canara Bank, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -

500 033 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1)

of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

4138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District : Suryapet

State : Telangana

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Penpahad

Cheedella

433

432

431

430

429

452

453

406

460

461

377

380/1

372

375

373

371

357

358

353

347

348

340

341

343

342

328

329

323/1

323/5

322

320

319

318

313

314

312

311

(ii)

4139

Penpahad

Cheedella

286

285

282

Nala

887

886

885

884

881

Penpahad

Gajulamalkapuram

239

241

242

244/1

Penpahad

Macharam

164

163

166

161

151

150

149

148

Penpahad

94/1

94/39

94/40

94/43

94/42

94/38

94/23

94/25

94/20

94/22

94/37

94/17

4140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Penpahad

Mohammadapur

108/2

109

130

115

129

128

143

Nala

146/25

146/1

108/4

108/3

Penpahad

Singareddy Palem

182

181

180/10

180/11

180/1

180/16

180/27

180/30

180/31

180/32

175

180/34

176

180/35

180/37

180/38

Cart Track

146

105/5

(ii)

4141

Penpahad

Singareddy Palem

105/11

118

119

121

114

113

125

126

128

[F. No. R-25011/3/2017-OR-I/48335]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई ददल् ली, 5 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1685.—केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसा प्रतीत हगता है दक लगक नहत में यह आवश्यक है दक तेलांगाना राज्य में

कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई जानी चानहए;

और केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के प्रयगजन के नलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत हगता है दक ऐसी भूनम में जग इससे

दकया जाए;

अजगन करने के अपने आशय की घगषणा करती है;

भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

नजला: सुयागपेट

राज्य: तेलांगाना

मांडल का नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सवे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सूयागपेट

इमाम्पेट

225

224

4142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सूयागपेट

इमाम्पेट

223

247

222

249

250

251

257

260

259

264

270

275

276

277

278

283

284

285

286

सूयागपेट

ताल्लाखम्मांपाडु

सूयागपेट

कासराबाद

398

(ii)

4143

सूयागपेट

कासराबाद

396

373

374

369

370

सूयागपेट

केसारम

239

242

243

255

256

257

259

260

0.16

262

263

266

265

270

269

272

सूयागपेट

480

481

482

710

711

4144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सूयागपेट

के. टी. अन्नारम

180

181

187

189

190

191

193

202

200

[फा. सां. आर-25011/3/2017-ओआर- आर/48335]

पवन कुमार, अवर सनचव

New Delhi, the 5th, July, 2017

S.O. 1685.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Telangana a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip -

Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip - Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. M. Narayana Rao, Competent Authority (Telangana), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 264/A, 2^nd Floor, above Canara Bank, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad - 500 033 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general

public.

SCHEDULE

District : Suryapet

State : Telangana

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Suryapet

Imampet

225

224

(ii)

4145

Suryapet

Imampet

223

247

222

249

250

251

257

260

259

264

270

275

276

277

278

283

284

285

286

Suryapet

Thallakhammampahad

Suryapet

Kasarabad

398

396

373

374

369

370

Suryapet

Kesaram

239

242

243

255

256

257

259

4146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Suryapet

Kesaram

260

0.16

262

263

266

265

270

269

272

Suryapet

480

481

482

710

711

Suryapet

K T Annaram

180

181

187

189

190

191

193

202

200

[F. No. R-25011/3/2017-OR-I/48335]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई ददल् ली, 5 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1686.—केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसा प्रतीत हगता है दक लगक नहत में यह आवश्यक है दक तेलांगाना राज्य में

कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई जानी चानहए;

दकया जाए;

अजगन करने के अपने आशय की घगषणा करती है;

(ii)

4147

भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

नजला: सुयागपेट

राज्य: तेलांगाना

मांडल का नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सवे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

नचलुकूरु

627

626

628

625

623

622

632

621

618

611

612

610

568

567

रास्ता

333

332

331

330

337

336

4148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नचलुकूरु

338

384

392

380

393

379

378

376

नहर

375

रास्ता

203

202

195

199

नाला

116

128

130/1

129

125/2

1390

(ii)

4149

नचलुकूरु

1387

1386

0.23

1388

1382

1334

1327

1326

1292

1296

1295

1239

1238

1237

1235

1310

1234

नचलुकूरु

कोंडापुरम

179

180

182

185/3

186

188

189/3

189/2

160/2

189/1

160/1

159

4150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नचलुकूरु

कोंडापुरम

158

341

नचलुकूरु

बेतवगलु

441

336

337

334

338

349

350

363

364

365

374

(ii)

4151

नचलुकूरु

बेतवगलु

378

379

317

316

314

313

312

रास्ता

2178

[फा. सां. आर-25011/3/2017-ओआर- आई /48335]

पवन कुमार, अवर सनचव

4152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2017

S.O. 1686.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Telangana a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip -

Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip - Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M.

Narayana Rao, Competent Authority (Telangana), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip

Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 264/A, 2^nd Floor, above Canara Bank, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -

500 033 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1)

of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

Encl.: Schedule Annexed.

SCHEDULE

District : Suryapet

State : Telangana

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Chilkur

627

626

628

625

623

622

632

621

618

611

612

610

568

567

Road

333

332

331

330

337

336

338

384

392

(ii)

4153

Chilkur

380

393

379

378

376

Canal

375

Road

203

202

195

199

Nala

116

128

130/1

129

125/2

1390

1387

1386

0.23

1388

1382

1334

1327

1326

1292

1296

1295

1239

1238

1237

1235

1310

1234

4154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chilkur

Kondapuram

179

180

182

185/3

186

188

189/3

189/2

160/2

189/1

160/1

159

158

341

Chilkur

Bethavolu

441

336

337

334

338

349

350

363

364

365

374

378

(ii)

4155

Chilkur

Bethavolu

379

317

316

314

313

312

Road

2178

[F. No. R-25011/3/2017-OR-I/48335]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई ददल् ली, 5 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1687.—केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसा प्रतीत हगता है दक लगक नहत में यह आवश्यक है दक तेलांगाना

राज्य में पेट्रगनलयम उत्पादों के पररवहन के नलए पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पररयगजना के दक्रयान्वयन हेतु

इांनडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई जानी चानहए;

और केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के प्रयगजन के नलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत हगता है दक ऐसी भूनम में

जग इस से ऊपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णगत है, और नजसमें उि पाइपलाइन नबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयगग के

अनिकार का अजगन दकया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रगनलयम और खननज पाइपलाइन्स (भूनम में उपयगग के अनिकार का अजगन)

अनिननयम 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शनियों का प्रयगग करते हुए उस भूनम

में उपयगग के अनिकार का अजगन करने के अपने आशय की घगषणा करती है;

4156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कगई भी व्यनि, जग उि अनुसूची में वर्णगत भूनम में नहतबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, नजसकग इस अनिसूचना में युि

भारत के राजपत्र की प्रनतयााँ सािारण जनता कग उपलब्ि करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) ददन के भीतर, भूनम के

नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए जाने के नलए उसमें उपयगग के अनिकार के सांबन्ि में श्री एम. नारायणा राव, सक्षम

प्रानिकारी (तेलांगाना), इांनडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन

पररयगजना, प्लॉट सांख्या 264/ए, दूसरी मांनजल, कैनरा बैंक के ऊपर, मागग सांख्या 10, जुनबली नहल्स, हैदराबाद-

500033, तेलांगाना राज्य कग नलनखत रूप से आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

नजला: सुयागपेट

राज्य: तेलांगाना

मांडल का नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सवे नम्बर

क्षेत्र फल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

मुनगाला

गणपवरम

160/4

160/3

160/1

163/2

163/1

162/2

166/2

166/1

173

172

171/2

170/2

170/1

171/1

मुनगाला

नेलमरी

392/4

392/3

392/1

(ii)

4157

मुनगाला

नेलमरी

391/2

386/1

384/2

385/3

0.27

385/2

385/1

383

382/1

382/2

381

380/2

380/1

379/1

375

163/2

163/3

163/12

160/1

159

158

157

156

140/2

137

138/1

138/2

139/1

139/2

133/1

4158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मुनगाला

नेलमरी

133/2

128/3

128/2

129/2

129/1

126

120

121

118

114

113

58/1

57/2

57/1

55/2

55/1

6/5

6/1

6/4

6/3

6/2

5/4

(ii)

4159

मुनगाला

नेलमरी

5/3

5/2

5/1

[फा. सां. आर-25011/3/2017-ओआर- आई /48335]

पवन कुमार, अवर सनचव

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2017

S.O. 1687.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Telangana a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip -

Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip - Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. M. Narayana Rao, Competent Authority (Telangana), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 264/A, 2^nd Floor, above Canara Bank, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad - 500 033 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general

public.

SCHEDULE

District : Suryapet

State : Telangana

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Munagala

Ganapavaram

160/4

160/3

160/1

163/2

163/1

162/2

166/2

166/1

173

172

171/2

170/2

170/1

171/1

4160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Munagala

Nelamarri

392/4

392/3

392/1

391/2

386/1

384/2

385/3

0.27

385/2

385/1

383

382/1

382/2

381

380/2

380/1

379/1

375

163/2

163/3

163/12

160/1

159

158

157

156

140/2

137

138/1

138/2

139/1

139/2

133/1

133/2

128/3

128/2

129/2

129/1

126

120

121

(ii)

4161

Munagala

Nelamarri

118

114

113

58/1

57/2

57/1

55/2

55/1

6/5

6/1

6/4

6/3

6/2

5/4

5/3

5/2

5/1

[F. No. R-25011/3/2017-OR-I/48335]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई ददल् ली, 5 जुलाई, 2017

का.आ. 1688.—केंद्रीय सरकार कग ऐसा प्रतीत हगता है दक लगक नहत में यह आवश्यक है दक तेलांगाना राज्य में

कॉपोरेशन नलनमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई जानी चानहए;

दकया जाए;

अजगन करने के अपने आशय की घगषणा करती है;

कगई भी व्यनि, जग उि अनुसूची में वर्णगत भूनम में नहतबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, नजसकग इस अनिसूचना में युि भारत के

4162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

नजला: सुयागपेट

राज्य: तेलांगाना

मांडल का नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सवे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

कगदाडा

कूनचपूनड

119

122

121

123

103

104

105

नाला

(ii)

4163

कगदाडा

कूनचपूनड

635

636

634

637

615

कगदाडा

कापुगल्लु

441

523/1

कच्चा रास्ता

523/2

524/1

522/1

561/1

527

563

560

564

565

कच्चा रास्ता

624

623

622

619/1

621/1

651/1

653/1

4164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कगदाडा

कापुगल्लु

655

656

662

661

कगदाडा

तगगरागई

170

169

177

166

165

163

162

161

159

158

155

रास्ता

104

109

111

100

[फा. सां. आर-25011/3/2017-ओआर- आई /48335]

पवन कुमार, अवर सनचव

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2017

S.O. 1688.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Telangana a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip -

Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip - Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification;

(ii)

4165

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M.

Narayana Rao, Competent Authority (Telangana), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip

Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 264/A, 2^nd Floor, above Canara Bank, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -

500 033 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1)

of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

SCHEDULE

District : Suryapet

State : Telangana

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Kodad

Kuchipudi

119

122

121

123

103

104

105

Nala

635

636

634

637

615

Kodad

Kapugallu

441

523/1

4166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kodad

Kapugallu

Cart Track

523/2

524/1

522/1

561/1

527

563

560

564

565

Cart Track

624

623

622

619/1

621/1

651/1

653/1

655

656

662

661

Kodad

Togarrai

170

169

177

166

165

163

162

161

159

158

155

Road

104

109

111

100

[F. No. R-25011/3/2017-OR-I/48335]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

(ii)

4167

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2017

dsUæh; ljdkj] iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ½

vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II ] [kaM 3, mi[kaM ¼ii½

ds varxZr la[;k 866, 28 ekpZ 2017 dks çdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds iSVªksfy;e ,oa çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk

la[;k dk- vk- 967¼v½ rkjh[k 24 ekpZ 2017 dh bl vf/klwpuk es dsaæ ljdkj fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS&

28 ekpZ 2017 dks çdkf'kr vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 967¼v½ rkjh[k 24 ekpZ 2017 esa &

i`"B la- 2 ds fgUnh o v¡xzsth ikB esa xzke fr#okudqye [kaM la- 19 ds vUrxZr çdkf'kr lHkh losZ uEcj] xzke

fr#okudqye [kaM la- 10 ds vUrxZr i<s o le>s tk,

i`"B la- 2 ds v¡xzsth ikB esa xzke e.kdqUue ds vUrxZr çdkf'kr lHkh losZ uEcj] xzke e.kdqUue [kaM la- 19 ds

vUrxZr i<s+ o le>s tk, A

[Qk- la- 31015@4@2015&vksvkj&II@37111]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2017

S.O. 1689.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) the Central Government

hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum &

Natural Gas S.O. 967 (E) dated 24^th March 2017 published in page Nos. 1 to 2 in Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of

the Gazette of India No. 866 dated 28^th March 2017 namely.

In the notification SO No.967 (E) dated 24^th March 2017 published in the Gazette on 28^th March 2017.

1. At Page No. 2 all survey No. published under village Thiruvankulam Block. No. 19 shall be considered and

read under Thiruvankulam village Block. No. 10 in both English version and Hindi version.

2. At page No. 2, all survey No. published under village Manakunnam shall be considered and read under

Manakunnam Village Block. No. 19 in English version.

[F. No. 31015/4/2015/OR-II/37111]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2017

dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 909¼v½ rkjh[k 23 ekpZ 2015

tks Hkkjr ds jkti= la- 680 rkjh[k 1 vçSy 2015 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk esa layXu vuqlwph

esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor

iSVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu

çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk

dh Fkh;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 27 ebZ 2015 ls 30 twu 2015 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh ;

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us ] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu

fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS ]mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu

fd;k tkrk gS ;

4168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd

mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku dh rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA

: dsjy

: ,sjukdqye

: d.k;Uuwj

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

fr#okudqye ¼[kaM la 10 ½

557@7

[Qk- la- vkj&31015@4@2015&vksvkj&II@37111]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2017

S.O. 1690.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas SO No. 909 (E), dated 23/03/2015 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 680 dated 01/04/2015 issued under sub

section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962

(Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire

the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline

for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the

State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between

27/05/2015 to 30/06/2015

AND , whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in

the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this

notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government

vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KANAYANNUR

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

THIRUVANKULAM (BLOCK

. NO. 10)

557/7

[F. No. R.31015/4/2015-OR-II/37111]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2017

dsUæh; ljdkj] iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu) vf/kfu;e

1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk (4) ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3, mi[kaM ¼ii½ ds varxZr

la[;k 2427, 05 vDVwcj 2016 dks çdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds iSVªksfy;e ,oa çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k

dk- vk- 3151¼v½ rkjh[k 3 vDVwcj 2016 dh bl vf/klwpuk ds v¡xzsth ikB esa dsaæ ljdkj fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djrh gS&

(ii)

4169

5 vDVwcj 2016 dks çdkf'kr vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 3151¼v½ rkjh[k 3 vDVwcj 2016 esa i`"B la- 2 ifjPNsn la- 2 ij]

v¡xzsth ikB esa 1 twu 2016 ls 27 twu 2016 ds LFkku ij 6 twu 2016 ls 27 twu 2016 i<+k tk,A

[Qk- la- 31015@4@2015&vksvkj&II@37111]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2017

S.O. 1691.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Mineral

Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land Act 1962, (Central Act of 50 of 1962), the Central Govt. hereby makes

the following amendment in the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.

No. 3151 (E) dated 03/10/2016 published in pages 1 to 3 in part II section 3 sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India No.

2427 dated 05/10/2016 namely.

In the notification SO 3151 (E) dated 03/10/2016 published in the Gazette on 05/10/2016 at page No. 2 the

date mentioned in the second paragraph of preamble to notification in English version shall be considered and read 6^th

June 2016 to 27^th June 2016 in place of 1^st June 2016 to 27^th June 2016.

[F. No. 31015/4/2015-OR-II/37111]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2017

dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr] 1987½

ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky; ds iz'kkldh; fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn+}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gS %

01- deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe vLirky] ekuslj

[Lka- bZ&11016@1@2017&jk-Hkk-fu-]

nsosUnz flag] vkfFkZd lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2017

S.O. 1692.—In pursuances of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the

administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff where of have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi :

01. ESIC Hospital, Manesar

[No. E-11016/1/2017-RBN]

DEVENDER SINGH, Economic Adviser

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 6-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y- 22012@207@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1693.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 31/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 6.7.2017

[No. L-22012/207/2005 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

4170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 31 OF 2006

PARTIES : The management of 3 & 4 Incline Jhanjra Area of M/s. E.C.L.

V/s

Shri Sudhir Bhuia

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management :

Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman) :

Shri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated : 09.06.2017

AWARD

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), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/207/2005–IR(CM-II)dated 31.07.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in

dismissing Sh. Sudhir Bhuia, Timber Mistry U.M. No. 693474 w.e.f. 21.9.04 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled? ”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/207/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2006 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 31 of

2006was registered on 14.08.2006. 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 ex-workman,Shri Sudhir Bhuia (now deceased) through union representative has filed written statement.

He has alleged in his written statement that he was in permanent employment as Timber Helper at Jhanjra 3 & 4 Incline

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited bearing Man No. 693474. Due to sickness he was absent from duty with effect from

15.01.2004 to 30.03.2004. He reported for his duty with Sick Certificate etc, but he was not allowed to resume his duty,

rather he was chargesheeted vide Chargesheet No. AGT/JNR/3&4/04/63 dated 31.03.2004 for alleged unauthorized

absence, which was beyond his control. The workman replied to the Chargesheet and appeared before the Enquiry

Officer. He also submitted all his treatment papers, etc. for the perusal of the Enquiry Officer. Though, the workman

gave sufficient document to prove that he was bed-ridden in the period mentioned in the Chargesheet, but the Enquiry

Officer intentionally proved the charges as alleged in the Chargesheet. The management representative who appeared

as a witness stated all the false allegations against the concerned workman. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was not

based on enquiry records and the enquiry is against the principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was highly

prejudiced and biased against the concerned workman. From the date of dismissal the concerned workman is sitting

idle without any job. The dismissal of ShriSudhirBhuia from the service of the company is illegal and unjustified. The

workman has prayed that the management of Jhanjra 3 & 4 Incline of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited may be directed

to reinstate the workman in service with payment of full back wages for the period from the date of dismissal with all

consequential benefits.

The Agent of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied

the allegation of the ex-workman. He has alleged in his written statement that ex-workman Shri Sudhir Bhuia was

absenting from his duty since 15.01.2004 continuously without any permission or information and without satisfactory

(ii)

4171

cause and the ex-workman was in habit of absenting from duty unauthorizedly and as such the ex-workman was

chargesheeted under Clause 26.29 and 26.23 vide ChargesheetNo.CGM/JNR/PER/08/2004/1195 dated 26/28.07.2004.

The ex-workman failed to submit any satisfactory reply to the Chargesheet. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was held

into the said charges by the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry in presence of the delinquent. The delinquent

was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend his case in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The

charge of misconduct was fully established by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The

competent Authority issued 2^nd Show-Cause Notice to ex-workman, the explanation of workman was found

unsatisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority after perusal of the relevant documents passed the dismissal order dated

10/21.09.2001. The Agent of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

denied that the workman was absent due to his sickness or the workman was bed-ridden. The punishment of dismissal

is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

The workman has filed the following documentary evidences :-

(i) Photocopy of the Letter (termination of service) No.CGM/JNR/PER/08/2004/734 dated 18/21.09.2001,

(ii) Photocopy of the Reply of the workman to the Chargesheet, (iii) Photocopy of the 2^nd Show-Cause Notice bearing

No. CGM/JNR/PER/08/2004/1195 dated 26/28.07.2004, (iv) Photocopy of the Enquiry Officer’s Repot, (v) Photocopy

of the Enquiry proceeding dated 04.05.2004, (vi) Photocopy of the Letter No. AGT/JNR/3&4/04/20 dated 28.04.2004,

(vii) Photocopy of the Chargesheet bearing No. AGT/JNR/3&4/C-6/04/63 dated 31.03.2004, (viii) Photocopy of the

Death Certificate of Shri Sudhir Bhuiaand (ix) Photocopy of the Substitution Petition of Smt. Sangita Bhuia.

The Agent of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any

documentary or oral evidence. Neither party to the reference has examined any witness.

