4367 GI/2017
(4229)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003μ05
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 30]
ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 23—tqykbZ 29] 2017] '[email protected] 1—Jko.k 7] 1939
No. 30]
NEW DELHI, JULY 23—JULY 29, 2017, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 1—SRAVANA 7, 1939
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=kky;
(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1710-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh
/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g (,e) foHkkx]
fr:variqje dh vf/lwpuk la- thvks(,e,l) la- 203@2015@gkse rFkk ,lvkjvks la- 605@2015 fnukad 14-09-2015 ds ekè;e ls
izkIr lgefr ls ekY;kR;ksj ou izHkkx vkSj vklikl ds HkwHkkx ds ou {ks=kksa esa taxyh gkfFk;ksa ds f'kdkj ls lacaf/r ekY;kR;ksj ou izHkkx
ds dqV~Veiwtk ou jsat ds vksvkj la[;k 2@2015 (dqV~Veiwtk iqfyl LVs'ku dk vijk/ la- 295@2015] vksvkj la[;k 1@2015
(dqV~Veiwtk iqfyl LVs'ku dk vijk/ la- 290@2015) rFkk bMeY;kj ou LVs'ku ds vksvkj la[;k 2@2015] FkwaMkfFky ou jsat ds varxZr
djheikuh ou LVs'ku ds vksvkj la[;k 2@2015] vksvkj la[;k 3@2015] vksvkj la[;k 5@2015] vksvkj la[;k 6@2015] vksvkj la[;k
7@2015] vksvkj la[;k 8@2015 rFkk vksvkj la[;k 9@2015 ds varxZr ntZ vijk/ vkSj jkT; ds vanj vkSj ckgj gkFkh nkar vkSj
dykÑfÙk;ksa ds O;kikj rFkk blls lEc¼ ekeyksa dh tkap ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj
leLr dsjy jkT; esa djrh gSA
[iQk- la- 228@51@2015&,ohMh&II]
,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo
4230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1710.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram, vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 203/2015/
Home and S.R.O. No. 605/2015 dated 14.09.2015, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala to investigate into the offences involved in OR
No. 2/2015 of Kuttampuzha Forest Range (Crime No. 295/2015 of Kuttampuzha Police Station), OR No. 1/2015
(Crime No. 290/2015 of Kuttampuzha Police Station) and OR No. 2/2015 of Edamalayar Forest Station, OR No.
2/2015, OR No. 3/2015, OR No. 5/2015, OR No. 6/2015, OR No. 7/2015, OR No. 8/2015 and OR No. 9/2015 of
Karimpani Forest Station coming under Thundathil Forest Range in Malayattoor Forest Division relating to the hunting
of wild elephants in the Forest areas of Malayattoor Forest Division and adjoining landscapes and trading of tusks and
artifacts within and outside the State and other matters connected thereto.
[F. No. 228/51/2015-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1711-—dsUnz ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh
/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, >kj[kaM jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jk¡ph dh
fnukad 10 ekpZ] 2015 dh vf/lwpuk la- 10@lh-ch-vkbZ-&602@2015&1374 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, NksVkukxiqj {ks=kh;
gS.Mywe cqudj lgdkfjrk la?k fyfeVsM] bZjck] iksLV $ Fkkuk & vksjeka>h] jk¡ph ds ifCyd iQ.M dk nq:i;ksx] /ks[kk/M+h] xcu ls
lacaf/r nq"izsj.kk vkSj "kM+;a=k RkFkk mDr laO;ogkj esa fd, x, fdUgh vU; vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds
lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkfjrk dk foLrkj laiw.kZ >kj[k.M jkT; esa djus ds fy, lgefr iznku djrs gSa A
[iQk- la- 228@14@2015&,ohMh&II]
,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1711.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Jharkhand, Home Department, vide Notification No. 10/C.B.I.-602/2015-1374 dated 10.03.2015,
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of
the State of Jharkhand for investigation in the allegations of irregularities, fraud, embezzlement of Public funds of the
Chhotanagpur Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Limited, Irba, P.O. & P.S. Ormanjhi, Ranchi, the
abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in conncentin with the said offences and any other offences in the aforesaid
transaction.
[F. No. 228/14/2015-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1712--भारतीय िनयार्त-आयात बᱹक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ड.) के
उप-खंड (ii) के अनुसरण मᱶ, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, ᮰ीमती उषा अनंतसुᮩमिणयन के स् थान पर बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया के ᮧबंध िनदेशक
एवं मुख् य कायर्कारी अिधकारी ᮰ी दीनबंधु महापाᮢा को तत् काल ᮧभाव से और अगले आदेशᲂ तक, भारतीय िनयार्त-आयात बᱹक
(एिक्जम बᱹक) के िनदेशक मंडल मᱶ िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा.सं. 24/27/2002-आईएफ-I (खंड-VI)]
सौम् याजीत घोष, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4231
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1712.—In pursuance of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import
Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Dinabandhu Mohapatra,
Managing Director & CEO, Bank of India, as a Director on the Board of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank)
vice Smt. Usha Ananthasubramaniam with immediate effect until further orders.
[F. No. 24/27/2002-IF-I (Vol-VI)]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1713-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] f'kdkxks esa Jh vlhe e.My] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
10 tqykbZ] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2017
S.O. 1713.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Asim Mandal,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Chicago to perform the Consular
services with effect from 10th July, 2017.
[No. T-4330/01/2015]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1714-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] V~;wful esa Jhefr ,- vks- fiQyksehuk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
10 tqykbZ] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
4232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2017
S.O. 1714.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. A.O. Philomina,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Tunis to perform the Consular services
with effect from 10th July, 2017.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1715-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] jkse esa Jh vfouk'k dqekj] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 13 tqykbZ] 2017
ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2017
S.O. 1715.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Avinash Kumar,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Rome to perform the Consular services
with effect from 13th July, 2017.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1716-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa
dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;
vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@513] rkjh[k 12 twu] 2017 dk] ftlesa mDr vuqlwph
esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gSa] fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk vuwiiqj ¼e/; izns’k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1]
dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir
jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds
i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr vuqlwph
esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk’k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu
dh vof/k ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM]
fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ dks&
¼i½
laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi dj
ldsxk( vFkok
¼ii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k gksus okyh laHkkfor
fdlh {kfr ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
¼iii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa ;k
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok
dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼ iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa
dh Ckkcr mixr O;; dks nf’kZr djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU;
nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4233
vuqlwph
vkekMkaM II Cykd
¼dqYgfj;k Cykd esa ve`r/kkjk vkslhih gsrq igqWp ekxZ vkSj eSxthu½
tequk dksrek {ks=
ftyk&vuwiiqj] e/; izns’k
[ js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@513] rkjh[k 12 twu] 2017]
Øe la-
xzke dk
uke
iVokjh gYdk
la[;k
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj esa
fVIif.k;ka
1-
vkekMkaM
68
dksrek
vuwiiqj
1.250
Hkkx
2-
eyxk
54
dksrek
vuwiiqj
36.000
Hkkx
3-
HkkBhljbZ
70
dksrek
vuwiiqj
7.700
Hkkx
4-
VkWadh
70
dksrek
vuwiiqj
9.050
Hkkx
dqy % 54-000 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 133-44 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek&o.kZu%
d&[k
js[kk xzke vkekMkaM esa fcUnq ^d^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds mRrjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke
vkekMkaM &eyxk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^[k^ ij feyrh gSA
[k&[k1
js[kk xzke eyxk esa fcUnq ^[k^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k1^
ij feyrh gSA
[k1&[k2
js[kk xzke eyxk esa fcUnq ^[k1^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq
^[k2^ ij feyrh gSA
[k2&[k3
js[kk xzke eyxk esa fcUnq ^[k2^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k3^
ij feyrh gSA
[k3&x
js[kk xzke eyxk esa fcUnq ^[k3^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke
eyxk&HkkBhljbZ ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^x^ ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk xzke HkkBhljbZ esa fcUnq ^x^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkkBhljbZ ds if’peh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke
HkkBhljbZ&VkWdh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^?k^ ij feyrh gSA
?k&³&p
js[kk xzke VkWdh esa fcUnq ^?k^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke VkWdh ds e/; Hkkx] fcUnq ^³^ ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^p^
ij feyrh gSA
p&p*&³*
js[kk xzke VkWdh esa fcUnq ^p^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke VkWdh ds e/; Hkkx] fcUnq p* ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ³*
ij feyrh gSA
³*&?k*
js[kk xzke VWkdh esa fcUnq ³* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj VkWdh ds e/; Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke VkWdh& HkkBhljbZ
ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k*&x*
js[kk xzke HkkBhljbZ esa fcUnq ?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke HkkBhljbZ ds if’peh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ xzke
HkkBhljbZ&eyxk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq x* ij feyrh gSA
x*&[k*
js[kk xzke eyxk esa fcUnq x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds if’peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke
eyxk&vkekMkaM ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq [k* ij feyrh gSA
[k*&d*
js[kk xzke vkekMkaM esa fcUnq [k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds mRrjh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq
d* ij feyrh gSA
d*&d
js[kk xzke vkekMkaM esa fcUnq d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd
fcUnq d ij feyrh gSA
[ Qk- la- 43015@31@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj ]
vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo
4234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2017
S.O. 1716. —Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands
in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 513, dated the 12th June, 2017
containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector,
District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or
at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006
(Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may-
(i)
object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land; or
(ii)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by
any action taken under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the said Act; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting
license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease
ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land
to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1)
of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
Amadand II Block
(Approach road to Amritdhara OCP in Kulharia Block and magazine)
Jamuna Kotma Area
District-Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
( Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 513, dated 12th June, 2017 )
Sl.
No.
Name of
village
Patwari halka
number
Tahsil
District
Area in hectares
Remarks
1.
Amadand
68
Kotma
Anuppur
1.250
Part
2.
Malga
54
Kotma
Anuppur
36.000
Part
3.
Bhathisarai
70
Kotma
Anuppur
7.700
Part
4.
Tanki
70
Kotma
Anuppur
9.050
Part
Total: 54.000 hectares (approximately) or 133.44 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
Line starts from point ‘A’ in village Amadand and passes through northern part of village
Amadand and meets at point ‘B’ on the common boundary of villages Amadand- Malga.
B-B1
Line starts from point ‘B’ in village Malga and passes through western part of village Malga and
meets at point ‘B1’.
B1-B2
Line starts from point ‘B1’ in village Malga and passes through western part of village Malga
and meets at point ‘B2’.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4235
B2-B3
Line starts from point ‘B2’ in village Malga and passes through western part of village Malga
and meets at point ‘B3’.
B3-C
Line starts from point ‘B3’ in village Malga and passes through western part of village Malga
and meets at point ‘C’ on the common boundary of villages Malga-Bhathisarai.
C-D
Line starts from point ‘C’ in village Bhathisarai and passes through western part of
village
Bhathisarai and meets at point ‘D’ on the common boundary of villages Bhathisarai- Tanki.
D-E-F
Line starts from point ‘D’ in village Tanki and passes through middle part of village Tanki,
point ‘E’ and meets at point ‘F’.
F-F’-E’
Line starts from point F in village Tanki and passes through middle part of village Tanki, point
F’ and meets at point E’.
E’-D’
Line starts from point E’ in village Tanki and passes through middle part of village Tanki and
meets at point D’ on the common boundary of villages Tanki-Bhathisarai.
D’-C’
Line starts from point D’ in village Bhathisarai and passes through western part of
village
Bhathisarai and meets at point C’ on the common boundary of villages Bhathisarai - Malga.
C’-B’
Line starts from point C’ in village Malga and passes through western part of village Malga and
meets at point B’ on the common boundary of villages Malga-Amadand.
B’-A’
Line starts from point B’ in village Amadand and passes through northern part of village
Amadand and meets at point A’.
A’-A
Line starts from point A’ in village Amadand and passes through northern part of village
Amadand and meets at starting point A.
[ F. No. 43015/31/2017-LA&IR ]
R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
’kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2017
dk-vk- 1717-&bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la- ;w- 12012@01@2017&,ebZ&A fnukad 25-04-17 ds vuqØe esa vkSj
Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi /kkjk¼2½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] dsUn ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds mä vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr] vkSj la’kks/ku
djrh gS] vFkkZr%&
mä vuqlwph esa&
³½ ^^LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky fo'ofo|ky;^^ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy,
laf{kfIrdj.k^ dkye ¼3½ ’kh"kZd ds varxZr ,e- Mh-¼tujy esfMflu½ ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g
flfDde ef.kiky bafLVV;wV vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll] xaxVksd esa 2014 vFkok mlds i”pkr dh ctk, dsoy
2011&12 ds vdknfed l= esa nkf[kyk fn, x, Nk=ks dks LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll dk
flfDde ef.kiky fo”ofo|ky; }kjk gksxh^^
^^LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky fo'ofo|ky;^^ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy,
laf{kfIrdj.k^ dkye¼3½ ’kh"kZd ds varxZr ,e-Mh-¼isfM;kWfVªDl ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g
ef.kiky bafLV~V;wV vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll] xaxVksd esa 2014 vFkok mlds i’pkr dh ctk, dsoy 2011&12
vdknfed nkf[kyk fn, x, Nk=ks dks LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky
fo’ofo|ky; }kjk iznÙk gksxh^^A
^^LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky fo’ofo|ky;^^ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy,
laf{kfIrdj.k^ dkye¼3½ ’kh"kZd ds varxZr ,e-,l ¼bZ,uVh½ ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g flfDde
ef.kiky bafLV~V;wV vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll] xaxVksd esa 2014 vFkok mlds i’pkr dh ctk, dsoy 2011&12 ds
4236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vdknfed l= ds Nk=ks dks LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky fo”ofo|ky; }kjk
iznÙk gksxh^^A
^^LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky fo’ofo|ky;^^ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy,
laf{kfIrdj.k^ dkye¼3½ ’kh"kZd ds varxZr ,e-Mh-¼lkbfd;kVªh½ ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g
flfDde ef.kiky vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll] xaxVksd esa 2015 vFkok mlds Ik’pkr dh ctk, dsoy 2013&13 ds
vdknfed l+= esa nkf[kyk fn, Nk=ksa dks LokLF;] vk;qfoZKku vkSj izkS|ksfxdh lkabfll ds flfDde ef.kiky
fo’ofo|ky; }kjk iznÙk gksxh^^A
[la- ;w&12012@01@2017&,ebZ&I]
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2017
S.O. 1717.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U.12012/01/2017-ME-I dated 25.04.17, and
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102 of
1956), the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act,
namely:-
In the said Schedule –
e) against “Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences” under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the MD(General Medicine) qualification shall be a recognised
medical qualification when granted by Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences
in respect of students admitted at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok in the academic
year 2011-12 only instead of on or after 2014 ”.
against “Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences” under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the MD (Paediatrics) qualification shall be a recognised
medical qualification when granted by Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences
in respect of students admitted at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok in the academic
year 2011-12 only instead of on or after 2014”.
against “Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences” under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the MS (ENT) qualification shall be a recognised medical
qualification when granted by Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences in
respect of students at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok in the academic year 2011-
12 only instead of on or after 2014”.
against “Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences” under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the MD(Psychiatry) qualification shall be a recognised
medical qualification when granted by Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Tech. sciences
in respect of students admitted at Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Gangtok in the academic
year 2012-13 only instead of on or after 2015 ”.
[No. U-12012/01/2017-ME-I]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
'kqf)&i=
ubZ fnYyh] 15 twu] 2017
dk-vk- 1718-&bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la- ;w&12012@01@2017&,ebZ&A- ikVZ VI fnukad 20-02-2017 ds vuqØe
eas vkSj Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæ ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ls ijke’kZ djds mä vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa] fuEufyf[kr]
vkSj la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr%&
mä vuqlwph esa&
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4237
³½ ^^dsjy LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] r`’’kwj^^ ds le{k ^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kfIrdj.k^ dkye ¼3½ “kh’kZd ds
varxZr ,e-Mh-¼Mhoh,y½ ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g xouZesaV esfMdy dkWyst] r`’’kwj es 2015
dh ctk, 2013 mlds Ik’pkr izf’kf{kr fd, x, Nk=ksa dks dsjy LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] r`’’kwj }kjk iznÙk
gksxhA
[la- ;w&12012@01@2017&,ebZ&A-ikVZ VI]
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 15th June, 2017
S.O. 1718.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U.12012/01/2017-ME-I pt.VI dated 20.02.17,
and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(102 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said
Act, namely:-
In the said Schedule –
against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur” under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
(column 3), the MD(DVL) qualification shall be a recognised medical qualifications when granted by Kerala
University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of students being trained at Government Medical College,
Thrissur on or after 2013 instead of 2015”.
[No. U.-12012/01/2017-ME-I pt.VI]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2017
dk-vk- 1719-&Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj’kn vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ls ijke’kZ djds mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa]
fuEufyf[kr] vkSj la’kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr%&
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk* ’kh"kZd ds v/khu [ftls blds vkxs dkye ¼2½ dgk x;k gS]
“egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª” lkeus vafre izfof"V ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir
fd;k tk,xk- vFkkZr%&
¼2½
¼3½
“cspyj vkWQ esfMflu ,aM cspyj vkWQ ltZjh
,e-ch-ch-,l-
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr vk;qfoZKkku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g vf’ouh :jy
esfMdy dkWyst] vLirky vkSj fjlpZ lsaVj] lksykiqj] egkjkVª esa
izdkf’kr fd, x, Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa tuojh] 2017 dks ;k ckn esa]
egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk iznÙk
gksxhA½
uksV% 1-
,echch,l fMxzh ds fy, v/kksLukrd dkslZ dks nh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk vf/kdre 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds
ckn bldk uohdj.k djokuk gksxkA
2-
ekU;rk ds ‘uohdj.k’ izfdz;k ogh gksxh tks ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw gSA
3-
ekU;rk ds le; ls uohdj.k djokus esa foQy jgus ij] ifj.kkeLo:i] fujiokn :Ik lsa] mDr v/kksLukrd
dkslZ esa izos’k can gks tk,xkA
[Qk- la- ;w&12012@27@2017& ,ebZ&1 ,QVh,l-3104681]
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2017
S.O. 1719.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act.
4238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the said First Schedule after “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik” and under the heading
‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating
thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be
inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Bachelor of Medicine and
M.B.B.S.
Bachelor of Surgery”
(This
shall
be
a
recognized
medical
qualification when granted by Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences, Nashik in
respect of 100 MBBS students being trained at
Ashwini Rural Medical College, Hospital &
Research Centre, Solapur, Maharashtra on or
after, January.2017.
Note :
1. The recognition so granted to an undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree shall be for a
maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions
to the concerned undergraduate Course.
[F. No. U-12012/27/2017-ME-I FTS.3104681]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1720-&Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn vf/kfu;e 1956 ¼ 1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk
’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn ls ijke’kZ djds mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa]
fuEufyf[kr] vkSj la’kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr%&
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa%&
d½ ‘ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk’[ftls blds vkxsa dkye¼2½ dgk x;k gSa] ’kh"kZd ds v/khu MkW-,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku
fo’ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns’k ds lkeus vafre izfof"V ds Ik’pkr vkSj ‘iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIrhdj.k’ [ftls blds
vkxs dkye ¼3½ dgk x;k gS] ls lacaf/kr izfof"V ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk- vFkkZr%&
¼2½
¼3½
“MkWDVj vkWQ esfMlu¼tujy esfMlu½
,eMh ¼tujy esfMlu½
;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfOkZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ’kkafrjke
esfMdy dkWyst] uaM;ky] djuwy esa izf’kf{kr fd, x, Nk=ksa ds laca/k
esa 2014 dks ;k ckn esa MkW-,uVhvkj LokLF; foKku fo“ofo|ky;]
fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns’k }kjk iznÙk gksxhA
ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼tujy ltZjh½
,e,l¼tujy ltZjh½
¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dksuklhek
baLVhV;wV vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll ,aM fjlpZ QkamMs”ku] esa 2015
dks vFkok ckn esa izf’kf{kr fd, x, Nk=ksa ds lca/k esa MkW-,uVhvkj
LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns’k }kjk iznÙk gksxhA
ekLVj vkWQ ltZjh ¼vkschth½
¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIRk vk;qfoZKku vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dksuklhek
baLVhV~;wV vkWQ esfMdy lkabfll ,aM fjlpZ QkamMs’ku] esa 2015 dksa
vFkok ckn esa izf’kf{kr fd, x, Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa MkW-,uVhvkj
LokLF; foKku fo’ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/kz izns’k }kjk iznÙk gksxhA
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4239
uksV% 1-
LukrdksÙkj ikB;Øe dks nh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk vf/kdre 5 o"kZ ds fy, gksxh vkSj mlds ckn bldk uohdj.k
djokuk gksxkA
2-
ekU;rk ds ‘uohdj.k’ dh izfdz;k ogh gksxh tks ekU;rk iznku djus ds fy, ykxw gksrh gSaA
3-
visf{kr ekU;rk dk le; ls uohdj.k djokus esa foQy jgus ij] ifj.kkeLo:i] fujiokn :Ik ls lacaf/kr
LukrdksÙkj ikB;dze esa izos’k can gks tk,xkA
[Qk- la- ;w&12012@01@2017&,ebZ&1]
Mh- oh- ds- jko] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2017
S.O. 1720.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act.
In the said First Schedule:-
a)
against “Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh” and under the heading
‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be
inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Dr NTR University of Health
Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect
of students being trained at Santhiram Medical
College, Nandyal, Kurnool on or after 2014.
Master of Surgery (General Surgery)
MS (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Dr NTR University of Health
Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect
of students being trained at Konaseema Institute
of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation on
or after 2015.
Master of Surgery (OBG)
MS (OBG)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Dr NTR University of Health
Sciences, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh in respect
of students being trained at Konaseema Institute
of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation on
or after 2015.
Note: 1.
The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon
which it shall have to be renewed.
2.
The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award of recognition.
3.
Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions
to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[F. No.U-12012/01/2017-ME-I]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
4240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पेᮝोिलयम और ᮧाकृितक गैस मंᮢालय
नई िदल् ली, 4 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1721.—केन्ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मᱶ अिधकार के उपयोग का अजर्न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण मᱶ, 5 अक्टूबर 2016 को ᮧकािशत, भारत सरकार
के पेᮝोिलयम और ᮧाकृितक गैस मंᮢालय की अिधसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3154 (अ) मᱶ िन᳜िलिखत रूप मᱶ संशोधन करती
है,
"᮰ी नरेश कुमार गोयल" शब्दᲂ के स्थान पर, " ᮰ी महेश कुमार " शब्द रखे जाएंगे ।
यह अिधसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी।
[फा.सं. आर-25011/14/2012-ओआर-I (पाटर्)/48578]
पवन कुमार , अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2017
S.O. 1721.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the
notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 3154 (E) published in the
Gazette of India on 5 October 2016, namely:
In said notification, for words : Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal" the words " Shri Mahesh Kumar" shall be
substituted.
The notification will be effective from date of issue.
[F. No. R-25011/14/2012-OR-I(Pt.)/48578]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई िदल् ली, 19 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1722.—पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मᱶ ᮧयोगकतार् के अिधकार का अजर्न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मᱶ, केन् ᮤ सरकार एतद᳇ारा सु᮰ी राजम्मा चौड़ा रेी - केएएस
(सीिनयर स्केल) कनार्टक सरकार को, कनार्टक राज् य की ᮧादेिशक सीमाᲐ मᱶ, उक् त अिधिनयम के अन् तगर्त पेᮝोनेट
एमएचबी िलिमटेड, मंगलोर-हसन-बंगलोर पेᮝोिलयम पाइपलाइन के िलए सक्षम ᮧािधकारी के कायᲄ का िनवहर्न करने हेतु
ᮧितिनयुिᲦ पर अिधकारी के रूप मᱶ ᮧािधकृत करती है।
[सं. आर-31015/7/2011-ओआर-II/15210]
पवन कुमार , अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1722.— In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of user in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes Ms. Rajamma A.
Chowdareddy – KAS (Senior Scale), Government of Karnataka as Officer on deputation to Petronet MHB Limited to
perform the functions of Competent Authority for Petronet MHB Limited, Mangalore-Hassan-Bangalore Petroleum
Pipeline, under the said Act, within the territory of the State of Karnataka.
[No. R-31015/7/2011-OR-II/15210]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4241
नई िदल् ली, 26 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1723.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है िक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आवश्यक है िक तेलंगाना राज्य मᱶ
पेᮝोिलयम उत्पादᲂ के पिरवहन के िलए पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना के िᮓयान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक ᮧतीत होता है िक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ
जो इससे उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त है, और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का
अजर्न िकया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजर्न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए उस भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के
अिधकार का अजर्न करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मᱶ युᲦ भारत
के राजपᮢ की ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हᱹ, इᲥीस (21) िदन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार के संबन्ध मᱶ ᮰ी एम. नारायणा राव, सक्षम ᮧािधकारी (तेलंगाना), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 264/ए, दूसरी
मंिजल, कैनरा बᱹक के ऊपर, मागर् संख्या 10, जुिबली िहल्स, हैदराबाद-500033, तेलंगाना राज्य को िलिखत रूप से आक्षेप
भेज सकेगा|
अनुसूची
िजला: यादाᮤी भुवनिगिर राज्य: तेलंगाना
मंडल का नाम
ᮕाम का नाम
सवᱷ नम्बर
क्षेᮢफल
हेक्टेयर
एयर
वगर् मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
चौटुप्पल
जै केसारम
147
00
06
97
चौटुप्पल
एस िलन्गोटम
268/3
00
29
81
146
00
03
91
157
00
66
77
155
00
40
90
206
00
27
49
205
00
34
73
204
00
23
09
201
00
27
76
200
00
01
26
4242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
213
00
21
28
कᲬा रास्ता
00
01
89
215
00
30
25
216
00
27
14
249
00
30
26
248
00
56
91
252
00
07
10
266
00
90
35
268/1
00
86
36
120
00
50
20
119
00
54
12
118
00
20
75
117
00
14
76
125
00
27
77
142
00
46
24
141
00
14
05
145
00
30
91
122
00
37
57
121
00
01
71
चौटुप्पल
िच᳖ा कोन्डूरु
949
00
67
96
948
00
09
38
913
00
47
81
915
00
20
27
920
00
19
55
923
00
32
23
925
00
23
30
924
00
27
31
927
00
45
40
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4243
946
00
01
66
945
00
08
30
950
00
46
11
786
00
37
31
815
00
19
18
816
00
43
18
रास्ता
00
03
26
833
00
30
48
832
00
21
21
831
00
12
91
829
00
35
31
884
00
20
48
883
00
00
24
894
00
11
17
893
00
20
71
906
00
07
17
905
00
36
82
620
00
34
67
कᲬा रास्ता
00
02
85
629
00
38
15
721
00
07
23
722
00
32
80
720
00
00
47
719
00
49
65
718
00
30
16
715
00
30
65
714
00
28
69
711
00
39
46
4244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
765
00
22
28
768
00
19
56
770
00
04
34
771
00
06
23
796
00
22
82
794
00
04
91
793
00
24
94
792
00
35
72
785
00
13
15
621
00
34
21
622
00
02
52
चौटुप्पल
खैरतपूर
8
00
16
55
7
00
41
48
6
00
02
67
चौटुप्पल
मल्कापूर
344
00
43
95
346
00
55
57
347
00
53
33
348
00
24
02
349
00
33
15
231
00
63
96
234
00
42
98
235
00
44
54
236
00
08
84
222
00
00
51
237
00
02
66
221
00
12
42
238
00
04
89
239
00
17
26
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4245
159
00
01
36
240/1
00
05
18
240/7
00
09
20
158
00
02
64
156
00
02
49
142
00
19
07
143
00
47
72
122
00
38
88
120
00
51
69
[फा.सं. आर-25011/2/2017-ओआर-I/48332/ई-13386]
पवन कुमार , अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2017
S.O. 1723.—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, 2nd 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 : Yadadri Bhongir
State : Telangana
Name of Mandal
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Choutuppal
Jai Kesaram
147
00
06
97
Choutuppal
S. Lingotam
268/3
00
29
81
146
00
03
91
157
00
66
77
155
00
40
90
206
00
27
49
205
00
34
73
204
00
23
09
4246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
201
00
27
76
200
00
01
26
213
00
21
28
Cart Track
00
01
89
215
00
30
25
216
00
27
14
249
00
30
26
248
00
56
91
252
00
07
10
266
00
90
35
268/1
00
86
36
120
00
50
20
119
00
54
12
118
00
20
75
117
00
14
76
125
00
27
77
142
00
46
24
141
00
14
05
145
00
30
91
122
00
37
57
121
00
01
71
Choutuppal
Chinna Kondur
949
00
67
96
948
00
09
38
913
00
47
81
915
00
20
27
920
00
19
55
923
00
32
23
925
00
23
30
924
00
27
31
927
00
45
40
946
00
01
66
945
00
08
30
950
00
46
11
786
00
37
31
815
00
19
18
816
00
43
18
Road
00
03
26
833
00
30
48
832
00
21
21
831
00
12
91
829
00
35
31
884
00
20
48
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4247
883
00
00
24
894
00
11
17
893
00
20
71
906
00
07
17
905
00
36
82
620
00
34
67
Cart Track
00
02
85
629
00
38
15
721
00
07
23
722
00
32
80
720
00
00
47
719
00
49
65
718
00
30
16
715
00
30
65
714
00
28
69
711
00
39
46
765
00
22
28
768
00
19
56
770
00
04
34
771
00
06
23
796
00
22
82
794
00
04
91
793
00
24
94
792
00
35
72
785
00
13
15
621
00
34
21
622
00
02
52
Choutuppal
Khairathpur
8
00
16
55
7
00
41
48
6
00
02
67
Choutuppal
Malkapur
344
00
43
95
346
00
55
57
347
00
53
33
348
00
24
02
349
00
33
15
231
00
63
96
234
00
42
98
235
00
44
54
236
00
08
84
222
00
00
51
237
00
02
66
221
00
12
42
4248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
238
00
04
89
239
00
17
26
159
00
01
36
240/1
00
05
18
240/7
00
09
20
158
00
02
64
156
00
02
49
142
00
19
07
143
00
47
72
122
00
38
88
120
00
51
69
[F. No. R-25011/2/2017-OR-I/48332/E-13386]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई िदल् ली, 26 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1724.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है िक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आवश्यक है िक तेलंगाना राज्य मᱶ पेᮝोिलयम
उत्पादᲂ के पिरवहन के िलए पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना के िᮓयान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा
पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक ᮧतीत होता है िक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इस से
ऊपाब अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त है, और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अजर्न िकया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजर्न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए उस भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजर्न करने के
अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मᱶ युᲦ भारत के राजपᮢ
की ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हᱹ, इᲥीस (21) िदन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए
उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार के संबन्ध मᱶ ᮰ी एम. नारायणा राव, सक्षम ᮧािधकारी (तेलंगाना), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड
(पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 264/ए, दूसरी मंिजल, कैनरा बᱹक के ऊपर, मागर् संख्या
10, जुिबली िहल्स, हैदराबाद-500033, तेलंगाना राज्य को िलिखत रूप से आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
िजला: यादाᮤी भुवनिगिर राज्य: तेलंगाना
मंडल का नाम
ᮕाम का नाम
सवᱷ नम्बर
क्षेᮢफल
हेक्टेयर
एयर
वगर् मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
बी. पोचमपल्ली
िजब्लक पिल्ल
298
00
23
26
295
00
10
99
293
00
31
35
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4249
292
00
21
65
291
00
17
56
290
00
39
58
198
00
17
36
कᲬा रास्ता
00
01
40
304
00
50
39
303
00
10
87
302
00
39
54
300
00
00
02
301
00
10
76
299
00
42
69
212
00
06
36
211
00
15
33
209
00
14
96
208
00
13
69
203
00
03
08
202
00
43
96
200
00
27
00
199
00
23
57
196
00
00
06
197
00
29
28
178
00
26
81
225
00
68
35
224
00
23
16
227
00
69
96
162/2
00
10
73
4250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
162/1
00
01
47
165/1
00
00
25
165/2
00
09
18
167/2
00
00
04
166
00
16
99
168/3
00
19
96
172
00
67
27
177
00
32
71
163
00
13
01
164
00
00
10
128
00
02
51
[फा.सं. आर-25011/2/2017-ओआर-I/48332/ई-13386]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2017
S.O. 1724.—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, 2nd 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 : Yadadri Bhongir
State : Telangana
Name of Mandal
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
B. Pochampally
Jiblak Palle
298
00
23
26
295
00
10
99
293
00
31
35
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4251
292
00
21
65
291
00
17
56
290
00
39
58
198
00
17
36
Cart Track
00
01
40
304
00
50
39
303
00
10
87
302
00
39
54
300
00
00
02
301
00
10
76
299
00
42
69
212
00
06
36
211
00
15
33
209
00
14
96
208
00
13
69
203
00
03
08
202
00
43
96
200
00
27
00
199
00
23
57
196
00
00
06
197
00
29
28
178
00
26
81
225
00
68
35
224
00
23
16
227
00
69
96
162/2
00
10
73
162/1
00
01
47
165/1
00
00
25
165/2
00
09
18
167/2
00
00
04
166
00
16
99
168/3
00
19
96
172
00
67
27
177
00
32
71
163
00
13
01
164
00
00
10
128
00
02
51
[F. No. R-25011/2/2017-OR-I/48332/E-13386]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
4252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई िदल् ली, 26 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1725.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है िक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आवश्यक है िक तेलंगाना राज्य मᱶ
पेᮝोिलयम उत्पादᲂ के पिरवहन के िलए पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना के िᮓयान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कᱶᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक ᮧतीत होता है िक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ
जो इस से ऊपाब अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त है, और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का
अजर्न िकया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजर्न) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते हुए उस भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के
अिधकार का अजर्न करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ विणर्त भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मᱶ युᲦ भारत
के राजपᮢ की ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हᱹ, इᲥीस (21) िदन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार के संबन्ध मᱶ ᮰ी एम. नारायणा राव, सक्षम ᮧािधकारी (तेलंगाना), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पिरयोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 264/ए, दूसरी
मंिजल, कैनरा बᱹक के ऊपर, मागर् संख्या 10, जुिबली िहल्स, हैदराबाद-500033, तेलंगाना राज्य को िलिखत रूप से आक्षेप
भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
िजला: यादाᮤी भुवनिगिर
राज्य: तेलंगाना
मंडल का नाम ᮕाम का नाम सवᱷ नम्बर
क्षेᮢफल
हेक्टेयर
एयर
वगर् मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
राम᳖पेट
उᱫटूर
249
00
46
72
247
00
08
16
250
00
21
52
251
00
26
72
259
00
39
94
260
00
33
01
261
00
11
52
262
00
37
99
280
00
29
18
281
00
29
03
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4253
282
00
37
94
रास्ता
00
02
41
302
00
23
21
राम᳖पेट
राम᳖पेटा
385
00
45
76
313
00
33
29
314
00
28
64
315
00
45
76
316
00
25
09
कᲬा रास्ता
00
03
58
370
00
09
89
369
00
40
69
368
00
30
91
367
00
32
84
392
00
67
69
387
00
44
36
386
00
01
77
266
00
41
40
263
00
00
18
283
00
35
40
284
00
30
21
287
00
25
43
289
00
27
20
293
00
23
43
294
00
22
60
261/9
00
14
55
261/8
00
06
77
261/7
00
20
27
261/5
00
18
16
4254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
265
00
42
99
राम᳖पेट
िसिरपुरम
276
00
33
78
281
00
09
74
282
00
46
04
283
00
58
03
272
00
42
41
160
00
54
41
150
00
00
67
151
00
00
13
159
00
41
41
158
00
58
04
कᲬा रास्ता
00
01
90
157
00
42
95
189
00
22
44
188
00
24
41
249
00
33
05
250
00
51
41
251
00
30
88
कᲬा रास्ता
00
01
83
277
00
47
79
162
00
26
11
161
00
36
63
राम᳖पेट
एल्लिन्क
285
00
33
08
345
00
36
25
340
00
18
41
311
00
24
26
312
00
25
22
313
00
28
24
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4255
339
00
01
37
314
00
28
19
320
00
51
76
322
00
61
07
323
00
24
24
232
00
45
33
235
00
32
61
277
00
17
80
278
00
45
58
283
00
41
92
270
00
27
34
284
00
23
67
175
00
26
92
176
00
34
99
212
00
68
84
207
00
17
89
205
00
02
27
206
00
38
32
233
00
33
69
143
00
16
48
144
00
27
64
152
00
09
13
151
00
21
06
150
00
42
23
[फा.सं. आर-25011/2/2017-ओआर-I/48332/ई-13386]
पवन कुमार , अवर सिचव
4256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2017
S.O. 1725.—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, 2nd 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 : Yadadri Bhongir
State : Telangana
Name of Mandal
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ramannapet
Uthatoor
249
00
46
72
247
00
08
16
250
00
21
52
251
00
26
72
259
00
39
94
260
00
33
01
261
00
11
52
262
00
37
99
280
00
29
18
281
00
29
03
282
00
37
94
Road
00
02
41
302
00
23
21
Ramannapet
Ramannapeta
385
00
45
76
313
00
33
29
314
00
28
64
315
00
45
76
316
00
25
09
Cart Track
00
03
58
370
00
09
89
369
00
40
69
368
00
30
91
367
00
32
84
392
00
67
69
387
00
44
36
386
00
01
77
266
00
41
40
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4257
263
00
00
18
283
00
35
40
284
00
30
21
287
00
25
43
289
00
27
20
293
00
23
43
294
00
22
60
261/9
00
14
55
261/8
00
06
77
261/7
00
20
27
261/5
00
18
16
265
00
42
99
Ramannapet
Siripuram
276
00
33
78
281
00
09
74
282
00
46
04
283
00
58
03
272
00
42
41
160
00
54
41
150
00
00
67
151
00
00
13
159
00
41
41
158
00
58
04
Cart Track
00
01
90
157
00
42
95
189
00
22
44
188
00
24
41
249
00
33
05
250
00
51
41
251
00
30
88
Cart Track
00
01
83
277
00
47
79
162
00
26
11
161
00
36
63
Ramannapet
Yellanki
285
00
33
08
345
00
36
25
340
00
18
41
311
00
24
26
312
00
25
22
313
00
28
24
339
00
01
37
314
00
28
19
320
00
51
76
322
00
61
07
323
00
24
24
232
00
45
33
235
00
32
61
4258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
277
00
17
80
278
00
45
58
283
00
41
92
270
00
27
34
284
00
23
67
175
00
26
92
176
00
34
99
212
00
68
84
207
00
17
89
205
00
02
27
206
00
38
32
233
00
33
69
143
00
16
48
144
00
27
64
152
00
09
13
151
00
21
06
150
00
42
23
[F. No. R-25011/2/2017-OR-I/48332/E-13386]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
(उपभोक् ता मामले िवभाग)
(भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो)
नई िदल् ली, 19 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1726.—भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो (ᮧमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण मᱶ भारतीय
मानक ब् यूरो एतारा अिधसूिचत करता है िक िजन लाइसᱶसᲂ के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची मᱶ िदए गए हᱹ, वे स् वीकृत कर िदए गए हᱹ:-
अनुसूची
ᮓम
संख् या
लाइसᱶस संख् या
स् वीकृत करने
की ितिथ
लाइसᱶसधारी का नाम
व पᱫा
भारतीय मानक का
शीषर्क
भा मा
भाग
अनु
वषर्
1.
एल-
9512374617
01.02.2017
मै0 ऐकोडर् ᮝांसफॉमर्र एण् ड
िस्वचिगयर ᮧा0 िल0,
प् लॅाट नं0 94, सैक् टर – 4,
आईएमटी, मानेसर,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –122050,
हिरयाणा
बाहय रंग तेल इम् मेसर्ड
िवतरण ᮝांसफामर्र भाग
1 िमनरल तेल िनिमिᲯत
1180
01
-
2014
2.
एल-
9512374819
01.02.2017 मै0 बसंत कुमार एण् ड कं0,
बस स् टᱹड के सामने,
सलवास रोड, कोसली,
िजला िरवाड़ी – 132302,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलएपूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4259
3.
एल-
9512374920
06.02.2017
मै0 बालाजी
इन् टरᮧाइिसस,
नेताजी नगर, िसटी स् टेशन,
िजला िभवानी,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
4.
एल-
9512375021
06.02.2017 मै0 िहमालय ज् वैलसर्,
न् यू सराफा बाज़ार,
होडल,
िजला पलवल,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
5.
एल-
9512375223
06.02.2017
मै0 सैनी िबिल्डंग
मैटीिरयल सप् लायर,
महैन् ᮤगढ़ नारनौल रोड,
गᱼव जाडड़ा,
िजला िरवाड़ी – 123401,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलएपूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
6.
एल-
9512375122
07.02.2017
मै0 लोकेश िबिल्डंग
मैटीिरयल स् टोर,
राजगढ़ रोड,
के.बी.सी. ईंट भटठा के
नजदीक,
िसवानी,
िजला िभवानी –
127046,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
7.
एल-
9512375518
07.02.2017 मै0 मारूती इिरगेशन कंo,
वीपीओ धानी हुनात,
तहसील िसवानी,
िजला िभवानी –
125046,
हिरयाणा
िसंचाई उपस् कर -
िस्ᮧंकलर पाइप
भाग 1 पोलीइिथलीन
पाइप
14151
01
-
1999
8.
एल-
9512375619
07.02.2017 मै0 मारूती इिरगेशन कंo,
वीपीओ धानी हुनात,
तहसील िसवानी,
िजला िभवानी –
125046,
हिरयाणा
िसंचाई उपस् कर -
िस्ᮧंकलर पाइप
भाग 2 सहज संयोगी
पोलीइिथलीन पाइप तथा
िफᳳटंगस
14151
02
-
2008
9.
एल-
9512375324
08.02.2017
मै0 सवर्मंगल पैᮝोिलयमस
िलिमटेड,
असावटी रेलवे स् टेशन रोड,
(बीपीसीएल बोटिलंग
प् लांट िपयाला के नज़दीक),
गᱼव डीग, बल् लभगढ़,
अल् प दाब ᮤवणीय गैसो
के िलए 5 िलटर से अिधक
जल क्षमता वाले बेिल्डत
अल् प काबर्न इस् पात के
िसिलंडर भाग 1: ᮤिवत
पैᮝोिलयम गैस (एल पी
3196
01
-
2013
4260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121004,
हिरयाणा
जी) के िलए िसिलंडर
10.
एल-
9512375417
10.02.2017
मै0 न् यू बाबा मुंिगप् पा
कंस् ᮝक् शन कंo, गᱼव
ल᭯ मणपुरा,
वीपीओ ल᭯ मणपुरा,
िजला िभवानी –
127040,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
11.
एल-
9512375720
14.02.2017 मै0 सािहल ᮝेिडंग कंo,
गᱼव व डाकघर गुिडयानी,
झज् जर रोड,
तहसील कोसली,
िजला िरवाड़ी – 123301,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलएपूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
12.
एल-
9512375821
14.02.2017 मै0 गुप् ता ज् वैलसर्,
222/5, जैकबपुरा,
गली कृष् ण मिन्दर,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
13.
एल-
9512375922
14.02.2017 मै0 गुप् ता ज् वैलसर्,
222/5, जैकबपुरा,
गली कृष् ण मिन्दर,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
14.
एल-
9512376023
14.02.2017 मै0 भोला ज् वैलसर्,
3A, न् यू कालौनी,
िजला गुड़गᱼव,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
15.
एल-
9512376520
14.02.2017 मै0 भोला ज् वैलसर्,
3A, न् यू कालौनी,
िजला गुड़गᱼव,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
16.
एल-
9512377320
14.02.2017 मै0 अंजली ᮝेडसर्,
ᮧाणपुरा रोड,
आशुतोष िफिलंग स् टेशन के
नज़दीक,
बावल,
िजला िरवाड़ी – 123501,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4261
17.
एल-
9512376124
16.02.2017 मै0 सत पाल सन् स ज् वैलसर्,
135/2, िजया राम चौक,
मेन बाज़ार, सोहना,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122103,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
18.
एल-
9512376217
16.02.2017 मै0 सत पाल सन् स ज् वैलसर्,
135/2, िजया राम चौक,
मेन बाज़ार, सोहना,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122103,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी
िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
19.
एल-
9512376318
16.02.2017 मै0 िसया राम ज् वैलसर्,
112, 4 मरला, खांडसा
रोड,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
20.
एल-
9512376419
16.02.2017 मै0 िसया राम ज् वैलसर्,
112, 4 मरला, खांडसा
रोड,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी
िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
21.
एल-
9512376621
16.02.2017 मै0 सोिनका ज् वैलसर्,
शॉप नं0 25, वाडर् नं0 7,
अᮕसेन बाज़ार, ओल् ड
फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121002,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर्िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
22.
एल-
9512376722
16.02.2017 मै0 ᮰ी कृष् णा ज् वैलसर्,
शॉप नं0 88/8,
ओल् ड सब् ज़ी मण् डी के
नज़दीक,
ओल् ड फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121002,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
4262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23.
एल-
9512376823
16.02.2017
मै0 ᮰ी बालाजी कंᮓीट
ᮧोडक् टस,
हांसी तोशाम रोड,
जमालपुर,
िजला िभवानी –
127035,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
24.
एल-
9512377421
16.02.2017 मै0 संजय कंᮓीट ᮧोडक् टस,
गᱼव लहलाना, डाकघर
गोलागढ़,
िजला िभवानी –
127021,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलएपूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
25.
एल-
9512377522
20.02.2017 मै0 बंसी ᮝेिडंग कंo,
जुडी रोड, गाँव व डाकघर
झाल,
तहसील कोसली,
िजला िरवाड़ी – 123302,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलएपूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
26.
एल-
9512376924
21.02.2017
मै0 मुसी लाल देवैन् ᮤ
िसंह ज् वैलसर्,
306-307, जैन मिन्दर
रोड,
सदर बाज़ार,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
27.
एल-
9512377017
21.02.2017
मै0 मुसी लाल देवैन् ᮤ
िसंह ज् वैलसर्,
306-307, जैन मिन्दर
रोड,
सदर बाज़ार,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी
िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
28.
एल-
9512377623
21.02.2017 मै0 नरेश कुमार कॉन् ᮝैक् टर,
महेन् ᮤगढ़ बाइ पास के
नज़दीक,
चरखी दादरी,
िजला िभवानी –
127306,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4263
29.
एल-
9512377825
21.02.2017 मै0 एवरेस् ट प् योर ᮝेडसर् ,
6 माइलस् टोन इशरवाल से
झुम् पा रोड, तलवानी,
तहसील िसवानी,
िजला िभवानी –
127043,
हिरयाणा
पैकेजबन् द पेय जल
(पैकेजबन् द ᮧाकृितक
िमनरल
जल के अलावा)
14543
-
-
2004
30.
एल-
9512377118
22.02.2017 मै0 कान् हा ज् वैलसर्,
817/8, मेन सदर बाज़ार,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
31.
एल-
9512377219
22.02.2017 मै0 कान् हा ज् वैलसर्,
817/8, मेन सदर बाज़ार,
िजला गुड़गᱼव –
122001,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
32.
एल-
9512377724
22.02.2017 मै0 कृष् णा ज् वैलसर्,
58/7, मेन मा᳸कर्ट,
ओल् ड फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121002,
हिरयाणा
स् वणर् एवं स् वणर् िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
33.
एल-
9512377926
27.02.2017
मै0 यूिनटेक कंस् ᮝक् शन
कम् पनी,
44 फीट रोड, ईसार के
नज़दीक,
गᱼव रोहद, बहादुरगढ़,
िजला झज् जर – 124507,
हिरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूवर् ढिलत
कंᮓीट ब् लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
34
एल-
9512378120
28.02.2017 मै0 कृष् णा ज् वैलसर्,
58/7, मेन मा᳸कर्ट,
ओल् ड फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121002,
हिरयाणा
चᱼदी एवं चᱼदी िम᮰धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तु –
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]
सुनील कुमार, वैज्ञािनक एफ एवं ᮧमुख
4264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1726.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of
which are given in the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licences
No.
CM/L-
Grant Date
Name & Address of the
Licensee
Title of the Standard
IS
No.
Part
Sec.
Year
1.
L-
9512374617
01.02.2017
M/s. Accord Transformer
& Switchgear Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.94, Sector-4, IMT,
Manesar,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122050,
Haryana
Outdoor Type Oil
Immersed Distribution
Transformers
Part 1: Mineral Oil
Immersed
1180
01
-
2014
2.
L-
9512374819
01.02.2017
M/s. Basant Kumar & Co.,
Opp. Bus Stand, Salwas
Road,
Kosli,
Distt. Rewari – 132302,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
3.
L-
9512374920
06.02.2017
M/s. Balaji Enterprises,
Netaji Nagar, City Station,
Distt. Bhiwani,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
4.
L-
9512375021
06.02.2017
M/s. Himalya Jewellers,
New Sarafa Bazar,
Hodal,
Distt. Palwal,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
5.
L-
9512375223
06.02.2017
M/s. Saini Building
Material Supplier,
Mehandergarh Narnual
Road, Village Jadra,
Distt. Rewari,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
6.
L-
9512375122
07.02.2017
M/s. Lokesh Building
Material Store,
Rajgarh Road,
Near K.B.C. Entt Bhtha,
Siwani,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127046,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
7.
L-
9512375518
07.02.2017
M/s. Maruti Irrigation Co.,
V.P.O.Dhani Hunat, Teh.
Siwani,
Distt. Bhiwani - 125046,
Haryana
Irrigation Equipment –
Sprinkler Pipes
Part 1 Polyethylene
Pipes
14151
01
-
1999
8.
L-
9512375619
07.02.2017
M/s. Maruti Irrigation Co.
V.P.O. Dhani Hunat, Teh.
Siwani,
Distt. Bhiwani – 125046,
Haryana
Irrigation Equipment –
Sprinkler Pipes
Part 2 Quick Coupled
Polyethylene Pipes &
Fittings
14151
02
-
2008
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4265
9.
L-
9512375324
08.02.2017
M/s. Sarvamangal
Petroleums Limited,
Asoati Railway Station
Road,
(Near BPCL Bottling Plant
Piyala),
Village Deeg, Ballabgarh,
Distt. Faridabad – 121004,
Haryana
Welded Low Carbon
Steel Cylinders
Exceeding 5 Litre
Water Capacity for
Low Pressure
Liquefiable Gases -
Part 1: Cylinders for
Liquefiable Petroleum
Gases (LPG)
3196
01
-
2013
10.
L-
9512375417
10.02.2017
M/s. New Baba Mungipa
Const. Co.,
Village Laxman Pura,
VPO Lakman Pura,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127040,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
11.
L-
9512375720
14.02.2017
M/s. Sahil Trading Co.,
Village & P.O.Gudiani,
Jhajjar Road, Tehsil Kosli,
Gudiani,
Distt. Rewari – 123301,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
12.
L-
9512375821
14.02.2017
M/s. Gupta jewellers,
222/5, Jacobpura,
Gali krishan Mandir,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
13.
L-
9512375922
14.02.2017
M/s. Gupta jewellers,
222/5, Jacobpura,
Gali krishan Mandir,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
14.
L-
9512376023
14.02.2017
M/s. Bhola Jewellers,
3A, New Colony,
Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
15.
L-
9512376520
14.02.2017
M/s. Bhola Jewellers,
3A, New Colony,
Distt. Gurgaon,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
16.
L-
9512377320
14.02.2017
M/s. Anjali Traders,
Pranpura Road,
Near Ashutosh Filling
Station,
Bawal,
Distt. Rewari – 123501,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
17.
L-
9512376124
16.02.2017
M/s. Sat Pal Sons
Jewellers,
135/2, Jiya Ram Chowk,
Main Bazar, Sohna,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122103,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
18.
L-
9512376217
16.02.2017
M/s. Sat Pal Sons
Jewellers,
135/2, Jiya Ram Chowk,
Main Bazar, Sohna,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122103,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
4266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
L-
9512376318
16.02.2017
M/s. Siya Ram Jewellers,
112/4, Marla, Khandsa
Road,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
20.
L-
9512376419
16.02.2017
M/s. Siya Ram Jewellers,
112/4, Marla, Khandsa
Road,,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
21.
L-
9512376621
16.02.2017
M/s. Sonika Jewellers,
Shop No. 25, Ward No. 7,
Aggarsen Bazar, Old
Faridabad,
Distt. Faridabad – 121002,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
22.
L-
9512376722
16.02.2017
M/s. Shri Krishna
Jewellers,
Shop No. 88/8,
Near Old Sabzi Mandi,
Old Faridabad,
Distt. Faridabad – 121002,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
23.
L-
9512376823
16.02.2017
M/s. Shri Balaji Concrete
Products,
Hansi Tosham Road,
Jamalpur,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127035,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
24.
L-
9512377421
16.02.2017
M/s. Sanjay Concrete
Products,
Village Lahlana, P.O.
Golagarh,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127021,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
25.
L-
9512377522
20.02.2017
M/s. Bansi Trading Co.,
Juddi Road, Village Jhal,
Tehsil Kosli,
Distt. Rewari – 123302,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
26.
L-
9512376924
21.02.2017
M/s. Musaddi Lal
Devender Singh Jewellers,
306-307, Jain Mandir
Road,
Sadar Bazar,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
27.
L-
9512377017
21.02.2017
M/s. Musaddi Lal
Devender Singh Jewellers,
306-307, Jain Mandir
Road,
Sadar Bazar,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
28.
L-
9512377623
21.02.2017
M/s. Naresh Kumar
Contractor,
Near Mahendergarh By
Pass, Charkhi Dadri,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127306,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4267
29.
L-
9512377825
21.02.2017
M/s. Everest Pure Traders,
6th Mile Stone Isharwal to
Jhumpa Road, Talwani,
Tehsil Siwani,
Distt. Bhiwani – 127043,
Haryana
Packaged Drinking
Water
(Other Than Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
14543
-
-
2004
30.
L-
9512377118
22.02.2017
M/s. Kanha Jewellers,
817/8, Main Sadar Bazar,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
31.
L-
9512377219
22.02.2017
M/s. Kanha Jewellers,
817/8, Main Sadar Bazar,
Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
32.
L-
9512377724
22.02.2017
M/s. Krishna Jewellers,
58/7, Main Market,
Old Fariabad,
Distt. Faridabad – 121002,
Haryana
Gold and Gold Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
1417
-
-
2016
33.
L-
9512377926
27.02.2017
M/s. Unitech Construction
Company,
44 Feet Road, Near Essar,
Village Rohad,
Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajjar - 124507
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
34
L-
9512378120
28.02.2017
M/s. Krishna Jewellers,
58/7, Main Market,
Old Fariabad,
Distt. Faridabad – 121002,
Haryana
Silver and Silver
Alloys
Jewellery/Artefacts –
Fineness and Marking
2112
-
-
2014
[No. CMD/13:11]
SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head
नई िदल् ली, 19 जुलाई, 2017
का.आ. 1727.—भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो (ᮧमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण मᱶ
भारतीय मानक ब् यूरो एतारा अिधसूिचत करता है िक िनम् न िववरण वाले लाइसᱶसᲂ को उनके आगे दशार्यी गई तारीख से रद्द /स् थिगत
कर िदया गया है :-
अनुसूची
ᮓम
संख् या
लाइसᱶस संख् या
सीएम/एल
लाइसᱶसधारी का नाम व पता
लाइसᱶस के अन् तगर्त वस् तु/ᮧᮓम
सम् ब भारतीय मानक का शीषर्क
रद करने की ितिथ
01
एल-2720650
मै0 जे0 के0 ल᭯ मी सीमᱶट िलिमटेड,
गᱼव बाजीतपुर, डाकघर झामरी,
तहसील माटनहील,
िजला झज् जर – 123305,
हिरयाणा
साधारणपोटर्लᱹड सीमᱶट
53 ᮕेड
आईएस 12269:2013
03.02.2017
[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]
सुनील कुमार, वैज्ञािनक एफ एवं ᮧमुख
4268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1727.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of
which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licences
No. CM/L-
Name & Address
of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant
Indian Standards covered by the
licence cancelled/suspension
Date of
Cancellation
01
L-2720650
M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd.
Village Bajitpur, P.O. Jhamri,
Tehsil Matanhail,
Distt. Jhajjar – 123305,
Haryana
53 Grade Ordinary Portland
Cement
IS 12269:2013
03.02.2017
[No. CMD/13:13]
SUNIL KUMAR, Scientist F & Head
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1728-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] nwjlapkj ftyk] ch,l,u,y] xkft;kckn] ;wih ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
2@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@19@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 2/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General
Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Ghazibad, UP and their workman, which were received by the Central Government
on 03.07.2017.
[No. L-40011/19/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 2/2016
General Secretary, (Bijendra Kumar).
BSNL AsthaiKaramchariSangh,
Paschimi (UP), 04 Subhash Market
Versus
General Manager, Telecom District.
BSNL, Raj Nagar Exchange,
Ghazibad, UP. 201001.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4269
Ex-parte Award
Sh. Bijendra Kumar, General Secretary, for workman union moved an application u/s 33-A of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 Through which he prayed as follows:-
1.
That the workman/pplicant is connected with ID. No. 5/2013 referred by the Ministry of Labour vide order no.
40011/19/2012-IR(DU) dated 21.01.2013 for regularization of 17 applicants therein and reinstatement of General
Secretary of the Union Bijendra Kumar with full backwages.
2.
That the applicant worked with the respondent as an accounts officer, Shahdra East, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
with effect from May, 2002 to December 2003 under the aegis of A.O. Sh. R.S Chouhand and then from Jan . 2004 to
Aug. 2005 under AO Sh. B.K. Gupta, from Sep. 2005 to April 2007 under AO Sh. Bhagat Lal, from May, 2007 to Feb.
2009 under AO Sh. Subhash Chandra, from Mar. 2009 to Oct 2010 under AO Sh. S.P. Gupta, from Nov. 2010 to Dec.
2011 under AO Sh. R.P. Mishra and lastly from Dec. 2011 to Feb. 2012 under AO Sh. Satraj Singh.
3.
That subsequently an industrial dispute was raised vide representation dated 8.9.2011 regarding regularization of
services of contract workers by the respondent.
4.
It was also submitted in the statement of claim at paragraph 15 filed in I.D No. 5 of 2013 that during the
pendency of conciliation proceedings the management terminated the services of General Secretary of the applicant
Union Sh. Bijendra Kumar in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said violation
was reported to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Dehradun and the Assistant Labour Commissioner Dehradun and
the Assistant Labour Commissioner Dehradun had written letter No. D-8 (109) /2011-ALC dated 13.03.2012 to
Respondent. A copy of the letter dated 13.03.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1
5.
That the Respondent neither reinstated the said General Secretary nor allowed line to work. The Respondent
terminated the services of applicant without following the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act. The action taken by the
management to terminate the services of workman /applicant is absolutely illegal, unjustified and unwarranted.
6.
That till the disposal of the dispute in ID. No. 5 of 2013 , the termination of applicant Bijendra Kumar is nonest
and the applicant is entitled to wages as he was getting before the date of termination of his services with effect from
01.02.2012.
7.
It is humbly submitted that prior to dismissal of the services of applicant, the dispute was already made to the
Ld. Asstt. Labour Commissioner, in other words at the time termination of services of the applicants , the dispute was
already pending before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Dehradun and therefore, the provisions of Section
33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act are indisputably attracted.
8.
That the conciliation proceedings between the parties at that time remained unfruitful. However , due to
ineffective representation of the applicants by the earlier counsel, the Petitioner herein could not move the instant
applicant before this Counsel that the instant applicant is being moved. Albeit it is a settled principle of law, as has been
so enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions , that the party must not for the mistake of his
counsel, nonetheless it is respectfully submitted that the cause of action qua invocation of Section 33(c) (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act did arise in favour of the applicant.
9.
That it has also been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in plethora of judgments that the
substantial rights should not be defeated on account of lapse of procedural delay. The applicants have a substantial right
under Section 33(c) (2) and the lapse of procedural delay, if any, in moving the instant application cannot outweigh the
ineluctable and substantial rights of the applicants qua the relief prayed for in the instant application. It would be a
mockery of justice if the applicants are rendered bereft of their rights as envisaged by the legislature under Section
33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10.
That the facts submitted in the foregoing paragraphs and the relief prayed in the ensuring prayer clause do find
its support from the ratio propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its several judgments, including Punjab
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. Reported as AIR 1978 SC 1995: 1978 SCR (3) 370. Hence , it would be
in the interest of justice that the applicants get their money due by their employer/ management/ respondent in the
interest of justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore , most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a.
Quash the order of termination in respect of the applicant Bijendra Kumar and award reinstatement of
applicant Bijendra Kumar on the same position as he was performing his duties prior to termination of his
services and also award backwages to the applicant;
b.
Pass any such other order /s as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
On the basis of which ID. 2/2016 has been registered and notice was issued to management to file written
statement.
4270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Several opportunities given to management to file its written statement. Neither management appeared nor filed
written statement.
Hence its right to file written statement has been closed and case was order to be proceeded ex-parte against
management on 23.08.2016. Fixed 6.10.2016 for ex-parte evidence of workman.
On 6.10.2016 workman sought adjournment. Hence adjournment allowed and case was adjourned to ex-parte
evidence of workman.
On 7.11.2016 workman tendered his affidavit as WW1. His cross-examination is marked nil as case proceeded
ex-parte against management.
Workman moved an application for issuance summon to witness mentioned in application. Fixed 21.12.2016 for
remaining evidence of workman. On 21.12.2016 workman moved separate application for issuance of Dasti summon.
Which was allowed. Office wass directed to issuance Dasti summon.
Fixed 31.1.2017 for evidence of summoned witnesses .
On 31.1.2017 Ld. A/R for the workman expressed his desire not to examine any witness mentioned in the
application of workman and summoned by this Tribunal. Hence 29.3.2017 was fixed ex-parte arguments .
On 29.3.2017 workman sought time to file written arguments. Hence 29.4.2017 was fixed for filing of ex-parte
written arguments .
On 19.4.2017 written arguments filed by workman. Thereafter award has been reserved.
Contents of written arguments are as follows:-
1.
That the captioned matter was proceeded ex-parte against the management vide order dated 23.08.2016 and till
date the management has not filed any application for setting aside the ex-parte order.
2.
Be that as it may, the case projected by the members of applicant union had filed their claim was registered as
I.D. No. 5/2013 for regularization and reinstatement of members of applicant/union.
3.
The workman worked with the management from the year 2002 to 2012 without any breaks. When the members
of applicant /union raised the industrial disputes, the matter was referred to conciliation.
4.
That on 13.03.2012, the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central )Dehradun wrote a letter to management and
advised the management not to violate the provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Despite such correspondence, the
management terminated the services of Sh. Bijender Kumar, General Secretary of the Union.
5.
That the said termination of services during the conciliation proceedings is in utter violation of the provisions of
Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such as act on part of management falls within the ambit of “Unfair labour
practice”.
6.
That the entire evidence of the applicant remains unrebutted and unchallenged.
In the light of contents mentioned in written arguments I perused the pleadings and ex-parte evidence of
workman. Through which it is crystal clear that evidence of workman is unrebutted and uncontroverted inwnat of cross-
examination in this Ex-parte case. So this Tribunal has no option except to allow application and grant prayer of
workman made in his application u/s 33-A of ID .
So it is a fit case of quashing of termination order of workman Sh. Bijendra Kumar, which is accordingly
quashed due to unfair labour practice of management of BSNL and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
Application u/s 33-A of the ID. Act is here-by allowed.
And order of termination of General Secretary of workman union is quashed. He is reinstated with full back
wages alongwith consequential benefits.
Management is directed to reinstate the workman Sh. Bijendra Kumar , General Secretary, for workman union,
within period of two months after expiry of period of available remedy against this award.
Which is accordingly passed.
Dated : 14.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4271
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1729-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izca/
funs'kd] Hkkjr bE;quksykWftdy dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] cqyan'kgj] ;wih ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 56@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@42@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 56/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Managing Director, Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd., Bulandshahr, UP and their workman, which were
received by the Central Government on 21.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/42/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 56/2011
Shri Om Prakash
S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh,
Vill. & Po- Chaula, Sikenderabad,
Bulandshahr (UP)
1.
The Managing Director,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.
Vill- Chaula, Bulandshahr (UP)
2.
The Managing Director,
Bharat Immunological Corporation Ltd.
Vill- Chaula, Bulandshahr (UP)
…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-42011/42/2011-IR(DU) Dated 05.08.2011.
