This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 37] नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 10—सितम्बर 16, 2017, शनिवार/भाद्र 19—भाद्र 25, 1939

No. 37] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 10—SEPTEMBER 16, 2017, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 19—BHADRA 25, 1939

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

का(cid:3)र्मका(cid:3)र्मका(cid:3)र्मका(cid:3)र्मकककक,,,, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

((((का(cid:3)र्मकका(cid:3)र्मकका(cid:3)र्मकका(cid:3)र्मक और प्रशिक्षणऔर प्रशिक्षणऔर प्रशिक्षणऔर प्रशिक्षण िवभागिवभागिवभागिवभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2167.—राष्ट्रपति, संविधान के अनु(cid:26)छेद 309 के परंतुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते (ए, के न्+ीय सिविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण एवं अपील) नियम, 1965 में संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाते हैं, अर्थात्:—

1. (1) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम के न्+ीय सिविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण एवं अपील) दूसरा संशोधन िनयम, 2017 है।

(2) ये राजपत्र में इनके प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत्त होंगे।

5492 GI/2017

(7117)7118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. के न्+ीय सिविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण एवं अपील) नियम, 1965 की अनुसूची के भाग 5 में Hम सं. 1 के सामने पैरा ख में, उप पैरा (vi) के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित उप पैरा रखा जाएगा, अर्थात् :—

[फा. सं. 11012/01/2016-स्था.(क-III)]

]ानेन्+ देव त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव

टिप्पणीटिप्पणीटिप्पणीटिप्पणी :::: ये मूल िनयम दिनांक 20 नवंबर, 1965 की अधिसूचना संख्या 7/2/63-स्था. (क) के द्वारा भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित किए गए थे और तत्पश्चात् निम्नलिखित अधिसूचना संख्याओं के द्वारा संशोधित किए गए थे:—

1. का. आ. 1149, दिनांक 13 अप्रैल, 1966;

2. का. आ. 1596, दिनांक 4 जून, 1966;

3. का. आ. 2007, दिनांक 9 जुलाई, 1966;

4. का. आ. 2648, दिनांक 3 िसतंबर, 1966;

5. का. आ. 2854, दिनांक 1 अक्तू बर, 1966;

6. का. आ. 1282, दिनांक 15 अप्रैल, 1967;

7. का. आ. 1457, दिनांक 29 अप्रैल, 1967;

8. का. आ. 3253, दिनांक 16 िसतंबर, 1967;

9. का. आ. 3530, दिनांक 7 अक्तू बर, 1967;

10. का. आ. 4151, दिनांक 25 नवंबर, 1967;

11. का. आ. 821, दिनांक 9 मार्च, 1968;

12. का. आ. 1441, दिनांक 27 अप्रैल, 1968;

13. का. आ. 1870, दिनांक 1 जून, 1968;

14. का. आ. 3423, दिनांक 28 िसतंबर, 1968;

15. का. आ. 5008, दिनांक 27 दिसंबर, 1969;

16. का. आ. 397, दिनांक 7 फरवरी, 1970;

17. का. आ. 3521, दिनांक 25 िसतंबर, 1971;

18. का. आ. 249, दिनांक 1 जनवरी, 1972;

19. का. आ. 990, दिनांक 22 अप्रैल, 1972;

20. का. आ. 1600, दिनांक 1 जुलाई, 1972;

21. का. आ. 2789, दिनांक 14 अक्तू बर, 1972;

22. का. आ. 929, दिनांक 31 मार्च, 1973;

23. का. आ. 1648, दिनांक 6 जुलाई, 1974;

24. का. आ. 2742, दिनांक 31 जुलाई, 1976;

25. का. आ. 4664, दिनांक 11 दिसंबर, 1976;

26. का. आ. 3062, दिनांक 8 अक्तू बर, 1977;

27. का. आ. 3573, दिनांक 26 नवंबर, 1977;

28. का. आ. 3574, दिनांक 26 नवंबर, 1977;

29. का. आ. 3671, दिनांक 3 दिसंबर, 1977;

30. का. आ. 2464, दिनांक 2 िसतंबर, 1978;

31. का. आ. 2465, दिनांक 2 िसतंबर, 1978;

32. का. आ. 920, दिनांक 17 फरवरी, 1979;