I have heard the argument of Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative on behalf of Shri Sudhir Bhuia,

ex-workman (now deceased) and Shri P. K. Das, learned Advocate on behalf of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under

Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative has argued that the workman was absent for a mere period of

2½ (Two and Half months) under compelling circumstances being sick. He was not afforded reasonable opportunity to

defend himself. He was not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. The workman was illiterate and due to mental

torture he expired during pendency of the Reference. On the other hand, Shri P. K. Das, learned Advocate has argued

that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The punishment of dismissal is

justified.

It is admitted fact that Shri Sudhir Bhuia, ex-workman was in employment as Timber Helper at 3 & 4 Incline,

Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also admitted fact that he was absent from

duty since 15.01.2004 to 30.03.2004. His absence was enquired into in domestic enquiry. After domestic enquiry he

was dismissed from service on 21.09.2004. The workman has challenged the enquiry proceeding being devoid of

principle of natural justice. The contention of workman is that he was absent under compelling circumstances being

sick, which has been denied by the Agent of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. At the very outset it is relevant to mention that delinquent workman ShriSudhirBhuiaexpired on

09.09.2007 during pendency of this Reference. His wife Smt. Sangita Bhuia has been substituted on 01.12.2009 by this

Tribunal.

Framing of charge is the first step taken for holding enquiry into the allegation on the decision taken to initiate

disciplinary proceeding. The Chargesheet was framed on the basis of the allegations made against the delinquent

employee. The Chargesheet was then served on him to enable him to submit his explanation. If the explanation is

satisfactory, the proceeding may be closed, otherwise domestic enquiry can be held into the charge. If the charges are

proved the penalty follows. The workman can only submit his proper explanation if the charges are properly framed

and the copies of relevant documents are supplied to the workman at the time of serving the Chargesheet, so that he

may submit proper explanation for perusal of the competent authority. Chargesheet is the foundation of domestic

enquiry. Before proceeding with the domestic enquiry, the delinquent workman must be informed clearly, precisely and

accurately of the charges levelledagainst him. It is the duty of the Employer / Competent Authority to indicate the

delinquent workman not only the precise nature of the charges but also the documents upon which the charges are

based. The Chargesheet should specifically mention the relevant documents upon which the workman is called upon to

Show-Cause, without which he can not submit proper explanation and defend himself. The object of framing charge is

that the delinquent workman not only must know what he is charged with but also to meet the charge and to defend

himself by giving proper explanation. If the copies of documents and name of witnesses are not supplied then the

delinquent workman can never meet the charges and submit proper explanation. It is, rather more necessary where the

workman is illiterate. On perusal of Chargesheet it is manifestly clear that the delinquent ex-workman (now deceased)

was not supplied copies of documents, attendance register, even names of witness was not disclosed to him. Apparently

it is violation of principle of natural justice.

4172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hon’ble Apex Court in Brij Bihari Singh v/s. Bihar State Financial Corporation, 2016 (148) FLR page 197 has held:

“It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but

also the testimony by which the accusation is supported.”

Shri R. N. Chatterjee (O.S.) was examined as management witness on 04.05.2004, though his name was not

mentioned in the Chargesheet issued to the workman. Shri R. N. Chatterjee, management witness has deposed in his

evidence regarding Form “C” Register and Form ‘G’ and ‘H” Registers. But the copies of those registers have not been

supplied to the delinquent workman. Even surprising enough, copies of those documents have not been filed in enquiry

proceeding nor it have been filed on the file of reference of this Tribunal. The delinquent workman was not afforded

opportunity of cross-examination of management witness Shri R. N. Chatterjee. The Enquiry Officer has written in the

enquiry proceeding that chargesheeted workman did not cross-examine the management representative.Whether the

delinquent workman was asked to cross-examine the management witness? The Enquiry Officer ought to have

recorded that delinquent workman was offered opportunity of cross-examination. If the delinquent workman was

unable to cross-examine on the very date of examination-in-chief, then Enquiry Officer ought to have adjourned for

next date and even then if the delinquent workman failed to cross-examine the management witness, then domestic

enquiry should proceed. From enquiry proceeding it is apparent that delinquent workman was not afforded opportunity

of cross examination.

10.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v/s. State of Maharashtra& Others, reported in AIR

2013 SC 58 has observed that cross-examination is an integral part of the principle of natural justice. If the delinquent

had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, the same can not be relied upon. In view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court, since the opportunity has not been afforded to the delinquent, then examination-in-chief of

management witness cannot be relied upon.

11.

On perusal of Enquiry Proceeding it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer has conducted all the proceedings,

examination-in-chief, statement of delinquent and cross-examination of delinquent in one day i.e. on 04.05.2004. The

delinquent workman submitted his medical paper during enquiry proceeding, but no finding has been recorded in this

regard. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned in his enquiry report dated 08.05.2004 that the workman is suffering from

Peptic Ulcer as per certificate submitted by him which is not a disease in which a person should remained bed-ridden .

Obviously Shri R. N. Chatterjee, (O.S) is not a medical expert. Without seeking doctor’s opinion his inexpert opinion

cannot be relied upon. It was better if the Enquiry Officer seek the opinion of doctor regarding medical certificate

submitted by delinquent workman. In Krushnakant B. Parmar v/s. Union Of India& Another, reported in 2012 (132)

FLR page 1023Hon’ble Apex Court has held that :

“ if the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty,

such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount

to unauthorized absence, but does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an

employee may abstain from duty including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, at

hospitalization etc. But in such a case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty. The

Disciplinary Authority required to prove that the absence was willful. In absence of such finding, an absence will not

amount to misconduct.”

The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any finding that the absence of delinquent workman Shri Sudhir Bhuiawas

willful, even no opinion of doctor was called for regarding medical papers submitted by workman, neither it was sent

for verification. If the medical papers were genuine, then absence of workman will not be willful.

12.

The enquiry has been conducted in utter violation of principle of natural justice. The workman was not

supplied with the copies of the documents for which he was charged with. He was not afforded the opportunity of

cross-examination of the management witness. Even his defence evidence was not considered. His medical papers were

not verified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S .L. Kapoor v/s. Jagmohan and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC page136

has held that :

“Natural justice is an inbuilt and inseparably ingredients of fairness and reasonableness. Strict adherence to the

principle is require, whenever civil consequences follow up, as a result of the order passed. Natural justice is an

universal justice. In certain factual circumstances even non observance of the rules will itself result any object. Thus

this principle is of supreme importance.”

13.

The workman has alleged in Para-10 of his written statement that he is sitting without any job though this fact

has been denied by the Agent of Jhanjra 3 & 4 Incline of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. But evasive denial will not

disentitle the workman for back-wages.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private

Limited(1979) 2 SCC 80has held that :

(ii)

4173

“The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be

invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the

relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is

found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his

responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the

employer. Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has

to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such

an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's

proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which

period the workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will be denied

the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and

it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled

to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal

rule.”

14.

In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Shri Sudhir Bhuiais entitled for full back wages from the

date of dismissal i.e. from 21.09.2004. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that Shri Sudhir Bhuiaexpired on

09.09.2007 during the pendency of Reference. Therefore, question of reinstatement does not arise. His wife Smt.

Sangita Bhuia has been substituted in place of her deceased husband Shri Sudhir Bhuia. She will be entitled for back

wages.

15.

In view of the above discussion, the action of management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Sudhir Bhuia (now deceased), Timber Mistry, U. M

No. 693474 is illegal and unjustified. The order of dismissal of Shri Sudhir Bhuia (now deceased) is set-a-side. It is

directed that Smt. Sangita Bhuia, the wife of deceased workman Shri Sudhir Bhuiawill get full back wages from the

date of dismissal i.e. 21.09.2004 till the death of Shri Sudhir Bhuiai.e. till 09.09.2007. The deceased workman Late Shri

Sudhir Bhuiawill be imposed punishment of stoppage of 2 (Two) annual 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

chlhlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 6-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@240@2005&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 47/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 6.7.2017

[No. L-22012/240/2005 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 47 OF 2006

PARTIES: The Management of Damagoria Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L.

4174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s.

Shri Parmeshwar Tiwari

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman) :

Shri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 21.06.2017

AWARD

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), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/240/2005–IR(CM-II)dated 03.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Koyala Mazdoor Congress from the Management of BCCL, Damagoria Colliery

that Shri Parmeshwar Tiwari may be treated as regular “Tripman” w.e.f. 16.11.1999 with all consequential

benefits with effect from the said date is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/240/2005–IR(CM-II)dated 03.08.2006 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 47 of

2006 was registered on 14.08.2006. 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 through his union representative has filed written statement. He has alleged in his written

statement that Shri Parmeshwar Tewari was appointed in at Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat

Coking Coal Limited in October, 1978 as U.G. Loader in Category-I under clause 9.4.2 of National Coal Wage

Agreement-I. He was regularized as Excavation Helper in Excv. Grade-E. He was subsequently regularized as

Excavation Helper in Excv. Grade-D w.e.f. January, 1999. Prior to his regularization as Tripman, Shri Parmeshwar

Tewari worked as Tool Issue Clerk for several years but he was neither regularized nor paid any differences of wages

for the same. After 21 years he was regularized as Tripman in Clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 29.04.1999 vide Office Order

dated 29.04.1999 on the certain terms and conditions. The Personnel Manager of C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking

Coal Limited by Order No. 1620A dated 07.07.1999 duly certified that all the terms and conditions have been fulfilled.

He continued to work as Tripman on regular basis with effects from 16.11.1999 but he was not paid even a single paisa

for his working in higher Grade as differences. Still he was getting his old pay as Excavation Helper in Excv. Grade-D.

The workman without notice was suddenly reverted to the post of Excavation Helper vide the Project Officer’s Letter

dated 17.04.2002 and subsequently stopped from working as Tripman also with effect from 19.06.2002. The ground of

reversion was that the concerned workman does not possess the educational qualification, whereas the workman’s

colleagues who possess the same certificate from same institution have already been regularized. On representation of

workman the matter was enquired by one Dy. C.P.M, Mr. Sinha and it was found that three persons were having the

same or similar certificates from the same organization have been regularized earlier to the regularization of the

workman.

The reversion of workman is illegal. The workman was asked to report for duty as Excavation Helper by the Agent

vide his letter dated 12.05.2003. The workman denied. He was chargesheeted on 05.12.2002. The workman was

allowed to resume his duty as Excavation Helper on his old post and not as Tripman in Clerical Grade which is highly

unfair and unjustified. The order of reversal is wrong and illegal and the workman Parmeshwar Tewari is entitled for

regularization and treated to be as Tripman with effect from 16.11.1999. Union has prayed that Shri Parmeshwar

Tewari be treated as Tripman in Clerical Grade-III with effect from 16.11.1999 with all consequential benefits with

regard to protection of pay, allowances, L.T.C, Promotion etc. Union has prayed that the Tribunal may kindly direct the

management of Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited to treat Shri Parmeshwar

Tewari as Tripman and all consequential benefits be allowed to him with effect from 16.11.1999.

The Agent of Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has alleged in his

written statement that the disputes regarding regularization of Shri Parameswar Tewari as regular Tripman with effect

from 16.11.1999 is entirely misconceived one. The concerned workman was regularized as Excavation Helper in Excv.

Gade-E from the post of Expl. Carrier in the year 1990. The concerned workman was regularized as Tripman/

Dumpman by the competent Authority vide Office Order No. BCCL/O&M/Regl/Dumpman-Tripman/1363 dated

(ii)

4175

28/29.04.1999. The Office Order was passed subject to fulfillment of certain norms and one of the conditions of the

same was that the minimum qualification of the incumbent should be Matriculation examination. Shri Parmeshwar

Tewari was posted at Damagoria Colliery under C. V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vide above

Regularization Order and was posted at Barora Area, where he did not join. Thereafter he was posted at NLOCP and

he again joined at Damagoria O.C.P. of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited on and from 11.12.1999 to perform the work

of Tripman/Dumpman provisionally. Shri Parameswar Tewari was given initial basic pay of Grade- III and the same

was duly communicated to him vide Office Order No.DC/Sr. PO/00/2000/342 dated 28/29.06.2000 issued by the

Project Officer, Damagoria Colliery. The concerned workman was directed to submit Matriculation Certificate as per

condition of the Office Order dated 28/29.04.1999. But instead of producing the same he submitted ‘Prathama’

qualification certificate issued by ‘Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad’. But as the said certificate is not equivalent to

Matriculation Certificate, the claim for regularization of the concerned workman was not considered and in view of

Office Order No. BCCL/O&M/888/2002 dated 20/22.03.2002 the competent authority has approved for cancellation of

the Office Order no. 1363 dated 28/29.04.1999. Since the workman has not fulfilled the terms and conditions laid

therein and Shri Parameswar Tewari was reverted back to his original job of Excavation Helper in view of his failure to

produce the said Matriculation Certificate. As per Cadre Scheme, regularization can only be effected if a person has

Matriculation Certificate and in the instant case the action of the management is totally justified in not considering the

concerned workman as regular Tripman/Dumpman. The action of management for cancellation of regularization order

from the post of Tripman/Dumpman is fully justified. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The workman has filed the following documents :

(i) Photocopy of the G.M. (MIS) B.C.C.L’s Letter/O.O No. 1863 dated 28/29.04.1999, (ii) Photocopy of the P.O’s

Letter No. 1625 dated 13/14.11.1999, (iii) Photocopy of the Sr. P.O./CV Area’s Letter No. 2528 dated 11.11.1999,

(iv) Photocopy of the P.M./CV Area’s letter No. 1620 A dated 6/7.07.1999, (v) Photocopy of the P.O’s Letter dated

13/17.04.2002, (vi) Photocopy of the P.M’s O/O No. 1922 dated 21/23.08.1999, (vii) Photocopy of the Dy. C.P.M’s

Letter dated 01.11.2002 (viii) Photocopy of the P.O’s Letter No. 2961 dated 10/12.05.2003 (ix) Photocopy of the

Certificate dated 22.12.1989, (x) Photocopy of the Notification dated 26.07.2001.

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

advocate of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

The Agent of Damagoria Colliery under C. V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has not filed any documentary

evidence or oral evidence.

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

Shri Parmeshwar Tewari, the workman and Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Damagoria Colliery

under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative for the workman has argued that the reversion of

Shri Parmeshwar Tewari is illegal and he possessed the necessary qualification of Matriculation and without

considering his certificate reversion to lower post is illegal and he should be regularized as Tripman with all

consequential benefits. Shri P.K. Das, learned advocate of Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking

Coal Limited has argued that the action of management of Damagoria colliery is fully justified.

It is admitted fact that Shri Parmeshwar Tewari was regularized as Excavation Helper in Excv. Grade- E. It is

not disputed that sometimes he had been working as Tripman. The basis of claim of workman is that he has been

regularized on the post of Tripman and after regularization as Tripman the workman can not be de-regularized or

reverted to lower post. He possesses necessary qualification. The Agent of Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s.

Bharat Coking Coal Limited has denied regularization of workman on the basis that he does not possess necessary

qualification which is pre-requisite for regularization. The workman has filed letter No. 1863 dated 28/29.04.1999. As

per this letter the concerned workman Parmeshwar Tewari has been provisionally regularized as Tripman in Clerical

Grade- III. The minimum qualification of the incumbent should be Matriculation examination. By letter No. 1922 dated

21.08.1999 the workman concerned has been approved in clerical Grade- III subject to fulfillment of conditions

mentioned earlier. By letter No. 1625 dated 13.11.1999 Shri Parmeshwar Tewari was authorized to work as Tripman.

By letter No. 2528 dated 11.11.1999 the workman was provisionally authorized to work on the post of Tripman with

condition that this interim order will be enforced till he has not confirmed by the competent authority. By letter dated

13/17.04.2002 Shri Parmeshwar Tewari was reverted from the post of Tripman to Excavation Helper. The Union has

relied on letter No. 1620A dated 06/07.07.1999. But this letter does not create any right in favour of workman because

the workman was temporarily regularized on the post of Tripman on certain specific terms and conditions. The

minimum qualification required for the post of Tripman was Matriculation. This condition was mentioned in letter No.

1363 dated 28.04.1999 and subsequently in letter No. 1922 dated 21.08.1999, letter No.1625 dated 13.11.1999, and

letter No. 2528 dated 11.11.1999.

4176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others V/s. M. L. Kesari and Others reported in 2010

(127) FLR page 12 has held that :

“where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed

does not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal”

In the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the minimum qualification of Matriculation is pre-

requisite for regularization of workman as Tripman. The workman has filed certificate of “‘Kendradhishak’, “Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad”. He has certified that Shri Parmeshwar Tewari has passed the “Prathama”

(Matriculation) in 2^nd Division in the year 1988.

There is no document to establish that degree of “Prathama” is equivalent to Matriculation. The union

representative has filed Notification issued by Government of India dated 26.07.2001. The Joint Secretary has notified

that high level committee has decided to recognize the “Prathama” examination being conducted by “Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Allahabad” for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired

qualification is a pass in matriculation. The recognition is provisional for a period of three years after which the

Committee will review the recognition granted. The Notification dated 26.07.2001 indicates that recognition is

provisional only for three years and it will be effective from 26.07.2001. It does not have retrospective effect, whereas

the certificate of “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad” has been issued on 22.12.1989 much before the Notification of

Government of India dated 26.07.2001. The Notification of Government of India does not create any right in favour of

workman, since the workman does not possess necessary qualification of Matriculation which is required minimum

qualification for the post of Tripman. The workman is not entitled for regularization as Tripman.

In view of the above discussion the demand of Koyala Mazdoor Congress from the management of

Damagoria Colliery under C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited that Shri Parmeshwar Tewari may be treated

as regular Tripman with effect from 16.11.1999 with all consequential benefits is not legal and unjustified. The

workman is 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 6-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@308@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1695.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 64/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 6.7.2017.

[No. L-22012/308/2004 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 64 OF 2005

PARTIES : The management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.

(ii)

4177

V/s.

Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate

For the union (Workman) :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 07.06.2017

AWARD

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), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/308/2004–IR(CM-II)dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited Coalfields Limited in dismissing Mr. Shib Kumar Ankuria, U.G Loader, U. M. No. 555070 from

services w.e.f. 17.07.1995 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? ”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/308/2004–IR(CM-II)dated 20.07.2005 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 64 of

2005 was registered on 17.08.2005. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

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

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

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

through their representative.

The workman Shri Shiv Kumar Akuria through his union representative has filed written statement. He has

alleged in his written statement that he was a permanent employee of the company posted at Khas Kajora Colliery

under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He was suffering from Jaundice. He was under the treatment of

Khas Kajora Colliery hospital from 03.12.1994 to 08.12.1994 but he was not cured. Thereafter he started treatment at

Sub-divisional Hospital, Asansol from 10.12.1994 to 23.03.1995. He came to colliery on 24.03.1995 and requested for

joining duty. He also submitted all treatment papers in support of his claim but he was not allowed to join duty. The

management issued Chargesheet bearing No. KMC/P&IR/C-6/19/468 dated 09.05.1995 for his absence from

01.12.1994. Shri Shiv Kumar Akuria attended his duty on 30.11.1994, he fell ill. Since his residence was away from

colliery so he reported the colliery doctor after two days. The Manager of the colliery allowed him to join duty with a

strong warning letter vide Letter No. KMC/P&IR/C-6/19/95 dated 18.11.1995. The management awarded harsh and

extreme punishment of dismissal vide ref No. KA/PM/C-6/10/P&IR/1202/3715 dated 17.07.1995.The punishment of

dismissal is very harsh and extreme which should not be awarded for absence due to sickness. He is not a habitual

absentee. He is not having any source of income. The workman has prayed that management of Khas Kajora Colliery

under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited should be directed to set-a-side the Dismissal Order and

direction to be issued to permit him to join his duty with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

The Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed written

statement and alleged that Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria, Underground Loader was absenting himself from duty with effect

from 01.12.1994 to 10.05.1995 without any permission or intimation to the management. As such he was

chargesheeted vide ref No. KKC/P&IR/C-6/19/468 dated 09.05.1995 for his misconduct under the Model Standing

Order. A domestic enquiry was held in presence of ex-workman and he was given all reasonable opportunity to defend

his case in accordance with the principles of natural justice. After conclusion of enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry

Officer submitted the Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the charges framed against him.