“Whether the Action of the management of Bharat Immunological Corporation Limited, in terminating services
of workman Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh w.e.f. 22.02.2007, without complying with provision of
25F, 25N, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 30.08.2011 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID.No. 56/2011 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 20.10.2011. Wherein he prayed as follows:-
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to passed its award in favour of
the workman and against the management, thereby reinstating the services of the workman into the service of the
management with continuity of service full back wages and with all consequential benefits which includes
regularization of the workman after a gap of one year from the date of his joining, in the facts of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
Against claiM/s.tatement management filed its written statement on 27.01.2012. Wherein it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the claim filed by the claimant/workman in the interest of justice.
4272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman filed rejoinder against written statement of management. Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of
claim statement.
On 19.11.2012 my Ld. Predecessor heard arguments of Ld. A/Rs for parties on the point of framing of issues.
They submitted that no issue other than the one mentioned in the reference requires to be framed in this case. Hence
case was fixed for evidence of the workman by way of affidavit on 12.02.2013.
But workman on 05.04.2013 filed his affidavit and affidavit of his witness Sh. Kamal Singh and Sh. Karan
Singh. Fixed 08.05.2013 for examination of workman witness as well as evidence of management.
On 08.05.2013 testimony of claimant and his witnesses have been recorded. Therefore Ld. A/R for claimant
closed remaining evidence of workman and 16.07.2013 was fixed for management evidence.
On 05.08.2013 affidavit of management witness Sh. Dinesh Kumar filed. Copy of which supplied to workman
and 17.09.2013 was fixed for cross-examination of management witness.
But cross-examination of MW1 could be conducted on 02.12.2013 and cross-examination concluded.
On 11.06.2015 management filed additional affidavit of management witness no.1. Copy of which supplied to
workman.
Fixed 24.07.2015 for tendering of additional affidavit of management and his corss-examination.
On 22.02.2016 management tendered additional affidavit of MW1 with annexed documents but his cross-
examination was deferred to 12.04.2016.
On 22.08.2016 management witness no.1 was cross-examined and his cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter Ld. A/R for management closed the management evidence. I fixed 07.11.2016 for arguments.
On 07.11.2016 case adjourned to 05.01.2017 and on 05.01.2017 case adjourned to 30.01.2017.
On 30.01.2017 Ld. A/R for workman filed written argument. Copy supplied to management. Management
sought time. Hence fixed 06.03.2017.
On 06.03.2017 management against sought adjournment. Hence I reserved the award with liberty to
management to file written argument prior to passing of award.
Management has filed written arguments which are on record.
Through written arguments of workman it was claimed that he was appointed in the establishment of
management on 26.09.1998 through employment exchange, Bulandshahar and his entry in the establishment of the
management was banned on 22.02.2007 by the management and challenged the stand of management that workman is
contractual employee.
While on the other hand management claimed that workman is the workman of a contractor M/s. Shiv
Enterprises, Shishodia Bhawan, Chandpur Road, Bulandshahar. The management has placed on record copies of two
contracts dated 23.12.2002 Ex-MW1/1 and 23.02.2005 Ext-MW1/5 Document Ext-MW1/
In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings and evidence of parties on record as
well as contents of written arguments filed by parties.
Which makes its crystal clear that claimant/workman in his claiM/s.tatement has not impleaded contractor as
necessary party to conceal this fact that workman/claimant was contractual employee.
It is established fact that in case of contractual employee claimant/workman can not claim relief from principal
employer but from contractor because contractor took wages of workman from principal employer and pay it to
contractual employee. In case contractor is defaulter then workman has to made protest before principal employer.
He can claim due relief from contractor only during the subsistence of contract.
So question of determination no.1 mentioned in the schedule of reference is liable to be decided in favour of
management of Bharat Immunological corporation Ltd and against workman Sh. Om Prakash.
Which is accordingly decided.
Question of determination no.2 which is relating to relief to workman is also liable to be decided against
workman and in favour of management as question of determination no. 1 has already been decided in favour of
management and against workman.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4273
In this background reference is liable to be decided in favour of management and against workman.
Which is accordingly decided and claiM/s.tatement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 19.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1730-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy
eSustj] ch,l,u,y] djuky ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@2005) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@69@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 119/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, BSNL, Karnal and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 21.06.2017.
[No. L-40012/69/2005-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 119/2005
Sh. Suleman S/o Sh. Mohmuddin,
Vill. Silikala, Tehsil –Radour,
Yamunanagar, (HARYANA)
Versus
The General Manager, BSNL,
Dist. Karnal
Karnal.
AWARD
Reference order no. L-40012/69/2005-IR(DU) : dated 10.11.2005 from the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi, received in this Tribunal.
Which was registered as ID No. 119/2005 and 30.03.2006 was fixed . Notice to claimant /workman was issued
to file his claim statement.
Workman/ claimant filed his claim statement. Through which he prayed as follows:
1.
Present claim petition may kindly be accepted and the termination of the applicant sh. Suleman Mohamad ,
Casual Labourer may be declared as illegal:
2.
Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization of his services in view of
the policy framed by the department dated 1.10.1989 as also the polinies dated 10.02.1995 and 27.01.2000.
3.
Any other relief to which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may
also be granted to the applicant .
4274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management of BSNL filed its written statement on 14.12.2006. Through which it is prayed that the contents of
prayer clause are not admitted and hence denied. It is humbly prayed that he claim statement may kindly be dismissed
with costs.
Against written statement of management workman filed its replication /rejoinder on 9.1.2007.
Through which he reaffirmed the contents of claim statement.
On 9.1.2007 my Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue and proceeded to decide the case on the basis of
questions of determination mentioned in the schedule of reference. Therefore he fixed 13.02.2007 for filing of affidavit
of workman in his evidence.
On 13.02.2007 workman filed his affidavit in his evidence.
Who tendered his affidavit on 7.12.2015 as WW1/A without any document in support of his case.
He was cross-examined and his cross-examination concluded same day.
Thereafter workman closed his remaining evidence. I fixed 25.1.2016 for management evidence.
On 11.07.2016 management filed affidavit of management witness Sh. Bhagat Ram (AGM). I fixed 11.08.2016
for tendering of affidavit of MW and his cross-examination.
On 11.08.2016 MW1 tendered his affidavit and his cross-examination is deferred to 20.10.2016.
On 29.11.2016 L.R of Deceased workman moved an application for his substitution in place of deceased
workman.
I fixed 28.12.2016 for objection and disposal of application. Which could be disposed off and allowed on
2.2.2017. But no request on behalf of L.R of Deceased workman made for cross-examination of MW1.
Hence I fixed 2.3.2017 for filing of affidavit of S/o deceased workman.
On 2.3.2017 S/o Deceased workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Copy of which supplied to
management. Fixed 28.03.2017 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of S/o Deceased workman.
On 17.04.2017 S/o Deceased workman tendered his affidavit as WW2 . He was cross-examined and his cross-
examination concluded same day.
I fixed 25.04.2017 for arguments with permission to file written arguments by parties. They filed written
arguments on 24.4.2017 then I reserved the award.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions mentioned in written arguments I perused the pleadings and
evidence of parties on record.
Which makes it crystal clear that there is solitary evidence of workman without supporting evidence of
documents in his favour.
While on the otherhand evidence of MW1 Sh. Bhagat is supported with documents as well as it is
uncontroverted as he was not at all cross-examined so it unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony cannot be brushed
aside.
MW1 Sh. Bhagat Ram Proved this fact that workman Suleman made representation . Which was rejected by
management of BSNL. Copy of which supplied to workman. Which has also been filed by MW1 alongwith his
affidavit as MW1/A.
Wherein it is mentioned as follows:-
As per the above instructions the benefit of regularization to be given only to those casual labourers who are
working in the Department and to those who have been granted temporary status. In your case you are neither working
in the department nor have been granted temporary status. Thus being not eligible you are not entitled to the benefit of
these orders.
Further more it is pertinent to highlight the entire scheme of granting of temporary status in view of instruction
issued from time to time. Grant of temporary status and regularization scheme was introduced vide DOT Circular No.
269-10/89-STM dated 07.11.1989 which came into force w.e.f 01.10.1989. According to that a temporary status would
be conferred on the all the Casual Labourers who are currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service
of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case
of offices observing 5 days week) such casual labourers will be designated temporary Mazdoor. You left the
Department in May, 1987, as such being not working in the department from the date of enforcement of this scheme i.e.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4275
01.10.1989, you are working in the Department from the date of enforcement of this scheme i.e.f 01.10.1989 , you are
not eligible to be considered in the scheme.
Vide DOT letter no. 269-4/93 –STN –II dated 17.12.1993 further relaxation was issued for the persons who
were engaged as casual labourers after 30.03.1985 and up to 22.06.1988 to be considered for grant of temporary status
subject to that they are still continuing for such works where they were initially engaged and who are not absent for the
last more than 365 days counting from the date of issue of this letter. Here-in –too you are not eligible to be benefited
for the scheme /relaxation being you left the department in may, 1987.
Moreover your representation is hopelessly time barred. In view of the above facts and due consideration no
relief can be granted to you as desired by you in representation.
In these circumstances deceased workman Suleman was not at all eligible to be benefited for the scheme
/relaxation as he left the department in May, 1987 .
Even then he filed claim on false and fabricated facts which is not proved through his evidence so question of
determination no. 1 mentioned in schedule of reference is liable to be decided in favour of management and against
workman.
Which is accordingly decided.
Question of determination No. 2 related to relief to workman /claimant. Which is also liable to be decided in
favour of management of BSNL and against workman after aforesaid findings on question of determination no. 1.
Which is accordingly decided.
In this background reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management. Which is
accordingly decided. Claim statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 12.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1731-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lqij
,;jdksu] ikaMs uxj] ubZ fnYyh o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2014) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@105@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 68/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s.. Super Aircon, Pandey Nagar, New Delhi & Others and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 21.06.2017.
[No. L-42012/105/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 68/2014
Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Harpal Singh,
At- Khadoli, Near Ambedkar Dharmshala,
Bhola Road,
Meerut (UP). 250005.
4276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
M/s. Super Aircon,
At-C-129 , Pandey Nagar,
Behind Radha Krishna Temple,
New Delhi-92.
2.
The Chief , NDDTC, AIIMS,
Kamla Nehra Nagar, Near Central Public School,
Ghaziabad (UP).
AWARD
Reference No. L- 42012/105/2014-IR(DU) dated 13.08.2014 sent by Ministry of Labour of Government of India
to this Tribunal for adjudication of following questions of determination :
“Whether the action of the management of NDCC, AIIMS , Ghaziabad its contractor M/s. Super Aircon, Delhi
in terminating the services of workman Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Harpal Singh w.e.f 17.12.2012 and non-
payment of dues from may 2012 is legal and justified.? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 22.12.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 52/2008 and claimant
was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 29.1.2007 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
“This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly direct the management no. 1 to reinstate Sh. Ravi Kumar as A/c Operator/
Mechanic and reinstate him with full back wages w.e.f 17.12.2012 and also direct the management to pay the wages to
the workman from May, 2012 from this date the management retained his wages which is also illegal and unjustified in
the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the management no. 1may kindly be directed to pay the workman in a time
scale as per the principle laid down by the management of CPWED and management no.1 is functioning under the said
rule adopted by him. It is also submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal award as they think fit and proper in the interest of
justice and fair play.
But Respondent No. 1 not filed written statement on 16.03.2015 , 7.5.2015 , 3.07.2015 , 28.09.2015 , 1.09.2015.
So I closed the right of filing written statement by respondent no. 1 on 1.09.2015.
Likewise Respondent no. 2 has not filed written statement on aforesaid dates but it sought adjournment on
1.09.2015. So I allowed the adjournment application and fixed 30.09.2015 for filing written statement by Respondent
no. 2.
But Respondent again sought adjournment on 30.09.2015 , 2.12.2015 , 26.02.2016, 18.03.2016. So I closed the
right of filing written statement by Respondent No. 2 on 18.03.2016 and fixed 12.04.2016 for workman evidence.
On 12.04.2016 workman sought adjournment which was allowed and case was adjourned to 7.06.2016 for
workman evidence.
On 27.05.2016 respondent no. 2 moved an application for setting aside order dated 18.03.2016.
Which has been rejected due to dormancy of Respondent No. 2 on 29.09.2016 and 27.06.2016 was fixed for
workman evidence.
On 15.02.2016 workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by him as WW1/A and his was
marked nil.
Thereafter Ld. A/R for the workman closed the evidence of workman and then I fixed 27.03.2017 for ex-parte
arguments.
On 27.03.2017 workman sought adjournment. Hence I fixed 17.04.2017.
On 17.04.2017 Ld. A/R for the workman filed written arguments and then I reserved ex-parte award.
In the light of contentions mentioned in the written arguments I perused the pleadings of claim statement and
ex-parte evidence of workman. Which makes it crystal clear that workman was contractual employee upto 17.12.2012
for supplying man power to management of NDCC, AIIMS, Ghaziabad.
So workman was not terminated but he became workless after expiry of period of contract.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4277
In case of contractual employee wages to workman is paid by contractor after receiving it from principal
employer. So it cannot be presumed that contractor has not received the wages of workman since may , 2012 to
17.12.2012 from management No. 1.
According to uncontroverted and unrebutted pleadings and evidence of workman it is proved fact that workman
Ravi Kumar was not paid his dues from May, 2012 to 17.12.2012 by contractor Respondent No. 2. Who was duty
bound to pay such dues to workman.
Therefore non-payment of dues from May, 2012 to 17.12.2012 is not legal and justified inwant of evidence of
contractor R2.
Hence question of Determination No. 1 is liable to be partly decided in favour of workman and against
Respondent No. 2. Which is accordingly decided.
So far question of determination no. 2 relating to relief is concerned. It is liable to be decided upto the extent of
dues from May , 2012 to 17.12.2012 . Which shall be paid to workman by Respondent No. 2 Which is liable to be
partly decided in favour of workman and against respondent 2. Which is accordingly decided. Claim statement is partly
allowed.
Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 50, 000/- (Fifty thousand only)(Tentative amount of unpaid dues since
May, 2012 to 17.12.2012) to workman Ravi Kumar within two month after expiry of period of available remedy
against this Award.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 09.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1732-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; egkfuns'kd]
,lhvkj] baæizLFk ,LVsV] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2008) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@19@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 52/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director General, ACR, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 21.06.2017.
[No. L-42012/19/2008-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 52/2008
Sh. Mahesh Sewa Sabha,
120, Nehru Kutia, Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007
Versus
The Director General,
ACR, Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi -110002.
4278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Reference No. L-42012/19/2008-IR(DU) dated 29.09.2008 sent by Ministry of Labour of Government of India
to this Tribunal for adjudication of following questions of determination :
“Whether the action of the management of Director General, ACR, Delhi in terminating the services of ex-
canteen employees viz. S/Sh. Padam Singh, Surender Singh, Harish Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Naveen
represented by Mahesh Sewa Sabha, is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”
On 22.12.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 52/2008 and claimant
was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 29.1.2007 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
a.
Award to reinstate S/Sh. Padam Singh, w.e.f 03.08.2007, Surinder Singh, w.e.f. 01.8.2007, Harish Kumar
w.e.f 01.03.2007 , Sushil Kumar w.e.f. 03.03.2007 & Naveen w.e.f 01.07.2007 from the date of their
termination including consequential benefits of regularization from the date of when new hands are
recruited in the regular post.
b.
To pass any other award as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
After service of notice management filed written statement on 10.06.2009. Where-in management prayed as
follows:-
“The present statement of claim of merit. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to
dismiss the same with cost.
Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.
On 24.11.2009 following issues were framed:-
1.
Whether the present reference is not maintainable as per preliminary objection no.1 to 13 of in its written
statement of the management.
2.
As per reference.
3.
Relief.
No other issue is made out.
Workmen in support of their case produce WW1 Sh. Sushil Kumar on 12.01.2011, who tendered his affidavit
Exht. WW1/ A without any other documents.
He was partly cross-examined on 12.01.2011.
His part cross-examination is as follows:-
I have got appointment letter issued by the management. The Director General of Autdit. I have not filed the
same in the court till today. The same is lying at my house and I will file the same on the next date of hearing. (The
witness is asked to bring the same as per request of the AR for the management. I do not have the identity card as the
same was never issued to me.
WW1 was further cross-examined on 22.11.2011.
His further cross-examination is as follows:-
I have not been able to lay hand on appointment letter issued to me by the management and I am unable to
produce any appointment letter. My affidavit has been prepared as per my instructions. I was appointed by some Bisht.
Who he was I do not know. I even do not know if he was peon or whether he himself was working. It is incorrect to
suggest that I was never appointed by the management or any officer of the management. It is incorrect to suggest that I
was never working with the management from 06.04.2000 to 01.03.2007. It is wrong to suggest that I was an employee
of some contractor during this period i.e. 06.04.2000 to 01.03.2007 , Mr. Rai Singh was the manager of the canteen. I
used to be paid ever month. I am not in possession of any document to prove that I used to be paid by the manager in
the canteen in cash and he never paid me and others by way of cheque etc. I do not know if the manager of the canteen
was an employee of the management or not.
Q. I put it to you that all the officers the management used to be paid during the period in question by Cheque
only.
A. I do not know. I was never paid by cheque.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4279
It is incorrect to suggest that I was never appointed directly by the management.
Q. I put it to you that the management had engaged a contractor for running the canteen through a separate
agreement with him and so he was running the canteen and for running the canteen he had employed few
persons and you might be one of them. What have you to say?
A. There was no contractor during the period 06.04.2000 to 1.03.2007.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed absolutely falsely and I have absolutely no case against the
management. I do not know any Sohan Lal. I do not know if Sohan Lal was appointed as the contractor of the canteen.
I do not dispute letter dated 08.03.2007 vide which I was called upon for interview and the said letter is Ex. WW1/M1 .
I now say that it was employed by the management after this interview. I am not in possession of the management. It is
wrong to suggest that I am making a false claim that I have been appointed in January , 2010 as a result of interview
conducted in March , 2007.
WW2 Sh. Harish Kumar , tendered his affidavit Exht. WW2/A without any documents.
His cross-examination is as follows:-
My affidavit has been prepared as per my instructions. I was appointed by some Bisht. Who he was I do not
know. I even do not know if he was peon or whether he himself was working. It is incorrect to suggest that I was never
appointed by the management or any officer of the management. It is incorrect to suggest that I was never working with
the management from 01.02.2000 to 01.03.2007 . It is wrong to suggest that I was an employee of some contractor
during this period i.e. 01.02.2000 to 01.03.2007 . Mr. Rai Singh was the manager of the canteen. I used to be paid every
month. I am not in possession of any document to prove that I used to be paid by the manager in the manner mentioned
by me above. I used to be paid by the manager of the canteen in cash and he never paid me and others by way of
cheque etc. I do not know if the manager of the canteen was an employee of the management or not.
Q. I put it to you that all the officers the management used to be paid during the period in question by Cheque
only.
A. I do not know. I was never paid by cheque.
It is incorrect to suggest that I was never appointed directly by the management.
Q. I put it to you that the management had engaged a contractor for running the canteen through a separate
agreement with him and so he was running the canteen and for running the canteen he had employed few
persons and you might be one of them. What have you to say?
A. There was no contractor during the period 01.02.2000 to 1.03.2007.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed absolutely falsely and I have absolutely no case against the
management. I do not know any Sohan Lal. I do not know if Sohan Lal was appointed as the contractor of the canteen.
WW3 Sh. Surinder Singh , tendered his affidavit Exht. WW3/A. without any documents. He was cross-
examined on same day on 22.11.2011.
His cross-examination is as follow:-
My affidavit has been prepared as per my instructions. I was appointed by some Bisht. Who he was I do not
know. I even do not know if he was peon or whether he himself was working. It is incorrect to suggest that I was never
appointed by the management or any officer of the management. It is incorrect to suggest that I was never working with
the management from 01.7.98 to 1.08.2007 . It is wrong to suggest that I was an employee of some contractor during
this period i.e. 01.07.1998 to 01.08.2007 . Mr. Rai Singh was the manager of the canteen. I used to be paid every
month. I am not in possession of any document to prove that I used to be paid by the manager in the manner mentioned
by me above. I used to be paid by the manager of the canteen in cash and he never paid me and others by way of
cheque etc. I do not know if the manager of the canteen was an employee of the management or not.
Q. I put it to you that all the officers the management used to be paid during the period in question by Cheque
only.
A. I do not know. I was never paid by cheque.
It is incorrect to suggest that I was never appointed directly by the management.
Q. I put it to you that the management had engaged a contractor for running the canteen through a separate
agreement with him and so he was running the canteen and for running the canteen he had employed few
persons and you might be one of them. What have you to say?
4280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A. There was no contractor during the period 01.07.1998 to 1.08.2007.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed absolutely falsely and I have absolutely no case against the
management. I do not know any Sohan Lal. I do not know if Sohan Lal was appointed as the contractor of the canteen.
Sh. Padam Singh as WW4 tendered his affidavit without any document. He was cross-examined same day on
22.11.2011 . His cross-examination is not needed to be mentioned here as case against him is already abated due to not
moving of application for substitution of his LR’s of him.
Workman Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Harish Kumar moved application for withdrawal of their case on
14.12.2011. But my Ld. Predecessor passed order on 22.2.2012 that formal orders on the prayer of withdrawal made
by these two workmen shall be passed at the appropriate stage as there are other workmen who are pursuing their case
and fixed 19.7.2012 for remaining evidence of workmen.
Workman Sh. Naveen , moved an application for withdrawal of his claim petition on which my Ld. Predecessor
passed order dismissed as withdrawan formal order on the prayer made by the workman shall be passed at the
appropriate stage.
Thereafter Sh. B.K. Prasad, Ld. A/R for the workmen closed the evidence of workman.
Management in rebuttal produce MW1 Sh. Manoj Chaudhary and MW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties on record
including order dated 14.02.2017 relating to abatement in respect of case of deceased workman Sh. Padam Singh as per
provisions of sub Rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order 22 C.P.C.
So far case of other workman Sh. Harish Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Naveen are concerned they have withdrawn
their case. Moreover there is no reliable and credible and required evidence in their favour. Moreover there is
unrebutted and uncontroverted evidence of MW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain.
In this background reference of aforesaid workmen is liable to be decided against them and in favour of
management and their claim statement is liable to be dismissed.
Which is accordingly decided and their claim /statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 05.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1733-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; vk;qDr] iwoZ
fnYyh uxj fuxe] 'kkgnjk] fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2013) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@24@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 79/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahadra, Delhi and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/24/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4281
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 79/2013
Sh. Nabab Singh S/o Late Rattan Lal
As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,
Near Patparganj, Shahadra, 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-42011/24/2013-IR(DU) Dated 10.07.2013.
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.2001 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Nabab Singh S/o. Late
Rattan La officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID No. 79/2013 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 10.09.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
salary of Garden Choudhary as the workman has been performing his duty in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.
01.01.2001 as revised from time to time along with all consequential benefits.
Against claiM/s.tatement management filed its written statement on 03.03.2014. Wherein he prayed that the
present claim of the claimant may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit and being misconceived.
Against written statement on 31.03.2014 workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he prayed that the preliminary
objection as well as the written statement of the management may kindly be dismissed in favour of the workman and
against the management.
On 14.07.2014 I framed following issues:-
1.
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Nabab Singh
S/o. Late Rattan La officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
No other issue was made out.
Fixed 01.08.2014 for workman evidence.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by workman alongwith certain documents as
WW1/A.
He was cross-examined.
Workman in support of his evidence filed affidavit of Sh. B. K. Prasad as WW2/A. Which was tendered by
workman witness no. 2 and he was cross-examined on 09.05.2016. His cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma.
Which was tendered by management witness No.1 along with certain documents.
Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire to filed written arguments. On 27.03.2017 workman filed written
arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for managements for reply.
4282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Contents of written arguments of workman are as follows:-
1.
That the appropriate Government i.e. Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 vide its
Order No.L-42011/24/2013-IR(DU) dated 10.07.2013 has referred the following dispute for industrial adjudication
before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-II:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Nabab Singh
S/o. Late Rattan La officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
That Sh. Nabab Singh workman was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by the competent
authority under and was posted under Shahadra North Zone (Horticulture) to work under Dy. Director (Hort.) but he
has been dinied the wages of Chaudhary in the pay scale revised from time to time. As per the order of Horticulture
Wing under Shahadra North vide their letter Exhibit WW1/1 and his name is appearing at Srl. No.18 of the said list
which is annexed as Annexure-A with the Statement of Claim.
3.
That the management evidence MW1 Shri Vijay Pal Sharma, Asstt. Hort., North Shahadra Municipal
Corporation in his cross-examination dated 23.01.2017 has neither denied nor accepted the list of workmen who have
been performing the duty of Garden Chaudhary WW1/1 and further cross-examination is deferred by the Hon’ble Court
on 20.02.2017 and directed the management to confirm whether Inderpal, S/o Tika Ram, Kuwar Singh S/o Bhule
Singh, Hari Kishan were included in the list WW1/1 or not and the cross-examination of the management witness
deferred to 20.02.2017 in which the management witness Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma admitted that Inderpal, S/o Late Tika
Ram is included in the Exhibit WW1/1. He further admitted the list WW1/1 is genuine so its proved that Sh. Nabab
Singh workman performed his duty as officiating Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
4.
That the workman in his cross-examination adduced his evidence as WW1/1 has admitted that his name is
appearing at Srld. No.18 in document Exhibit WW1/1 which proves that he has been performing the duty of Chaudhary
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and claimed the wages of Chaudhary and not the post of Chaudhary.
5.
That as per Exhibit WW1/1 the name of Shri Nabab Singh workman is appearing at Srl. No. 18. The said list
was prepared by the concerned zone of Horticulture, Shahadra North Zone under East Delhi Municipal Corportation.
6.
That the management has also denied the list of horticulture department but in this case the Shahadra North
Zone under EDMC but the MW1 Shri Vijay Pal Sharma and admitted the list WW1/1 is genuine on 20.02.2017 in the
cross-examination by the authorized representative of the workman. In the similar situated case the Hon’ble Division
Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Sigh & Ors. In W.P.(C) 7947/2010 in para 9 of the
judgement is reproduced as under:
“9.
Cosequent to the order dated 21.04.2005 the petitioner filed the supplementary
affidavit in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10158-86/2005 dated 13.08.2008 ccategorically
stating that the lists which were issued by the zonal horticulture departments i.e. Central Zone,
South Zone and West Zone respectively and were received by Horticulture headquarter. Out of
the three lists it was contended that original of one of the list was available and original of the
two lists were not traceable, however, photocopy of one of the two lists were not traceable on
the record. The petitioner also pleaded that the three lists were issued by concerned zonal head
of the department of horticulture without any inspection and order from any competent
authority. It was contended that the additional work as Garden Chaudhary at zonal level was
assigned without the existence of any vacant post in violation of the recruitment rules.”
In view of the para-9 of the judgement of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & ors the management cannot deny thelist of
WW1/1 as the Division Bench in the said judgment has clearly mentioned that the horticulture department i.e. Central
Zone, South Zone & West Zone and in view of this the name of the workman is indicated in the liost of Shahadra North
Zone under EDMC at Srl. No. 18 in WW1/1. The name of Inderpal, Kuwar Singh, Hari Singh are also mentioned in the
Exhibit WW1/1 and Shri Vijay Pal Sharma management witness MW1 on 20.02.2017 admitted that the list WW1/1 is
genuine.
7.
It is submitted that Shri Inderpal, Kuwar Singh and Hari Singh and also Naban Singh workman are mentioned in
the list of Acting Chaudhary as per WW1/1 and are covered as per the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of High
Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 7947/2010 in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. And the name of Shri Nabab
Singh WW1 is also included in the list WW1/1 at srl. No.18 which is annexed as Annexue-A and the same is Exhibit
WW1/1. So it is proved that Shri Nabab Singh was also covered in the list of management as Exhibit WW1/1.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4283
Accordingly, he is also entitiled the wages of Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with all consequential benefits till
date.
8.
It is also submitted that as per the judgment of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and ors. the relevant paras 28 & 29 are
reproduced as under:
“28. Considering the entire facts and Circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the
respondent have always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar
and the Garden Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudahry
whereas the petitioner had first denied that they worked asGarden Chaudharies then took the
plea that the Assistant Director (Hort.) was at competent to ask the respondent to work as
Garden Chaudharies and that the respondent cannot be appointed to the post of Garden
Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondent are
not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on
adhoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not
having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to make out any such grounds which will impel this court to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2010
and 7.10.2010 as no illegality or sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has
been made out.”
9.
The management also filed the SLP against the order of the Divison Bench in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan
Singh and ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Copy
of the said LPA and copy of SLP (C)No.20069/2011 are also annexed for the king perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. So
the payment of Chaudhary attains finality and management cannot deny the difference of wages of Mali and Cahudhary
to the workman from the date 01.01.2001 with all consequential benefits till date.
10.
The sponsorship of MCD General Mazdoor Union is Exhibit WW2/3 for sponsoring the cause of workman.
11.
Accordingly Shri Nabab Singh is also entitled the wages of Chaudhary w.e.f. 0101.2001 revised from time to
time in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- along with all consequential benefits.
In reply of written arguments of workman management filed its written arguments on 08.05.2017. Copy of
which supplied to Ld. A/R for workman.
Contents of written arguments of management are as follows:-
1.
That the above named Industrial Dispute is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal and is now fixed
for 08.05.2017 for filing of written submission on behalf of the management. The terms of reference are as under:-
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.2001 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Nabab Singh S/o. Late
Rattan La officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
That the claimant had filed his Statement of Claim with the averments that he has been allotted the work of
Chowdhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by the Competent Officer of Horticulture Department and was posted under Shahdara
(North) Zone but he has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The claimant further
alleged that he is entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
3.
That the management has filed its written statement and raised as many as 7 preliminary objections to the effect
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as not espoused by Massive Majority of the same category of
workers; that no demand notice has been served upon the management; that the reference has been made mechanically
without due application of mind; that the MCd General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute
as the same is not a recognized Union of the management; that the claimant initially engaged on the post of Mali on
daily wages basis and later on regularized as Mali in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- and there is a prescribed procedure
for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary i.e. there must be sasnctioned and vacant posts of Garden Chaudhary,
the claimant must have the requisite qualification and must have passed the Trade Test conducted by the management.
The claimant has never passed any Trade Test; that the claimant has never performed duties of Garden Chaudhary and
no such office order was enver issued by any competent authority of the management. The post of Garden Chaudhary is
the promotional post of Mali; that the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches as the claim has
been filed after passage of 12 years. In case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr. Reported as 1997 LLr 249,
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial
Dispute and denied the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The Hon’ble
4284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.:. Madhauankuty & Others” reported as 2000(2) SCC 455
has held that though no limitation has been prescribed under Section 10 of the I.D. Act but its is not that this Power
can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised
reasonably and rational manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development
Bank Vs. Neelam” reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour
court after more that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.” On merits, the
management has denied each and every allegations of the claimant and prayed for dismissal for his claim.
4.
That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 14.07.2014:-
(1)
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Nabab Singh
S/o. Late Rattan La officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?
(2)
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
5.
That the claimant has examined himself as WW-1 and Sh. B.K. Prasad as WW-2. The management has
examined Sh. Vijay Pal Sharma- Assistant Director (Horticulture), Shahdara (North) Zone of the management as MW-
1. The claimant (WW-1) has exhibited photocopy of alleged list dated 15.06.2005 as Ex. WW-1/1. During cross-
examination of the WW-1 documents have been exhibited:-
WW-1/M-1-
Photocopy of Service book (3 pages)
WW-1/M-2-
Order Dated 07.02.1995 regarding regularization of the claimant.
WW-1/M-3-
Reliving order dated 06.06.2011.
WW-1/M-4-
Joining report dated 30.07.2007.
WW-1/M-5-
Leave application dated 26.02.2009.
WW-1/M-6-
Leave application dated 25.03.2010.
WW-1/M-7-
Joining report dated 21.06.2011.
WW-1/M-8-
Transfer order dated 31.05.2011.
WW-1/M-9-
Leave application dated 11.07.2012.
WW-1/M-10- Leave application dated 27.11.2013.
Sh. B.K. Parsad (WW-2) has exhibited copy of Registration Certificate of Union as Ex. WW-2/1, copy of
recognition by MCD as Ex. WW-2/2, copy of Sponsorship as Ex. WW-2/3.
The management had exhibited Office order dated 29.02.2016 as Exb. MW-1/1 and copy of Recruitment Rules
as Exb. MW-1/2 & Exb. MW-1/3.
6.
That the WW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no order assigning him the
work of officiating Chaudhary, issued at any point of time. The WW-1 has further admitted that arguculture was not
a subject in his 10th & 12th class examination. He has further admitted that he has never appeared in the trade test
conducted by the management. WW-1 has stated that he has been a member of the Union since 1996. Though the
claimant has failed to prove his memebership of the alleged Union but if for the sake of arguments (though not
admitted) it is presumed that the claimant has been member of the alleged union since 1996, it is very strange that the
claimant has not raised any objection against payment of salary of Mali to him instead of salary of Chaudhary, if he had
ever worked as officiating Chaudhary. The WW-1 has admitted that no demand notice has been served upon the
management prior to raising of the present dispute. The WW-1 has also stated that he has made a complaint in writing
to the Union regarding no-payment of salary of the post of Chaudhary but neither he is aware about the date, month &
year of the alleged complaint nor he has filed any copy of such complaint before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The WW-1
has specifically stated that no meeting of the Union regarding his present dispute was ever held, meaning
thereby that the present dispute has not been espoused by the union.
7.
That the WW-2, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not filed constitution of the Union on record.
The WW-2 has also admitted that the minutes of the meeting regarding present dispute are not filed. It is very strange
that WW-2 is the President of alleged Union bu he is not aware about the date of meeting regarding the present dispute.
The WW-2 has admitted that list of Executive Members and List of General Members have not been filed before the
Court. The WW-2 has failed to file any letter of recognition by the EDMC (Infant no such recognitionhas ever been
given by the EDMC at any point of time). The witness has failed to produce any list of the Executive Members,
minutes or Agenda of the alleged meeting of the Union of the year 2012.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4285
8.
That the MW-1 has corroborated the defence taken by the management in its written statement and nothing
contrary has come out in his entire cross-examination.
9.
That the claimant has failed to prove any document or office order with regard to his working as Officiating
Chaudhary whereas the management has proved on record so many documents of different period since beginning till
date that the claimant was working as Mali and never worked as Officiating Chaudhary. It can not be believed that a
person who is working as Officiating Chaudhary, will mention his designation as Mali in his different official
documents. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of the alleged Sultan Singh’s matter as he was not a party
to the same. It is also a fact that the facts and evidence of Sultan Singh’s matter are entirely different from the present
matter. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of alleged list Exb. WW-1/1 which has not been validly proved
by the claimant before this Hon’ble Court.
10.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr.
Reported as 1997 LLR 249, has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute and denied
the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The claimant, in the present matter, is
claiming salary of the post of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.2001 but has raised the present dispute only in the year 2013 i.e.,
after passage of twelve years.
11.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhauankutty & Others”
reported as 2000(2) SCC 455 has held that “Though Law does not prescribe any time for the appropriate government to
exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act, its is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to
revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There
appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of
about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time, reference was made, no Industrial
Dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute, which is stale, could not be the subject
matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the
reference be made under section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one.”
12.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam”
reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour court after more
that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.”
13.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs.
Rampal Singh” reported as 2015 LLR 747 has held as follows:-
“An individual dispute not espoused by the Union or a substantial number of workmen is not an industrial
dispute.
Issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter while adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would get jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused.
Merely a party has not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough a ground not to
entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute.”
14.
That the judgment cited by the A/R of the claimant is not application in the circumstances of the present case
and as such the same can not be relied upon.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the claimant is not entitled from any relief from this Hon’ble
Court and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
On 08.05.2017 Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire not to file reply for the written arguments of the
management. Hence I reserved the Award.
Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is reliable, credible and required evidence
in this case. While evidence of management not at all sufficient to rebut the evidence of workman. So this Tribunal has
no option except to decide the reference in favour of workman and against management.
Which is accordingly decided. And claim statement is allowed.
Management is directed to grant salary of Garden Chaudhary to workman Sh. Nabab Singh since 01.01.2001
alongwith all consequential benefits.
Compliance has to be done by management within 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against
the instant Award.
Dated : 17.05.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
4286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1734-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
lkmFk fnYyh uxj fuxe] 'kkgnjk] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@2013) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@26@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 92/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre, New Delhi and their workman, which were received
by the Central Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/26/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032
ID. No. 92/2013
Sh. Lekh Raj S/o Late Ganesh Lal
As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No. 95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi – 110002
…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-42011/26/2013-IR(DU) Dated 10.07.2013.
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f.
20.04.1993 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Lekh Raj S/o. Late Ganesh
Lal officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID No. 92/2013 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 10.09.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
salary of Garden Choudhary as the workman has been performing his duty in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f.
20.04.1993 as revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits.
Against claiM/s.tatement management filed its written statement on 23.12.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
present claim of the claimant may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit and being misconceived.
Against written statement on 17.02.2013 workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he prayed that the preliminary
objection as well as the written statement of the management may kindly be dismissed in favour of the workman and
against the management.
On 04.04.2014 on the basis of pleadings of parties followings issues are hereby framed:-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4287
1.
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f.
20.04.1993 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Lekh Raj S/o. Late Ganesh
Lal officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
No other issue was made out.
Fixed 05.06.2014 for workman evidence.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by workman alongwith certain documents as
WW1/A.
He was cross-examined.
Workman in support of his evidence filed affidavit of Sh. B. K. Prasad as WW2/A. Which was tendered by
workman witness no. 2 and he was cross-examined on 09.05.2016. His cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter management filed affidavit of MW1/A Sh. Ajay Kumar, Assitant Director (Horticulture).
Which was tendered by management witness no.1 aongwith certain documents.
Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire to filed written arguments. On 20.02.2017 workman filed written
arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for managements for reply.
Contents of written arguments of workman are as follows:-
1.
That the appropriate Government i.e. Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 vide its
Order No. L-42011/26/2013-IR(DU) dated 10.07.2013 has referred the following dispute for industrial adjudication
before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-II:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-
w.e.f. 20.04.1993 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Lekh Raj S/o.
Sh. Late Ganesh Lal, officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 is fair & justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
That Sh. Lekh Raj workman was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 by the competent authority
under Central Zone of Horticulture now he is working under South Zone, Horticulture, Green Park but the workman
has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary in the pay scale revised from time to time. As per the order of Central
Zone, Lajpat Nagar vide their No. SNUC/M Zone/2004/421 dated 12.08.2004 the said order is annexed as Exhibit
WW1/1 in which the name of Shri Lekh Raj is mentioned at Srl. No. 35 in the said list and accordingly, as per the
said list he was allowed to work as Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993.
3.
That the workman in his cross-examination adduced his evidence as WW1. He exhibited WW1/1 and his name
is appearing at Srl. No. 35 which proves that he has been performing the duty of Chaudhary and claimed the wages
Chaudhary. In cross-examination of MW1 has said that he do not know Surender S/o Sh. Surajmal, Ram Singh S/o
Ganga Ram, Shyam Singh S/o Ved Prakash, Om Prakash S/O Peru and Daya S/o Jaipal. He further said that he do not
know whether aforesaid persons were the parties in the case of Sultan Singh and they were provided the payment of
Chaudhary. It is proved that the name of Surender and others are mentioned in the list exhibit WW1/1.
4.
The Similar situated officiating Chaudhary in the said list was granted the wages of Garden Chaudhary from the
date of their working as Garden Chaudhary from the date of their working as Garden Chaudhary. The name of some of
the workmen are mentioned in the list Exhibit WW1/1. The name of the workmen are indicate in Para 2 hereinabove.
5.
That as per Exhibit WW1/1 the name of Shri Lekh Raj workman is appearing at Srl. No. 35. The said list was
prepared by the concerned zone of Horticulture, South Zone under South Delhi Municipal Corportation.
6.
That the management has also denied the list of horticulture department i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West
Zone but the Division Bench of High Court in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7947/2010 in
para 9 of the judgement is reproduced as under:
“9.
Cosequent to the order dated 21.04.2005 the petitioner filed the supplementary affidavit in the writ
petition being W.P.(C) No. 10158-86/2005 dated 13.08.2008 ccategorically stating that the lists which were
issued by the zonal horticulture departments i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West Zone respectively
and were received by Horticulture headquarter. Out of the three lists it was contended that original of
one of the list was available and original of the two lists were not traceable, however, photocopy of one of
the two lists were not traceable on the record. The petitioner also pleaded that the three lists were issued
4288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by concerned zonal head of the department of horticulture without any inspection and order from any
competent authority. It was contended that the additional work as Garden Chaudhary at zonal level was
assigned without the existence of any vacant post in violation of the recruitment rules.”
In view of the para-9 of the judgement of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & ors the management cannot deny thelist of
WW1/1 as the Division Bench in the said judgment has clearly mentioned that the horticulture department i.e. Central
Zone, South Zone & West Zone and in view of this the name of the workman is indicated in the list of Central Zone at
Srl. No. 35. The name of other workers i.e. Surender, Ram Singh, Shyam Singh, Om Prakash and Daya so here is no
doubt that the workmen is included in the list of WW1 at Srl. No. 35.
7.
It is submitted that above five workers are mentioned in the list of Acting Chaudhary as per WW1/1 and are
covered as per the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 7947/2010 in the matter of
MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. And the name of Shri Lekh Raj WW1 is also included in the list WW1/1 at Srl. No. 35.
So it is proved that Shri Lekh Raj was also covered in the list of management as Exhibit WW1/1. Accordingly, he is
also entitiled the wages of Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 till date he is also continuously working the work of
Garden Chaudhary. The details mentioned in the Statement of Claim are reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
8.
It is also submitted that as per the judgment of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and ors. the relevant paras 28 & 29 are
reproduced as under:
“28. Considering the entire facts and Circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondent have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden
Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudahry whereas the petitioner had first
denied that they worked asGarden Chaudharies then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Hort.) was
at competent to ask the respondent to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondent cannot be
appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt
that respondent are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having
worked on adhoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not
having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2010 and 7.10.2010 as no illegality or
sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.”
9.
The management also filed the SLP against the order of the Divison Bench in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan
Singh and ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Copy
of the said LPA and copy of SLP (C) No. 20069/2011 are also annexed for the king perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
So the payment of Chaudhary attains finality and management cannot deny the difference of wages of Mali and
Cahudhary to the workman from the date 20.04.1993 with all consequential benefits till date.
10.
The sponsorship of MCD General Mazdoor Union is Exhibit WW2/3 for sponsoring the cause of workman.
11.
Accordingly Shri Lekh Raj is also entitled the wages of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 revised from time to time
in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- along with all consequential benefits.
In reply of written arguments of workman management filed its written arguments on 06.03.2017. Copy of which
supplied to Ld. A/R for workman.
Contents of written arguments of management are as follows:-
1.
That the above named Industrial Dispute is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal and is now fixed
for 06.03.2017 for filing of written submission on behalf of the management. The terms of reference are as under:-
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f.
20.04.1993 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Lekh Raj S/o. Late Ganesh Lal
officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
That the claimant had filed his Statement of Claim with the averments that he has been allotted the work of
Chowdhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 by the Competent Officer of Horticulture Department and was posted in South Zone but
he has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The claimant further alleged that he is
entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993.
3.
That the management has filed its written statement and raised as many as 7 preliminary objections to the effect
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as not espoused by Massive Majority of the same category of
workers; that no demand notice has been served upon the management; that the reference has been made mechanically
without due application of mind; that the MCD General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4289
as the same is not a recognized Union of the management; that the claimant initially engaged on the post of Mali on
daily wages basis and later on regularized as Mali in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- and there is a prescribed procedure
for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary i.e. there must be sasnctioned and vacant posts of Garden Chaudhary,
the claimant must have the requisite qualification and must have passed the Trade Test conducted by the management.
The claimant has never passed any Trade Test; that the claimant has never performed duties of Garden Chaudhary and
no such office order was enver issued by any competent authority of the management. The post of Garden Chaudhary is
the promotional post of Mali; that the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches as the claim has
been filed after passage of 15 years. In case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr. Reported as 1997 LLr 249,
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial
Dispute and denied the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.:. Madhauankuty & Others” reported as 2000(2) SCC 455
has held that though no limitation has been prescribed under Section 10 of the I.D. Act but its is not that this Power
can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised
reasonably and rational manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development
Bank Vs. Neelam” reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour
court after more that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.” On merits, the
management has denied each and every allegations of the claimant and prayed for dismissal for his claim.
4.
That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 04.04.2014:-
(1) Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-
w.e.f. 20.04.1993 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Lekh Raj S/o.
Sh. Late Ganesh Lal officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?
(2) To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
5.
That the claimant has examined himself as WW-1 and Sh. B.K. Prasad as WW-2. The management has
examined Sh. Ajay Kumar - Assistant Director (Horticulture), South Zone of the management as MW-1. The claimant
(WW-1) has exhibited photocopy of alleged list dated 12.08.2004 as Ex. WW-1/1, office order dated 04.06.2013
regarding Sultan Singh & Ors. Ex. WW-1/2, copy of Registration Certificate of Union as Ex. WW-2/1, copy of
Recognition by MCD as Ex. WW-2/2 & copy of Sponsorship as Ex. WW-2/3 & copy of list of Office Bearers as Ex.
WW-2/4. During cross-examination of the WW-1 following documents have been exhibited:-
WW-1/M-1-
Photocopy of Service book (7 pages)
WW-1/M-2-
Approval dated 14.09.2010 for grant of Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200+1800 GP
WW-1/M-3-
LPC dated 11.07.2011
WW-1/M-4-
Statement of Pay Fixation dated 30.09.2010
WW-1/M-5-
Performa for grant of second MACP dated 26.02.2013
WW-1/M-6-
Revision of pay dated 14.05.2012
WW-1/M-7-
Office order dated 26.12.2012 regarding pay fixation.
WW-1/M-8-
Performa of 1st ACP and 2nd MACP.
WW-1/M-9-
Pay Fixation approval dated 20.06.2013.
WW-1/M-10- Performa of First, Second & Third financial upgradation.
WW-1/M-11- Copy of application dated 02.11.2011 for adding qualification.
WW-1/M-12- Leave application dated 27.06.2014
WW-1/M-13- Leave application dated 06.10.2015
WW-1/M-14- Leave application dated 12.11.2014
WW-1/M-15- Leave application dated 02.05.2014
WW-1/M-16- Joining dated 15.05.2014
WW-1/M-17- Leave Sanction order for 17.05.2008 to 23.05.2008
WW-1/M-18- Relieving order dated 07.07.2011 on transfer from Shahdara (South) Zone to South Zone.
WW-1/M-19- Office order dated 17.04.2012
4290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
WW-1/M-20- Transfer order dated 15.06.2009 from Central Zone to Shahdara (South) Zone.
WW-1/M-21- Office order dated 19.11.2009 regarding permission to appear in 10th/12th class examination.
WW-1/M-22- The result of Trade Test alongwith merit list.
WW-1/M-23- Office order dated 15.04.2005.
The management had exhibited copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Mali as Exb. MW-1/1 and copy of the
Recruitment Rules for the post of Chaudhary as Exb. MW-1/2.
6.
That the WW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no order assigning him the
work of officiating Chaudhary, issued at any point of time. The WW-1 has further admitted that arguculture was not
a subject in his 10th & 12th class examination. He has further admitted that he has never appeared in the trade test
conducted by the management. WW-1 has stated that he has been a member of the Union since 1995-1996. Though the
claimant has failed to prove his memebership of the alleged Union but if for the sake of arguments (though not
admitted) it is presumed that the claimant has been member of the alleged union since 1995-96, it is very strange that
the claimant has not raised any objection against payment of salary of Mali to him instead of salary of Chaudhary, if he
had ever worked as officiating Chaudhary. The WW-1 has admitted that no demand notice has been served upon the
management prior to raising of the present dispute. The WW-1 has also stated that he has not made any complaint in
writing to the Union regarding no-payment of salary of the post of Chaudhary. The WW-1 is also not aware whether
any meeting of the Union regarding his present dispute was held or not.
7.
That the WW-2, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not filed constitution of the Union on record.
The WW-2 has also admitted that the minutes of the meeting regarding present dispute are not filed. It is very strange
that WW-2 is the President of alleged Union but he is not aware about the date of meeting regarding the present
dispute. The WW-2 has admitted that list of Executive Members and List of General Members have not been filed
before the Court. The WW-2 has failed to file any letter of recognition by the SDMC (Infant no such recognition has
ever been given by the SDMC at any point of time). The witness has failed to produce any list of the Executive
Members, minutes or Agenda of the alleged meeting of the Union of the year 2012.
8.
That the MW-1 has corroborated the defence taken by the management in its written statement and nothing
contrary has come out in his entire cross-examination.
9.
That the claimant has failed to prove any document or office order with regard to his working as Officiating
Chaudhary whereas the management has proved on record so many documents of different period since beginning till
date that the claimant was working as Mali and never worked as Officiating Chaudhary. It can not be believed that a
person who is working as Officiating Chaudhary, will mention his designation as Mali in his different official
documents. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of the alleged Sultan Singh’s matter as he was not a party
to the same. It is also a fact that the facts and evidence of Sultan Singh’s matter are entirely different from the present
matter. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of alleged list Exb. WW-1/1 which has not been validly proved
by the claimant before this Hon’ble Court nor admitted by the management.
10.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr.
Reported as 1997 LLR 249, has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute and denied
the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The claimant, in the present matter, is
claiming salary of the post of Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 but has raised the present dispute only in the year 2013 i.e.,
after passage of fifteen years.
11.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhauankutty & Others”
reported as 2000(2) SCC 455 has held that “Though Law does not prescribe any time for the appropriate government to
exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act, its is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to
revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There
appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of
about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time, reference was made, no Industrial
Dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute, which is stale, could not be the subject
matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the
reference be made under section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one.”
12.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam”
reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour court after more
that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.”
13.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs.
Rampal Singh” reported as 2015 LLR 747 has held as follows:-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4291
“An individual dispute not espoused by the Union or a substantial number of workmen is not an industrial
dispute.
Issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter while adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would get jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused.
Merely a party has not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough a ground not to
entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute.”
14.
That the judgment cited by the A/R of the claimant is not application in the circumstances of the present case
and as such the same can not be relied upon.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the claimant is not entitled from any relief from this Hon’ble
Court and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
On 08.05.2017 Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire not to file reply for the written arguments of the
management. Hence I reserved the Award.
Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is reliable, credible and required evidence
in this case. While evidence of management not at all sufficient to rebut the evidence of workman. So this Tribunal has
no option except to decide the reference in favour of workman and against management.
Which is accordingly decided. And claim statement is allowed.
Management is directed to grant salary of Garden Chaudhary to workman Sh. Lekh Raj since 20.04.1993
alongwith all consequential benefits.
Compliance has to be done by management within 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against
the instant Award.
Dated : 17.05.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1735-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
lkmFk fnYyh uxj fuxe] 'kkgnjk] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 77@2013) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@28@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 77/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahadra, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/28/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 77/2013
Sh. Satya Dev S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai
As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11
…Workman
4292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi – 110002
…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-42011/28/2013-IR(DU) Dated 10.07.2013.
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Satya Dev S/o. Sh.
Bhagwan Sahai officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled
to?”
On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID.No. 77/2013 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 10.09.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
salary of Garden Choudhary as the workman has been performing his duty in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.
01.01.1998 as revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits.
Against claiM/s.tatement management filed its written statement on 23.12.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
present claim of the claimant may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit and being misconceived.
Against written statement on 17.02.2013 workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he prayed that the preliminary
objection as well as the written statement of the management may kindly be dismissed in favour of the workman and
against the management.
On 04.04.2014 on the basis of pleadings of parties followings issues are hereby framed:-
1.
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Satya Dev
S/o. Sh. Bhagwan Sahai officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
No other issue was made out.
Fixed 05.06.2014 for workman evidence.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by workman alongwith certain documents as
WW1/A.
He was cross-examined.
Workman in support of his evidence filed affidavit of Sh. B. K. Prasad as WW2/A. Which was tendered by
workman witness no. 2 and he was cross-examined on 09.05.2016. His cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Assitant Director (Horticulture).
Which was tendered by management witness no.1 aongwith certain documents.
Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire to filed written arguments. On 20.02.2017 workman filed written
arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for managements for reply.
Contents of written arguments of workman are as follows:-
1.
That the appropriate Government i.e. Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 vide its
Order No.L-42011/28/2013-IR(DU) dated 10.07.2013 has referred the following dispute for industrial adjudication
before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-II:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Satya Dev S/o.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4293
Sh. Bhagwan Sahai, officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
That Sh. Satya Dev workman was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 by the competent authority
under Central Zone of Horticulture now he is working under South Zone, Horticulture, Green Park but the workman
has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary in the pay scale revised from time to time. As per the order of Central
Zone, Lajpat Nagar vide their No.SNUC/M Zone/2004/421 dated 12.08.2004 the said order is annexed as Exhibit
WW1/1 in which the name of Shri Satya Dev is mentioned at Srl. No.29 in the said list and accordingly, as per the
said list he was allowed to work as Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
3.
That the workman in his cross-examination adduced his evidence as WW1. He exhibited WW1/1 and his name
is appearing at Srl. No.29 which proves that he has been performing the duty of Chaudhary and claimed the wages
Chaudhary. In cross.examination of MW1 has said that he do not know Surender S/o Sh. Surajmal, Ram Singh S/o
GAnga Ram, Shyam Singh S/o Ved Prakash, Om Prakash S/O Peru and Daya S/o Jaipal. He further said that he do not
know whether aforesaid persons were the parties in the case of Sultan Singh and they were provided the payment of
Chaudhary. It is proved that the name of Surender and others are mentioned in the list exhibit WW1/1.
4.
The Similar situated officiating Chaudhary in the said list was granted the wages of Garden Chaudhary from the
date of their working as Garden Chaudhary from the date of their working as Garden Chaudhary. The name of some of
the workmen are mentioned in the list Exhibit WW1/1. The name of the workmen are indicate in Para 2 hereinabove.
5.
That as per Exhibit WW1/1 the name of Shri Ved Ram workman is appearing at Srl. No. 14. The said list was
prepared by the concerned zone of Horticulture, South Zone under South Delhi Municipal Corportation.
6.
That the management has also denied the list of horticulture department i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West
Zone but the Division Bench of High Court in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7947/2010 in
para 9 of the judgement is reproduced as under:
“9.
Cosequent to the order dated 21.04.2005 the petitioner filed the supplementary affidavit in the
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10158-86/2005 dated 13.08.2008 ccategorically stating that the lists which
were issued by the zonal horticulture departments i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West Zone
respectively and were received by Horticulture headquarter. Out of the three lists it was contended that
original of one of the list was available and original of the two lists were not traceable, however,
photocopy of one of the two lists were not traceable on the record. The petitioner also pleaded that the
three lists were issued by concerned zonal head of the department of horticulture without any inspection
and order from any competent authority. It was contended that the additional work as Garden
Chaudhary at zonal level was assigned without the existence of any vacant post in violation of the
recruitment rules.”
In view of the para-9 of the judgement of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & ors the management cannot deny thelist of
WW1/1 as the Division Bench in the said judgment has clearly mentioned that the horticulture department i.e. Central
Zone, South Zone & West Zone and in view of this the name of the workman is indicated in the list of Central Zone at
Srl. No. 29. The name of other workers i.e. Surender, Ram Singh, Shyam Singh, Om Prakash and Daya so here is no
doubt that the workmen is included in the list of WW1 at Srl. No.29.
7.
It is submitted that above five workers are mentioned in the list of Acting Chaudhary as per WW1/1 and are
covered as per the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 7947/2010 in the matter of
MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. And the name of Shri Satya Dev WW1 is also included in the list WW1/1 at srl. No.29.
So it is proved that Shri Satya Dev was also covered in the list of management as Exhibit WW1/1. Accordingly, he is
also entitiled the wages of Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 till date he is also continuously working the work of
Garden Chaudhary. The details mentioned in the Statement of Claim are reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
8.
It is also submitted that as per the judgment of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and ors. the relevant paras 28 & 29 are
reproduced as under:
“28. Considering the entire facts and Circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondent have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden
Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudahry whereas the petitioner had first
denied that they worked asGarden Chaudharies then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Hort.) was
at competent to ask the respondent to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondent cannot be
appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt
that respondent are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having
worked on adhoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not
having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.
4294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2010 and 7.10.2010 as no illegality or
sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.”
9.
The management also filed the SLP against the order of the Divison Bench in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan
Singh and ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Copy
of the said LPA and copy of SLP (C)No.20069/2011 are also annexed for the king perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. So
the payment of Chaudhary attains finality and management cannot deny the difference of wages of Mali and Cahudhary
to the workman from the date 01.01.1998 with all consequential benefits till date.
10.
The sponsorship of MCD General Mazdoor Union is Exhibit WW2/3 for sponsoring the cause of workman.
11.
Accordingly Shri Satya Dev is also entitled the wages of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 revised from time to
time in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- along with all consequential benefits.
In reply of written arguments of workman management filed its written arguments on 06.03.2017. Copy of which
supplied to Ld. A/R for workman.
Contents of written arguments of management are as follows:-
1.
That the above named Industrial Dispute is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal and is now fixed
for 06.03.2017 for filing of written submission on behalf of the management. The terms of reference are as under:-
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Satya Dev S/o. Sh.
Bhagwan Sahai officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
That the claimant had filed his Statement of Claim with the averments that he has been allotted the work of
Chowdhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 by the Competent Officer of Horticulture Department and was posted in South Zone but
he has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The claimant further alleged that he is
entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
3.
That the management has filed its written statement and raised as many as 7 preliminary objections to the effect
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as not espoused by Massive Majority of the same category of
workers; that no demand notice has been served upon the management; that the reference has been made mechanically
without due application of mind; that the MCD General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute
as the same is not a recognized Union of the management; that the claimant initially engaged on the post of Mali on
daily wages basis and later on regularized as Mali in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- and there is a prescribed procedure
for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary i.e. there must be sasnctioned and vacant posts of Garden Chaudhary,
the claimant must have the requisite qualification and must have passed the Trade Test conducted by the management.
The claimant has never passed any Trade Test; that the claimant has never performed duties of Garden Chaudhary and
no such office order was enver issued by any competent authority of the management. The post of Garden Chaudhary is
the promotional post of Mali; that the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches as the claim has
been filed after passage of 15 years. In case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr. Reported as 1997 LLr 249,
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial
Dispute and denied the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.:. Madhauankuty & Others” reported as 2000(2) SCC 455
has held that though no limitation has been prescribed under Section 10 of the I.D. Act but its is not that this Power
can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised
reasonably and rational manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development
Bank Vs. Neelam” reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour
court after more that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.” On merits, the
management has denied each and every allegations of the claimant and prayed for dismissal for his claim.
4.
That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 04.04.2014:-
(1)
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-
4590/- w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri
Satya Dev S/o. Sh. Bhagwan Sahai officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?
(2)
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4295
5.
That the claimant has examined himself as WW-1 and Sh. B.K. Prasad as WW-2. The management has
examined Sh. Ajay Kumar - Assistant Director (Horticulture), South Zone of the management as MW-1. The claimant
(WW-1) has exhibited photocopy of alleged list dated 12.08.2004 as Ex. WW-1/1, office order dated 04.06.2013
regarding Sultan Singh & Ors. Ex. WW-1/2, copy of Registration Certificate of Union as Ex. WW-2/1, copy of
Recognition by MCD as Ex. WW-2/2 & copy of Sponsorship as Ex. WW-2/3. During cross-examination of the WW-1
following documents have been exhibited:-
WW-1/M-1-
Photocopy of Transfer order of the claimant.
WW-1/M-2-
Photocopy of Service book of the claimant.
WW-1/M-3-
GPF Nomination Form.
WW-1/M-4-
Pay Fixation order in view of 6th CPC.
WW-1/M-5-
Regularisation Offer Letter.
WW-1/M-6-
Joining dated 13.09.1994.
WW-1/M-7-
Transfer order dated 12.02.1998 from South Zone to Central Zone as Mali.
WW-1/M-8-
Joining dated 13.02.1998.
WW-1/M-9-
Relieving Order dated 12.02.1998.
WW-1/M-10-
Transfer order dated 15.06.2009 from Central Zone to Shah (South) Zone as Mali.
WW-1/M-11-
Transfer order dated 20.07.2010 from Shah(South) Zone to South Zone as Mali.
WW-1/M-12-
Relieving order dated 16.08.2010.
WW-1/M-13-
The result of Trade Test alongwith merit list.
The management had exhibited copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Mali as Exb. MW-1/1 and copy of the
Recruitment Rules for the post of Chaudhary as Exb. MW-1/2.
6.
That the WW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no order assigning him the
work of officiating Chaudhary, issued at any point of time. The WW-1 has further admitted that arguculture was not
a subject in his 10th & 12th class examination. He has further admitted that he has never appeared in the trade test
conducted by the management. WW-1 has stated that he has been a member of the Union since 1988. Though the
claimant has failed to prove his memebership of the alleged Union but if for the sake of arguments (though not
admitted) it is presumed that the claimant has been member of the alleged union since 1988, it is very strange that the
claimant has not raised any objection against payment of salary of Mali to him instead of salary of Chaudhary, if he had
ever worked as officiating Chaudhary. The WW-1 has admitted that no demand notice has been served upon the
management prior to raising of the present dispute. The WW-1 has also stated that he has not made any complaint in
writing to the Union regarding no-payment of salary of the post of Chaudhary. The WW-1 is also not aware whether
any meeting of the Union regarding his present dispute was held or not.
7.
That the WW-2, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not filed constitution of the Union on record.
The WW-2 has also admitted that the minutes of the meeting regarding present dispute are not filed. It is very strange
that WW-2 is the President of alleged Union but he is not aware about the date of meeting regarding the present
dispute. The WW-2 has admitted that list of Executive Members and List of General Members have not been filed
before the Court. The WW-2 has failed to file any letter of recognition by the SDMC (Infant no such recognition has
ever been given by the SDMC at any point of time). The witness has failed to produce any list of the Executive
Members, minutes or Agenda of the alleged meeting of the Union of the year 2012.
8.
That the MW-1 has corroborated the defence taken by the management in its written statement and nothing
contrary has come out in his entire cross-examination.
9.
That the claimant has failed to prove any document or office order with regard to his working as Officiating
Chaudhary whereas the management has proved on record so many documents of different period since beginning till
date that the claimant was working as Mali and never worked as Officiating Chaudhary. It can not be believed that a
person who is working as Officiating Chaudhary, will mention his designation as Mali in his different official
documents. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of the alleged Sultan Singh’s matter as he was not a party
to the same. It is also a fact that the facts and evidence of Sultan Singh’s matter are entirely different from the present
matter. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of alleged list Exb. WW-1/1 which has not been validly proved
by the claimant before this Hon’ble Court.
4296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr.
Reported as 1997 LLR 249, has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute and denied
the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The claimant, in the present matter, is
claiming salary of the post of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 but has raised the present dispute only in the year 2013 i.e.,
after passage of fifteen years.
11.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhauankutty & Others”
reported as 2000(2) SCC 455 has held that “Though Law does not prescribe any time for the appropriate Government
to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act, its is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to
revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There
appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of
about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time, reference was made, no Industrial
Dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute, which is stale, could not be the subject
matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the
reference be made under section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one.”
12.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam”
reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour court after more
that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.”
13.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs.
Rampal Singh” reported as 2015 LLR 747 has held as follows:-
“An individual dispute not espoused by the Union or a substantial number of workmen is not an industrial
dispute.
Issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter while adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would get jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused.
Merely a party has not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough a ground not to
entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute.”
14.
That the judgment cited by the A/R of the claimant is not application in the circumstances of the present case
and as such the same can not be relied upon.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the claimant is not entitled from any relief from this Hon’ble
Court and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
On 08.05.2017 Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire not to file reply for the written arguments of the
management. Hence I reserved the Award.
Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is reliable, credible and required evidence
in this case. While evidence of management not at all sufficient to rebut the evidence of workman. So this Tribunal has
no option except to decide the reference in favour of workman and against management.
Which is accordingly decided. And claim statement is allowed.
Management is directed to grant salary of Garden Chaudhary to workman Sh. Satya Dev since 01.01.1998
alongwith all consequential benefits.
Compliance has to be done by management within 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against
the instant Award.
Dated : 17.05.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1736-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; vk;qDr] lkmFk
fnYyh uxj fuxe] 'kkgnjk] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2013) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@25@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4297
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 84/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahadra, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/25/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032
ID. No. 84/2013
Sh. Ved Ram S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union
C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi – 110002
…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-42011/25/2013-IR(DU) Dated 10.07.2013.
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Ved Ram S/o. Sh. Shyam
Lal, officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
On 23.07.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID.No. 84/2013 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 10.09.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
salary of Garden Choudhary as the workman has been performing his duty in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.
01.01.1998 as revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits.
Against claiM/s.tatement management filed its written statement on 23.12.2013. Wherein he prayed that the
present claim of the claimant may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit and being misconceived.