33. का. आ. 1769, दिनांक 5 जुलाई, 1980;

34. का. आ. 264, दिनांक 24 जनवरी, 1981;

35. का. आ. 2126, दिनांक 8 अगस्त, 1981;

36. का. आ. 2203, दिनांक 22 अगस्त, 1981

37. का. आ. 2512, दिनांक 3 अक्तू बर, 1981;

38. का. आ. 168, दिनांक 23 जनवरी, 1982;

39. का. आ. 1535, दिनांक 12 मई, 1984;

40.अिधसूचना सं 11012/15/84-स्था. (क), दिनांक 5 जुलाई, 1985;

41.अिधसूचना सं 11012/05/85-स्था. (क), दिनांक 29 जुलाई, 1985;

42.अिधसूचना सं. 11012/06/85- स्था. (क), दिनांक 6 अगस्त, 1985;

43. का. आ. 5637, दिनांक 21 दिसंबर, 1985;

44. का. आ. 5743, दिनांक 28 दिसंबर, 1985;

45. का. आ. 4089, दिनांक 13 दिसंबर, 1986;

46. अिधसूचना सं 11012/24/85- स्था. (क), दिनांक 26 नवंबर, 1986;

47. का. आ. 830, दिनांक 28 मार्च, 1987;

48. का. आ. 831, दिनांक 28 मार्च, 1987;

49. का. आ. 1591, दिनांक 27 जून, 1987;

50. का. आ. 1825, दिनांक 18 जुलाई, 1987,

51. का. आ. 3060, दिनांक 15 अक्तू बर, 1988;

52. का. आ. 3061, दिनांक 15 अक्तू बर, 1988;

53. का. आ. 2207, दिनांक 16 िसतंबर, 1989;

54. का. आ. 1084, दिनांक 28 अप्रैल, 1990;

55. का. आ. 2208, दिनांक 25 अगस्त, 1990;

56. का. आ. 1481, दिनांक 13 जून, 1992;

57. सा. का. िन. 289, दिनांक 20 जून, 1992;

58. सा. का. िन. 589, दिनांक 26 दिसंबर, 1992;

59. सा. का. िन. 499, दिनांक 8 अक्तू बर, 1994;

60. सा. का. िन. 276, दिनांक 10 जून, 1995;

61. सा. का. िन. 17, दिनांक 20 जनवरी, 1996;

62. सा. का. िन. 125, दिनांक 16 मार्च, 1996;

63. सा. का. िन. 417, दिनांक 5 अक्तू बर, 1996;

64. सा. का. िन. 337, दिनांक 2 िसतंबर, 2000;

65. सा. का. िन. 420, दिनांक 28 अक्तू बर, 2000;

66. सा. का. िन. 211, दिनांक 14 अप्रैल, 2001;

67. सा. का. िन. 60, दिनांक 13 फरवरी, 2002;

68. सा. का. िन. 2, दिनांक 3 जनवरी, 2004

69. सा. का. िन. 249 (अ) दिनांक 2 अप्रैल, 2004

70. सा. का. िन. 113, दिनांक 10 अप्रैल, 2004;

71. सा. का. िन. 225, दिनांक 10 जुलाई, 2004;

72. सा. का. िन. 287, दिनांक 28 अगस्त, 2004;

73. सा. का. िन. 1, दिनांक 20 दिसंबर, 2004;

74. सा. का. िन. 49, दिनांक 29 मार्च, 2008;

75. सा. का. िन. 12, दिनांक 7 फरवरी, 2009;

76. का. आ. 946, दिनांक 9 अप्रैल, 2009;

77. का. आ. 1762 (अ), दिनांक 16 जुलाई, 2009;

78. सा. का. िन. 55 (अ), दिनांक 2 फरवरी, 2010;

79. सा. का. िन. 877 (अ), दिनांक 5 दिसंबर, 2011;

80. का. आ. 2079 (अ), दिनांक 20 अगस्त, 2014;

81. सा. का. िन. 769 (अ), दिनांक 31 अक्तू बर, 2014;

82. सा. का. िन. 822 (अ), दिनांक 19 नवंबर, 2014 और

83. सा. का. िन. 548 (अ), दिनांक 2 जून, 2017.

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2017

S.O. 2167.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, namely:—

1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Second Amendment Rules, 2017.