The Disciplinary Authority being satisfied with the Chargesheet, Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report awarded an

order of dismissal of the ex-workman from service vide Letter No. KA/PM/C-6/10/1202/3715 dated 17.07.1995. The

punishment awarded is not at all harsh. The workman is a habitual absentee. In the year 1993 his attendance was 26

days, in the year 1994 his attendance was 73 days. The delinquent workman was issued the following warning letters

prior to his dismissal (i) KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/93 dated 22.03.1993, (ii) KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/651 dated

02/03.07.1993 with last and final warning, (iii) Strong Warning: KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/588 dated 08/11.06.1994,

(iv) Strong Warning KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/1209 dated 19/23.11.1994. In view of above facts the punishment of

dismissal is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

4178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman has filed the following documentary evidences:

(i) Xerox copy of the identity card of Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria, Underground Loader of Khas Kajora Colliery,

(ii) Xerox copy of the Chargesheet dated 09.05.1995, (iii) Xerox copy of the reply of the Chargesheet, (iv) Xerox copy

of the Sick Certificate issued by M.O., Khas Kajora Colliery Dispensary, (v) Xerox copy of the Sick Certificate issued

by the M.S., Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol, (vi) Xerox copy of the Enquiry Proceedings, Enquiry Report and

Findings of the Enquiry Officer, (vii) Xerox copy of the Dismissal letter signed by G.M., Kajora Area dated

17.07.1995 (viii) Xerox copy of the letter of the Manager, Khas Kajora Colliery allowing Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria

with the warning on 18.11.1995, (ix) Xerox copy of the Order of Dismissal signed by the Manager, Khas Kajora

Colliery dated 20.02.1996, (x) Xerox copy of the Note Sheet dated 07.02.1997, (xi) Xerox copy of the Mercy Petition

of Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria.

The management of Khas Kajora Colliery has not filed any documentary evidence. Neither party to the reference has

examined any witness.

I have heard the arguments of Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative appeared on behalf of

Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria, the workman and Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Khas Kajora

colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the management.

Shri Rakesh Kumar has argued that due to absence of workman, Manager of colliery allowed to join the

concerned workman after issuing warning letter. Even then the Area General Manager passed the dismissal order which

is very harsh and should be set-a-side. In reply Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate has argued that Dismissal Order has

been passed by the Competent Authority. If sub-ordinate authority permitted to join the concerned workman, but

afterwards considering all the facts, the Disciplinary Authority/Competent Authority passed the dismissal order then

permission of joining by Colliery Manager will have no consequence. The dismissal order is bona fide and genuine.

It is admitted fact that Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria was a permanent employee of the company posted at Khas

Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also admitted fact that he was absent from

duty for which domestic enquiry was conducted and after enquiry the delinquent workman Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria

was dismissed. At the very outset it is relevant to mention that the workman has not challenged the validity and fairness

of the departmental enquiry in his written statement rather on 04.04.2007 he has accepted that he is not challenging the

departmental enquiry .The Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the order that since the fairness and validity of

the departmental enquiry was not challenged. Therefore, enquiry proceeding is held to be fair and valid. Now the only

question remains to be considered whether in the present facts and circumstances the punishment of dismissal is

justified?

The Agent, Khas Kajora colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in Para-7 of his written

statement that the concerned workman was previously absenting on several occasions. In the year 1993 his presence

was only 26 days and in the year 1994 he was present only on 73 days. In Para-8 of the written statement he has been

alleged that delinquent workman was issued several warning letters before absence from 01.12.1994 to 10.05.1995. He

has been issued warning letters vide letter (i) KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/93 dated 22.03.1993, (ii) KKC/P&IR/C-

6/10(2)/651 dated 02/03.07.1993 with last and final warning, (iii) Strong Warning: KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/588 dated

08/11.06.1994, (iv) Strong Warning KKC/P&IR/C-6/10(2)/1209 dated 19/23.11.1994. The workman has not denied

these allegations. The workman even has not filed any medical papers regarding his treatment. Therefore, in the present

facts and circumstances punishment of dismissal does not appear to be unjust or illegal.

So far as the argument of Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative for the workman is concerned it

has no substance. The competent authority has passed the order of dismissal, if sub-ordinate authority was sympathetic

and permitted to join the duty of concerned workman it will create no right in favour of delinquent workman. The

Disciplinary Authority was the competent authority to pass the Dismissal Order. The Manager of the colliery was only

the recommending authority, he/she was not the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary/Competent Authority after

considering the past performance of the concerned workman and the Enquiry Report passed the Dismissal Order.

10.

In view of the above discussion the action of management of KhasKajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Shib Kumar Ankuria, Underground Loader, U.M. No. 555070 from

service with effect from 17.07.1995 is legal and justified. The workman is 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

(ii)

4179

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZlh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 105@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 6-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@452@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 105/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 6.7.2017

[No. L-22012/452/1998 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 105 OF 1999

PARTIES : The management of Parascole Colliery of Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

V/s.

Smt. Sakina Turi

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management : Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman) :

Sri Rakesh Kumar, Union President

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 16.05.2017

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-22012/452/98 –IR(CM-II) dated 30/07/1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of Kajora Area of ECL in not providing

employment to the dependent of Smt. Sakina Turi as per Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

Having received the Order NO. L-22012/452/98 –IR(CM-II) dated 30/07/1999 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 105 of

1999 was registered on 18.08.1999/20.09.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

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

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

pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

4180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate for the management is present. None appears on behalf of

the Union/Workman.

On perusal of the case record it is found that the case was fixed for evidence of workman on 03.10.2016 but

neither the union nor the workman took any necessary step to file evidence. The case is also very old and several

opportunities were granted to the union to substantiate his case filing evidence of workman. Even registered notice was

issued to the union on 12.01.2016. But the union did not respond. It seems that the workman/union has now no interest

left to proceed with the case further. The case is also 18 years old. As such I have no option left but to close the case.

As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

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

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

,elh,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-6-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@123@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1697.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 19/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. MCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 27.6.2017

[No. L-22012/123/2008 - 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. 19/2009

Date of Passing Award – 09^th June, 2017

Between:

The Project Officer,

Bharatpur OCP of MCL, Po. Balanda,

Angul.

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Darshani Kumar Sahoo,

Dumper Operator, Bharatpur OCP of MCL,

Po. Balanda, Angul.

…2^nd Party-Workman

(ii)

4181

Appearances:

Shri M. K. Singh,

… For the 1^st Party-

Sr. Officer (P & A)

Management

Shri D. K. Sahoo.

… For himself the 2^nd Party-

Workman

AWARD

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

“Whether the demand of the Union for promoting Shri Darshani Kumar Sahu to the post of Sr. Dumper

Operator along with service benefits w.e.f. 1995 as per Cadre scheme is legal and justified? To what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?”

made by the Government of India, 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 the

“Act”) vide letter No. L-22012/123/2008 – IR(CM-II), dated 23.03.2009.

The case of the 2^nd party-Union is that the workman Shri Darshani Kumar Sahu was appointed as a Dumper

Operator (Trainee) in “V” Category on 20.4.1988 and he was posted in Lajakura Open Cast Project of Ib valley area.

After completion of his probation i.e. training period on 20.10.1988, he was given full-fledged appointment of Dumper

Operator in the said category. He was promoted to the next higher cadre of Dumper Operator, Grade-III in Group-D

with effect from 26.10.1989. While continuing in the said cadre he was transferred from Lajakura Open cast Project to

Bharatpur Colliery on 04.09.1990. He was supposed to be promoted to the next cadre of Dumper Operator in Group-C

after completion of two years as Dumper Operator, Group-D. But, he was promoted to the post of Group-C Dumper

Operator on 22.1.1997 after completing seven years in Dumper Operator, Group-D cadre and then he was promoted to

the cadre of Dumper Operator, Grade-B on 01.01.2001 and then the cadre of Senior Dumper Operator, Grade-A on

01.01.2005. It is the claim of the 2^nd party-Union that his counter-parts, who were appointed along with him, were

given promotion from Group-D cadre to Grade-C cadre after completion of two years service in Grade-D cadre,

whereas the Management took seven years to give promotion to the disputant workman from Grade-D to Group-C

category, though the circular No. PD/EXCV. Staff/72/1, dated 02.01.1978 of the Management requires such promotion

be given after completion of two years. The counter parts of the disputant workman and his juniors including one Shri

U. Pothal were given promotion in time as per the circular of the Management whereas, there was an abnormal delay in

giving promotion to the disputant workman. As a result of which the counter-parts of the disputant workman had their

promotion to Dumper Operator in Grade-A category much prior to the disputant workman. There was no default on the

part of the disputant workman for which he cannot be denied timely promotion. Hence, prayer has been made to extend

promotion to the disputant workman from one cadre to another cadre as per the Scheme enunciated in the circular dated

2.1.1978 along with all consequential financial benefits with retrospective effect.

Being noticed the Management appeared and filed its written statement taking a stand that promotion to the

higher cadre is not a matter of right and it is always subject to eligibility, suitability and efficiency/competency as well

as availability of posts. Promotion of Dumper Operators to higher cadre is always subject to qualifying in a trade test

conducted by the Management and clearance by the D.P.C. as per the guidelines/circular of the Management. It is their

case that the disputant workman failed to qualify in the trade test held in the year 1993 for which the D.P.C. did not

clear his name for his promotion from Group-D operator to Group-B Dumper Operator in the year 1993. D.P.C.

cleared his name after he became successful in the test in the year 1997, when the next D.P.C. was held after the D.P.C.

held in the year 1993. The Management was no way responsible for such delayed promotion of the disputant workman.

According to the Management the counter-parts of the disputant workman and some of his juniors were given

promotion as they qualified in the trade test and their names were cleared by the D.P.C. Promotion to the next cadre is

being given as per the seniority-cum-suitability of the candidates. The claim of the disputant workman is not genuine

and he cannot be given promotion in different cadres with effect from the date on which his counter-parts or juniors

were given promotion as he failed to qualify in the D.P.C. held in the year 1993. Thus, the Management has submitted

for rejection of the claim of the disputant workman.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled.

ISSUES

Whether the demand of the Union for promoting Shri Darsani Kumar Sahu to the post of Dumper Operator

along with service benefits with effect from 1995 as per Cadre Scheme is legal and justified?

To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

The disputant workman has examined himself as W.W.-1 and relied upon the documents like the circular

dated 02.01.1978 of the Management regarding the procedure of placing of Dumper Operator Grade-II in the scale of

4182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Grade-I, copy of the revised final seniority list of Senior Dumper Operator Category-A, National Coal Wage

Agreement – VII Implementation Instruction No. 21, dated 31.8.2007 and copy of the cadre scheme of promotional

channel for excavation personnel Dumper Operator of the Management, which are marked as Ext.-1 to 3/1. It is

pertinent to mention here that the Management took part in the proceeding till closure of evidence on the part of the 2^nd

party-Union. But, it failed to appear thereafter and adduced any evidence in support of its stand.

FINDINGS

The disputant workman has testified in support of his pleadings advanced in his statement of claim. In his oral

testimony he has specifically stated that his counter-parts and his juniors including one U. Pothal were given promotion

earlier in different cadres of Dumper Operators as a result of which they reached to the cadre Group-A Dumper

Operator much prior to him. According to him one Shri U. Pothal was junior to him and he was given promotion as per

the Scheme to the post of Dumper Operator in Grade-C, Grade-B and Grade-A for which he got the promotion in

Grade-A cadre much earlier to him. His counter-part and his junior Shri Pothal were promoted to the Grade-C cadre in

the year 1989, to Grade-B cadre in the year 1991 and to the Grade-A cadre in the year 1997, whereas he was promoted

to Grade-C cadre in the year 1997 and to the B-Cadre in the year 2001 and to the Cadre of A in the year 2005. There

was a delay of nine years in getting promotion to Grade-A Dumper Operator for which he sustained financial loss. It is

his specific evidence that in his case promotion to the next cadre was not given as per the guidelines and circular of the

Management. The delay was caused due to blatant violation of the guidelines and circulars of the Management. There

is no serious dispute from side of the Management that Circular dated 02.01.1978 is usually followed while considering

promotion of the Dumper Operators from one cadre to next higher cadre. On a close reading of the documents filed by

the disputant workman and the contentions advanced by the parties, it is seen that the Management has not seriously

disputed any of the documents relied upon by the disputant workman. On a close reading of those documents it is

found that Dumper Operators in D-Category are eligible for promotion to the Dumper Operator C-Category after

having one year experience as Dumper Operator in Excavation Category-D, Operator in Category-C is eligible for

promotion to Operator Category-B after having three years experience in Category-C, Dumper Operator Category-B is

eligible for promotion to Operator, Category-A after having experience of four years in Category-B. The promotion

from Category-D to Category-C is also subject to clearance in trade test and next promotions are subject to clearance

by D.P.C. No serious dispute is also raised by the Management to the gradation list (Ext.- 2) filed by the disputant

workman. As per the said list Dumper Operators who joined in the service in the year in which the disputant workman

joined and Shri U. Pothal who joined subsequent to the disputant workman are found to have been given promotion in

different cadres much prior to that of the disputant workman. There is also no serious dispute to the claim of the

disputant workman that they were given promotion in different cadres after completion of period of experience as

required for next promotion whereas, the disputant workman took seven years to get his promotion from Group-D

cadre to Group-C cadre. It is elicited from the cross examination of the disputant workman that he appeared the D.P.C.

in the year 1993 and in the year 1997 for getting his promotion from Group-D to Group-C category of Dumper

Operator.

Though, the Management has taken a specific stand that he was not qualified in the D.P.C. held in the year

1993, not a single scrap of paper has been filed or any oral evidence is adduced to establish that the disputant workman

failed to qualify in the trade test or D.P.C. did not clear his name for his next promotion. On a close scrutiny of the

cross examination of the disputant workman it is seen that the Management has failed to demolish the testimony of the

disputant workman in regard to discrimination of the Management while ignoring his claim for promotion. When there

is nothing on the record produced on behalf of the Management to assign any reason for which the disputant workman

was denied promotion as per the guidelines and circulars and there is no serious dispute that the counter-parts and the

junior to the disputant-workman were given promotion earlier, there is no alternative than to hold that the disputant

workman was discriminated and his claim for promotion as per his counter-parts and juniors cannot be ignored without

any valid reason. When the Management has failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its

claim that the promotion of the disputant workman was taken into consideration simultaneously along with his counter-

parts and his juniors and he was not found suitable and there is valid reasons to with-held his promotion, it is to be

presumed that the disputant workman was also eligible for promotion like his counter-parts and juniors from Group-D

Dumper Operator to Group-C Dumper Operator. Had he been promoted to the Group-C cadre in the year 1993, he

could have reached to the cadre of Group-A at least by the year 1999 as per the Scheme. The Management having

failed to establish that the disputant failed to qualify in the trade test he was not successful in the D.P.C. held in the year

1993, there is no reason to deny promotion to the disputant workman in the year 1993. Further, it is noticed that the

disputant workman Shri Sahu was given promotion in other cadres within the time frame, whereas there was delay in

giving him promotion from D-Category Dumper Operator to C-Category Operator. Hence, it is also difficult to accept

that he could not qualify in the trade test on in the D.P.C. held in the year 1993.

For the reasons mentioned above the disputant workman is entitled to get his promotion from Dumper

Operator in Group-D post to Dumper Operator in Group-C cadre at least in the year 1993. Accordingly his promotion

in the cadre is to be advanced and the same shall be effective on the dates in which his junior Shri Pothal is given

promotion in different cadre of the Dumper Operator. He is also entitled to all consequential financial benefits in the

higher cadre from the date of his promotion.

(ii)

4183

Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the disputant workman.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

5-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22011@17@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1698.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 5/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati 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 5.7.2017

[No. L-22011/17/2015 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No 05 of 2015

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :—

The Management of F.C.I, Zonal Office, Guwahati and 02 ors.

Vrs.

F.C.I Handling Workers Union, New Delhi.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workmen.

: Mr. A.Kalita, learned Advocate.

For the Management. : Mr. S. Chakrabarty, Learned Advocate.

Date of Award : 18.05.2017

AWARD

The present reference arose out of an Industrial Dispute between the workmen represented by F.C.I. Handling

Workers Union, New Delhi and the management of FCI. According to the Central Government, an Industrial Dispute

exists between the employer in relation to the Management of F.C.I, and their workmen in respect of the matters which

has been specified in the Schedule as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Executive Director (NEF), Food Corporation of India, Zonal

Office, G.L.Publication Building, 4^th Floor, G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati, General Manager(Region), Food

Corporation of India ,Regional Office, Assam, G.S.Road,Ulubari, Guwahati and the Area Manager, Food

Corporation of India, District Office, Nagaon, A.T.Road, Haibargaon, Assam in employing contract labourers

at the railway siding Haibourgaon, Assam w.e.f 01.01.2015 in place of direct labourers violating the

provisions of Section 9-A of ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to

and from which date?”

4184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claim of the workmen filed through the General Secretary of FCI Handling-Workers’ Union, 8651,

Arakashan Road, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055., was that the Food handling workers deployed under Departmental

Labour System at FCI,FSD, Senchowa and Itachali (Habibargaon) under FCI District Office, Nagaon were working for

last 20 years at Railway Siding Haibargaon. Subsequently the Union came to know that the Management of FCI

appointed Contractor and started operations through contractor w.e.f 01.01.2015 in place of Departmental System of

workers, who have been working for nearly 20 years and such appointment of Contractor adversely affected the

service of the existing departmental workers. After failure of the conciliation before the appropriate authority the

matter was sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India and the Government referred the matter to

this Tribunal with the aforesaid “reference”. The Union prayed before the Tribunal that the railhead operation of

Habibargaon be continued to be operated by the departmental workers of nearby FCI depots of Senchowa and

Itachali as was being performed since last 20 years and also prayed to pass order to fill up the vacancies caused.

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties. Union submitted the claim application and the

management submitted Written Statement.

The management’s plea was that only 96 handling labourers were working in FSD Senchowa , FSD Itachali

and ASWC Kutikatia and the same set of labourers also used to work at Haibargaon Railway siding on rotation basis.

Since the age of those labourers crossed 50 years and the quantum of work being huge the authority found operational

difficulty in getting the works executed and because of that the management arranged to engage contract labourers. In

very brief this was the reason for which the contract labourers were engaged.

However, before the evidence could start in the reference, a petition has been filed by the General Secretary of

the Food Corporation of India, Handling Workers Union Mr. Lakshman Singh who also submitted the Claim

Application on behalf of the FCI Handling-Workers’ Union. It has been stated in the petition that the management has

since engaged the replaced workers at FCI Godown and workers were also working under the Management and in view

of the aforesaid factual development the Union is not interested to proceed with the reference by adducing any

evidence. They also prayed for dropping the case. Learned Lawyer appearing for the workers’ Union also submitted

that when the affected labourers have already been taken back into service by the Management the Union does not want

to proceed with the matter. They prayed to drop the case.

In view of the aforesaid petition No. 139/17 submitted by the Workers’ Union side by its General Secretary,

Mr. Lakshman Singh, this Reference stands disposed of with an award of no relief.

Send the no relief Award to the Ministry as per procedure immediately.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 18^th day of May, 2017 at Guwahati.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 5-7-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22011@57@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1699.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 15/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.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 5.7.2017.

[No. L-22011/57/2009 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

(ii)

4185

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 15/2010

Ref. No. L-22011/57/2009 IR(CM-II) dated 28.07.2010

BETWEEN :

The Joint Secreetary

FCI Worker Union,

8585, Arkshan Road, Paharganj

New Delhi-110055

AND

1. The General Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-22011/57/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 28.07.2010 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 Joint Secretary, FCI

Worker Union, New Delhi and the General Manager, FCI, Vibhuti Khand, New Delhi for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE NOTICE DATED 24.05.2007 OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FCI, LUCKNOW FOR

CHANGE OF SERVICE CONDITION FOR INCLUSION OF WATCH & WARD DUTIES IN THE JOB

DESCRIPTION OF ANCILLARY LABOURERS IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?” TO WHAT RELIEF ARE

THE CLAIMANTS ENTITLED FOR?”

As per claim statement W-4 the petitioner workman’s Union has stated in brief that the claimant being Vice

President of FCI Union is authorized to file the claim statement. Registration of the Union has also been

mentioned in the claim statement. The petitioner has stated that the FCI issued a notice dated 24.05.2007

proposing change of service condition informing thereby that the departmental ancillary labourers working in UP

Region have also to perform the duty of watch and ward prescribed for the post of watchman in FCI, the said

notice was challenged before Dy. CLC on 01.06.2007 on the basis of Standing Orders issued by the department.