Against written statement on 17.02.2013 workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he prayed that the preliminary
objection as well as the written statement of the management may kindly be dismissed in favour of the workman and
against the management.
On 04.04.2014 on the basis of pleadings of parties followings issues are hereby framed:-
1.
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Ved Ram S/o. Sh. Shyam Lal,
officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
No other issue was made out.
Fixed 05.06.2014 for workman evidence.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by workman alongwith certain documents as
WW1/A.
He was cross-examined.
4298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Workman in support of his evidence filed affidavit of Sh. B. K. Prasad as WW2/A. Which was tendered by
workman witness no. 2 and he was cross-examined on 09.05.2016. His cross-examination was concluded.
Thereafter management filed affidavit of MW1 Sh. Ajay Kumar.
Which was tendered by management witness no.1 aongwith certain documents.
Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire to filed written arguments. On 20.02.2017 workman filed written
arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for managements for reply.
Contents of written arguments of workman are as follows:-
1.
That the appropriate Government i.e. Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 vide its
Order No.L-42011/26/2013-IR(DU) dated 10.07.2013 has referred the following dispute for industrial adjudication
before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-II:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Ved Ram S/o.
Sh. Shyam Lal, officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2.
That Sh. Ved Ram workman was allotted the work of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 by the competent authority
under Central Zone of Horticulture now he is working under South Zone, Horticulture, Green Park but the workman
has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary in the pay scale revised from time to time. As per the order of Central
Zone, Lajpat Nagar vide their No.SNUC/M Zone/2004/421 dated 12.08.2004 the said order is annexed as Exhibit
WW1/1 in which the name of Shri Ved Ram is mentioned at Srl. No.14 in the said list and accordingly, as per the
said list he was allowed to work as Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
3.
That the workman in his cross-examination adduced his evidence as WW1. He exhibited WW1/1 and his name
is appearing at Srl. No.14 which proves that he has been performing the duty of Chaudhary and claimed the wages
Chaudhary. In cross.examination of MW1 has said that he do not know Surender S/o Sh. Surajmal, Ram Singh S/o
Ganga Ram, Shyam Singh S/o Ved Prakash, Om Prakash S/O Peru and Daya S/o Jaipal. He further said that he do not
know whether aforesaid persons were the parties in the case of Sultan Singh and they were provided the payment of
Chaudhary. It is proved that the name of Surender and others are mentioned in the list exhibit WW1/1.
4.
The Similar situated officiating Chaudhary in the said list was granted the wages of Garden Chaudhary from the
date of their working as Garden Chaudhary from the date of their working as Garden Chaudhary. The name of some of
the workmen are mentioned in the list Exhibit WW1/1. The name of the workmen are indicate in Para 2 hereinabove.
5.
That as per Exhibit WW1/1 the name of Shri Satya Dev workman is appearing at Srl. No. 29. The said list was
prepared by the concerned zone of Horticulture, South Zone under South Delhi Municipal Corportation.
6.
That the management has also denied the list of horticulture department i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West
Zone but the Division Bench of High Court in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7947/2010 in
para 9 of the judgement is reproduced as under:
“9.
Cosequent to the order dated 21.04.2005 the petitioner filed the supplementary affidavit in the
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10158-86/2005 dated 13.08.2008 ccategorically stating that the lists which
were issued by the zonal Horticulture Departments i.e. Central Zone, South Zone and West Zone
respectively and were received by Horticulture headquarter. Out of the three lists it was contended that
original of one of the list was available and original of the two lists were not traceable, however,
photocopy of one of the two lists were not traceable on the record. The petitioner also pleaded that the
three lists were issued by concerned zonal head of the Department of Horticulture without any inspection
and order from any competent authority. It was contended that the additional work as Garden
Chaudhary at zonal level was assigned without the existence of any vacant post in violation of the
recruitment rules.”
In view of the para-9 of the judgement of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & ors the management cannot deny thelist of
WW1/1 as the Division Bench in the said judgment has clearly mentioned that the Horticulture Department i.e. Central
Zone, South Zone & West Zone and in view of this the name of the workman is indicated in the list of Central Zone at
Srl. No. 14. The name of other workers i.e. Surender, Ram Singh, Shyam Singh, Om Prakash and Daya so here is no
doubt that the workmen is included in the list of WW1 at Srl. No.14.
7.
It is submitted that above five workers are mentioned in the list of Acting Chaudhary as per WW1/1 and are
covered as per the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 7947/2010 in the matter of
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4299
MCD Vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. And the name of Shri Ved Ram WW1 is also included in the list WW1/1 at srl. No.14.
So it is proved that Shri Ved Ram was also covered in the list of management as Exhibit WW1/1. Accordingly, he is
also entitiled the wages of Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 20.04.1993 till date he is also continuously working the work of
Garden Chaudhary. The details mentioned in the Statement of Claim are reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
8.
It is also submitted that as per the judgment of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh and ors. the relevant paras 28 & 29 are
reproduced as under:
“28. Considering the entire facts and Circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondent have
always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden
Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudahry whereas the petitioner had first
denied that they worked asGarden Chaudharies then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Hort.) was
at competent to ask the respondent to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondent cannot be
appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt
that respondent are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having
worked on adhoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not
having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2010 and 7.10.2010 as no illegality or
sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.”
9.
The management also filed the SLP against the order of the Divison Bench in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan
Singh and ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012. Copy
of the said LPA and copy of SLP (C)No.20069/2011 are also annexed for the king perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. So
the payment of Chaudhary attains finality and management cannot deny the difference of wages of Mali and Cahudhary
to the workman from the date 01.01.1998 with all consequential benefits till date.
10.
The sponsorship of MCD General Mazdoor Union is Exhibit WW2/3 for sponsoring the cause of workman.
11.
Accordingly Shri Ved Ram is also entitled the wages of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 revised from time to time
in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- along with all consequential benefits.
In reply of written arguments of workman management filed its written arguments on 06.03.2017. Copy of which
supplied to Ld. A/R for workman.
Contents of written arguments of management are as follows:-
1.
That the above named Industrial Dispute is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal and is now fixed
for 06.03.2017 for filing of written submission on behalf of the management. The terms of reference are as under:-
“Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f.
01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Ved Ram S/o. Sh. Shyam
Lal officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
That the claimant had filed his Statement of Claim with the averments that he has been allotted the work of
Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 by the Competent Officer of Horticulture Department and was posted in South Zone but
he has been denied the pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The claimant further alleged that he is
entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
3.
That the management has filed its written statement and raised as many as 7 preliminary objections to the effect
that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as not espoused by Massive Majority of the same category of
workers; that no demand notice has been served upon the management; that the reference has been made mechanically
without due application of mind; that the MCD General Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute
as the same is not a recognized Union of the management; that the claimant initially engaged on the post of Mali on
daily wages basis and later on regularized as Mali in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- and there is a prescribed procedure
for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary i.e. there must be sasnctioned and vacant posts of Garden Chaudhary,
the claimant must have the requisite qualification and must have passed the Trade Test conducted by the management.
The claimant has never passed any Trade Test; that the claimant has never performed duties of Garden Chaudhary and
no such office order was enver issued by any competent authority of the management. The post of Garden Chaudhary is
the promotional post of Mali; that the statement of claim is not maintainable on the ground of latches as the claim has
been filed after passage of 15 years. In case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr. Reported as 1997 LLr 249,
the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial
Dispute and denied the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The Hon’ble
4300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.:. Madhauankuty & Others” reported as 2000(2) SCC 455
has held that though no limitation has been prescribed under Section 10 of the I.D. Act but its is not that this Power
can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised
reasonably and rational manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development
Bank Vs. Neelam” reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour
court after more that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.” On merits, the
management has denied each and every allegations of the claimant and prayed for dismissal for his claim.
4.
That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 04.04.2014:-
(1)
Whether the Action of the management of MCD Delhi is not granting the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and revised from time to time all consequential benefits to workman Shri Ved Ram
S/o. Sh. Shyam Lal officiating Choudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is fair & justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?
(2)
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? If so its effect?
5.
That the claimant has examined himself as WW-1 and Sh. B.K. Prasad as WW-2. The management has
examined Sh. Ajay Kumar- Assistant Director (Horticulture), South Zone of the management as MW-1. The claimant
(WW-1) has exhibited photocopy of alleged list dated 12.08.2004 as Ex. WW-1/1, office order dated 04.06.2013
regarding Sultan Singh & Ors. Ex. WW-1/2, copy of Registration Certificate of Union as Ex. WW-2/1, copy of
Recognition by MCD as Ex. WW-2/2 & copy of Sponsorship as Ex. WW-2/3. During cross-examination of the WW-1
following documents have been exhibited:-
WW-1/M-1-
Photocopy of Service book of the claimant.
WW-1/M-2-
Photocopy of Regularization Offer Letter of the claimant.
WW-1/M-3-
GPF Nomination Form.
WW-1/M-4-
Photocopies of Leave Application dated 23.03.1992, Joining Report dated 27.04.1992, Joining
Report dated 30.06.1993, Application for permission for High School Examination & Joining
Report dated 27.03.2015.
WW-1/M-5-
Photocopies of Transfer Order dated 10.12.1997 from South Zone to Central Zone as mali,
Relieving Order dated 05.01.1998, Transfer order dated 15.06.2009 from Central Zone to South
Zone as Mali, Pay Fixation dated 10.01.2012 & Performa of Second MACP dated 01.03.2013.
WW-1/M-6-
Option form dated 05.02.1998.
WW-1/M-7-
Option Form dated 01.01.2006.
WW-1/M-8-
Recruitment Rules for the post of Chaudhary.
WW-1/M-9-
Recruitment Rules for the post of Mali.
6.
That the WW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that there was no order assigning him the
work of officiating Chaudhary, issued at any point of time. The WW-1 has further admitted that arguculture was not
a subject in his 10th & 12th class examination. He has further admitted that he has never appeared in the trade test
conducted by the management. WW-1 has stated that he has been a member of the Union since 1985. Though the
claimant has failed to prove his memebership of the alleged Union but if for the sake of arguments (though not
admitted) it is presumed that the claimant has been member of the alleged union since 1985, it is very strange that the
claimant has not raised any objection against payment of salary of Mali to him instead of salary of Chaudhary, if he had
ever worked as officiating Chaudhary. The WW-1 has admitted that no demand notice has been served upon the
management prior to raising of the present dispute. The WW-1 has stated that he has made complaint in writing to the
Union regarding no-payment of salary of the post of Chaudhary but did not place the same on Court’s record. The
WW-1 has stated during his cross examination that meeting of the Union regarding his present dispute was held
in the year 2009, whereas he has also stated that he made complaint to the Union for the first time in the year
2010, how can it be possible?. The testimony of the claimant is totally unreliable.
7.
That the WW-2, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not filed constitution of the Union on record.
The WW-2 has also admitted that the minutes of the meeting regarding present dispute are not filed. It is very strange
that WW-2 is the President of alleged Union but he is not aware about the date of meeting regarding the present
dispute. The WW-2 has admitted that list of Executive Members and List of General Members have not been filed
before the Court. The WW-2 has failed to file any letter of recognition by the SDMC (Infant no such recognition has
ever been given by the SDMC at any point of time). The witness has failed to produce any list of the Executive
Members, minutes or Agenda of the alleged meeting of the Union of the year 2012.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4301
8.
That the MW-1 has corroborated the defence taken by the management in its written statement and nothing
contrary has come out in his entire cross-examination.
9.
That the claimant has failed to prove any document or office order with regard to his working as Officiating
Chaudhary whereas the management has proved on record so many documents of different period since beginning till
date that the claimant was working as Mali and never worked as Officiating Chaudhary. It can not be believed that a
person who is working as Officiating Chaudhary, will mention his designation as Mali in his different official
documents. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of the alleged Sultan Singh’s matter as he was not a party
to the same. It is also a fact that the facts and evidence of Sultan Singh’s matter are entirely different from the present
matter. The claimant can not be allowed to take benefit of alleged list Exb. WW-1/1 which has neither been validly
proved by the claimant before this Hon’ble Court nor admitted by the management.
10.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Kali Dass & Anr.
Reported as 1997 LLR 249, has discussed the point of delay and limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute and denied
the relief to the claimant raising Industrial Dispute after expiry of three years. The claimant, in the present matter, is
claiming salary of the post of Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1998 but has raised the present dispute only in the year 2013 i.e.,
after passage of fifteen years.
11.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhauankutty & Others”
reported as 2000(2) SCC 455 has held that “Though Law does not prescribe any time for the appropriate government to
exercise its power under Section 10 of the Act, its is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to
revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There
appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of
about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time, reference was made, no Industrial
Dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute, which is stale, could not be the subject
matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the
reference be made under section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one.”
12.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Haryana State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam”
reported as 2005(5) SCC 91 has held that “the conduct of the respondent in approaching the labour court after more
that 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing the relief.”
13.
That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs.
Rampal Singh” reported as 2015 LLR 747 has held as follows:-
“An individual dispute not espoused by the Union or a substantial number of workmen is not an industrial
dispute.
Issue of espousal goes to the root of the matter while adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would get jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when it is properly espoused.
Merely a party has not objected to the terms of reference would not be sufficient enough a ground not to
entertain objections to proper espousal of a dispute.”
14.
That the judgment cited by the A/R of the claimant is not application in the circumstances of the present case
and as such the same can not be relied upon.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the claimant is not entitled from any relief from this Hon’ble
Court and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
On 08.05.2017 Ld. A/R for workman expressed his desire not to file reply for the written arguments of the
management. Hence I reserved the Award.
Perusal of evidence makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is reliable, credible and required evidence
in this case. While evidence of management not at all sufficient to rebut the evidence of workman. So this Tribunal has
no option except to decide the reference in favour of workman and against management.
Which is accordingly decided. And claim statement is allowed.
Management is directed to grant salary of Garden Chaudhary to workman Sh. Ved Ram since 01.01.1998
alongwith all consequential benefits.
Compliance has to be done by management within 2 months after expiry of period of available remedy against
the instant Award.
Dated : 17.05.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
4302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1737-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; eq[; iz'kklfud
vf/dkjh] Hkkjr ljdkj ¯eV] uks,Mk] ;wih ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 77@2014) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&16012@01@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 77/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Administrative Officer India Mint, Noida, UP and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-16012/01/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 77/2014
Sh. Madan Pal Tyagi,
At-A , 32, Sec-36,
Noida (UP) -201301.
Versus
The Chief Administrative Officer,
India Govt Mint, Div of SPMCIL,
At –D-2, Sector-1, P.O. Box No. 78,
NOIDA (UP)-201301.
AWARD
Reference No. L-16012/01/2014-IR(DU) dated 15.09.2014 sent by Ministry of Labour of Government of India
to this Tribunal for adjudication of following question:-
“Whether the action of the management of India Government Mint, Noida in terminating the services of
workman Sh. Madan Pal Tyagi w.e.f. 14.10.2011 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to ?
Which was received in this Tribunal on 25.09.2014. Then it was register as I.D. No. 77 of 2014 and notice to
management of India Government Mint , U.P. was issued for filing of its written statement on 20.11.2014.
However claim statement has been filed by workman .
Through which workman /claimant prayed as follows:-
“It is requested to kindly pass suitable order in my favour based on the facts of the case.”
Against claim statement management filed written statement. Through which management prayed as follows:-
“Hon’ble Court is requested to reject the claim of Petitioner and pass order in the interest of justice.”
Workman on 18.2.2015 filed rejoinder. Where-in he re-affiremed the contents of claim statement.
On 1.04.2015 following issues were framed:-
1.
Whether enquiry conducted by management against workman is just, legal and proper? If so its effect?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4303
2.
Whether the action of the management of India Govt. Mint Noida in terminating the services of
workman Sh. Madan Pal Tyagi, w.e.f 14.10.2011 is legal and justified? If so its effect?
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
No other issue is made out.
Issue no. 1 relating to enquiry. Which was ordered to be decided as preliminary issue no. 1 and fixed 18.5.2015
for management evidence.
Management in support of its case filed affidavit of MW1 on 31.03.2016, who tendered his affidavit. He was
cross-examined at length . Thereafter workman afforded opportunity to adduce his evidence but he has not availed such
opportunity and adduce no evidence in rebuttal . On 3.11.2016 workman has filed written arguments. Copy of which
supplied to Ld. A/R for the management. I fixed 15.12.2016 for written arguments by management.
On 15.12.2016 management filed written arguments copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the workman. I
fixed 4.1.2017 for reply by workman against written arguments of management.
On 4.1.2017 Ld. A/R for the workman filed reply of written arguments of management. Copy of which supplied
to Ld. A/R for the management. I fixed 31.01.2017 for order relating to disposal of enquiry issue as preliminary issue
no.1.
On 31.01.2017 I passed detailed order through which I decided issue no. 1 as preliminary issue against workman
and in favour of management and fixed 15.3.2017 for arguments on the point of proportionality of punishment of
misconduct of workman.
On 15.03.2017 Ld. A/R for the workman expressed his desire to file written arguments but he supplied advance
copy of written arguments to Ld. A/R for the management. Then I fixed 29.3.2017 for filing of written arguments by
workman. On 29.3.2017 workman filed written argument and management filed reply to the written arguments of
workman. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the workman and Award was reserved.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions on the point of proportionality of punishment of misconduct
of workman I perused the pleadings of workman I perused the pleadings of workman and management and their
evidence on record.
Which shows that workman in support of his case adduced no evidence. So in want of evidence of workman
pleadings of workman in his claim statement has not avail to him while pleadings of management in its written
statement is supported with the evidence of management. Moreover I decided preliminary issue of enquiry on
31.01.2007 through detailed order.
Through which Preliminary Issue No. 1 is decided against workman and in favour of management and I fixed
15.3.2017 for arguments on proportionality of punishment.
Perusal of evidence of management makes it crystal clear that charge of habitual absenteeism for about 3 years
by workman Sh. Madan Pal Tyagi, Ex-technician is proved.
It is relevant to mention here that their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tripura Gramin Bank and
Others Vs. Tarit Baran Roy and Another (2001) 10 Supreme Court cases 70, held delinquent found guilty of defalcation
and gross dereliction of duties and negligence and on that basis punishment of dismissal imposed by disciplinary
authority-interference with quantum of punishment is not justified.
In case of General Manager appellate authority, Bank of India 7 Ors Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin (2006) 7 Supreme
Court Cases 410. Page no. 410, their Lordship of Hon’ble Surpeme Court held gravity of misconduct is to be measured
in terms of the nature of misconduct –long unauthorized absence (about three years detrimental warrant dismissal from
service).
In case of L & T Komatsu Ltd. Versus N. Udaya Kumar (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 224, their lordship of
Hon’ble Supreme Court held-Habitual Absenteeism held, amounts to gross violation of discipline.
No ruling in reply to aforesaid rulings cited on behalf of management has been filed on behalf of workman.
In this background provision of section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is of no avail to workman for
mitigation of punishment.
So, this Tribunal is of considered view that issue no. 2 framed by this Tribunal is liable to be decided against
workman Sh. Madan Pal Tyagi and in favour of management.
Which is accordingly decided.
4304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is also relevant to mention here that issue no. 3 framed by me in the instant case which is relating to the relief
to the workman/claimant is also liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management.
Inwant of evidence of workman and required reliable, credible and cogent evidence of management. Which is
accordingly decided.
Reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management.
Award is accordingly decided.
Dated : 05.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1738-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] nwjlapkj ftyk] ch,l,u,y] jkt uxj ,Dlpsat] xkft;kckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 6@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@19@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 6/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General
Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Raj Nagar Exchange, Ghaziabad and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 03.07.2017.
[No. L-40011/19/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 6/2013
The General Secretary,
BSNL Asthai Karamchari Sangh Paschimi, UP,
04, Subhash Market Ramte Ram Road,
Ghaziabad (UP)
Versus
General Manager, Telecom District.
BSNL, Raj Nagar Exchange,
Ghazibad
EX-PARTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40011/19/2012-IR(DU) dated 21.01.2013
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Ghaziabad of not regularizing the services of 13 workmen is
unjustified? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
On 5.2.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 6/2013 and claimants
were called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 13.06.2013 claim statement has been filed by workmen. Through which workmen prayed as follows:-
a.
regularize the 12 employees of the union in the above noted industrial dispute and be paid equal like
permanent employees for the work they have been performing; and
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4305
b.
pass such other order and /or direction as is deemed just and proper in the present facts and circumstances
of the case.
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 27.08.2013. Where-in it prayed as follows:-
“It is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to dismiss the claim of the workmen and give its
award accordingly.
On 5.12.2013 workmen filed rejoinder. Wherein they reaffirmed the contents of their claim statement.
On 24.03.2014 on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1.
Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Ghaziabad of not regularizing the services of 13
workmen (list enclosed) is unjustified. If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent and workmen? If so its effect?
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
Only 9 Workmen namely 1. Dharmender Kumar, 2. Nakul Kumar, 3. Vijay Kumar, 4. Vinod Kumar,
5. Kailash Kumar, 6. Manoj Kumar, 7. Phool Chand, 8. Shiv Naresh, 9. Manoj in their ex-parte evidence produced
WW1. Thereafter Ld. A/R for the 9 workmen filed written arguments. Where-in they mentioned as follows:-
1.
At the very outset, it is respectfully submitted that despite several opportunities to the management , it chose not
to cross-examine the applicant and the right to cross examine was closed. It follows a natural corollary that the entire
evidence of the applicant /workmen goes unrebutted.
2.
That it is also worthwhile to mention that the following cases were filed by the applicant /union against the
management /BSNL. Which are pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal:
a.
ID.No. 158/2012 titled as General Secy. Vs. BSNL.
b.
ID.No. 1/2016 titled as General Secy. Vs. BSNL.
The aforesaid cases are being contested diligently by the management but the management for no reasons “
abandoned” the captioned matter and it shall not be out of the planet to discern and infer that the management has
impliedly admitted the claim of the applicant /union.
3.
It is humbly submitted that the Department of Telecommunication had famed a scheme known as Casual Labour
(Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme of 1989 which came into force on 01.10.1989. The said scheme was applicable to
all the casual labourers who were engaged in Department of Telecommunication. It is specifically submitted that clause
5 of the said Scheme envisages that if a person continues to work for a period of 240 days in a given year, he would be
entitled to get temporary status and all other benefits contemplated under the said scheme.
4.
That later on Department of Telecommunication formed a government company i.e. BSNL (Management herein)
and transferred its assets, liabilities and services to the BSNL. After the said take-over the members of the applicant
union became the employees of BSNL.
5.
That the members of applicant union worked for about 12-13 years in the BSNL. However, in utter violation of
statutes meant for welfare of labour and employees, the members of applicant /union were neither made temporary nor
given the status of permanent employees nor the principle of equal pay for equal work was followed. The same is
antithesis to constitutional framework too.
6.
That the members of applicant union have prayed for regularization as well as adherence to doctrine of ‘equal
pay for equal work.’
7.
That the members of applicant union have contributed more than a decade of their lives to the management and
yet they have been deprived of justice. At this stage, the members of applicant union have been “expelled” during the
pendency of the present matter which is also against the provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and
which reflect gross ‘unfair labour practice. Hence , it would be apt and appropriate in the larger interest of justice that
the management is directed to reinstate and regularize the services of the members of applicant union.
8.
That the members of the applicant union clearly falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as envisioned in the
Industrial Disputes Act. This is more so in light of principles enshrined in paragraph no. 5 of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.
9.
That while the Respondent/Management in its Reply averred that the members of Applicant Union but the same
are wild allegations. As a matter of fact, had it been so, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to disclose the name and
other details of the purported Contractor.
4306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
It is humbly submitted that during the pendency of Conciliation Proceedings, the Management terminated the
services of the General Secretary of Workmen Applicants’ Union sh. Bijender Kumar in violation of the Section 33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Commissioner also in this regard had written to the Respondents, but the
respondents had not taken any action nor had taken him back.
11.
That the applicant has put forth voluminous record, which remains unrebutted in evidence, to prove that the
members of Applicant Union were directly employed by the Management and were under full control & supervision of
the Management. The Management failed to give temporary status and subsequent regularization – rather the
Management has terminated the services of applicant Union without assigning any reasons therefore.
In the light of contents mentioned in written arguments of 9 workmen only out of 13 workman.
While remaining 4 workmen have not adduced any evidence to support their claim. Therefore claim of only 9
workmen is liable to be allowed. Hence question of determination no. 1 mentioned in schedule of reference is liable to
be decided in favour of 9 workman and liable to be decided against 4 workmen who have not filed any evidence to
support of their case. Which is accordingly decided.
In this background reference is liable to be decided in favour of 9 workmen namely 1. Dharmender Kumar,
2. Nakul Kumar, 3. Vijay Kumar, 4. Vinod Kumar, 5. Kailash Kumar, 6. Manoj Kumar, 7. Phool Chand, 8. Shiv
Naresh, 9. Manoj and liable to decide against remaining 4 workmen namely 1. Sandeep Tyagi, 2. Roop Chand,
3. Kamal, 4. Anju Chauhan and management of BSNL.
Hence aforesaid 09 workmen are entitled for regularization considering their post services rendered to
management of BSNL.
Claim statement is partly allowed and management is directed to comply this award within 2 months after
expiry of period of available remedy against this Ex-parte Award.
Ex-parte award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 14.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1739-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] nwjlapkj ftyk] ch,l,u,y] jkt uxj ,Dlpsat] xkft;kckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 5@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@20@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 5/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General
Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Raj Nagar Exchange, Ghaziabad and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 03.07.2017.
[No. L-40011/20/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 5/2013
The General Secretary,
BSNL Asthai Karamchari Sangh Paschimi, UP,
04, Subhash Market Ramte Ram Road,
Ghaziabad (UP)
Versus
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4307
General Manager, Telecom District.
BSNL, Raj Nagar Exchange,
Ghazibad
Ex-parte Award
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-40011/20/2012-IR(DU) dated 21.01.2013
referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Ghaziabad of not regularizing the services of 22 workmen is
unjustified? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
On 5.2.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 5/2013 and claimants
were called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 13.06.2013 claim statement has been filed by workmen. Through which workmen prayed as follows:-
a.
Regularize the 17 employees of the union in the above noted industrial dispute and be paid equal like
permanent employees for the work they have been performing ; and
b.
Reinstate general secretary of the Union Bijendra Kumar with full back wages.
c.
Pass such other order and /or direction as is deemed just and proper in the present facts and circumstances
of the case.
Against claim statement management filed written statement on 27.08.2013. Where-in it mentioned as follows:-
“It is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to dismiss the claim of the workman and give its
award accordingly.
On 5.12.2013 workmen filed rejoinder. Wherein he reaffirmed the contents of claim statement.
On 24.03.2014 following issues were framed:-
1.
Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Ghaziabad of not regularizing the services of 22
workmen (list enclosed) is unjustified. If so its effect?
2.
Whether relationship of employer and employee exits between respondent and workman? If so its effect?
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to?
Thereafter workmen adduce their evidence as WW1.
And thereafter filed written arguments. Contents of written arguments are as follows:-
1.
At the very outset, it is respectfully submitted that despite several opportunities to the management , it chose not
to cross-examine the applicant and the right to cross examine was closed. It follows a natural corollary that the entire
evidence of the applicant /workmen goes unrebutted.
2.
That it is also worthwhile to mention that the following cases were filed by the applicant /union against the
management /BSNL. Which are pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal:
a.
ID.No. 158/2012 titled as General Secy. Vs. BSNL.
b.
ID.No. 1/2016 titled as General Secy. Vs. BSNL.
The aforesaid cases are being contested diligently by the management but the management for no reasons
“abandoned” the captioned matter and it shall not be out of the planet to discern and infer that the management has
impliedly admitted the claim of the applicant /union.
3.
It is humbly submitted that the Department of Telecommunication had famed a scheme known as Casual Labour
(Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme of 1989 which came into force on 01.10.1989. The said scheme was applicable to
all the casual labourers who were engaged in Department of Telecommunication. It is specifically submitted that clause
5 of the said Scheme envisages that if a person continues to work for a period of 240 days in a given year, he would be
entitled to get temporary status and all other benefits contemplated under the said scheme.
4.
That later on Department of Telecommunication formed a government company i.e. BSNL (Management herein)
and transferred its assets, liabilities and services to the BSNL. After the said take-over the members of the applicant
union became the employees of BSNL.
4308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
That the members of applicant union worked for about 12-13 years in the BSNL. However, in utter violation of
statutes meant for welfare of labour and employees, the members of applicant /union were neither made temporary nor
given the status of permanent employees nor the principle of equal pay for equal work was followed. The same is
antithesis to constitutional framework too.
6.
That the members of applicant union have prayed for regularization as well as adherence to doctrine of ‘equal
pay for equal work.’
7.
That the members of applicant union have contributed more than a decade of their lives to the management and
yet they have been deprived of justice. At this stage, the members of applicant union have been “expelled” during the
pendency of the present matter which is also against the provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and
which reflect gross ‘unfair labour practice. Hence , it would be apt and appropriate in the larger interest of justice that
the management is directed to reinstate and regularize the services of the members of applicant union.
8.
That the members of the applicant union clearly falls within the definition of ‘workman’ as envisioned in the
Industrial Disputes Act. This is more so in light of principles enshrined in paragraph no. 5 of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.
9.
That while the Respondent/Management in its Reply averred that the members of Applicant Union but the same
are wild allegations. As a matter of fact, had it been so, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to disclose the name and
other details of the purported Contractor.
10.
It is humbly submitted that during the pendency of Conciliation Proceedings, the Management terminated the
services of the General Secretary of Workmen Applicants’ Union sh. Bijender Kumar in violation of the Section 33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Commissioner also in this regard had written to the Respondents, but the
respondents had not taken any action nor had taken him back.
11.
That the applicant has put forth voluminous record, which remains unrebutted in evidence, to prove that the
members of Applicant Union were directly employed by the Management and were under full control & supervision of
the Management. The Management failed to give temporary status and subsequent regularization – rather the
Management has terminated the services of applicant Union without assigning any reasons therefore.
In the light of contents mentioned in written arguments I perused the pleadings and evidence of workmen on
record which makes it crystal clear that only 18 workmen adduced their evidence in the instant case. So there is
unrebutted and uncontroverted evidence of 18 workmen which comes in category of required, reliable and credible
evidence.
It is also relevant to mention here that through reference of the instant case matter of 22 workmen was referred
to this Tribunal for adjudication but in the instant case only 18 workmen adduced their evidence by way of affidavit
which was subsequently tendered by WW1 Sh. Bijendra Kumar. So case of remaining 4 workmen is without evidence.
Pleadings without evidence is of no avail to them. Hence claim relating to 4 workmen who have not filed
affidavit to support their claim are not entitled to any relief.
So their claim entails dismissal. Which is accordingly dismissed. While claim of remaining 18 workmen namely
1. Hem Chand, 2. Sanjeev Kumar, 3. Vijender Kumar, 4. Satpal Singh, 5. Ganga Singh, 6. Vijender Singh, 7.
Dharmendra Kumar, 8. Ved Prakash (Alipur Gaon), 9. Surendra Kumar, 10. Rajendra Kumar, 11. Anil Kumar, 12.
Sanjay Kumar, 13.Raju, 14. Sanjay, 15. Mukesh, 16. Monesh War, 17. Pradeep Kumar, 18. Bijendra Kumar s/o Sh.
Kaley singh who have filed their evidence to support their case which is without cross-examination. Although cross-
examination is meant to challenge the veracity of witness.
In this background claim of 18 workmen namely 1. Hem Chand, 2. Sanjeev Kumar, 3. Vijender Kumar,
4. Satpal Singh, 5. Ganga Singh, 6. Vijender Singh, 7. Dharmendra Kumar, 8. Ved Prakash (Alipur Gaon), 9. Surendra
Kumar, 10. Rajendra Kumar, 11. Anil Kumar, 12. Sanjay Kumar, 13. Raju, 14. Sanjay, 15. Mukesh, 16. Monesh War,
17. Pradeep Kumar, 18. Bijendra Kumar s/o Sh. Kaley singh are liable to be allowed inwant of cross-examination and
they are entitled for claim relief for regularization considering their past service recorded to Management of BSNL.
Which is accordingly decided.
Reference is liable to be decided in favour of aforesaid 18 workmen and claim statement is partly allowed.
Ex-parte Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 14.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4309
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1740-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lfpo]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
75@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@48@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 75/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 12.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/48/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.75/2012
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees’ Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tiz Hazari, Delhi 110 054
…Workman
Versus
The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi 110 023
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide letter No.L-
42011/48/2012-(R(DU) dated 02/10.04.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which is as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA), New Delhi in not
regularizing the services of Smt. Jamila, W/o Kamrudin, ‘Coolie’ on daily rated from the date of appointment,
i.e. 01.08.1984 till she was reinstated i.e. 07.08.2009 on the regular pay scale with retrospective effect is
justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’
2.
It is the case of Ms.Jamila (in short the claimant) that she joined employment of the management on 01.08.1984
as coolie. She was treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and she was paid much less wages than her
counterparts which was fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. Services of the claimant
herein was terminated by the management on 04.05.1994 and claimant raised an industrial dispute bearing
No.246/1995 which was decided by Shri R.K. Jain, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX, Delhi vide award dated
18.11.2005. It is clear from the said award that termination of the claimant was held to be illegal and Ms. Jamila was
held to entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of termination of service till the date of
demand notice and full wages thereafter. The management, thereafter, challenged the above award by filing writ
petition before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi bearing WP(C) No.1910/2007, which was disposed of vide judgement
dated 15.02.2011, which was partly allowed by the Hon’ble High Court whereby the claimant herein was held entitled
for reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of award.
4310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
It is further clear from the pleadings in the statement of claim that prior to passing of judgement by the Hon’ble
High Court on 11.08.2009 claimant herein has already joined services under an application under section 17B of the
Act disposed of by Justice S.N. Aggarwal. Accordingly, claimant is continuously in service since 01.08.1984 as she
has been granted benefit of continuity of service vide award dated 18.11.2005. It is the case of the claimant that in
view of this the claimant be treated as regular and permanent employee from the initial date of her joining but the
management has not taken any steps to regularize her services, resulting in filing of the present claim.
4.
Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement wherein it is alleged that in fact
Shri Kamrudin in Horticulture Division on work charged establishment basis and was missing since 22.05.1981. His
wife Ms.Jamila lodged a missing report with the police. Thereafter, the claimant was taken on muster toll as Coolie
vide order dated 06.08.1984 after taking into consideration her children and financial hardship. The above order was
subject to the condition that she would be removed from service as and when her husband joins duties. The Vice
Chairman of Delhi Development Authority passed orders dated 21.04.1994 that all muster roll employees be removed
at once in case there is no stay from any court and accordingly management dispensed with the services of the claimant
on 04.05.1994. There is also reference to the previous round of litigation between the parties, as discussed above. It is
also admitted by the management that in compliance of orders dated 11.08.2009 of the Hon’ble High Court, back
wages were released in favour of the claimant.
5.
It transpires from record of the case that no specific issues were framed in the matter and evidence of the
claimant was recorded. The claimant, in support of her case, examined herself as WW1 and Shri Surender Bhardwaj as
WW2, whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. Ms. Jamila also tendered in evidence documents
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/9. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Jitender Singh,
Deputy Director as MW1. Shri Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A in evidence and also relied on documents
Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/7.
6.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the
management.
7.
It is clear from the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record that Smt. Jamila, claimant herein was
initially engaged as a coolie on 01.08.1984. She was, in fact, treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll worker. It is also
the case of the claimant that she was paid much less wages than those fixed and revised from time to time under the
Minimum Wages Act. Previously, her services were terminated by the management on 04.05.1994, which resulted in
raising of industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act and her termination was admittedly held to be illegal and
against provisions of the Act by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX vide award Ex.WW1/4.
Admittedly, an appeal was filed by the management of DDA in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi wherein also the
management could not get any substantial relief. Hon’ble High Court has clarified in its order dated 15.02.2011
Ex.WW1/6 that 50% back wages would be paid to the claimant from the date of termination till date of award as she
already stood reinstated in service.
8.
Now, the main question which arises for consideration in the present reference is whether services of Ms.Jamila
is liable to be regularized. Attention of this Tribunal was invited by the learned A/R for the claimant to Ex.MW1/W2
which shows that Ms.Jamila which shows that as per Voter I Card, age of Ms.Jamila as on 01.01.2015 is 58 years and
she is show to be wife of Kamrudin. Admittedly, Shri Kamrudin has not come back after he was reported missing and
therefore he is presumed to be dead. Learned A/R for the claimant further invited attention of the Tribunal to seniority
list Ex.MW1/W1 which contains list of workmen who are doing similar job of mali/chowkidar/coolie/khalasi/Sweeper
on work charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-870 alongwith other allowance. These appointments are
stated to be purely on temporary basis. It is clear from perusal of above list that date of joining of workmen at serial
No.1 to 13 is November 1989 whereas the claimant has admittedly joined services of the management on 01.08.1984.
There is no evidence adduced by the management on record to show that the work being performed by the claimant
herein is different from the work being assigned to similar incumbents whose names are mentioned in the list
Ex.MW1/W1, Workmen at serial no.1, 3 and 5 have been regularized as is clear from the statement of MW1 Shri
Joginder Singh, who has admitted this fact in his cross examination. He has further deposed that Ms.Jamila, claimant
herein was engaged as muster roll employee and co-employees of the claimant Shri Dashrath, Shri Ram Bachan and
Shri Durvijay whose names are mentioned in Ex.MW1/W1 have been regularized. They were also admittedly working
on muster basis. This witness gave an evasive reply to most of the questions put to him by the A/R for the claimant and
it is not clear whether the aforesaid mentioned three persons joined the management in 1984 or thereafter. However, it
is clear from column No.4 of Ex.MW1/W1 that their date of joining is mentioned as 24/24.11.1989, thus they have
joined services much after the claimant herein joined the service of the management in 1984.
9.
Learned A/R for the claimant invited attention of the Tribunal to Ex.MW1/W2 wherein in the voter I Card
issued by Election Commission age of the claimant as on 01.01.2015 has been shown be to 58 years. In the adhar card,
as on 31.12.2016, her age is shown as 60 years and as such management is not in a position to keep her on muster roll.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4311
10.
Shri Dhingra, learned A/R for the management invited attention of this Tribunal to the document Ex.MW1/4
which shows that Ms.Jamila was given employment when her husband was declared missing. It is mentioned in the
said letter that she may be engaged on muster roll as coolie purely on compassionate/humanitarian grounds.
11.
There is considerable force in the submissions raised on behalf of the claimant to the effect that when in the
same establishment/department, claimant is performing similar/identical functions/job, she is to be paid the same wages
which her counterparts were doing. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) Lab.I.C. 427 whereby while considering concept of ‘Equal pay for equal
work’, it was observed as under:
The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as
workcharge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another,
who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides
being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a
lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his
self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his
dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situated, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation.
12.
Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the management what workers who were on daily wages were
entitled for regularization and other workers working purely on muster roll were not entitled to be considered for
regularization. Learned A/R for the management could not show or cite any office order/rules/regulations wherein such
artificial distinction has been made by the Government to the detriment to the interest of the claimant. It has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases that even engagement of a workman on casual, temporary or daily
basis would attract provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act. In this regard, specific reference can be made to the case of
Devender Singh Vs. MC Sanaur [AIR (2001) SCC 2532] wherein while interpreting provisions of Section 2(s) of the
Act, it was held as under:
‘The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of
service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not
a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the Act.
The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a
person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be
inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a
workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual
employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the
employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing
manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment
for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the
definition of `workman'.
13.
Having regard to the ratio of law discussed above authorities, it is clear that Ms.Jamila, claimant herein was also
entitled to be regularized from the date of her initial appointment on 01.08.1984. Ms. Jamila has virtually attained 60
years, she can only be given difference in wages/salary to which she was otherwise been entitled had she been
regularized in service in 1984.
14.
As a sequel to my discussions made hereinabove, it is held that action of the management in not regularizing
services of Ms.Jamila from is held to be illegal and unjustified under the law. It is held that she is entitled for
regularization from the date of her appointment, i.e. 01.08.1984 on regular pay scale with retrospective effect as well as
all retirral benefits. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 10, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
4312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1741-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lsaVªy cksMZ vkWiQ lsdaMjh ,tqds'ku (lh-ch-,l-bZ-)] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k] vkbZ-ih- ,DlVsa'ku] fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;&I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 60/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s.. Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.), Industrial Area, I.P. Extension, Delhi and their workman,
which were received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM NO. 38-A (GF), KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32
ID NO. 60/2013
Sh. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Mohan Sharma
C/o General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East)
100 Foota Road,
Shahdara, Delhi – 110093
…Workman
Versus
M/s.. Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE), P.S. 1-2, Industrial Area,
I.P Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi – 110092
…Management
AWARD
1.
The present claim has been filed by the workman under Section 2 A Sub Section 2 of ID Act 1947 (In Short the
Act) with the averments that workman was working with CBSE w.e.f. 20.06.2017 in the post of Mali on daily wage
basis. The wages were paid to the workman on monthly basis. The wages last drawn were Rs. 7000/- per month.
2.
It is the case of the workman that he has been performing his duty with sincerity, diligence, devotion, and
dedication. He had uninterrupted, unblemished and meritorious service record and he never gave any cause of
complaint to the management. The workman was not issued any appointment letter, wage slips, leave book nor he was
covered under ESIC and Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The workman was engaged in maintaining of gardens,
lawns parks, flowerpots and other horticulture works etc.. The workman was engaged in the period of 01.07.2007 to
30.06.2008. However, he was being paid under the different names namely Suresh, Pratap, Om Pal, Rajesh, Ramesh,
Ravi, Gaurav, Deepak, Pawan etc. The workman was also paid some wages in his own name i.e, Kuldeep
Sharma/Kuldeep.
3.
The service of the workman was terminated on 03.01.2012 arbitrarily without notice. His earned wages for the
month of December, 2011 and for three days in the month of January, 2012 were not paid by the management. The
workman approached the management from time to time for his regularization but of no use. The workman made
written representation dated 16.09.2011 to the management for increase in his pay and later on reminder was given on
31.10.2011 but without any effect. Thereafter another reminder was given on 13.12.2011. The management had finally
terminated his service arbitrarily without any notice.
4.
The workman has served a demand notice dated 18.12.2012 to the management through speed post on
15.03.2012 and 19.03.2012. The management received the said notice but did not reply. The workman approached
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4313
Conciliation Officer wherein, the management filed its reply and alleged that the performance of the workman was not
upto the mark as such service of the workman was terminated. Finally a prayer has been made for declaring the
termination of the workman to be illegal and unjustified along with reinstatement with back wages.
5.
The management filed reply to the above claim and took various preliminary objections regarding
maintainability and workman having been engaged causally and has terminated due to serious indiscipline committed
by him on merits. It was admitted in the para 2 of the claim under reply is it is submitted that the workman, Sh.
Kuldeep worked with CBSE from 01.07.2007 to 31.12.2007, 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008, 01.12.2010 to 31.12.2010,
01.01.2011 to 31.01.2011, 01.08.2011 to 31.08.2011. He was never working continuously with the management. The
management denied other averments made in the statement of claim.
6.
Against this factual background my Ld. Predecessor in this tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2013 framed the
following issues:-
(i)
Whether workman rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of
termination of his services ?
(ii)
Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
7.
The workman is order to proof the case against the management examined himself in Ex.WW1 and his affidavit
WW1/A and tendered his documents on Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/27. Workman also examined Shri Bhagat which is
Ex.WW1.
8.
The management in order to revert the case of the workman examined Shri V. Pattabhi Raman as MW1 and his
affidavit is Ex.MW1/A.
9.
Finding on Issue No. 1
The first and the foremost question in the present case is whether the workman has worked and rendered
continuous service of 240 days prior to his termination by the management. It is clear from the pleading of the parties
that workman has come with specific plea that he has joined with the management in the post of Mali on 20.06.2007 on
daily wages basis. It is also the case of workman that he was paid wages during the period of 01.07.2008 to
30.11.2010 in his own name i.e, Kuldeep Sharma. Later on he was paid wages in different name namely Suresh, Pratap,
Om Pal, Rajesh, Ramesh, Ravi, Gaurav, Deepak and Pawan etc. whose name in fully detailed in para 7 of the affidavit.
It is also important to mention here that management in its reply in para 2 of his written statement admitted factum of
engagement for the different period. Detailed of which are mentioned in the affidavit of Shri V. Pattabhi Raman i.e,
Ex. MW1/A.
10.
It is further clear from the cross examination of the Shri V. Pattibhi Raman that service of the defendant was
taken by the management for different time details of which is given in his affidavit i.e, Ex. MW1/A. He has admitted
that the typographical error in para 9 of his affidavit regarding the date. He had further admitted that documents EX.
WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/12 as well as Ex. WW1/21 to Ex.WW25 are the documents of the management. He had further
admitted that the management had removed the service of the workman though he is not aware of the exact date. He
further admitted that no notice was served by the management before his termination as workman was a daily wager as
no such notice was required.
11.
The statement made by the workman Shri Kuldeep Sharma as WW1 and that of Shri Bhagat Singh WW2 is in
consonance with the statement of claim.
12.
There is no dispute with the preposition of law that initial onus is always upon the workman to prove that he
had worked for 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination. This view has been taken in Batala Coop. Sugar
Mills Ltd. Vs Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481.In R.M. Yellatti V. The Asstt. Executive Engineer
2006(108) FLR 213 (S.C). The decisions referred to above were noted and it was held as follows :
“Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not
apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general
principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that
the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is
discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness Box. This burden is discharged upon the workman
adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged
earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of
payment. Thus in most cases, the workman(claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the
Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage
register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts
of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made
4314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the
workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down
that mere non-production of muster rolls per se 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. Lastly, the above
judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will
not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless they are perverse. This
exercise will depend upon facts of each case.”
The above position was again reiterated in ONGC Ltd. and another V. Shyamal Chandan Bhowmilk; Chief
Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 337, Ranjit Sagar Dam and another V. Sham Lal AIR 2006 SCW 3574.
13. Yet, again in the case of Director Fisheries Terminational Division Vs. Bhikubal Moghatibhai chavda (2010) 1
SCC 47. The entire spectrum of the case law was considered and it was observed if the workman has produced the best
possible evidence which was in his possession, in that eventuality, the burden would stands discharged and the same
would shift upon the management to show that workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year prior to his
termination.
14.
It is thus clear from the legal position discussed above that the management is also required to place on record
the entire record pertaining to payment of salary/ wages Muster Roll etc. so as to proof the exact date which actually
worked. The workman herein, as well as Shri Bhagat as WW2 has clearly stated that he has been engaged with the
management in the post of Mali since 20.06.2007. The management has also not dispute the factum of his engagement
and what is being disputed by the management is the number of days/ period during which workman performed duties
as a Mali. The workman has also tendered in his evidence administrative approval i.e, Ex WW1/2 which shows
workman Shri Kuldeep has engaged from 01.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 i.e, 26 days in a month and was paid Rs. 5278/-.
There is also document Ex.WW1/3 which again shows that the workman Shri Kuldeep worked w.e.f. 01.02.2011 to
28.02.2011 i.e, 27 days. Documents Ex. WW1/4 shows that Mr. Mohan was engaged as a workman and paid wages by
the management. It was submitted on behalf of the workman that workman was working with different names and all
this was done by the management so that workman could not claim for regularization. He had referred in this regard in
his affidavit as well as statement. Sh. V. Pattabhi Raman MW1 has not stated anything regarding getting of work from
the workman Shri Kuldeep under different name which fortify the version of the workman. There are other documents
i.e, Ex.WW1/5 to WW1/21 which shows that workman had worked in his own name as well as in different names
during the period mentioned in these documents. In such the situation, the management has required to file the copies
of the muster rolls as well salary slips so as to show that workman Shri Kuldeep is not continuous employee of the
management since 2007. In such circumstances when the best evidence was in possession of the management and the
same has not been produced, this court is bound to draw adverse inference against the management. Thus, the version
of the workman that he has been continuous employment for a period of 240 days in a calendar year stands proved.
Accordingly, it is held that workman was in the service of the employment for a period of 240 days prior to his
termination.
14.
Findings on Issue No. 2
Now the residual issue before this tribunal that workman is entitled for in the relief of reinstatement in service. it
is clear from the stands of the management workman was engaged by the management as Casual Labour for watering
of the plants and the period the engagement is also mentioned in Para 2 of written statement. Admittedly, no notice
was served upon the claimant before order of his termination nor workman was given one month salary in lieu of such
notice the management has come up with the plea that workman was found absent from office during working hour and
was found working privately in Banglaw’s nearby for which he was warned several times but of no effect. In view of
the serious indiscipline on the part of the workman the management had left no option but to remove from the service
of workman.
15.
In the present case there is no proof of show cause notice or nothing given to the workman by the management
regarding committing of indiscipline on his part. There is also no formal letter of termination/removal issued to the
workman the law is very clear that if a workman is guilty of any kind of indiscipline
he
must
be
afforded
a
reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances and workman must be issued show cause notice/ memo. There is
no mention of the dates during which the workman remained absent from duty and performed work in private
Banglaw’s. Shri V. Pattabhi Raman MW1 has also admitted this fact that no memo or show cause notice was issued to
the workman in this regard. He had virtually admitted that the workman was removed from the service without any
notice and no such show cause notice is required as workman is a daily wager.
16.
It is apposite to mention here that even a casual wager or a daily wager also falls within the definition of the
workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Act. This view has been taken in several cases the Hon’ble Apex court
and specific reference can be made to the case of Devender Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur AIR 2011 SCC 2532
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4315
wherein, while discussing ambit and scope of the definition of workman under section 2(s) of the Act it was held as
under:
“The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of
service the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not
a person is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of the workman also does
not make ant distinction between full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contractor basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of section 2 (s) from which it can be inferred that only a person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed
on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for doing
duty for fixed hours is not a workman. wherein, while discussing the ambit and scope of under section 2 (A) of
the Act.”
17.
In view of the legal position discussed above, it is Crystal clear that the workman herein, was a workman at all
the material time and for his removal a show-cause notice under section 25 (F) of the Act or one month salary. In lieu
of notice was required to given to such workman, which admittedly was never done by the management. Since the
removal/termination of the workman herein, is against the mandatory section 25 (F) of the Act as such the action of the
management is held to be arbitrary as well as illegal.
18.
There is nothing in the statement of the claim that workman is not gainfully employed after his termination nor
there is any mention of this fact in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. In such circumstances the plea of the workman regarding
grant of full back wages cannot be accepted. It is appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepali
Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) 2013 AIR SCW 5330 (B) : 2013 Lab I C 4249 :
2013 (11) Scale 268. Where it is 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 lessor 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 averment 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.”
Relief :
As a sequel to my above discussion, termination/removal of the workman by the management is arbitrary and
illegal, as such workman is entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages from 03.01.2012 i.e, from his termination.
He is also entitled for one month salary of the Nov 2008. 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 : 04-07- 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1742-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] uks,Mk] mÙkj izns'k ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&I] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
89@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-05-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@53@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 89/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
4316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 25.05.2017.
[No. L-42011/53/2007-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 89/2011
Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Prem Singh
R/o Village Mampur, Post: Lamhua (Budhapur)
Sultanpur
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
S-19, Telephone Exchange,
NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh)
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, matter was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.II,
New Delhi vide letter No.L-40012/53/2007-IR(DU) dated 27.11.2007 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial
dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of the General Manager(Telecom) BSNL, NOIDA in terminating the
services of their workman Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh with effect from 11.04.1995 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, filed statement of claim, wherein it
is averred that he was employed as casual labour by the management after completion of formalities, as casual labour
on 12.04.1994. Claimant has been working to the entire satisfaction of the management and was having an unblemished
record of service to his credit. Claimant has completed 240 days as casual labour from 12.04.1994 to 10.04.1995 and
was pursuing his case for temporary status and regularization of service in accordance with relevant rules and
instructions. Claimant has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination as is clear from
the chart given in para 2 of the statement of claim. Management has taken work from the claimant even on holidays and
Sundays. This fact can be ascertained from the attendance register kept by the management.
3.
It is the case of the claimant that he was discharged from service on 11.04.1995 without any rhyme or reason
and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Thereafter, the claimant submitted a demand
letter upon the management when his verbal demand was not accepted on 08.02.1997 and prayed for reinstatement in
service as well as other benefits, but of no use. The claimant was entitled to get temporary status and regularization in
service as per rules. Even persons junior to the claimant have been given benefit of regularization but the claimant was
deprived of the same and in his place, one Shri Pradeep Kumar was engaged as casual labour in the month of April
2002. Attendance of the claimant was being regularly recorded in the register meant for the same. Even termination of
service of the claimant is totally illegal and unjustified and he has made a prayer for reinstatement in service with
continuity of service and full back wages.
4.
Management has demurred the claim of the claimant herein wherein certain preliminary objections have been
taken. Reference is also made to OA No. 2016 of 1995 before Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein almost similar
averments were made and Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT dismissed his application as not being maintainable. He
again filed an OA No. 2715 of 1997 before CAT representing that he has worked with the management from
12.04.1994 to 31.12.1994 and thereafter from 03.03.1995 to 10.04.1995 and completed 240 days. It was also claimed
that he submitted a representation dated 08.02.1997 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Phone II, RLU Exchange, Sector
39, NOIDA. Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi on 15.09.1998 disposed his application in view of
assurance from the management that his representation would be considered on merits and result thereof would be
communicated to the claimant within a period of three months. In compliance to the orders of the Hon’ble CAT, letter
dated 17.11.1998 was sent to the claimant at the address given in the order by registered post for submitted detailed
particulars regarding his working period mentioned in his representation dated 08.02.1997; however, the same was
received back undelivered with some illegible remarks of the post man.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4317
5.
Again the claimant filed an OA bearing No.1710 of 2002 before CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi representing
the above. Hon’ble Principal Bench, CAT vide order dated 12.07.2002 disposed of his application with direction to
consider the case for re-engagement in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject within three months.
6.
On merits, management denied most of the averments contained in the statement of claim. It is denied that the
claimant was employed by the management in the service of erstwhile DOT/DTS, now converted to BSNL, which
came into existence on 01.10.2000. Claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. In fact, no industrial
dispute ever existed between the parties as the management never terminated services of the claimant. In the remaining
paras, management has denied the averments contained in the statement of defence and prayed for dismissal of the
claim.
7.
It is just clarified that no issues were specifically framed by my learned predecessor from the pleadings of the
parties and this Tribunal is required to answer the reference made by the appropriate Government.
8.
Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR (CII) dated 30.03.2010, the case was transferred to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
9.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management, examined himself as WW1 and tendered in
evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. Management has not examined any
witness in support of the stand taken in their pleadings. Moreover, management was proceeded ex-parte by this
Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2016 as none had appeared on behalf of the management. Claimant has also filed
written submissions in support of his case.
10.
It is clear from the pleadings on record that initially the claimant filed OA No. 2016 of 1995 before the
Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT against the management and the same was decided vide order dated 20.08.1996. It
was held that since alternative remedy is open to the claimant, as such, petition filed before Hon’ble CAT was held to
be premature and not maintainable. Accordingly, application before Hon’ble CAT was dismissed. There is also
another copy of order dated 15.09.1998 of Hon’ble CAT on record and it is clear from this order that the claimant has
approached the Hon’ble CAT with similar averments as made in the present case that he has completed 240 days before
his termination. Claimant has further prayed that he was entitled for temporary status in December 1994 and has made
representation to the management in this regard. Hon’ble CAT has given directions to the management to consider the
case of the claimant within a period of three months.
11.
It is further clear from affidavit of Shri Sukhvir Singh, Assistant General Manager, though not exhibited, as he
has not entered into the witness box, that pursuant to the second order passed by Hon’ble CAT, claimant was given
work from 03.03.1995 to 08.04.1995. He has further stated that in compliance of the order of CAT, letter was sent to
the claimant on 17.11.1998 at his address by registered post for deciding his case on merits. However, the said letter
was received back undelivered. There were certain illegible comments of the postal department on the envelope.
Hence, it was not possible to decide the representation on merits. It was thereafter that the claimant had filed OA No.
1710 of 2002 before Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT, wherein directions was given to management to consider the
case of the claimant for re-engagement in accordance with rules and instructions within three months. Attested copy of
the order dated 12.07.2000 is also held on record (MW-7). It is further clear that Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT on
25.10.2002 allowed four weeks time to decide the representation of the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant has made a
representation on 12.11.2002 along with photocopy of duty chart. However, documents filed by the claimant could not
be verified by the management with those available on record in the office. The claimant could not furnish any
positive proof of his having worked for 240 days. Thereafter, claimant had filed OA No.1074 of 2003 again before the
Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT and it was dismissed by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 1st May 2003
(MW-11). Finally, the claimant filed a civil writ petition No.6180 of 2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
which was also dismissed by observing that the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before he appropriate
forum. It was thereafter, that the present reference was made by the appropriate Government.
12.
It is clear from the matrix of the case that time and again the claimant has been approaching Hon’ble CAT for
redresssal of his grievance and it has throughout been his stand that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
prior to his termination. Claimant has also alleged that he has rather worked for 302 days after his engagement in
April 1994, details of which are as under:
Month
No. of Days
April 1994
19
May 1994
31
June 1994
30
July 1994
31
4318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
August 1994
31
September 1994
30
October 1994
31
November 1994
30
December 1994
30
January 1995
00
February 1995
00
March 1995
29
April 1995
10
TOTAL
302
13.
There is also mention that his last drawn wages was Rs.55.00 per day. Claimant has also filed the scheme
relating to casual labour, dealing with grant of temporary status to them. There is hardly any dispute regarding the said
scheme. Stand of the management is also clear that on the basis of directions given by Hon’ble CAT, he was offered
employment. Now, the only question which arises for determination is whether provisions of Section 25-F of the Act
are applicable and service of the claimant has been terminated in violation of provisions of the Act. Learned A/R for
the claimant has highly relied on HD Singh Vs. Reserve Banki of India (1985) 2 All India Services Law Journal 457
wherein Hon’ble Apex Court also under similar circumstances observed that striking of the name of the workman from
the rolls of bank would amount to termination and such a dispute is securely covered by provisions of Section 2A of the
Act. It also amounts to termination being in violation of mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act.
Law is fairly settled that in case a workman has completed 240 days prior to his termination, then management is
required to serve one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof. In the case on hand, as is clear from the evidence on record,
management has not served any kind of notice upon the claimant before his termination. Claimant has given details of
his attendance after his engagement, in the statement of claim as well as written arguments. In such a situation, it was
incumbent upon the management to have entered into the witness box and adduced sufficient evidence so as to rebut
the claim of the claimant regarding his having worked for 240 days in a calendar year. No doubt in Batala Co-
operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC Hon’ble Apex Court has held that initial onus to prove that
the workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination is always upon the workman who is
required to lead sufficient evidence to prove the same. However, in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division
Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajbhai Chavda, AIR 2010 SCC 1236), wherein Batala Co-operative Sugar mills case (supra) was
also discussed. Learned A/R for the claimant also relied upon the case in AIIMS Vs. Uddal (2014 (142) DRJ 569 and
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Milan (Manu/DE/399/2015), once the claimant has adduced evidence that he
has worked for 240 days, the onus shifts upon the management to prove that the claimant has not completed 240 days
in any calendar year. In the instant case since management was proceeded ex-parte and has not placed on record any
document regarding the number of days worked by the claimant. In such a situation, this Tribunal is bound to draw
adverse inference against the management. Management, in its reply, has admitted that the details of working days
submitted by the claimant do not tally with official record of the management. But what is the official record has not
been shown or filed by the management so as to prove that 240 days of work was not completed before his so-called
termination.
14.
In view of the evidence adduced by the claimant, it is held that the claimant was in the employment of the
management and has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Since in the present case, there is no compliance of
provisions of section 25-F of the Act by the management, which requires the management to serve one months’ notice
before ordering his termination or one month’s pay in lieu thereof. As such, action of the management is held to be
illegal and not justified under the law.
15.
Now the residual question is as to what relief the workman is entitled to. Affidavit of the claimant clearly
speaks of the fact that the claimant is unemployed from the date of his termination and his termination has been held to
be illegal and not justified, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to regularization 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 : May 19, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4319
ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1743-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
fe'ku funs'kky; & vkjthds,] [ksy foHkkx] dkS'ky fodkl ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&I] fnYyh ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@147@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2017
S.O. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 49/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, Mission Directorate – RGKA, Department of Sports, Ministry of Skill Development, New Delhi and their
workman, which were received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/147/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 49/2015
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur,
C/o Sports Authority of India Kamgar Union,
R. No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110069
…Workman
Vs.
The Director, Mission Directorate-RGKA,
Department of Sports, Ministry of Skill Development,
Entrepreneurship, Youth Affairs & Sports,
Cafeteria Bldg, Pragati Vihar Hostel, CGO Complex,
New Delhi – 110003
…Management
AWARD
Pursuant to the receipt of order dated 20.01.2015 from Government of India Ministry of Labour under clause d
of Sub Section (I) and Sub Section 2-A of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act (in Short the Act), vide order No. L-
42012/147/2014 (IR (DU)). This Tribunal is required to adjudicate an Industrial dispute/reference, the terms of which is
as under:-
(i)
“Whether the action of the management for termination the services of Ms. Paramjeet Kaur w.e.f. 30th
Sep.,2013 is illegal and/or unjustified and if so what directions are necessary in this respect?”
(ii)
“Whether the action of the management not paying equal remuneration to her at par with male
workman in the clerical nature of job is justified and legal? If not, what directions are necessary in
this respect?”
2.
It is clear from the statement of claim that claimant Smt. Paramjeet Kaur was appointed vide letter No. I-
1/MYAS/PYKKA/2009 dated 9th April 2010 as on contractual Basis for a period of three months or completion of
assignment whichever is earlier. The conditions of 3 months as mentioned in above letter expired on 8.7.2010 and
thereafter claimant is continuous in service. Contractual employment of the claimant mentioned above was simply a
camouflage to deny her employment as well as equal wages given to the lower division clerk. It is a case of claimant
that she was wrongly terminated on 30.09.2013 and a new person with same and similar work Data Entry Operator
4320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Hindi) has been appointed to deprive of her livelihood. The action of the management is alleged to be unfair and
management has thus, violated as provision of section 25-F,25-G and 25-H of I.D. Act, 1947.
3.
Now the management has appointed Ms. Jyoti and Ms. Preeti after the termination of claimant for performing
the same duties. The claimant has completed more than 240 days in each of the calendar year and management has thus
violated provision of section 25-F without paying one month salary in lieu of one month notice as required under the
law. The management had exploited her by not paying her equal salary like other employee termination previous
similar work not performing of time scale HRA, CCA, DA, etc. including medical expenses was given to the claimant
by management.
4.
The management is the principal employer and diverted her work without any proper order as required u/s 9 A
of I.D. Act. 1947. The contractual employment is merely a camouflage and claimant is entitled for reinstatement with
full back wages.
5.
The claim was contested by the management who filed reply/ contra affidavit thereto and took preliminary
objections inter-alia that management is not covered by definition of Industry as defined u/s 2 J of the act and claimant
was issued the letter of offer of appointment on 09.04.2010 on contract basis. As per clause 5 of the said letter that the
appointment can be terminated at any time from either side or payment of one month salary in lieu of such notice. The
claimant has appointed as Data Entry Operator on contract basis on 12.04.2010 only for a period of 3 months or till
further order whichever is earlier. The contract agreement was extended from time to time with the approval of the
competent authority. The contract period of the claimant was lastly extended w.e.f 12.08.2011 for the period 6 months
or till further order. The Claimant was issued one month notice in term of clause -5 of offer of appointment letter vide
letter dated 28.12.2011 and therefore after her service was terminated on 01.02.2012 vide annexure R-4. The
management denied other material averments made in claim statement of claimant.
6.
Claimant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the management and retreated the stand already taken
in statement of claim.
7.
Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed following issues
vide order dated 05.07.2016 :-
i.
Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections ?
ii.
As in terms of reference.
8.
Claimant in support of her case examined herself as WW1 and tendered in affidavit as Ex. WW1/A as well as
documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/4.
9.
The management in order to rebut the case of claimant examine Sh. Arun Kumar Singh as MW1 whose affidavit
is Ex. MW1/A and he tendered his documents as Ex. MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/9.
10.
I have heard Shri B. K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Piyush Gaur, A/R for the management.
Finding on Issue No. 1
The management has specifically taken the plea in the reply/Counter affidavit that directorate being the central
government department is not covered under the definition of industry as defined under section 2 J of the Act. Ld. A/R
for the management could not cite any authority of our High Court or that of Hon’ble Supreme Court as to how the
management i.e, department of sports of Central Government is not covered by the definition of the industry.
11.