(2) They shall come into force on the day of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in Part V, against serial number 1, in Paragraph B, for sub paragraph (vi), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—

[F. No. 11012/01/2016-Estt. (A-III)]

GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy.

Note : The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India vide notification number 7/2/63. Estt.(A), dated the 20th November, 1965 and subsequently amended vide notification numbers :—

1. S.O. 1149, dated the 13th April, 1966;

2. S.O. 1596, dated the 4th June, 1966;

3. S.O. 2007, dated the 9th July, 1966;

4. S.O. 2648, dated the 3rd September, 1966;

5. S.O. 2854, dated the 1st October, 1966;

6. S.O. 1282, dated the 15th April, 1967;

7. S.O. 1457, dated the 29th April, 1967;

8. S.O. 3253, dated the 16th September, 1967;

9. S.O. 3530, dated the 7th October, 1967;

10. S.O. 4151, dated the 25th November, 1967;

11. S.O. 821, dated the 9th March, 1968;

12. S.O. 1441, dated the 27th April, 1968;

13. S.O. 1870, dated the 1st June, 1968;

14. S.O. 3423, dated the 28th September, 1968;

15. S.O. 5008, dated the 27th December, 1969;

16. S.O. 397, dated the 7th February, 1970;

17. S.O. 3521, dated the 25th September, 1971;

18. S.O. 249, dated the 1st January, 1972;

19. S.O. 990, dated the 22nd April, 1972;

20. S.O. 1600, dated the 1st July, 1972;

21. S.O. 2789, dated the 14th October, 1972;

22. S.O. 929, dated the 31st March, 1973;

23. S.O. 1648, dated the 6th July, 1974;

24. S.O. 2742, dated the 31st July, 1976;

25. S.O. 4664, dated the 11th December, 1976;

26. S.O. 3062, dated the 8th October, 1977;

27. S.O. 3573, dated the 26th November, 1977;

28. S.O. 3574, dated the 26th November, 1977;

29. S.O. 3671, dated the 3rd December, 1977;

30. S.O. 2464, dated the 2nd September, 1978;

31. S.O. 2465, dated the 2nd September, 1978;

32. S.O. 920, dated the 17th February, 1979;

33. S.O. 1769, dated the 5th July, 1980;

34. S O. 264, dated the 24th January, 1981;

35. S.O. 2126, dated the 8th August, 1981;

36. S.O. 2203, dated the 22nd August, 1981

37. S.O. 2512, dated the 3rd October, 1981;

38. S.O. 168, dated the 23rd January, 1982;

39. S.O. 1535, dated the 12th May, 1984;

40. Notification No.11012/15/84-Estt.(A), dated the 5th July, 1985;

41. Notification No.11012/05/85-Estt.(A), dated the 29th July, 1985;

42. NotificationNo.11012/06/85-Estt.(A), dated the 6th August, 1985;

43. S.O. 5637, dated the 21st December, 1985;

44. S.O. 5743, dated the 28th December, 1985;

45. S.O. 4089, dated the 13th December, 1986;

46. Notification No.11012/24/85-Estt.(A), dated the 26th November, 1986;

47. S.O. 830, dated the 28th March, 1987;

48. S.O. 831, dated the 28th March, 1987;

49. S.O. 1591, dated the 27th June, 1987;

50. S.O. 1825, dated the 18th July. 1987;

51. S.O. 3060, dated the 15th October, 1988;

52. S.O. 3061, dated the 15th October, 1988;

53. S.O. 2207, dated the 16th September, 1989;

54. S.O. 1084, dated the 28th April, 1990;

55. S.O. 2208, dated the 25th August, 1990;

56. S.O. 1481, dated the 13th June, 1992;

57. GS.R 289, dated the 20th June, 1992;

58. GS.R. 589, dated the 26th December, 1992;

59. G.S.R. 499, dated the 8th October, 1994;

60. G.S.R. 276, dated the 10th June, 1995;

61. G.S.R. 17, dated the 20th January, 1996;

62. GS.R. 125, dated the 16th March, 1996;

63. G.S.R. 417, dated the 5th October, 1996;

64. GS.R. 337, dated the 2nd September, 2000;

65. G.S.R. 420, dated the 28th October, 2000;

66 GS.R. 211, dated the 14th April, 2001;

67. G.S.R. 60, dated the 13th February, 2002;

68. G.S.R. 2 , dated the 3rd January, 2004;

69. G.S.R. 249(E) dated 2nd April, 2004

70. GS.R. 113, dated the 10th April, 2004;

71. G.S.R. 225, dated the 10th July, 2004;