The matter was referred to this Tribunal.

The petitioner Union has further asserted that Section 9A of the I.D. Act. has not been duly followed by the

management neither the concerned Standing Orders are being followed. It has been asserted that the work of

ancillary labourers have been well defined vide letter dated 18.02.1994 issued by the FCI, policy has been laid

down as per settlement arrived at between the management of FCI Major Port and Representative Federation of

Port and Doc Workers.

The petitioner Union has stressed that the work and duty of watch and ward was different from that of the

ancillary labour. Circular dated 06.05.2002 issued by the FCI has also been referred in the claim statement and

duties of ancillary labours have also been mentioned in para 13. It has further been stated that the FCI,

Ahmedabad issued an order dated 29.08.2007 directing thereby that the ancillary workmen will work as Security

Guard, which was subsequently withdrawn on 05.09.2007 on the stand taken by the FCI Workers Union. With

the aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the petitioner to set aside notice dated 24.05.2007 for change of

the service conditions proposed by the FCI. Several documents have been annexed alongwith the claim

statement.

The management has filed written statement M-7, mentioning therein that in order to utilize gainfully the services

of surplus ancillary labours it was proposed to deploy them on watch and ward duties since FCI does not have

adequate Watch and Ward staff of its own, while Watch and Ward duties in offices, depots etc. of FCI had to

spend lakhs of rupees per month. Therefore a notice of 21 days was issued by the UP Region on 24.05.2007 in

accordance with Section 9A of the I.D. Act., the management has referred Tripartite Settlement dated 17.12.2008

with reference to the FCI departmental labourers of closed Chennai Port. The management has requested to reject

the claim statement accordingly. Certain photo copies have been enclosed along with written statement.

With strong denial of the facts mentioned in the written statement while reiterating the pleas taken in the claim

statement earlier, the petitioner union has filed rejoinder W-10 alongwith annexures.

The management filed certified copies of memorandum of settlement dated 17.12.2008 as M-16.

Learned AR for the workman endorsed on the order sheet of the Court file on 29.06.2012 that documents relevant

for disposal have already been filed and there is no need to file additional evidence. Thereafter the then Hon’ble

4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Judge fixed date for management evidence. The management also did not adduce any oral evidence, although

sufficient opportunity was provided.

10.

Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length, and record has been scanned thoroughly.

11.

It is an admitted fact to both the parties that the workman Sri M.C.Parida is an employee under the management

of FCI and the FCI has issued a notice expressing its intention thereby to utilize his services as Watch & Ward

employee. The workman has alleged that mandatory provision of the I.D. Act. has been ignored and the notice

dated 24.05.2007 being legally not sustainable, is liable to be set aside. The opposite party has asserted that in

order to utilize the services of surplus ancillary labours for watch and ward duties, in addition to the services

already rendered by them UP Region office of FCI has issued 21 days notice on 24.05.2007, keeping in view the

provision of Section 9A of the I.D. Act. Learned AR for the opposite party has asserted that there is no illegality

in it.

12.

Learned AR for the workman has referred a letter dated 06.05.2002 issued by Joint Manager, FCI, HQ, New

Delhi and addressed to all Zonal Manager FCI, New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai, Gawahati. Learned AR

for the management has referred the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.12.2008, executed at Chennai

regarding change of service conditions proposed by the FCI under Section 9 A of the I.D. Act.

13.

Both the parties have alleged that the aforesaid letters/MOS do not apply to the facts of the present case, taking

into account the rival claims of the parties before this Tribunal.

14.

Further the workman has submitted alongwith his affidavit W-10, another MOS dated 09.10.2007, executed at

Ahmedabad. The opposite party has stressed that this MOS would not apply to the present case.

15.

9 A of the Industrial Dispute Act.1947 reads as under;

“9A: No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in

respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change,-

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the

nature of the change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change-

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any (settlement or award); or

(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence

Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other

rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official

Gazette, apply.”

16.

Memorandum of Settlement, is a kind of document mentioning therein the terms and conditions to which the

Workers Union and the Management agree. This document of amicable settlement, undoubtedly is conducive to

the betterment of the Institution/Management, without ignoring the genuine welfare of its employees. Therefore,

the applicability of the aforesaid MOS dated 09.10.2007 and 17.12.2008, has got its genuine legal limitation in

the present context.

17.

Duties performed by any other workman or ancillary labours, may not be equated with the duties assigned to any

security person/watch and ward staff which is of specialized nature. It may seriously effect the security of the

premises under the control of the management. The intention of the legislature while incorporating Section 9A in

Chapter II A of the I.D. Act., was not to relax the security perception or to have scope for any compromise in this

regard.

18.

It may be quite pertinent to emphasise here that none of the parties, adduced any oral evidence before this

Tribunal, neither opted for any opportunity to cross-examine the material witness. Arguments advanced by both

the parties relate to the pleadings, affidavits and the documents submitted before this Court. The deployment of

departmental ancillary labours for duties other than those pertaining to “Watch & Ward”, does have any patent or

latent legal hinderance. However, in ordinary course without importing proper training, watch and ward duties

should not be assigned to other workman or ancillary labours.

19.

After having heard both the parties at length in the light of the record available before this Court, it is inferred

that the notice dated 24.05.2007 issued by the management of the FCI for change of service conditions so as to

assign the duties of “Watch & Ward”, can not be treated as feasible, justified or legal. The aforesaid notice dated

24.05.2007 is liable to be set aside. The workman/claimant is entitled to the consequential relief accordingly.

20.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

01.05.2017

(ii)

4187

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1 & 2/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2017.

[No. L-29011/3/2008-IR (M),

No. L-29011/4/2008-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 2^nd June, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 1 and 2 of 2010

(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 M/s. ACC Ltd. and various Contractors and

their workman)

BETWEEN :

ID 1/2010

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Coimbatore Cement Workers Union

No. 3/117, Palakkad Road, K.R. Ramasay

Nilayam, Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai

Coimbatore-641105

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

The Management of ACC Ltd.

Madukkarai Cement Works, Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Alfa Engineering Construction

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

M/s. A.C.C. Ltd.

Madukkarai-641105

M/s. Banu Engineering

2^nd Party/3^rd Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd.

Kurumpapalayam

Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

4188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. Safeline Electrical

2^nd Party/4^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd. , Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Bharathi Builders & Constructions

2^nd Party/5^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd.

Madukkarai-641105

M/s. Shiva Industrial and Engineering Works

2^nd Party/6^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd.

No. 17/3-21-A, Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Latha Engineering Construction

2^nd Party/7^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd.

No. 16/187, Latha Nivas

Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Fathima Contractor

2^nd Party/8^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd.

Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Sakthia Electricals

2^nd Party/9^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd. , Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

10. M/s. Chitra Contract

2^nd Party/10^th Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd., Madukkarai Post

Coimbatore-641105

11. M/s. Dutta Enterprises

2^nd Party/11^th Respondent

MIG-II, 2636, M.P. Housing Road

Industrial Estate, Bhilai

Madhya Pradesh-460026

ID 2/2010

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

Coimbatore Cement Workers Union

No. 3/117, Palakkad Road, K.R. Ramasay

Nilayam, Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai

Coimbatore-641105

AND

The Senior Manager

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Associated Cement Co. Ltd.,

Madukkarai Cement Work

Coimbatore-641105

M/s. Dutta Enterprises

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

C/o A.C.C. Ltd., Bhilai

Madhya Pradesh-460026

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s. S. Arunachalam Associates, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/2 – 10^th Respondent

M/s. Sai Raaj Associates, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/11^th Respondent

M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

(ii)

4189

S.No.

Industrial Dispute No.

Reference Number & Date

1/2010

L-29011/3/2008-IR(M) dated 23.12.2009

2/2010

L-29011/4/2008-IR(M) dated 23.12.2009

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide the above order of references referred the IDs

mentioned above to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference in the above IDs are as under:

ID 1/2010

“Whether the contracts between the Management of ACC Ltd., Madukkarai Cement Works and their Contractors are

sham and nominal and the contract workmen are entitled for reinstatement and for permanent absorption by M/s. ACC

Ltd., Madukkarai Cement Works. What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

ID 2/2010

“Whether the contract between the Management of ACC Ltd., Coimbatore and their Contractor M/s. Dutta Enterprises

is sham and nominal and the contract workmen are entitled for reinstatement and for permanent absorption by M/s.

ACC Ltd., Madukkarai Cement Works. What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

The averments in the in the Claim Statement in ID 1/2010 are as below:

The petitioner is a recognized union. The 1^st Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cement in

Madukkarai in Coimbatore District. There are more than 800 employees and Officers including members of the

petitioner union, both permanent and contract labourers in the 1^st Respondent establishment. The list of contract

workers who are seeking relief in the reference is annexed to the Claim Statement. Hundreds of workers are employed

through various Contractors by the 1^st Respondent for its plant at Coimbatore and in the Mines in the area. Production

in the factory is always in full swing throughout the year. The 1^st Respondent has outsourced its work through various

Contractors including Dutta Enterprises, the 11^th Respondent. Many of the Contract workers have been working under

the 1^st Respondent from 1992 onwards and had put in more than 480 days of continuous service in 24 calendar months.

The list of Contractors working under the First Respondent would show that there are about 132 Contractors under the

First Respondent. It is only from 1994 onwards Contract Labourers are introduced in various manufacturing and

processing units including electrical, fabrication, erection, limestone and raw material shifting, packing and loading,

etc. Contract labourers are employed for mining activities in the mines at Madukkarai and Valayar also. Even though

lime is extracted continuously from the mines, the regular workers in the mines have been replaced by contract

workers. The contract labourers are exploited by the First Respondent as well as the various Contractors. The work

done by these workers are permanent and perennial in nature and is part and parcel of production activities. At the time

of inception of the factory, contract labour system was not prevailing in the factory. However, at present out of the

total 800 employees almost 50% are employed under various Contractors. The provisions of the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act is not followed. The petitioner had requested the First Respondent by its representation

dated 15.03.2006 to stop engaging contract labourers in all the units. The workers are not given bonus, festival leave,

overtime wages or other leave benefits even though they are statutorily eligible for these. The workers have not

been regularized even though they have been working continuously. In reply to the representation from the petitioner

the First Respondent has stated that it is not possible to regularize the contract workers. The contract workers are under

the direct supervision of the First Respondent though engaged for namesake under a Contractor. The First Respondent

has not been recruiting employees in the vacancies arising even on retirement. When conciliation proceedings was

pending before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner the Management instigated a Contractor to intimidate the workers and

threatened them to severe their membership with the Petitioner Union. The First Respondent also dismissed 27 contract

labourers belonging to Petitioner’s Union from service orally, between 27.10.2006 and 31.10.2006, under the pretext of

transferring them to other States. An order may be passed holding that the contracts by which the concerned

workmen are employed by the First Respondent are sham and nominal and also holding that the workmen are

entitled for permanent absorption with the First Respondent and are also entitled to pay on permanent scale and all

other attendant benefits.

4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows :

The First Respondent has 14 cement factories throughout the country. In the Madukkarai unit it has got two

limestone mines, one at Madukkarai and another at Valayar. There is an employee’s colony with 750 quarters for

employees of different level put up in an area of 45.62 acres. It is the responsibility of the First Respondent to provide

roads, water supply and electricity to the residents of the employees colony. Periodically, civil repair work,

whitewashing, painting, etc are also to be done. These jobs are of different dimensions with regard to frequency,

duration and volume of work. Even though the First Respondent is having its own maintenance staff for regular and

preventive maintenance in the factory, contract labour is resorted to for carrying out jobs which do not add value to the

products. Other cement factories are also engaging contract labour for such purposes. The First Respondent is

registered as a principal employer under the Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Contractors are

primarily engaged for civil work, pipeline work, electrical installation, maintenance of roads, cleaning of the colony,

cleaning of the factory premises, gardening, unloading of personal effects, fabrication, mechanical repairs, etc. Before

the date of reference, the Second Respondent had terminated the contract settling all dues with the First Respondent.

The Fourth Respondent had also terminated the contract in August 2007. The First Respondent had entered into

written contract with each of the Respondents 2 to 10. It used to issue purchase orders specifying the nature, quantum

and rates for the work. The contractors used to maintain separate muster roll and also wage register for their workmen

who were engaged as contract labour. The First Respondent used to depute its representative to be present at the time of

disbursement of wages to the contract labour. Beyond that the First Respondent was not exercising any supervision or

control over the workmen engaged by Respondents 2 to 10. The contracts between the First Respondent and other

Respondents are real and genuine. The allegations that the contracts are sham and nominal is not correct. Apart from

Respondents 2 to 10, there are 35 more Contractors carrying out contract jobs for the factory and the colony.

Respondents 4 to 10 were not made parties to the conciliation proceedings. It is incorrect to state that the contract

labour were engaged for work of perennial nature directly connected with the factory. The petitioner is not entitled to

any relief.

The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:

The Second Respondent was doing contract work for the First Respondent. He was carrying out mechanical

fabrication and engineering jobs for the Fist Respondent. He had terminated the contract in July 2009. Out of the 30

workmen purportedly under the second Respondent 20 workers were not in his employment at the time when the

contract was terminated. The First and Second Respondent having terminated the contract, the claim against him has

become infructuous.

The Third Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows :

None of the workmen of the Third Respondent made a demand for absorption in the service of the First

Respondent. The Third Respondent has only 54 workmen on its rolls at present. The Third Respondent has entered into

contract with the First Respondent for carrying out the work assigned to it. The workmen were paid wages and

contributions were made to the Provident Fund and ESI on their behalf. There is no scope for the contention that the

contract is sham and nominal. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The Fourth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Fourth Respondent had no knowledge of the dispute until it had entered appearance before this Tribunal.

The Fourth Respondent has terminated the contract in August 2007 and has disbanded its workforce. He had settled the

claim of all 13 workmen whom he had engaged when the contract was in operation.

The Fifth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:

None of the workmen of the Fifth Respondent had made a demand for absorption in the service of the First

Respondent. At present there are 55 workmen on the rolls of the Fifth Respondent. The claim is in respect of 59

workmen of the Fifth Respondent out of which 14 had left. The First Respondent used to give periodical purchase

orders for work to be done and pay charges for the same. All payments for the Fifth Respondent used to be made by

cheque. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The Sixth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Sixth Respondent had been a Contractor for the First Respondent from the year 1996. When the number of

his workmen exceeded 20, he had taken license under the Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, in 2004.

Now there are 107 workmen on the roll of the Sixth Respondent. The claim is made in respect of 20 workmen out of

which 8 have left. The other 95 workmen have not raised any dispute. The sixth Respondent has been discharging all

his statutory obligations in respect of the workmen engaged by it. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(ii)

4191

10.

The Seventh Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

None of the workers of the Seventh Respondent had made a demand to get absorption in the service of the First

Respondent. Out of the 22 workmen of the Seventh Respondent referred to in the Claim Statement, 8 have left. The

Seventh Respondent would be left without any business if the claim of the petitioner is accepted. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

11.

The Eighth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Eighth Respondent is engaged in the work of cleaning, loading and unloading, water supply, pipeline work,

etc. Out of the 27 workmen of the Eighth Respondent referred to in the Claim Statement, 10 have left. The remaining

workmen had not made any demand for absorption in the service of the First Respondent.

12.

The Ninth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as follows:

None of the workmen of the Ninth Respondent had made any demand for absorption in the service of the First

Respondent. The Ninth Respondent used to take contract for electrical wiring and installation work. At present there

are only 8 workmen on its rolls. The claim is made on behalf of 3 workmen out of this. The Ninth Respondent has been

discharging all its statutory obligations in respect of the workmen engaged by it. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

13.

The Tenth Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The workmen of the Tenth Respondent did not raise any demand for absorption in the service of the First

Respondent. At present there are 48 workmen on the rolls of the Tenth Respondent. The Tenth Respondent has been

discharging all its statutory obligations.

14.

The Eleventh Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Eleventh Respondent has taken up contract for machinery maintenance of the First Respondent during the

year 1998. Initially it had engaged 18 contract labourers. When the strength of the workmen exceeded 20 the Eleventh

Respondent obtained license under CLRA Act. By the year 2006 the Eleventh Respondent had been engaging contract

labour in plants of the First Respondent at Wadi, Chaibasa and Lakheri also. Altogether there were 400 workers and

they were working as Fitters, Welders, Khalasis, etc. The Eleventh Respondent is stationed at Bhilai, Chattisgarh. He

had posted one Raju Daniel as Supervisor in the First Respondent establishment. He was supervising all the contract

labourers. Supervisor was allocating the work to the contract labours. All the contract labour used to report to the

Supervisor and was under his control. During September 2006 ACC Ltd. had given additional job to the Eleventh

Respondent in plants at Lakheri, Chaibasa, Jamui, Durg and Wadi. So it became necessary to mobilize more number of

experienced workmen for deployment. He informed the First Respondent that he will be dismantling his workforce in

the First Respondent and re-deploying them to various other plants. Accordingly, between 27.10.2006 and 31.10.2006,

69 workmen who were working with the Eleventh Respondent were deployed in other plants. Out of this 27 contract

labour failed to join the plants to which they were deployed. The Eleventh Respondent became the Contractor for the

First Respondent from the 1999 onwards only. So the allegation that workers were working from the year 1992 is not

correct. The work performed by the contract labour was not perennial or permanent in nature. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

15.

The petitioner in ID 1/2010 is the petitioner in ID 2/2010 also. The 1^st Respondent in ID 1/2010 representing

ACC Ltd. and the Eleventh Respondent (M/s. Dutta Enterprises) are the Respondents in ID 2/2010. According to the

Petitioner Union it had raised certain demands by its Demand Letter dated 08.04.2006. Since the Respondents

did not concede to its demands, a dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). When the

demand made by the petitioner as per letter dated 08.04.2006 was pending before the conciliation authority the Third

Respondent have orally transferred its 7 members on 27.10.2006 to Chaibasa, Lakheri and other ACC units. Later, on

31.10.2006 another 20 members were transferred to far off places in North India. When these workers reported for

duty, they were denied job on the pretext of transfer and they were orally terminated from service. The petitioner has

alleged that all the 27 employees were working under the 2^nd Respondent under the direct supervision of the First

Respondent. It is further stated that all those employees were employed in permanent job inside the factory and mines.

The petitioner has alleged that the 2^nd Respondent was acting just as a labour agent supplying labourers and had no

character of a genuine Contractor. Their engagement is said to have been with the intention of exploiting them. In the

ID the petitioner has claimed the relief of an award holding that the contract between the 2^nd Respondent (Dutta

Enterprises) and other Respondents are sham and nominal, that the termination of the 27 workmen is illegal, that they

are entitled for reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

4192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

The 1^st Respondent had filed a Counter Statement almost in tune with the Counter Statement filed in ID 1/2010

denying the case of the petitioner that the contract is a namesake one. It has further stated that the 2^nd Respondent was

awarded contract for maintenance of pollution control equipments and in due course the maintenance of captive power

plant, coal handling plant, raw mill, cement mill and kiln were added to his contract and he has taken license under the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CLRA). It is further stated that in the year 2006 the 2^nd Respondent

has disbanded his work force at Madukkarai and had posted them at other plants and the contract with the Second

Respondent was put an end to at the end of October, 2006. According to these Respondents, the 27 persons mentioned

in the Claim Statement are working as contract labour and there is no question of considering their claim for absorption

with the First Respondent.

17.

The 2^nd Respondent has filed a Counter Statement denying the allegations in the Claim Statement. It is stated as

below in the Counter Statement :

In the year 1991 the ACC Ltd. had entrusted the work of Engineering, Maintenance and Repair work in the

plant at Madhya Pradesh to the 2^nd Respondent. Subsequently, the 2^nd Respondent was requested to take up the contract

of machinery maintenance at the First Respondent and accordingly it had taken up the contract in the year 1998. When

the strength of the workmen increased to more than 20, the 2^nd Respondent had obtained license under CLRA Act. By

the year 2006, the 2^nd Respondent had been doing the work of the First Respondent in 6 other plants in different states

as well. The number of contract labour in all the plants put together was 400 and most of them were fitters, welders and

khalasis. One Raju Daniel was supervising the work of the 2^nd Respondent with the First Respondent. He was

allocating work to the contract labour. All the contract labour used to report to the said Supervisor. Wage was paid to

the contract labour by the Supervisor under instructions of the 2^nd Respondent. Wage Register and Attendance Register

were maintained by the 2^nd Respondent. During September, 2006 the ACC Ltd. had given additional jobs to the 2^nd

Respondent in other plants. So the 2^nd Respondent required more manpower in the new work spots. He decided to

dismantle the work force with the First Respondent and re-deploy them to various other plants. Accordingly, between

27.10.2006 and 31.10.2006, 69 workmen who were working as contract labour with the 2^nd Respondent were deployed

to different places such as Chaibasa, Lakheri, Durg, Wadi and Jamui. The 27 workers who are the workmen concerned

in the Claim Statement obtained Travel Allowance but failed to join the plant to which they were deployed. The

Petitioner Union had not raised any dispute about absorption. The allegation that the employees were working from the

year 1992 is not correct. The 2^nd Respondent had become a licensed contractor of the First Respondent from the year

1999 only. It is not correct to state that the 2^nd Respondent was only a namesake Contractor. All the employees were

paid minimum wages. The work performed by them was not perennial or permanent in nature. There had been no

termination of service of any of the employees. The contract between First and 2^nd Respondent had come to an end.