In order to appreciate the submission raised by the management it is necessary to reproduce the provision of
section 2 J which defines industry as under:
“Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any
calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
“The definition of ‘industry’ is in two parts. In its first part it means any business, trade, undertaking,
manufacture or calling of employers. This part of definition determines an industry by reference to
occupation of employers in respect of certain activities. These activities are specified by five words and they
determine when an industry is and what the cognate expression ‘industrial’ is intended to convey. The
second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what
the term primarily denotes. This part gives extended connotation. If the activity can be described as an
industry with reference to the occupation of the employers, the ambit of the industry, under the force of the
second part, takes in the different kinds of activity of the employees mentioned in the second part. But, the
second part alone cannot define ‘industry’. An industry is not to be found in every case of employment or
service. By the inclusive part of the definition the labour force employed in an industry is made an integral
part of the industry for purposes of industrial disputes although industry is ordinarily something which
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4321
employers create or undertake. Before the work engaged in by an employer can be described as an industry,
it must bear the definite character of ‘trade’ or ‘business’ or ‘manufacture’ or ‘calling’ or must be capable of
being described as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material services. Where an activity is to be
considered as an industry, it must not be casual but must be distinctly systematic and the work for which
workmen are employed must be productive and the workmen must be following an employment, calling or
industrial avocation. The work ‘industry’ must take its colour from the definition and that it discloses that a
workman is to be regarded as one employed in an industry if he is following one of the vocations mentioned
in conjunction with his employers engaged in the vocation mentioned in relation to the employers.
12.
The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978 (36)
F.L.R. 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Act and
held as under:
(a)
Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not involves employees on
the total undertaking some of whom are not “workmen” as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or
some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant
nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of
Nagpur (supra), will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be ‘industry’ although those who are
not ‘workmen’ by definition may not benefit by the status.
(b)
Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for
exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or Statutory
bodies.
(c)
Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they
are substantially severable, then can be considered to come within section 2 (J).
(d)
Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions way well remove from the scope of the
Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.
(e)
We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors’ case (supra), Gymkhana (supra), Delhi University (supra),
Dhanrajgirji Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated
above, and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.”
13.
Applying the ratio of law given above, the job of Data Entry Operator is included in the definition of ‘industry’.
In view of this it is held that PYKKA Mission Project of Sport department is an industry.
Finding on Issue No. 2
Now the vital question which requires determination is: Whether the termination of service of the claimant w.e.f
30.09.2013 is legal and unjustified? In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the pleadings of the parties as well as
evidence in this regard adduced by the parties. It is clear from the documents Ex. WW1/2 that claimant Pramjeet Kaur
was employed as Data Entry Operator (Hindi Typist) in the Mission Directorate PYKKA , Department of Sports,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Cafeteria Building, Pragati Vihar Hostel Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, w.e.f
12.04.2010 to 02.09.2013. This fact is also admitted by the management and its reply/counter affidavit. It is clear from
stand of the management that offer of appointment letter was issued to her on 09.04.2010 and as per the case of
management itself she was appointed on contract basis at this stage it is also appropriate to refer to clause 5 of the letter
Ex. WW1/M1 which read as under:
“The Contractual assignment can be terminated at any time by giving one month notice from either side or
payment of one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof.”
14.
It is further clear from the pleadings as well as service on record that service of the claimant was extended from
time to time by the management. It is also clear from the failure report dated 15.12.2014 Ex. WW1/3 that the
management has taken the similar stands as taken before this Tribunal. The letter of appointment of the claimant is Ex.
WW1/4 which also contain various condition of service and condition no. 5 as discussed above is the same in this
letter.
15.
It has also come in the evidence of Shri Arun Kumar MW1 that PYKKA scheme is functioning since 2008 and
was valid till 2014. He has also admitted the issuance of letter Ex.WW1/2 which is duly signed by him. This letter
clearly shows that claimant Smt. Paramjeet Kaur was directly in the employment of Mission Directorate PYKKA,
Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, from 21.04.2010 to 30.09.2013. Thus, there is no merit in
the contention on the management that claimant herein was not directly in the employment of the management i.e,
Mission Directorate PYKKA and the contention that the claimant was in the employment of contractor M/s New Grow
Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., to whom the contract was awarded vide Ex.MW1/7 is devoid of any merit for the reason
4322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that the said contract is dated 31.01.2012 whereas claimant was in the employment of the management since
09.04.2010. It clearly shows that management has later on entered into an agreement with a private contractor so as to
show wrongly the claimant to be in the employment of said contract. The management has not examined said
contractor so as to prove that it was the contractor who was taking work from her and was also paying salary to her.
The claimant has very clearly stated that she was in the employment of the management. Ex. MW1/6 is the sanction
order, relied upon by the management which also shows that payment of the salary of various staff engaged by the
management including Smt. Paramjeet Kaur was sanctioned
by the central government after obtaining the approval
of the competent authority. The said expenditure is debitable to Mission Directorate PYKKA.
16.
It has also come in the evidence of Shri Arun Kumar MW1 that after termination of the claimant herein, one
Smt. Prity was engaged and she is still working with the management. He has also admitted that Mission Directorate
PYKKA, is an office of the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports and the computer on which the
claimant wherein working belong to the management. He further made a vital admission supervision of the work was
being done by the management and work of Data Entry Operator is clerical in nature. He further deposed that claimant
was not being paid the same salary which was being paid to the regular employee performing the similar job. In such
circumstances Ex.MW1/7 which management has entered private contractor is bogus and camouflage as such cannot be
taken into consideration so as to hold that claimant was in the employment of private contractor. Thus, termination of
the claimant is in the violation of section 25 (F) of the Act.
17.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017 LAB IC 427 while dealing
with the question of equal pay for equal work held as under:
“The Principal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ can be extended to temporary employees (differently described
as work charged, daily-wage, casual, adhoc, contractual, and the like) It is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another,
who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides
being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any-one, who is compelled to work at a
lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his
self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his
dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation.”
18.
Since the regular Data Entry Operator in the case on hand are performing the similar nature of work as was
being performed by the claimant herein, as such she cannot be denied equal pay like her regular counterparts
moreover, she was recruited in accordance with of norms and was issued letter of appointment Ex.MW1/1. The
nature of her duty is/was clerical in nature and the post in question was not temporary in nature as the work was of
perennial nature. Resultantly, it is held that her termination is in violation of the Act and same is held to be illegal
and unjustified.
RELIEF
As a sequel to my above discussion, is held that the action of the management for terminating the service of Ms.
Paramjeet Kaur w.e.f 30th Sep, 2013 is illegal and unjustified. There is no evidence on the record as to whether she was
gainfully employed or not after her termination, as such, she is liable to be reinstated in service with 50% of 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 : 05.07.2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1744-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ tSV
,;jost fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 98@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-
06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@18@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4323
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2017
S.O. 1744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi (Ref. No. 98 of 2011) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Jet Airways Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
27.06.2017.
[No. L-11012/18/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 98/2011
Shri Rajesh Kumar Rana & Others
C/o M/s Amita Gupta,
100 Sukhdev Vihar,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s Sahara India,
Sahara India Centre, 8th Floor,
2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj,
Lucknow
2.
M/s Jet Airways Ltd.
SM Centre, Andheri-Kurla Road,
Andheri East
Mumbai 400 059
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-11012/18/2008-IR(CM-I) dated 23.06.2009
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the
Act) vide which this Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.II was required to adjudicate an
industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘(i) Whether the demand of Shri Ranesh Kumar Rana & 15 others (as annexed) for their absorption in Jet Lite
by the management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 01.04.2007
entered by the management of Jet Airways (India) Limited, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited
and others and Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and legal? (ii) to what reliefs are the workmen concerned
entitled?’
2.
In partial modification of Ministry of Labour letter referred above, vide Corrigendum dated 26.11.2009 the
name of M/s Jet Airways Limited, SM Centre, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059 was arrayed as a
party in the above reference.
3.
Claim statement was filed by the claimants herein, S/Shri Rajesh Kumar Rana, Shri Rakesh Rana, Krishna
Kumar Bhardwaj, Baljit Singh, Narender Kumar, Anil Kumar, Subhas Rana, Rajender Singh, Umed Singh, Satinder
Kumar, Anil Kumar Gulia, Naresh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Raghubir Singh, Bhupal Kumar Kashyap and Shri Jitender
Singh, averring that they were being harassed by M/s Jet Lite after their services were transferred from Sahara Airline
Ltd. allegedly on the same terms and conditions and would be given continuity of service and all consequential benefits
of past service in M/s Jet Lite. Dates of joining of the claimants as Driver with Sahara India Airlines are as under:
Name S/Shri
Date of Joining
Rajesh Kumar Rana
01.03.1995
Shri Rakesh Rana
21.11.1994
4324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj
20.11.1995
Baljit Singh
05.01.2000
Narender Kumar
05.01.2000
Anil Kumar
01.04.2004
Subhas Rana
01.04.2004
Rajender Singh
01.04.2004
Umed Singh
01.01.2006
Satinder Kumar
01.01.2006
Anil Kumar Gulia
01.01.2006
Naresh Kumar
01.04.2004
Mukesh Kumar
01.01.2001
Raghubir Singh
01.01.2006
Bhupal Kumar Kashyap
01.11.1996
Shri Jitender Singh
13.11.1995
4.
It is further the case of the claimants that they were sent on deputation to Sahara Airlines Ltd. on 20.04.2007 for
a period of 90 days. However, before completion of 90 days, they were informed vide order dated 01.06.2007 that their
deputation would come to an end on 06.06.2007. The claimants were not educated. They were made tossing on various
papers and were informed that Sahara Airlines Limited have transferred their entire share holding to M/s Jet Airways
and hence would be treated as employees of M/s Jet Airways. Claimants were appointed as Equipment Operators in
Engineering Department of Jet Lite India Ltd. with effect from 01.07.2007. Claimants were contribution Rs.900.00
towards voluntary provident fund every year and an amount of Rs.600 to Rs.1200.00 every year as donation towards
corpus of Kargil Benefit Fund without consent of the claimants. Demand notice served on the management at Lucknow
was returned undelivered. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimants be absorbed permanently in M/s Jet Lite India
Ltd with full back wages and consequential benefits.
5.
Claim was demurred by the M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. taking various preliminary
objections inter alia of maintainability, absence of relationship of employer-employee relationship and non-existence of
industrial dispute. The remaining averments in the statement of claim have been denied. However, factum of
engagement of the claimants and their EC numbers, rate of salary etc. have not been denied. Finally, it has been prayed
that the dispute be answered in their favour.
6.
M/s Jet Airways filed statement of defence also taking preliminary objections of the claim not being
maintainable in view of the fact that there is no such company in the name of Jet Airways Ltd. or Jet Airways, they not
being impleaded as a party, non-espousal of the case, misjoinder of parties, dispute being supresso varia and suggest
falsie, lack of territorial jurisdiction, reference being made with application of mind etc. On merits, management has
denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim. Claimants are neither associated with them nor any
right has accrued in their favour under the said agreement. It is denied that the claimants were ever transferred from
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. to M/s Jet Lite (I) Ltd or were ever assured that they would be taken on
their employment with continuity of service on the same terms and conditions. Claimants who were employed by Jet
Lite (I) Ltd. on the terms and conditions and on an understanding as contained in appointment letter issued to them.
Finally, it is denied that the claimants are entitled to any absorption with Jet Airways (I) Ltd, or Jet Lite (I) Ltd. with
continuity of service with same benefits, as alleged.
7.
Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007 dated 30.03.2010, the above case was transferred by the appropriate
Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.
8.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor vide order dated 15.07.2011, on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether transfer of the claimants to M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. when
management of M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd. was taken over by M/s Jet Airways Ltd., is unjust and
uncalled for?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4325
(ii)
Whether the claimants have accepted their transfer orders, alongwith ex-gratia incentive? If yes, its
effects?
(iii)
Whether ambiguity in the reference order, as to the names of respective managements, can be
rectified by this Tribunal, on the basis of facts pleaded by the parties?
(iv)
As in terms of reference
(v)
Relief
9.
Claimants, in order to prove their case against the management, examined Shri Rakesh Kumar Rana, Shri
Rajesh Kumar Rana as WW1 and WW2, whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A and they relied on
documents Ex.WW1/1 to 25 and Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/43 respectively. Evidence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Rana was
recorded on 07.04.2014 and since no other witness of the claimant was present despite grant of various opportunities,
evidence of the claimants was closed by the order of the court on the said date. Thereafter, case was listed for evidence
of the management. M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd. filed affidavit of Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav, Manager:HR, which
was later on substituted with the affidavit of Ms. Deepa Singh, Manager:HR as Shri Yadav , the earlier witness had
resigned from the company.
10.
Thereafter, the case was listed for examination of the witness of M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on as many as 10
occasions, but neither the claimants nor any authorized representative on their behalf put in their appearance, so as to
cross examine the management witness. This is clearly indicative of the fact that the claimants are no more interested in
adjudication of the case on merits. Hence, this Tribunal is left with no other alternative but to pass a ‘No dispute/no
claim’ award. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, claimant is still at
liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. 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 : June 5, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1745-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 91@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@01@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of
Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-12011/01/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 91/2014
Employer in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
4326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri Govind Kumar, Sr. Manager Legal
For the workman
:
Shri B. Prasad, Representative
State : Bihar
Industry : Banking
Dated : 15/06/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-12011/01/2014-IR (B-II) dated 06/03/2014, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the workman Sri Subodh Kumar who worked as part time canteen boy on 1/3 rd wages
for more than 24 years in the Manpur Branch of Bank of Baroda is entitled to be reinstated and
regularised as full time Subordinate Staff ? what relief he is entitled for?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 18.03.2014 by CGIT No.2, Dhanbad. After receipt of
reference, both Parties are noticed, The workman files their written statement on 02.05.2014 before the CGIT No.2,
Dhanbad. But thereafter as per letter No.L-12011/01/2014 IR (B-II) dated 27.08.2014, the Ministry of Labour
transferred the case from CGIT No.2 Dhanbad and received in this Tribunal on 11.11.2014 and registered as Ref.
No.91/20014. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 28.01.2015. No witness
examined from either side. But document of workman is marked as W-1 to W--15 and one document of management is
aslo marked as M-1series.
3.
The case of the workman is that Sri Subodh Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar Dasai has been orally appointed by the
management of Bank of Baroda to discharge the duties of Part time canteen boy on 1/3rd wages of a full time
subordinate Staff w.e.f. 02.05.1981.After appointment the workman had been doing the job of Part time canteen boy
full time subordinate staff. He was also being paid bonus. He discharged his duties from 10 AM to 5.30 PM as canteen
boy, the status of the workman was that of a temporary workmen and was required to be confirmed in the service of the
Bank as per the provision of Sastry Award.
4.
It is further submitted by the workman that the workman was being paid his wages through debit Voucher of the
Bank and the payment was made on monthly basis, and whenever there was increase in Dearness Allowance, the same
was extended to the workman. But wile working with the management, the manager of the Bank of Baroda Manpur
Branch informed the workman in the evening of 7th Sept. 2005 that his service stood terminated. As usual when the
workman went to performed his duties on 08.09.2005 the following day, he was stopped from work without given any
notice, notice pay nor any retrenchment compensation before his termination. He was worked with the bank for over 24
years continued and he was worked more than 240 dayas in a year as per provision of 25 (B) of the I.D Act.
5.
After termination, the workman has approached the Hon’ble High Court, Patna bearing No. CWJC 14619 of
2005. The Hon’ble High Court, Patna passed the order dated 12.12.2012 with advised to consider the case of workman.
6.
It is further submitted by the workman that after termination of service of the workman, a number of part time
workmen of subordinate cadre were upgraded and regularised as full time subordinate staff but this workman petition
for reinstatement and regularisation was rejected. Hence dispute arose.
7.
On the other hand the case of the Opp. Party is that Mr Subodh Kumar was engaged intermittently on casual
basis as part time canteen boy on daily wages for passing contingencies at Manpur Branch for odd jobs like providing
water, tea etc. In the Branch he was engaged intermittently on casual basis by Branch Head without any authority and
without following the rules of engagement of temporary employees including calling for sponsorship from employment
exchange , hence his engagement was illegal.
8.
It is further submitted by the management that the Manpur Branch only engaged him for passing contingencies
of work intermittently on day to day basis . His engagement started in the morning and ended with the completion of
the work for which he was engaged. He was never appointed in the bank by the competenet authority as per the
prescribed procedure. Since there was no appointment , hence there was no question of termination of his service and
subsequent reinstatement in the bank.
9.
After receipt of the reference both parties are noticed , and they filed their respective written statement , counter
and rejoinder. Both parties also filed their respective documents. Even though workmen called for certain documents
from the management, same has not filed by the bank.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4327
10.
The short point to be decided as to whether the workman is to be regularised in the bank as a massenger or not.
It is the case of the workman that he rendered services to the bank for 24 years , while the bank in need but
subsequently the bank without regularising him, disallowed him to work.
11.
The Bank management in the written statement has admitted that they took the services of the workman initially
and that is intermittently but not regularly. Against the action of the management, the workman approached the
Hon’ble High Court and the High Court directed the Bank management to consider the case of the workman but the
management refused the claim of workman . The management submitted that the claim of the workman is barred here,
which is a wrong notion. Since the management did not produce the documents as called for by the workman,
suppression of the truth, the workman’s case appears to be true.
12.
Therefore the management is directed to regularise the workman within one month in the post of messenger
after the publication of award in the official gazettee. If the appointment of the workman is not made after 31st days of
publication of gazettee, the management is to pay the workman full salary of a massenger.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1746-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 77@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@41@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-12012/41/2014-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 77/2014
Employer in relation to the management of Central Bank of India
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State : Bihar
Industry : Banking
Dated : 22/06/2017
4328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/41/2014-IR (B-II) dated 31/07/2014, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the service of the
workman Sri Kanhaiya Yadav is justified on the basis of denying Natural justice? What relief he is
entitled for?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 14.08.2014. After receipt of reference, both Parties are
noticed, The workman files their written statement on 03/11/2014. The management files their written statement-cum-
rejoinder on 06.02.2015. One witness from each side examined on preliminary point regarding fairness of enquiry and
documents of management are marked as M-1 to M-14.
3.
The domestic enquiry held by the management fair and proper by order dated 22.09.2015 and order has been not
challenged by the workman, now it is final.
4.
The case of the workman is that, he was appointed as permanent peon on 11.05.1981. He was promoted to the
post of clerk on 14.04.1984 due to efficiency and sincerity and he was also promoted as head cashier on 26.08.2002
thereafter he was posted in Siswan Branch as Special Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.2014 but on 20.02.2012 a false and
frivolous charge sheet issued alongwith supplementary memo on 11.06.2012.
5.
It is further submitted by the workman that the allegation levelled in the chargesheet was not proved in the
departmental enquiry through legal evidence. All witness were neither examined in his presence nor he was given full
opportunity to cross –examine the witness. He was also not given full opportunity to adduce his defence witness. The
finding of the enquiry Officer is perverse and not based on evidence on record. On the basis of illegal and perverse
finding of the enquiry officer the management dismissed the concerned workman from service during the pendency of
conciliation proceeding.
6.
The workman also submits that the alleged documents neither prepared by him nor the same bears his signature
so, he requested the management to verify through hand writing expert as it will go against the management, it was not
done,and he vehemently protested against the illegal dismissal but without any effect, hence dispute arose.
7.
On the other hand the case of the management is that the concerned workman has committed act of gross
misconduct under clause 5 (j) hence disciplinary action was taken.
8.
The allegation levelled against him in the aforesaid charge sheet during his tenure as Special Assistant from
14.10.2008 to 16.02.2012 at Siswan Branch, he was involved in reckless financing . The workman concerned in
connivance with borroweres cheated the Bank by interviewing the brorrowers and prepared the memorandum for
sanction of CKCC loan accounts with their documentation on the basis of which CKCC accounts were sanctioned and
later on most of the accounts found fake. The workman concerned has signed on blank assessment form . The workman
submitted pre-inspection report in some of the accounts in which borrower found fake. Even loan applications which
were processed by the workman concerned were not fully filled up and photograph were either not taken or not attested
which is against the norms of financing.
9.
The enquiry Officer has conducted domestic enquiry in presence of workman concerned as well as his defence
representative, the management withnesses were examined and cross examined . The workman concerned also
examined his defence witnesses.
10.
The enquiry officer submitted his report holding theirin that the allegations levelled against him is proved and
held him guilty of six charges out of the eight charges contained in the chargesheet.
11.
The disciplinary Authority examined the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report and concurred with the findings
of Enquiry officer and thereafter issued second show cause notice to the workman concerned and supplied the copy of
enquiry report with opportunity to the workman to submit his representation.
12.
The Disciplinary Authority issued propsed punishment order to the workman concerned with an opportunity to
hear him on the point of proposed punishment. Therafther the Displinary Authority passed the final order and awarded
the punishment of dismissal from the service of the Bank.
13.
After the reference is received, both parties are noticed and they filed their respective written statement, counter,
rejoinder and document. The workman in the present case was a clerk of the bank and he alongwith two to three
managers for sanctioning loan illegally in connection with this alleged fraud. The dismissal was done on the basis of
departmental enquiry. The enquiry held fair and proper in this case.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4329
14.
While hearing the case, the workman filed a judgment of High Court, where one of the officer of the
management involved in the said alleged fraud, one manager was not found guilty and was ordered to be reinstated, and
also reinstated as reported. The judgment of High Court has been filed in this case. If that be so the workman be
reinstated in his post immediately within one month from the date of publication of this award in the official gazettee
on parity as otherwise the management to pay the back wages to the workman from the 31st day of the publication of
the award in the gazettee.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1747-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 16@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@90@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2017
S.O. 1747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P.) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara
Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-12012/90/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 2010
Between-
Bhuri Singh son of Ramji Lal,
Bank Compund, Saket Coclony,
Hathras U.P.
And
The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank Circle,
Office,
71 Nehru Nagar,
Agra.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi vide notification no. L- 12012/90/209-IR (B-II) dated
02.02.2010, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, Lucknow now at Agra Circle Agra in imposing
punishment of compulsory retirement from the bank service vide order dated 11.10.2004 of the competent authority on
Sri Bhuri Singh son of Ramji Lal is just & proper? What relief the concerned applicant is entitled to?
3.
It is common ground that the worker was employed as sub staff in Canara bank and was posted at the bank’s
kailora branch in district Hathras. While working as such he was served with a charge sheet no. LC/DAC/W-03/2004
dated 23.01.2004 and consequent upon issuance of charge sheet an enquiry was got instituted against the applicant and
Sri Bijendra Pal Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry was commenced on
4330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18.03.04 and was concluded on 25.04.04 by the enquiry officer who submitted his findings dated 26.07.2004 to the
Deputy General Manager, Lucknow, and the said Dy. General Manager, Lucknow vide his letter No.
LC/DAC/703/2004 dated 05.08.04 forwarded a copy of the enquiry finding to the worker directing him to make his
submission if any over the findings enquiry officer. The worker made his submission to the Dy.General Manager
against the finding of the enquiry officer vide his letter dated 28.08.04, therefore the competent authority issued a
show-cause notice to the worker vide notice dated 02.09.08 proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and to
this effect he also granted personal hearing to the applicant which took place on 08.10.04,therefore, disciplinary
authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the worker which was communicated vide order
dated 11.10.04.Although in the said letter it was stated that the copy of original punishment order is enclosed but the
same was not enclosed with the said letter. Thereafter the worker preferred an appeal dated 27.11.2004 to the General
Manager which was rejected by the said authority vide letter dated 17.06.05.
4.
In the facts and circumstances of the case it was alleged by the worker that though in the letter of the
disciplinary authority it was mentioned that original copy of punishment order is enclosed but no such order was
enclosed with order dated 11.10.04 of the disciplinary authority and being so the punishment order is illegal and
unjustified. The worker has also challenged the order sheet on the ground that the alleged incident appears to have
happened on 29.04.03 and 10.05.03 but charge sheet has been issued on 23.01.04 which proves that the charge are false
and baseless and have been framed with a biased mind to victimize the worker. Therefore, the punishment inflicted
upon him deserve to be set aside. The worker has further stated in connected with the alleged incident that an
investigation was not made by deputing Sri A K Singh who in his report has stated that he visited Kailora Branch on
10.05.03 to investigate into the alleged incident but he submitted his report as late as on 04.11.03 that is after six
months which again proves that the charge are false and have been fabricated and worker has been victimized . There is
no evidence relating the incident of 29.04.03. A joint statement was submitted be the staff members of the branch but
none has been examined by the enquiry officer to corroborate the alleged incident as such the same has no evidentiary
value therefore it cannot be said that the charges stands proved against the worker.
5.
In the basis of above allegation it has been prayed by the worker that the punishment order passed against him
being illegal should be set aside and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages, continuity of service and with
all consequential benefits attached with the post.
6.
Management has filled written statement refuting the claim of the worker and stated the entire incident which
took place on 29.04.2003 in the branch and on 10.05.03 took place in the cabin of the branch manager as narrated in the
charge sheet. It is also stated that the management witnesses were examined and the same have properly been cross-
examined by the defence representative . The worker did not produce himself In the inquiry as witness to controvert the
allegations of the charges. The enquiry officer gave full and proper opportunity to the worker for his defence and after
concluding the inquiry prepared inquiry report and submitted the same to the disciplinary authority who on receipt of
the same forwarded a copy to the worker with direction to submit his submission against the inquiry findings and the
worker submitted his submissions to the disciplinary authority which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority.
Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the worker proposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement and after considering the reply and after providing him an opportunity of person hearing confirmed the
proposed punishment upon the worker. Appeal against the same was also considered and rejected by the appellate
authority. All the relevant dates have been mentioned in the facts stated by the worker as above.
7.
Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the worker but nothing new has been pleaded therein.
8.
Management vide list of document dated 11.05.11 has filed the entire documents relating to the present inquiry
which have properly been considered by the tribunal while recording its finding on the fairness of the inquiry which
was held to be just and fair by order dated 05.01.16.
9.
From the charge sheet issued to the worker it appears that he was charged for using un-parliamentary words to
the manager on 29.04.2003 and left the branch at 4.20 p.m. without permission and the manager marked it in the
attendance register and this marking was un- authorizedly struck by the worker. Again on 10.05.03 worker has entered
in the cabin of manager Sri K.N. Shanshi and suddenly snatched the register from and threw it in the corner of
manager’s cabin and shouted on him as to why Daftari allowance has not been paid to him.Thereafter he used abusive
language in the presence of severalcustomers of the branch and left the branch at 1.30 p.m without permission.
10.
From perusal of record it appears that the worker remained absent in attending the proceedings of the case since
13.10.10 and as he did not attend the proceedings of this case for the several years preliminary issue regarding fairness
of inquiry was framed by the tribunal on 5.5.15 and the said issue was decided by the tribunal vide order 05.01.16 after
hearing arguments of management representative and it was held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the
management was just and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice .
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4331
11.
Thereafter final arguments on merit of the case were heard in which learned representative for the management
advanced his agreement but none appeared on the date of final arguments from the side of the worker therefore, it could
not be heard.
12.
Now the tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the cases has to examine the findings of the enquiry officer as
to whether the enquiry officer has recorded his findings after properly appreciating the evidence oral as well
documentary adduced before him by the parties during the course of domestic inquiry and as to whether on the basis of
the same the enquiry officer has been able to prove the charges against the worker levelled by the bank .
13.
In the enquiry proceedings management has examined 4 witnesses M.W.1. K.R Verma, M.W.2. A.K. Singh,
M.W.3 K.L. Shanshi and M.W.4 D.K. Jain. Defence representative for the worker has cross examined firstthree
witnesses and did not cross examined M.W.4. Sri D K Jain.
14.
Worker has not adduced any oral evidence in inquiry nor examined himself before the enquiry officer.
15.
It also appears from the statement of the management witnessesrecorded in the inquiry before the enquiry officer
that all of them withone voice had supported the charges leveled against the worker and worker was not able to
controvert them and did not adduce any evidence in his defence nor examined himself before the enquiry officer.
16.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case tribunal is of the opinion that the enquiry officer
has adopted a fair and properprocedure in holding inquiry and he gave full opportunity to the worker to adduce his
evidence but for the reasons best known to the worker he did not avail the opportunity given to him by the enquiry
officer and didnot produced him to adduce any evidence in support of his defines.
17.
By perusing the enquiry findings it also reveals that the enquiry officerafter properly appreciating the evidence
of the management has rightly concluded that the charge stands proved against the worker. It makes no difference if the
signatory of the complaints were not examined as they according to the opinion of the tribunal under the facts and
circumstances of the case were not relevant witnesses as the incident which is alleged to have been committed by the
worker was directlyrelated with the branch manager, therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry findings suffers from
infirmities as pleaded by the worker in his statement of claim.
18.
It is also pertinent to mention here that all the management witnesses were properly cross-examined by the
defence representative but fromthe evidence available on the domestic inquiry file tribunal is unable to conclude that
the defence representative was able to show that theevidence of these witnesses is not reliable and as such cannot be
accepted. As the tribunal is of the opinion that the enquiry officer after giving his anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case as also to the material on record as also evidence available has rightly concluded that the
charges levelled against the worker standsfully proved and as such it cannot be said that the findings of the
enquiryofficer suffers from infirmity or is against the principles of natural justice.
19.
Held that the finding of the enquiry officer is just and fair and need notbe interfered at the hands of the tribunal.
20.
Next it will be examined whether punishment imposed upon the workerby the disciplinary on the proved
misconduct is just and fair. From the records of the case it is quite evident that the disciplinary authority afterreceipt of
the enquiry report provided a copy of the same to the workerand the same was also replied by him which but the
disciplinaryauthority not concurring with the reply of the worker had imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement of the worker by order 11.10.04 and the appeal against the same also rejected by the appellateauthority.
21.
It also appears to the tribunal that considering the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the worker and
which was found fully established against him, the disciplinary authority after taking a lenientview of the matter has
simply inflicted punishment of compulsorily retirement upon the worker which under no circumstances can be said to
be stigmatic and needs no interference under section 11-A of industrial disputes Act, 1947.
22.
Having concluded that the charges stands proved against the workerwhich of serious nature by the enquiry
officer and also that the disciplinary authority had also taken a lenient view in awarding punishment , the tribunal
confirms the findings and punishment awardedto the worker by the management. As a result of the same worker is not
entitled for any relief as claimed by him and it is held that action of the management of Canara bank in imposing
punishment of compulsory retirement upon Sri Bhuri Singh vide order dated 11.10.04 is just and fair.
23.
Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1748-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
4332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
,oa Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 85@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@9@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-41011/9/2000-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 85 OF 2000
PARTIES: The management of Railway Administration (Divisional Railway Manager,
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division, Asansol)
Vs.
Sri Debu Dom and 7 Others
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri S. K. Paul, Chief Office Superintendent
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
Industry : Railway
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-41011/9/2000–IR(B-I) dated 29/08/2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Railway Administration (herein Divisional Railway Manager,
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division, Asansol) in denying absorption/regularization the services of Sri Debu
Dom and 7 others from the date of their deployment by the G.R.P. as reflected in the individual Identity Card
issued by them is legal, valid and justified? If not, what relief Sri Debu Dom and 7 others are entitiled to?”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-41011/9/2000 – IR(B-I) dated 29/08/2000 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 85 of 2000 was
registered on 11.09.2000/31.10.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
Case called out. Both parties are absent.
3.
On perusal of the case record it is found that the case was fixed for filing evidence of the workman on
02.03.2016. Thereafter 6 dates were granted to the workman but to no effect. The workman’s Advocate, Learned
Sayantan Mukherjee endorsed on the order sheet on 07.03.2017 that he will not pray for any next date. But today he
remained absent. This is a case of 17 years old and the workman unnecessary taking dates without any fruitful result. I
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4333
think the workmen are now not at all interested to proceed with the case further. I find no reason to keep this old record
pending without any fruitful result.
4.
As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1749-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZLV dksLV
jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@107@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of East Coast
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-41011/107/2012-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 20/2013
Date of Passing Award – 2nd June, 2017
Between :
1.
M/s. Aditya Associations,
At. Kusumati, Po. Jatni, Dist. Khurda,
2.
Shri Dilip Kumar Jena,
Plot No. 287/02, Nandan Vihar, KIIT,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 24.
3.
Shri Pralipta Kumar Mohanty,
Plot No. 2933, At. Gouri Nagar,
Lewis Road, Po. Old Town, Bhubaneswar-02.
4.
M/s. Steel & Structure,
Block No. 302, Shree Jagannath Enclave,
Near Dammana Chhak, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
5.
The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Estate),
E.Co. Rly, Khurda Road, Jatni
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
4334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The President,
E.Co. Railway Thika Shramika Union,
AITUC, 32-156, Unit-IX, Road No. 2,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 022
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances :
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management 1 to 4
Shri R.N. Mahapatra
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 5
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Union
AWARD
This award arises out of a reference with the schedule “Whether the action of the part of the old contractors
namely Adiya Associates and Shri Dilip Kumar Jena working under the management of sr. DEN (Estate), E.Co. Rly,
Khurda in not paying terminal benefits to 20 number of workmen (Shri Arati Nayak & 19 others) (list enclosed) and on
the part of new contractors namely Shri Pralipta Ku. Mohanty and M/s. Steel structure (P) Ltd. Working under Sr. DEN
(Estate) Khurda in not engaging the workmen in their ongoing works is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?” made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-41011/107/2012
– IR(B-I), dated 20.2.2013 in exercising its jurisdiction under section 10 of the I.D. Act (herein-after referred to as the
“Act”) in the event of a dispute arose between the East Coast Railway Thika Shramika Union and the contractors of
East Coast Railway.
2.
Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the reference are that the Management No. 5 entered into an agreement and
engaged Management No. 1 M/s. Aditya Associations under proprietorship of Shri Dilip Kumar Jena for maintenance
of hospitality services in the officers rest house and subordinate rest house at Rail Vihar, Rail Kunj at
Chandrasekharpur including cleaning of the entire building, approach road to the building, compound wall, internal and
external items of the premises and providing round the clock utility service for taking care of the building. The
disputant workman Shri Arati Nayak and others numbering 20 were engaged by the said Management No. 1 to execute
the “contract work” awarded to the said Management in a tender process. The disputant workmen were working under
the said contractor Shri Jena till December, 2011 where-after M/s. Steel & Structure Private Limited, Management No.
4 was given the work order for such maintenance of “hospitality services” in a tender process. It is the claim of the 2nd
party-Union that the Contractor Dilip Kumar Jena being the head of the Management No. 4 had discontinued the
services of the disputant workmen without compliance of notice pay and rehabilitation compensation and the new
contractor M/s. Steel Structure (P) Limited has engaged his own labourers. It is the claim of the 2nd party-Union that
the disputant workmen were not paid any terminal benefits as per the I.D. Act and as such a dispute was raised before
the labour machinery. A conciliation was initiated by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and the
same having been failed the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for its adjudication. According to the 2nd party-
Union the disputant shall be reinstated with all retrenchment benefits by the contractor Management No. 3 and the
Management No. 5 shall give necessary direction in that regard.
3.
Being noticed the railway management No. 5 made its appearance and filed its written statement denying its
liability, whereas other Managements were set exprte as they failed to make their appearance inspite of notices served
on them. In its written statement the Management No. 5 has taken a stand that it had no role with the
engagement/appointment of the disputant workmen by Management No. 1, M/s. Aditya Associates. The disputants are
not its “workmen” as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and as such the reference is not maintainable against it.
According to it the work of “hospitality service” was awarded to the Management No. 1 in the year 2011 in a tender
process and the same work was given to Management No. 4 in the year 2012. Work orders were issued to those
Managements on execution of agreements by them and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement the
Management and its contractors 1 to 4 are to take care of the maintenance of ”hospitality service” as mentioned in
supra and those Managements had engaged contract labourers for the purpose. As such, there is no relationship of
“employer and employee” between it and the disputants and they are no way liable for removal of disputants in
carrying out the work of cleaning and dusting.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties issues given below were settled for just and proper adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the action on the part of old contractors namely Aditya Associates and Shri Dilip Kumar Jena
working under the management of Sr. DEN (Estate), E.Co. Rly, Khurda in not paying terminal benefits
to 20 number of workmen Shri Arati Nayak & 19 others (list enclosed) and on the part of new contractors
namely Shri Pralipta Ku. Mohanty and M/s. Steel Structure (P) Ltd., working under sr. DEN (Estate)
Khurda in not engaging the workmen in their ongoing works is legal and justified
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4335
2.
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
5.
As the 2nd Party-Union remained absent in the proceeding, the railway Management No. 5 was allowed to
adduce its evidence. In support of its pleadings the Management has examined one of it officers as a witness and filed
xerox copy of special condition contract (Part-II of Agent No. 02, dated 3.4.2012, copy of the payment of minimum
wages by contractor Aditya Associates, copy of the payment of minimum wages by the contractor Pralipta Kumar
Mohanty, copy of the Minimum wages paid by the contractor M/s. steel & Structure and copy of the payment of wages
to the labourers engaged by the above three contractors which are marked as Ext.-A to E.
FINDINGS
6.
The uncontroverted testimony of M.W.-1 and the documents relied upon by the Management No. 5 go to
indicate that the work of maintenance of the “hospitality service” in the rest house of officers and in the rest house of
subordinate staff was allotted to Management No. 1 M/s. Aditya Associates and Management No. 4 M/s. Steel &
Structure on different periods and agreements were executed accordingly between the railway Management and with
the contractors for the purpose. The disputants are not found to have been engaged by the railway Management No. 5
and there is nothing on the record to suggest or to hold that the disputants were ever engaged by the railway
management directly or they were paid directly by the said Management to do the maintenance of “hospitality service”.
Hence, the railway Management cannot be held responsible for lapses, if any, on the part of the contractors in refusing
employment to the disputants. Further-more, it cannot be over-sighted that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of
the disputants to establish that they had been ever engaged by the Contractor M/s. Aditya Associates and they worked
under him for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in a twelve calendar months preceding to the
alleged termination of service. Law is well settled that in order to declare the action of the Management illegal and
unjustified in removing/terminating the service of workmen without providing him notice pay and retrenchment
compensation, burden lies on the disputant workman to establish by clinching and credible evidence that he was
employed by the Management and being employed he worked for him continuously and uninterruptedly for 240 days.
The 2nd Party-Union having failed to establish the above pre-condition this Tribunal has no alternative than to reject the
claim of the disputants.
7.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1750-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaMy jsyos
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41011@32@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Divisional Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-41011/32/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 16/2015
Employers in relation to the management of Divisional Railway Sonepur Division
4336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
Industry : Railway
Dated : 19/06/2017
AWARD
By order no . L- 41011 /32/2015 /IR (B-I) dated 27/05/2015, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub–section ( 1) and sub–section ( 2A) of section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Sonepur Division in
terminating the service of Shri Vidya Sagar Thakur & others is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the workman is entitled?”
ANNEXURE
List of workmen
S.No
NAME
FATHER’S
NAME
ADDRESS
DOB
WORK
PLACE
1
Mahender
Moti
Vill+Post: Radhepur, Ps- Bhagalpur
31/12/57
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
2
Vakil
Vikau
Village : Raghopur,, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
15/06/54
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
3
Madho
Harish
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
59 Years
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
4
Mahesh
Bhim
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
5
Vakil
Maharaj
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
05/03/56
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
6
Adhik Lal
Bajrangi
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
09/03/53
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
7
Vinod
Jagarnath
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
02/09/55
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
8
Arjun
Jageshwar
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
9
Vindesvari
Bhurya
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
01/08/60
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
10
Bhola
Boudhi
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
11
Mahender
Bhim
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
05/03/52
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
12
Balaram
Choudhry
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
27/01/56
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
13
Manoj
Bachchi
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4337
14
Suresh
Bhim
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
15
Niranjan
Shashi Bhushan
Village : Raghopur, Ps: Parvta ,
Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
16
Ramcharan
Rajak
Bhumi Rajak
Village- Alalpur, Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Paravta, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/04/52
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
17
Mohan
Raghu
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
10/05/58
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
18
Suresh Mandal
Gujay Mandal
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
05/06/58
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rw
19
Jadu Mandal
Janki Mandal
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
05/02/56
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rw
20
Kanika
Janki
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rw
21
Dhaneshwar
Bhim
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rw
22
Rohin
Bhim
Village-Bhatra , Post- Raghopur,,
Ps- Parvta , Dist- Bhagalpur
12/06/58
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rw
23
Nageshwar
Sukhay
Vill.- Faradpur,P.O- Raghopur,,Ps-
Parvta,Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
24
Kailash Shah
Kanika Shah
Village-Jal Mandal Toal , Post- Sah
Parbatta Ps- Islampur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
25
Dayanand
Dasu
Village-Jal Mandal Toal , Post- Sah
Parbatta Ps- Islampur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
26
Naresh
Ajavlal
Village-Jal Mandal Toal , Post- Sah
Parbatta Ps- Islampur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Thana Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
27
Ram Khelawan
Premi
Village- Lodipur, Post- Athgama,
Ps- Kharil, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
28
Rampati Das
Jagrup Das
Village- Kherpur, Post- Athgama
Ps- Kharil, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
29
Chaddu Mandal
Dukhkhu Mandal
Village+Post- Khairpur , Ps- Kharik
, Dist- Bhagalpur
28/07/59
Pwi/ Rwi
30
Ramotat Bhagat
Bideshi Bhagat
Nil
Nil
Nil
31
Sitaram Bhagat
Bideshi Bhagat
Nil
Nil
Nil
32
Ganesh Mandal
Bharat Mandal
Village- Aashmanpur, Post-
Lateepur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
33
Rajendra Thakur Dhanik Thakur
Village+ Post- Lateepur , Post-
Lateepur , Dist- Bhagalpur
02/07/47
Pwi/ Rwi
34
Brahmdev Singh
Hajari Singh
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
01/04/54
Pwi/Rwi
35
Naresh
Ashfi
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
11/07/52
Pwi/Rwi
36
Suresh
Sitaram
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
20/05/53
Pwi/Rwi
37
Vakil
Suresh
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
05/0759
Pwi/Rwi
38
Vinay Rajak
Bhikho Rajak
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/Rwi
4338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
39
Sisavi Yadav
Sanichar Yadav
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/Rwi
40
Moti Yadav
Rameshwar
Yadav
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/Rwi
41
Yogendar
Mandal
Rameshwar
Mandal
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/Rwi
42
Fagu Yadav
Keshori Yadav
Village+Post- Lateepur , Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/Rwi
43
Jakir
Feku
Village- Bhagvatipur, Post-
Lateepur, Thana- Viharpur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
01/01/53
Pwi/ Rwi
44
Viro Yadav
Asharfi Yadav
Villate- Latipur, post- Lateepur ,
Thana – Viharpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
45
Shuren Mandal
Ghamni Mandal
Village- Tighariya , Post- A G
Bazar, Thana- Furshila , Dist-
Katihar
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
46
Mahendar
Sharma
Baldev Sharma
Village- Meerachak, Post- Milki,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
47
Satyug Sharma
Rooplal Sharma
Village- Meerachk , Post- Milki,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
48
Ghuran
Doman
Village+Post+ Thana- Vihpur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
49
Sakal Dev
Mahaveer
Village+Post-+Thanat – Vihpur,
Dist- Bhagalpur
15/12/56
Pwi/ Rwi
50
Gaouri
Sidhoo
Village+ Post+Thana- Vihpur, Dist
– Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
51
Domee
Natthan
Village+ Post+Thana- Vihpur, Dist
– Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
52
Kirti
Kishun
Village+ Post+Thana- Vihpur, Dist
– Bhagalpur
05/06/54
Pwi/ Rwi
53
Vindeshvari
Ghaneshwar
Village-Vihpur, Post- Vihpur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
10/09/55
Pwi/ Rwi
54
Umakant
Mahadev
Village- Jamalpur, Post- Vihpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/01/49
Pwi/ Rwi
55
Shri Jaseem
Gamoo
Village- Jamalpur, Post- Vihpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
02/01/57
Pwi/ Rwi
57
Parmeshwar Das
Shiv Das
Village- Jamalpur, Post- Vihpur ,
Thana- Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
58
Pinkoo Yadav
Moti Yadav
Village- Lateepur , Post- Lateepur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
59
Babloo Mandal
Yogender Mandal
Village- Bhagwatipur , Post-
Lateepur, Thana- Vihpur, Dist-
Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
60
Kamleshvari
Sharma
Anulal Sharma
Village- Marva , Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
22/03/51
Pwi/ Rwi
61
Lal Dev
Kartik
Village- Marva, Post- Marva ,
Thana- Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
07/03/56
Pwi/ Rwi
62
Domi Paswan
Mahaveer Paswan
Village- Marva, Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
26/04/55
Pwi/Rwi
63
Tiro Sah
Arjun Sah
Village- Marva, Post- Marva Thana-
Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpurt
16/03/55
Pwi/ Rwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4339
64
Prakash Sah
Lakho Sah
Village- Marva , Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
16/03/55
Pwi/ Rwi
65
Baiku
Kartik
Village- Marva, Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
25/03/58
Pwi/ Rwi
66
Lakhan Lal Shah Ajodhi Sah
Village- Marva , Post- Marva ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
22/03/56
Pwi/ Rwi
67
Narayan
Choudhari
Ramdhari
Choudhari
Village- Marva, Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/10/55
Pwi/ Rwi
68
Avadhi Sah
Kanti
Village- Marva , Post- Marva ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
02/01/59
Pwi/ Rwi
69
Surender Poddar Jaldhari Poddar
Village- Marva, Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
21/05/58
Pwi/ Rwi
70
Nago
Sasti
Village- Marva , Post- Marva ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
02/01/55
r Pwi/ Rwi
71
Parshu Ram
Ayodhya
Village- Marva, Post- Marva,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
20/07/58
Pwi/ Rwi
72
Master Pagde
Naresh Pagde
Village- Marva , Post- Marva ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
08/01/58
Pwi/ Rwi
73
Uma Das
Doman Das
Village- Chhavni , Post- Naili,
Thana- Neemchand Balan , Dist-
Gaya
02/01/56
Pwi/ Rwi
74
Budho Sah
Tilu Sah
Village- Bithla , Post- Baisa ,
Thana- Parvata, Dist- Khagariya
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
75
Shree Ram
Khelavan
Bambahadur
Village- Bithla , Post- Choudhabani,
Thana- Mansi, Dist- Khagariya
05/03/66
Pwi/ Rwi
76
Ganesh Sah
Raghu sah
Village+P.O +P.S Mahesh Khut ,
Dist- Khagariya
10/01/58
Pwi/ Rwi
77
Mahender Sah
Nirash Sah
Village- Kuraha, Post- Sahebpur
Kalam , Thana- Sahebpur Kalam ,
Dist- Begusary
04/07/60
Pwi/ Rwi
78
Shree Rajendra
Ram Khelavan
Village- Kuraha, P.S+ P.O -
Sahebpur Kalam , Dist- Begusary
04/07/60
Pwi/ Rwi
79
Vipin Mandal
Mahadev Mandal
Village- Kali Toli , Post- Paryarpur ,
Thana- Baryarpur, Dist- Munger
01/01/57
Pwi/ Rwi
80
Chaturi Mandal
Mahadev Mandal
Kali Toli, Post- Baryarpur, Thana-
Baryarpur, Dist- Munger
14/02/55
Pwi/ Rwi
81
Shree Narayan
Singh
Kali Singh
Village- Nipaniya, Post- Baranui
P.S- Phool Variya, Dist- Begusary
01/02/57
Pwi/ Rwi
82
Pappu Mandal
Shankar Mandal
Village+P.O- Kolbhara , Thana-
Parvta, Dist- Khagariya
05/12/58
Pwi/ Rwi
83
Vishun Dev
Har Govind
Village- Shahpur, Post- Narayan
Pur, Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
28/01/56
Pwi/ Rwi
84
Rajendra Das
Ram Khelavan
Das
Vill – Shahpur , Post- Narayanpur
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Pwi/ Rwi
85
Ram Ratan
Mandal
Bhola Mandal
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
16/03/54
Pwi/ Rwi
86
Upendra
Roop Narayan
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
09/05/57
Pwi/ Rwi
87
Chhote
Bhola
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
88
Kailash
Jhari
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
06/03/54
Pwi/ Rwi
4340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
89
Kamal Kishor
Ajablal
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/01/57
Pwi/ Rwi
90
Vishun Dev
Bhola
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
24/12/57
Pwi/ Rwi
91
Soudagar
Bhagwat
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
12/02/58
Pwi/ Rwi
92
Phagu
Amnu
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
24/12/53
Pwi/ Rwi
93
Jaggarnath
Ramdev
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/03/59
Pwi/ Rwi
94
Chhote Lal
Rameshwar
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
95
Jugeshwar Ram
Ishwar Ram
Vill- Chkarami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
96
Chhote Lal
Parmeshwar
Paswan
Vill- Tavtoliya, Post- Narayan Pur,
Thana-Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
04/09/578
Pwi/ Rwi
97
Sankar Sharma
Gholat Sharma
Vill- Balaha, Post- Narayan Pur-
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
98
Sambhu Sharma
Gholat Sharma
Village- Balaha, P.O- Narayanpur,
P.S- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/09/58
Pwi/ Rwi
99
Siyaram Sharma
Dhana Sharma
Village- Balaha,P.O-Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/09/59
Pwi/ Rwi
100
Vinod Sharma
Dhana Sharma
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/09/56
Pwi/ Rwi
101
Lakshmi Sharma
Sarbi Sharma
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/09/60
Pwi/ Rwi
102
Budhedev Singh
Birjee Singh
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
10/09/59
Pwi/ Rwi
103
Rajak
Liyakat
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
12/11/57
Pwi/ Rwi
104
Shankar
Uman
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
07/09/53
Pwi/ Rwi
105
Sunil
Lakhan Lal
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
12/12/58
Pwi/ Rwi
106
Vishnu Dev
Singh
Rabvi Singh
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/10/54
Pwi/ Rwi
107
Upender Singh
Chotte Lal Singh
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
09/05/57
Pwi/ Rwi
108
Purooshotam
Thakur
Soman Thakur
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/12/58
Pwi/ Rwi
109
Chaddoo
Ramvan
Village- Balaha, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana, Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/11/52
Pwi/ Rwi
110
Nageshvar Sah
Kutay Shah
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Pwi/ Rwi
111
Gopi Das
Ramotar Das
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
04/01/57
Pwi/ Rwi
112
Madho
Kutay
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
18/11/76
Pwi/ Rwi
113
Pulish Paswan
Dahogi paswan
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/01/58
Pwi/ Rwi
114
Sita Ram Das
Kanik Das
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
10/09/56
Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4341
115
Nepali Sah
Biro Sah
Vill- Mojma, Post- Narayan Pur ,
Thana- Vihpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/01/58
Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
116
Mahesh Mandal
Laddu Mandal
Vill- Bhavani Pur, P.O-Narayanpur,
Thana-Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Vihpur
Pwi/ Rwi
117
Ajay Kumar
Paswan
Madan Paswan
Vill- Gyan Das Tola , Thana- Gopal
Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
118
Aman Misti
Saryug Misti
Vill- Kheriya, Post- Ayodhya Ganj
Bazar,Than- Kursila, Dist- Katihar
11/05/57
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
119
Shyam Bihari
Ramvan
Vill- Gwal Toli, Post- Ayodhya
Ganj Bazar , Thana- Kursila Disti
Katihar
16/01/60
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
120
Krishan Mohan
Sigeshvar
Vill- Balootola , Post- Ayodh Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar , Thana-
Kursila Disti
15/07/59
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
121
Sitaram Mandal
Narayan Mandal
Vill- Kheriya , Post- Ayodhya Ganj
Bazar , Than- Kursila , Dist- Katihar
06/02/56
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
122
Suresh Mandal
Narayan Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola, Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar, Thana-
Kursila , Dist- Katihar
08/11/70
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
123
Narayan
Lalit
Vill- Kheriya , Post- Ayodhya Ganj
Bazar, Thana- Kursila, Dist-
Katihar,
05/07/48
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
124
Jagdish Mandal
Baleshvar
Mandalk
Vill- Kheriya , Post- Ayodhya Ganj
Bazar, Thana- Kursila, Dist- Katihar
15/01/58
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
125
Mahendra
Bauku
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra , Thana-
Gopal Pur, Dist- Gopal Pur
16/04/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
126
Parthvi Mandal
Parmeshwar
Mandal
Vill- Rangra, Post- Rangra , Thana-
Gopalpur Dist- Bhagalpur
01/01/38
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
127
Shiv Charan
Bhagavan
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra, Thana-
Gopal Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
16/04/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
128
Bhvani
Musharu Das
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra ,
Thana- Gopal Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
16/04/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
129
Bihari
Sttan
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra , Jthana
– Gopalpur, , Dist- Bhagalpur
16/04/48
`Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
130
Pradeep
Sukdev
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra ,
Thana- Gopal Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
16/04/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
131
Banshi Mandal
Bhumi Mandal
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra , Jthana
– Gopalpur, , Dist- Bhagalpur
02/09/88
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
132
Sigesh War
Mandal
Madari Mandal
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra ,
Thana- Gopal Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
`133
Hari mandal
Darogi Mandal
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra , Jthana
– Gopalpur, , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
134
Deep Narayan
Paswan
Ram Sai Paswan
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra ,
Thana- Gopal Pur, Dist- Bhagalpur
15/07/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
135
Tarni Mandal
Kashi Mandal
Vill- Bhimdas Tola , Post- Rangra ,
Thana- Gopal Pur , Dist- Bhagalpur
05/12/88
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
136
Polo Paswan
Dhanni Paswan
Vill- Bhimdas Tola, Post- Rangra,
Thana- Gopal Pur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
137
Upendar Sharma Aman Misti
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola, Thana-
Kurshil, Dist- Kurshila
4342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
138
Bhushan
Tetar Mandal
Vill- Sadhua , Post- Sadhua, Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
31/12/86
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
139
Jay Prakash
Father-
Visheshwar
Vill- Sadhua Post- Sadhua, Thana-
Goplapur , Dist- Bhagalpur
05/12/60
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
140
Ganesh
Chitranjan
Vill- Sadhua , Pst- Sadhua, Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
15/07/60
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
141
Tarni Thakur
Nago Thakur
Vill- Sadhua , Post- Sadhua ,
Thana , Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/10/52
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
142
Neva Ji Mandal
Thorma
Vill- Sadhua, Post- Sadhua , Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
10/03/51
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
143
Subhash Thakur
Kamleshwari
Thakur
Vill- Sadhua , Post- Sadhua ,
Thana- Goplapur, - Dist- Bhagalpur
01/10/61
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
144
Saryug
Thoray
Vill- Sadhua, Post- Sadhua, Thana-
Goplapur, Ist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
145
Sudeen
Ameed
Vill- Sadhua , Post- Sadhua, Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
20/08/60
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
146
Jagdish Tatya
Bhakuni Tatya,
Vill- Rangra, Post- Rangra ,Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
01/01/55
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
147
Brahmdev
Mandal
Baunki Mandal
Vill- Rangra , Post- Rangra , Thana-
Goplapur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/12/88
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
148
Chhotu Mandal
Lalji Mandal
Vill- Barialalpur , Post- Nil, Thana-
Sahu Pur Parvatta
01/02/78
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
149
Cheto Mandal
Shivchu Mandal
Village- Ragra , Ps- Ragra , Thana-
Gopalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
05/02/88
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
150
Sangeeta Kumar
Sikander Mandal
Vill- Purani Emarpur, Post- Purni
Emapur , Thana- Barari , Dist-
Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
151
Madan Sharma
Kunnil Sharma
Vill- Habibpur, Post- Habibpur
Dist- Bhagalpur
15/05/66
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
152
Rakesh Paswan
Naresh Paswan
Vill- Saudbharat Khan , Post-
Saudbharat Khand , Post-
Nil
153
Arun Paswan
Jagdev Paswan
Vill- Lohvi, Post- Pothiya, Thana-
Falka , Dist- Katihar
Nil
154
Mahender
Mahaldar
Parmeshwar
Mahaldar
Vill- Magheli, Post- Jarlahi, Thana-
Barari
01/01/48
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
155
Jagdish Mandal
Badri Mandal
Village- Magheli, Post- Jarlahi,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar,
05/10/54
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
156
Sangam Kumari
Sikander Mandal
Vill- Purani Somapur , Post-
Somapur, P.S-Barari, Dist- Katihar
Nil
157
Prasadi Mandal
Baishakhi Mandal
Vill- Magheli, Post- Jarlahi, Thana-
Barari, Dist- Katihar
16/03/83
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwis
158
Kaushal Kumar
Singh
Jitender Prasad
Singh
Vill+ P.O- Nagar Harail, Thana-
Mo- Nagar , Dist- Samastipur,
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
159
Sakuntala
Kumari
Narayan Sharma
Vill- Chakrami, Post- Narayanpur,
Thana- Vihpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
160
Dinesh
Mahaldar
Bishan Mahaldar
Vill- Magheli, Post- Jarlahi- Thana-
Barari, Dist- Katihar
01/01/57
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
161
Rahul Kumar
Yogendra Mandal
Vill- Nagar Simra, Post- Simra ,
Thana- Tikapatti, Dist- Purniya
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4343
162
Chandan Kumar
Choudhari
Banarsi
Choudhari
Vill- Khediya Math Tola, Post- A.G.