72. GS.R. 287, dated the 28th August, 2004;

73. GS.R. 1, dated the 20th December, 2004;

74. G.S.R. 49, dated the 29th March, 2008;

75. GS.R. 12, dated the 7th February, 2009;

76. S.O. 946, dated the 9th April, 2009;

77. S.O. 1762(E), dated the 16th July, 2009;

78. G. S.R. 55(E), dated the 2nd February, 2010;

79. G.S.R. 877 (E), dated the 5th December, 2011;

80. S.O. 2079(E), dated the 20th August, 2014;

81. G.S.R. 769(E), dated the 31st October, 2014;

82. G. S. R. 822 (E), dated the 19th November, 2014 and

83. G.S.R. 548 (E), dated the 2nd June, 2017.

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 सितम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2168216821682168....————के न्+ सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण में प्रसार भारती, आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय (सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ कार्यालयों, िजनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ]ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अधिसूचित करती हैं :—

1. आकाशवाणी, रोहतक 9. िविवध भारती सेवा, मु ंबई

2. आकाशवाणी, औरंगबाद 10. आकाशवाणी, कु (cid:1)क्षेत्र

3. आकाशवाणी, बेतुल 11. आकाशवाणी, िबलासपुर

4. आकाशवाणी, ति(cid:1)वनंतपुरम 12. आकाशवाणी, बालाघाट

5. आकाशवाणी, कोल्हापुर 13. उ(cid:22)च शक्ति प्रेषित्र, आकाशवाणी, मलाड, मु ंबई

6. वि(cid:29)ापन प्रसारण सेवा, आकाशवाणी, कटक 14. आकाशवाणी, संबलपुर

7. आकाशवाणी, धुले

15. आकाशवाणी, रायपुर

8. आकाशवाणी, कन्नूर

[फा. सं. ई-11017/10/2017-हिंदी]

डॉ. माधुरी गुप्ता, संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2168.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Prasar Bharti, Directorate General, All India Radio (Ministry of Information and Brosdcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

1. All India Radio, Rohtak

9. Vividh Bharti Seva, Mumbai

2. All India Radio, Aurangabad 10. All India Radio, Kurukshetra

3. All India Radio, Betul

11. All India Radio, Bilaspur

4. All India Radio, Thiruvananthpuram 12. All India Radio, Balaghat

5. All India Radio, Kolhapur

13. High Power Transmitter, All India Radio, Malad, Mumbai

14. All India Radio, Sambalpur

6. Advertisement Bradcasting Service, All India Radio, Cuttack

7. All India Radio, Dhule

15. All India Radio, Raipur

8. All India Radio, Kunnur

[F. No. E-11017/10/2017-Hindi]

Dr. MADHURI GUPTA, Jt. Director (O.L.)7126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंत्रालय ण मंत्रालय ण मंत्रालय ण मंत्रालय

(कृ िष(कृ िष(कृ िष(कृ िष,,,, सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याण िवभाग) ण िवभाग) ण िवभाग) ण िवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2169216921692169....————के न्+ीय सरकार ब(-राज्य सहकारी सिमित िनयमावली, 2002 की नियम 31 की उप- धारा (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते (ए lीमती उपमा lीवास्तव, आईएएस, (एस.के . 88), अपर सिचव, भारत सरकार, कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंत्रालय, कृ िष, सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याण िवभाग को एमएससीएस अिधिनयम, 2002 की धारा 99 की उप-धारा (2) के उद्देश्य के लिए अपीलीय प्राधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं।

[फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल. एंड एम. ]

सुशील कु मार झा, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare)

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2017

S.O. 2169.—In exercise of the Powers conferred vide sub-rule (a) of rule 31 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Upma Srivastava, IAS (SK 88), Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agricultures and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co- operation and Farmers Welfare, as the Appellate Authority for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 99 of the MSCS Act, 2002.

[F. No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]

SUSHIL KUMAR JHA, Under Secy.