The contract was a genuine one. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

18.

The petitioner had filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement of the Respondents, denying their

allegations.

19.

The two cases were tried jointly on the basis of the joint memo field by the counsel on both sides, the parties to

ID 2/2010 being parties to ID 1/2010 as well and also because the issues to be considered are almost the same.

Evidence was recorded in ID 1/2010 which is the main case. The parties are hereinafter referred to in accordance with

their ranks in ID 1/2010 if not otherwise referred to.

20.

The evidence in the cases consists of oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext.W78 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M27.

21.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the contracts between the First Respondent and Respondents 2 to 11 in ID 1/2010 are sham and

nominal?

(ii)

Whether the workmen involved in ID 2/2010 are entitled to the relief of reinstatement?

(iii)

Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to be permanently absorbed with the First Respondent?

(iv)

What are the reliefs to which the parties are entitled?

The Points

22.

The dispute is mainly between ACC Ltd. at Madukkarai, Coimbatore the 1^st Respondent and the Petitioner

Union. The petitioner had annexed a list of the names of 269 workmen said to be working under the different

Contractors with the First Respondent. The list shows the names of the Contractors through which they were employed

also. The schedule of reference in ID 1/2010 is whether the contract between the First Respondent and its various

Contractors are sham and nominal. However, in the Claim Statement the petitioner has named Respondents 2 to 11 as

the 10 Contractors under whom the concerned workmen are working and not all the Contractors.

(ii)

4193

23.

The case that is advanced by the petitioner is that the workmen concerned were doing work of a perennial nature

and they had been working with the First Respondent for several years without any break and they are actually the

workmen of the First Respondent itself. It is alleged by the petitioner that the contracts said to have been entered into

by the First Respondent with the other Respondents are sham and nominal and they are to be treated as the employees

of the First Respondents and they are to be absorbed in the service of the First Respondent. The relief claimed in ID

1/2010 is to find hold that the contracts are sham and nominal and also to absorb the concerned workmen in the service

of the First Respondent. All the Respondents have filed Counter Statement resisting the case that the concerned

contracts entered into with the First Respondents are sham and nominal. In ID 2/2010 reinstatement and absorption are

claimed alleging that those involved in that were terminated under the pretext of transfer.

24.

The initial question to be considered is whether the case of the petitioner that the contracts are sham and

nominal is true. The case of the 11^th Respondent, Dutta Enterprises can be considered first. It is the 11^th Respondent

that had transferred 27 employees to various places in North India for the alleged purpose of re-deployment. Their case

is that it had put an end to its contract with the First Respondent to concentrate in the work with other plants of ACC

Ltd. The transfer of the 27 employees are said to have been for the purpose of re-deployment consequent to the

disbanding of its work at Madukkarai plant.

25.

The 27 workmen concerned are named in the list of the petitioner alongwith the Claim Statement in ID 2/2010.

They are named in the list attached to the claim statement in ID 1/2010 also. One among them has been examined as

WW2.

26.

The petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement that the majority of the workers have started working from

1992 onwards. It is also stated in the Claim Statement that the contracts entered into by the First Respondent with the

other Respondents including Dutta Enterprises are sham and nominal and actually they are working for the First

Respondent and their work was being supervised by the First Respondent. WW1, the General Secretary of the

Petitioner Union as well as WW2 have given evidence to establish the case that the contract is sham and nominal.

Apart from that, various documents are produced by the petitioner to prove the case. The counsel for the petitioner has

pointed out that as revealed from the documents the First Respondent as well as other Respondents had not complied

with the various provisions of CLRA Act regarding registration, license, etc. Apparently, the First Respondent has

obtained registration under the Act and the other Respondents have obtained license also. As pointed out by the counsel

for the petitioner the license produced will not cover the entire period. License pertaining to certain period are not seen

produced at all. However, there is no necessity to probe into these aspects in detail in view of the existing legal

position. The counsel for the First Respondent had referred to the decision in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

GREATER MUMBAI VS. K.V. SHRAMIK SANGH AND OTHERS reported in 2002 4 SCC 609 in this respect. Here

the Apex Court has held that merely because the principal employer was not registered under Section-10 of the CLRA

Act or because the Contractor had not obtained license under the Act it could not be concluded that labour contract was

sham or a camouflage. On the other hand, whether a contract is sham and nominal is to be decided based on the

evidence available. Another decision referred to by the counsel for the First Respondent in this respect is NATIONAL

THERMAL POWER CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. BADRI SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS reported in

2008 9 SCC 377. Here also it was held that a conclusion that the contract was sham or only a camouflage cannot be

arrived at as a matter of law for non-compliance with the provisions of the CLRA Act but a finding must be recorded

based on evidence particularly when disputed, by an industrial adjudicator as laid down in various decisions including

the Constitution Bench Judgment in SAIL (2001 7 SCC 1). The counsel has also referred to the decision in

GENERAL MANAGER (OSD), BENGAL NAGPUR COTTON MILLS, RAJNANDGAON VS. BHARATLAL AND

ANOTHER reported in 2011 1 SCC 635 in this respect. Here also the Apex Court has held that merely because the

principal employer and contractor had not complied with the provisions of the CLRA Act the system of carrying out

work through contract labour could not be termed as sham. So it is apparent that merely because the principal employer

does not have registration under CLRA Act or has committed some irregularity in obtaining registration or because

license obtained by the Contractors are not proper or even the fact that they are not having license at all are not factors

which should influence the decision on an issue whether a contract is sham and nominal.

27.

The counsel for the First Respondent has also argued that there is nothing to show even in the evidence that the

contracts entered into with the respective Contractors are sham and nominal. The counsel has referred to the decision

of the Apex Court laying down the principles on the basis of which the question regarding the nature of the contract is

to be considered. Reference was made to the decision in INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

VS. INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 13 SCC 374 in this

respect. The Apex Court has held here that the industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that the

contract between the principal employer and the Contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny

employment benefits to employee and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like who pays the

salary, who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action, who can tell the employee the

way in which the work should be done and in short who has direction and control over the employee. In the Bengal

4194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Nagpur Cotton Mills decision referred to earlier also this has been stated. It has been observed therein that two of the

well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract labour is a direct employee of the principal employer are whether

the principal employer pays the salary instead of the Contractor and whether the principal employer controls and

supervises the work of the employee.

28.

In the present case by merely answering the question as to who is paying the salary, the issue could not be

decided. When the Wage Registers marked as Ext.W65 to Ext.W69 and the Wage Slips marked as Ext.W70 on behalf

of Dutta Enterprises are taken into account it could be seen that the payment of salary is by the Contractor itself. The

Wage Registers are in the name of Dutta Enterprises and the Wage Slips would reveal payment in the name of Dutta

Enterprises itself.

29.

However, while considering the question who has been controlling the workers, whether the principal employer

or the Contractor, it requires better probe. Apart from this is the fact that the two tests referred to earlier are not

exhaustive but only inclusive in considering the question. It is apparent from the subsequent decisions of the Apex

Court that any relevant matter should be considered in deciding the question. The counsel for the petitioner has referred

to the decision in RAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS reported

in 2004 1 SCC 126 in this respect. It has been held in this that though in determining the relationship of employer and

employee control is one of the important tests, it is not to be taken as the sole test but all other relevant facts and

circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract. It is necessary to take a

multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the facts for and against the employment and instead of going by the sole

test of control, an integrated approach is needed, it was further held. It has also been observed that if an employer

retains and assumes control over the means and method by which the work of a Contractor is to be done it may be said

that relationship between the employer and employee exists between him and the servants of such a Contractor and that

in such a situation the mere fact of formal employment by an independent Contractor will not relieve the master of

liability where the servant is in fact in his employment. In such event it may be held that an independent Contractor is

created or is operating as a subterfuge and the employee will be regarded as the servant of the principal employer.

Whether a particular relationship between employer and employee is genuine or a camouflage through the mode of a

Contractor is essentially a question to be decided on the basis of the features of the relationship, the written terms of

employment, if any and the actual nature of the employment, it was held. The counsel has also referred to the decision

in BHILWARA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI S. LTD. VS. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS reported

in 2011 LLR 10 79 in this respect. In this the Apex Court has observed referring to contract system that labour statutes

are meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realized that the employers and the employees are not in

equal bargaining position and the protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited, but the new

technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen

under the various labour statutes by showing that the concerned workmen are not their employees but are the

employees/workmen of a Contractor or that they are merely daily wager or short term or casual employee when in fact

they are doing the work of regular employee. It was observed that such practices cannot be countenanced and that

globalization / liberalization in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers. It is

apparent in view of the proposition revealed from the above decisions that apart from the two aspects, who pays the

salary and who is in control, other relevant and material aspects are also to be considered in deciding whether a contract

is sham or nominal.

30.

The case of the petitioner is to be considered in the background of the dictum promulgated through the above

decisions also. The case that is put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the types of work for which Contractors are

engaged are already abolished through the recommendations of the Wage Board and subsequent Awards and in spite of

that the First Respondent has been resorting to the practice by taking advantage of the exceptions provided in the

Award. According to the counsel the First Respondent has been using the Wage Board recommendations and the

Awards as a cover to enter into contracts and this very fact makes the contracts sham and nominal. In this respect it is

relevant to refer to the various terms of Ext.W50, the Award of 1983 between employees in relation to Cement

Manufacturers Association and their workmen. Admittedly, the Award is still binding on the manufacturers and the

workmen. The Award refers to the previous Award and the recommendations of the Wage Board. It has been admitted

by MW1 examined on behalf of the First Respondent that the Award is binding on the First Respondent. Apart from

this in the notes of argument, the First Respondent referred to the previous Award and also the recommendations of the

Wage Board that are referred to in Ext.W50.

31.

It could be seen from Ext.W50 that the Cement Manufacturers could engage Contractors only for specified jobs

and there should be direct employment for all other jobs. Ext.W50 Award has extracted from the recommendations of

the First Wage Board for Cement Industry which states that the recommendations should apply to all cement industry

and quarries throughout India, whether the factories are already in production or will come into production in the

future. The recommendations are to be applied to the workers employed directly or through Contractors. One exception

is that it shall not cover workers employed by Contractors where such workers are engaged on construction work and

on purely temporary jobs not connected with the manufacturing process. While considering the demand of the workers

(ii)

4195

federation that no contract labour shall be engaged inside the factory or in the mines or on repair jobs of the roads of

the mines or on the connecting road where the company’s dumpers and trucks ply, the Award states that even in the

earlier Award it has been stated that the contract labour stands abolished by unanimous recommendations of the Wage

Board as far back as 1960 in all occupations except unloading, loading and packing and the only exception is those

employed in construction work or work of a purely temporary nature not connected with the manufacturing process.

Thus it could be seen that one of the exemptions is regarding workers engaged in construction work and on purely

temporary jobs which are not connected with the manufacturing process. Even if it is temporary job, if it is connected

with the manufacturing process contract workers cannot be engaged. Another exemption given is in the area of

transportation of limestone from quarries. The Award is not to apply to such workers working under Contractors

transporting limestone from quarries beyond 10 kms. If the distance from quarry to factory is 10 kms. or less the work

shall be done departmentally. The Award even directed that if anyone is employed in any occupations other than

permitted, such labour shall be made regular departmental employees under the employer and made eligible to the same

wages and other benefits as payable to the regular employees in similar occupations.

32.

In the light of terms of Ext.W50 and the recommendations of the Wage Board extracted by it, it is to be seen if

engagement of workers through Dutta Enterprises by the First Respondent is in violation of them. If the engagement is

in violation of the terms it will be an unfair labour practice as contemplated in Schedule-V of the Industrial Disputes

Act. Item-13 of the Award states that failure to implement Award, Settlement or Agreement is an unfair labour

practice. If engagement is made resorting to unfair labour practice on the basis of a contract, such contract is certainly

sham and is only a subterfuge used by the employer.

33.

The First Respondent has not stated specifically in its Counter Statement that contract with Dutta Enterprises is

only in respect of construction activity or temporary job unconnected with the manufacturing process. What is stated is

that there has been a maintenance department in the First Respondent establishment which used to attend to preventive

maintenance and repairs to the machinery used to be carried by sending parts of components to outside workshop or

inviting competent technical persons to the plant to carry out repairs. It is also stated that the pollution control

equipments were installed in the year 1997 and so also a captive power plant for generation of electricity was installed

in 1998 and there was a suggestion by an Officer to entrust maintenance of pollution control equipments and also

captive power plant to an outside agency and the maintenance and repairs of machinery in certain departments like coal

handling plant, kiln, raw mill and cement mill also were suggested to be entrusted to outside agencies. The contract

with Dutta Enterprises is said to have taken place on the basis of this. The implication in the Counter Statement, though

there is no such specific claim, is that maintenance of equipments including that of pollution control equipments will

not come under the manufacturing process and therefore the First Respondent was within its right to enter into contract

for such works. Nowhere in Ext.W50 it is stated that maintenance work inside the factory is exempted from the

purview of direct employment. On the other hand what could be seen from the annexure to Ext.W50 giving

occupational nomenclature with job description and their classification is that this could not be done on the basis of

contract. The job description includes maintenance of all machineries also. No argument has been advanced on behalf

of the First Respondent that the work done by Dutta Enterprises are not connected with the manufacturing process.

34.

In the Counter Statement of Dutta Enterprises there is no case at all that the work that is undertaken by it is

construction work or any work which is not connected with manufacturing process. What is stated in the Counter

Statement is that it had taken up the contract for machinery maintenance during the year 1998. Maintenance of the

machinery of an establishment is the necessity of the establishment in the process of its manufacture and therefore it

cannot be treated/apart from the manufacturing process. In the modern Society the Industry cannot be expected to run

without a proper pollution control system. When considered in this manner the pollution control system also is a part of

the industry itself. The establishment shall not be allowed to manufacture its products in the absence of a proper

Pollution Control system.

35.

Ext.W77 contains contract agreements with Dutta Enterprises detailing the jobs to be done. This is in respect of

repair activities in the Kiln Department. The contract states that the work should be carried out as directed by the In-

charge of the Department or any other person authorized by the Company. Thus it could be seen that the First

Respondent itself was directly supervising the job as per the contract. Ext.W77 also contains maintenance contract for

pollution control equipments (Page-341). The job to be carried out includes routine inspection of the bag filters, daily

inspection of hoppers, routine inspection of diaphragm, regular cleaning of ESP parts, chambers, etc. Thus it could be

seen that these are works to be carried out on day-to-day basis and not temporary in nature. Later part (Page-345) of the

document reveals the nature of work done by Dutta Enterprises in a better manner. This is a letter to the First

Respondent by Dutta Enterprises asking for an increase in the amount. This reveals that maintenance and repair

activities of all pumps, hydro cyclones, floatation cells in Ball Mill and Floatation Department were done. This itself

shows that it was carrying out maintenance of all the machines that were used in the manufacturing process. Again, the

letter gives an account of the amount payable to different category of workers engaged by it to carry out the work. This

reveals that the engagement was on day to day basis and they were engaged throughout the whole year. Page-348 of

4196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.W77 shows renewal of annual maintenance contract to optimize and upgrade cement mills, raw mills, ball mills

and also to carry out improvement jobs. In the cement mill certain works were to be carried out on a daily basis.

Opening and closing of the manhole doors, checking the condition of outlet diaphragm and cleaning of the sector plate

slots, etc. are included in this. Page-354 also reveals works to be carried out on a day-to-day basis. In the contract the

1^st Respondent has undertaken to provide quarters to the workmen though on payment basis and this also would show

that the work is a continuous one and is carried out throughout the year.

36.

Exts.W71 to Ext.W74 are the licenses in name of Dutta Enterprises. All these show that the licenses were for

doing the work of mechanical maintenance. It does not give the details. So Dutta Enterprises was expected to do all the

mechanical maintenance work as per the license.

37.

Ext.W65 to Ext.W69 are the Wage Registers produced and marked by Dutta Enterprises. There is no case for

Dutta Enterprises that it has not been doing any work inside the factory. As revealed from the license, the job was to do

the maintenance of the equipments in the factory. The Wage Registers also would show that the workers engaged by

Dutta Enterprises were working on a day-to-day basis. All of them have been working on all days of the month as

revealed from the Column in the register showing the number of days worked. Though there is a column for showing

the location of work, the actual location is not shown. The name of the First Respondent alone is shown in the

document. So also, in the column for showing the designation / nature of work done, a loose description such as

mazdoor, fitter, welder, are given. It is not known what is intended by the term “Mazdoor”. The actual nature of the

work done by a particular worker was expected to be shown in the Register. But this is missing. It is apparent from the

Counter Statement that all the workers were engaged in the job of maintenance of machineries. So the workers

categorized as Mazdoors also must have been doing some skilled labour. by way of the maintenance of the equipments.

What is very much apparent form these registers is the regular nature of work done by the workers.

38.

In fact there is no case either for the First Respondent or Dutta Enterprises, that the concerned workers were not

being engaged on a day to day basis. What the petitioner has stated in the Claim Statement is that the workers were

being engaged continuously from 1992 onwards. The only contention of Dutta Enterprises the Eleventh Respondent in

the Counter Statement is that it has come into the picture only in 1999 to indicate that it has no knowledge of the

employment of the concerned workmen prior to 1999. So there is implied admission on the part of the First and

Eleventh Respondent that at least from 1999 onwards, the same set of workers were doing the work on their

engagement. The Claim Statement has given the date of appointment of the concerned workmen. They have started to

work in different dates and had been working in the establishment for several years. Even those who worked least have

started to work in 2004.

39.

It is apparent from the above discussion that the 27 workmen involved in ID 2/2010 have been working in the

First Respondent establishment continuously and they were working inside the factory and was doing work which is

connected to the manufacturing process of the factory. The counsel for the First Respondent has argued that this

Tribunal is not competent to decide the question whether the work done by the concerned workmen were perennial in

nature. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in VEGOILS PRIVATE LTD. VS. THE

WORKMEN reported in 1971 2 SCC 724 in this respect. It was held here that the decision of the appropriate

government on the question whether any process, operation or other work is of perennial nature shall be final. This is in

matters where appropriate government has undertaken to prohibit employment of contract labour. If this is not resorted

to by the appropriate government the industrial adjudicator will have to consider this aspect also while deciding the

question whether a contract is sham or nominal. However, in the present case Ext.50 shows which are the categories of

work that are perennial in nature and in which categories direct employment should be made. So the dictum laid down

is not a hindrance in taking a decision as to whether the contract between the First Respondent and the Eleventh

Respondent is sham and nominal. It could be seen that under the guise that the works in question are not connected to

the manufacturing process but are those coming under exemption, the First Respondent has been engaging workers as if

contract workers.

40.

ID 2/2010 has been filed on behalf of 27 workmen who were working with Dutta Enterprises, the Eleventh

Respondent in ID 1/2010. These workmen were transferred to different places by the eleventh Respondent after the

dispute which is the subject matter of ID 1/2010 has been raised and was pending. The Eleventh Respondent took a

stand that it has got more work in the companies of the First Respondent at other places it is mobilizing the workmen

working in Madukkarai Cement Works and is taking them to other work places by transfer, after winding up its work in

Madukkarai Cement Works. These workmen had been working in the First Respondent establishment for a long time,

as already stated. They have been working for the First Respondent even before the Eleventh Respondent had

undertaken any work in the establishment. The transfer was effected without any notice to them. It was during the

pendency of the other dispute also. They have been taken in by the 11^th Respondent only for doing the work in the First

Respondent establishment. In all probability the action of the 11^th Respondent in transferring the 27 workmen was done

in connivance with the First Respondent as the Union has raised the dispute claiming regularization of the workmen.