Bazar, Thana—Kurshila Dist-
Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
163
Manoj Kumar
Sahdev Sharma
Vill- Eatvarihar,P.O Mirajanahar,
Thana- Habibpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
164
Ritesh Kumar
Kishun Mandal
Vill- Thaudvar, Post- Sahjadpur,
Thana- Habibpur, Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
165
Gautam Paswan
Jitendra Paswan
Kheriya Manda Post- A.G. Bazar ,
Thana- Kurshila , Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwis
166
Mannu Yadav
Makhru Yadav
Magheli , Post- Jarlahi , Thana-
Barari , Dist- Katihar
05/12/58
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwis
167
Jitender Kumar
Sharma
Jay Prakash
Sharma
Vill- Simraha, Post- Dalan , Thana-
Chandaramachouk, Dist-Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
168
Nitya Nand
Mandal
Jalo Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola , Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar , Thana-
Kurshila, Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
169
Suresh Paswan
Pritvi Chand
Paswan
Village- Madhubani, Post-
Somapur , Thana- Barari , Dist-
Katihar
07/01/57
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
170
Dayandand
Mandal
Bhola Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal , Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar , Thana-
Kurshila, Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
wi/ Rwis
171
Rajesh Kumar
Sankar Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola , Post-
Ayodhyta Ganj Bazar Than-
Kurshila Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
172
Parmanand
Mandal
Jalp Mandal
Vill- Lakshmi Pur Chhadda Patti ,
Post- Doma, Thana- Rupauli, Dist-
Purniya
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
173
Ghanshyam
Mandal
Manikalam
Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
174
Rajesh Kumar
Mandal
Doman Mandal
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola , Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar , Thana-
Kurshila , Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
175
Jagdish Thakur
Santoki Thakur
Vill- Durgapur, Post- Somapur ,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
176
Manoj Kumar
Sharma
Dinesh Sharma
Vill+P.O-Tetari Pakra , Thana-
Naugaghiya , Dist- Bhagalpur
Kursila
Pwi/ Rwi
177
Huleshwar
Mandal
Suryanarayan
Mandal
Vill- Gunjra, Post- Bihanpur,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
178
Litar Mandal
Kishan Mandal
Vill- Magheli , Post- Jarlahi, Thana-
Barari, Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
179
Sunil Paswan
Ram Vilash
Paswan
Vill- Chhaddapatti , Post- Doma,
Thana- Tikapatti, Dist- Purniya
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
180
Anandi Mandal
Raghunath
Mandal ,
Vill- Prajeli , Post- Sompur , Thana-
Barari, Dist- Katihar
01/06/48
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
181
Kumar Anand
Paswan
Jitender Paswan
Vill- Kheriya Mandal Tola , Post-
Ayodhya Ganj Bazar , Thana-
Kurshila, Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
182
Shaukat Ali
Ulfat Miya
Sakreli Rain , Post- Sompur, Thana-
Barari , Dist- Katihar
01/02/78
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
183
Narayan
Jagdev Paswan
Vill+P.O Rauniya , Thana- Barari,
Dist- Katihar
17/03/55
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
4344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
184
Rameshwar
Sand
Vill- Rauniya, Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari , Dist- Katihar
08/11/70
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
185
Mahipal
Lalaji
Village- Rauniya , Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari , Dist- Katihar ,
05/12/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
186
Dina ,
Baunoo
Village- Rauniya , Post- Rauniya,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
09/10/77
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
187
Vindeshwar ,
Ajay Lal
Vill- Rauniya , Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari , Dist- Katihar
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
188
Ramchandra
Nagendra
Village- Rauniya , Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- , Dist- Katihar
28/02/56
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
189
Bhumeshwar
Madho
Vill- Rauniyha, Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
05/12/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
190
Manikchand ,
Panchu
Vill- Rauniya, Post- Rauniya,
Thana- Barari J, Dist- Katihar,
08/11/70
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
191
Rajendar
Shyamalal
Vill- Rauniya, Post- Rauniya,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
2/09/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
192
Tarani
Madani
Vill- Rauniya, Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katiahar
09/10/77
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
193
Lakahan
Gujay
Vill- Rauniya , Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
06/07/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
194
Mohan
Bangali
Vill- Rauniya, Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari , Dist- Katihar
05/12/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
195
Shiv Narayan
Samphul
Samphul
Vill- Rauniya J, Post- Rauniya,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar,
15/10/87
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
196
Shiv Narayan
Jagdev
Vill-Rauniya, Post- Rauniya ,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar ,
17/03/55
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
197
Prashadi Thakur
Santoshi Thakur
Vill- Durgapur, Post- Sompur,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar
02/09/88
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
198
Pankaj Kumar
Mandal
Huleshwat
Mandal ,
Vill- Gunjara, Post- Vishanpur,
Thana- Barari, Dist- Katihar,
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
199
Manoj Kumar
Jagdambi Mandal
Vill- Mona Bhagwanpur, Post- +P.S
Rupauli , Dist- Purniya,
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwis
200
Basudev Mandal Jhalli Mandal
Vill- Teen Dhariya , Post- Ayodhya
Gan Bazar, Dist- Katihar,
08/08/58
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
201
Raj Kumar
Jhote Ram
Vill- Purani Bazar , Post- Ayodhya ,
Gan Bazar, Dist- Katihar,
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
202
Shiv Shankar
Sharma
Kunni Lal Sharma
Vill- Habibpur , Dist- Bhagalpur
Nil
Kursila Pwi/
Rwi
203
Rajendar
Ram Jee
Vill- Malurapur , Post- Lakhminiya,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray,
01/01/62
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
204
Visho Tati
Jhari Tati
Vill.- Choti Baliya,PO- Lakhminiya,
PS- Baliya , Dist- Begusaray
01/01/95
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
205
Ram Dev Tati
Janak
Malurapur, Post- Lakhminiya,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray
21/05/49
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
206
Hare Ram
Choudhary
Ram Sahay
Choudhary
Vill- Malurapur ,P.O- Lakhminiya,
Thana- Baliya , Dist- Begusaray
01/01/61
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
207
Raghunath Ram
Jago Ram
Vill- MaluraPur,P.O- Lakhminiya ,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray
01/07/57
208
Ram Gyan
Kumar
Sita Ram Tati
Vill- Katarmala , Post- Katarmala ,
Thana- Seemachandpur , Dist-
Begusaray,
Nil
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Pwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4345
209
Paddu
Virechee ,
Malurapur, Post- Lakhmaniya,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray,
01/05/53
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
210
Raju Shah
Baso Sah
Vill- Danauli, Post- Phool Wariya ,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray
01/01/79
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
211
Ram Ji ,
Baldev
Vill- Danauli , Post- Phoolwariya,
Thana- Baliya , Dist- Begusaray
01/01/70
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
212
Shaligram
Banarshi,
Vill- Danauli , Post- Phoolwariya,
Thana- Baliya, Dist- Begusaray
01/07/57
Khagariya Pwi/
Rwi
213
Bindeshvari
Kari
Vill- Malurapur , Post- Lakhmaniya
, Thana- Baliya , Dist- Begusaray
01/01/46
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
214
Jago Sah
Bhalo Sah
Vill- Choti Baliya Sadan Chouk ,
Post- Lakhmniya , Thana- Baliya ,
Dist- Begusary
20/08/49
Khagariya Pwi/
Rwi
215
Ram Narayan
Kalaghar
Vill- Rahua , Post- Sahebpur Kalam
, Thana- Sahebpur Kalam , Dist-
Begusary
02/04/55
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
216
Nago Sah
Balo Sah
Vill- Chiti Baliya Sadan Chouk ,
Post- Lakhmaniya , Thana- Baliya,
Dist- Begusary
01/02/78
Khagariya Pwi/
Rwi
217
Sakal Dev
Yadav
Kuldeep Yadav
Seeta Kunddih , Post- Dariyapur,
Thana- Mufsil Town,Dist- Munger
25/12/58
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
218
Md. Ishrail
Gulam Sool
Vill- Chiti Baliya Sadan Chouk ,
Post- Lakhmaniya , Thana- Baliya,
Dist- Begusaray,
25/12/58
Khagariya Pwi/
Rwi
219
Bhagwan Pandit
Ramcharan
Pandit
Vill-Choti Baliya Sadan Chouk
,Post-Lakhminiya, Thana- Baliya,
Dist- Begusaray
01/01/57
Lakhminiya
Pwi/ Rwi
220
Ashok Mandal,
Chalitar Mandal
Vill- Indragram , Post- A.G. Bazar ,
Thana- Kurshila, Dist- Katihar,
Nil
Khagariya Pwi/
Rwi
221
Netlal Mahto
Makhoran Mahto
Vill- Amarpur Vind Tola , Post-
Amarpur, Thana- Barauni , Dist-
Begusari
13/04/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
222
Indra Dev
Mahto
Dulo Mahto
Vill- Amarpur Vind Tola , Post-
Amarpur , Thana- Barauni, Dist-
Begusarai ,
13/04/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
223
Ramanand Singh
Ram Padam
Singh
Vill- Gadhara , Post- Gadhara ,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai ,
01/08/89
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
224
Ashok Pathak,
Bhola Pathak
Vill- Keel Gathara , Post- Gadhara ,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai,
20/12/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
225
Ram Pravesh
Sah ,
Podar Sah
Vill- Roopnagar, Post- Simariya
Ghat , Thana- Barauni, Dist-
Begusarai
Nil
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
226
Arjun Mahto
Vino Mahto
Vill-Simariya , Post- Simariya,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai,
06/03/63
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
227
Raj Kumar Ray
Meru Ray
Vill- Simariya, Post- Simariya,
Thana- Barauni , Dist- Begusarai,
05/10/56
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
228
Prem Kumar
Vishvanath Singh
Vill- Roopnagar , Post- Simariyha
Ghat , Thana- Barauni, Dist-
Begusarai,
10/10/57
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
229
Nageshvar Sah ,
Mahendra Sah,
Vill- Roopnagar, Post- Simariya
Ghat , Thana- Barauni, Dist-
Begusarai
Nil
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
4346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
230
Tuntun Singh
Ramotar Singh
Vill- Simariya , Post- Simariya,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai
18/07/56
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
231
Ramotar Paswan Lakhan Paswan
Vill- Bara , Post- Badharab , Thana-
Barauni, Dist- Begusarai,
26/03/57
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
232
Dularchand
Dhanik
Vill- Bara , Post- Badharab ,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai
15/07/53
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
233
Bimal Ram
Meru Ram
Vill-+Post- Simariya, Thana-
Barauni, Dist- Begusarai,
05/01/56
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
234
Dashrath Ram
Botal Ray
Vill- Simariya, Post- Simariya,
Thana-Barauni , Dist- Begusarai
18/01/56
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
235
Shivdani Ray
Bacchi Ray
Vill- Roop Nagar , Post- Simariya
Ghat- Than- Barauni, Dist- Begusari
01/01/56
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
236
Ram Babu
Ram Janam Ray
Vill- Sabbalpur Nagar, Pakhet Tola,
P.O-+P.S- Sonpur, Dist- Chhapra
03/03/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
237
Ram Narayan
Ray
Lal Bihari Ray ,
Vill- Sabbalpur, Post- Nayatoal ,
Thana- Sonpur, Dist- Saran+
Chhpra
01/10/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
238
Yogendra Prasad
Yadav
Sri Devki Ray
Vill- Chaharam , Post- Sonpur,
Thana- Sonpur, Dist- Saran
08/01/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
239
Ram Janam Das
Banarasi Das
Vill- Dughola , Post- Sonpur Thana-
Sonpur , Dist- Saran
06/01/55
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
240
Ram Janam Das
Banarasi Das
Dughola , Post- Sonpur, Thana-
Sonpur , Dist- Saran
20/12/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
241
Mathura Thakur
Mahadev Thakur
Vill- Baboor Banni , Post- Sonpur,
Thana- Sonpur, Dist- Saran
01/09/55
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
242
Birendra Kumar
Ray
Khublal Ray
Vill- Rahar Dhiyar, P.O+ P.S
Sonpur, Dist- Saran
01/12/62
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
243
Akalesh Singh
Yadubanshi
Singh
Vill- Jahangirpur, Post- Sonpur,
Thana- Sonpur, Dist- Saran
27/01/61
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
244
Santlal Das
Ram Vilas Das
Vill- Jahangirpur, Post- Sonpur,
Thana- Sonpur,
03/02/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
245
Siyaram Bhagat
Munnu Bhagat
Vill- Chandralay, Post- Hajipur,
Sadar, Dist- Vaisali
08/05/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
246
Chandi karam
Bijaghar Ram
Vill- Sanpur, Post- Sonpurj, Thana-
Dariyapur, Dist- Saran
01/12/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
247
Lakshman
Yadav
Lagal Ray
Vill- Sikarpur, Post- Sonpur, Dist-
Saran
01/01/59
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
248
Kalbir Mahto
Lakhan Mahto
Vill- Makdumpur, Post- Sonpur,
Dist- Saran,
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
249
Satendar Nath
Dube
Sibnath Dubey
Vill- Dughela Jayetiya , Post-
Sonpur, Dist- Saran
27/01/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
250
Omprakash
Janaradan Sharma Vill- Jahangirpur, Post- Sonpur,
Dist- Saran
01/04/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
251
Mathura
Mahato Mahto
Punit Mahto
Vill- Kharika Post- Sonpur, Dist-
Saran
01/09/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
252
Ramji Prasad
Nithal Prasad
Vill- Kharika, Post- Sonpur, Dist-
Saran
05/01/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
253
Rameshwar Ray
Sital Ray
Vill- Sabalpur, Post- Chahram, Dist-
Saran
15/08/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
254
Bhagwan
Manjhi
Kishan Manjhi
Vill- Sahpur, Post- Sonpur, Dist-
Saran
03/02/56
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4347
255
Ramayan Hajra
Kashi Hajra
Vill- Sahpur, P.O- Sonpur, Dist-
Saran
12/09/54
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
256
Gopal Sah
Chhabil Sah
Paharichak Praveskhad , Post-
Sonpur, Dist- Saran
01/01/55
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
257
Suresh Prasad
Jamuna Prasad
Vill- Paharichak, Post- Sonpur,
Dist- Saran
01/01/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
258
Vinod Ram
Pralad Ram
Vill- Sodpur, Po- Sodpur, Digvara,
PS- Digvara, Dist- Saran( Chhapra)
17/12/58
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
259
Vidyasagar
Ramdev Thakur
Vill-Roopnagtar.PS-Simariyaghat,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusaray,
12/01/57
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
260
Promod Kumar
Singh
Mudrika Singh
Vill- Ghanghua , Post- Pandaha,
Dist- Vaishali,
19/11/62
Sonpur
Pwi/Rwi
261
Vishvanath Ray
Gorakh Ray,
Vill- Paharichak, Post- Sonpur,
Dist- Saran
10/10/63
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
262
Durga Ram
Raja Ram
Vill- Phursatpur , Post- Suthar PS-
Gorjibazar, Dist- Saran ( Chhapra)
02/03/64
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
263
Fajinder Nath
Sharma
Hariyar Sharma
Vill- Premganj , Post- Lalganj ,
Dist- Vaishali,
14/01/64
SonpurVidhut
Pwi/Rwi
264
Upendernath
Pandey
Ramnandan
Pandey
Vill- Daishri, Post- Daishri, Dist-
Vaishali
05/10/61
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
265
Mohammad
Yusuf Mansoori
Md. Ishmail
Vill- Tangoulsanchi Patti, Post-
Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali
11/11/83
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
266
Kishundev
Paswan,
Ateru Paswan
Vill- Chirangeevipur, Post- Fatiha ,
Dist-Begusarai,
01/01/57
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
267
Kamleshwar
Singh
Ram Bahadur
Singh,
Vill- Kharaika , Post- Khraika,
Dist- Vaisali,
08/08/62
Sonpur Vidhut
Pwi/Rwi
268
Janki
Dhaneek
Vill- Varo, Post- Varo, Thana-
Varouni, Dist- Begusarai
01/01/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
269
Ramagya
Chandrika Singh
Vill.-Kilgarhghara,PO- Garhghara,
PS- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai
01/01/42
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
270
Sitaram Sah
Phoolchan Sah
Vill- Kilgarhghara , Thana-
Begusarai,
01/01/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
271
Jaynarayan
Sharma
Vishundev
Sharma
Vill-Baso Rampur Tola, PO- Baso,
PS-- Phoolvariya , Dist- Begusarai
1959
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
272
Vidhya Sagar
Ram Khelawan
Vill- Baro, Post- Baro , Thana,
Barauni, Dist- Begusarai
01/01/55
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
273
Sone Lal
Paddu
Vill- Garhhara, Post- Garhara,
Thana- Barauni, Dist- Begusarai
12/02/52
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
274
Ashok Kumar
Ray
Sri Rudal Roy
Vill- Pahleja, P.O+P.S - Sonpur,
Dist- Saran
10/04/57
Barauni Pwi/
Rwi
2.
The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 05.06.2015. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed.. But the management neither appear nor files any written statement, But the workman files written statement
on 17.06.2015, therefter issue reminder notices, thereafter the management appears and files only letter of authority and
received the copy of written statement of workman. But thereafter the management neither appear nor files any written
statement. Case proceeds ex-parte hearing. One witness adduced on behalf of workman and documents of workman
marked as W-1 to M-9.
3.
The case of the Sponsoring Union/workmen is that Sri Vidya Sagar Thakur and 274 other were working under
the management of Sonepur Division of Indian Railway as Badli workmen since 1970 and they were continuously
worked in different department and different station of Sonepur Division Indian Railway . The management issued
them identity Card which is called as Lal Card to the workmen concerned and since the appointment, the workmen
concerned were worked continuously without any break till 1990.
4348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
It is further submitted by the Sponsoring Union that the management prescribed a rule for regularisation of the
services of Badali and casual workmen. According to the aforesaid rules of the railway, the workmen concerned were
entitled for regularisation as permanent workmen as soon as they have completed 120 days attendance in a year. The
Badli workmen are required to report for duty every day.
5.
The Badli workmen were engaged intermittently by the management according to the requirement, therefore
according to the Rules the period of disengagement will be not treated as break in service.
6.
It is further submitted by the workman that the employment of workmen as Badli , casual or temporary and there
continuance as such for years was there. But the management deprive them from the status and priviledges of
permanent workmen is unfair labour practice according to item no. 10 of the schedule –V of I.D Act 1947. The
management terminated the services of the workmen concerned in the year 1990 without obtaining prior permission
from the Government in utter violation of section 25N of I.D Act.
7.
The management neither given one month’s notice in writing indicating reason for retrenchment nor paid in lieu
of notice wages for the period of notice. And the management has not paid them retrenchment compensation before
terminating their services according to the provision of Scetion 25F of the I.D Act 1947 . The provision of Section 25F
of the I.D Act is mandatory . The termination of the workmen concerned without complying the provision 25 F and 25
N of the I.D Act is tantamount of illegal retrenchment
8.
It is further submitted by the workman that in the year 1996 the then Railway Minister during the railway
budget of 1996-97 declared that all the temporary, casual and Badli workmen of the Railway shall be regularised as
permanent employee and accordingly railway Board issued circular for regularisation of all Badli and temporary
workmen.
9.
The workmen concerned were also requested the management of Divisional Railway management, sonepur for
their reinstatment but inspite of several requests made by the workmen concerned management has not reinstated them
hence dispute arose.
10.
The short point to be decided in this reference is, whether the termination of the workmen is proper or not.
11.
The workmen concerned were rendering services to the Railways as casual workman/ Badli workmen and they
were engagedby the Rly administration as and when required. But the workmen were not of temporary workmen. After
termination the workmen concerned raised dispute, and reference, came to this Tribunal for decision.
Both parties are noticed. The parties appeared and subsequently Railways consel fail to appear in the case and
the case was heard ex-parte. On behalf of the workmen one of the workman appeared deposed and said they engaged
by the railways and rendered services but subsequently without regularisation they terminated the workmen. Each of
the workmen.submitted their documents and the I.D Card i.e Lal Card.
12.
There is no doubt to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the workmen and their documents.The workmen
are very old and they are fighting litigation for long. Considering the testimony of the workmen and the documents
filed, it is observed to regularise the workmen in railways.
13.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I hold that, the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, Sonepur Division in terminating the service of Shri Vidya Sagar Thakur & 273 others is not legal
and justified. The workmen who have, retired in the meantime and crossed the age of sixty, they be given their
retirement dues as per calculation by the management for the whole period in continuous of service of their erstwhile
employer, but who are not retired, they be regularised atonce, without any backwages, but they be given continuity of
service.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1751-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@91@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4349
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-12011/91/2013-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, 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. 06/2014
Date of Passing Award – 09th June, 2017
Between :
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa
…1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary,
State Bank of India Employees Union,
Bhubaneswar Circle,
C/o. State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Anu Bharati Noonela, Manager (Law)
…
For the 1st Party-Management
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
This order arises out of a reference with the schedule (i) “whether the action initiated by the management in
transferring the office bearers of the Union namely Shri Santosh Kumar Mohanty, President and Laxmi Samantaray,
Treasure from SBI, LHO, Bhubaneswar in other branches is appropriate and justified? If not what relief both the office
bearers of the Union are entitled to?” (ii) “whether the action of the management of SBI, LHO, Bhubaneswar tends to
discrimination in the decision making process as per Article-14 of Indian Constitution is legal and justified? If not
what relief both the office bearers of the Unions are entitled to?” made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
vide its letter No. L-12011/91/2013 – IR (B-I), dated 03.01.2014,in exercising its authority under section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference appears to have been made in the event of a dispute arose between the
State Bank of India and State Bank of India Employees Union on account of the Management transferring the office
bearers of the Union from its one branch to other branch situated in the same headquarters. Being noticed the 2nd Party-
Union filed its statement of claim and thereafter failed to take any steps in the further proceedings of the reference. In
response to the statement of claim the Management has filed its written statement and it has examined its Chief
Manager (IR) as a witness and filed certain documents in support of its stand taken in the written statement. However,
in view of the 2nd party-Union’s failure to pursue the dispute raised by it I do not feel it just and proper to answer the
reference on the sole ex parte evidence and argument of the Management. From the failure of the 2nd party-Union in
contesting the reference it may be presumed that either the Union is not interested to pursue the dispute or the action of
the Management appears to have been accepted by the Union. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to answer the
reference and I feel it just and proper to return the same without any award to the Government of India for taking
necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
4350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1752-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@30@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-12011/30/2014-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, 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. 42/2014
L-12011/30/2014-IR(B-I), dated 11.08.2014
Date of Passing Award – 26th May, 2017
Between :
The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Zone-1,
Near Capital Police Station,
Bhubaneswar – 09
…1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary,
State Bank of India Employees Union,
Bhubaneswar Circle,
C/o. State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Shri Naveen Ch. Sahu, Chief Manager (HR)
…
For the 1st Party-Management
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
Authorized representative for the Management is present whereas, the 2nd party-Union is found absent on
repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings by the parties when the case was fixed for settlement of issues and
evidence of the 2nd party-Union, it remained absent. The record further reveals that despite several adjournments from
time to time the 2nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to adduce its evidence in support of
the dispute raised by it. In the above back-drops and in absence of the 2nd party-Union there is no alternative than to
presume that either the Union has lost its interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or there exists no
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4351
further dispute between the parties. In the given situation I am constrained to return the reference without any
award/findings to the Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1753-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad
vkWiQ eSlwj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- II] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
20-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@134@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2017
S.O. 1753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of Mysore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.07.2017.
[No. L-12011/134/2008-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID. No. 59/2008
Sh. Jagpal Singh
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal,
R/o House No. E303, JJ Colony,
Nangloi, Delhi
…Workman
Versus
State Bank of Mysore
Through its Dy. General Manager
Central Zone, North West Avenue
Club Road, Punjab Bagh,
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-12011/134/2008-IR(B-I) Dated 18.11.2008.
“Whether the Action of the management of State Bank of Mysore, in terminating the services of Shri Jagpal
w.e.f. 25.07.2004, is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled and from which
date?”
On 26.12.2008 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID.No. 59/2008 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 10.02.2009. Wherein he prayed that a
conciliation proceeding may be initiated and the management be prevailed upon to withdraw the punishment of
removal of the services of the workman and direct the management to reinstate the workman with continuity and full
back wages, failing which the matter be referred for adjudication in the appropriate forum.
4352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Against claim/statement management filed its written statement on 08.06.2009. Wherein he prayed that the
statement of claim submitted by the claimant is devoid of any merit both on facts and law, highly belated and
unsupported by any of documentary evidence, is liable to be rejected out rightly.
Workman filed no rejoinder against written statement of management.
My Ld. Predecessor had not framed any issue but he proceed this ID case on the basis of questions of
determination mentioned in the schedule of reference.
Workman in support of his case produced himself only. He was cross-examined by Ld. A/R for the
management.
No corroborated evidence has been adduced by workman/claimant. No documentary evidence produced by
workman in support of his claim.
Management in support of its case produced following witness:-
MW1 – Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sinha
MW2 – Smt. Maya (Ex. Wife of the workman)
MW1 Sh. Neeraj Kumar Sinha relied on following documents :-
1.
Carbon Copy of letter dated 22.01.2004 addressed to workman by management Bank.
2.
Official copy of letter dated 06.05.2004.
3.
A.D. Card in original.
Written argument on behalf of workman filed on 30.03.2017. Through which he alleged that it is proved that the
termination of the workman is illegal as the management did not hold any inquiry and also violated the provisions of
Section 25 F (a) and (b) and this action of the management is inhuman as the management used ex.wife Smt. Maya
against him and provided the job to her in his place is violative of all norms of the labour laws and the management
acted like a king and the works of 15 years rendered by the workman was not considered and his ex. Wife even granted
regular status.
In view of the above, this Hon’ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court – II may graciously be pleased to reinstate Shri
Jagpal w.e.f. 25.07.2004 with full back wages with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits as
sweeper in the State Bank of Mysore at Paschim Enclave Branch, Delhi.
Prayed accordingly.
In reply management Bank filed written argument. Through which management submitted written argument as
follows:-
1.
THE CLAIMANT HAS BEEN FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONA/AVERMENTS MADE IN THE
AMENEDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The claim has been filed by the claimant alleging various allegations/adverments, therefore, onus was on the
claimant to prove all of those allegations/adverments made in his statement of claim, as mentioned below-
(a)
That the claimant was taken into the employment w.e.f. 30.06.1989 as “Temporary-Sweeper-cum-
Peon” (para-1 of the amended statement of claim)
(b)
That services of the claimant were terminated by refusal of duty & without assigning any reason
w.e.f. 25.07.2004 (para-2 of the amended statement of claim)
(c)
That the workman had more than 240 days of services in every year (para-5(iii) of the amended
statement of claim)
(d)
That the workman sent a legal demand notice – (para-9 of the amended statement of claim)
(e)
That cause of the termination of services was that he was on leave due to illness & was under the
medical supervision. This fact was well within the knowledge of the management. The claimant
recovered from the illness in the month of July 2004 and was declared fit for duty w.e.f. 25.07.2004.
He went to join duty on 25.07.2004 but he was not allowed to join and was asked to wait for some
days to get the further approval from the Head Office – (para-3 of the amended statement of claim)
(f)
That the absence of the claimant from the duty was beyond his control and same was duly intimated
and sanctioned by the management – [para-5 (ii) of the amended statement of claim]
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4353
(g)
That the claimant since then made several representations – (para-4 of the amended statement of
claim)
(h)
That the claimant was victimized for his just demand of regularization of services – [para-5 (iv) of the
amended statement of claim]
The respondent/bank has denied all of above-stated allegations/averments, therefore, onus was on the claimant
to prove all of the above-stated allegations/averments but that there is no iota of evidence on record produced by the
claimant to prove any of above-stated allegations/averments.
MOST IMPORTANT ALLEGATIONS/AVERMENTS WHICH THE CLAIMANT WAS REQUIRED TO
PROVE IN MATTER BUT FAILED TO PROVE, HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAILS AS UNDER-
(a)
That the claimant was taken into the employment w.e.f. 30.06.1989 as “Temporary-Sweeper-
cum-Peon’
There is no iota of evidence on record produced by the claimant to prove that claimant was taken into
employment w.e.f. 30.06.1989 as a ‘Temporary-Sweeper-cum-Peon’.
It is relevant to mention here that the respondent/management has taken stand that the claimant was
employed as a ‘Temporary Part Time Sweeper’ only as very well reflected from the documents relied
upon by the claimant exhibited as Ex-WW1/1, WW1/3 & WW1/4-5 respectively. It is submitted that
in Ex.WW1/4 it has been categorically mentioned that services of the claimant was only Temporary
Part Time and not permanent part time. It has also been mentioned that services of the claimant will
not be utilized for peon duties even temporarily. Further, the PAPER-2 also prove that the claimant
was appointed only a temporary part time sweeper.
(b)
That services of the claimant were terminated by refusal of duty & without assigning any
reason w.e.f. 25.07.2004
There is no iota of evidence on record produced by the claimant to prove that his services were
terminated by the respondent/management on/dated: 25.07.2004. It is submitted that there was no
question of said termination because the claimant had already abandoned his temporary job as
reflected from the statement of the MW1 & MW2 and Ex-MW1/1 & Mark-B respectively. MW2-
Smt. Maya (Ex-wife of the claimant) has not only categorically admitted her signatures at Point-A, B
& C on the Ex-MW1/1 duly served upon the claimant but has also stated that the claimant had
voluntarily left his services for her engagement in the bank.
Further there was no question of alleged termination of the claimant on/dated: 25.07.2004 because on
said day the respondent/bank was closed for weekly off day being public holiday on account
SUNDAY. The Hon’ble Tribunal can take judicial notice of same but for the sake of convenience, a
copy of calendar of year 2004 has been annexed with these written submissions.
(c)
That The workman had more than 240 days of services in every year-
There is no iota of evidence on record produced by the claimant to prove that the workman had more
than 240 days of services in every year. It is submitted that although the claimant has annexed with
his affidavit of evidence some photocopies of alleged attendance register but same being false &
fabricated, therefore, the claimant rightly neither relied on nor exhibited/marked said record in his
evidence. Further, the claimant has never summoned any record from the respondent/bank to prove
his continuous working of 240 days in year the prior to year in which his temporary services were
allegedly terminated.
It is no longer integra that the burden to prove 240 days of the continuous working lies on the
workman. In this context, it is appropriate to refer following judgements-
1. GM, BSNL & ORS V/S MAHESH CHAND- APPEAL (CIVIL) 19 OF 2007-SUPREME COURT-
15.02.2008
On the question of whether the respondent/workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a
calendar year, the Tribunal and the High Court wrongly placed the onus on the employer to prove the
negative. This is clearly contrary to the decision of this court.- It was the case of the claimant that he
had worked so but the claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence
to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an
affidavit in only his statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or tribunal to come to conclusion that a workman had, in-fact, worked for 240 days in a year.
4354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. R.M. Yellati v/s The Asst Executive Egineer – 2005 IX AD (SC) 257
The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year.
Here it is relevant to mention here that the claimant had moved an application/dated: 19.03.2013 for
production of documents for period 20.06.1989 to 25.07.2004 but the Ld. PO was pleased to dismiss
the same vide order/dated: 17.04.2013. The claimant had not challenged said order, therefore, same
become final and binding upon the claimant. The claimant has also failed to produced the respective
evidence in matter as advised to him in order/dated: 17.04.2013.
(d)
That the workman sent a legal demand notice-
There is no iota of evidence on record produced by the claimant to prove that he was on leave due to
illness and medical supervision. No proof has been placed by the claimant to prove either the
respondent bank was well within the knowledge about the alleged illness & medical supervision of
the claimant or that the claimant visited at the office of the bank on/dated: 25.07.2004. It is relevant to
mention here that no period/date of alleged illness has been mentioned in the amended statement of
claim but the claimant has stated in para-3 of his affidavit of evidence (Ex-WW1/A) that he was on
leave for two days on 24-25 sept 2003.
2.
SECTION-25 F (a) & F (b) OF I D ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO
PROVE SECTION-25 B OF THE ACT
The respondent/bank has taken stand that the claimant was neither a permanent employee nor ever worked for
240 days continuously in a year and no proof has been given by the claimant that he had worked continuously
for 240 days in any year with the respondent/bank.
For taking any benefit of Section-25 F (a) & (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was for the claimant to prove
Section-25 B of the Act that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a year and since he had failed to
discharge the onus of proof that lay on him, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the claimant,
therefore, Section-25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable.
Rameshwar Dayal v/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI- Writ Petition No. 4397/1999- Delhi
High Court – 03.04.2007
The petitioner workman failed to discharge the onus of proof place on him and in absence of his having
produced that he had worked for a continuous period of 240 days with the respondents in the year prior to the
termination of his services, the petitioner workman cannot claim the protection of the provision of section-25
F of the Act and his termination cannot be held to be illegal or invalid for non-compliance of Section-25 F of
the Act.
3.
NO DOMESTIC ENQUIRY WAS IMPERATIVE
Admittedly services of the claimant were purely part time temporary for specific purpose only for
cleaning/dusting and the claimant had never continuously completed 240 days of his said temporary part time
services in any of year. The claimant was actually engaged for 2 to 3 hours a day on casual basis. There was
neither such regular post of sweeper ever created nor the claimant had ever passed any test conducted for said
job. Banks have been used to keep part time temporary sweepers only purely on causal basis only for working
of 2 to 3 hours depending upon the need and requirement.
It is submitted that for reasons mentioned supra neither any charges were leveled against the claimant nor
there was any protest by the claimant, therefore, no domestic enquiry was required to be conducted, however
as an abundant caution, the claimant was called vide Ex-MW1/1 to submit his explanation failing which his
said part time temporary service stood terminated. It is pertinent to mention here that for the reasons
mentioned supra at request of the claimant his wife MW2/Smt. Maya was put on said temporary job which she
was doing without being regularized till the day she entered into witness box.
The claimant being a purely part time temporary sweeper, regular departmental proceeding was not envisaged
in the Banking Rules for dispensing with the services of the claimant as a purely part time temporary
employee as held in the judgment given below-
SRI JHABESHWAR PRASAD SINGH V/S UNITED BANK OF INDIA- WP (S) No. 235 of 2011-
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT -18.09.2015
It is pertinent to mention here that during the trail of the captioned matter also, the claimant has failed to prove
that he has continuously worked for 240 days in any of year, therefore, itself evident that any domestic enquiry
was never required.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4355
4.
NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO THE CLAIMANT AS HE HAS LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF THE
RESPONDENT/BANK
It is also relevant to mention here that before abandoning his temporary job of part time sweeper in the month
of November of 2003, he has stolen all said record as reflected from the Ex-MW1/A as reflected from the Ex-
MW1/A reproduced below-
“8.1: That the attendance registers/records produced by the claimant is false and fabricated.
8.2: That the claimant has neither been authorized by the bank to retain nor supplied official records
pertaining to him by any of the official of the management/respondents bank. The claimant has stolen
the said official records.”
It is submitted that disposition of the MW1 on stealing of said record by the MW1 remained un-controverted
as neither any suggestion nor any question has been put by the A/R of the claimant on the said point in the
cross-examination of MW1 held on/DOH: 06.01.2016.
No need to mention here that a person who does the work of sweeping/cleaning & dusting in the office more
particularly in bank, has to be a person of full trust and faith of the management because such a person have
access to every nook and corner of the office & if dis-grunted can cause server irreparable damage to the
management. It is submitted that by steeling the official records from the office of the respondent bank, the
claimant had not only committed crime but has also lost all of his trust and faith of the respondent bank, the
claimant had not only committed crime but has also lost all of his trust and faith of the respondent/bank,
therefore, no relief can be given to the claimant.
5.
THE CLAIM OF THE CLAIMANT IS HIGHLY BELATED & SUFFERING FROM LATCHES &
DELAYS
A right not exercised for a long time is a non-existence. A policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale
claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for
delays.
The claimant has alleged his termination on/dated: 25.07.2004 but he kept quiet and did not not challenge his
alleged termination for long. The claimant has filed no replication explaining said delay of 4 years. The
claimant has produced no document regarding the said inordinate delay of more than 4 years. What the
claimant has stated in his corss-examination held on/DOH: 12.09.2013 is that- “I made no written complaint”
although the claimant has falsely stated that – “I made written complaint sent through UPC” because there is
nothing on record to prove said statement of the claimant.
It is submitted that the claimant had not initiated any action against the respondent/management for the alleged
termination on/dated: 25.07.2004 because he himself has not only voluntarily abandoned his temporary part
time services of sweeper w.e.f. 25.11.2003, therefore, there was no reason for him initiating any action against
the respondent/management bank. Had the claimant been actually terminated on/dated: 25.07.2004 by the
bank then he must not have waited for more than 4 years in initiating any action against the respondent/bank
against his any termination whatsoever. The claim filed by the claimant is not only highly belated on account
of delay & latches but also false, frivolous and after-thought. Kind attention of this Hon’ble tribunal is drawn
to following judicial pronouncements-
1.Dharambir v/s State of NCT of Delhi- 2000 VII AD (Delhi) 1145- Appropriate Govt. refused to refer the
dispute for reason that the claimant kept quiet for long more than 4 years and did not challenge his termination
for long – During said period he did not take up the matter with his employer-Rejection of reference was held
to be proper and appropriate
2.State of Punjab v/s Kali Dass & Anr- (1997) 115 PLR 589-
A workman cannot be allowed to approach the labour court after more than 3 years of the termination of
services
3.Ram Kishan v/s The Secretary, Labor- 2007 LLR 65 (Delhi High Court)- Absence of limitation period
does not mean that a dispute can be raised at any time If the petitioner was aggrieved and had a case that he
was retrenched in January 1984, he should have approached the appropriate government for referring the
dispute in 1984 itself or within a reasonable time
6.
CLAIM OF THE CLAIMANT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATION OF THE
EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE RULE-10(B) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (CENTRAL)
RULES, 1957
4356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
That the claim of the claimant is nor maintainable in view of the violation of the express provisions of the Rule-
10(B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 as the statement of claim has neither been filed within
the limitation period nor annexed with the relevant documents, list of witnesses. The replying management has
also not been forwarded an advance copy of ‘such statement’ as mentioned in above-stated Rule 10(B).
7.
THE TERMS OF THE REFERENCE ARE ITSELF WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND,
THEREFORE, NO VALID AWARD CAN BE PASSED
The satisfaction of the existence of an industrial dispute or the satisfaction that an industrial dispute is
apprehended is “a condition precedent to the order of reference”. An order of reference cannot be made
mechanically without application of mind but in the present case there appears no application of mind for the
reasons mentioned below-
(a):
Alleged day of termination i.e. 25.07.2004 was weekly off day of the respondent/bank being
SUNDAY
(b): No industrial dispute existed on the date of making of reference as no demand notice was
served upon the respondent/bank by the claimant
The above-mentioned points have been discussed as under-
(a): ALLEGED DAY OF TERMINATION I.E. 25.07.2004 WAS WEEKLY OFF DAY OF THE
RESPONDENT/BANK SUNDAY
There can be no question of alleged termination of the claimant on/dated: 25.07.2004 because on said day, the
respondent/bank was closed on account of weekly off day being SUNDAY as reflected in the calendar of year
2004 annexed with these written submissions. The claimant has also admitted in his cross-examination Sunday
being holiday.
It is relevant to mention here that the claimant has no only alleged in para-2 of his amended statement of claim
and para-2 to 4 of his affidavit of evidence but also has re-affirmed said termination on/dated: 25.07.2004 in
his cross-examination held on/DOH: 12.09.2013 which has been reproduced below-
“It is correct that when bank shifted to National Market then holiday for Sunday was made available for
me plus half day Saturday leave was given to me. It is true that contents of that para 3+4 of my affidavit
are correct. It is correct that I was terminated on 25/7/2004……”
It is submitted that the question in terms of reference before this Hon’ble Tribunal is – “Whether the action
of the management of State Bank of Mysore, in terminating the services of Shri Jagpal wef 25.04.2004,
is just, fair and legal”, therefore reply can only be that there was no question of alleged termination of the
services of the claimant on 25.04.2004 being the Sunday i.e. weekly off the respondent bank.
(b): NO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE EXISTED ON THE DATE OF MAKING OF REFERENCE AS NO
DEMAND NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT/BANK BY THE CLAIMANT
It is a matter of record that the claimant has placed on recored no legal demand notice in his entire evidence. It
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter-
Sindhu resettlement Corporation Ltd v/s Industrial Tribunal Gujarat & Ors- AIR 1968 SC 529 that- since the
workman had not raised any demand notice with the management challenging their retrenchment or seeking
reinstatement, the question of reinstatement, the question of reinstatement could not have been referred by the
appropriate Govt in the Labor Court.
It is relevant to mention here that above-said judgment has been followed in number subsequent cases some of
which have been as under-
1. Fedderslloyed Corporation PVt Ltd v/s L.G. of Delhi – AIR 1970 Delhi 60
2. Orissa Industrial Pvt Ltd. v/s Presiding Officer, IT – 1975 (31) FLR 305
3. New Delhi Tailoring Mazdoor Union v/s S.C. Sharma- 1979 (39) FLR 195
4. Shashi Bhusahn v/s M/s. Hindustan Times – 07.07.2007
5. Management of M/s. Hotel Samrat v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors- WP (CP No. 6682/2002 &
6274/2004- Delhi High Court- It is submitted that a mere demand to the Govt, without a dispute being
raised by the workman with its employer, cannot become an industrial dispute. Consequently, the material
on record clearly showed that no such industrial dispute, as was purported to be referred by the
appropriate Govt, in making a reference, obliviously, committed an error in basing its opinion on material
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4357
which was not relevant to the formation of opinion. On these fact, it is evident that the reference made by
the appropriate Govt. is not competent.
In view of succinct enunciation by the various courts, there is no scope for entertaining an industrial
dispute/claim without a demand notice being first raised with the management. The industrial dispute
does not at all come into existence before a demand notice being sent to the management. The raising of a
dispute by the workman with the management is a condition precedent for making any reference under
Secion-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, any reference which has been made without raising any
dispute with the employer, is an illegal reference &b as such said reference has to be nipped in the bud.
8.
THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITILED TO CLAIM RE-INSTATEMENT, BACK WAGES AND
UNEMPLOYMENT
Admittedly there is nothing on record placed by the workman to show/prove that any demand notice after the
alleged termination of his services on/dated:25.07.2004 was ever been served upon the respondent/bank,
therefore, thereexist no industrial dispute at all for enabling the claimant to demand any-re-instatement, back
wages & unemployment wages etc.
It is relevant to mention here that the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case – The Director, Health &
Family Welfare Chandigarh v/s Balvinder Kaur- (1996 LLR 493) – has held that back wages were payable
to the workman from the date of demand notice and not from the date of termination, on the ground that no
dispute existed before the demand notice was served.
It is relevant to mention here that banks have been used to keep part time temporary sweepers purely on part
time basis only for working 2 to 3 hours depending upon the need and requirements. It is submitted that not
any post of sweeper ever created on regular basis by the respondent/bank.
9.
EVEN OTHERWISE THIS HON’BLE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO DIRECT BACK DOOR
ENTRY OF THE SERVICES OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
It is relevant to mention that during the cross-examination of the claimant held on/DOH: 12.09.2013, he was
confronted with a document i.e. a letter/dated : 02.03.1993 marked as Paper No. 2 wherein the claimant has
admitted his signatures at Point-A of said document. In this document, the claimant has admitted that he was
working as ‘Part Time Sweeper in Temporary Capacity’ as reproduced below-
“…….. that I am working in this esteemed bank at Paschim Enclave Branch as Part Time Sweeper in
Temporary capacity since 30.06.1989…….”
It is submitted that the respondent bank is a nationalized bank. Amongst the sub-ordinate staff of the bank,
there are four classes of employees-Permanent, probationary, Temporary & Part Time employees, who are
governed by Clasue-508 of the SHASTRI AWARD. The sub-ordinate staff in nationalized banks came to
known as Award Staff. The appointments are made in accordance with the norms laid down by the Govt. of
India. The rules of the recruitment have prescribed the criteria in regards to age and educational qualifications
in accordance with the guidelines of the Bureau of The Public Enterprises of the Govt. of India.
It is undisputed position that the workman to which present matter related was never recruited by following
the regular process of the recruitment but he was engaged only temporarily as the exigencies of
sweeping/cleaning work required. The employment of workman was admittedly on a purely temporary basis
and he was never considered fit for regularization during his tenure of services before he voluntarily
abandoned his said temporary services in November 2003. A selection against a permanent vacancy had to be
in accordance with the rules and regulation only.
The respondent/bank most respectfully submits that in the land mark judgment relating to casual/temporary
employees, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a matter titled as- Secretary, State Bank of Karnataka
v/s Umadevi & Others – (AIR 2006 SC 1806) has categorically held that – Unless the appointment is in
terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer
any right on the appointee- If it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same
would come to an end when it is discounted – Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker
is continued for a time beyond the terms of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent, merely on strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made
by the relevant rules – High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily
issue direction for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made
regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
4358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PRAYER-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the statement of claim/amended statement of claim filed by the
claimant/workman is devoid of any merit or substances, therefore, may kindly be dismissed with cost and
reference may kindly be answered accordingly.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions mentioned in written arguments. I perused the pleadings and
evidence of parties on record. Which makes it crystal clear that evidence of workman is neither required nor credible
and nor reliable. While evidence of management is required, reliable and credible.
In this background reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management.
Which is accordingly decided and claim/statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated : 07.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1754-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@91@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st July, 2017
S.O. 1754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 87 of 2014) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-20012/91/2014-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 87/2014
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri S. K. Roy, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 15/06/2017
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/91/2014 IR-(CM-I), dated. 30/09/2014 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,
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, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4359
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Ishq Ansari
M/Loader from the service w.e.f. 27.04.2009 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 15.10.2014 After receipt of reference , both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 17.12.2014. And the management files their written
statement -cum-rejoinder on 22.04.2015. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed
from his services.
3.
During preliminary hearing of this case, domestic enquiry held by the management is accepted by the
Sponsoring Union/workman as Fair & Proper . Thereafter document of Management is marked as M-1 to M-7.
4.
The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of
long absence. But he has already out of service since last 8 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman
concerned to serve.
5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee in cat-I.
But the workman be kept under probation for a period of two year. Therefore the question of back wages does not arise
at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1755-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@70@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st July, 2017
S.O. 1755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 25 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-20012/70/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 25/2009
Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri S. N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
4360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated : 14/06/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/70/2007-IR(CM-1) dated 17/04/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“ i) Whether the action of the Management of Bagdigi Colliery under Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL in
dismissing Shri Dinanath Pandey, surface Trammer from the services of the company w.e.f. 29/10/2003
is justified and legal? ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1756-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@38@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st July, 2017
S.O. 1756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 39 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-20012/38/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 39/2009
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 16/06/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/38/2009-IR(CM-1) dated 27/06/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4361
SCHEDULE
“(i) Whether the action of the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL in not paying the difference
of gratuity and arrear wages as per NCWA-VII, Bonus, leave wages, LTC/ LLTC to Shri Naresh
Nonia, Ex- Senior Over man is justified and legal? (ii)To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none is appearing from either side. Case remains
pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award
is passed Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1757-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@86@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st July, 2017
S.O. 1757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 70 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-20012/86/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 70/2009
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 16/06/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/86/2009-IR(C-1) dated 14/12/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of South Govindpur Colliery under Govindpur Area of
M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Ganesh Beldar, Clerk from the services of the company w.e.f.
27/12/2006 is justified and legal? ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
4362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 21 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1758-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@22@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 21st July, 2017
S.O. 1758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 27 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-20012/22/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 27/2009
Employer in relation to the management of Barora Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 16/06/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/22/2009-IR(CM-1) dated 24/04/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“i) Whether the action of the management of Madhuband Colliery under Barora Area of M/s. BCCL
in dismissing Sri Gurupado Bauri w.e.f. 23/12/2005 is justified and legal ?
ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending.
It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4363
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1759-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 140@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2017 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@80@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/80/1999-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 140 OF 1999
PARTIES :
The management of J. K. Nagar Mines of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Their Workmen
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 14.06.2017
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-
22012/80/99–IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar (R) Mines, Po: Bidhanbag, Dist: Burdwan in
deducting the wages of workmen for the period from 24.04.1998 to 28.02.1998 and 13.04.1998 to
14.04.1998 without issuing Chargesheet, holding proper enquiry and without statutory notice of deduction is
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled? ”
1.
Having received the Order No. L-22012/80/99–IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 140 of 1999 was
registered on 14.09.1999 / 05.10.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
Case called out. Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate is present on behalf of the management and Sri Sayantan
Mukherjee, Learned Advocate is present on behalf of the workmen.
4364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
On perusal of the case record I find that the case was reserved for “No Dispute Award” on 01.07.2015 after
granting 12 (Twelve) dates and more than 2 (Two) years. On 13.07.2015 Sri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
moved a petition that due to sudden breakdown of his car he could not appear before the Tribunal and on the basis of
this very petition the order dated 01.07.2015 for “No Dispute Award” was set-a-side. On 07.06.2016 the management
filed written statement and the case was again fixed for the evidence of the workmen. Thereafter on 3 (Three) dates i.e.
22.08.2016, 23.11.2016 & 01.02.2017 Sri Sayantan Mukherjee remained absent. On 11.04.2017 Sri Sayantan
Mukherjee appeared before the Tribunal and prays for time as a result a last opportunity was granted to him for filing
evidence of the workmen on 13.06.2017, but on the said date i.e. on 13.06.2017 he appeared late and did not make any
appeal before the Tribunal. With no option left the Tribunal reserved the reference for passing the “No Dispute
Award”.
4.
After rising the court on 13.06.2017 Sri Sayantan Mukherjee appeared at 02:45 PM and filed affidavit of Sri
Pradip Kumar Sinha. The affidavit has been sworn on 11.04.2017, but still at the time of submitting affidavit the
witness was not present. This is one of the oldest Reference of this Tribunal - of the year 1999, near about 18 years old.
But it appears that the workmen / union have no more interest left to proceed with the case any further.
5.
Since the workmen / union have no interest to proceed with the reference the Tribunal has no reason left to keep
this old record pending without any result. As such the case is closed and a “No Dispute Award” is hereby passed
accordingly.
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] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1760-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 87@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@95@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/95/2006-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. 87 OF 2006
PARTIES :
The management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. ECL
V/s.
Shri Madan Napit
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
Sri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4365
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 30.06.2017
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-22012/95/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 01.11.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Shri Madan Napit from service
w.e.f. 20.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/95/2006–IR(CM-II) dated 01.11.2006 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 87 of
2006 was registered on 11.12.2006. 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.
2.
The workman Shri Madan Napit has filed written statement through his Union Representative, has alleged in his
written statement that he was in employment of the Company as U.G. Trammer at Kunustoria Colliery under
Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, bearing Man No. 444160. He was chargesheeted for alleged
unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 22.04.2003 vide Chargesheet No.ECL/KNT/PER/CS-7/3841 dated 13.10.2003.
The workman was absent due to his illness which was beyond his control. Being declared fit by doctor, he reported for
duty, but he was not allowed to resume his duty. The workman replied to the Chargesheet. He appeared before the
Enquiry Officer during enquiry proceeding. But he was not given opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer
submitted biased Enquiry Report against the workman, ignoring sick certificates submitted by the workman regarding
his illness. From the Enquiry Report it seems that the Enquiry Officer had acted as management representative and
incorporated the points, which was not even raised during enquiry proceeding. The whole enquiry is biased. The Chief
General Manager of Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dismissed the workman from service of the
company with effect from 20.12.2003 vide his order No. A-KNT/P&IR/26(B)/7425 dated 20.12.2003 on the basis of
the biased Enquiry Report. The dismissal of workman Shri Madan Napit is illegal and unjustified. The workman is out
of job since then and his whole family is on the verge of starvation. The workman has prayed that the management of
Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to reinstate the workman in
service with full back wages for the period from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.
3.
The Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his
written statement that the concerned workman was absent from duty unauthorizedly since 13.02.2003 to 13.10.2003
without any prior permission or authorized leave. As such the ex-workman was chargesheeted by the company vide
Chargesheet No. ECL/KNT/PER/CS-7/3841 dated 13.10.2003. As per provision of Standing Order vide Clause No.
26.23. the chargesheeted workman failed to reply the charge. As such a domestic enquiry was held into the said
Chargesheet by the Enquiry Officer. The chargesheeted workman duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and he
was given the assistance of co-worker. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of his enquiry proceeding held the ex-
workman to be guilty for misconduct. All reasonable opportunities were given to the ex-workman to defend his case in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. The competent Authority after perusal of Charge Sheet, Enquiry
Proceeding, Enquiry Repot and all other connected papers passed the Dismissal Order vide reference No. A-
KNT/P&IR/26B/2425 dated 20.12.2003. The punishment awarded to the workman is justified and proportionate to the
gravity of his misconduct. The Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
has denied that the workman was absent due to his sickness. The workman is not entitled for any relief as prayed for by
him.
4.
The workman has filed the following documents :-
(i) Copy of 8 (Eight) treatment papers regarding his sickness, (ii) Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding, (iii) Copy of
the Enquiry Report, (iv) Copy of the Dismissal Order. The workman, Shri Madan Napit has filed affidavit in his
oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria
Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
The Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any
documentary evidence nor examined any oral evidence.
4366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
I have heard the argument of Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative appeared on behalf of the
workman Shri Madan Napit and Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Kunustoria Colliery,
Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
6.
Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative for the workman has argued that the workman was sick. The
Colliery authority has itself recommended for treatment of sick concerned workman, Shri Madan Napit. This fact was
not considered in Enquiry Proceeding by the Enquiry Officer. Though the workman has filed his treatment papers, but
it was not considered in Enquiry Proceeding. He has also argued that the workman was denied opportunity to defend
himself. The enquiry is biased and vitiated one. He has also argued that in the year 2014 the delinquent workman has
reached the age of superannuation. On the other hand, Shri P. K. Das, the learned advocate has argued that the
workman was unauthorizedly absent from duty. The punishment of dismissal is justified. The unauthorized absence is
one of the misconduct as per the Standing Order.
7.
It is not disputed that Shri Madan Napit had been in employment of the company as Underground Trammer at
Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also not disputed that he was
absent from duty. It is admitted fact that the departmental enquiry was conducted regarding his absence, which has
been challenged by the workman. As per management of Kunustoria Colliery the enquiry has been conducted due to
unauthorized absence, which is punishable under Clause 26.23 of Certified Standing Order.
8.
As per Certified Standing Order applicable to M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited “ Habitual late attendance or
habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause is punishable under Clause 26.23 of Certified Standing Order. ”
9.
The copy of Chargesheet has not been filed by the Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is settled law that the burden of proof of misconduct of the concerned employee lies on
the department concerned. If any workman is guilty of misconduct, the liability lies on the shoulder of department /
employer to prove the guilt of the delinquent workman. It is the duty of the concerned colliery to submit copy of
Chargesheet issued to the workman, which is the basis of departmental enquiry. Before proceeding with the domestic
enquiry against a delinquent workman, the employer / Enquiry Officer must serve Chargesheet regarding the charges
levelled against the delinquent employee. It is the duty of the employer to indicate to the delinquent employee not only
the precise nature of the charge, but also the documents, if any, upon which the charges are based. The Chargesheet
should specifically set out all charges, which the workman is called upon to show-cause against him. The Chargesheet
must contain all relevant particulars upon which the delinquent is required to submit his explanation. The very purpose
of this requirement is that the delinquent workman must know what he is charged with and must have opportunity to
meet the charges by giving a proper explanation. If charges are vague, the delinquent workman cannot submit proper
explanation. Since the copy of Chargesheet has not been filed by the Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria
Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the Tribunal cannot appreciate the grounds or particulars of charges.
10.
The management witness Shri R. B. Paswan has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Shri Madan Napit was
absent in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003. So far as the previous misconduct is concerned, if the delinquent workman has
not been chargesheeted for his previous misconduct no amount of evidence can be laid in this connection. On perusal of
written statement of the Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, it is
manifest that there is no allegation of previous absence of Shri Madan Napit. There is no copy of Chargesheet. Before
leading evidence for previous absence or previous misconduct, the employee should be chargesheeted for that
misconduct. The employer cannot justify his action on any grounds other than this contained in the Chargesheet. If the
particulars of previous absence have not been mentioned in the Chargesheet, then leading evidence in this regard would
be violation of principles of natural justice.
11.
Reasonable opportunity means not only framing of charges but much more. The rules of natural justice require
that when a fact is sought to be proved, it must be supported by evidence in presence of delinquent employee. The
delinquent employee should be given an adequate opportunity of cross-examine the management witness who is giving
evidence against him. On perusal of enquiry proceeding it is apparent that the concerned workman Shri Madan Napit
was not afforded opportunity for cross-examine the management witness. He was never asked to cross- examine the
management witness. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of Shri R. B. Paswan, Leave Clerk and Shri
Abhijit Ghosh, Clerk. Though, Shri Madan Napit was present in the enquiry proceeding but he was denied opportunity
of cross-examination from these witnesses. In whole enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any date
of proceeding. It appears that all enquiry proceeding has been recorded in one date without recording the date in
enquiry proceeding. The statement of Shri R. B. Paswan has been recorded just after his completion of examination-in-
chief. The statement of Shri Abhijit Ghosh has been recorded without recording cross-examination of this witness by
delinquent workman. Even the delinquent workman was not given opportunity to avail the assistance of co-worker. In
Punjab National Bank V/s A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation vide AIR 1960 S.C., page 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that :
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4367
“Evidence in enquiry must be recorded in the presence of the chargesheeted employee and he must be given an
opportunity to rebut such evidence. ”
12.
On perusal of enquiry proceeding it is manifest that the delinquent workman was denied opportunity to lead
defence evidence. After recording of examination-in-chief of management witness Shri R. B. Paswan and Shri Abhijit
Ghosh, statement of Shri Madan Napit was recorded and the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report without
affording opportunity to lead defence evidence to concerned workman to prove his innocence or explain his
circumstances. At the cost of repetition it is relevant to mention that the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any date in
Enquiry Proceeding or in Enquiry Report. It seems that all paper works had been done and signature of delinquent
workman has been obtained in one date. The concerned workman has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has stated
in Para- 2 & 3 of his affidavit that he was sick and was under the treatment of company’s hospital for the period for
which he had been chargesheeted. He submitted all treatment papers before the Enquiry Officer, but the Enquiry
Officer ignored all these papers. In cross-examination he has supported the statement stated in his examination-in-chief.
The delinquent workman has filed treatment papers of Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dated
08.02.2003, 08.03.2003 and 16.08.2003, the treatment paper of Kunustoria Area Hospital dated 10.02.2003 and
05.06.2003. The Agent of Kunustoria Colliery, Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has written letter
dated 04.06.2003 addressed to Additional C.M.O. for treatment of Shri Madan Napit. Medical Superintendent of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter has recommended for treatment of Shri Madan Napit to another Government
Medical College and Hospital at Kolkata by letter No. ECL/C-5(E)/M/13/CMS/03/1681 dated 19/21.07.2003. From
this letter it appears that not only the Colliery Officer but also the Medical Superintendent considered for treatment
from outside area. This indicates that Shri Madan Napit was really ill and this fact was within the knowledge of
concerned colliery. These papers have not been considered by Enquiry Officer in enquiry proceeding, even the Enquiry
Officer has not given opportunity to workman to submit his papers. Though the management witness Shri R. B. Paswan
has admitted that Shri Madan Napit was under the treatment at Company’s hospital for a part of the absence period. He
has alleged that Shri Madan Napit has filed medical certificates from Company’s hospital. Even the Enquiry Officer in
his enquiry report has accepted this fact and he has written in his enquiry report that chargesheeted workman was under
the treatment of major part of the absence period for which he was under the treatment at Company’s hospital. When
this fact is admitted by management witness and the Enquiry Officer then how delinquent workman can be said to be
unauthorized absentee. The Enquiry Officer ought to have recorded the findings whether the absence of Madan Napit
was willful or under compelling circumstances. If the absence of Madan Napit was under compelling circumstances
which was beyond his control, then his absence cannot be treated as misconduct. In Krushnakant B. Parmar V/s
Union Of India & Another 2012(132) FLR page 1023 S.C., the Hon’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 it does not always means willful. An employee may abstain from duty
under compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness hospitalization etc, but in such case the
employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of government servant.
The Disciplinary Authority is required to prove that absence is willful. In absence of such fining the absence will
not amount to misconduct. ”
13.
The Chief General Manager Kunustoria Area has passed the dismissal order vide reference No. A-
KNT/P&IR/26B/7425 dated 19/20.12.2003. As has been discussed above the concerned workman Shri Madan Napit
was denied opportunity of cross-examination from management witness and opportunity to defend himself. But
contrary to it, the Chief General Manager has mentioned in his dismissal order as
“Reference to the Chargesheet mentioned above issued to you, an enquiry was conducted wherein you fully
participated in the enquiry and were given full opportunity to cross examine the management witness and to
defend yourself. The findings of the Enquiry Officer reveals that the charges under section 26.23 of Certified
Standing Order levelled against you were proved beyond any doubt. I have personally gone through the enquiry
proceeding. ”
14.
It transpires that the Chief General Manager without perusing the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report has
passed the dismissal order in a mechanical manner. The order of dismissal is a major punishment, it cannot be a casual
exercise.
15.
Right to livelihood is an important right to life. It must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to
life. If a person is deprived of his right to livelihood, it means he has been deprived from his life. Such important right
can only be deprived by a procedure established by law. Such deprivation can be effected by a valid, impartial and bona
fide enquiry. Without conducting a valid and impartial domestic enquiry, the punishment of dismissal is not only harsh,
but also illegal which must be set-a-side. The delinquent has filed his Identity Card. His date of birth in the Identity
Card has been recorded as 18.03.1954, so he has crossed the age of superannuation in the year 2014. The learned union
4368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
representative Shri S. K. Pandey has also argued that the concerned workman has already reached the age of
superannuation. So question of reinstatement does not arise.
16.
The workman has stated in Para- 9 of his written statement that he is out of job since then and his family is on
the verge of starvation. Even this fact has not been declined by the Agent of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in his written statement. The delinquent workman in his affidavit also stated that he
is out of employment since then.
17.
The hon’ble Supreme Court in Mackinon Mackenzie and Company Ltd. V/s Mackinnon Employees’
Union, 2015 (145) FLR 184 has held :
“ The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or
termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been
but for the illegal action taken by the employer. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or
contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him / her to specifically plead and prove that
during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments.
Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to
indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to
pay back wages including the emoluments. ”
18.
In view of above discussion the action of management of Kunustoria Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Madan Napit from service w.e.f. 20.12.2003 is illegal and unjustified.
The Dismissal Order of Shri Madan Napit dated 20.12.2003 is hereby set-a-side. Since he has reached the age of
superannuation he cannot be reinstated, but he is entitled for back wages from the date of dismissal till his retirement.
The workman Shri Madan Napit will be imposed a 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] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1761-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 132@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@413@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/413/2003-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 132/2004
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4369
Between :
The General Secretary (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana),
Singareni Collieries Employees Council (TNTUC)
BCH-30, Vittal Nagar,
Godavarikhani- 505209
…Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Divn.,
Godavarikhani-505209
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner Union
:
M/s. G. Sudha, A.V. Appa Rao & K. Venkatesh, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/413/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 4.10.2004
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I
Division, Godavarikhani in not regularizing the services of Sh. Nagunuri Rajaiah, Coal Cutter, GDK-2A Inc.
as Chit Issuer or Clerk Gr.III is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.132/2004 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:
The workman Sri Nagunuri Rajaiah was appointed as Coal Filler in the Respondent’s management 4.6.1975.
Later he was designated as Coal Cutter from 1.3.1997. The workman is an educated man and has possessed
Intermediate qualification. It is the practice in the Respondent company to call upon the underground mine workers
who were working as coal fillers, coal cutters, general Mazdoors and any other designation persons who had
educational qualifications and can carry out clerical jobs are posted to discharge clerical duties. First time in the month
of November, 1988 the Respondent management officials called upon the workman to perform clerical duties in GDK
1 incline i.e., to issue explosives and maintain record etc.. The workman has been discharging the duties of a clerk
from 1988 to 20.1.2001, for a period of 13 years. It is submitted that whenever an employee working in lower
category was posted to discharge the duties of higher cadre or grade they are paid difference of salary as Acting
Allowance” and they are designated in the said post as Acting”. This posting of acting clerks is not on temporary basis
but on permanent basis. These acting employees could not get promotions in their regular cadre nor they were
regularized in the acting cadre, resulting in loss of service benefits and promotion avenues in the
cadre/post/designation and thus, they were deprived of both the benefits. This issue was raised by the employees as
well as by the union. As per the understanding and settlement, the management has decided to review the cases of the
acting clerks and they will be given promotion as one time measure. In pursuance of the minutes of the meeting, the
details of the employees who are working as Acting Clerks were collected through the Superintendent of Mines and the
details of the workman were also sent to the management. Since no further action was taken by the management,
major union have issued a strike notice for various demands including confirmation of the Acting Clerks. Thereafter
conciliation proceedings were initiated and a settlement was arrived, wherein the management has agreed to regularize
all the Acting Clerks as one time measure. Initially 181 vacancies are to be filled up in September, 1997 in order of
seniority through assessment report and interview. Remaining 93 Acting Clerks will be absorbed as per the
requirement in a phased manner by the end of December, 1997. After due process, the workman has been called for
the interview, but he was not considered for absorption whereas his juniors viz., Bandam Rajaiah, Annam Lakshmi
Narasaiah, Gujjeti Srinivas, Ata Prakash and several others were considered, as per the procedure adopted contrary to
the settlement. The workman was not awarded proper marks, his performance, his service, marks in interview, all in
total he was awarded only 35 marks and he was found low assessment. Thus, the Respondent adopted illegal methods
and discriminative attitude, so the workman filed WP No.916 of 2000 along with 10 others questioning the action of
4370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Respondent on the ground that the Respondent company has not considered the acting clerks in terms of the
settlement dated 31.7.1997 and the proceedings No. P(PM)4/3208/2506 dated 20.2.1999 regularizing the Junior Acting
Clerk Services ignoring the workman’s claim is bad in law, but the same was dismissed along with other writ petitions
on 7.8.2000 by the Hon’ble High Court on the ground, no factual basis laid down by the seniors who made the claim.
Being aggrieved the workman along with others filed Writ Appeal No.1048, 1052, 1153 and 1269 of 2000 which were
also dismissed as not maintainable with an observation that if the Petitioners so desire they can raise a dispute in terms
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. Thereafter the Petitioner’s union raised an industrial
dispute which was referred to this Tribunal. It is submitted that had the workman continued in the mining staff i.e., as
coal cutter, he could have acquired skills and passed the statutory mining examinations and could have become Under
Manager or Manager and as such, the workman lost that channel of promotions. Had the workman was regularized in
the post of clerk, he would have got promotions in that cadre. The workman was deprived of both the channels of
promotions by the acts of the management. In view of the above facts, it is submitted this Tribunal may be pleased to
set aside the orders passed vide Ref. No.AHR/P/333 dated 19.1.2001 and direct the Respondent to regularize the
services of the workman with effect from October, 1999 and grant all attendant benefits and service benefits on par
with the juniors by holding that the action of the management not regularizing the Petitioner workman as chit issuer or
clerk Gr. III is illegal and not justified and to allow the workman with exemplary costs.
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
It is submitted that the workman was initially appointed as Badli filler in the Respondent’s company on 4.6.1975
and later he was regularized as coal filler on 7.11.1976 and he has been absorbed as Coal Cutter on daily rated wages in
Cat.V pay scale with effect from 1.3.1977. On his request, the workman was allowed to discharge the duties of
issuing explosives to the concerned and maintain its account on an acting basis which work is considered clerical in
nature. As per the Interim orders dated 25.1.2000 of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in WPMP
1152/2000 in WP No.916/2000 he was allowed to continue as a Clerk from 25.1.2000 to 20.1.2001. It is submitted
that subsequently on a strike notice dated 2.12.1996 given by six trade unions, over a charter of demands, discussions
were held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)-I, at Hyderabad and one memorandum of settlement was
entered between the management and the Trade unions on 31.7.1997 under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 wherein the management was agreed to consider the cases of the employees acting as clerks for regularization
subject to assessment report and interview. The workman is eligible to be called for an interview, he was called for
the interview and he was not considered for absorption as he could not get qualified marks in the interview. It is
submitted that the services of Sri P. Ramakrishna were not regularized as he secured only 35.5 marks in the selection
held in 1999. But upon his representation, after verification, it was found that he had worked prior to 3.10.1996 at
GDK 9 & 9A inclines, and the total service rendered by him as acting clerk was calculated later, he got qualified for
regularization as Clerk Gr. II in accordance with the principles laid down in the Memorandum of Settlement dated
31.7.1997. Accordingly, he was appointed as Clerk, Gr.II. It is further stated that though, the workman and some
others approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petitions and writ appeals, finally it was directed by the
Hon’ble Court that, if they so desire, they are at liberty to raise industrial dispute before the appropriate Forum in
terms of Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the present dispute arose. It is also stated that the
management has not forcibly directed the workman to perform the jobs of clerical nature on surface. If the workman
really intended to acquire skills and pass statutory examinations, he would have not opted for the post of clerk on
surface. The workman had all the Service Linked Upgradation benefits on his substantive post, as Coal Cutter. He was
placed, with effect from 1.7.1989 from Cat.V to Cat.VI; with effect from 1.1.1998 from Cat.VI to Gr.C – monthly paid
basis; with effect from 1.1.2006 from Gr.C to Gr. B – monthly paid. It is further stated that the juniors of the
workman S/Sri, Badam Rajaiah, A Laxminarasaiah, Gujjety Srinivas, Ata Prakash, B. Satyanaryana, S. Emmanual and
Panguluri Ramakrishna got more marks and got qualified in the selection process, thereby they were regularized. In
view of the aforesaid averments the Respondent management submitted that the claim made by the Petitioner union is,
devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected in limini.
4.
Sri Nagunuri Rajaiah, the workman has been examined as WW1 and marked the photostat copies of the
documents as Ex.W1 to W26. Sri B. I Vijaya Kumar and Sri R. Satyanarayana, have been examined as MW1 and
MW2 respectively and marked the photostat copies of the documents as Ex.M1 to M12.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments in support of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I
Division, Godavarikhani in not regularizing the services of Sh. Nagunuri Rajaiah, Coal Cutter, GDK-2A
Inc. as Chit Issuer or Clerk Gr.III is legal and justified?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4371
II.
Whether the Workman is entitled for regularization in the post of Chit Issuer Or Clerk Gr. III?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was appointed initially
as coal filler in the Respondents organization on 4.5.1975 and latter he was designated as Coal Cutter from 1.3.1977.
The workman has passed Intermediate and possess the knowledge in typewriting. It is the practice in the Respondent
company to call upon the underground mine workers who are working as coal fillers, coal cutters, general Mazdoors
who had educational qualifications and can carry out clerical jobs are posted to discharge clerical duties. Accordingly
in the month of November, 1988 the Respondent management officials called upon the workman to perform duties as
magazine clerk in GDK 1 incline i.e., to issue explosives and maintain record etc.. The workman has been discharging
the duties of a clerk from 1988 to 20.6.2000 at GDK No.1 incline and form 21.6.2000 to 19.1.2001 at Rea Hospital,
Ramagundam. It is further contended that the Respondent company has utilized the services of the Petitioner as an
acting clerk for more than 12 years of on surface and without serving any notice reverted the workman and directed
him to discharge the duties of coal cutter in the underground of GDK No.2A incline, illegally and arbitrarily. On
receipt of the said order the Petitioner submitted an application on 26.2.2001 to the Director (Personal Assistant & W)
SCC Ltd., Kothagudem with a request to provide him any job on surface in any cadre even on reduction category. His
representation was not considered for which the workman filed WP No. 4757 of 1991 along with others with the
prayer to direct the Respondent to observe the Petitioner/workman as clerk Gr II with effect from the date when he
started working as a clerk with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ the Petitioner Union and
the Respondent made one settlement under Sec.12(3) of the I.D.Act on 31.7.1997 for which the workman was
compelled to withdraw that writ application. As per the terms of the settlement and direction of the Respondent
company the workman along with others attended the interview but the workman was not considered to get
promotion. Even though some of his juniors were regularized in the service the case of the workman was not
considered. Again the workman filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, but the said
writ was dismissed. But as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court the Petitioner was allowed to work as an acting clerk.
