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, एत᳏ारा, 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 रे᲻ी - 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 एत᳏ारा 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 मुस᳎ी 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 मुस᳎ी 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 एत᳏ारा 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'