These workmen were not bound to be transferred to the other establishments of the First Respondent. The transfer is an

(ii)

4197

illegal one and is to be treated as illegal termination of the workmen. It is already found that their engagement by the

Eleventh Respondent is in violation of Ext.W50 and Wage Board Recommendations and the contract is to be treated as

sham and nominal. So the 97 workmen are to be treated as the workmen of the First Respondent. The First Respondent

is bound to reinstate and regularize them in service with effect from the date on which the dispute was raised.

41.

The First Respondent has raised a contention that the Union has raised the demand for regularization of

workmen by the Charter of Demands marked as Ext.M20 and this demand has been given up while entering into

settlement subsequently and the Union is not entitled to raise the dispute for this reason. Demand No. 36 in Ext.M20

dated 19.10.2004 is that all employees whether casual contract, etc. shall be made permanent and paid monthly salaries

and allowances on par with other workmen and no contract worker shall be employed directly or indirectly in any

Department on perennial nature of jobs and all such existing workers shall be departmentalized in the respective

departments. It has been pointed out by the counsel that during the earlier settlements also the matter has been raised,

but settlements were entered into giving up the demand. Reference was made to Exts.W4 to Ext.W6 in this respect. For

example in Ext.W6, the settlement of 2005, Clause-12 states that the settlement has been arrived at to settle all the

demands jointly raised and no further demands have been raised during the pendency of the settlement. The counsel

has also referred to the admission made by WW1, the General Secretary of the Petitioner Union in this respect. He has

admitted during his cross-examination that in all Charter of Demands there will be one demand consistently made that

no contract workman shall be employed directly or indirectly in any department on perennial nature of jobs and also

that such existing workers shall be departmentalized. He has also admitted that all the demands including this except

those that were dealt with in the settlement were not pressed. Ext.M23 the latest Charter of Demands show that such a

demand was there even in the charter submitted during the pendency of the proceedings. As per Ext.M24 the settlement

arrived at consequently all demands other than those which were dealt with in the settlement were dropped.

42.

The counsel for the First Respondent has argued that the petitioner union could not have raised the dispute at all

as the demand has been given up when the settlement was entered into. In this respect the counsel has referred to the

decision reported in the MANAGEMENT OF BINNY LTD. VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

reported in 1989 1 LLJ 180. Here it has been held that the bar to the reference of the dispute covered by a settlement is

the direct result of the legal position that when a dispute between the workers and the employer is concluded by a

settlement which binds them no Industrial Dispute relating to any item covered by the settlement can come into

existence or can be apprehended. The party bound by the settlement cannot be allowed to raise an Industrial Dispute

with regard to the matters covered by the settlement, it has been further held. According to the counsel for the First

Respondent, the Union having given up the demand for regularization of the contract workmen by Ext.W6 settlement it

was not entitled to raise the dispute at all. But this dictum laid down in the above decision is not applicable to the facts

of the present case in view of Ext.W50. Reference has already been made to Wage Board Recommendations which has

banned employment of contract workers in Cement Industry except in certain areas including construction work and

loading and unloading. I have already found that the 27 workmen employed through Eleventh Respondent were

working inside the factory doing work, not coming within the exemptions. In spite of the demands having been given

up by the settlements the Union is entitled to raise the dispute because of the abolition. The Tribunal is entitled

adjudicate whether the engagement is in violation of the abolition.

43.

What is the position of the other workmen working under Respondents 2 to 10? What is the nature of work done

by them? The few Muster Rolls and Registers produced by the petitioner are not of much help in this respect. No

documents are available in respect of the work done by Respondents 2, 4 and 9. The Muster Rolls and Registers in

respect of the Third Respondent (Ext.W51 and Ext.W52) states that the work done is of civil and mechanical in nature.

It is not stated whether the work done is inside or outside the factory. The designation of the workers are given as

Plumber, Welder, etc. So far as the Fifth Respondent is concerned it is stated that the work is done inside and outside

the factory. But the designation is not seen. In the case of Respondent No. 6 neither the designation nor the location of

work are available in most of the Registers. In Ext.W56 it is recorded as inside and outside and in Ext.W55 as inside. In

the case of Respondent No. 7 the nature of work is shown as Civil and the designation is shown as Mazdoors mostly.

The location of the work is not shown. In the case of the 8^th Respondent also designation is shown as Mazdoor and

work is shown as inside and outside the factory. In the case of 10^th Respondent also the location is shown as inside and

outside, but the column for designation is not filled-up.

43.

The other documents available also are not of much help in advancing the case of these workmen. Ext.W37

contains the specimen of some agreements entered into between the First Respondent and the other Respondents who

are the Contractors. One such agreement of 2006 between the First Respondent and Bharati Builders, the Fifth

Respondent states that the contract is for providing services of miscellaneous civil and cleaning jobs. The contract is

for Rs. 30.00 lakhs. Another such agreement of 2010, also with the Sixth Respondent is for providing civil and

mechanical jobs and the amount involved is Rs. 48.00 lakhs. An agreement of the year 2006 with the Sixth Respondent

is to provide services of miscellaneous civil jobs, building construction, fabrication and erection jobs, the amount

involved being Rs. 29.00 lakhs. There is another agreement of 2010 between the same parties undertaking same type of

4198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work and also loading and unloading jobs for an amount of Rs. 88.00 lakhs. One such agreement of 2006 with

Respondent No. 7 is to provide services of civil and miscellaneous fabrication jobs and the amount involved is Rs.

18.00 lakhs. There is another agreement of 2010 also for the same work. The agreement of 2008 with the Eighth

Respondent is for providing service of repairs of pipelines and unloading of stores materials. There is an agreement of

2010 also of the same type. The agreement of 2006 with the Third Respondent is to provide services of civil,

fabrication and erection jobs. The agreement of 2010 with the same party is for civil jobs, railway track maintenance

and pipeline jobs. There is a contract of 2008 with the Tenth Respondent for road cleaning and sanitation jobs. Similar

contract for similar work in 2010 also is there.

44.

Ext.W41 contains a few work orders/purchase orders in favour of some of the Contractors. A work order of

2006 with the Fifth Respondent is for constructing Compound Wall near the Railway Bridge. There is one more work

order for excavation, dismantling of brick wall, RR masonry, plastering, etc. There is still another order of 2010 for

excavation, dismantling, etc. with the same Respondent. The order with Respondent No. 6 of the year 2006 is for

concreting the road at a particular area, whitewashing, etc. There is the order of 2006 to the Seventh Respondent for

material shifting from a particular area. The order of 2009 with the Eighth Respondent is for loading and unloading, but

without specifying from which area. The work is to be carried out as and when required. There are other orders to the

Eighth Respondent for loading and unloading to be done manually, by the use of Crane, etc. The work seen entrusted

with the Third Respondent in 2006 is repair of water pumps and pipelines to the factory and colony area. Another order

of 2008 is for carpentry repairs in the quarters. In 2009 there is an order for doing certain dismantling work entrusted to

the Tenth Respondent. In 2010 there is another order for dismantling the wall, brickwork, removing doors and

windows, plastering, etc.

45.

Most of the above purchase orders and agreements are for works related to construction, loading and unloading,

etc. WW1 has admitted during his cross-examination that the employees colony at Madukkarai is situated in an area of

45.62 acres with 750 houses. He also admitted that the 1^st Respondent is providing water and electricity and also

maintaining the roads for the colony and that there would be civil repair and construction work throughout the year. He

also admitted that 85% of the contract workers might be engaged in civil and electrical work in the colony. So it could

be seen even from the admission of WW1 that a lot of construction work is required in the quarters for the employees

of the factory as well as perhaps for the factory also. It could be seen from the agreements and purchase orders referred

to earlier that most of them are regarding construction work or work related to construction or for loading and

unloading. It is to be remembered that there is no bar in engaging contract workers for construction work in cement

industry. None of the workers who are working through Respondents 2 to 10 have come forward to give evidence. It

could not be ascertained from the documents produced what is the nature of job done by these workmen, whether they

are doing work connected with manufacture inside the factory or mines or whether they are doing some work related to

construction. In the list attached to the proof affidavit filed by WW1, the nature of work done by the workers are not

given. It is not possible to ascertain from the available documents or evidence what is the kind of work done by other

workmen, whether it is something related to factory or something that comes under the exception. In the absence of

such conclusive evidence it could not be stated that those workmen other than the 27 workmen who were working

through the Eleventh Respondent are working under contracts that are sham and nominal, that the contracts are being

used as a camouflage to make them do work in contravention of the ban. So the claim of the petitioner on behalf of

these workmen for absorption with the First Respondent is to be rejected.

46.

The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is disparity in the payment of wages to the contract

workers and other workers. According to him even the minimum wages prescribed by the Government has not been

paid. However, the relevant notification has not been produced by the petitioner. In any case it could be deciphered

from some of the pay-slips in respect of the contract workers and the permanent workers that there is huge disparity in

the wages between the two classes. Ext.W17 contains several pay-slips in respect of the workers of the Eleventh

Respondent, Dutta Enterprises. The monthly payment seen made in the year 2006 to a worker is around Rs. 3,000/-.

Ext.W18 is the wage slip in respect of a permanent worker of the lowest category. The payment seen made is about Rs.

10,000/-. There is also Ext.W23, another wage slip in respect of a permanent employee which also shows huge

disparity. It could be seen from the agreements and work orders that several of the workers are engaged for loading and

unloading also. As per Wage Board Recommendations reiterated in Ext.W50, the arbitration award will not apply to

workers working under Contractors, transporting Limestone from Quarries beyond 10 kms. However, if the distance

from the quarry to the factory is 10 kms or less it should be done departmentally. It is admitted by MW1 that the quarry

at Madukkarai is within 10 kms. from the factory while the quarry at Walayar is situated more than 10 kms. So those

persons engaged for the transport of Limestone from Madukkarai to factory must necessarily be permanent workers. If

not they are entitled to be made permanent. Others might be contract workers. The same type of work is being carried

out by permanent workers as well as contract workers. As per Ext.W50 all the workers employed in permitted

occupations of loading (including packing) and unloading shall be given the same wages, bonus and other benefits as

are given to the regular employees of the Company. In that case all those contract workers who are doing loading and

(ii)

4199

unloading work are entitled to same wages and other benefits as that of permanent workers. It is for the 1^st Respondent

to see that they are paid on par with the regular workers doing similar work.

47.

It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that none of the concerned workmen are members of the

Petitioner Union, that a resolution has not been passed by the General Body of the Union to take up the cause of the

concerned workmen and for this reason the Petitioner Union has no authority to raise the dispute. In answer to this

petitioner has later produced Ext.W78 the resolution passed by Union. This document was marked on consent

indicating that its authenticity is not disputed. By the resolution the general body of the petitioner union has decided to

insist the Management to extend the pay and other benefits to the construction workers engaged in production activity

on par with that of permanent workmen. It was also resolved to insist the Management to implement the national

settlement. It is thus clear that the general body has decided to take up the cause of the contract workers.

48.

Apart from the above, it could be seen from the evidence that the Petitioner Union has all along been taking up

the cause of the contract workers of the establishment. In all Charter of Demands made earlier the issue of

regularization of contract workers has been raised and this was being considered during negotiations for settlement

also. It is true that the First Respondent has always been rejecting the proposal for regularization and this was being

accepted by the Union also. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner Union has been actively taking up the cause

of the contract workers and their authority to do so was recognized by the First Respondent also. In such circumstance

it is idle for the First Respondent to hide under the technical contention of absence of locus-standi for the Union to take

up the cause. This contention has to be rejected.

49.

In view of the above discussion the references are to be answered partly in favour of the petitioner.

The 27 workers named in ID 2/2010 shall be deemed to have been in the service of the First

Respondent. They shall be reinstated and absorbed in the regular service of the 1^st Respondent with

effect from the date on which the dispute was raised.

They are entitled to regular scale of pay and other benefits from the date on which the dispute was

raised. In default of payment of arrears of pay and other benefits within two months the amount will

carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the Award.

Awards are passed accordingly.

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

day the 2^nd June, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1. Sri C.V. Subramanian

WW2, Sri A. Lakshmi Narayanan

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri P. Lakshminarasimhan

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Registration Certificate of the Petitioner Union

Ex.W2

05.07.1977

Certified Standing Orders of ACC Ltd., Madukkarai

Ex.W3

20.07.1983

Gazette Notification of extract of Arbitration award in Industrial Dispute

Ex.W4

26.03.1996

Memorandum of Settlement of wages and other benefits

Ex.W5

14.08.2000

Memorandum of Settlement of wages and other benefits

Ex.W6

26.04.2005

Memorandum of Settlement of wages and other benefits

Ex.W7

08.04.2006

Letter from the Union to the Dy. Chief Commissioner of Labour

Ex.W8

09.11.2006

Representation of employees for their refusal of employment (series) to the

Respondents in ID No. 2 of 2010

Ex.W9

22.11.2006

Letter from the 1^st Respondent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Ex.W10

25.09.2007

Letter by Union under RTI Act to the ALO (C), Chennai-6

4200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W11

26.11.2007

Letter from the Union to the ALO (Central)

Ex.W12

26.11.2007

Letter of the Union to ALC (C), Chennai-6

Ex.W13

05.12.2007

Information regarding details of registered contractors of Respondent

Management

Ex.W14

29.01.2008

Letter from the Ministry of Labour to the Secretary to Government of India

Ex.W15

15.04.2008

Letter of Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

Ex.W16

06.10.2009

Orders of Hon’ble High Court in WP Nos. 14314 and 14315 of 2008

Ex.W17

Wage slips of employees issued to Contract Labourer (Specimen)

Ex.W18

Pay of regular lowest paid employee (specimen)

Ex.W19

24.06.1992

Agreement of Settlement on wages from 01.04.1992

Ex.W20

15.03.2006

Representation of the Union to dispense with the contract labour system to the

Management

Ex.W21

15.03.2006

Representation of the Union to dispense with contract labour system to the

Regional Labour Commissioner

Ex.W22

10.04.2006

Representation of the Union to dispense with contract labour system in the

Mines Department

Ex.W23

October 2006

Pay details of a basis level permanent employee (specimen)

Ex.W24

28.10.2006

Complaint filed by the petitioner union before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai

Ex.W25

Attendance card issued by third respondent in ID No. 2 of 2010 to some of the

contract workers during 2006

Ex.W26

27.11.2006

Written statement of the union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Ex.W27

04.12.2006

Rejoinder filed by the union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Ex.W28

29.01.2008

Letter from the Ministry of Labour to the Secretary to Government of India

Ex.W29

15.07.2008

Pamphlets printed and issued by the Union raising various issues against the

Management

Ex.W30

09.06.2009

Letter from the Ministry of Labour and Employment to the petitioner union

Ex.W31

19.06.2009

Letter from the petitioner union to the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),

Coimbatore

Ex.W32

Certified standing orders of the 1^st Respondent pertaining to its factory in

English with Tamil translation

Ex.W33

Certified standing orders of the 1^st Respondent pertaining to its mines in English

with Tamil translation

Ex.W34

01.09.2006

Fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name = “The

Associated Cement Companies Ltd.” – Changed to “ACC Limited”.

Ex.W35

2006/2012

Certificate of Registration under C.L. (R&A) Act – enclosing – Annexure “J” –

name of contractors in 2006, Annexure “K” – name of Contractors in 2007, and

Annexure “O” – name of contractors in 2012

Ex.W36

License issued to Contractors referred in the claim (ID 1/10) –

(i)

Bharati Builders and Constructions – 2004 to ending 09.02.2013

(ii)

Siva Industries and Engineering works – 2004 to ending 09.02.2012

(iii)

Latha Engineers and Construction – 2004 to ending 09.12.2013

(iv)

Fathima – 2008 to ending 23.01.2013

(v)

Banu Engineering Contractor – 2004 to 09.02.2012

(ii)

4201

(vi)

Ms. Chitra – 2005 to July 2012

Ex.W37

Specimen Agreement between ACC Ltd. and

(i)

Bharati Builders and Constructions – for 2006 and 2010

(ii)

Siva Industries and Engineering Works – 2006 & 2010

(iii)

Latha Engineers and Construction – 2006 & 2010

(iv)

Mrs. Fathima – 2008 and 2010

(v)

Banu Engineering Contractor – 2006 and 2010

(vi)

Ms. Chitra – 2008 and 2010

Ex.W38

Layout including Colony School, Hospital, Mines etc. (45-62 Acres) Factory

26.78

Ex.W39

Notice of completion of construction – Alfa Engineering Constructions - Form

VI B – UR-CL (R&A) Act

Ex.W40

Notice of completion of contract work – Safe Line Electricals. Form VI B – UR-

CL (R&A) Act.

Ex.W41

Specimen Work Order/Purchaser Order and Bills

Bharathi Builders & Constructions – for 2006 and 2010

ii)

Siva Industries and Engineering Works – for 2006 and 2011

iii)

Latha Engineers and Construction – for 2006 and 2009

iv)

Mrs. Fathima – 2009 and 2011

Banu Engineering Contractor – 2006, 2009

vi)

Ms. Chitra – 2009 and 2010

Ex.W42

Specimen T.D.S. Certificates issued to :-

Bharati Builders & Constructions

ii)

Siva Industries and Engineering Works

iii)

Latha Engineers and Construction

iv)

Mrs. Fathima

Banu Engineering Contractor

vi)

Ms. Chitra

Ex.W43

In-charge of correspondence between the First Respondent and Central

Government Authorities

(a)

23.05.2006

Letter from ACC Ltd., to Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C)

(b)

22.11.2006

Letter from ACC Ltd. to Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central)

(c)

22.11.2006

Joint letter from Alpha Engineering Construction, Banu Engineering Contractor

and P. Nagarajan, Contractor – to Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Chennai

(d)

29.01.2008

Report on failure of conciliation issued by Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai

(e)

24.07.2008

Letter from ACC Ltd. to Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai

(f)

04.12.2008

Letter from ACC Limited to Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central)

Ex.W44

15.04.2008

Letter from Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi to ACC

Limited and Coimbatore Cement Workers Union

Ex.W45

27.10.2006

Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings – during Joint discussion before Asstt.

Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai

4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W46

01.03.2012

Statement of First Respondent detailing the name of contractors (In ID 1/2010)

and their number of workmen posted to work at 1^st Respondent’s premises and –

enclosing the name of persons as on date working at 1^st Respondent’s premises

as furnished by respective Contractor in ID 1/2010

Ex.W47

Copy of Certificate of Registration of some Cement Factories in Tamil Nadu –

i.e.

Chettinad Cement Corporation

India Cements

Madras Cements

Tamil Nadu Cements

Ultratech Cements Ltd.