Subsequently after dismissal of the writ petition the workman preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Court which was
also dismissed giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Accordingly the Petitioner has raised
dispute before the conciliation officer, ALC(C), Mancherial. The Respondent attended the conciliation proceeding but
the conciliation was failed and the matter was referred to this Tribunal. It is also submitted that in the interview, the
Petitioner was not awarded proper marks, his performance, his service, marks in interview all in total, he was awarded
only 35 marks and he was found “low assessment”. The Respondent adopted illegal methods and discriminative
attitude, so the workman had filed WP No.916 of 2000 along with 10 others questioning the action of the Respondent
on the ground that the Respondent company has not considered the acting clerks in terms of the settlement dated
31.7.1997 and proceedings No. P(PM)4/3208/2506 dated 20.2.1999 regularizing the Junior Acting Clerk Services
ignoring the Petitioner’s claim is bad in law, but the writ was dismissed. In fact the workman has rendered more than
12 years of service as clerk Gr.I, under the Respondent but without considering his case in regularizing him in the post
of clerk, the Respondent management reverted him as a coal cutter. The workman is entitled to get promotion. The
workman was not given promotion in the line of coal cutter. Had the workman was regularized in the post of clerk,
he would have got promotions in that cadre. The workman was deprived of both the channels of promotions by the
acts of the management. It is further submitted that the workman is entitled to get regularization in the cadre of clerk
and he is also entitled to get all the attendant benefits on par with his juniors. The action of the management in not
regularising the workman is bad in Law.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf o the Respondent has contended that the workman
joined in the service of the Respondent initially as badli coal filler. He was regularized as coal filler on piece rated
wages with effect from 7.11.1976 and subsequently he was absorbed on daily rated wages as Coal Cutter, on Cat. V
wages with effect from 1.3.1977. He has been upgraded subsequently, under Service Linked Upgradation as Coal
Cutter Category VI wages with effect from 1.7.1989, and subsequently he has been further upgraded as coal cutter,
“C” Grade in the Technical & Supervisory Grade with effect from 1.1.1998 and he was further promoted as coal cutter,
B” grade-Tech. &Supervisory cadre. He was confirmed in his post as “B” Grade coal cutter with effect from 1.9.2006
and he is continuing in that category and post. It is further contended that while working as a coat cutter at GDK 2A
Incline, the workman requested the management to provide him with a light job on surface for some time, as he is
facing difficulty to discharge his duties as coal cutter under ground. His request was considered and he was allowed
to discharge the duties of issuing explosives to the concerned workmen and maintain its account, on an acting basis as
and when available. The above works of the workman is considered as in clerical in nature. The workman requested
the management to retain him in the post as a clerk, for which he along with another 29 workmen filed WP No.4757
of 1991 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad for absorption. While the matter was pending before the
Hon’ble High Court by virtue of amicable settlement dated 31.7.1997 one Memorandum of Settlement was prepared
under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement was for such employees who are continuing as
acting clerks in terms of interim directions of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and the same will be
4372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
considered subject to withdrawal of their writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petition was withdrawn. As per the
terms of the settlement, one selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of the candidates. The
workman was called for to attend the interview and attended the interview, and appeared before the selection
committee. But he was not come out successful in the merit list, being aggrieved to this the workman filed WP
N0.916/2000 and similar writ petitions Nos. 38,978 and 1452 of 2000 were also filed by some other workmen before
the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad seeking directions to declare the action of the Respondent company in not
considering the seniority cum fitness as criteria for regularization of the acting clerks in accordance with the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.7.1997, and regularising the juniors to the workmen is illegal and arbitrary.
The Hon’ble High Court while admitting the writ petition No.916 of 2000 filed by the workman and 9 others granted
interim directions vide order dated 25.1.2000 directing the Respondent that if the Petitioners are in service they shall
not be removed or disturbed. Finally all the writ petitions were dismissed by a common order. The workman preferred
WA No.1048 of 2000 along with 10 others which was also dismissed. The workman has made an allegation before the
Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad against the Selection Committee. It is contended that as the workman was not
qualified in the interview he has not been absorbed as a clerk. The workman has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria to
be regularized as a clerk. The terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.7.1997 is applicable to the workman as
he was not selected for the post of a clerk, and the workman has to go to his substantive post i.e., coal cutter. It is
further stated that the selection was made in order of merit. The workman has not disputed anything against the
selection process which has been constituted by the competent authority on 18.12.1997, at any point of time before any
authority. It is further contended that the candidates who have secured 37 marks have been absorbed as clerks but the
workman could not secure adequate marks for which he was not absorbed. It is also contended that the workman is
not entitled to work as a clerk as he does not possess the eligibility criteria and it is not entitled to get any relief.
9.
Point No.I: On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, and on perusal of the evidence (oral and
documentary) adduced by both the sides, it is seen that initially the workman was appointed as a badli filler,
subsequently he was promoted as coal filler and upgraded to the post of coal cutter and lastly he was confirmed in his
post as B Grade coal cutter with effect from 1.9.2006 vide order dated 27.4.2006. As per the admission of the
workman he never performed the duties of a coal cutter and as he opted to work as a surface clerk which is a light job,
it was given to him. The workman further admitted that as per the settlement dated 31.7.1997 one employee will be
eligible for promotion to the post of a clerk subject to assessment report and oral marks in the interview. The
workman has admitted that Sri P. Ramakrishna, who has been appointed as a clerk is a degree holder whereas he does
not possess any degree. But he has worked for more than 12 years whereas Sri P. Ramakrishna was very junior to
him in service. The workman also admitted that he was disqualified by the management in the interview but the
reasons best know to them, even though during the course of interview he has replied correctly to all the questions put
to him by the members of the interview committee, he was not given proper marks. He clearly admitted that he did
not raise any complaint to the Chairman of the company against the irregularities and error committed by the
interview board. So also he did not make any complaint in the trade union against the interview board. The evidence
of WW1 on his own admission clearly indicates that even though he is a coal cutter he has opted to work as a clerk as
it is a light job and as per his request to work on the surface the management has considered it. It is also noticed that
even though he has not worked in the under ground as a coal cutter he has bee confirmed in the post as a “B” Grade
coal cutter getting all promotions. In fact he has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria, to be regularized as a clerk as per
the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement. Even though subsequently the workman has challenged
the selection process, no where he has raised any objection about the interview conducted by the selection board. The
claim of the workman is that he has been victimized by the Respondent management and the Respondent management
has not willfully given him promotion and not regularized him as a clerk. The further claim of the workman is that he
was intentionally not given the post of clerk by the management. It is seen that the workman has preferred to work in
the surface as a clerk as it is a light job. Even if he has not worked as a coal cutter he has been given promotion to
Grade “B” coal cutter and has been given the salary of “B” Grade coal cutter. He has not fulfilled the criteria of the
interview. He has also not secured adequate marks in the interview on par with others. But without fulfilling the
criteria required for the post of a clerk the workman has demanded to get promotion and to get regularization in the
post of a clerk which is not desirable. Thus, the above contention of the workman is not accepted. Therefore, in the
given circumstances, it can not be stated that the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., Ramagundam-I Division, Godavarikhani in not regularizing the services of Sh. Nagunuri Rajaiah, Coal Cutter,
GDK-2A Inc. as Chit Issuer or Clerk Gr.III is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the workman Sri Nagunuri Rajaiah is not
entitled to regularization in the post of chit issuer and also not entitled to get any relief.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4373
RESULT
In the result, the reference is answered as under:
The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Division,
Godavarikhani in not regularizing the services of Sri Nagunuri Rajaiah, Coal Cutter, GDK-2A Inc. as Chit Issuer or
Clerk Gr.III is legal and justified and the workman concerned is not entitled for any relief.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 22nd day of
June, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Workman
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1: Sri Nagunuri Rajaiah
MW1: Sri B.I. Vijay Kumar
MW2: Sri R. V. Satyanarayana
Documents marked for the Workman
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of order of information reg. underground allowance dt.6.6.91
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of lr.No.Gdk.1/20-B/90/2046 dt. 13.8.94 reg.acting particulars in r/o Personnel whose
services are being utilized as clerks, drivers and electrical supervisors from 1991 to May, 1994.
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 4.6.98
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 5.12.98
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 27.4.2000, assigning duties of magazine clerk
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of O.O. dt. 9.2/3.1990 upgradation of workman from Gr.V to Gr.VI
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of promotion letter
Ex.W7A:
Photostat copy of promotion letter
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of O.O. reg. service linked upgradation dt.1.3.2006
Ex.W8A:
Photostat copy of lr. of confirmation of Ex.W8 dt. 26/27.10.2006
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of settlement dt.31.7.1997 u/s 12.(3)
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 20.11.97 from Respondent to workman to withdraw WP in connection with
regularization
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of lr.dt.30.5.98 interview call letter
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of interview call letter dt. 28.10.98
Ex.W13:
Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.4757/1991
Ex.W14:
Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.38, 916, 978 and 1452/2000
Ex.W15:
Photostat copy of order passed in WA 1048/2000
Ex.W16:
Photostat copy of representation of workman dt. 23.6.2002 to CMD
Ex.W17:
Photostat copy of representation of workman dt. 23.6.2002 to CMD
Ex.W18:
Photostat copy of representation of workman dt. 23.6.2002
Ex.W18:
Photostat copy of representation of the union to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Mancherial dt.
27.5.2002
Ex.W19:
Photostat copy of lr. of ALC(C) to the Union fixing date of conciliation.
Ex.W20:
Photostat copy of lr. of Union to ALC(C) dt. 9/10.12.2002
Ex.W21:
Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceeding dt.18.11.2003
Ex.W22:
Photostat copy of lr. No.1/3/2002-ALC/MCL dt. 28.11.2003
4374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W23:
Photostat copy of reference order No.L-22012/413/2003-IR(CM-II)
Ex.W24:
Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to CMD dt. 31.7.2007
Ex.W25:
Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to CMD
Ex.W26:
Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to CGM dt.14.11.2007/27.8.2008
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of O.O. No.P.RG.I/62A/822 dt. 9.2/3.1990
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of O.O. dt.25.3.99 reg. upgradation of the WW1 to Gr.C with effect from 1.7.1989
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of O.O. dt.25.3.99 reg. upgradation of the WW1 to Gr.3 with effect from 1.1.98
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of O.O. reg. confirmation of WW1 in Gr.B. dt. 27.10.2006
Ex.M5:
Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement u/s 12(3)
Ex.M6:
Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.4757/1991
Ex.M7:
Photostat copy of order passed in WPMP1152/2000 in WP 916/2000
Ex.M8:
Photostat copy of order passed in WP 38,916,978 and 1452 of 2000
Ex.M9:
Photostat copy of order passed in WA 1048 of 2000
Ex.M10:
Photostat copy of order passed in WA. 1048,1152,1153 and 1269 of 2000
Ex.M11:
Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement –Unions & management.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1762-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 14@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@207@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/207/2012-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 14/2013
Between :
The President,
(Shri Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,
Mancherial. Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Petitioner Union
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4375
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township -504 292.
Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Sri S. Bhagawantha Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/207/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 4.12.2012
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally
Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Dist., in disempanelling Shri Thodasam Lachu, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti-1
Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 14.5.2004 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is
entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 14/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The Petitioner workman has filed his claim statement and Respondent also filed their respective counter
statement.
3.
The case stands posted for recording of Petitioner’s evidence.
4.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner workman remained absent and there
is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner
workman has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner workman has got no
claim to raise. Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 14th day of June,
2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1763-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 25@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
4376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 25/2009
Between :
Sri Bandela Sampath,
S/o B. Rama Swamy,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam Area-I, Kothagudem,
Khammam District.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines/Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
GDK No.1 Incline,
Kothagudem,
Khammam District
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Bandela Sampath who worked as Badli filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., seeking for declaring proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/46/7480 dated 13.10.2002 issued by Respondent
No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner
into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other
attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 10.10.2000 and subsequently became regular to his duties.
While the matter stood thus, a proceeding RG.I/PER/S/46/7480 dated 13.10.2002 was issued to him by the
Respondents, alleging that a charge sheet was issued under company’s Standing Order No.25.25 for his habitual
absenteeism on duty during the year 2001, which amounts to misconduct and it is also stated that the charge sheet was
sent to the Petitioner’s house which was returned undelivered, as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the
Petitioner to attend for enquiry and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an exparte
enquiry was conducted and lastly he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner was undergoing treatment in his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4377
native village and he was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or any publication made by the Respondents in
the newspapers. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the
charge sheet or notice of paper publication. It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly
during the year 2001 only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties
sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order
dated 13.10.2002. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from
service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about
2 years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his
sickness which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the above stated
submissions before the Respondents but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from
service vide office order dated 13.10.2002. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case
sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach
this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/7480 dated 13.10.2002 issued by the Respondents as
illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into
service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner
has been dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly
following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without
sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 2001. A charge sheet
was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned
undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Vartha daily newspaper dated 4.4.2002 advising the Petitioner
to attend the enquiry fixed on 15.4.2002. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor
attended the enquiry, and as such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 15.4.2002 wherein the charges levelled against
the Petitioner were proved. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated
that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, he submitted his report holding the charges levelled
against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner
by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings made in the enquiry
report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted
was dismissal from service. The Petitioner acknowledged the same and has submitted a representation which was
found not satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and
found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1 was constrained
to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not
improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated
that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be dismissed in
limini.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 29.11.2011.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
support of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bandela Sampath is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.
But on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the Petitioner. When
the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to illness he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained
absent, the authority should have considered his case but, without considering any of the submissions of the Petitioner,
the authority has passed one cryptic and unreasoned order and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when
several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
4378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the Respondents’ management is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to illness
the Petitioner could not be able to regular in his duty. In fact, due to illness the Petitioner has remained absent in his
duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the
Petitioner did not participate and the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment
has been imposed on him. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square
meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the Tribunal and is willing to
provide bread and butter to his family members. When he has already realised his mistake atleast one chance should be
given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s
Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about 2 years under the Respondents. When
punishment has been imposed, his past conduct has not been considered. While imposing capital punishment to his
employees, the management should think of the condition of the worker as well as his family members so also his past
conduct. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it
can safely be stated that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri
Bandela Sampath is not legal and justified.
Thus Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Bandela Sampath is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the Tribunal with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be
given a chance to serve for his family members. Now, after dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and
he being the sole earning member of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a
circumstances, atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the
Respondents’ management. But, in the circumstances stated above, the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as
claimed in his petition. But the Petitioner is entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/46/7480 dated 13.10.2002 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is
hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Bandela Sampath be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,
Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the
company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of two years. The management is also
directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman
shall have to either maintain minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the
management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short
fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will
be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of
attendance during two years of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,
taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will
be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th day of
June, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4379
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1764-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 47@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@28@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/28/2013-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 47/2013
Between :
The President,
(Shri Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
Indranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,
Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur -504 303,
Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
Sri S. Bhagawantha Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/28/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 23.4.2013
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur
Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Velupula Shankar, Ex-Coal Filler, IK-1
Inc., SCCL, Sreerampur Area with effect from 07.02.2004 is justified? If not, to what relief the applicant is
entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 47/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
4380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Petitioner workman has filed his claim statement and Respondent also filed their respective counter
statement.
3.
The case stands posted for recording of Petitioner’s evidence.
4.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner workman remained absent and there
is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has
already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner workman has got no claim to raise.
Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 14th day of June,
2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1765-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZlh,lvkbZvkj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 72@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-07-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42012@260@2005&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. ICSIR
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/260/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA,PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID.No.72/2006
Sh. Ved Ram,
S/o Sh. Khema,
C/o 228, Ali Ganj,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110003.
Versus
The Director General,
Indian Council for Scientific & Industrial Research,
2, Rafi Ahmed Marg,
New Delhi-110001
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4381
AWARD
Reference No. L- 42012/260/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2006 sent by Ministry of Labour of Government of
India to this Tribunal for adjudication of following question:
“Whether the action of the management of CSIR in terminating the services of Sh. Ved Ram w.e.f 23.11.2001 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
On 1.09.2006 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 72/2006 and claimant was
called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be
accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 13.02.2007 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
“ It is therefore, prayed to this Hon’ble Court that the respondent may be ordered to regularized the petitioner as
their permanent employee with the equal pay scale in the interest of justice.”
After service of notice management filed written statement on 23.10.2007. Where-in management prayed as
follows:-
“It is respectfully prayed that the present Dispute may be dismissed with cost in favour of Respondent and
against Petitioner.
Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.
My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issue and proceed to decide on the basis of questions of determination.
Workman in support of his case produce himself as WW1. Management in rebuttal produce Ms. Vandana
Digvijay Singh as MW1.
Ld. A/Rs for the parties orally argued and file written arguments.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties on record
including their written arguments.
Perusal of which makes it crystal clear that respondent CSIR had awarded contract to contractors to provide man
power to the respondent CSIR.
It is also apparent that respondent CSIR never employed the workman Sh. Ved Ram.
Moreover workman Sh. Ved Ram has not given any evidence to support that he was employed by the
respondent CSIR or was ever paid by the respondent CSIR.
Hence reference of workman Sh. Ved Ram is liable to be decided against him and in favour of
management/respondent CSIR and others .
Which is accordingly decided and claim statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:5.6.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1766-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 40@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@73@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
4382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/73/2012-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40/2012
Between :
Sri Gaddam Komaraiah,
Ex-CF, KTK-3 Inc.,
H.No.13-181, Subash Colony,
Bhupalapalli, Warangal Distt-506169
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally,
Warangal Dist. – 506169
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. M.V.L. Narasaiah & V.Venkateshwar, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/73/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 20.7.2012
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area, Warangal Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Gaddam Komaraiah, ex-Coal
Fiuller, KTK-3 Incline, with effect from 14.6.2007 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled
for?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 40/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to file claim statement, the Petitioner was absent. Claim statement was
not filed, and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Inspite of receipt of notice the Petitioner is found
absent, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled. In the circumstances
stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner has got no claim to raise. Thus, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 13th day of June,
2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4383
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1767-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@181@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/181/2013-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2014
Between :
The President,
(Shri Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
H.No.5-295, Indiranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,
Mancherial. Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505209
Karimnagar Dist.
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent
:
M/s. V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate
4384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/181/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 28.1.2014
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Bandari Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler
GDK-5A Inc., SCCo. Ltd., Godavarikhani w.e.f. 17.8.2010 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the
applicant is entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 21/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to file claim statement, either the workman or the representative of the
Petitioner union remained absent. Claim statement was not filed, and there is no representation on behalf of the
Petitioner union to pursue the matter. Inspite of receipt of notice either the Petitioner Union or the workman is found
absent, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the workman has already been settled. In the circumstances
stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner has got no claim to raise. Thus, a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 12th day of
June, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1768-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 94@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@107@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/107/2013-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4385
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 15th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2013
Between :
The President,
(Shri Bandari Satyanarayana),
Telengana Trade Union Council,
Indranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,
Mancherial. Adilabad Dist. – 504208
…Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504 231.
Adilabad Dist.
…Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. S. Bhagawantha Rao & S. Rama Devi, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/107/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 3.9.2013
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Nakka Sailu, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5 Inc., SCCo.
Ltd., Mandamarri Area, SCCo Ltd., Mandamarri Area with effect from 04.01.2001 is justified or not? If not,
to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 94/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The Petitioner workman has filed his claim statement and Respondent also filed their respective counter
statement.
3.
The case stands posted for recording of Petitioner’s evidence.
4.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner workman remained absent and there
is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has
already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner workman has got no claim to raise.
Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 15th day of June,
2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
4386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1769-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
,llhlh,y ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 43@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22013@1@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.07.2017.
[No. L-22013/1/2017-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 43/2009
Between :
Sri Sk. Mahaboob,
S/o Sk. Jani,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Srirampur Area, Srirampur
Adilabad District.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK-7 Incline, Srirampur Area, Srirampur,
Adilabad District
….Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Sk. Mahaboob who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/5545 dated 17.11.2003 issued by Respondent No.1 as
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4387
illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service
duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits
etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed on 27.4.2002 by the Respondents management as Badli Filler. The Petitioner was
unable to bear the hectic weather conditions under the mine and fell sick during the year 2002. While the matters
stood thus, charge sheet dated 3.5.2003 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner
absented for duty during the year 2002, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25.
Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted, and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any
opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated
14.6.2003 was issued to the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s name was removed from services vide office memo No.
SRP/PER/13.008/5545 dated 17.11.2003. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has
categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2002 was only on account of his ill-
health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from
service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is
wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered good service in the
Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the
management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare
the impugned order No. SRP/PER/13.008/5545 dated 17.11.2003 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary
and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly
granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner
was appointed in the Respondents’ company on 27.4.2002 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved
charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of
natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and
the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make
representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and
it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone
through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a
lenient view, and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in
fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to
him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is
justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 27.5.2013.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
support of their claim.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sk. Mahaboob is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to illness the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the
Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account
of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has
taken a stand that due to his illness, he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the
authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment. The authority has not considered any of the
4388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment
are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his
illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained
absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the
enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After
dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He
has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 33 years, he is now aged about 40 years
and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an
able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents,
atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are
enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for more than a year
under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the
condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for
dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in
imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sk. Mahaboob is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Sk. Mahaboob is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a
chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service and has
approached this Tribunal after more than five years. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get
all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’
management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/5545 dated 17.11.2003 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and
is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Sk. Mahaboob be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,
Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the
company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of two years. The management is also
directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman
shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the
management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short
fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will
be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of
attendance during two years of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,
taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be
applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th day of
June, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4389
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1770-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQlhvkbZ
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV okn la[;k 6@2015 (lanHkZ la- 138@97 ds rgr) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-07-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@170@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]
jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 6/2015 (Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad 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 19.07.2017.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33(A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947
COMPLAINT NO. 06/2015
(Arising out of Ref. No. 138/1997)
Ministry Order No. L-22012/170/1996-IR(C-II)
Tripurari Sharan Jamiyar , Ex-manager (D) FCI
…Complainants
Vrs
Executive Director , (E) FCI, 10 A Middleton Row, Kolkata
…Opposite party
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For complainant
:
Shri V. Kumar , Rep
For opposite party
:
Shri O.P. Singh , DGM (G)
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Food
Dated 14/06/2017
AWARD
2.
That this complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 33A and 33 (1) of I.D Act. After receipt of the complaint ,
both parties are noticed. But after appearing for certain dates representative of complainant files a petition and submits
that he does not want to contest the reference and want to withdraw the same. Hence he is permitted to withdraw the
same. Therefore it is felt that the dispute between parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence pass an award of
No.Dispute accordingly.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
4390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1771-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xyiQ
,vj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@48 vkWiQ 2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@9@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/48 of 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Gulf
Air and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-11012/9/2011-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/48 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
GULF AIR
The Commercial Manager (India & Sri Lanka)
Gulf Air
Maker Chambers V, Ground floor
Nariman Point
Mumbai-400 021.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Naresh Yadgiri Kamuni
Room No.5
Bhagirthibai Dadu Pawar Chawl
Waras Lane
Worli Koliwada
Mumbai-400 030.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYERS
:
Mr. G.S. Desai, Advocate
FOR THE UNION
:
Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 9th May, 2017
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/9/2011-IR (CM-I),
dated 30.08.2011 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Gulf Air, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri
Naresh Yadgiri Kamuni, Messenger-cum-Peon by way of retrenchment with effect from 02.03.2010 is legal,
just and proper? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?”
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4391
2.
After receipt of the Reference, notices were served on both the parties. Second party Workman filed his
Statement of Claim vide Ex-7. First party resisted the Statement of claim of Workman by filing their Written Statement
(Ex-8). My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex-10. Thereafter matter was fixed for recording evidence by Workman.
3.
Today both parties appeared before this tribunal along with their respective legal representatives and prayed to
dispose of the Reference as settled in terms of Consent Terms (Ex-18). Orders were passed on Ex-18. Accordingly I
pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference is disposed of in terms of consent terms (Ex-18).
Date: 09.05.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge
Ex-18
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2
Ref. CGIT-2/48 of 2011
BETWEEN :
M/S. GULF AIR COMPANY
AND
THEIR WORKMAN, MR. NARESH KAMUNI
CONSENT TERMS
MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL
The parties above named state and submit as under:
The parties submit that the matters in dispute are amicably settled between the parties on the following terms and
conditions.
1. The first party company agrees to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only)
by way of Cheque No.503462 dt. 6/5/2017 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank to the second party workman
on the date of signing of this consent terms in full and final settlement of all his claims and demands against
the first party company as contained in the Reference (CGIT) no.48 of 2011.
2. The second party workman agrees to accept the above amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the First part company in
full and final settlement of all his dues and claims including but not limited to the claims/ demands made by
him in the above Reference (CGIT) No.48 of 2011.
3. The Second party workman hereby declares that upon receipt of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the First
party company he shall have no claim of whatsoever nature against the first party company and that all his
demands, disputes including but not limited to back wages, bonus , leave salary, gratuity, reinstatement, re-
employment, arrears in wages if any etc. against the first party company have been fully and finally settled and
satisfied.
4. It is agreed that the total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- payable to the second party workman is paid to him towards
his arrears of wages, leave salary, bonus, gratuity etc so as to spread over from the date of termination i.e.
2nd March 2010 till the date of signing this consent terms. Thus, income tax is not required to be payable on
this amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as covered by Section 10 (10) and Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
any other applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961.
5. It is agreed that the amount paid under this consent terms shall not constitute wages for the purpose of
Provident Fund and ESI or other Statutory contribution because the second party workman has not worked and
earned any wages.
4392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. The parties hereby request this Hon’ble Tribunal to dispose of the above Reference as settled in terms of this
Consent Terms.
Signed at Mumbai this 9th day of May, 2017.
For Gulf Air B.S.C. (c)
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Mir Jabir Ali)
(Naresh Y. Kamuni)
Country Manager India
Submitted by:
Sd/-
Sd/-
(G.S. Desai)
(Umesh Nabar)
Adv. for First party Company
Adv. for Second party Workman
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1772-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV
,vjost bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@25 vkWiQ 2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 10-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@6@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/25 of 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Jet
Airways (I) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-11012/6/2008-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/25 of 2008
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED
The General Manager
Jet Airways (India) Limited,
S.M. Centre,
Andheri-Kurla Road,
Mumbai-400 059.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Mr. Rajaram Narayan Gonela,
3rd Kamathipura, Building No. 60,
3rd Lane, Room No. 8,
Mumbai-400 008.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4393
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Ms. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 4th May, 2017
AWARD
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/6/2008-IR (CM-I)
dated 28.04.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services of
Shri Rajaram Narayan Gonela, Loader-cum-cleaner, w.e.f. 26.6.2007 is justified and legal? If not, to what
relief is the concerned workman entitled to ?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party
workman filed her statement of claim at Ex-5.
3.
It appears that second party workman has joined the services of first party company w.e.f. 7.11.1996 on the post
of Loader-cum-cleaner in their Customer Service Department. He has been confirmed in service of the first party
company vide letter dated 16.6.1998. Admittedly he was arrested by airport police on 14.12.2001 on the allegations of
theft of Rs.7000/- from the baggage of one Shri Krishnamoorthy. He was kept in custody for 7 days and thereafter he
was released on bail. He was acquitted by Metropolitan Magistrate Andheri by order dated 28.3.2007 in CC
No. 205/P/2002.
4.
It is the case of concerned workman that during the course of criminal trial his Airport Entry Pass was
confiscated by the airport police station and therefore he could not report for duty after released on bail on 19.12.2001.
After release on bail he had approached Mr. Goplakrishnan, H.R. Administrator of first party company vide his letter
dated 13.12.2001 and narrated the entire facts and also told that he wanted to resume his duty. He requested the first
party company that considering the facts and circumstances he should be paid his wages for the period for which he
was not allowed to resume duties but no reply was given by the company. He along with union office bearers had met
Shri Gopalkrishnan and Mr. Hariharan of the first party company and during the meeting the said executives of the first
party company assured that he can join the duty only after the case is over and / or the police returns the Airport Entry
Pass and till that time the second party workman shall be paid wages. He was paid his wages till April 2003 but since
police has not returned Airport Entry Pass, first party company was not prepared to take him back on duty without such
pass and therefore he had no option but to wait till criminal trial is over. After the trial he was acquitted and then he
approached the first party company with the letter dated 14.3.2007 and requested them to allow him to resume his
duties but the same was not considered by the first party company.
5.
According to the concerned workman, he was issued with charge-sheet dated 23.2.2007 by the first party
company. In the charge-sheet, the management has alleged the charge of habitual absence without leave or absence
without leave for more than 10 consecutive days or over-staying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds and
commission of act of subversive of discipline or good behavior. As per the charge-sheet the concerned workman was
allegedly remained absent unauthorisedly without any sanction or permission of his supervisor w.e.f. 12.12.2001. The
enquiry was conducted.
6.
According to the concerned workman, the Inquiry officer has not given opportunity to the concerned workman
to defend the charges. The management has not given him list of witnesses and the documents along with charge-
sheet. The Inquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry in the language known to him. The witnesses examined by
the first party company have not been offered for cross-examination by the concerned workman. He was not paid the
subsistence allowances during the pendency of disciplinary action. As such the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry
Officer is not fair & proper. The findings of the Inquiry officer are perverse. The non-payment of subsistence
allowance during the course of enquiry amounts to illegal enquiry. The Inquiry officer has totally ignored the evidence
of second party workman. He was not allowed to bring his witnesses in the enquiry. He was not given reasonable
chance to defend the charges in the enquiry and therefore the punishment of terminating his service by way of dismissal
by the management is disproportionate punishment. Therefore, the dispute was raised before the Conciliation officer.
Conciliation failed and the matter has been referred for adjudication. The concerned workman is therefore asking to
declare that the action of management in terminating his services is improper, illegal and amounts to unfair labour
practices and to quash and set aside the dismissal order dated 26.6.2007 and to reinstate him with continuity of service
and back wages.
4394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
First party company resisted statement of claim by filing the written statement (Ex.7). It is the contention of the
first party company that the concerned workman did not take steps to recover the Airport Entry Pass which was seized
by the Airport police. Since his arrest the workman remained absent from duty in an unauthorized manner. The
competent authority therefore initiated disciplinary proceedings against the workman. Charge-sheet dated 23.2.2007
was issued to the workman. The workman replied the same. The competent authority was not satisfied with his reply
and the departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman. The workman fully participated in the departmental
enquiry through defence representative of his choice. Inquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance
with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted in Marathi. The workman has recorded his no
objection for recording the proceedings of the enquiry in English for administrative convenience. However, the Inquiry
officer explained the procedure of enquiry to the workman. He explained the contents of each day proceedings to the
concerned workman in Marathi. The workman signed the enquiry proceedings after the contents of the same were
explained to him in Marathi. Copies of the documents relied upon by the management were duly supplied to him. The
management examined 3 witnesses in presence of workman and his defence representative. Inquiry officer offered the
said witnesses for cross-examination by the workman and his defence representative. However, they declared not to
cross-examine any of the witnesses. The workman recorded his statement before the Inquiry officer by giving the same
in his writing. In the cross-examination the workman has admitted all the facts. He has admitted that the management
had not issued to him any letter preventing him from reporting from duty. He admitted that he did not take steps to
recover the Airport Entry Pass from police. After cross-examination the workman and his defence representative
declared that they did not want to examine any further witnesses. So according to the management the action of
management is fully consonance and in accordance with the principles of law, equity and good conscience.
8.
It is contention of the management that the punishment imposed upon the workman is bonafide and in
accordance with the well settled principles of law and principles of natural justice. Every opportunity was given to the
workman in taking disciplinary action against him. As such the charges leveled against the workman are duly proved
by cogent and relied evidence. The findings of the report of the Inquiry officer are proper. The management has
sought the rejection of the reference.
9.
Following issues were framed at Ex.8. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the inquiry by the management of Jet
Airways (India) Ltd., Mumbai against Shri Rajaram
Narayan Gonela, Loader-cum-cleaner, is fair and
proper?
Yes
2.
If yes, whether the punishment of dismissing Shri
Rajaram Narayan Gonela, from the service is
adequate ?
Yes
3.
What relief the workman is entitled to ?
As per final order
4.
What order ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issue No.1 & 2 :
10.
At the outset, it may be stated that the concerned workman has filed affidavit Ex.11 but remained absent and he
was not available for cross examination. No cross order is passed and the evidence of the workman stood closed as per
the order on Ex.11. Thereafter the management has filed affidavit of one Tejashri Kumar, Dy. General Manager [H.R.]
with the management but the concerned workman remained absent. His advocate has withdrawn his Vakalatnama
hence there was no cross to management witness on behalf of the concerned workman. As such the evidence of the
management has gone unchallenged. As such there is no evidence on behalf of the concerned workman to substantiate
his claim and to prove that the enquiry was not fair and proper and that no sufficient opportunity was given to him to
defend himself.
11.
On the contrary, evidence of the management witness has gone unchallenged which clearly shows that there
were numerous complaints against the concerned workman and ultimately he was arrested by the police on 14.12.2001
for theft of Rs.7000/- from the baggage of one Shri Krishnamoorthy. Admittedly, he was in custody for about 7 days
and released on bail on 19.12.2001. Admittedly since 19.12.2001 he remained absent on duty. He did not make efforts
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4395
for obtaining Airport Entry Pass from the concerned police station. It is also clear from the evidence of the
management that concerned workman remained absent from duty in an unauthorized manner and therefore the enquiry
was conducted wherein full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend himself through his defence
representative and even the proceedings of the enquiry were explained to him in Marathi and he signed the enquiry
proceedings only after the contents of the same were explained to him in Marathi.
12.
Even it appears from the evidence of the management that during enquiry proceedings management has
examined 3 witnesses in presence of the concerned workman and his defence representative and the witnesses were
offered for cross examination by the concerned workman and his defence representative but they declared not to cross
examine him. It appears that during the enquiry proceedings the concerned workman has admitted that he did not make
enquiry as to how to obtain the Airport Entry Pass. Considering his admission during the enquiry proceedings, the
Inquiry officer held him guilty of charges leveled against him and submitted the report and findings to the competent
authority. The competent authority after going through material on record imposed punishment of dismissal upon the
workman.
13.
So from the evidence of the management, it is clear that the action of the management is fully in accordance
with the principle of law. The full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend himself and then in view
of admission by himself the findings of the Inquiry officer are based. So the findings of the Inquiry Officer are
certainly based on evidence.
14.
Learned Counsel for the management submitted that the affidavit of concerned workman cannot be read in
evidence as he did not offer himself for cross examination. Submission is to the effect that the evidence produced by
the management documentary as well as oral is completely unchallenged.
15.
Next submission of the Learned Counsel for the management is that the acquittal of the concerned workman in
criminal trial conducted against him will not give any immunity to concerned workman. The departmental enquiry
against the concerned workman was held on different charges which is in respect of absenteeism and those charges
have been proved by the management.
16.
Learned Counsel for the management refers to the copies of the enquiry proceedings at Pg. 126 to submit that
the charge-sheet was issued to the workman and he replied the said. The enquiry was conducted in Marathi and was
recorded in English for administrative convenience. The Inquiry officer explained the procedure of enquiry to the
workman. The workman has not raised any grievance in that respect. He has signed each and every page of enquiry
proceedings in token of having knowledge of contents of the proceedings. Copies of documents were supplied to the
workman. Management examined the witnesses and Inquiry officer offered the said witnesses for cross-examination
by the workman. Workman admitted that he did not take steps to recover his Airport Entry Pass from the police. So on
the basis of enquiry proceedings, the submission is that the enquiry was fair & proper and findings of the Inquiry
officer are based on evidence.
17.
As regards the punishment imposed upon the concerned workman, it is submitted that the punishment is proper
which has been imposed by the competent authority after considering the entire record and the antedance of the
concerned workman. The employer is certainly required to take all the reasonable steps to maintain the discipline in its
Organisation and in view of that the punishment has been imposed which needs no interference.
18.
In my considered view, considering all these facts, I find that the enquiry held against the concerned workman
Shri Rajaram Narayan Gonela is fair and proper. Findings are not perverse and in view of this even the punishment of
dismissing the concerned workman is proportionate to his misconduct. Both the above issues are therefore answered
accordingly as indicated against each of which in terms of above observations.
Issue No. 3 & 4 :
19.
In view of my findings to the above issues, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is liable to
be rejected. Thus the order.
ORDER
The reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 04/05/2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1773-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
4396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 175@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-07-2017 dks
çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@59@1998&vkbZvkj (lh &I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 175/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ONGC
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-30012/59/1998-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 27th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 175/2004
In
Reference (ITC) No. 76/1999
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s.
Workmen employed under it
Through General Secretary,
Gujarat Labour Union,
3/24, Ellora Commercial Center,
B/h. Relief Cinema, Ahmedabad
…Second Party
For the First Party :
Shri K.V. Gadhia & Shri M.K. Patel
For the Second Party :
Shri H.K. Acharya
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/59/98-IR(C-I)
dated 15.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Kya Gujarat Labour Union ka Manna ki ONGC Ltd. ke Ahmedabad Project ke antargat Serthastith
canteen mines adhiniyam, 1952 ke antargat ek statutory canteen hai, sahi hai?
Yadi ha to union ki yeh mang ki Shri Baldev T. Parmarevam suchi me paye gaye anya Karmkaro ko ONGC
ka siddha Karmakar Mana jaye, nyayochit hai?
Yadi ha to sambandhit karmakar kis rahat ke patra hai?”
From the above terms of reference it is transpired that the Ministry has referred the Reference concerning 15
workers.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4397
1.
The reference dates back to 15.03.1999. After the reference sent by the Appropriate Government the Tribunal
issued notices vide Exh-2 to the respective parties and in pursuance to the same parties to the reference appeared before
the Tribunal and filed their pleadings. Vide Exh-26 the Union has filed the Statement of Claims and IR Application
vide Exh-9. It is pertinent to note that the said IR Application was signed by only four workers whereas Statement of
Claims was signed by Nine Workers. The union has filed the appearance/Vakalatpatra vide Exh-7. The said
Vakalatpatra was also signed by only four workers. The Tribunal has initially granted the Interim Relief which was
subsequently not pressed by the advocate of the union on 09.01.2001. The union has filed another vakalatpatra vide
Exh-25 which contains the signature of Nine workers. In the statement of claims the union has stated that the concerned
workers were started work in the canteen firstly with contractor one Hirabhai Thakorbhai and thereafter Y.K. Patil was
substituted as the contractor. These workmen have been working under the said contractor. Earlier they also filed the
SCA 1966/1996 and LPA 589/1996 wherein the Hon'ble High court directed the second party to approach the Labour
Machinery under the I.D. Act and accordingly they raised the present dispute. They have stated that the first party has
closed down the canteen at Sertha. They have further stated that the Mines Act is applicable to the Sertha project and to
run the canteen facility is an obligatory duty. It is also stated that material is brought from outside to CMP Saij and the
same is sent to different wells by pipeline. It is averred that considering the process carried out, the said project is
covered under the Mines as well as the Factories Act. In these circumstances, the Union has prayed for wages with all
emoluments at par with the wages paid to Class 4 employees of ONG. It is also alleged that despite of change in
contractors from time to time, the concerned persons/workmen were permitted to continue in the said canteens. The
union has further stated that supervision, maintenance and repair of the canteen is carried out by ONGC. It is also stated
that the company is under obligation to provide canteen facility to its employees and it is part and parcel for efficient
working of the ONGC. It is also stated that the workers working in canteen are under direct control and supervision of
the ONGC and they are working continuously since long. The Union has further alleged that the ONGC appointed a
Committee to look after the work of the canteen and that the employees of ONGC could complaint against the working
of the canteen and the committee was empowered to take steps against the contractor. The second party has also stated
that furniture, appliances utensils etc. was provided by the ONGC. In short the Union has tried to establish that the
canteen was mandatory as per the provisions of the Act, the premises belong to ONGC, the supervision and control on
the same was of ONGC and the facilities were also provided by ONGC. The union has also relied upon various
decisions in the Statement of Claims. Surprisingly there is no prayer clause in the statement of claims.
2.
The ONGC has appeared filed its Written Statement vide Exh- 35 and denied the averments made in the
Statement of Claims. The ONGC has also stated that the terms of reference are vague and that the reference is barred
by delay and latches. The ONGC has also stated that it is not obligatory on the ONGC to run the canteen but by virtue
of SCA no. 1966/1996 and thereafter LPA No. 589/1996, preferred by the Second party and subsequent stay granted by
the Tribunal, the ONGC had no alternative but to continue with the facilities of canteen. The ONGC has further stated
that ONGC is governed by the Mines Act, 1952 and there is no provision under the Mines Act to provide canteen to its
Employees. It is further submitted that the Chief Inspector of Mines as required under the Mines rules has never
notified to the ONGC to have a canteen at Shertha. Hence there is no statutory and obligatory duty of the ONGC to run
canteen at Shertha. The ONGC has also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India vs. State
Bank of India Canteen Employees Union in support of its submissions. The ONGC has further stated that it is bound to
follow the procedure laid down in the Regulations for making regular recruitment and since such procedure is not
followed in the instant case, no relief can be granted to second party. In this premise, the ONGC has prayed for
rejection of the Reference.
3.
In the present proceedings, the Second party has examined one of the concerned persons namely Mr. Subhash
Ellapa vide Exh. 40. In the chief examination he has stated he was working since last 11 years as a Cook and was
getting Rs. 600/- p.m. he has also stated that his work was supervised by the member of ONGC Committee and that he
had to work as per the instructions of the ONGC. It is also stated that he had to take leave from ONGC and salary was
paid by officers of the ONGC. He has also stated that Identity card and attendance card were not given. It is also stated
that there are around 800-1000 employees in the field and there is no canteen facility in the field or in the village. The
premises of the canteen are of the ONGC and the rates of snacks etc. are also decided by ONGC. Furniture, light, gas
supply etc. are also provided by the ONGC. He has mentioned the nature of work of each concerned workman. He has
also stated that certain workers have been regularized in Chandkheda, Baroda, Ankleshwar and Mehsana. He has lastly
stated that they have prayed for permanency/ regularisation in ONGC canteen.
4.
In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that One of the orders has been challenged and the same is
stayed. He has also admitted that they had also approached the Hon'ble High Court but he is not aware of the outcome
of the same. He has admitted that he does not know the date of joining and educational qualifications of the each and
every other person/workmen and he does not have any proof thereof. He has admitted that the ONGC has never given
any show cause notice to them. He has also admitted that he was not given any appointment letter and that he has
never visited canteens situated at Mehsana, Baroda and Ankleshwar. No other witness was examined by the second
party union.
4398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The First Party has examined one witness vide Exh. - 44 namely, Subhash B. Burman. In chief examination, he
has stated that he is working with ONGC from 05.09.78. He has stated that he is working at Ahmedabad from Aug. -
1999 as Dy. Manager (P & A). He has stated that the workers working in the Saij Canteen have neither been employed
nor were paid by the ONGC. He also stated that Mines Act and Factories Act are not applicable to the ONGC. He has
further stated that Chief Inspector of Mines has not given any instructions to provide canteen facilities. He has also
stated that there is a recruitment policy to appoint any employee in ONGC and the concerned persons were not
appointed as per the said policy.
In the cross examination, the witness has stated that there are 2 sections in ONGC, Saij and officers of ONGC,
Chandkheda also used to visit the said place. He has admitted that the premises of canteen belong to ONGC and
furniture etc. is also of ONGC. He also admitted that normally the employees of ONGC use the canteen facilities.
However, he has stated that tea-snacks- lunch etc. is provided in the canteen and the rates of the same are decided by
the contractor. He has also denied that there are no recruitment rules for class-IV employees in ONGC and stated that
the said rules are in place since the inception of the ONGC. Thus it may be inferred that the said persons were being
never appointed or paid by the ONGC. The averments regarding non-applicability of the Factories Act and no
instructions being given by Chief Inspector, Mines etc. are not controverted in the cross-examination, therefore, the
same are to be believed to be true.
6.
During the proceedings subsequent to oral evidence by the first party, an application was moved by the First
Party vide Exh. - 51 ineralia stating that there have been new developments in the matter after the deposition of the
witness. It is further stated in the said application that considering the new developments, Affidavit at Mark 51/1 be
taken on record and alternatively prayed for reopening the stage of chief examination of the said witness. The said
application was opposed by the union and after hearing the parties, my Predecessor has allowed the application at Exh.
- 51 and ordered to take the Affidavit Mark 51/1 on record. The Union was also given opportunity to cross examine the
said witness on addendum affidavit vide order dated; - 22/01/2004. The said order has not been challenged and
therefore has attained finality. Accordingly, the said affidavit is taken on record. However, from the record it transpires
that the union has chosen not to cross examine the witness on further affidavit. In these circumstances, the averments
made in the affidavit are to be believed to be true. In essence, after giving the history of previous litigation, the witness
has stated that at present i.e. in 2003 only 4 persons namely Baldev T. Parmar, Rajesh G. Saini, Suresh K. Gohil and
Poonambhai G. Parmar are there and they are running their own business in the canteen. It is also stated on oath that
no other person is working in the said canteen. Therefore the witness prayed for deletion of names of other persons
concerned in the reference.
As against this, the union has also through Mr. Baldev T. Parmar, concerned person filed an Affidavit dated
21.07.2004. In the said affidavit also, the said person has stated that only four above named persons are interested in the
proceedings. He has further stated that the prayers made in the Statement of Claims are not pressed qua remaining
employees. The said worker also requested to delete the names of other persons from the reference.
Thus considering the Affidavits of both the sides, it is crystal clear that no other person is interested in the
present litigation as they are not working at the said canteen anymore since more than a decade. Subsequent to filing of
the above affidavits also, no person has turned up in the Tribunal stating that he is interested in the proceedings.
Therefore, this Tribunal hereby rejects the reference qua rest of the 11 employees mentioned in list attached to the
Terms of Reference. In other words, the Tribunal has to decide the matter only qua 4 employees namely Baldev T.
Parmar, Rajesh G. Saini, Suresh K. Gohil and Poonambhai G. Parmar in light of the Terms of reference.
7.
The ONGC has subsequently filed its Legal Submissions in the matter dated: - 13/04/2005. From the record it is
transpired that neither the Union nor the concerned 4 persons have since come forward to conduct the matter further
and the same has been pending at the stage of Arguments for more than 12 years now. Only on one occasion in 2009,
vide Exh. - 54, the representative of the second party has filed an application to take up the matter on board to enable
him to submit a Judgment/ Citation. Except for the said judgment without any arguments/submissions the Second party
has not shown any interest in the matter since 2004. Therefore as such the reference is required to be dismissed for
default on this ground alone considering that the concerned persons are not interested in the matter. However this
tribunal considering the record is proceeding to decide the matter on merits.
8.
The tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the terms of reference as sent by the appropriate government. In the
present matter, the issues that fall for consideration are
i.
Whether the Canteen at Saij- Shertha is a Statutory Canteen under the Mines Act?
ii.
If yes, whether the workers mentioned in the Schedule along with Mr. Baldev Parmar are entitled to be
considered as direct workers of ONGC?
iii.
If yes, what relief they are entitled to?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4399
Before adverting to the issues, it is held that as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the present reference in
light of Affidavits mentioned in paragraph 6 above, the Reference is rejected qua 11 workers except Baldev T. Parmar,
Rajesh G. Saini, Suresh K. Gohil and Poonambhai G. Parmar. Now the tribunal proceeds to decide the reference qua
these 4 persons.
8.1
Issue I
What can be inferred from the Terms of reference is that the Tribunal has to first decide on whether the Canteen
is a Statutory Canteen under the Mines Act. If the answer to that is in the affirmative, then only the tribunal has to
decide the remaining two terms.
Now, as discussed above, the union in its Statement of Claims has averred that the Canteen is a Statutory
Canteen under the Mines Act, the premises belongs to the ONGC, the committee formed by the ONCG decides on the
food etc. as well as the rates of food etc. However, the union has not produced any documentary evidence to
substantiate their averment regarding the same being a Statutory Canteen under the Mines Act. Even if the Oral
evidence of the union is examined, the said fact has not been proved by the Union. Moreover, no arguments are
advanced in this behalf or no Instructions from the Competent Authority are produced on record to show that the
Canteen is a Statutory Canteen under the Mines Act. On the other hand, the ONGC has categorically stated that the
Factories Act is not applicable to the ONGC. However, Mines Act is applicable to the ONGC. Moreover, the ONGC
has stated in its Written Statement as well as Legal submissions that the same is not a statutory canteen and no
instruction has been received from the Chief Inspector, Mines for canteen at any point in time. The witness of the
ONGC has also averred the same on oath in his chief-examination. As stated above, the said fact is not controverted in
the cross-examination by the sole witness produced by second party. Therefore the same is to be believed to be true.
Thus, there is no instruction or written proof that would prove that the canteen was a statutory canteen. Moreover, as
per Sec. 58 of the Mines Act, the Central Government has powers to make Rules regarding various aspects. Now if we
look at the Mines Rules, 1955, more particularly, Rule 64, the said rule clearly suggests that only in case the Chief
Inspector or the Inspector so requires, then only canteen is to be maintained. In the present case, there is no proof that
such instructions are given. On the contrary as per the uncontroverted affidavit, no such instructions are given.
Moreover, as per the addendum affidavit of the First Party, the above 4 persons are running the canteen independently
as a business. Therefore I answer the first issue accordingly that canteen was not run by ONGC and hold that the
canteen at Saij - Shertha is not a statutory canteen under the Mines Act.
8.2
Issue II
Now having answered the first issue in negative, as such the tribunal need not go into the Second and third Issue
as the same come into play only if the answer of the first issue is in the affirmative. However, as stated above, only one
person has been examined by the second party in the matter. Now subsequently the reference is sought to be withdrawn
qua the said person and other 10 persons. Therefore the reference qua the said person stands withdrawn. Moreover,
none of the above 4 persons have entered into witness box. Therefore on this ground alone, the concerned persons are
not entitled to be treated as Class-4 employees of the ONGC.
Even otherwise, if the evidence of the said person is examined, he has admitted in his cross examination that no
appointment letter is given by the ONGC. He has also admitted that he does not know the date of joining or educational
qualification of other persons. As against that the witness of the ONCG has stated on oath that there are Recruitment
rules for appointment of any person and the concerned persons have not undergone the said process. In the cross-
examination also, he has stated that such recruitment rules for Class IV employees are also in place since inception.
The second party has even otherwise not put anything on record to show that they are doing work similar to regular
employees or they have undergone the recruitment process or their names were called from the employment exchange
or they are subject to any disciplinary action. On the contrary the above workman also stated that no show cause notice
is given by the ONGC to any of the concerned workers. Thus the concerned persons have failed to prove that they are
similarly situated and therefore, are entitled for permanency or regularisation. Moreover, as per affidavit of second
party, no contract is going on and the above 4 persons are now running the canteen on their own as businessmen. The
First party has also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (2) CLR 241 and 2007 (3)
CLR 690 wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Court that workers working in canteen which is not a statutory canteen are
not employees of the Principal Employer. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court is squarely applicable in the present
case. Moreover, in a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (3) CLR 751, the Hon'ble Court has
held that although there exists some degree of control and supervision on workers of statutory canteen, the said workers
are not entitled for regularization. I have also gone through the Judgment cited by the Second Party in Hindalco
Industries Ltd. v/s Association of Engineering Workers, 2008LLR509 but the said judgment is given in case of a
statutory canteen and the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case. Moreover the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has subsequently decided a similar issue in State Bank of India V/s State Bank of India Canteen
Employees Union 2000 II CLR 241 wherein it is observed as under:
4400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“It is admitted position that in law if there is an obligation to provide a canteen, the employees working in the
canteen would be employees of the Bank, and if not, the employees working in the canteen may not become part of the
establishment.
With reference to Sastri Award it is observed as follows –
This would not mean that paragraph 609 of the Award cast any obligation that amenities, such as canteen, club-
house payment of taxes etc. must be provided by the bank. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any part
of the award which makes it obligatory for the bank to provide canteen facilities by running a canteen.
Referring to Hand Book on the Staff Welfare Activities prepared by State Bank of India it is observed as
follows:
This would also indicate that there was no obligation on the part of the bank to provide canteen facilities to its
staff; otherwise staff federation would not have settled the appeal against Justice Moidu Award, which was pending
before this Court, on the basis of settlements. Further, it cannot be said that an outsider who is not employed by the
bank, but who is working in the canteen run by the LIC can claim that he is discriminated. Discrimination between two
equals may arise in case where employees are appointed by the bank.
There is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteens by the bank. The scheme only provides for
grant of subsidy, for promoting running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred in running the canteen, the
members of the staff working in that particular branch are required to bear it. The bank is not employing the canteen
workers. The bank is not supervising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees
appointed by the Local Implementation Committee. Auditing the work of Local Implementation Committee - whether
subsidy given it is properly utilized or not, also would not be a ground for holding that bank is having any control in
running the canteen. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any canteen employees to do a particular
work or for that purpose no scheme is laid down by the bank. Not only this, the other most important aspect is ‘the
recruitment’ by the bank is to be made as per the statutory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisement, test
and/or interview. As against this, for appointing a canteen employees there are no rules framed by the bank.”
Therefore the said judgment is not helpful to the Second party.
Thus considering the facts of the present case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that
the concerned persons are not entitled to get permanency benefits as Class-IV Employees of ONGC.
8.3
Issue III
Now in light of the fact that the Issue No. I and II are decided in negative, I hold that the concerned persons are
not entitled to any relief. Moreover considering the fact that the above case has been pending for almost 20 years and
the said persons have not shown any interest to conduct the matter since 2004 also, the said persons are not entitled to
any relief.
9.
Thus the reference is dismissed and the workmen who pressed/contested the reference are not entitled to any
relief.
10.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1774-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV
,vjost bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 260@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 10-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@116@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 260/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Jet
Airways (I) Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-11012/116/1999-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4401
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 20th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 260/2004
The Director,
Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,
S.M. Center, Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat,
Shram Shakti, P.B. No. 77, Opposite Prabhat Press,
Mirjapur Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri P.H. Thakkar
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/116/99-
IR(C-I) dated 20.01.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat against Jet Airways for to get regular/permanent status
to Vinod B. Parmar and other 9 workers from their date of joining and also the demand for to get salary to these
workers equal to others permanent workers, is fair and justified? If so, then, whether it is legal to terminate the
services of aforesaid workers w.e.f. various dates in 1998? If not, then, what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 20.01.2000.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 30.03.2000
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 24.02.2000. Since then the second party has been absent and
has not preferred to lead evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities. Thus it appears that the second party
workman has not been willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat against Jet Airways for to get regular/permanent status to Vinod
B. Parmar and other 9 workers from their date of joining and also the demand for to get salary to these workers equal to
others permanent workers, is unfair and unjustified.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1775-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;u
,vjykbZUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 833@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-
07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11012@65@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
4402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 833/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Indian
Airlines and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-11012/65/2003-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 22nd February, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 833/2004
The General Manager,
M/s Indian Airlines,
New Engineering Complex,
Sahaar, Ville Parle (East),
Mumbai
…First Party
V/s
Shri Bharat Ratansinh Baria,
At & PO Saniyada,
Tal Gogamada,
Panchmahalasa (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : None
For the Second Party : Shri P. Chidambaran
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
11012/65/2003-IR(C-I) dated 14.01.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Airlines in terminating the services of Shri Bharat
Ratansinh Baria, Helper (commercial) w.e.f. 08.12.1999, reappointing him in the said post w.e.f. 28.03.2000
on probation and again terminating his services w.e.f. 21.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 14.01.2004. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on
22/26.04.2004 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 16.02.2005. Since then the second party has
not been leading evidence. On 28.03.2016, advocate Shri Sanjay Vaghela for the second party moved an application
Ex. 19 seeking adjournment on the ground that he is enable to file the affidavit/examination-in-chief of the workman
due to unavoidable circumstances, same was granted and the case was listed for evidence on 28.07.2016. On
28.07.2016 and thereafter on 03.10.2016 and 21.12.2016 and also today on 22.02.2017, the second party workman has
failed to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party workman has no willingness to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the action of the management of Indian Airlines in terminating the services of Shri Bharat Ratansinh Baria,
Helper (commercial) w.e.f. 08.12.1999, reappointing him in the said post w.e.f. 28.03.2000 on probation and again
terminating his services w.e.f. 21.11.2000 is legal, proper and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4403
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1776-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr
bysDVªkWfuDl fyfeVsM] vè;{k vkSj izca/ funs'kd (lh,eMh)] cSaxyksj ds ekè;e ls dkWiksZjsV dk;kZy; o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds
çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k 28@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-07-2017 dks çkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@13@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 28/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Bharat Electronics Limited, Corporate Office through Chairman and Managing Director (C.M.D.), Bangalore &
others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 19.07.2017.
[No. L-14011/13/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 28/2015
Registered on 27.01.2016
Bharat Electronics Workers Union (Negotiating Trade Union)
through General Secretary Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
C/o Bharat Electronics Limited, Plot No.405,
Industrial area, Phase-III, Panchkula (Haryana)-134113
…Petitioner
Versus
1.
Bharat Electronics Limited, Corporate Office through
Chairman and Managing Director(C.M.D.),
Outer ring road, Nagawara, Bangalore-560045.
2.
Bharat electronics Limited, Panchkula Unit through
General Manager, Plot No.405, Industrial area,
Phase-III, Panchkula(Haryana)-134113.
3.
Sh. Anil Kumar Lal, (Former Chairman and
Managing Director (C.M.D.), Bharat Electronics Limited,
Corporate (Office) through General Manager, Plot No.405,
Industrial Area, Phase-III, Panchkula(Haryana)-134113
(deleted vide Order dated 03.07.2017)
…Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Sumit Jain counsel
For the Management
:
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi and Sh. P.K. Mutneja Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 03.07.2017
Vide Order No.L-14011/13/2013-IR(DU), dated 01.02.2016 the Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
4404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. Panchkula in transferring 15 workmen as
annexed from Panchkula Unit to other units is just, fair, correct and legal? If not, to what relief these
workmen are entitled to?”
1.
Sh. Anil Kumar Lal, impleaded as respondent in the claim petition was not a party in the reference made by the
Government and therefore, his name is deleted from the array of respondents.
2.
In response to the notice, the workmen-Union and the management appeared and filed statement of claim and
written statement.
3.
The facts, emerging, are that Bharat Electronics Limited (hereinafter referred as BEL) i.e. Respondent No.1 is a
Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Defence with its Head Office at Bangalore and have nine
manufacturing units spread all over the country including the Unit at Panchkula. The Panchkula Unit was set up in
1984. The basic purpose of Bharat Electronics Limited is to meet the emerging strategic needs of defence forces and is
engaged in design, development, manufacture and supply of equipment and systems in the area of communication,
radar, fire control system etc. Since it is a sensitive work, it requires high degree of skilled manpower.
4.
It is pleaded in the claim petition that 15 employees were transferred from Panchkula unit to Chennai,
Ghaziabad, Machilpatnam and Navi Mumbai vide transfer order No.17556/IUT/HOA dated 26/6/2013 as find mention
in Annexure W2 which read as follows:-
Sl. No.
Name, Staff No. (Sh./Smt.)
Designation
From
Transferred to
Report to
1
Shamsher Singh NE-
208989
Accountant
PK
CHN Unit
GM (CHN)
2
Naresh Sachdeva NE-
206547
Sr. MM Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
3
Suresh Kumar NE-207163
Sr. Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
4
Roshan Lal NE-208136
Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
5
Pawan Kumar NE-207958
Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
6
Mukesh NE-208131
Technical
Assistsant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
7
Balwan Singh NE-208448
Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
8
Pawan Kumar NE-207706
Sr. Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
9
Rajinder Kumar NE-
207692
Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
10
Pawan Kumar NE-208116
Technical
Assistant
PK
MC Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
11
Jai Bhagwan NE-208114
Technical
Assistsant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
12
Kuldeep sinhh NE-207726
Project D’S Man
PK
CHN Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
13
Surinder KumarNE-
208137
Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
14
Sunil Kumar gupta NE-
206887
Sr. Project D’S
Man
PK
NAMU Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
15
Vijender Singh NE-
207062
Sr. Technical
Assistant
PK
GAD Unit
GM
(RADAR)/GAD
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4405
5.
It is further pleaded that since the inception of the company in 1954, no workman was transferred from one unit
to other unit except after obtaining willingness or internal advertisement and similarly no transfer took place from the
Panchkula Unit since the year 1984.
6.
The workmen-Union raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, where the management
appeared but no conciliation took place. The Union filed Civil Writ Petition No.16656 of 2013 before the Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court and the operation of transfer order was stayed vide order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure
W6). The Bharat Electronics Limited filed LPA No.1552 of 2013 but the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High
Court vide order 1.10.2013 (Annexure W7).
7.
The Central Government made the following reference vide order dated 22.10.2013 –
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Electronics limited, Panchkula in transferring 15
workmen as annexed from Panchkula Unit to other units without any transfer policy is just, fair and
legal? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to”
8.
The BEL challenged the said reference by filing Civil Writ Petition No.111 of 2014 which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 9.1.2014 (Annexure W8).
9.
The B.E.L filed LPA No.590 of 2014 which was allowed vide order dated 16.9.2015 (Annexure W9) with the
following observation –
“Consequently, we hold that the reference as framed is contrary to the standing orders and therefore, not
tenable. The reference is set aside but with liberty to the “appropriate Government (Government of
India, Ministry of Labour)”, to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering the
grievance of the workmen, which in our prima facie opinion may relate to the nature of the transfer
orders and not to the absence of a policy and also objections, if any, that may be raised by the appellants,
within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. During this period,
transfer orders shall remain in abeyance. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is
allowed in the above terms.”
10.
Thereafter, the parties submitted their representations before the Labour Commissioner who sent a failure report
on 11.01.2016. It was further pleaded that without waiting the final decision of the appropriate Government, the
management issued a Relieving Memo dated 28.11.2015, relieving the transferred employees on the ground that six
weeks period given by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 16.9.2015 in LPA No.590 of 2014 has already expired.
11.
The Union again filed Civil Writ Petition No.25804 of 2015 challenging the relieving memo dated 28.11.2015
and the same was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure W14) and the workmen
joined back on 14.12.2015.
12.
It is pleaded that the Writ Petition No.25804 of 2014 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Judgment
dated 6.5.2016 (Annexure W-16) and management again issued Relieving Memo dated 11.5.2016 (Annexure W17).
13.
The workmen-Union filed LPA No.840 of 2016 against the said judgment which was dismissed vide order dated
18.5.2016 (Annexure W-17) holding that the observations made in the above said judgment would not impinge upon the
jurisdictional competence of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
14.
The 11 workmen out of the 15 workmen joined at their respective transferred places conditionally.
15.
The Union filed SLP No.24606 of 2016 (Annexure W20) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct
to decide the reference within four months.
16.
The transfer orders have been challenged on the ground that there are no rules for inter-unit transfer of the non-
executive employees as well, no workman was transferred from one unit to another Unit by the company except taking
willingness or internal advertisement. That no transfer took place from the Panchkula Unit since its inception in the
year 1984. But the present transfers have been made without issuing any internal advertisement or asking for
willingness from the employees transferred. It is further pleaded that no vacancy has arisen in any of the units to which
the employees were transferred. The workmen have been meted out with discrimination and arbitrary treatment. It is
further pleaded that there was no ‘exigency’ involved in ordering the transfer of the 15 workmen and pleaded in para 15
of the statement of claim mentioning the numbers of the workforce already working in Chennai, Ghaziabad,
Machlipatnam and Navi Mumbai Units and there was no requirement of the employees who were transferred there.
17.
It is alleged that Sh. Anil Kumar (who retired on 31.12.2013), was the Chairman and Managing Director of the
company, was earlier posted at Panchkula for about 17 years in different capacities and during his posting at Panchkula
in 1989, he has established manufacturing units under the name and style of “Box Strapping” and “Design engineering
Analysis Group” and was supplying inferior quality material to the Unit regarding which the matter was agitated by the
4406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
transferred employees; and to settle the scores, he transferred the employees just prior to his retirement. That the
management indulged in unfair labour practice in transferring the employees and the Court is required to lift the veil to
see whether the transfers were mala fide.
18.
It is also pleaded that the transfer of employees from one unit to another unit tantamount to change of service
conditions which cannot be done.
19.
Considering all these circumstances, the transfer of the employees be cancelled and the reference be answered in
favour of the Union.
20.
The management in its written statement controverted the allegations and pleaded that condition of “Transfer” is
clearly mentioned in the Standing Orders of the Panchkula Unit and the same also finds mention in the appointment
letters issued to the transferred workmen. It is further pleaded that the workmen-Union entered into the settlement
dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure R3) which inter alia provides that the existing manpower can be utilised by redeploying and
retraining of the workmen whenever is required. This settlement is still in force which was done at the national level
and all the Units of the Company signed it. It is further pleaded that a meeting of Joint Standing Committee was held
on 13.5.2013(Annexure R-4)at Corporate Office, Bangalore and in which Rajesh Kumar, the present representative of
the workmen Union was present, and it was specifically told by CMD that the Panchkula Unit has not done well and the
employees are to be transferred depending on the work requirement in the other units and no objection was raised to the
minutes’ of the said meeting.
21.