Ex.W48

Gagal Cement Works, Himachal Pradesh : RC

01.10.1997

Claim Petition

26.01.1996

Charter of Demands

01.12.1998

Written Statement of the First Respondent filed before Labour Court, Shimla

26.05.2003

Written Statement of the 1^st Respondent filed before Labour Court, Shimla

Ex.W49

31.05.2003

Award of Labour Court, Simla in Reference No. 49/1997

Ex.W50

18.07.2007

Gazette Copy of Award of Sri G. Ramanujam and Sri P. Nevatia – Arbitrators in

the ID between employees in relation to Cement Manufacturers’ Association

and their workmen represented by INC and Allied Workers’ Federation

Ex.W51

Jan.2006

Muster Roll in Form-XVI for the period from January 2006 to December 2009

of M/s. Bhanu Engineering (Respondent-3)

Dec.2009

Ex.W52

Jan. 2006

2009 of M/s. Bhanu Engineering (Respondent-3)

Dec.2009

Ex.W53

Jan. 2006

Muster roll in Form-XVI for the period from January 2006 to December 2009 of

M/s. Bharathi Builders and Constructions (Respondent-5)

Dec.2009

Ex.W54

26.12.2005

To 30.07.2007

and from October 2007 to October 2010 of M/s. Bharathi Builders and

Oct. 2007

Constructions (Respondent-5)

To Oct. 2010

Ex.W55

Jan. 2006

Muster Roll in form-XVI from January 2006 to December 2011 in respect of

M/s. Siva Industrial & Engineering Works (Respondent-6)

Dec. 2011

Ex.W56

Jan.2006

of M/s. Siva Industrial and Engg. Works (Respondent-6)

Aug.2009

Ex.W57

Aug.2009

M/s. Siva Industrial & Engg. Works (Respondent-6)

Dec.2011

Ex.W58

Feb.2006

Muster Roll in Form XVI of M/s. Latha Engineering Constructions

(Respondent-

7) from February 2006 to December 2011

Dec.2011

Ex.W59

Dec. 2005

Wages Register in Form-XVII for the period from Dec. 2005 to December 2011

of M/s. Latha Engg. Constructions (Respondent-7)

Dec. 2011

(ii)

4203

Ex.W60

Oct.2005

Muster Roll in form XVI for the period from Oct. 2005 to April 2011 of

M/s. Fathima Contractors (Respondent-8)

April 2011

Ex.W61

Oct.2005

Wages Register in Form XVII for the period from October 2005 to April 2011

of M/s. Fathima Contractors (Respondent-8)

April 2011

Ex.W62

Jan.2006

Muster Roll in Form-XVI for the period from January 2006 to December 2011

in respect of M/s. T. Chitra Contractors (Respondent-10)

Dec. 2011

Ex.W63

June 2005

belonging to M/s. T. Chitra Contractor (Respondent-10)

April 2008

Ex.W64

01.05.2008

2011 belonging to M/s. Chitra Contractor (Respondent-10)

Dec.2011

Ex.W65

01.05.2005

Wage Register

25.06.2005

Ex.W66

01.07.2005

Wage Register

31.08.2005

Ex.W67

Sept 2005

Wage Register

Jan. 2006

Ex.W68

Feb.2006

Wage Register

Oct. 2006

Ex.W69

Sept.2006

Wage Register

Oct. 2006

Ex.W70

01.02.2006

Wage slip

28.02.2006

Ex.W71

26.03.2001

License issued to M/s. Dutta Enterprises

Ex.W72

18.10.2002

License issued to M/s. Dutta Enterprises

Ex.W73

22.01.2004

License issued to M/s. Dutta Enterprises

Ex.W74

23.02.2005

Renewal of license

Ex.W75

Forms and Register

Ex.W76

Certificate of deduction of tax

Ex.W77

Contract Agreement showing details of jobs

Ex.W78

Copy of the resolution dated 5.011.2000 concerning the cause of contract

labourers

On the Management’s side of ID 1/2010

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

01.06.2003

Declaration filed by Coimbatore Cement Workers’ Union before the National

Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai stating that they fully and finally settled the

disputes with ACC Limited at its viz. Wadi, Gagal, Chanda and Madukkarai

Plants

4204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M2

2006

Certificate of Registration under C.L. (R&A) Act – enclosing –Annexure “J” –

name of Contractors in 2006

Ext.M3

License issued to M/s. Dutta Enterprises – 11.12.2000, 26.03.2001 and

22.01.2004

Ext.M4

Specimen Agreement between ACC Ltd. and M/s. Dutta Enterprises – 2004 and

2005

Ext.M5

08.10.2006

Letter from M/s. Dutta Enterprises to ACC Ltd., seeking ACC’s consent to

mobilize their labours

Ext.M6

09.10.2006

Letter No. MK/HRD/062/1792 of ACC Limited addressed to M/s. Dutta

Enterprises regarding ACC’s inability to mobilize the labours of M/s. Dutta

Enterprises from ACC Madukkarai Works site

Ext.M7

14.10.2006

Letter from M/s. Dutta Enterprises to ACC Ltd. informing their decision to

mobilize their labours and shifting them from ACC Madukkarai Works site to

their various other sites

Ext.M8

16.10.2006

Letter from M/s. Dutta Enterprises to ACC Ltd., informing their inability to

continue the jobs awarded to them

Ext.M9

06.11.2006

Form VI-A Notice of Completion submitted to M/s. Dutta Enterprises to the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai

Ext.M10

06.11.2006

Notice of completion of contract work – M/s. Dutta Enterprises –Form VI-B

Ext.M11

Specimen Work Orders placed on M/s. Dutta Enterprises – 2005 & 2006

Ext.M12

2006

Complaint filed under Section-33A of ID Act, 1947 by the petitioner

Ext.M13

08.12.2006

Letter No. MK/HRD/062/2313 of ACC Ltd. to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Chennai – giving their comments against the complaint

filed under Section-33A by the petitioner

Ext.M14

10.09.2007

Letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai fixing the

joint discussions/conciliation proceedings on 20.09.2007

Ext.M15

20.09.2007

Joint discussions between ACC Ltd., & Petitioner Union before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai –discussions adjourned

Ext.M16

19.12.2007

Letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai fixing the

joint discussions/conciliation proceedings on 24.12.2007

Ext.M17

24.12.2007

Joint discussions between ACC Ltd. & Petitioner Union before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai

Ext.M18

29.01.2008

Letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central, Chennai to the

Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

Ext.M19

20.09.1971

Certificate of Registration – issued by ALC (C), Madras u/r C.L.R. & Abolition

Act

Ext.M20

19.10.2004

Charter of Demands from Coimbatore Cement Worker’s Union, Madukkarai to

ACC Ltd., Madukkarai

Ext.M21

08.04.2006

Ext.M22

24.02.2000

Charter of Demands by Coimbatore Cement Worker’s Union, AITUC,

Madukkarai 641015

Ext.M23

Charter of Demands by AITUC (Respondent Union) –Settlement to govern from

01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017

Ext.M24

28.08.2015

Manufacturing units – including INTUC – Respondent Union – at Madukkarai

ACC Ltd. – adopting the settlement dated 29.07.2015 between CMA &

Federation of Unions - 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016

Ext.M25

19.10.2004

Charter of New Demands by Coimbatore Cement Workers’ Union –

Madukkarai – addressed to ACC, Madukkarai

(ii)

4205

Ext.M26

15.02.2010

Charter of Demands of the Respondent Union

Ext.M27

08.06.2011

12(3) Settlement

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.07.2017.

[No. L-30012/38/2016-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Friday, the 23^rd June, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 23/2017

(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 R. Malarvannan, Contractor and

Another)

BETWEEN :

Smt. B. Nagamma

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

Sri R. Malarvannan

2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

Engineering Contractor

The Sr. Terminal Manager

2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Foreshore Terminal (FST), Royapuram

Chennai-600013

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Set Ex-parte

For the 2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

M/s. Cirajuneisa S. Alam, S. Hemanand

For the 2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

4206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-30012/38/2016-IR (M) dated

31.03.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of Sri Malarvannan, Contractor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Foreshore Terminal

(FST) in terminating the services of B. Nagamma, worker engaged by him is justified? If not, to what relief

Smt. Nagamma is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 23/2017 and issued notices to both

sides. The case has come up for hearing on receipt of notice by both sides, on 27.04.2017. The petitioner has not

appeared on this day. There being no sitting the case has been postponed to 16.05.2017. On this date Vakalat was filed

for the First Respondent. However, the petitioner and also the Second Respondent were absent on this day also. The

case has again been postponed to 06.06.2017 and then to this date. The petitioner has not come forward so far to

proceed with the case. She seems to be not interested in pursuing the matter. In the absence of any material the

reference could not be adjudicated.

Therefore the reference is answered against the petitioner. An Award is passed accordingly.

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

the 23^rd June, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

Government on 11.07.2017.

[No. L-42012/1/2001-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

(ii)

4207

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. 05/2002

Date of Passing Award – 14^th June, 2017

Between:

The Manager,

Central Ware Housing Corporation,

At./Po./Dist. - Bargarh.

The Regional Manager,

Central Ware Housing Corporation,

Bhubaneswar

…1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Srikar Bibhar,

At. Master Tikra, Gobindapali,

P.O. & Dist. Bargarh

…2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances :

M/s.. P.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements

M/s.. Subrat Mishra. Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred a dispute between Shri Srikar Bibhar in one side and

Central Ware-housing Corporation with other side with the schedule “whether the action of the management of Central

Ware Housing Corporation, Bargarh removing of Shri Shankar Bibhar, S/o. Shri Naba Bibhar, at. Banjipadar, Po.

Rickdul, Dist. Bolangir, from the job who are employed since last 12 years continuously through different contractors

in the same nature of job is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” in exercising its jurisdiction under

section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) vide letter No. L-42012/1/2001 (IR(M) dated

09.01.2002 for its adjudication by this Tribunal:-

The 2^nd party disputant has filed his statement of claim contending that he was working as a labour under direct

supervision and control of the Management No. 1. He was receiving his wages on month to month basis basing upon

the quantum of material lifted by him i.e. loaded or unloaded by him in the premises of the go-down of the

Managements at Bargarh. It is the claim of the 2^nd party-disputant that he and other labourers were shown engaged

through contractors only in paper transaction only. In reality they were working under the direction of the Officers of

the Management No. 1 and also paid by them. It has been alleged that in December, 1998 the disputant and others

made a representation before the Managements for regularization of their job and payment of their wages directly by

the Managements. When such demand was put-forth by the disputant, the Management No. 1 terminated his service

and registered a false criminal case against him and others as a result of which the disputant was taken to custody.

After his release on bail when he came to join in his loading and unloading work, the Management No. 1 did not allow

him to resume his duty. As such a dispute was raised before the labour machinery and the conciliation proceeding

having been failed, a reference is made for its adjudication as stated earlier.

In a common written statement the Managements have contested the claim taking a stand that the Corporate

Office of the Managements is situated at New Delhi and different ware-houses have been established and maintained in

different places through-out the country. The function of the ware-houses is governed by the provisions of the ware-

housing Corporation Act, 1962 and the regulations framed there-under. Depositors like FCI, Hindustan Liver etc. are

utilizing the go-down space on payment of the prescribed charges. The corporation usually carry out the handling and

transportation operations for storing the materials of depositors by appointing contractors for a specified period as and

when required by the depositor. The charges of handling and transport carried through the contractors are being

reimbursed by the depositors. The contractors entrusted to execute the work of handling and transportation engaged

their own labourers for such handling and transportation work. The Managements never engage any labour for such

4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work or pay the wages directly to such labourers engaged for handling and transportation work. Therefore, question

does not arise for engaging the disputant by the Management No. 1 and paying him wages directly or through any

contractor. No relationship of “employer and employee” was ever existing between the Managements and the

disputant. In the above premises he is not a “workman” under the Management as defined under section 2(s) of the Act.

It has been also pleaded that since the work of handling and transportation was given to different contractors in

between the period 1987 to 1994, question does not arise on the part of the Management No. 1 either for engaging the

disputant as a labour during the above period or terminating his service during the said period. Hence, prayer has been

made for rejection of the statement of claim of the 2^ndparty-disputant.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for the adjudication of the

dispute:-

I S S U E S

Whether the disputant is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act?

Whether the action of the Management of Central Ware Housing Corporation, Bargarh removing the

disputant from the job who was employed since 12 years continuously through different contractors in

the same nature of job is justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

Two witnesses including the disputant have been examined and reliance has been placed on certain documents

like report of the Manager, C.W.C. Bargarh to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bargarh, report of the OIC, Bargarh No. 29,

dated 4.2.1999 submitted to Executive Magistrate, Bargarh, Order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bargarh in

C.M.C. No. 39/1999, order dated 3.2.1999 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bargarh in C.M.C. No. 33/2/99, along

with the bond of 34 agitators and copy of office order No. 53/Res. Dated 15.1.1997 of Collectorate, Ganjam, Chatrapur

marked as (Ext.-1 to Ext.-5) by the 2^nd party-disputant to establish the claim. On the other hand the Managements have

also examined two of its officers and exhibited copies of some agreements executed with different contractors and

work orders issued to them to nullify the claim of the 2^nd party-Union.

For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken for consideration simultaneously as they are inter-related to

each other.

In view of the stand taken by the rival parties it is to be seen whether the disputant is a “workman” as defined

under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act under the Management No. 1. The essential condition of a person being “workman”

within the terms of this definition is that he should be employed to do the work in the said Management i.e. industry.

In the other words he was employed by the employer and there should be the relationship of “employer and employee”

or “master and servant” between him and the Management No. 1. Unless the above factors are established it cannot be

said that the disputant is a “workman” under the Management No. 1 within the definition of the term “workman” as

defined under the Act. As a settled principles the initial burden lies on the 2^nd party-disputant to establish the

relationship of “employer and employee” after which the burden shifts to the Opp. Party-Management to disprove the

claim of the workman. Coming to the case at hand it is seen that it has been pleaded and stated by the disputant

workman that he and other labourers were paid wages directly by the Manager of the Management No. 1 though it was

being shown that their wages were paid through contractor. It has also been asserted by the disputant and his other

witness that they were directly working under the direction and supervision of the Manager of the Management No. 1.

But, not a single scrap of paper relating to their engagement or payment of wages by the Management No. 1 is filed in

support of their oral testimony. No step seems to have been taken by the 2^nd party-disputant to call for any muster roll

or wage slips from the establishment of the Managements to prove the above assertions. On the other hand mere

perusal of the claim statement and the oral testimonies of W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 gives an impression that their wages

were paid through the contractors during the period of their engagement. No-where it has been challenged or asserted

that no agreement was executed between the Managements and the contractors for such work of handling and

transportation in the ware-houses or such agreements were sham and camouflage to deprive the disputant and other

labourers from availing protections extended to a “workman” under the I.D. Act and other service benefits. Moreover,

it is averred and stated by the 2^nd party-disputant that he was being shown engaged as a labour by different contractors

during the period of 1987 to 1994. Be that as it may, a heavy burden lies on the disputant workman to establish the

relationship of “employer and employee” between him and the Management. Law is well settled that such relationship

can be inferred from the facts as to who makes payment towards the wages/remuneration of the disputant and under

whose control and supervision the disputant was discharging his duty.

On a close reading of the evidence advanced by the 2^nd party-disputant it is seen that except oral testimony of

W.W.-1 and W.W.-2 there is no other document by which the above two factors can be established in favour of the

disputant since the documents filed by the 2^nd party-disputant are no way relevant towards engagement or payment of

wage by the Management. All the documents related to orders of Executive Courts by which the disputant workman

(ii)

4209

was directed to execute certain bonds. On the other hand, the disputant has himself claimed that he and others were

demanding for regularization of their service directly by the Management. In the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam

Ltd., -versus- Mohammed Rafi reported in Civil Appeal No. 2895 of 2009 the Hon’ble Apex Court have made it

clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of

discharge or the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year and

that mere non-production of muster rolls per say without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be

the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the Management. In the above back-drops it can

safely be said that the 2^nd party-disputant has miserably failed to establish the relationship of “employer and employee”

or the claim that the disputant workman worked continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days preceding to

the refusal of employment to him. On the other hand, the oral evidence of Management witnesses coupled with the

documents i.e. the agreements executed between the contractors and the Management No. 1 and the work orders issued

in favour of different contractors go to indicate that the work of handling and transportation of the ware-house of the

Management No. 1 was entrusted to different contractors in between 1987 to 1994 and the contractors were paid

different amounts to execute such handling and transportation. There seems no opportunity on the part of the

Management to pay any wage directly or through the contractor to the disputant workman and other labourers. In that

view of the matter neither it can be said that the disputant is a “workman” of the Management as defined in the Act nor

it can be said any relationship of “employer and employee” was existing between them during the relevant period.

Hence, it is not believable that the disputant workman was ever engaged by the Management No. 1 or he was refused

employment by him during the above period. For the analysis made above no relief can be extended to the disputant

workman.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.07.2017.

[No. L-30012/29/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, / LOK ADALAT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 125 of 2014

Between :

Shri Rajeev Singh S/o Hakim Singh

Village Jhandipur,

Post farah,

Distt. Mathura(UP)

Mathura

And

4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Executive Director,

Indian Oil Corp Ltd,

Mathura Refinery,

Mathura-281005

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/29/2014-IR (M) dated 29.10.2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. Manish

Contractor, Mathura in terminating the services of Sh. Rajveer Singh s/o Sh. Hakim Singh workman w.e.f. April 2010

is just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court,

Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the

case.

On 27.06.2017, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite

availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against the

worker for want of pleadings and proof.

For the reasons given above, award is passed against the worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any

relief pursuant to the present reference order for want of pleadings and proof.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Central U.P. Gas Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.07.2017.

[No. L-30012/29/2016-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, / LOK ADALAT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 35 of 2016

Between :

Shri Pankaj Kumar

B-91, Barra-7,

Kanpur (U.P)-208027

(ii)

4211

And

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M/s. Central U.P. Gas Limited,

U.P.S.I.D.C. Complex, A-1/4,

7^th Floor, Lakhanpur,

Kanpur(U.P)-208024

The Director,

M/s. Sigma Staffing Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, 112/1-C, Benajhabar Road,

Swaroop Nagar,

Kanpur(U.P.)-208002

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-30012/29/2016-IR (M) dated 01.09.2016, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Central U.P. Gas Limited, Kanpur/M/s. Sigma Staffing Solutions Pvt.

Ltd., Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pankaj Kumar workman with effect from 13.07.2015 is just fair &

legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

After receipt of reference from Government of India and Ministry of Labor and Employment New Delhi

registered notices were issued to the parties.

Both the parties were appeared on 21-10-16, but worker has not filed any claim petition. On Next date 29-11-16

worker did not filed any claim statement he was given one more opportunity to file claim statement by 31-1-2017. But

he failed to appear on 31-1-17; thereafter next date 28-2-17 was fixed. As worker was not ready to file claim statement

his statement was recorded wherein he has stated that he was directed to file claim statement, but he has not filed any

claim nor he is willing to file claim statement and thereafter one more date11-5-17 was fixed and worker did not file

any claim statement. Therefore he was given last opportunity to file claim statement by 4-7-17 but he did not filed any

claim on 4-7-17. It appears from the record that worker was given sufficient opportunity to file claim in support of his

case, but he has not filed any claim statement nor he is willing to file any claim statement.

Under this circumstance the reference is bound to be decided against the worker want of pleadings and proof

Award is therefore is passed against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

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

11.07.2017.

[No. L-15011/2/2010-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

4212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032.

I.D. No. 36/2010

The General Secretary,

Central Labour Union,

Smt. Sonia Gandhi Camp, B-254,

Narayana Industrial, Area Phase-1,

New Delhi – 110028

…Workman

Versus

The Medical Superintendent,

ESIC Hospital, Rohini Sector – 15,

New Delhi

Vayudoot Security Service Pvt. Ltd.,

C/o ESIC Hospital, Sector – 15, Rohini,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi- 110001 has referred the following dispute for

industrial adjudication to this Tribunal vide its notification No. L-15011/2/2010-IR(M) Dated 19.10.2010.

“Whether the Action of the management of M/s. Vayudoot Security Services Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of ESIC

Hospital in terminating the services of 29 workmen (Lis enclosed) w.e.f. 13.06.2009 is just and legal? To what

relief the workmen are entitled and from which date?”

On 01.11.2010 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID.No. 36/2010 and

claimant/workman was called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which

was required to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 25.02.2011. Through prayer in

claiM/s.tatement workmen claimed their reinstatement alongwith full back wages and other dues alongwith expenses of

the present case.

Against claiM/s.tatement management No. 1 filed its written statement on 15.04.2011. Wherein he prayed as

follow:-

“In view of the submissions made above it sis submitted that prayer as made herein in the petition under reply

are liable to be rejected and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is therefore most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

(a)

Dismiss the present petition qua the answereing respondent; and

(b)

Pass any such order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.”

On 30.05.2011 management No. 2 filed its written statement against claiM/s.tatement of workmen. Wherein he

prayed as follow:-

“In view of the above said submission, its is submitted that prayer of the claim petition are liable to be rejected

and the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost against the answering respondent.

Pass any other order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.”

Workman filed rejoinder against written statement of management No.1 and management No.2. Wherein he

prayed as follow:-

“In view of the above facts and circumstances, the written statement filed by the respondent No.1 and

respondent No.2 may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost, in favour of the workmen and the claim filed by the

workmen may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.

Any other or further order, which this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed, in favour

of the workmen and against the respondents, in the interest of justice.

(ii)

4213

My Ld. Predecessor had not framed any issue but he proceeded to decide this ID case on the basis of questions

of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference.

There were 29 workmen whose case have been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Out of 29 workmen following 13 workmen filed their affidavits in their evidence. Which were tendered by

them. They were corss-examined by Ld. A/R for the management:-

WW1 – Sh. Om Prakash

WW2 – Sh. Chand Ram

WW3 – Sh. Mahar Singh

WW4 – Sh. Sewa Ram

WW5 – Sh. Nanak Chand

WW6 – Sh. Rohtesh Kumar

WW7 – Sh. Ranbir Singh

WW8 – Sh. Jagdish Chand

WW9 – Sh. Jeet Singh

WW10 – Sh. Pratap Singh

WW11 – Sh. Jai Narain

WW12 – Sh. Ramvir

WW13 – Sh. Pale Ram

Out of the aforesaid 29 workmen following 16 workmen have neither filed their affidavits in their evidence nor

they were examined on behalf of workmen:-

C. R. Sehrao

Ramnath Yogi

Bhim Chand

10. Harish Bhath

Chanrda Singh

11. Mahaveer Singh

H. C. Joshi

12. Satyanand

Shyam Sunder

13. Chandra Pal

Ram Singh

14. Satya Prakash

Banwali Lal

15. Mahendra Singh

Ikawal Singh

16. Om Prakash S/o Chhoula Ram

Management No.2 examined Sh. Pati Ram as MW1 who was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for workmen and his

corss-examination was concluded. There after Ld. A/R for management No.2 filed written arguments.

Written arguments of management No.2 as follows:-

That the claim petition of the workmen is based upon the concocted story and do not have any

relevance with the truth. That out of 29 workmen who have filed the claim before this Hon'ble

Court, only 13 workmen have filed their evidence by way of affidavit and examined.

That at the time of working with the management no-2, all the workmen were getting all benefits

as per labour law and wages as a proved by the Director General of resettlement Ministry of

Defence, Govt. of India.

That the workmen were appointed as security guard/gunman by the respondentno-2 for the site of

management no-1 on temporary basis and that contract with management no-1 got expired on

11.09.20011.

That the workmen were involved in anti-establishment activities and misconduct of duties. They

verbally want so many times and the management no-1 made complaints to management no-2 in

this regard of their of their behaviour, there after management no-2 made a written complaint

against the workmen in P.S Prashant Vihar Rohini Delhi, in the public interest and as per

4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

agreement with the management no-1 that if anybody made nuisance and create negligence in

duty/indiscipline should be removed immediately from services and to maintain the reputation and

goodwill, management no-2 was no other option except to replace them.

That many workmen clearly stated that they don't need the job from the establishment and many

workmen mentioned in their affidavit that their age has crossed the retirement age.

That all the workmen are working with other agencies since then and they are not unemployed, hence the

claim of the workmen is not maintainable.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the record. On the basis of which there is two group

of workmen as follow:-

Workmen who have not filed affidavit in their evidence.

Workmen who have filed affidavit in their evidence.

So I am discussing their matter groupwise.

So far matter to workmen of group No.1 is concerned who have adduced no evidence in support of their case. So

their claim is liable to dismissed in want of their evidence.

Now I am dealing with case of workmen of group No.2 who have filed affidavit in their evidence.

Which is to be appreciated in the light of provisions of law.

It is admitted fact that the workmen were appointed as security guard/gunman by the respondent No.2 for the

site of management No.1 on temporary basis and that contract with management No.1 got expired on 11.09.2011.

They raised demand on the basis of their reference wherein following question of determination mentioned in

schedule of reference. Which were sent to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the Action of the management of M/s. Vayudoot Security Services Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of ESIC

Hospital in terminating the services of 29 workmen (Lis enclosed) w.e.f. 13.06.2009 is just and legal? To what relief

the workmen are entitled and from which date?”

It is admitted fact that management No.2 was contractor of ESI Hospital who provided manpower of 29

workmen to ESI Hospital management No.1. It is apparent on record that neither of the workmen made complaint of a

contractor to ESI Hospital management No.1 prior to raising their dispute before conciliation officer.

Moreover services of workmen have been replaced by management no2 because they were involved in anti-

establishment activities and misconduct of duties. They verbally warned so many times and the management no-1

made complaints to management no-2 in this regard of their behaviour, there after management no-2 made a

written complaint against the workmen in P.S Prashant Vihar Rohini Delhi, in the public interest and as per

agreement with the management no-1 that if anybody made nuisance and create negligence in duty/indiscipline

should be removed immediately from services and to maintain the reputation and goodwill, management no-2

was no other option except to replace them.

In this Background following workmen are entitled to no relief:-

1 – Sh. Om Prakash,

2 – Sh. Chand Ram,

3 – Sh. Mahar Singh,

4 – Sh. Sewa Ram,

5 – Sh. Nanak Chand,

6 – Sh. Rohtesh Kumar, 7 – Sh. Ranbir Singh,

8 – Sh. Jagdish Chand,

9 – Sh. Jeet Singh,

10 – Sh. Pratap Singh,

11 – Sh. Jai Narain,

12 – Sh. Ramvir,

13 – Sh. Pale Ram.

So far other 16 workmen are concerned they have adduced no evidence either through their affidavit or through

their statement.

They are entitled to no relief in want of their evidence.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that question of determination No.1 mentioned in

the schedule of reference is liable to be decided against all the 29 workmen and in favour of managements

Which is accordingly decided.

So far question of determination of No. 2 of the schedule of reference is concerened. It is relating to relief to

workmen. They are entitled to no relief as question of determination of No.1 mentioned in the schedule of reference has

already been decided against workmen and in favour of management.

(ii)

4215

On the basis of aforesaid discussion I am of considered view that reference is liable to be decided against all the

29 workmen and in favour of managements.

Which is accordingly decided and claim statement is dismissed.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-13.06.2017

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

—

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Airport Authority of India and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2017.

[No. L-11012/6/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 50/2012

Shri Gulshanowar Panwar,

S/o Shri Dharampal Singh,

R/o RZC-3/132, Mahavir Enclave,

PS Dabri, Palam, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India

A Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi

M/s. Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.,

Terminal III, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

The General Manager,

JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

International Cargo Terminal,

New Delhi – 110 037

M/s. Sea Hawk Pvt. Ltd.,

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. Celibi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.

Air Cargo Terminal,

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-11012/6/2011-

IR(M) dated 29.02.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India/JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri Gulshanower Panwar, ex-Supervisor with effect from 01.09.2010 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Gulshanower Panwar, the workman herein, was

employed by Airport Authority of India on 19.10.1993 as supervisor and his last drawn wages was Rs.13,612.00 per

month. He has been working with utmost sincerity, honesty. No appointment letter was issued to the workman herein

despite various demands in this regard. Workman herein was working under the direct control and supervision of

Airport Authority of India and Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. through JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. as there is

an arrangement between the workers that the workers shall continue to work on same post unless he is promoted or

transferred, irrespective of change of company employed by Airport Authority of India for handling of cargo at cargo

terminal at the airport. Duty performed by the workmen herein is of perennial nature. Airport Authority of India

through Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. used to change the contractor for handling of cargo, but Airport Authority

of India was not taking care of the various problems being faced by the workmen.

It is the case of the workman that a false charge sheet dated 18.05.2010 was served upon the workman herein

with wrong allegations by JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the workman herein gave reply to the same on

24.05.2010. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman herein. Shri T.N. Venkateswaran was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri B.S, Kaushik, Manager(OPS) was appointed as Presenting Officer in the said

enquiry. Later on dismissal order dated 01.09.2010 was passed against the workmen herein on the basis of enquiry

report dated 14.07.2010. Order of dismissal has been alleged to be wrong, illegal and against principles of natural

justice. It is further alleged that the M/s. JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. has adopted a cryptic and illegal approach in

deciding the various issues.

Managements were put to notice and separate replies have been filed by Managements No.1, 2 and 3. It is clear

from reply filed by JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. that it is engaged by Airport Authority of India to provide cargo

handling services at the Import facilities at the Cargo Terminal. The answering management also engaged some

employees, including the workman herein, Shri Gulshanowar Panwar for a limited period on contract basis and it was

mentioned in the said letter that if the contract with Airport Authority of India is terminated for reasons whatsoever,

then services of the workmen shall also be terminated without any further notice. The workman herein was a

contractual employee and a complaint was received from Security Department of Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.

on 01.05.2010 that some shipments were feeded in the system before segregation report, which is not correct in view of

security system in the sensitive area of the airport as well as aircraft.

On the basis of the said complaint, domestic enquiry was conducted and after recording statement of the loaders

working with the workman herein, Shri Gulshanowar Panwar, it was established that he was involved in the matter, as a

result of which order of suspension dated 07.05.2010 was issued against the workman. Thereafter, charge sheet was

issued to the workman with the following charges:

(i)

That on 01.05.2010, your Shri G.S. Pawar, S/o Shri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Supervisor (S017)

deployed Shri Janak Raj, Supervisor to expedite flight checking of Flight No.3C-005 on the promise of

getting illegal gratification.

(ii)

That you helped in feeding of this flight in connivance with Shri Sandeep of PC-Docs for illegal

gratification.

(iii)

That you also collected money from Supervisor Shri Janak Raj for your other colleagues Shri Ranbir

Singh, Assistant Manager, Shri Ajay, Senior Supervisor and Shri Mahesh Lamba, Senior Supervisor.

(iv)

That by accepting illegal gratification and inducing other colleagues above, is a case of serious

misconduct on your part.

(ii)

4217

Shri T.N. Venkateswaran, Enquiry Officer, has given full opportunity to the workman herein. All the charges,

except Charge No.(ii) and (iii) was stated to be established. In view of the report of the Enquiry Officer, workman

herein was dismissed from service by the management vide a letter dated 01.09.2010, Ex.MW1/9. Management has

denied the other allegations made in the statement of claim and has alleged that the enquiry is perfectly in accordance

with law.

Reply filed by Airport Authority of India and Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. are on same lines as filed by

JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, it was not disputed during the course of arguments that the workman herein

was directly working under the control of JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. who has engaged him as contractual employee

as supervisor.

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor on 26.07.2012 framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether enquiry conducted against the claimant by JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether Airport Authority of India has no privity of contract with the claimant?

(iii)

Whether M/s. Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. has also no privity of contract with the claimant?

(iv)

Whether punishment of dismissal awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

(v)

As in terms of reference

Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue. Both the parties were granted opportunity to adduce evidence and

the workman in support of his case, examined himself as WW1. Management, in order to prove the charges, examined

Shri K.J. Rawtani as MW1. He has also proved enquiry report Ex.MW1/8 and other documents on record.

10.

It is clear from evidence on record that charge sheet Ex.MW1/3 was served on the workman herein. Shri T.N.

Venkateswaran was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry. His report is Ex.MW1/8. On the basis

of the above report, order of dismissal Ex.MW1/9 was passed against the workman herein.

11.

It is pertinent to mention here that issue No.1 pertaining to domestic enquiry was treated as preliminary issue

and both parties were enjoined upon to adduce evidence on this issue. It is further clear from the record that the

workman examined himself as WW1 and management to rebut the case of the workman on the preliminary issued

examined Shri K.J. Rawtani as MW1. This Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2016, after considering evidence adduced

by both the parties came to the conclusion that enquiry is unfair and against principles of natural justice. Thus the

findings on the preliminary issue, i.e. whether the domestic enquiry conducted by JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. against

the workman, was answered in favour of the workman and against the management. The order passed by this Tribunal

on 10.03.2016 shall form integral part of the award. Thereafter, it was noticed by the Tribunal that in fact management

had not reserved any right in its pleadings, i.e. written statement, to adduce evidence on merits in case findings on the

domestic enquiry goes against the management. Not only this, even an application was not filed by the management till

conclusion of the findings on the domestic enquiry, i.e. on or before 10.03.2016, seeking permission to adduce

evidence on merits. This Tribunal , having overall regard to the merits of the case, listed the case for evidence of the

parties on the other issues for 13.03.2016. Thereafter, more time was prayed by both the parties on the said date to

adduce evidence on the other issues. Shri Gulshanowar Panwar has filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/B in support of his

pleadings and his statement was ultimately recorded on 21.02.2017.

Issue No.2

12.

This issue, in fact, is inter-related to issue No.1 and the question of giving findings on this issue would have

arisen only in case domestic enquiry conducted by the management was held to be valid. Since this Tribunal, vide a

detailed order dated 10.03.2016, held the enquiry to be unfair and against the principles of natural justice, as such, issue

No.2 which pertains to the proportionality of punishment pales into insignificance. Hence, issue No.2 is decided

accordingly.

13.

Now, the vital issue before this Tribunal is whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India

/JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. in terminating services of Shri Gulshanowar Panwar, ex-Supervisor with effect from

01.09.2010 is legal and justified. Since this Tribunal, while rendering findings on domestic enquiry, i.e. issue No.1, has

held the domestic enquiry to be unfair and against the principles of natural justice, as such action of the management in

terminating services of the workman Shri Gulshanowar Panwar is neither legal nor justified under the law. Moreover,

as discussed above, management has not reserved its right to adduce evidence on merits qua the domestic enquiry nor

any permission was sought at the appropriate stage by the management to prove the charges of misconduct against the

workman on merits. As such, this Tribunal was not in a position to show any indulgence to the management. The legal

position is fairly settled in a number of authorities by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs.

4218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Presiding Officer Labour Court (1999 Lab.IC 445), Hon’ble Apex Court after taking into consideration entire case law

pertaining to domestic enquiry and right of adducing fresh evidence by the management held as under:

‘If the Management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any ground at

any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances,

would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If, however, the opportunity is availed of

and the evidence is adduced by the Management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinized and

adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence.’

14.

The other residual question is as to what relief the workman is entitled to? It was seriously urged on behalf of

the workman that he is unemployed after his termination. The workman has specifically stated that he remained out of

employment after his termination and had no source of income. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the

workman was gainfully employed after his termination. More so, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the

management to this effect, version of the workman is to be accepted.

15.

Regarding claim of back wages, it has been made amply clear in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior

Adyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and others (2013 Lab.I.C. 4249), as under:

‘Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of

first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants

to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing

prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence

of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to

prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not

employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.’

16.

Yet again Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shankar (2015) 9 SCC 345) set

aside the judgement of Hon’ble High Court wherein back wages were reduced to 50% and held that High Court has

exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement to the

workman to his post. It was observed that there are a number of factors which are to be taken into consideration by the

Tribunal while considering the question of grant of back wages, including reinstatement. Relevant factors are, (i)

whether the workman has approached the Tribunal at the earliest or there was delay in seeking reference, (ii) nature of

the post, (iii) length of service as well as availability of vacancy when the question of reinstatement is being decided.

Since facts of no two cases are similar, as such, the Tribunal is required to keep in mind the above circumstances before

ordering grant of back wages. Legal position which emerges from the above two rulings is that where there is violation

of provisions of law by the management in passing order of termination or retrenchment and evidence on record is clear

that the workman was not gainfully employed or was not having any other source of income to make both ends meet

during the period when the matter was being considered by the Tribunal, in such circumstances, Tribunal can always

grant full back wages alongwith reinstatement.

17.

As a sequel to my discussions hereinabove, it is held that the action of the management of Airport Authority of

India/JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Gulshanowar Panwar, ex-Supervisor with effect

from 01.09.2010 is neither legal nor justified. Hence, Shri Gulshanowar Panwar, the workman herein is entitled to

reinstatement in service with the management of JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. with full back wages. An award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : July 10, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

—

(ii)

4219

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017

S.O. 1707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

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

management of M/s.. Airport Authority of India and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.07.2017.

[No. L-11012/5/2011-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 49/2012

Shri Janak Raj S/o Shri Ganga Bishan,

R/o 256, Village and PO Surehra,

PS Jaffarpur,

New Delhi 110 043

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India

A Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi

M/s. Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.,

Terminal III, Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

The General Manager,

JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.

International Cargo Terminal,

New Delhi – 110 037

M/s. Sea Hawk Pvt. Ltd.,

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

M/s. Celibi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.

Air Cargo Terminal,

Indira Gandhi International Airport,

New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-11012/5/2011-

IR(M) dated 29.02.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India/JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri Janak Raj S/o Shri Ganga Bishan, ex-Supervisor with effect from 01.09.2010

is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?’

It is the case of Shri Janak Raj, the workman herein, was employed by M/s. JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. on

01.04.2005 and his last drawn wages was Rs.10,200.00 per month and his ESI number was 6752903. He has been

working with utmost sincerity, honesty. No appointment letter was issued to the workman herein despite various

demands in this regard. Workman herein was working under the direct control and supervision of management Delhi

International Airport (P) Ltd. and Airport Authority of India through JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. as there is an

arrangement between the workers that the workers shall continue to work on same post unless he is promoted or

transferred, irrespective of change of company employed by Airport Authority of India for handling of cargo at cargo

terminal at the airport. Duty performed by the workmen herein is of perennial nature. Airport Authority of India

4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2017/ASADHA 31, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

through Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. used to change the contractor for handling of cargo, but Airport Authority

of India was not taking care of the various problems being faced by the workmen.

It is further the case of the workman that a false charge sheet dated 18.05.2010 was served upon the workman

herein with wrong allegations by M/s. JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the workman herein gave reply to the same

on 24.05.2010. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman herein. Shri T.N. Venkateswaran was

appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri B.S, Kaushik, Manager(OPS) was appointed as Presenting Officer in the said

enquiry. Later on, dismissal order dated 01.09.2010 was passed against the workmen herein on the basis of enquiry

report dated 14.07.2010. Order of dismissal has been alleged to be wrong, illegal and against principles of natural

justice. It is further alleged that the M/s. JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. has adopted a cryptic and illegal approach in

deciding the various issues.

Managements were put to notice and separate replies have been filed by Managements No.1, 2 and 3. It is clear

from reply filed by JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. that it is engaged by Airport Authority of India to provide cargo

handling services at the Import facilities at the Cargo Terminal. The answering management also engaged some

employees, including the workman herein, Shri Janak Raj for a limited period on contract basis and it was mentioned

in the said letter that if the contract with Airport Authority of India is terminated for reasons whatsoever, then services

of the workmen shall also be terminated without any further notice. The workman herein was a contractual employee

and a complaint was received from Security Department of Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. on 01.05.2010 that

some shipments were feeded in the system before segregation report, which is not correct in view of security system in

the sensitive area of the airport as well as aircraft.

On the basis of the said complaint, domestic enquiry was conducted and after recording statement of the loaders

working with the workman herein, Shri Janak Raj, it was established that he was involved in the matter, as a result of

which order of suspension dated 07.05.2010 was issued against the workman. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued to

the workman with the following charges:

(i)

That on 01.05.2010, your Shri Janak Raj, S/o Shri Ganga Bishan, Supervisor (S070) approached Senior

Supervisor Shri G.S. Panwar, Shri Ajay Kumar and Shri Ranbir Singh to expedite flight checking of

Flight No.3C-005 and you offered above Senior Supervisor money for expediting the said flight.

(ii)

That you convinced with Shri Sandeep of PC-CODS to feed the flight even though it was still not

completed.

(iii)

That you got an amount of Rs.3000.00 out of which you gave Rs.2000.00 to Senior Supervisor Shri G.S.

Pawar, Shri Ajay Kumar & Shri Ranbir Singh and Rs.500.00 to supervisor Shri Sanjiv and Rs.100.00 to

driver Deepak.

(iv)

That accepting illegal gratification and inducing other colleagues above, is an act of serious misconduct

on your part.

Shri T.N. Venkateswaran, Enquiry Officer, has given full opportunity to the workman herein. All the charges,

except Charge No.(ii) and (iii) was stated to be established. In view of the report of the Enquiry Officer, workman

herein was dismissed from service by the management vide a letter dated 01.09.2010, Ex.MW1/8. Management has

denied the other allegations made in the statement of claim and has alleged that the enquiry is perfectly in accordance

with law.

Reply filed by Airport Authority of India and Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. are on same lines as filed by

JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, it was not disputed during the course of arguments that the workman herein

was directly working under the control of JAC Air Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who has engaged him as contractual employee

as supervisor.

Against this factual background, my learned predecessor on 26.07.2012 framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether enquiry conducted against the claimant by JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. is just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether Airport Authority of India has no privity of contract with the claimant?

(iii)

Whether M/s. Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. has also no privity of contract with the claimant?

(iv)

Whether punishment of dismissal awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

(v)

As in terms of reference

Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue. Both the parties were granted opportunity to adduce evidence and

the workman in support of his case, examined himself as WW1. Management, in order to prove the charges, examined

Shri K.J. Rawtani as MW1. He has also proved enquiry report Ex.MW1/7 and other documents on record.

(ii)

4221

10.

It is clear from evidence on record that charge sheet Ex.MW1/3 was served on the workman herein. Shri T.N.

Venkateswaran was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry. His report is Ex.MW1/7. On the basis

of the above report, order of dismissal Ex.MW1/8 was passed against the workman herein.