In view of the Standing Orders, appointment letter, settlement dated 19.5.2010 between the parties and the
minutes of the meeting dated 13.5.2013, the company had the right to transfer the employees which is an incidence of
service and it is for the management to see how the manpower is to be used and the courts cannot interfere in the
transfer orders. It is further pleaded that transfers were made in the ‘exigencies of the service’ which is to be seen by
the employer and the Court cannot substitute its views on the orders of transfer.
22.
Parties were given opportunity to lead its evidence.
23.
In support of the case, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, General Secretary of the Union appeared in the witness box and filed
his affidavit Exhibit P1 reiterating the stand taken in the claim statement.
24.
On the other hand, Sh. Devinder Kumar Singla, Manager-HR was examined by the respondent management who
filed his affidavit DX along with documents Exhibit D4 to D10 reiterating the stand taken in the written statement.
25.
I have heard Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Sumit Jain counsel for the workmen-Union and Sh. P.K. Mutneja and Mr.
N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
26.
The learned counsel for the workman-Union carried me through the Standing Orders of Panchkula Unit and
submitted that “Unit” means the company’s Unit called Bharat Electronics Limited, Panchkula, district Panchkula
which expression shall include all its divisions, departments, Sections, workshops, plants, establishments and offices
and submitted that the person posted at Panchkula cannot be transferred to any other Unit. He has also carried me
through a ‘chart’ prepared by him to show that if an employee is transferred to another unit then there is a change of
service conditions which cannot be done by the company at any cost. He has further argued that Sh. A.K. Lal
remained posted at panchkula for about 17 years and he was doing his private business and used to sell the material to
the Panchkula Unit regarding which the transferred employees agitated the matter and at the fag end of the service, as
he retired on 31.12.2013, ordered the transfer of the employees on 26.6.2013 which are not due to any ‘exigency’ but
are mala fide and amounts to “unfair labour practice”; and therefore, the transfer orders are not legal, just and fair and
be set aside.
27.
Opposing this, it was argued by Mr. P.K. Mutneja that there is a clause in the appointment letter regarding
transfer of the employees as well the Standing Orders clearly prescribe the condition that an employee can be
transferred to any other place under the company who runs nine units at different places. He has further carried me
through the Settlement dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure R3) entered into between the parties vide which some monetary
benefits were given and it is also provided for transfer of the employees to improve the utilization of the existing
manpower and further carried me through the minutes of the meeting (Annexure R4) held on 13.5.2013, where the
Chairman informed the participants regarding the transfer of the employees from the Panchkula Unit; and thus
submitted that all these documents are binding on the employees and they can be transferred to any Unit.
28.
I have considered the respective contentions.
29.
It may be added that the question whether the non-executive workmen can be transferred from one unit to other
unit was settled by the Hon’ble High Court in LPA No.590 of 2014 decided on 16.9.2015 (Annexure W9) which was
between the parties and it was held :
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4407
“A perusal of the reference reveals that the Industrial Tribunal has been called up to opine whether
transfer of 15 workmen without any transfer policy is just, fair and legal.
A prima facie perusal of the appointment letters reveal that they contain a clause whereby the workmen
can be transferred to any unit of the appellant in any part of India. Clause 8 of the standing order, titled
“Transfers” contains a detailed reference to the mode and manner of transfer thereby in our opinion,
setting out guidelines policy for transfer. The reference as framed requiring the Tribunal to opine
whether transferring 15 workmen from the Panchkula unit to other units “without any transfer policy”,
is just, fair and legal, was apparently made without considering the appointment letters and clause 8 of
the standing order. As already recorded, Clause 8 of the standing order titled as “Transfers” contains a
detailed reference to the mode and manner of transfer, thereby setting out guidelines/a policy for
transfer. Counsel for the respondent No.3 has also conceded that Clause 8 of the standing order
contains guidelines/a policy for transfer.”
30.
Thus, it is clear that the present workmen can be transferred from one Unit to another Unit and the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the workmen in this respect has no force in it.
31.
Since, there is a clause in the appointment letter as well as the standing orders and the settlement entered into
between the parties regarding inter-unit transfers and therefore, the contention that the transfer from one Unit to other
Unit will change the service conditions has no basis as the employees are to be governed by the Standing Orders as
applicable to that very Unit.
32.
Mala fide has been alleged against Sh. A.K. Lal who was the CMD-cum-Managing Director at the time of
transfers pleading that while remained posted at Panchkula, he got annoyed with the present transferred employees who
agitated against his way of working and due to mala fide intention, he effected the transfers of the employees to far
away places and they do not even know the language of the place to which they were transferred. Suffice it to say that
the question of mala fide on the part of Sh. A.K. Lal cannot be considered as Sh. A.K. Lal has not been impleaded in the
reference.
33.
As per the admitted case, the workmen were relieved vide Relieving Memo dated 28.11.2015, in view of the
transfer order dated 26.6.2013 as the time given by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 16.9.2015 passed in
LPA No.590 of 2014 (Annexure W9), as reproduced above, had expired.
34.
The workers-Union challenged the relieving memo dated 28.11.2015 by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.25804 of
2015 and the Hon’ble high Court stayed the said order vide order dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure W14) and the relevant
portion reads as follows:-
“In the meantime, the affected workers will not be transferred and they will be allowed to work at the
present place of posting till further orders. The aggrieved workers represented by the petitioner Union
will not be relieved from the present place of posting. In case, they have been relieved, then the
management would take in back forthwith and they be made to rejoin at the previous place, subject to
orders which may be passed either in the stay vacation application which Mr. Mutneja requests or in the
main case, as the case may be.”
35.
However, the Civil Writ Petition No.25804 of 2015 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment
dated 6.5.2016 (Annexure W16) and it was observed in para 16 of the judgment as follows-
That the petitioners have not make out a case so as to interfere, since their rights have not been affected
in any manner. In the absence of valid legal right to hold a particular post under statutory provision
courts cannot interfere. Ultimately, it is for the employer to get posting of its employee to a particular
post and place. The employer is the best Judge who can exercise discretionary power to post an
employee to a particular post and place for the purpose of extracting work and also run the
administration smoothly.
36.
The workmen-Union preferred an LPA No.840 of 2016 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.5.2016
(Annexure W18) and it was observed in para 9 as follows:-
Para 9 -
The issue as to whether or not the transfer of office bearers of workers’ Union amounts
to unfair labour practice is essentially a question of fact which can be effectively determined by the
appropriate forum on consideration of evidence on record. It may not be prudent for a writ court to pre-
empt the effect of a transfer order merely on the basis of allegations of unfair labour practice. We are
satisfied that the previous directions issued by this Court to keep the transfer orders in abeyance were for
the interregnum only till the appropriate government could decide as to whether or not there existed a
referable Industrial dispute. Once reference has been made, it is for the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court to pass appropriate orders for which the appellant is at liberty to approach.
4408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
37.
It was further observed in Para 12 as follow:-
Para 12-
Needless to say that the observations made by the learned Single Judge on the scope of
interference in relieving orders are in the context of exercise of writ jurisdiction and such observations
in no manner would impinge upon the jurisdictional competence of the Industrial Tribunal in deciding
the reference in question on merits.
38.
Thus, this court is to find out whether the transfer of the workers amount to “unfair labour practice” or whether
the same are just and fair. It is settled law that employer is the best judge to post an employee at the place which suits it
and the Courts have limited power to substitute its own decision in place of the employer transferring the employee.
39.
Now the question is whether the transfers are made as per the transfer policy as framed by the Company. Clause
8 of the Standing orders deals with the transfers and it read as follows:
8.0 Transfers
8.1 “Depending on the exigencies of work, workman may be transferred from one
shop/section/department to another within the Unit or from one Unit to another belonging to a company
or from one station to another. On such transfer the workman seniority and normal emoluments
applicable to him will not affected. Where the transfer is to another Unit, the transferee will be governed
by the service conditions of that unit.
8.1.1 A workman may also be transferred according to exigencies of work, from one job to another,
which in the opinion of the Manager he is capable of doing.
40.
Clause 1.3.4 of the settlement (Annexure R3) arrived at between the Bharat Electronics Workers Union
Panchkula and the management read as follows:
“To improve the utilization of existing manpower by re-deployment and retraining of workmen wherever
required and also by undertaking multi-skills training.
41.
Thus, as per Clause 8.1 of the standing orders and Clause 1.3.4 of the settlement dated 19.5.2010 (Exhibit D4),
the workmen can be transferred due to the “exigencies” of work and to improve the utilization of the existing manpower
by re-deployment. Thus, when there is urgent need or demand in any Unit, an employee can be transferred from one
unit to another and similarly if there is surplus manpower, the surplus persons can be transferred to another unit where
they are so required. Thus, as per transfer policy as mentioned in the said standing orders, and in the settlement arrived
at between the parties, the workman can be transferred due to ‘exigencies of work’ or to improve the utilization of
existing manpower. Both these facts are not proved in the present case.
42.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, who appeared in the witness box in support of the case of the workman-Union, reiterated the
case of the workmen as pleaded in the statement of claim, and deposed in para 37 of his affidavit as follows:-
The so-called “exigency of work” has been created by the Management with malafide intention whereas
in fact there no exisgency of work. These facts would be clear from the following submissions:
a.
The workman Pawan Kumar figuring at Serial No. 10 of the transfer order who was Vice
President of the Union (1999 to 2003) and was a Executive Member of the Union at the time of
transfer order dated 26.06.2013, is a Technical Assistant and has been transferred to
Machhlipatnam unit in Andhra Pradesh. It is humbly submitted that the Machhlipatnam Unit
has a workforce of about 350 and out of those, as many as 91 workmen are working on the same
trade with same technical qualification and same nature of duties. It is highly improbable that the
workload is held up by those 91 workmen for want of one more workman.
b.
More interesting is the case of Sh. Kuldeep Singh who figures at serial No. 12 of the transfer
order. Said Kuldeep Singh is the main target of the management as he remained President of
NTU (1995 to 2006) and had raised objections against the wrongs of the AGM, Sh. Anil Kumar.
He is a Draftsman by profession and has been thrown to Chennai Unit, deliberately where out of
total 89 workmen, as many as 07 are Draftsmen.
c.
Same is the case of Sh. Shamsher Singh who was General Secretary of the NTU, he belongs to
Clerical Cadre and he has also been transferred to Chennai Unit where already a workforce of
10-15 clerical staff is working.
d.
Sh. Sunil Kumar who figures at Serial No. 14 of the transfer order, is also a Draftsman by
profession. He has been transferred to Navi Mumbai Unit where out of 373 workmen (Presently
343), Presently 7 Draftsman is already working there.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4409
e.
The other 10 workmen figuring at Serial Nos. 3 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 15 are Technical Assistants
and have been transferred to Ghaziabad Unit where out of around 800 workforce (Presently 700
workforce), as many as around 450 similar workmen are working.
f.
Sh. Naresh Sachdeva figuring at Serial No. 2 of the transfer order, is from clerical cadre and has
been transferred to Ghaziabad Unit where about 60 persons are working in clerical cadre.
It is relevant to note that Panchkula Unit is having its own Development & Engineering Department
having a full fledged Drawing Office. Out of total workforce of around 350, there are only 3 Draftsmen
and out of those two have been transferred- one to Chennai and other to Navi Mumbai.
43.
His above noted statement is not challenged in cross-examination and it remains unrebutted on the file which
prove that sufficient workforce was already working at Chennai, Ghaziabad, Machlipatnam and Navi Mumbai and there
was no requirement of posting any more persons of the particular trade as were the transferred employees nor respective
units sent any requisition to the Head Office asking for deploying more persons there having the qualifications and the
experience of the present workmen. Thus, the transfer of the workmen to the respective places was not required at all.
Meaning thereby, the management has totally failed to prove that there was an urgent need of the workmen transferred
to different places as shown in (Annexure W2).
Similarly, there is nothing on the file to suggest that there was surplus work force at the Panchkula Unit which
required immediate need of the transfer of 15 workmen.
Thus, it cannot be said that the transfers are made due to “exigencies” of work or there was excess manpower in
Panchkula Unit which necessitated the transfer of the 15 workmen from the Unit to different places and as such, the
transfer policy made by the company itself is not followed in the present case.
44.
The learned counsel for the management carried me through the minutes of the meeting (Annexure R-4) held on
13.5.2013 attended by Rajesh Kumar, the representative of the workmen-Union and submitted that the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the respondent management informed the persons present there that employees from the
Panchkula Unit are to be transferred depending on the work requirement in other units and for optimization of the
manpower. But the CMD was requested by the members of the Unit not to disturb the employees. Thus, the proposal
was made to transfer the employees to which the members of the Union did not agree and the minutes of the meeting do
not lay down any transfer policy and on its basis transfer cannot be effected which can only be done by following
Clause 8 of the Standing Orders and Clause 1.3.4 of the Settlement entered into between the parties.
45.
It is pleaded in Para 2B and 2C of the statement of claim which reads as under:-
2B.
That since the inception of the company (1954) no workmen has been transferred from one unit
to another unit except willingness or internal advertisement because every unit has its difference
set of service condition in terms of certified standing orders in so many matters and particularly
in inter unit transfer matter.
2C.
That in the Panchkula Unit also since its inception in the year 1984, till 26.6.2013 no transfer
took place without taking willingness of employees as per prevailing practice.
46.
Thus, it is a definite case of the workmen-Union that no workman was transferred from one Unit to another
except by taking willingness or internal advertisement. This fact is not controverted by the management in the written
statement as well as no question was put to Rajesh Kumar when he appeared in the witness box and reiterated the said
averments. Rather the management has simply pleaded that it was a concession given to the employees, and thus, admit
the Policy of taking willingness or internal advertisement was followed by the Company for transferring workmen from
one Unit to other Unit. Sh. Devinder Kumar, witness of the management while appearing in the witness box has also
admitted that the management was transferring workers after obtaining their consent. Thus, it was an established
practice of the company to obtain consent of the workmen who are to be transferred. There is no dispute that no such
rule exists of obtaining consent in the Standing Orders but this practice of obtaining consent has been followed since
long and it is not clear why the departure has been made in the present transfers.
47.
When the respondent management was following a uniform policy of obtaining willingness of employees for
transfer since the year 1954, it is not made out how the present 15 workers were transferred without obtaining their
willingness or by any internal advertisement which further shows that the management has not followed its rules and
policy in transferring the present workmen.
48.
Thus, transfers have not been made as per Clause 8 of the Standing Orders and as per Clause 1.3.4 on settlement
arrived at between the parties; and as per admitted practice of obtaining consent of the employees to be transferred and
in the circumstances, it is to be held that transfer of the workmen to different places from panchkula Unit under the
guise of following transfer policy is an ‘unfair labour practice’, is not valid, fair and legal.
4410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
49.
In result, the present reference is accepted and the action of the management in transferring 15 workmen as per
Annexure W2 from Panchkula Unit to other Units is held not to be fair, correct and legal and the workmen are entitled
to join at the Panchkula Unit. The 11 workmen who joined at different place in view of transfer order be retransferred
to Panchkula Unit within one month from the publication of the award, and the four employees, who did not join at their
respective place of transfer, be also allowed to join at Panchkula Unit within the same period.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1777-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
lcwr vkSj izk;ksfxd izfr"Bku] pkanhiqj] mM+hlk] ckyklksj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
93@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@06@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 93/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director, Proof and Experimental Establishment, Chandipur, Orissa, Balasore and their workman, which were received
by the Central Government on 13.06.2017.
[No. L-14011/06/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 93/2012
Date of Passing Award – 26th May, 2017
Between:
The Director,
Proof & Experimental Establishment,
Chandipur, Orissa, Balasore
…1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary,
Proof Employees Union,
Chandan Mahal, Sunhat,
Balasore Orissa
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances :
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management
Shri R.K. Barik
…
For the 2nd Party-Union
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-14011/06/2012–IR(DU), dated
03.12.2012 has referred a dispute arose between the Proof & Experimental Establishment, Chandipur and the Proof
Employees’ Union exercising its jurisdiction under section 10 of the I.D. Act for its adjudication with the following
schedule.:-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4411
“Whether the action on the part of the Director, Proof and Experimental Establishment a DRDO Unit under
Ministry of Defence, Chandipur in notpaying OT wages to the workers and NGO category beyond grade pay of
Rs. 4200/- as per the 6th C.P.C. pay scales is legal and justified? If not what relief the workmen are entitled to?
(b) “Whether the action of the Management of the Director, Proof and Experimental Establishment, a DRDO
unit under the Ministry of Defence, Cahdnipur is not paying OT wages for the month of November and
December, 2011 to the workers beyond grade pay of Rs. 4200/- who were detailed on OT duty is appropriate
and justified? If not, what relief the workers are entitled to?”
2.
It is the case of the 2nd Party-Union that Proof Experimental Establishment, (PXE) Chandipur is a defence
industrial establishment and the same being registered under the Factories Act, 1948 is an “Industry”. All the
employees of the establishment are declared workers within the scope of the Factory Act and as such they are entitled
to receive over-time wages in terms of the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act irrespective of different grade
pays to which different categories of employees are entitled to receive. According to the Union despite such provision
of payment of Over Time wages, the Management is not making provision for payment of over-time wages to the
group of workers whose grade pay is more than 4200/-. Such action of the Management being illegal and unjustified
directions should be given for making provision of over-time wages to all categories of employees irrespective of grade
pay to which they are entitled to.
3.
Being noticed the Management filed its written statement contesting the claim of the Union and thereafter it
failed to make its appearance for which it has been set ex parte. In the written statement it has been contended that the
Management not being an “industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the I.D. Act is not under the purview of the Act
and as such the reference is not maintainable. It has been further pleaded that the employees of the establishment of the
Management are being paid Over Time wages as per the 6th C.P.C. As the 6th C.P.C. does not provide over-time wages
to the worker whose grade pay is above Rs. 4200/-, question does not arise for making payment of such over-time
wages to such category of employees. Hence, the claim statement of the Union merits no consideration.
4.
As the Management failed to attend the proceeding after filing its written statement, the 2nd party-Union is
allowed to advance its evidence ex parte. One Ranjan Barik, General Secretary of the Proof Employees Union has
filed ex parte evidence in shape of sworn affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. Documents like copy of the office of
the letter of the Asst. Director of Factories & Boilers, BiS Memo No. 177, dated 22.3.2005, letter of the Ministry of
Defence dated 1.7.1998 and 10.5.2011, letter of the Deptt, of Personnel dated 9.12.2011 and letter of the Ministry of
defence dated 22.7.2013 have also been exhibited from Ext.-1 to 5 on behalf of the 2nd party-Union.
5.
The oral testimony of W.W.-1 is nothing more or less than the repetition of the averments advanced in the
statement of claim. The maintainability of the reference having been challenged in the written statement on account of
a pleading that the Management being a defence establishment is not coming under the purview of the “Industry” as
defined under the I.D. Act it would be just and proper to examine the said issue first. In the context it is useful to refer
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board –Versus- A.
Rajjappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 969)” wherein the term “Industry” has been explained with the following
observations:- Chief Conservator of Forests –versus- Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : (1996 IR SCW
735), wherein this Court, while rejecting the governmental or sovereign function than a commercial venture and,
therefore, also it would not fall with the purview of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.
The question : What is an “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act? Has been answered by this Court in
Bangalore Water Supply Case (AIR 1978 SC 548) (supra as under:
“I
140. ““Industry””, as defined under Section 2(j) and explained in Banerji (supra) has a wide import.
(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and
substantial element is chimerical) (ii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to
satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to
celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale Prasad or food), pima facie, there is an ““Industry”” in that
enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or other
sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the
employer-employee relations.
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the
undertaking.
4412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
II
141. Although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be
manifested to over reach itself.
(a) “Undertaking” must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji (supra) and in
this judgement : so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized activity
possessing the triple elements in I (supra), although not trade or business, may still be “Industry” provided the
nature of the activity, viz. The employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to what we find in trade or
business. This takes into the fold of “Industry” undertakings, callings any services, adventures analogous to the
carrying on the trade or business. All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. In
organizing the co-operation between employer and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the
employment terms there is analogy.
III
142. Application of these guidelines should not short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or inner
sense of incongruity 8 or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations. The ideology of
the Act being industrial peace, regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen,
the range of this statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing more.
(a) The consequences are (i) professions, (ii) clubs, (iii) educational institutions, (iv) co-operatives, (v) research
institutes, (vi) charitable projects and (vii) other kindred adventures, if they fulfill the triple tests listed in 1
(supra), cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2(j).
Contention that as sovereignty vests in the people the concept of sovereign functions would include all welfare
activities, on the ground that taking of such a view would erode the ratio in Bangalore Water Supply case, observed that
“the dichotomy of sovereign and non-sovereign functions does not really exist – it would all depend on the nature of
the power and manner of its exercise”. After referring to the three traditional sovereign functions namely legislative,
power, the administration of laws and the exercise of the judicial power and also the decisions of the Gujarat High
Court in J.J. Shrimali –v- District Development Officer, (1989) 30 Guj. LR 396 : (1989) Lab IC 689) wherein famine
and drought relief works undertaken by the State Government were held not to be an “Industry”, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that “what really follows from this judgement is that apart from the aforesaid three functions, there may
be some other functions also regarding which a view could be taken that the same too is a sovereign function.
6.
In the above back-drops of the settled principle it cannot be over-sighted that the Management of DRDO is a
defence establishment established for the purpose of testing of ammunitions likely to be used by the defence services.
There is no material before this Tribunal to establish that the Management-establishment is involved in any profitable
business or carrying out any trade or business. On the other hand it cannot be disputed that the defence of the country
is a sovereign function and the Management-establishment being part and parcel of the Ministry of Defence can be said
to have been involved in sovereign function. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that it comes under the purview of
“Industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the Act. This being the conclusion accepted by this Tribunal the
maintainability of the reference is apparently doubtful under the I.D. Act.
7.
As the reference is not maintainable under the I.D. Act I am not inclined to consider and give any findings on
the issue whether the employees of the Management drawing more than Rs. 4200/- grade pay as per 6th C.P.C. is
entitled to over-time wages or not.
8.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1778-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV
vkWfiQl ds ofj"B v/h{kd] dq#{ks=k] fMohtu dq#{ks=k ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
38@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4413
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 38/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra, Division Kurukshetra and their workman, which were
received by the Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 38/2015
Registered on 11.12.2015
Smt. Nisha W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev Kumar,
Resident of Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra
…Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra,
Division Kurukshetra
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 2.9.2016
Smt. Nisha has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
called the ‘Act’), claiming 10 months leave encashment; on the averments that her husband was appointed as Sweeper
and expired during duty. That respondent-management is an ‘industry’ and in view of the letter dated 09.01.1992 and
14.05.2007, she is entitled to leave encashment. That the amount be calculated and paid to her.
The respondent-management filed written statement, controverting the averments and pleaded that as per rules,
there is no provision for accumulation of leave and as such, the appellant is not entitled to any encashment of earned
leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and 9th
January, 1992 and submitted that deceased was GDS and “Gramin Dak Sewak” is entitled to encashment of earned
leave for 10 months and as such, the applicant is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
4414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision for
accumulation of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as “Gramin Dak Sewaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deal with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that Gramin Dak Sewak is entitled to only get paid leave @ 20 days in a year
and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law enacted, the letters
dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not provide for the
accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1779-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Msfcfll
bathfu;¯jx oDlZ] ,uVhihlh@VhVhihlh ds Bsdsnkj] rkykdj FkeZy] vaxqy o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 9@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@42@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 9/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Debasis Engineering Works, Contractor of NTPC/TTPC, Talacher Thermal, Angul & Others and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 13.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/42/2010-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4415
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. 09/2011
Date of Passing Award – 19th May, 2017
Between:
1.
M/s. Debasis Engineering Works,
Contractor of NTPC/TTPC, Talcher Thermal,
Angul.
2.
The General Manager,
M/s. NTPC Limited,
TTPS, Talcher Thermal, Angul
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
The General Secretary, NTPC
(TTPS) Contract Mazdoor Sangh,
Talcher, Qrs. No. 2RA-139, Sector-II,
At./Po. Talcher, Angul
…2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
Mr. A.K. Asthana, Manager (HR)
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 1
Mr. Debasis Adhikary
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 2.
None
…
For the 2nd PartyUnion.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of Contractor of NTPC/TTPC, Talcher Thermal and their workman
represented through NTPC (TTPC) Contract Mazdoor Sangh 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 vide its letter No. L-42011/42/2010-IR
(DU) dated 18.02.2011 with the following schedule.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Debasis Engineering Works, a contractor of NTPC Ltd., in
terminating the services of 11 workmen (as per list enclosed) without following the provisions as laid down
under section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to
2.
In short, the case of the 2nd party-Union as appears from its statement of claim is that the disputant workmen
numbering 12 were engaged as a casual workers on daily wage basis on different dates in between 2000 to 2004 and
they were allowed to work in the establishment of the Management No. 2 till 16.08.2008 when they were refused
further employment by the Management No. 2. It is the averment of the Union that the disputant workmen were
engaged and paid wages directly by the Management No. 2, though they had been shown as contract labourers engaged
through Management No. 1. Paper transactions if any, towards showing the disputant workmen as contract labourers of
the Management No. 1 are sham and camouflage to deprive them to obtain service benefits from the Management No.
2. The termination/retrenchment of the disputant workmen with effect from 16.08.2008 without compliance of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act being illegal and unjustified they are required to be reinstated with all back
wages and other consequential service benefits including continuity of service.
3.
In response to such stand of the Union the Management No. 1 and 2 submitted its written statement denying the
averments of the Union. The stand of the Managements are that the disputant workmen were never engaged/employed
and paid wages directly by the Management No. 2. They are contract labourers under the control and supervision of the
Management No. 1. Being a contractor under the Management No. 2 the Management No. 1 was required to execute
work on contract basis as and when required. Accordingly the Management No. 1 was engaging contract workers for a
time bound contractual work. Such engagement is coterminous on completion of job or expiry of the term of the
4416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract. As such, the disputants were neither workmen as defined under the I.D. Act either under the Management No.
1 or Management No. 2. Their engagement being for a specific period and for a particular work, refusal of any
extension to their job is not a contravention of any provisions of the I.D. Act. That apart, it has been contended that a
tripartite settlement was reached out on 09.07.2010 as a result of which the disputant were given employment as per the
terms and conditions of the settlement and there exists no disputes for its adjudication.
4.
It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of statement of claim and written statements by the parties when
the reference was pending for its adjudication and date was fixed for recording evidence of the 2nd party-Union failed to
pursue its claim. Hence, the Managements were allowed to adduce its evidence. Oral testimony of Shri Debasis
Adhikary in shape of sworn affidavit was filed by the Management No. 1 and documents like copy of the tripartite
settlement and copy of the full and final payment receipt are exhibited in support of the stand of the Managements.
5.
The uncontroverted oral testimony of the Management No. 1, Contractor goes to indicate that his evidence is
nothing more or less than the repetition of the stand taken by the Managements in their written statements.
Furthermore, a copy of the tripartite settlement allegedly reached out between the Management of Contractors of NTPC
Limited and the workers represented through NTPC Contract Mazdoor Sangh before the Asst. Labour Commissioner
(Central) is filed to strengthen the oral testimony of M.W.-1. The said settlement reveals that most of the disputants
were given jobs in the establishment of the Management No. 1. In the above back-drop and in absence of any evidence
from the side of the 2nd party-Union, it is difficult to say that any dispute is persisting between the parties for its
adjudication. Further, in absence of any evidence from the side of the 2nd party-Union it is next to impossible to
determine the nature of employment/engagement given to the disputants and to arrive any conclusion if provisions of
Section 25-F was violated on refusal of employment to them by the Managements. On the other hand, there is no
reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of the Management No. 1, contractor. In the above circumstances,
there is no other alternative than to reject the statement of claim put-forth by the 2nd party-Union.
6.
Accordingly the reference is answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1780-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,LVsV
izca/d] ,LVsV izca/u bdkbZ] MhvkjMhvks] pkanhiqj] ckyklksj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 35@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@25@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 35/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit, DRDO, Chandipur, Balasore & Others and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 03.07.2017.
[No. L-14012/25/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 35/2009
Date of Passing Award – 09th June, 2017
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4417
Between:
1.
The Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit,
DRDO, Chandipur, Balasore.
2.
Shri S.K. Barik, Contractor of Estate
Management Unit, DRDO, At./Po. Chandipur, Balasore
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
Shri Ganeswar Sha, C/o. Sarathi Behera,
Sovarampur, Balasore
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 1.
Shri R.N. Rath, Auth. Representative
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 2.
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman
AWARD
The award is directed against a reference with the schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. S.K. Barik, Contractor of Estate Management Unit, DRDO,
in terminating the services of their workman Shri Ganeswar Sha, w.e.f. 30.04.2007 is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-14012/25/2009 – IR(DU), dated 30.09.2009 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”).
2.
Factual matrix giving rise to the reference as mentioned earlier is that the 2nd party-workman Shri Ganeswar Sha
is stated to have been engaged as a cook under EMU, DRDO, Chandipur through contractor Shri S.K. Barik with effect
from 4.2.1997. It is alleged that though, he was employed as a contract labour through Shri Barik, he was virtually
working directly under control and supervision of the Management No. 1. His salary was paid directly by the said
Management. He continued as a cook till 6.8.2007 when he was refused employment on account of he raising
allegation that his wage was reduced to Rs. 3,500/- by the contractor. According to him he was neither paid any
compensation or notice pay before refusal of employment and as such the refusal of employment being violative of the
provisions of the I.D. Act is illegal and unjust and he shall be reinstated along with all back wages.
3.
The contractor-Management No. 1 did not make its appearance inspite of notice served on him as a result of
which it has been set exparte. The Management No. 2 has contested the claim taking a stand that he entered into with
an agreement with Management No. 1 for providing service facility to its NGO mess at Dhamra from 1st April, 2007 to
31st March, 2008 and accordingly he engaged the 2nd party-workman as a Cook with effect from April, 2007 purely on
daily wage basis. But, he was found to be an ill tempered and argumentative person, he was found misbehaving the
guests of the transit house. It is his further stand that the disputant workman remained absent from duty with effect
from August, 2007 and there was no refusal of employment to him. As the 2nd party-workman was nether retrenched
nor refused employment he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication
of the reference.
I S S U E S
1.
Whether the action of the Management of M/s. S.K. Barik, Contractor of Estate Management Unit,
DRDO, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Ganeswar Sha, w.e.f. 30.04.2007 is legal and
justified?
2.
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
5.
The 2nd party-workman has examined himself as W.W.-1 and adduced only oral evidence to substantiate his
claim. Similarly the Management No. 2 has only adduced his examination in chief in sworn affidavit and his cross
examination is presumed to have been declined in the event of the workman failing to attend the proceedings of the
reference to cross examine the witness.
4418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
On a close reading of the pleadings and evidence advanced by the parties, it is seen that the workman has
claimed to have been engaged from 4.2.1997 till 06.08.2007 when he is stated to have been refused employment.
Except this oral assertion there is no document in support of his employment with effect from 4.2.1997. Law is well
settled that initial burden lies on the workman to prove his employment as well as his continuity in service for more
than 240 days in a twelve calendar months preceding to his alleged refusal of employment. Mere oral assertion in that
regard is not sufficient without any corroboration by any sort of documents. In the case at hand the oral evidence of the
Management No. 2 and the copy of the agreement made between M/s. S.P. Services and the Management No. 1 clearly
indicate that the Management No. 2-Contractor was entrusted to provide service facility to the Transit Mess for the
period from 1st April 2007, 31st March, 2008. His oral testimony remains uncontroverted and as such the contentions of
the Management No. 2 cannot be out-rightly rejected. In the above backdrop, the 2nd party-workman has failed to
adduce any clinching and credible evidence to establish that he was either employed and paid wages directly by the
Management No. 1 or the Management No. 2 appointed him with effect from 4.2.1997 and he worked as a Cook in the
Transit Mess of Dhamara for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in a twelve calendar months
preceding to his alleged refusal of employment. In absence of any credible evidence the claim and allegation raised by
the 2nd party-workman cannot be accepted. Therefore, the 2nd party-workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by
him.
7.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1781-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,LVsV
izca/d] ,LVsV izca/u bdkbZ] MhvkjMhvks] pkanhiqj] ckyklksj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 34@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@24@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 34/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit, DRDO, Chandipur, Balasore & Others and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 03.07.2017.
[No. L-14012/24/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 34/2009
Date of Passing Award – 09th June, 2017
Between:
1.
The Estate Manager, Estate Management Unit,
DRDO, Chandipur, Balasore.
2.
Shri S.K. Barik, Contractor of Estate
Management Unit, DRDO, At./Po. Chandipur, Balasore
…1st Party-Managements
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4419
(And)
Shri S.C. Panigrahi, C/o. Sarathi Behera,
Sovarampur, Balasore
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 1.
Shri R.N. Rath, Auth. Representative
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 2.
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman
ORDER
Authorized representative for the Management No. 2 is present, whereas the 2nd party-workman and the
Management No. 1 are found to be absent on repeated calls. It is submitted by the Management No. 2 that despite
several adjournments and opportunities extended to the 2nd party-workman, no step is being taken for adducing
evidence in support of the claim statement. It is seen from the record that after filing its statement of claim, the 2nd
party-workman was not taking steps to pursue the dispute raised by him. In the above circumstance and in absence of
any evidence from either side there is no alternative before the Tribunal than to return the reference without any award.
2.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1782-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izca/
funs'kd] eSllZ vfuy lqj{kk lsok] Hkqous'oj] mM+hlk o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
37@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@54@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 37/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Managing Director, M/s. Anil Security Service, Bhubaneswar, Orissa & Others and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 20.06.2017.
[No. L-42011/54/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B. C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 37/2016
No. L-42011/54/2016-IR (DU), dated 01/02.06.2016
Date of Passing Order – 17th May, 2017
Between:
1.
The Managing Director,
M/s. Anil Security Service,
1/289, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar (Orissa),
Pin – 751 003.
4420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
M/s. Jagannath Services,
Plot No. 289, Baramunda Housing Board Colony,
Baramunda, Bhubaneswar (Orissa), Pin – 751 003.
3.
The Branch (In-charge),
Central Avian Research Institute,
Infront of Kalinga Studio Chhak, Khandagiri,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 003
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
The Vice President,
Contract & Construction Labour Union,
32, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar, (Orissa),
Pin – 751 009
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Managements.
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
ORDER
Case is taken up. Parties are absent. The 2nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim despite notice
being sent through regd. post. In order to give an opportunity to the 2nd party-Union regd. notice was issued on
08.09.2016 fixing 27.10.2016 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. But neither the 2nd party-Union
caused appearance nor it has filed any statement of claim inspite of three adjournments. As such it seems that the 2nd
party-Union is not interested in prosecuting its case. However the dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of
pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except to return the reference to the Government for
necessary action at its end.
2.
Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1783-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj gsM] eSllZ
yhMdkWe baVhxzsVsM lkWY;w'kal] izkstsDV vkWfiQl bafM;k fyfeVsM] xqM+xkao o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40011@31@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 40/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Head, M/s. Leadcom Integrated Solutions, Project Office India Limited, Gurgaon & Others and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 22.06.2017.
[No. L-40011/31/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4421
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. 40/2013
Date of Passing Order – 12th May, 2017
Between :
1.
The Head, M/s. Leadcom Integrated Solutions,
Project Office India Limited, 1005, Sector-30,
Park Center, Gurgaon.
2.
Aircel (Dishnet Wireless Ltd.),
7th Floor, Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
3.
M/s. OM Security & Services,
Plot No. 184, Bapujinagar, Sishu Bhawan Chhak,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
The President,
All Orissa Private Security Karmachari Sangha,
Plot No. 6/255, Jayadev Vihar,
Near Bijupatnaik College,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
…2nd Party-Union.
Appearances :
Shri B.P. Pujary
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 2.
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management No. 1 & 3.
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
ORDER
Authorized representative for the Management No. 2 is only present whereas, rest of the parties including 2nd
party-Union are found absent on repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings by the parties and settlement of
issues the case was fixed today for evidence of the 2nd party-Union. The record further reveals that despite several
adjournments from time to time the 2nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to adduce its
evidence in support of the dispute raised by it. In the above back-drops and in absence of the 2nd party-Union there is no
alternative than to presume that either the Union has lost its interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or
there exists no further dispute between the parties. In the given situation I am constrained to return the reference to the
Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1784-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj ds
ofj"B v/h{kd] jksgrd] fMohtu jksgrd ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k 39@2015)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
4422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 39/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Rohtak, Division Rohtak and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
LCA No. 39/2015
Registered on 11.12.2015
Smt. Balkesh W/o Sh. Suresh Pal, Resident of Village and
Post Office Hassan Pur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Rohtak, Division Rohtak
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 2.9.2016
Smt. Balkesh wife of late Sh. Suresh Pal, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 10 months leave encashment; on the averments that her
husband was appointed as EDR and expired on 26.08.2014. That respondent-management is an ‘industry’ and as per
letter 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007, Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to leave encashment and as such, she is entitled
to encashment of the earned leave and the same be calculated and paid to her.
The respondent-management filed written statement, controverting the averments and pleaded that as per rules,
there is no provision for accumulation of leave and as such, the appellant is not entitled to any encashment of earned
leave.
Partied did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and 9th
January, 1992 and submitted that Gramin Dak Sewak is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months and as
such, the applicant is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4423
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision for
accumulation of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as “Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No.1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate of
10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this leave. This
will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that Gramin Dak Sewak is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days in a year
and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law enacted, the letters
dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not provide for the
accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1785-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd?kj ds
ofj"B v/h{kd] jksgrd] fMohtu jksgrd ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k 49@2015)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
4424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 49/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtak, Division Rohtak and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 49/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Smt. Santosh W/o Late Sh. Suresh, Resident of Village and
Post Office Chmno (Kahnaur), District Rohtak
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Rohtak, Division Rohtak
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 6.9.2016
Smt. Santosh, wife of late Sh. Suresh has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 10 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leave; on the averments that
her husband was appointed as GDS, who expired on 30.06.2011. The Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and
Engagement)Rules 2011(hereinafter called the ‘Rules’)do not permit leave encashment in lieu of accrued earned leave
but the same is overriden by Section 25-J of the Act and office memo dated 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007. That her
husband was entitled to get leave encashment for 10 months pay which be calculated and paid to her.
The respondent-management filed written statement, controverting the averments and pleaded that as per rules,
there is no provision for accumulation of leave and as such, the husband of the appellant was not entitled to encashment
of earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and
9th January, 1992 and submitted that GDS(Gramin Dak Sewak) is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months
and as such, the applicant being the widow of Sh. Suresh, is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4425
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision for
accumulation of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011 and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that Gramin Dak Sewak is entitled to only get paid leave @ 20 days for every
year and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law enacted, the
letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not provide for
the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1786-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd
foHkkx ds ofj"B v/h{kd] vackyk] fMohtu vackyk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
57@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
4426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 57/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal,
Resident of Village and Post Office Bhurewala,
Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ambala, Division Ambala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 2.9.2016
Sh. Ram Kumar son of late Sh. Harbans Lal, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 8 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leave; on the
averments that his father was appointed as EDA and retired on attaining superannuation on 24.10.1998, who expired on
20.10.2009. That the Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011(hereinafter called the ‘Rules’)do not
permit leave encashment but in view of the Section 25-J of the Act and office memo dated 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007,
the rules are inapplicable and the father of the applicant was entitled to get leave encashment for 8 months pay which
be calculated and paid to him.
The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the rules, governing the service conditions
specifically bar leave encashment and as such, the father of the appellant was not entitled to any amount by way of
encashment of earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and
9th January, 1992 and submitted that Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months
and as such, the applicant is entitled to get the payment for eight months.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4427
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision of accumulation
of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as “Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No.1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate of
10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this leave. This
will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that extra departmental agent is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days for
every half year and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law
enacted, the letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not
provide for the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1787-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd
foHkkx ds ofj"B v/h{kd] vackyk] fMohtu vackyk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
58@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 58/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
4428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 58/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Smt. Kaushlya Devi W/o Late Sh. Raj Pal,
Resident of Village and Post Office Lakhnaura,
Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ambala, Division Ambala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 2.9.2016
Smt. Kaushalya Devi, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 10 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leave; on the averments that her
husband late Sh. Raj Pal was appointed as EDA and expired on 18.12.2010. That the Gramin Dak Sewaks (Conduct
and Engagement) Rules 2011(hereinafter called the ‘Rules’) do not permit leave encashment but the same is overridden
by Section 25-J of the Act and office memo dated 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007. The rules are inapplicable and her
husband was entitled to get leave encashment for 10 months pay which be calculated and paid to her.
The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the rules, governing the service conditions
specifically bar leave encashment and as such, the husband of the appellant was not entitled to any amount by way of
encashment of earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and
9th January, 1992 and submitted that Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months
and as such, the applicant being the widow of Sh. Raj Pal, is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4429
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision of accumulation
of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as “Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.”
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No.1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate of
10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this leave. This
will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that extra departmental agent is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days for
every half year and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law
enacted, the letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not
provide for the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1788-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd
foHkkx ds ofj"B v/h{kd] vackyk] fMohtu vackyk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
60@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 60/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
4430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 60/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Smt. Jayanti Devi W/o Late Sh. Mam Raj,
Village and Post Office Hamid Pur,
Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ambala, Division Ambala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 6.9.2016
Smt. Jayanti Devi, wife of lare Sh. Mam Raj has filed this application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 8 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leace; on the
averments that her husband was appointed as EDA-BPM on 16.11.1976 and was expired on 26.12.2000. The Gramin
Dak Sewaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rule 2011 (hereinafter called the ‘Rules’) do not permit leave encashment in
lieu of accrued earned leave but the same is overridden by Section 25-J of the Act and office meno dated 09.01.1992
and 14.05.2007. That her husband was entitled get leave encashment for 8 months pay which be calculated and paid to
her.
The respondent-management filed written statement, controverting the averments and pleaded that as per rules,
there is no provision for accumularion of leave and as such, jusband of the appellant was not entitled to encashment of
earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P.Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and 9th
January, 1992 and submitted that Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 8 months and
as such, the applicant being the widow of Sh. Mam Raj, is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007 (3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 14028/2/2003-
Estt. (L), dated 7.11.2006, published in SLJ of june, 2006 as Sl. No. 34) forwarded cide MOD om of even
number dated 13.11.2006 in the above subject. It is clarified that accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employee w.e.f. 07.11.2006. That
is as endustrial employee who is already hkaveing 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to
gert a credit of the leave earnded by him/her during the year 2006, subject to ceiling of 30 days, on
1.1.2007. Thus the total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case
he/she has earned the maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No. P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and
you say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration (JCM) in CA, Reference No. 2
of 1989, the President is pleased to decide that leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central
Government Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4431
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wage to the industrial
employees stand removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year,
his entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service
in that year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days
stands removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision for
accumulation of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased were governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now
known as Gramin Dak Sewaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2001 and rule 7 thereof deals eith the leave and read
as follow:-
“The sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to
him under these rules, remais absent from duty for any period which together with the leave
granted exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circustances of the case, otherwise decides, be
remove from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No. 1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate
of 10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this
leave. This will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that extra departmental agent is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days for
every half year and there is no provision to cary forward or encashment of this leave. In view of specific law enacted,
the letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to present case wherein the rules do not provide for
the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1789-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd
foHkkx ds ofj"B v/h{kd] vackyk] fMohtu vackyk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
61@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 61/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
4432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 61/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Smt. Sushma Sawhney W/o Late Sh. Jaiparkash,
Resident of Ward No. 2, Mohlla Pathana,
Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ambala, Division Ambala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 6.9.2016
Smt. Sushma Sawhney, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 8 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leave; on the averments that her
husband late Sh. Jaiparkash was appointed as EDA-BPM, who expired on 17.05.2004. That the Gramin Dak
Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011(hereinafter called the ‘Rules’) do not permit leave encashment but in
view of the Section 25-J of the Act and office memo dated 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007, these rules are inapplicable and
her husband was entitled to get leave encashment for 8 months pay which be calculated and paid to her.
The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the rules, governing the service conditions
specifically bar leave encashment and as such, the husband of the appellant was not entitled to any amount by way of
earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and 9th
January, 1992 and submitted that Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months
and as such, the applicant being the widow of Sh. Jaiparkash, is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4433
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III)
The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision of accumulation
of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the deceased was governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now known
as “Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and read as
follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No.1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate of
10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this leave. This
will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that extra-departmental agent is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days for
every half year and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law
enacted, the letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not
provide for the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1790-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd
foHkkx ds ofj"B v/h{kd] vackyk] fMohtu vackyk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (,ylh, la[;k
63@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-10-2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LCA No. 63/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 21.10.2016.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
4434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No. 63/2015
Registered on 22.02.2016
Sh. Jagdish S/o Sh. Munshi Ram,
Resident of Village and Post Office Kot,
District Panchkula
…Petitioner
Versus
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ambala, Division Ambala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 2.9.2016
Sh. Jagdish Chand, has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming 10 months pay in lieu of accrued earned leave; on the averments that he
was appointed as EDA and retired on 30.04.2008. That the Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules
2011(hereinafter called the ‘Rules’)do not permit leave encashment but the same is overridden by Section 25-J of the
Act and office memo dated 09.01.1992 and 14.05.2007, the rules are inapplicable and he was entitled to get leave
encashment for 10 months pay which be calculated and paid to him.
The respondent-management filed written reply, pleading that the rules, governing the service conditions
specifically bar leave encashment and as such, the workman is not entitled to any amount by way of encashment of
earned leave.
Parties did not lead any evidence.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma for the management.
Sh. R.P. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, carried me through the letter dated 14.05.2007 and 9th
January, 1992 and submitted that Extra Departmental Agent is entitled to encashment of earned leave for 10 months
and as such, the applicant is entitled to get the payment.
The letter dated 14.05.2007, which is in All India Services Law Journal XI-2007(3) read as follow:-
“The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.14028/2/2003-
Estt.(L), dated 7.11.2006,(Published in SLJ of June, 2006 as Sl. No.34) forwarded vide MOD OM of even
number dated 13.11.2006 on the above subject. It is clarified that the accumulation and encashment limit of
earned leave is raised to 300 days from 120 days in respect of industrial employees’ w.e.f. 7.11.2006. That is,
as industrial employee who is already having 120 days of earned leave as on 1.1.2006 is eligible to get a credit
of the leave earned by him/her during the year 2006, subject to a ceiling of 30 days, on 1.1.2007. Thus the
total earned leave at his/her credit can become 120+30=150 days as on 1.1.2007 in case he/she has earned the
maximum of 30 days of E.L. during 2006.”
The letter dated 9th January, 1992 read as follow:-
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.P-12012/1/79/LU dated 22.7.1981 and you
say that in pursuance of the Award given by the Board of Arbitration(JCM) in CA, Reference No.2 of 1989,
the President is pleased to decide that the leave entitlement of Industrial Employees in Central Government
Departments other than Railways shall be modified as follow:-
I)
The existing condition of 240 days service for grant of any leave with wages to the Industrial
employees stands removed; provided that if in any year an employee is not in service for the year, his
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4435
entitlement to leave with respect to that year shall be in proportion to the period of his service in that
year.
II)
The restriction on carrying forward leave at the credit of an industrial employee beyond 30 days stands
removed;
III) The limit of total accumulation of earned leave for the Industrial Employees shall be 120 days.”
A perusal of both the letters reveals that leave encashment is allowed where there is a provision of accumulation
of leave.
It is not disputed that services of the workman were governed by Conduct and Engagement Rules and now
known as “Gramin Dak Sewaks(Conduct and Engagement)Rules 2011” and Rule 7 thereof deals with the leave and
read as follow:-
“The Sevaks may be granted paid leave at the rate of 20 days in a year without accumulation or as may be
determined by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that-
(a)
Where a Sevak falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and
granted to him, or
(b)
Where such a Sevak who is granted leave for a period less than the maximum period admissible to him
under these rules, remains absent from duty for any period which together with the leave granted
exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted such leave.”
He shall unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be
removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10.”
Again there is Director General instructions at the foot note and Instruction No.1 read as follow:-
“(1) Leave of 10 days for every half year-Extra-Departmental Agent may be granted paid leave at the rate of
10 days for every half year, but there shall be no provision of carry forward or encashment of this leave. This
will be implemented with effect from half year beginning from 1st July, 1998.”
Thus, a perusal of this rule show that extra departmental agent is entitled to only get paid leave @ 10 days for
every half year and there is no provision to carry forward or encashment of this leave. In view of the specific law
enacted, the letters dated 14.5.2007 and 9th January, 1992 has no application to the present case wherein the rules do not
provide for the accumulation of leave or encashment thereof.
In result, there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1791-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj
feujYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2007] 40@2007] 27@2008] 36@2007] 09@2007) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@31@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@45@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@4@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@39@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@1@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2007, 40/2007, 27/2008, 36/2007, 09/2007) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
4436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 24.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/31/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/45/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/4/2008-IR (M),
No. L-29012/39/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/1/2007-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 30th JUNE 2017
PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C R No. 29/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. N. Nanjashetty,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Kala Shetty, Kallu
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Mallena Halli, M shivara Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/31/2006-IR(M) dated 01.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature
superannuating of the services of Shri. N. Nanjasheety w.e.f. 27.06.1998? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(ii) C R No. 40/2007
I Party
II Party
Smt. Boramma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Boregowda, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Kallamarana Halli, Kembal Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/45/2006-IR(M) dated 06.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Smt. Boramma w.e.f. 29.06.1998? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
(iii) C R No. 27/2008
I Party
II Party
Sh. A. Boregowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Siddegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village & Post, Bagur Hobli
No. 39, M G Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4437
The Central Government vide Order No. L- 29012/4/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of Sh. A. Boregowda by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f.
06.06.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(iv) C R No. 36/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. D. Narayana Shetty,
The Managing Director,
S/o Das Shetty,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Hyothi Gaudanapura Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Chandakavadi Hobli,
Bangalore- 560001
Chamarajanagara Taluk,
Mysore.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/39/2006-IR(M) dated 06.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd. in imposing the punishment of
forceful retirement from the services by way of order of discharge dated 07.05.1998 on Sh. D. Narayana
Shetty, Mazdoor at Hunjanoor Mines, Chamarajanagar Taluk of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd. is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”
(v) C R No. 09/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. Nanjundaiah,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Mailaraiah, Jamboor Colony,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Jamboor Village and Post, Nuggehalli Hobli,
No. 39, M G Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/1/2007-IR(M) dated 23.02.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/
premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Nanjundaiah w.e.f. 22.05.1998? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
Appearance :
I party
:
M/s K.T. Govinde Gowda &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates
II party :
M/s. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate
1.
Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-
(i)
In CR No. 29/2007, the I Party submits that on 14.07.1980, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a
Mining worker under token No. 818. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 30 years i.e., his
date of birth being 14.07.1950. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow
the I Party to do his work w.e.f 27.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
4438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No.
29/2007.
(ii)
In CR No.40/2007, the I Party submits that on 15.01.1979, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a
Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 32 years i.e., her date of birth being
15.01.1947. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do
her work w.e.f 29.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 40/2007.
(iii) In CR No.27/2008, the I Party submits that on 18.07.1980, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, and later transferred to Bhaktarahalli Mines,
Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker under token No. 237. At the time of joining the I
Party has furnished his age as 26 years i.e., his date of birth being 18.07.1954. Further, the II Party,
Bhaktarahalli Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 06.06.1998. The I Party
has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central
Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 27/2008.
(iv)
In CR No. 36/2007, the I Party submits that on 23.09.1987, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Hunjanooru Mines, Chamarajanagara Taluk, Mysore District, as a Mining
worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 30 years i.e., his date of birth being
23.09.1957. Further, the II Party, Hunjanooru Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work
w.e.f 07.05.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D. before the Assistant Commissioner and Conciliation Officer
(C), Hubli and the the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 36/2007.
(v)
In CR No.09/2007, the I Party submits that on 12.07.1980, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I
Party has furnished his age as 20 years i.e., his date of birth being 01.02.1960. Further, the II Party, Jamboor
Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 22.05.1998. The I Party has
raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central
Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 09/2007.
2.
Brief Common details mentioned on behalf of I Party are as follows:-
The date of birth of the I Party, in fact, has been entered in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and
Service records, etc. The I Party is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party up to the reaching of the age of
superannuation i.e., 58 years in the II Party Organization. The II Party by way of an eye wash conducted the so called
illegal Medical Examination for the purpose of removing the I Party from the service before reaching the age of
superannuation. Further, the II Party has terminated the I Party on the plea that the I Party has reached the
superannuation age of 58 years as per the so called illegal Medical Examination. After illegal termination, the I Party
has faced unemployment problem and financial hardship, not only by I Party but also the family members of I Party.
The entire family has depended only upon the earnings of the I Party in the II Party Organization. The II
Party/Management similarly, has, prematurely, retired the co-workers of the I Party on the ground of Medical unfitness
and also as per the age certificate, issued by the Medical Officer. The said some of the co-workers have challenged
their pre-matured retirement and the age certification, before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management, reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, and with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001, C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same have been allowed on 01.06.2006.
On account of the illegal payment and other lapses, in the Management of II Party, it has to face administrative
problems. The II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut
methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to the so-called Medical Examination during
the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying
the so-called Medical Examination, i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C
of the Mines Rules 1995. Hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular,
and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The I Party has
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4439
repeatedly requested the officials of the II Party to provide the work to I Party till reaching the age of superannuation
i.e., 58 years. But all the efforts made by I Party to persuade the II Party to take the I Party, on duty, proved in vain
because of hostile and vindictive attitude on the part of the II Party. The II Party has no right to refuse the employment
to the I Party or to remove the I Party name from the muster rolls in unilateral manner, without following the due
process of Law. The II Party used the above illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report as its tool
for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers. The II Party unilaterally refused employment to the I
Party before the age of superannuation even though the I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work up to the
reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The II Party has not followed the Mandatory provision of Section
25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, and the action of the Management is,
therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sundaramani Vs State Bank of
India, Santhosh Gupta Vs State Bank of Patiala, Rober D’Souza Vs Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore Vs
Boraiaha and others and also the same is violative of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party has
un-necessarily created hardship to the I Party by not providing employment. The II Party Management is not justified
in retrenching the services of the I Party in the summary manner without following the principals of Natural justice and
fair play. Further, apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act as stated above, the II Party violated its
own Certified Standing Orders. The II Party acted contrary to its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules for
effecting the prematured, superannuation by way of illegal termination. The I Party submits that, the II Party failed to
issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary to the I Party before termination of service of the I
Party under Rule 24. The I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, the I Party is the Rural
based worker and used to work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate
worker belonging to Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party for the injustice
done by the II Party. The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his/her monthly
earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain
himself and the family with day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the
Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s place, for
raising the dispute and also, to set right I Party’s grievances. The Officials of the II Party/Management have taken
undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic weakness and social weakness. Ultimately with great
hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli. The I Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and
other consequential benefits from the date of refusal of employment. The II Party has violated the Provisions of I.D.
Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no
limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to
proceedings under I.D. Act. This point is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High
Courts of various states namely,
(i)
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and Others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and Others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and Others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa.
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another.
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and
Another.
(ix) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is
not justified in terminating the services of I Party, namely, prematured superannuation of the services of the I Party and
also to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other
consequential benefits from the date of termination till providing employment/reaching the age of superannuation as
per the date of birth details registered in the Statutory records like B-register and EPF records and Service records
4440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date and also
up to the date of payment and further award of cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also, equity.
3.
Brief Common submissions made on behalf of II Party in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is time barred and belated, and filed after the lapse of
time. Further, the I Party has waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The success of co-worker of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001 before Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after the lapse of time. Hence, the conduct of the I Party
does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. Further, the II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I
Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim made by the I Party is stale and time
barred. The II Party has conducted the Medical Examination and the said expert team have examined the I Party and
found that, the I Party is not capable to work in a mine, in view of the fact that, the I Party has already reached the age
of more than 58 years as on the date of Medical Examination. Further, as per the decision of Management, I Party has
been terminated and also given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I
Party is aggrieved by the said Medical Report. The I Party, who has amicably received the terminal benefits from the II
Party, has no right to raise present dispute, after the lapse of time, at the instigation, for the wrongful gain. It is relevant
to submit that, the dispute referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law. Hence, there is no
Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended. The Medical Examination has been conducted in Scientific Manner on
thorough investigation. The I Party is not entitled for any benefits as per law. The I Party is happily working
elsewhere since from the date of termination. Further, the statement of the I Party that, the II Party officials failed to
consider the reasonable request of the I Party is totally incorrect and false. In fact, the I Party is employed elsewhere
and earning salary. The I Party has filed this dispute only for wrongful gain, at the instigation of well-wishers, as
admitted by the I Party in the claim statement. The II Party has not acted illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the II Party
prays to dismiss the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4.
Already this Court has passed common award dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, in Writ Petition the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court, has passed the following Order:-
“The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court for fresh
adjudication of the dispute. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after giving notice to all the parties and pass an
award in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.” Further, notices have been sent
for both sides and additional evidence recorded and arguments heard and after the careful perusal and appreciation of
material records in the proper perspective the present Common Award is passed.
5.
The crucial points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:-
(i)
Whether the present claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the II
Party?
(ii) Whether the I Party has to prefer an appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer
as submitted by the II Party in the counter statement?
(iii) Whether after the receipt of the terminal benefits, the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case?
(iv) Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the claim statement, after the careful
appreciation of the evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper perspective?
6.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement itself, and also in the deposition that, I Party belongs to
socially and economically weaker section, and the I Party is the rural based worker, and used to work in mines which is
in a remote place of a village and I Party is also an illiterate worker, belonging to economically weaker section, and not
a fit person, to fight against the II Party and the I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of II Party mines for
permitting the I Party to work and also, due to I Party’s acquit poverty, I Party has faced huge financial hardship to
reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s
place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right the I Party’s grievances and in such circumstances, only the delay has
happened for raising the dispute and the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate one, but only due to the above
mentioned various reasons. The II Party has not specifically denied the above mentioned statements made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, the I Party has also stated that, the officials of the II Party/Management have
taken undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness by way of refusing employment,
and also, after knowing fully, that the I Party is most incapable in approaching the Labour Authority for redressal of I
Party’s grievances. The said details is also not specifically disputed by the II Party. Further, I Party has clearly stated
in the claim statement that ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party
has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the present
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4441
central reference has been made to this Court by the Government of India, as per the above mentioned details. The
said submissions made on behalf of I Party are also not specifically disputed on behalf of the II Party. On the other
hand, the Assistant Manager of II Party, namely MW-1, has categorically admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an
illiterate person. Further, the I Party has filed copies of Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A.
No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 &
23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, as exhibits marked herein below and also MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the
success of the said co-workers in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal has inspired the I Party to file the present
reference. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is seen that, the I Party is justified in claiming the legal
and statutory rights and benefits, due to the unlawful and illegal ways and means followed by the II Party to terminate
the service of I Party, without following the principles of natural justice.
7.
Further, the I Party has pointed out, in the claim statement, itself that, there is no limitation prescribed for raising
the dispute and Article 137 Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the present case. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2010, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. P. Sathasivam and Mr. Hon’ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan, in Civil Appeal No. 10231/2010, between Kuldeep Singh Vs G.M, Instrument Design Development and
Facilities Centre and Another, it is clearly held as follows:- “The Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on
ground of delay (of five and half years) in raising the dispute. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award.
Hence this present appeal. The impugned award was set aside with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by respondent-
management to appellant.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, there is no time limit prescribed for reference
under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the present case also, on a careful perusal of above said
peculiar facts and vital circumstances and also due to the fact that, the I Party is facing poverty, illiteracy, economic
and social weakness and also in the light of the above mentioned various citations, mentioned in the claim statement, it
is seen that, the II Party is not justified in raising the objection to the effect that present reference is not maintainable
due to the delay and latches. The I Party in the claim statement as well as in the evidence has pointed out that, the I
Party is an illiterate and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment in the II Party
Organisation. Further, the MW-1, namely the Assistant Manager of the II Party has also admitted that I Party is an
illiterate person and it is true to suggest that in the mines there is no shelter from sun and rain and it is true to suggest
that there is no health unit and it is true to suggest that, the working conditions as per the mining act have not been
provided at the mines. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not provided the basic and statutory
and also necessary facilities, for the proper working conditions and also, for the welfare of the I Party workers.
8.
Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions,
stage by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect
his/her employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission of delay and latches as a protective
shield to cover up their lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate
proceedings for the alleged illegal termination of services of workman en-mass by the II Party. Further, for the
effective implementation of the Labour enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have
created a Labour Department. Further, it is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour with the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass
appropriate award in accordance with law based upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II
Party/Management cannot take super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate
amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman. Further, it is clearly held in the judgment reported in 1995-II-LLJ 835,
between H.S. Vasantsenaiah Vs The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C & Anothers, as follows:- “Delay in approaching
the Labour Court- No ground to deny back wages and other consequential benefits.”
9.
Further, it is held in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-II-pg 482-483 [SC], between Mahavir Singh Vs U.P.
State Electricity Board and others, as follows:- “Delay in raising dispute – Labour Court finding termination of
workman’s service illegal-reference could not be rejected.” Also in the judgment reported in 2003-LLJ-I-pg 412-414
[MP], between Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others, it is clearly held as follows:- “No limitation laid down
for raising dispute under statute - dispute raised after about 5 years - not one which could be refused on ground of
delay.” Again, in the judgment reported in 1994-LLJ-I-pg 468-471 [All], between U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs
State of U.P and others, it is specifically held as follows:- “Lapse of 11 years between raising a dispute and making
reference does not lose the character of industrial dispute.” Further, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1079-
1081 [Del], between Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and another, it is clearly held
as follows:- “Relief under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not to be denied to workman merely on ground of delay.”
Also, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1129-1132 [Bom], between Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs
State of Maharashtra and another, it is clearly held as follows:- “Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- If plea of delay be raised, employer to show real prejudice caused by delay and not rely
on it as mere hypothetical defense.” In the present case also, considering the above mentioned socio-economic
conditions, poverty and illiteracy, of the I Party, it is found that, the appropriate relief, in accordance with law has to be
4442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
granted to the workman and the same cannot be denied, as per the mere hypothetical defence taken by the II Party
regarding the delay and in fact, the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused by the said delay.
10.
Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V.
Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- “Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome
technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations
have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous
task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just
basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion
to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional
guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply
directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy,
(1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He
began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts
will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so
strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong
should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has clearly
admitted in the counter statement that, the success of the co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated
29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos.
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, has inspired the I Party to file the present reference and in fact, the I
Party has specifically pointed out in the claim statement and evidence that, the I Party is an illiterate person and the I
Party is facing poverty, economic and social weakness and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to
provide employment to the I Party and Assistant Manager of II Party MW-1 has also admitted in his evidence that, I
Party is an illiterate person and also the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused to the II Party, by the
said delay.
11.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before
Mr. Hon’ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of
National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is
particularly held as follows:- “The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not
restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by
the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in
general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones.” In the present case also, for the above mentioned
facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II
Party is not justified in raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches, as per the said jurisdiction of the
present Court. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the I Party.
12.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 2:-
The MW-1 the Assistant Manger of II Party, who has given evidence on behalf of II Party has admitted that, it is true to
suggest that, there is no health unit and the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at the
Mines. The said admission is also clinchingly established the various above mentioned allegation made as against the
II Party. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per the provisions of the mining act there should
be a qualified doctor to attend the I Party workers at the mining site. If it is so, then there is no need for the II Party to
get the doctor from Hatti Gold Mines and to subject the I Party to medical examination. On that ground only, I Party
has clearly stated in the claim statement that, as per the illegal medical certificate, the social and economic weaker
section person of the I Party has been refused to continue the work by the II Party.
13.
Further, MW-1 namely, the Assistant Manager of II Party/Management has admitted that the II Party company
has suffered loss of 21 crores due to mis-management and it is also true to suggest that, due to the said mis-
management, the financial crisis has occurred and it is true to suggest, having suffered the said loss the management
thought of reducing the number of workers and it is true to suggest that, the Management ordered for medical
examination of all the mining workers. For the said reasons only, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement
that, II Party has suffered huge loss due to mis-management and in the way of reducing the number of workers they
have conducted illegal medical examination and terminated several workers including I Party. Further, MW-1 admitted
that, to examine the workers doctors, have come from Hatti Gold Mines Ltd. However, he has admitted, that he does
not know the names and qualifications of those doctors.
14.
Further, in the counter statement the II Party has stated that, the I Party has been given opportunity to prefer an
appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the Medical Report. However, the
MW-1 has categorically admitted that, it is true to suggest that, they have not produced the Medical certificate issued
by the Doctor who has examined the I Party health condition and it is also true to suggest that, the Medical From ‘O’ is
in English language. At the same time, the MW-1 has admitted that, I Party workers are illiterate workers. Hence, it is
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4443
found that the said medical certificate has not been issued in the language known to the workers/I Party and also not
understood by the I Party and in fact, the said medical certificate is also not submitted to this Court by the II Party. In
such circumstances, it is too much on the part of II Party to content that I Party has got the appeal remedy as per the
medical certificate and the workers have not availed the appeal remedy and hence they cannot file the present case
before this Court. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, the Doctors have not conducted the medical
examination in his presence and he does not know in what respect the I Party has been found unfit to continue in
service and he has to verify in the office whether copy of notice issued to I Party after medical examination or
acknowledgement regarding service of notice on the I Party is available or not. So, the MW-1 has not produced the
relevant records to establish that, after medical examination, proper record has been issued to I Party to appeal before
30 days. On the other hand, MW-1 has categorically admitted that, II Party has not produced the Medical certificate
issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party. Above all, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, I
Party has not been issued with charge sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of I Party’s
service. The said categorical admission of MW-1 shows that, II Party has not terminated the I Party as per the
principles of natural justice.
15.
Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clauses 18 and 24 any termination has to be
followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1has admitted that, I Party has not been issued
with charge sheet and also, enquiry has been conducted. Hence, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not terminated the I
Party in accordance with law. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, termination order has not been attached with copy of
Medical Certificate pertaining to I Party. Furthermore, MW-1 has admitted that, he does not know in what respect the
Medical Officer opined that, the I Party is being medically unfit. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true that, II
Party has not taken any permission from Labour Ministry or Labour Secretary under the provisions of I.D. Act for
terminating services of several employees on the basis of medical grounds. Further, MW-1 has specifically admitted in
his evidence that, it is true to suggest that I Party is the illiterate person and it is true to suggest that company has not
furnished to the I Party the Kannada Version/translation of Medical Certificate which is in English and the company
has enhanced the age of employees to 60 years w.e.f 17.07.2008. In the light of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, the I Party has to prefer only the appeal as
against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer. Thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
16.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 3:- The I Party has stated
in the claim statement that, he is entitled to work till attending the age of superannuation and the I Party’s actual date of
birth is registered in EPF, B-register and Service records, etc and suddenly, the II Party has refused to provide
employment to the I Party, as per the so-called illegal medical examination and the co-workers have challenged there
pre-matured retirements and age certification before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001,C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same has been allowed on 01.06.2006. The MW-1, the
Assistant Manger of II Party has also admitted the said details, in his evidence. Further, the I Party has
specifically pointed out that, on account of administrative problems faced by the II Party, the II Party
adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and
also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical
Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I
Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Report i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant
Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995 and hence, the so-called Medical
Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal
sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The MW-1, Assistant Manger of II
Party has candidly admitted in his evidence that, due to mis-management, the II Party has suffered
administrative problems, and hence, the II Party has decided to terminate the services of the I Party
workers.
17.
Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that, II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I
Party without following the due process of Law and the II Party used the illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and
unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers even though the
correct age is mentioned in the EPF, B-register and Service records, and I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work
up to the age of superannuation. In the evidence also, I Party has stated the said details mentioned in the claim
4444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
statement. Further, in the cross examination, I Party has clearly pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that, as per the
request made by the union the II Party subjected the I Party to medical check up and found the I Party unfit to continue
in service. In the additional evidence also, the I Party has pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that as on
termination, all amounts due to I Party have been received and the I Party has filed the present case, without any
justification. Further, the II Party has also not produced any relevant records, to establish that, the II Party has paid all
the amounts due to I Party as on the date of termination. Further, it is observed in the judgment reported in 1984-I-LLJ
388(SC) as follows:- “Acceptance of retirement benefits – Acceptance of retirement benefits by the workmen
concerned – Whether precluded from raising Industrial Disputes Challenging Orders of retirement. On the materials
placed by the management, held, neither a case of acquiescence nor a case of waiver on the part of workmen was made
out – Held, the workmen were entitled to wages for the period between the dates of retirement and the dates of their
reaching the age of 58 years.” Also, in the judgment reported in 1997-II-LLJ 228(SC) it is held as follows:- “There is
no statutory estoppels in favour of the Officer.” Further, it is the settled law that, there is no estoppel as against the
statutory rights/benefits, which the I Party/workman is entitled to get under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the II Party has also not established that, the action has been taken by the II Party as against the I Party, as per
the principles of natural justice and also, as per the procedure and practice to be followed in accordance with law. In the
light of the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting
that, after the receipt of the terminal benefits the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case and thus, the
point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
18. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 4:-
The I Party has categorically stated that, due to mis-management the II Party has suffered a loss and hence, the
II Party has found its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the mines workers in short cut methods and also in
an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other
co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal
and irregular manner. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the II Party has entrusted the work to private
party in spite of availability of technical persons and machinery in the year 1995-1996 and hence, the II Party company
has suffered a loss of about Rs. 21 crores and it is also true to suggest that, due to said mis-management the financial
crisis occurred and also it is true to suggest that, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the
number of workers. Hence, it is clear that, the MW-1 of II Party has also admitted the said submissions made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, he cannot right now give the date, month and year of
notice served to I Party and it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charged sheet and no enquiry has
been conducted before the termination of the I Party. Further, MW-1, admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the
clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1 has
clearly admitted that 3 months notice pay has not been paid to the I Party by the II Party.
19.
Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, there is Statutory Report, B Register
and Provident Fund Register. Further, I Party has categorically stated that, his date of birth has been entered in the
Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register and the II Party without any valid reasons pre-maturedly
terminated the service of the I Party. Further, the date of birth of I Party mentioned in the claim statement is the same
as mentioned in the employees register, which is marked as Ex M-1. Also, the Circular relating to enhancing the
superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years to the workers of II Party, is applicable only to persons who are in
employment as on 17.07.2008. Further, MW-1 has clearly admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per Clause 18.3 of
CDPR rules, the changes in the date of birth, as entered in the company record, can only effected on a judgment of a
competent Court and except on a judgment of a Court, the date of birth once recorded, will not be changed at the
request of the Officer/Employee under any circumstances. For that reason only, I Party has clearly stated that, the II
Party has terminated the service of I Party pre-maturedly without any valid reasons. Further, the act of the II Party,
certainly, is not proper and legal and as much as, no valid reasons have been furnished by the II Party for not producing
the medical certificate issued to the I Party by the II Party and no valid reason has been furnished by the II Party as to
what prevented the II Party in not following the principles of natural justice and also for not producing the material
records, though they are very important records, to prove the aforesaid details mentioned in the counter statement filed
on behalf of II Party. Further, on the careful perusal of material records mentioned in the Exhibits list, it is seen that, II
Party has refused to provide work to the I Party without following the due process of law. Further, it is found that,
there is discrimination and also violation of fundamental right caused to the I Party and it is not proper and also, not
legal to give forceful retirement to I Party, by the II Party, without following the due process of law.
20.
Further, it is seen that, the II Party has not terminated the service of the I Party as per the Principles of
Preponderance of Probability. Further, no injustice can be caused by the II Party to the I Party and I Party cannot be
victimized due to the actions of the II Party without any valid reasons. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the I
Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law. Further, the
underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and economic
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4445
justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The ultimate object
is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice. Further, the
awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009 (4) LLJ 667 (SC)
Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
APSRTC Vs B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is not automatic on
reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in
the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the
I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the claim of the
workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact that the I Party
has not performed any work for II Party from 1998 to the date of superannuation, for the several years, and also, in
order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the proper
manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages and
other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has claimed interest,
however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed for in the claim
statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is not entitled to
get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
21.
Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs
Rajendra, it is held as follows:- “Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute –
Employee only entitled to 50% back wages.” Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A.
No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6
– Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents’ service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by
Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between
termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%.” Further, in the
judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun
Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra, it is held as
follows:- “Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of
workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of
case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed.” In the present case also, it is found that,
the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of
service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment
of refusal to provide employment, by the II Party.
22. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd., and
another Vs The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- “Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On
reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case
order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management.” And in the judgment
reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- “Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of
back wages.” Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- “A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated
without one month’s notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination
was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated.” In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party
without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding enquiry and also without offering opportunity to
the I Party to put forth the his/her defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682 [Bom], between
Santhosh Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and another, it is
held as follows:- “Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served on workman –
punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman held would be
proper.” Further, the II Party has stated in the counter statement that, the I Party, on medical examination, has found to
be unfit to work. However, in the same counter statement II Party has stated that, I Party is happily working elsewhere
since the date of termination and the I Party is working elsewhere also earning salary. In such circumstances, it is seen
that, the submissions made by the II Party in the counter statement are self contradictory. On that ground also II Party
is not justified in terminating the services of I Party without following the principles of natural justice, fairness and
reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also, after taking into
consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the following award is
passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
4446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
CR No. 29/2007 N. Nanjashetty Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/N. Nanjashetty
with effect from 27.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 27.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 14.07.2008 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(ii) In CR No. 40/2007 Boramma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Boramma with
effect from 29.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 29.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 15.01.2005 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of
retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and
circumstances.
(iii)
In CR No. 27/2008 A. Boregowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/A. Boregowda
with effect from 06.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 06.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 18.07.2012 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(iv) In CR No. 36/2007 D Narayana Shetty Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/D Narayana
Shetty with effect from 07.05.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total
amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I
Party from the date of termination, namely, 07.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 23.09.2015 to
which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In
computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party
attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned
peculiar facts and circumstances.
(v) In CR No. 09/2007 Nanjundaiah Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination from the service of I party/
Nanjundaiah, w.e.f 22.05.1998 and II Party, is directed to reinstate and to grant the monetary benefits to the I Party with
continuity of service, and other consequential benefits that, he would have received in the absence of the impugned
punishment of termination from service, but with 50% back wages to the I Party, and the present reference is answered,
accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30th June, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4447
(i) In CR No. 29/2007 N. Nanjashetty Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. N. Nanjashetty, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-2
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-3
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-4
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(ii) In CR No. 40/2007 Boramma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Boramma, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001
& 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
4448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) In CR No. 27/2008 A. Boregowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. A. Boregowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-2
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-3
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-4
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from
58 years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(iv) In CR No. 36/2007 D Narayana Shetty Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. D Narayana Shetty, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Employees Pension Scheme Form
Ex W-2
07.05.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-3
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-4
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-5
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-6
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4449
(v) In CR No. 09/2007 Nanjundaiah Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Nanjundaiah, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-2
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-3
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-4
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1792-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj
feujYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2007] 34@2007] 35@2007] 42@2007] 99@2007) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@33@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@37@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@38@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@51@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@25@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007, 34/2007, 35/2007, 42/2007, 99/2007,) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 24.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/33/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/37/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/38/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/51/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/25/2007-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
4450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 30th JUNE 2017
PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C R No. 31/2007
I Party
II Party
Smt. Lakshmamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Thimma Shettru, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Kembalu Village and Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/33/2006-IR(M) dated 01.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Smt. Lakshmamma w.e.f. 09.06.1998? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(ii) C R No. 34/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. Venkatesh,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Nanjaiah, M K Hoosru,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
M Shivara Post, Channarayapatna Taluk,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/37/2006-IR(M) dated 02.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature
superannuating of the services of Sh. Venkatesh w.e.f. 28.06.1998? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
(iii) C R No. 35/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. B. Chikke Gowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Siddegowda, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Bidare Village, Kembalu Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L- 29012/38/2006-IR(M) dated 02.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4451
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. B. Chikke Gowda w.e.f. 25.05.1998? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(iv) C R No. 42/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. K N Nanjunde Gowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Nanje Gowda, Karehalli,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village & Post, Bagur Hobli,
No. 39, M G Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/51/2006-IR(M) dated 06.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in imposing the punishment of
forceful retirement from the services w.e.f 11.09.1998 by way of order of discharge dated 12.08.1998 on
Sh. K.N. Nanjunde Gowda, foreman, Nidagallu Granite Quarry (Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore
District) of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled and from which date?”
(v) C R No. 99/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. Chandrappa,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Revanna, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
BannakereVillage, Baddikere Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Nuggehalli Hobli Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/25/2007-IR(M) dated 22.08.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Chandrappa w.e.f. 16.04.1998 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Appearance :
I party
:
M/s K.T. Govinde Gowda &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates
II party
:
M/s. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate
1. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-
(i) In CR No. 31/2007, the I Party submits that on 11.05.1982, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Bhaktharahalli Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 41 years i.e., her date of birth
being 11.05.1941. Further, the II Party, Bhaktharahalli Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I
Party to do her work w.e.f 09.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
and Conciliation Officer (C), and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No.31/2007.
(ii) In CR No. 34/2007, the I Party submits that on 12.11.1979, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a
Mining worker under token No. 614. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 31 years i.e., his
date of birth being 12.11.1948. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow
the I Party to do his work w.e.f 28.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
4452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in
CR No. 34/2007.
(iii) In CR No. 35/2007, the I Party submits that on 14.01.1980, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining
Worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 34 years i.e., his date of birth being
14.01.1946. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do
his work w.e.f 25.05.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 35/2007.
(iv) In CR No. 42/2007, the I Party submits that on 30.04.1977, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Thagadur Chromite Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, and the I
Party is a high skilled worker and not worked in the Managerial Capacity, and later, transferred to Nidagallu
Granite querry. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 25 years i.e., his date of birth being
01.09.1952. Further, the II Party, Nidagallu Granite querry Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his
work w.e.f 12.08.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 42/2007.
(v) In CR No. 99/2007, the I Party submits that on 06.10.1982, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a
Mining worker under token No. 217. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 35 years i.e., his
date of birth being 06.10.1947. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow
the I Party to do his work w.e.f 16.04.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in
CR No. 99/2007.
2.
Brief Common details mentioned on behalf of I Party are as follows:-
The date of birth of the I Party, in fact, has been entered in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and
Service records, etc. The I Party is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party up to the reaching of the age of
superannuation i.e., 58 years in the II Party Organization. The II Party by way of an eye wash conducted the so called
illegal Medical Examination for the purpose of removing the I Party from the service before reaching the age of
superannuation. Further, the II Party has terminated the I Party on the plea that the I Party has reached the
superannuation age of 58 years as per the so called illegal Medical Examination. After illegal termination, the I Party
has faced unemployment problem and financial hardship, not only by I Party but also the family members of I Party.
The entire family has depended only upon the earnings of the I Party in the II Party Organization. The II
Party/Management similarly, has, prematurely, retired the co-workers of the I Party on the ground of Medical unfitness
and also as per the age certificate, issued by the Medical Officer. The said some of the co-workers have challenged
their pre-matured retirement and the age certification, before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management, reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, and with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001, C/W W.P. Nos.23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same have been allowed on 01.06.2006.
On account of the illegal payment and other lapses, in the Management of II Party, it has to face administrative
problems. The II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut
methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to the so-called Medical Examination during
the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying
the so-called Medical Examination, i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C
of the Mines Rules 1995. Hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular,
and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The I Party has
repeatedly requested the officials of the II Party to provide the work to I Party till reaching the age of superannuation
i.e., 58 years. But all the efforts made by I Party to persuade the II Party to take the I Party, on duty, proved in vain
because of hostile and vindictive attitude on the part of the II Party. The II Party has no right to refuse the employment
to the I Party or to remove the I Party name from the muster rolls in unilateral manner, without following the due
process of Law. The II Party used the above illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report as its tool
for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers. The II Party unilaterally refused employment to the I
Party before the age of superannuation even though the I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work up to the
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4453
reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The II Party has not followed the Mandatory provision of Section
25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, and the action of the Management is,
therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sundaramani Vs State Bank of
India, Santhosh Gupta Vs State Bank of Patiala, Rober D’Souza Vs Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore Vs
Boraiaha and others and also the same is violative of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party has
un-necessarily created hardship to the I Party by not providing employment. The II Party Management is not justified
in retrenching the services of the I Party in the summary manner without following the principals of Natural justice and
fair play. Further, apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act as stated above, the II Party violated its
own Certified Standing Orders. The II Party acted contrary to its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules for
effecting the prematured, superannuation by way of illegal termination. The I Party submits that, the II Party failed to
issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary to the I Party before termination of service of the I
Party under Rule 24. The I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, the I Party is the Rural
based worker and used to work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate
worker belonging to Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party for the injustice
done by the II Party. The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his/her monthly
earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain
himself and the family with day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the
Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s place, for
raising the dispute and also, to set right the I Party’s grievances. The Officials of the II Party/Management have taken
undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic weakness and social weakness. Ultimately with great
hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli. The I Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and
other consequential benefits from the date of refusal of employment. The II Party has violated the Provisions of I.D.
Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no
limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to
proceedings under I.D. Act. This point is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High
Courts of various states namely,
(i)
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and
Another
(ix) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is
not justified in terminating the services of I Party, namely, prematured superannuation of the services of the I Party and
also to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other
consequential benefits from the date of termination till providing employment/reaching the age of superannuation as
per the date of birth details registered in the Statutory records like B-register and EPF records and Service records
maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date and also
up to the date of payment and further award of cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also, equity.
3. Brief Common submissions made on behalf of II Party in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is time barred and belated, and filed after the lapse of
time. Further, the I Party has waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The success of co-worker of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001 before Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after the lapse of time. Hence, the conduct of the I Party
4454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. Further, the II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I
Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim made by the I Party is stale and time
barred. The II Party has conducted the Medical Examination and the said expert team have examined the I Party and
found that, the I Party is not capable to work in a mine, in view of the fact that, the I Party has already reached the age
of more than 58 years as on the date of Medical Examination. Further, as per the decision of Management, I Party has
been terminated and also given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I
Party is aggrieved by the said Medical Report. The I Party, who has amicably received the terminal benefits from the II
Party, has no right to raise present dispute, after the lapse of time, at the instigation, for the wrongful gain. It is relevant
to submit that, the dispute referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law. Hence, there is no
Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended. The Medical Examination has been conducted in Scientific Manner on
thorough investigation. The I Party is not entitled for any benefits as per law. The I Party is happily working elsewhere
since from the date of termination. Further, the statement of the I Party that, the II Party officials failed to consider the
reasonable request of the I Party is totally incorrect and false. In fact, the I Party is employed elsewhere and earning
salary. The I Party has filed this dispute only for wrongful gain, at the instigation of well-wishers, as admitted by the I
Party in the claim statement. The II Party has not acted illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the II Party prays to dismiss
the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4.
Already this Court has passed common award dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, in Writ Petition the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court, has passed the following Order:-
“The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum- Labour Court for fresh
adjudication of the dispute. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after giving notice to all the parties and pass
an award in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.” Further, notices have
been sent for both sides and additional evidence recorded and arguments heard and after the careful perusal and
appreciation of material records in the proper perspective the present Common Award is passed.
5.
The crucial points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:-
(i)
Whether the present claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the
II Party?
(ii) Whether the I Party has to prefer an appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer
as submitted by the II Party in the counter statement?
(iii) Whether after the receipt of the terminal benefits, the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case?
(iv) Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the claim statement, after the careful
appreciation of the evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper perspective?
6.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement itself, and also in the deposition that, I Party belongs to
socially and economically weaker section, and the I Party is the rural based worker, and used to work in mines which is
in a remote place of a village and I Party is also an illiterate worker, belonging to economically weaker section, and not
a fit person, to fight against the II Party and the I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of II Party mines for
permitting the I Party to work and also, due to I Party’s acquit poverty, I Party has faced huge financial hardship to
reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s
place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right I Party’s grievances and in such circumstances, only the delay has
happened for raising the dispute and the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate one, but only due to the above
mentioned various reasons. The II Party has not specifically denied the above mentioned statements made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, the I Party has also stated that, the officials of the II Party/Management have
taken undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness by way of refusing employment,
and also, after knowing fully, that the I Party is most incapable in approaching the Labour Authority for redressal of
the I Party’s grievances. The said details is also not specifically disputed by the II Party. Further, I Party has clearly
stated in the claim statement that ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I
Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the present
central reference has been made to this Court by the Government of India, as per the above mentioned details. The
said submissions made on behalf of I Party are also not specifically disputed on behalf of the II Party. On the other
hand, the Assistant Manager of II Party, namely MW-1, has categorically admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an
illiterate person. Further, the I Party has filed copies of Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A.
No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 &
23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, as exhibits marked herein below and also MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the
success of the said co-workers in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal has inspired the I Party to file the present
reference. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is seen that, the I Party is justified in claiming the legal
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4455
and statutory rights and benefits, due to the unlawful and illegal ways and means followed by the II Party to terminate
the service of I Party, without following the principles of natural justice.
7.
Further, the I Party has pointed out, in the claim statement, itself that, there is no limitation prescribed for raising
the dispute and Article 137 Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the present case. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2010, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. P. Sathasivam and Mr. Hon’ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan, in Civil Appeal No. 10231/2010, between Kuldeep Singh Vs G.M, Instrument Design Development and
Facilities Centre and Another, it is clearly held as follows:- “The Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on
ground of delay (of five and half years) in raising the dispute. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award.
Hence this present appeal. The impugned award was set aside with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by respondent-
management to appellant.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, there is no time limit prescribed for reference
under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the present case also, on a careful perusal of above said
peculiar facts and vital circumstances and also due to the fact that, the I Party is facing poverty, illiteracy, economic
and social weakness and also in the light of the above mentioned various citations, mentioned in the claim statement, it
is seen that, the II Party is not justified in raising the objection to the effect that present reference is not maintainable
due to the delay and latches. The I Party in the claim statement as well as in the evidence has pointed out that, the I
Party is an illiterate and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment in the II Party
Organisation. Further, the MW-1, namely the Assistant Manager of the II Party has also admitted that I Party is an
illiterate person and it is true to suggest that in the mines there is no shelter from sun and rain and it is true to suggest
that there is no health unit and it is true to suggest that, the working conditions as per the mining act have not been
provided at the mines. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not provided the basic and statutory
and also necessary facilities, for the proper working conditions and also, for the welfare of the I Party workers.
8.
Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions,
stage by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect
his/her employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission of delay and latches as a protective
shield to cover up their lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate
proceedings for the alleged illegal termination of services of workman en-mass by the II Party. Further, for the
effective implementation of the Labour enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have
created a Labour Department. Further, it is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour with the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass
appropriate award in accordance with law based upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II
Party/Management cannot take super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate
amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman. Further, it is clearly held in the judgment reported in 1995-II-LLJ 835,
between H.S. Vasantsenaiah Vs The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C & Anothers, as follows:- “Delay in approaching
the Labour Court- No ground to deny back wages and other consequential benefits.”
9.
Further, it is held in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-II-pg 482-483 [SC], between Mahavir Singh Vs U.P.
State Electricity Board and others, as follows:- “Delay in raising dispute – Labour Court finding termination of
workman’s service illegal-reference could not be rejected.” Also in the judgment reported in 2003-LLJ-I-pg 412-414
[MP], between Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others, it is clearly held as follows:- “No limitation laid down
for raising dispute under statute - dispute raised after about 5 years - not one which could be refused on ground of
delay.” Again, in the judgment reported in 1994-LLJ-I-pg 468-471 [All], between U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs
State of U.P and others, it is specifically held as follows:- “Lapse of 11 years between raising a dispute and making
reference does not lose the character of industrial dispute.” Further, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1079-
1081 [Del], between Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and another, it is clearly held
as follows:- “Relief under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not to be denied to workman merely on ground of delay.”
Also, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1129-1132 [Bom], between Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs
State of Maharashtra and another, it is clearly held as follows:- “Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- If plea of delay be raised, employer to show real prejudice caused by delay and not rely
on it as mere hypothetical defense.” In the present case also, considering the above mentioned socio-economic
conditions, poverty and illiteracy, of the I Party, it is found that, the appropriate relief, in accordance with law has to be
granted to the workman and the same cannot be denied, as per the mere hypothetical defence taken by the II Party
regarding the delay and in fact, the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused by the said delay.
10.
Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V.
Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- “Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome
technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations
have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous
task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just
basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion
4456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional
guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply
directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy,
(1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He
began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts
will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so
strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong
should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has clearly
admitted in the counter statement that, the success of the co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated
29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos.
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, has inspired the I Party to file the present reference and in fact, the I
Party has specifically pointed out in the claim statement and evidence that, the I Party is an illiterate person and the I
Party is facing poverty, economic and social weakness and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to
provide employment to the I Party and Assistant Manager of II Party MW-1 has also admitted in his evidence that, I
Party is an illiterate person and also the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused to the II Party, by the
said delay.
11.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before
Mr. Hon’ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of
National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is
particularly held as follows:- “The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not
restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by
the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in
general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones.” In the present case also, for the above mentioned
facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II
Party is not justified in raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches, as per the said jurisdiction of the
present Court. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the I Party.
12.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 2:-
The MW-1 the Assistant Manger of II Party, who has given evidence on behalf of II Party has admitted that, it is
true to suggest that, there is no health unit and the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at
the Mines. The said admission is also clinchingly established the various above mentioned allegation made as against
the II Party. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per the provisions of the mining act there
should be a qualified doctor to attend the I Party workers at the mining site. If it is so, then there is no need for the II
Party to get the doctor from Hatti Gold Mines and to subject the I Party to medical examination. On that ground only, I
Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that, as per the illegal medical certificate, the social and economic
weaker section person of the I Party has been refused to continue the work by the II Party.
13.
Further, MW-1 namely, the Assistant Manager of II Party/Management has admitted that the II Party company
has suffered loss of 21 crores due to mis-management and it is also true to suggest that, due to the said mis-
management, the financial crisis has occurred and it is true to suggest, having suffered the said loss the management
thought of reducing the number of workers and it is true to suggest that, the Management ordered for medical
examination of all the mining workers. For the said reasons only, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement
that, II Party has suffered huge loss due to mis-management and in the way of reducing the number of workers they
have conducted illegal medical examination and terminated several workers including I Party. Further, MW-1 admitted
that, to examine the workers doctors, have come from Hatti Gold Mines Ltd. However, he has admitted, that he does
not know the names and qualifications of those doctors.
14.
Further, in the counter statement the II Party has stated that, the I Party has been given opportunity to prefer an
appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the Medical Report. However, the
MW-1 has categorically admitted that, it is true to suggest that, they have not produced the Medical certificate issued
by the Doctor who has examined the I Party health condition and it is also true to suggest that, the Medical From ‘O’ is
in English language. At the same time, the MW-1 has admitted that, I Party workers are illiterate workers. Hence, it is
found that the said medical certificate has not been issued in the language known to the workers/I Party and also not
understood by the I Party and in fact, the said medical certificate is also not submitted to this Court by the II Party. In
such circumstances, it is too much on the part of II Party to content that I Party has got the appeal remedy as per the
medical certificate and the workers have not availed the appeal remedy and hence they cannot file the present case
before this Court. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, the Doctors have not conducted the medical
examination in his presence and he does not know in what respect the I Party has been found unfit to continue in
service and he has to verify in the office whether copy of notice issued to I Party after medical examination or
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4457
acknowledgement regarding service of notice on the I Party is available or not. So, the MW-1 has not produced the
relevant records to establish that, after medical examination, proper record has been issued to I Party to appeal before
30 days. On the other hand, MW-1 has categorically admitted that, II Party has not produced the Medical certificate
issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party. Above all, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, I
Party has not been issued with charge sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of his service.
The said categorical admission of MW-1 shows that, II Party has not terminated the I Party as per the principles of
natural justice.
15.
Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be
followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1has admitted that, I Party has not been issued
with charge sheet and also, enquiry has been conducted. Hence, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not terminated the I
Party in accordance with law. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, termination order has not been attached with copy of
Medical Certificate pertaining to I Party. Furthermore, MW-1 has admitted that, he does not know in what respect the
Medical Officer opined that, the I Party is being medically unfit. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true that, II
Party has not taken any permission from Labour Ministry or Labour Secretary under the provisions of I.D. Act for
terminating services of several employees on the basis of medical grounds. Further, MW-1 has specifically admitted in
his evidence that, it is true to suggest that I Party is the illiterate person and it is true to suggest that company has not
furnished to the I Party the Kannada Version/translation of Medical Certificate which is in English and the company
has enhanced the age of employees to 60 years w.e.f 17.07.2008. In the light of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, the I Party has to prefer only the appeal as
against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer. Thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
16.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 3:-
The I Party has stated in the claim statement that, he is entitled to work till attending the age of superannuation
and the I Party’s actual date of birth is registered in EPF, B-register and Service records, etc and suddenly, the II Party
has refused to provide employment to the I Party, as per the so-called illegal medical examination and the co-workers
have challenged there pre-matured retirements and age certification before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001,C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same has been allowed on 01.06.2006. The MW-1, the
Assistant Manger of II Party has also admitted the said details, in his evidence. Further, the I Party has
specifically pointed out that, on account of administrative problems faced by the II Party, the II Party
adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and
also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical
Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I
Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Report i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant
Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995 and hence, the so-called Medical
Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal
sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The MW-1, Assistant Manger of II
Party has candidly admitted in his evidence that, due to mis-management, the II Party has suffered
administrative problems, and hence, the II Party has decided to terminate the services of the I Party
workers.
17.
Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that, II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I
Party without following the due process of Law and the II Party used the illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and
unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers even though the
correct age is mentioned in the EPF, B-register and Service records, and I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work
up to the age of superannuation. In the evidence also, I Party has stated the said details mentioned in the claim
statement. Further, in the cross examination, I Party has clearly pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that, as per the
request made by the union the II Party subjected the I Party to medical check up and found the I Party unfit to continue
in service. In the additional evidence also, the I Party has pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that as on
termination, all amounts due to I Party have been received and the I Party has filed the present case, without any
justification. Further, the II Party has also not produced any relevant records, to establish that, the II Party has paid all
4458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the amounts due to I Party as on the date of termination. Further, it is observed in the judgment reported in 1984-I-LLJ
388(SC) as follows:- “Acceptance of retirement benefits – Acceptance of retirement benefits by the workmen
concerned – Whether precluded from raising Industrial Disputes Challenging Orders of retirement. On the materials
placed by the management, held, neither a case of acquiescence nor a case of waiver on the part of workmen was made
out – Held, the workmen were entitled to wages for the period between the dates of retirement and the dates of their
reaching the age of 58 years.” Also, in the judgment reported in 1997-II-LLJ 228(SC) it is held as follows:- “There is
no statutory estoppels in favour of the Officer.” Further, it is the settled law that, there is no estoppel as against the
statutory rights/benefits, which the I Party/workman is entitled to get under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the II Party has also not established that, the action has been taken by the II Party as against the I Party, as per
the principles of natural justice and also, as per the procedure and practice to be followed in accordance with law. In the
light of the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting
that, after the receipt of the terminal benefits the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case and thus, the
point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
18. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 4:-
The I Party has categorically stated that, due to mis-management the II Party has suffered a loss and hence, the
II Party has found its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the mines workers in short cut methods and also in
an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other
co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal
and irregular manner. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the II Party has entrusted the work to private
party in spite of availability of technical persons and machinery in the year 1995-1996 and hence, the II Party company
has suffered a loss of about Rs. 21 crores and it is also true to suggest that, due to said mis-management the financial
crisis occurred and also it is true to suggest that, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the
number of workers. Hence, it is clear that, the MW-1 of II Party has also admitted the said submissions made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, he cannot right now give the date, month and year of
notice served to I Party and it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charged sheet and no enquiry has
been conducted before the termination of the I Party. Further, MW-1, admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the
clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1 has
clearly admitted that 3 months notice pay has not been paid to the I Party by the II Party.
19.
Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, there is Statutory Report, B Register
and Provident Fund Register. Further, I Party has categorically stated that, the date of birth has been entered in the
Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register and the II Party without any valid reasons pre-maturedly
terminated the service of the I Party. Further, the date of birth of I Party mentioned in the claim statement is the same
as mentioned in the employees register, which is marked as Ex M-1, except in the case of CR No. 42/2007. Further, in
the case of CR No. 42/2007, it is seen that, as per Ex M-1 and Ex M-2, the date of birth of I Party is 13.06.1951. Also,
the Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years to the workers of II Party, is
applicable only to persons who are in employment as on 17.07.2008. Further, MW-1 has clearly admitted that, it is true
to suggest that, as per Clause 18.3 of CDPR rules, the changes in the date of birth, as entered in the company record,
can only effected on a judgment of a competent Court and except on a judgment of a Court, the date of birth once
recorded, will not be changed at the request of the Officer/Employee under any circumstances. For that reason only, I
Party has clearly stated that, the II Party has terminated the service of I Party pre-maturedly without any valid reasons.
Further, the act of the II Party, certainly, is not proper and legal and as much as, no valid reasons have been furnished
by the II Party for not producing the medical certificate issued to the I Party by the II Party and no valid reason has
been furnished by the II Party as to what prevented the II Party in not following the principles of natural justice and
also for not producing the material records, though they are very important records, to prove the aforesaid details
mentioned in the counter statement filed on behalf of II Party. Further, on the careful perusal of material records
mentioned in the Exhibits list, it is seen that, II Party has refused to provide work to the I Party without following the
due process of law. Further, it is found that, there is discrimination and also violation of fundamental right caused to
the I Party and it is not proper and also, not legal to give forceful retirement to I Party, by the II Party, without
following the due process of law.
20.
Further, it is seen that, the II Party has not terminated the service of the I Party as per the Principles of
Preponderance of Probability. Further, no injustice can be caused by the II Party to the I Party and I Party cannot be
victimized due to the actions of the II Party without any valid reasons. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the I
Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law. Further, the
underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and economic
justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The ultimate object
is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice. Further, the
awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009 (4) LLJ 667 (SC)
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4459
Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
APSRTC Vs B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is not automatic on
reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in
the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the
I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the claim of the
workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact that the I Party
has not performed any work for II Party from 1998 to the date of superannuation, for the several years, and also, in
order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the proper
manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages and
other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has claimed interest,
however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed for in the claim
statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is not entitled to
get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
21.
Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs
Rajendra, it is held as follows:- “Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute –
Employee only entitled to 50% back wages.” Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A.
No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6
– Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents’ service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by
Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between
termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%.” Further, in the
judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun
Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra, it is held as
follows:- “Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of
workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of
case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed.” In the present case also, it is found that,
the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of
service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment
of refusal to provide employment, by the II Party.
22. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd.,
and another Vs The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- “Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On
reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case
order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management.” And in the judgment
reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- “Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of
back wages.” Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- “A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated
without one month’s notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination
was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated.” In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party
without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding enquiry and also without offering opportunity to
the I Party to put forth his/her defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682 [Bom], between Santhosh
Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and another, it is held as
follows:- “Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served on workman –
punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman held would be
proper.” Further, the II Party has stated in the counter statement that, the I Party, on medical examination, has found to
be unfit to work. However, in the same counter statement II Party has stated that, I Party is happily working elsewhere
since the date of termination and the I Party is working elsewhere also earning salary. In such circumstances, it is seen
that, the submissions made by the II Party in the counter statement are self contradictory. On that ground also II Party
is not justified in terminating the services of I Party without following the principles of natural justice, fairness and
reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also, after taking into
consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the following award is
passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
4460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) In C R No. 31/2007 Lakshmamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Lakshmamma
with effect from 09.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 09.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 11.05.1999 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(ii) In C R No. 34/2007 Venkatesh Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Venkatesh with
effect from 28.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 28.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 12.11.2006 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of
retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and
circumstances.
(iii) In C R No. 35/2007 B Chikke Gowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/B Chikke
Gowda with effect from 25.05.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total
amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I
Party from the date of termination, namely, 25.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 14.01.2004 to
which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In
computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Piarty
attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned
peculiar facts and circumstances.
(iv) In C R No. 42/2007 K N Nanjunde Gowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/K N Nanjunde
Gowda with effect from 11.09.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total
amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I
Party from the date of termination, namely, 11.09.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 30.04.2009 to
which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In
computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party
attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned
peculiar facts and circumstances.
(v) In C R No. 99/2007 Chandrappa Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Chandrappa
with effect from 16.04.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 16.04.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 06.10.2005 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30th June, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4461
(i) In C R No. 31/2007 Lakshmamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Membership Application Form issued by II Party
Ex W-2
09.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-3
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-4
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-5
01.06.2006
Order
passed
in
W.P.
No.
26101/2001
c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-6
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age
from 58 years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(ii) In C R No. 34/2007 Venkatesh Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Venkatesh, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-2
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-3
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001
& 23794/2001
Ex W-4
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years
to 60 years
WW 1
Smt. Lakshmamma, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
4462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(iii) In C R No. 35/2007 B Chikke Gowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. B Chikke Gowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Membership Application Form issued by II Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 346/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 &
23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to
60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(iv) In C R No. 42/2007 K N Nanjunde Gowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. K N Nanjunde Gowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4463
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
30.04.1977
Appointment letter issued by II Party
Ex W-2
-
Pension Payment Order
Ex W-3
12.08.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-4
-
Medical Examination Report issued by II Party
Ex W-5
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-6
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-7
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 &
23794/2001
Ex W-8
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to
60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
Ex M-2
-
Employees Service Record
(v) In C R No. 99/2007 Chandrappa Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Chandrappa, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
22.05.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 &
23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60
years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
4464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1793-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj
feujYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2007] 103@2007] 104@2007] 25@2008] 28@2008) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-07-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@27@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@30@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@32@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@2@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@5@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2007, 103/2007, 104/2007, 25/2008, 28/2008,) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 24.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/27/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/30/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/32/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/2/2008-IR (M),
No. L-29012/5/2008-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 30th JUNE 2017
PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C R No. 25/2007
I Party
II Party
Smt. Mariyamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Late Chikklegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
MML Worker, Hullenahalli, Kembalu Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/27/2006-IR(M) dated 23.02.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Smt. Mariyamma w.e.f. 29.06.1998? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4465
(ii) C R No. 103/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. H. Thimmegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Hanumegowda, Thotademane,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Marshettyhalli Koppalu Village, Hulleker Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/30/2007-IR(M) dated 21.08.2007 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act,
1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature
superannuating of the services of Sh. H. Thimmegowda w.e.f. 28.06.1998? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
(iii) C R No. 104/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. K.L. Shivegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Sh. Kakkashetty Gowda, Kothalaglta
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village & Post, Shravanabelagola Hobli,
No. 39, M G Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L- 29012/32/2007-IR(M) dated 21.08.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. K.L. Shivegowda w.e.f. 28.06.1998? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(iv) C R No. 25/2008
Smt. Singamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Oblaiah, Chavkenahalli Village,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Nagar Navile Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli,
Bangalore- 560001
Chamarajanagara Taluk,
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/2/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of Smt. Singamma by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f
28.06.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(v) C R No. 28/2008
I Party
II Party
Sh. A. Nanjegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Chunchegowda, Averehalli
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Village, Jamboor Post, Nuggehalli Hobli,
No. 39, M G Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
4466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/5/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of Sh. A. Nanjegowda by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f
16.04.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Appearance :
I party
:
M/s K.T. Govinde Gowda &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates
II party
:
M/s. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate
1.
Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-
(i)
In CR No. 25/2007, the I Party submits that on 24.11.1977, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Kembal Post, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District, as a Mining worker under token No. 210. At the time of joining the I Party has
furnished her age as 30 years i.e., her date of birth being 24.11.1947. Further, the II Party, Byrapura
Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 29.06.1998. The I
Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), and the
Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 25/2007.
(ii)
In CR No. 103/2007, the I Party submits that on 21.11.1980, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining worker under token No. 1347. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 36
years i.e., his date of birth being 21.11.1944. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials,
orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 28.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before
the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government
have referred the Reference in CR No. 103/2007.
(iii) In CR No. 104/2007, the I Party submits that on 01.03.1983, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., GCP [Granite Processing] Unit and later transferred to Byrapura
Division Office, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Watchman. At the time of joining the I
Party has furnished his age as 27 years i.e., his date of birth being 26.03.1956. Further, the II Party,
Byrapura Division Office Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 28.06.1998.
The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C),
Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR 104/2007.
(iv) In CR No. 25/2008, the I Party submits that on 03.11.1980, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining worker under token No. 294. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 30
years i.e., her date of birth being 03.11.1950. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials,
orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 28.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D. before
the Assistant Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the the Central Government have
referred the Reference in CR No. 25/2008.
(v)
In CR No. 28/2008, the I Party submits that on 03.04.1982, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 28 years i.e., his date of
birth being 01.07.1954. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow
the I Party to do his work w.e.f 16.04.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the
Reference in CR No. 28/2008.
2.
Brief Common details mentioned on behalf of I Party are as follows:-
The date of birth of the I Party, in fact, has been entered in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and
Service records, etc. The I Party is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party up to the reaching of the age of
superannuation i.e., 58 years in the II Party Organization. The II Party by way of an eye wash conducted the so called
illegal Medical Examination for the purpose of removing the I Party from the service before reaching the age of
superannuation. Further, the II Party has terminated the I Party on the plea that the I Party has reached the
superannuation age of 58 years as per the so called illegal Medical Examination. After illegal termination, the I Party
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4467
has faced unemployment problem and financial hardship, not only by I Party but also the family members of I Party.
The entire family has depended only upon the earnings of the I Party in the II Party Organization. The II
Party/Management similarly, has, prematurely, retired the co-workers of the I Party on the ground of Medical unfitness
and also as per the age certificate, issued by the Medical Officer. The said some of the co-workers have challenged
their pre-matured retirement and the age certification, before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management, reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, and with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001, C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same have been allowed on 01.06.2006.
On account of the illegal payment and other lapses, in the Management of II Party, it has to face administrative
problems. The II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut
methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to the so-called Medical Examination during
the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying
the so-called Medical Examination, i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C
of the Mines Rules 1995. Hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular,
and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The I Party has
repeatedly requested the officials of the II Party to provide the work to I Party till reaching the age of superannuation
i.e., 58 years. But all the efforts made by I Party to persuade the II Party to take the I Party, on duty, proved in vain
because of hostile and vindictive attitude on the part of the II Party. The II Party has no right to refuse the employment
to the I Party or to remove the I Party name from the muster rolls in unilateral manner, without following the due
process of Law. The II Party used the above illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report as its tool
for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers. The II Party unilaterally refused employment to the I
Party before the age of superannuation even though the I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work up to the
reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The II Party has not followed the Mandatory provision of Section
25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, and the action of the Management is,
therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sundaramani Vs State Bank of
India, Santhosh Gupta Vs State Bank of Patiala, Rober D’Souza Vs Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore Vs
Boraiaha and others and also the same is violative of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party has
un-necessarily created hardship to the I Party by not providing employment. The II Party Management is not justified
in retrenching the services of the I Party in the summary manner without following the principals of Natural justice and
fair play. Further, apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act as stated above, the II Party violated its
own Certified Standing Orders. The II Party acted contrary to its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules for
effecting the prematured, superannuation by way of illegal termination. The I Party submits that, the II Party failed to
issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary to the I Party before termination of service of the I
Party under Rule 24. The I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, the I Party is the Rural
based worker and used to work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate
worker belonging to Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party for the injustice
done by the II Party. The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his/her monthly
earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain
himself and the family with day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the
Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s place, for
raising the dispute and also, to set right the I Party’s grievances. The Officials of the II Party/Management have taken
undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic weakness and social weakness. Ultimately with great
hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli. The I Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and
other consequential benefits from the date of refusal of employment. The II Party has violated the Provisions of I.D.
Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no
limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to
proceedings under I.D. Act. This point is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High
Courts of various states namely,
(i).
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
4468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and
Another
(ix) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is
not justified in terminating the services of I Party, namely, prematured superannuation of the services of the I Party and
also to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other
consequential benefits from the date of termination till providing employment/reaching the age of superannuation as
per the date of birth details registered in the Statutory records like B-register and EPF records and Service records
maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date and also
up to the date of payment and further award of cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also, equity.
3.
Brief Common submissions made on behalf of II Party in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is time barred and belated, and filed after the lapse of
time. Further, the I Party has waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The success of co-worker of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001 before Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after the lapse of time. Hence, the conduct of the I Party
does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. Further, the II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I
Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim made by the I Party is stale and time
barred. The II Party has conducted the Medical Examination and the said expert team have examined the I Party and
found that, the I Party is not capable to work in a mine, in view of the fact that, the I Party has already reached the age
of more than 58 years as on the date of Medical Examination. Further, as per the decision of Management, I Party has
been terminated and also given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I
Party is aggrieved by the said Medical Report. The I Party, who has amicably received the terminal benefits from the II
Party, has no right to raise present dispute, after the lapse of time, at the instigation, for the wrongful gain. It is relevant
to submit that, the dispute referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law. Hence, there is no
Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended. The Medical Examination has been conducted in Scientific Manner on
thorough investigation. The I Party is not entitled for any benefits as per law. The I Party is happily working
elsewhere since from the date of termination. Further, the statement of the I Party that, the II Party officials failed to
consider the reasonable request of the I Party is totally incorrect and false. In fact, the I Party is employed elsewhere
and earning salary. The I Party has filed this dispute only for wrongful gain, at the instigation of well-wishers, as
admitted by the I Party in the claim statement. The II Party has not acted illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the II Party
prays to dismiss the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4.
Already this Court has passed common award dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, in Writ Petition the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court, has passed the following Order:-
“The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum - Labour Court for fresh
adjudication of the dispute. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after giving notice to all the parties and pass
an award in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.” Further, notices have
been sent for both sides and additional evidence recorded and arguments heard and after the careful perusal and
appreciation of material records in the proper perspective the present Common Award is passed.
5.
The crucial points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:-
(i) Whether the present claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the II Party?
(ii) Whether the I Party has to prefer an appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer as
submitted by the II Party in the counter statement?
(iii) Whether after the receipt of the terminal benefits, the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case?
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4469
(iv) Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the claim statement, after the careful
appreciation of the evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper perspective?
6.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement itself, and also in the deposition that, I Party belongs to
socially and economically weaker section, and the I Party is the rural based worker, and used to work in mines which is
in a remote place of a village and I Party is also an illiterate worker, belonging to economically weaker section, and not
a fit person, to fight against the II Party and the I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of II Party mines for
permitting the I Party to work and also, due to I Party’s acquit poverty, I Party has faced huge financial hardship to
reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s
place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right I Party’s grievances and in such circumstances, only the delay has
happened for raising the dispute and the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate one, but only due to the above
mentioned various reasons. The II Party has not specifically denied the above mentioned statements made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, the I Party has also stated that, the officials of the II Party/Management have
taken undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness by way of refusing employment,
and also, after knowing fully, that the I Party is most incapable in approaching the Labour Authority for redressal of
the I Party’s grievances. The said details is also not specifically disputed by the II Party. Further, I Party has clearly
stated in the claim statement that ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I
Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the present
central reference has been made to this Court by the Government of India, as per the above mentioned details. The
said submissions made on behalf of I Party are also not specifically disputed on behalf of the II Party. On the other
hand, the Assistant Manager of II Party, namely MW-1, has categorically admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an
illiterate person. Further, the I Party has filed copies of Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A.
No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 &
23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, as exhibits marked herein below and also MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the
success of the said co-workers in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal has inspired the I Party to file the present
reference. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is seen that, the I Party is justified in claiming the legal
and statutory rights and benefits, due to the unlawful and illegal ways and means followed by the II Party to terminate
the service of I Party, without following the principles of natural justice.
7.
Further, the I Party has pointed out, in the claim statement, itself that, there is no limitation prescribed for raising
the dispute and Article 137 Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the present case. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2010, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. P. Sathasivam and Mr. Hon’ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan, in Civil Appeal No. 10231/2010, between Kuldeep Singh Vs G.M, Instrument Design Development and
Facilities Centre and Another, it is clearly held as follows:- “The Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on
ground of delay (of five and half years) in raising the dispute. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award.
Hence this present appeal. The impugned award was set aside with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by respondent-
management to appellant.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, there is no time limit prescribed for reference
under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the present case also, on a careful perusal of above said
peculiar facts and vital circumstances and also due to the fact that, the I Party is facing poverty, illiteracy, economic
and social weakness and also in the light of the above mentioned various citations, mentioned in the claim statement, it
is seen that, the II Party is not justified in raising the objection to the effect that present reference is not maintainable
due to the delay and latches. The I Party in the claim statement as well as in the evidence has pointed out that, the I
Party is an illiterate and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment in the II Party
Organisation. Further, the MW-1, namely the Assistant Manager of the II Party has also admitted that I Party is an
illiterate person and it is true to suggest that in the mines there is no shelter from sun and rain and it is true to suggest
that there is no health unit and it is true to suggest that, the working conditions as per the mining act have not been
provided at the mines. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not provided the basic and statutory
and also necessary facilities, for the proper working conditions and also, for the welfare of the I Party workers.
8.
Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions,
stage by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect
his/her employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission of delay and latches as a protective
shield to cover up their lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate
proceedings for the alleged illegal termination of services of workman en-mass by the II Party. Further, for the
effective implementation of the Labour enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have
created a Labour Department. Further, it is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour with the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass
appropriate award in accordance with law based upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II
Party/Management cannot take super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate
4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman. Further, it is clearly held in the judgment reported in 1995-II-LLJ 835,
between H.S. Vasantsenaiah Vs The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C & Anothers, as follows:- “Delay in approaching
the Labour Court- No ground to deny back wages and other consequential benefits.”
9.
Further, it is held in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-II-pg 482-483 [SC], between Mahavir Singh Vs U.P.
State Electricity Board and others, as follows:- “Delay in raising dispute – Labour Court finding termination of
workman’s service illegal-reference could not be rejected.” Also in the judgment reported in 2003-LLJ-I-pg 412-414
[MP], between Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others, it is clearly held as follows:- “No limitation laid down
for raising dispute under statute - dispute raised after about 5 years - not one which could be refused on ground of
delay.” Again, in the judgment reported in 1994-LLJ-I-pg 468-471 [All], between U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs
State of U.P and others, it is specifically held as follows:- “Lapse of 11 years between raising a dispute and making
reference does not lose the character of industrial dispute.” Further, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1079-
1081 [Del], between Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and another, it is clearly held
as follows:- “Relief under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not to be denied to workman merely on ground of delay.”
Also, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1129-1132 [Bom], between Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs
State of Maharashtra and another, it is clearly held as follows:- “Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- If plea of delay be raised, employer to show real prejudice caused by delay and not rely
on it as mere hypothetical defense.” In the present case also, considering the above mentioned socio-economic
conditions, poverty and illiteracy, of the I Party, it is found that, the appropriate relief, in accordance with law has to be
granted to the workman and the same cannot be denied, as per the mere hypothetical defence taken by the II Party
regarding the delay and in fact, the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused by the said delay.
10.
Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V.
Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- “Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome
technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations
have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous
task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just
basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion
to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional
guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply
directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy,
(1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He
began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts
will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so
strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong
should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has clearly
admitted in the counter statement that, the success of the co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated
29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos.
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, has inspired the I Party to file the present reference and in fact, the I
Party has specifically pointed out in the claim statement and evidence that, the I Party is an illiterate person and the I
Party is facing poverty, economic and social weakness and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to
provide employment to the I Party and Assistant Manager of II Party MW-1 has also admitted in his evidence that, I
Party is an illiterate person and also the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused to the II Party, by the
said delay.
11.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before
Mr. Hon’ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of
National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is
particularly held as follows:- “The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not
restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by
the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in
general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones.” In the present case also, for the above mentioned
facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II
Party is not justified in raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches, as per the said jurisdiction of the
present Court. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the I Party.
12.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 2:-
The MW-1 the Assistant Manger of II Party, who has given evidence on behalf of II Party has admitted that, it is
true to suggest that, there is no health unit and the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at
the Mines. The said admission is also clinchingly established the various above mentioned allegation made as against
the II Party. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per the provisions of the mining act there
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4471
should be a qualified doctor to attend the I Party workers at the mining site. If it is so, then there is no need for the II
Party to get the doctor from Hatti Gold Mines and to subject the I Party to medical examination. On that ground only, I
Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that, as per the illegal medical certificate, the social and economic
weaker section person of the I Party has been refused to continue the work by the II Party.
13.
Further, MW-1 namely, the Assistant Manager of II Party/Management has admitted that the II Party company
has suffered loss of 21 crores due to mis-management and it is also true to suggest that, due to the said mis-
management, the financial crisis has occurred and it is true to suggest, having suffered the said loss the management
thought of reducing the number of workers and it is true to suggest that, the Management ordered for medical
examination of all the mining workers. For the said reasons only, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement
that, II Party has suffered huge loss due to mis-management and in the way of reducing the number of workers they
have conducted illegal medical examination and terminated several workers including I Party. Further, MW-1 admitted
that, to examine the workers doctors, have come from Hatti Gold Mines Ltd. However, he has admitted, that he does
not know the names and qualifications of those doctors.
14.
Further, in the counter statement the II Party has stated that, the I Party has been given opportunity to prefer an
appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the Medical Report. However, the
MW-1 has categorically admitted that, it is true to suggest that, they have not produced the Medical certificate issued
by the Doctor who has examined the I Party health condition and it is also true to suggest that, the Medical From ‘O’ is
in English language. At the same time, the MW-1 has admitted that, I Party workers are illiterate workers. Hence, it is
found that the said medical certificate has not been issued in the language known to the workers/I Party and also not
understood by the I Party and in fact, the said medical certificate is also not submitted to this Court by the II Party. In
such circumstances, it is too much on the part of II Party to content that I Party has got the appeal remedy as per the
medical certificate and the workers have not availed the appeal remedy and hence they cannot file the present case
before this Court. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, the Doctors have not conducted the medical
examination in his presence and he does not know in what respect the I Party has been found unfit to continue in
service and he has to verify in the office whether copy of notice issued to I Party after medical examination or
acknowledgement regarding service of notice on the I Party is available or not. So, the MW-1 has not produced the
relevant records to establish that, after medical examination, proper record has been issued to I Party to appeal before
30 days. On the other hand, MW-1 has categorically admitted that, II Party has not produced the Medical certificate
issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party. Above all, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, I
Party has not been issued with charge sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of his service.
The said categorical admission of MW-1 shows that, II Party has not terminated the I Party as per the principles of
natural justice.
15.
Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clauses 18 and 24 any termination has to be
followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1has admitted that, I Party has not been issued
with charge sheet and also, enquiry has been conducted. Hence, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not terminated the I
Party in accordance with law. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, termination order has not been attached with copy of
Medical Certificate pertaining to I Party. Furthermore, MW-1 has admitted that, he does not know in what respect the
Medical Officer opined that, the I Party is being medically unfit. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true that, II
Party has not taken any permission from Labour Ministry or Labour Secretary under the provisions of I.D. Act for
terminating services of several employees on the basis of medical grounds. Further, MW-1 has specifically admitted in
his evidence that, it is true to suggest that I Party is the illiterate person and it is true to suggest that company has not
furnished to the I Party the Kannada Version/translation of Medical Certificate which is in English and the company
has enhanced the age of employees to 60 years w.e.f 17.07.2008. In the light of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, the I Party has to prefer only the appeal as
against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer. Thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
16.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 3:- The I Party has stated
in the claim statement that, he is entitled to work till attending the age of superannuation and the I Party’s actual date of
birth is registered in EPF, B-register and Service records, etc and suddenly, the II Party has refused to provide
employment to the I Party, as per the so-called illegal medical examination and the co-workers have challenged there
pre-matured retirements and age certification before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, with continuity of service thereon.
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001,C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same has been allowed on 01.06.2006. The MW-1, the
Assistant Manger of II Party has also admitted the said details, in his evidence. Further, the I Party has
specifically pointed out that, on account of administrative problems faced by the II Party, the II Party
adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and
also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical
Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I
Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Report i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant
Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995 and hence, the so-called Medical
Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal
sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The MW-1, Assistant Manger of II
Party has candidly admitted in his evidence that, due to mis-management, the II Party has suffered
administrative problems, and hence, the II Party has decided to terminate the services of the I Party
workers.
17.
Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that, II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I
Party without following the due process of Law and the II Party used the illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and
unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers even though the
correct age is mentioned in the EPF, B-register and Service records, and I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work
up to the age of superannuation. In the evidence also, I Party has stated the said details mentioned in the claim
statement. Further, in the cross-examination, I Party has clearly pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that, as per the
request made by the union the II Party subjected the I Party to medical check up and found the I Party unfit to continue
in service. In the additional evidence also, the I Party has pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that as on
termination, all amounts due to I Party have been received and the I Party has filed the present case, without any
justification. Further, the II Party has also not produced any relevant records, to establish that, the II Party has paid all
the amounts due to I Party as on the date of termination. Further, it is observed in the judgment reported in 1984-I-LLJ
388(SC) as follows:- “Acceptance of retirement benefits – Acceptance of retirement benefits by the workmen
concerned – Whether precluded from raising Industrial Disputes Challenging Orders of retirement. On the materials
placed by the management, held, neither a case of acquiescence nor a case of waiver on the part of workmen was made
out – Held, the workmen were entitled to wages for the period between the dates of retirement and the dates of their
reaching the age of 58 years.” Also, in the judgment reported in 1997-II-LLJ 228(SC) it is held as follows:- “There is
no statutory estoppels in favour of the Officer.” Further, it is the settled law that, there is no estoppel as against the
statutory rights/benefits, which the I Party/workman is entitled to get under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the II Party has also not established that, the action has been taken by the II Party as against the I Party, as per
the principles of natural justice and also, as per the procedure and practice to be followed in accordance with law. In the
light of the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting
that, after the receipt of the terminal benefits the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case and thus, the
point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
18. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 4:-
The I Party has categorically stated that, due to mis-management the II Party has suffered a loss and hence, the
II Party has found its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the mines workers in short cut methods and also in
an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other
co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal
and irregular manner. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the II Party has entrusted the work to private
party in spite of availability of technical persons and machinery in the year 1995-1996 and hence, the II Party company
has suffered a loss of about Rs. 21 crores and it is also true to suggest that, due to said mis-management the financial
crisis occurred and also it is true to suggest that, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the
number of workers. Hence, it is clear that, the MW-1 of II Party has also admitted the said submissions made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, he cannot right now give the date, month and year of
notice served to I Party and it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charged sheet and no enquiry has
been conducted before the termination of the I Party. Further, MW-1, admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the
clauses 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1 has
clearly admitted that 3 months notice pay has not been paid to the I Party by the II Party.
19.
Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, there is Statutory Report, B Register
and Provident Fund Register. Further, I Party has categorically stated that, the date of birth has been entered in the
Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register and the II Party without any valid reasons pre-maturedly
terminated the service of the I Party. Further, the date of birth of I Party mentioned in the claim statement is the same
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4473
as mentioned the employees register, which is marked as Ex M-1, except in the case of CR No. 25/2007 and also in CR
No. 28/2008. In the case of CR No. 25/2007, the actual date of birth of workman as per Ex M-1 and Ex M-2 is
05.07.1947. In the case of CR No. 104/2007, as per Ex W-1, the date of birth of workman is 26.03.1956. In the case of
CR No. 28/2008, as per the Ex M-1, the date of birth of workman is 14.07.1950. Also, the Circular relating to
enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years to the workers of II Party, is applicable only to persons
who are in employment as on 17.07.2008. Further, MW-1 has clearly admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per
Clause 18.3 of CDPR rules, the changes in the date of birth, as entered in the company record, can only effected on a
judgment of a competent Court and except on a judgment of a Court, the date of birth once recorded, will not be
changed at the request of the Officer/Employee under any circumstances. For that reason only, I Party has clearly
stated that, the II Party has terminated the service of I Party pre-maturedly without any valid reasons. Further, the act
of the II Party, certainly, is not proper and legal and as much as, no valid reasons have been furnished by the II Party
for not producing the medical certificate issued to the I Party by the II Party and no valid reason has been furnished by
the II Party as to what prevented the II Party in not following the principles of natural justice and also for not producing
the material records, though they are very important records, to prove the aforesaid details mentioned in the counter
statement filed on behalf of II Party. Further, on the careful perusal of material records mentioned in the Exhibits list, it
is seen that, II Party has refused to provide work to the I Party without following the due process of law. Further, it is
found that, there is discrimination and also violation of fundamental right caused to the I Party and it is not proper and
also, not legal to give forceful retirement to I Party, by the II Party, without following the due process of law.
20.
Further, it is seen that, the II Party has not terminated the service of the I Party as per the Principles of
Preponderance of Probability. Further, no injustice can be caused by the II Party to the I Party and I Party cannot be
victimized due to the actions of the II Party without any valid reasons. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the I
Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law. Further, the
underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and economic
justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The ultimate object
is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice. Further, the
awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009 (4) LLJ 667 (SC)
Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
APSRTC Vs B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is not automatic on
reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in
the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the
I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the claim of the
workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact that the I Party
has not performed any work for II Party from 1998 to the date of superannuation, for the several years, and also, in
order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the proper
manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages and
other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has claimed interest,
however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed for in the claim
statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is not entitled to
get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
21.
Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs
Rajendra, it is held as follows:- “Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute –
Employee only entitled to 50% back wages.” Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A.
No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6
– Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents’ service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by
Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between
termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%.” Further, in the
judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun
Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra, it is held as
follows:- “Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of
workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of
case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed.” In the present case also, it is found that,
the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of
service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment
of refusal to provide employment, by the II Party.
4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd., and
another Vs The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- “Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On
reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case
order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management.” And in the judgment
reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- “Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of
back wages.” Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- “A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated
without one month’s notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination
was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated.” In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party
without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding enquiry and also without offering opportunity to
the I Party to put forth his/her defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682 [Bom], between Santhosh
Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and another, it is held as
follows:- “Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served on workman –
punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman held would be
proper.” Further, the II Party has stated in the counter statement that, the I Party, on medical examination, has found to
be unfit to work. However, in the same counter statement II Party has stated that, I Party is happily working elsewhere
since the date of termination and the I Party is working elsewhere also earning salary. In such circumstances, it is seen
that, the submissions made by the II Party in the counter statement are self contradictory. On that ground also II Party
is not justified in terminating the services of I Party without following the principles of natural justice, fairness and
reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also, after taking into
consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the following award is
passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
(i)
In C R No. 25/2007 Mariyamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Mariyamma with
effect from 29.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 29.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 05.07.2005 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of
retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and
circumstances.
(ii) In C R No. 103/2007 H. Thimmegowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ H.
Thimmegowda with effect from 28.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the
total amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to
the I Party from the date of termination, namely, 28.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 21.11.2002
to which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party.
In computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I
Party attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above
mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(iii)
In C R No. 104/2007 K.L. Shivegowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ K.L.
Shivegowda with effect from 28.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total
amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I
Party from the date of termination, namely, 28.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 26.03.2014 to
which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In
computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party
attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned
peculiar facts and circumstances.
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4475
(iv) In C R No. 25/2008 Singamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Singamma with
effect from 28.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 28.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 03.11.2008 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age
of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts
and circumstances.
(v) In C R No. 28/2008 A. Nanjegowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/A. Nanjegowda
with effect from 16.04.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 16.04.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 14.07.2008 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30th June, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
(i) In C R No. 25/2007 Mariyamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Mariyamma, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001
& 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years
to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
Ex M-2
-
Employees Service Record
4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) In C R No. 103/2007 H. Thimmegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. H. Thimmegowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(iii) In C R No. 104/2007 K.L. Shivegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. K.L. Shivegowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Membership Application Form issued by II Party
Ex W-2
22.05.1987
Office Order No. 37/PER/1986-87/8653 issued by II Party
Ex W-3
29.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-4
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-5
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 346/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-6
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-7
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
¹Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 29] [email protected] 7] 1939
4477
(iv) In C R No. 25/2008 Singamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Singamma, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
29.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(v) In C R No. 28/2008 A. Nanjegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. A. Nanjegowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
22.05.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001,
23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
4478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2017/SRAVANA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1794-—jk"Vªifr] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds in
ij dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; la[;k 2] eqEcbZ ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh Jh ns'kikaMs eYgkj fo'oukFkjko
ds vfrfjDr izHkkj dh vof/ fnukad 06-05-2017 ls vkSj 06 eghuksa dh vof/] vFkok fu;fer vk/kj ij bl in ds Hkjs tkus rd
vFkok vxys vkns'k rd] tks Hkh igys gks rc rd] ds fy, c<+krs gSa A
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1794.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur to Shri Deshpande Malhar Vishvnathrao,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai for a further period of 06
months with effect from 06.05.2017 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the
earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2017
dk-vk- 1795-—jk"Vªifr] Jh vorkj pUn Mksxjk] ihBklhu vf/dkjh] dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je
U;k;ky;] fnYyh&I dks dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; la[;k fnYyh&II] ds ihBklhu vf/dkjh ds in dk
vfrfjDr izHkkj fnukad 20-07-2017 ls N% eghuksa dh vof/ vFkok fu;fer vk/kj ij in ds Hkjs tkus rd vFkok vxys vkns'k rd]
tks Hkh igys gks] lkSairs gSa A
[la- ,&11016@02@2015&lh,y,l&II (v)]
,l- ds- ¯lg] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2017
S.O. 1795.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Delhi-II to Shri Avtar Chand Dogra, Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Delhi-I for a period of six months with effect from 20.07.2017 or
till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/02/2015-CLS-II(e)]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2017.08.23
09:19:59 +05'30'