कोयलाकोयलाकोयलाकोयला मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2170217021702170....————के न्+ीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृ त अधिभोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम

1971 (1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते (ए, और भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 29 जुलाई, 1995 द्वारा प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार, कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ. 2067, तारीख 11 जुलाई, 1995, को अधिHांत करते (ए, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तम्भ (2) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों की पंक्ति के समतुल्य अधिकारी है, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है, जो, उक्त सारणी के स्तम्भ (3) में विनिoर्दष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवगq की बाबत, उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन संपदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उस पर अधिरोपित कर्तrों का पालन अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर करेंगे ।

सारणीसारणीसारणीसारणी

[ फा. सं. 43022/4/2017-एलए एXड आईआर]

आर.एस. सरोज,,,, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2017

S.O. 2170.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2067, dated the 11th July, 1995, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3 sub-section (ii),dated the 29th July, 1995, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of gazetted officers of the Government to be estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits to their respective jurisdictions in respect of the categories of public premises specified in column(3) of the said Table.

TABLE

[ F. No. 43022/4/2017-LA&IR ]

R.S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2171-&dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 967¼v½ rkjh[k 24 ekpZ 2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= la- 866 rkjh[k 28 ekpZ 2017 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 10 ebZZ 2017 ls 31 ebZZ 2017 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh ;

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

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy ftyk: ,sjukdqye rkyqd: d.k;Uuwj

e.kdqUue  ¼[kaM la 19 ½               204@1                  0              02             75
                                      204@2                  0              02             80
                                      204@3                  0              04             27
                                      204@4                  0              05             79
                                      391@1                  0              02             70
                                      391@2                  0              03             25
                                      392@5                  0              05             71
dqjhDdkM+ ¼[kaM la 11 ½               214@1                  0              00             57
                                      214@7                  0              00             70
d.k;Uuwj  ¼[kaM la 12 ½               10@2                   0              01             16
fr#okudqye ¼[kaM la 10 ½              362@3                  0              00             88
                                      361@8                  0              03             99
                                      361@9                  0              04             09

[Qk- la- vkj&31015/04/2015&vks vkj–II@37111]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2017

S.O. 2171.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas SO No. 967 (E), dated 24/03/2017 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 866 dated 28/03/2017 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between 10/05/2017 to 31/05/2017.

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KANAYANNUR

MANAKUNNAM                  204/1                      0            02            75
(BLOCK. No. 19)             204/2                      0            02            80
                            204/3                      0            04            27
                            204/4                      0            05            79
                            391/1                      0            02            70
                            391/2                      0            03            25
                            392/5                      0            05            71
KUREEKKAD                  214/1                      0             00           57
(BLOCK No. 11)             214/7                      0             00            70
KANAYANNUR                  10/2                       0            01            16

(BLOCK No. 12)

THIRUVANKULAM              362/3                      0            00            88
(BLOCK. No. 10)            361/8                      0            03            99
                           361/9                      0            04            09

[F. No. R-31015/04/2015-OR-II/37111]

PAWAN KUMAR,Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2172-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3174 rkjh[k 9 fnlEcj 2014] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 13 fnlEcj 2014] esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa mÙkj izns'k jkT; esa ftyk nsofj;k esa iVuk & eksfrgkjh & cSrkyiqj rd isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbZi ykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks'k.kk dh Fkh %

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 11 ebZ 2015 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbZiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7133 vuqlwph

[Qk- la- vkj&25011@23@2013&vksvkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo7134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2017

S.O. 2172.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 3174 dated the 9th December, 2014, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th December, 2014 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying 'Patna – Motihari - Baitalpur Pipeline Project' for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Deoria District in the state of Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 11th May 2015.

And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.

[F. No. R-25011/23/2013-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2173-&dsUnzh ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls jk;iqj ¼NŸkhlx<+½ ,oa jkaph ¼>kj[kaM½ rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy;s bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ßikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbuÞ fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe] ftlds uhps ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznŸk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] muesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy,] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds laca/k esa Jh izse panz oekZ] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] xzkmaM ¶yksj] ch&CykWd] 'kgnso Vkoj] ih-ih- dEikmUM] jkaph&834001 ¼>kj[kaM½ dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2173.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the Public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi (Jharkhand), a "Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline" Should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, Object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor, B-Block, Shahdeo Tower, P.P. Compound, Ranchi – 834001 (Jhar Khand).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R- 25011/15 /2017-OR- I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2174-&dsUnzh ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls jk;iqj ¼NŸkhlx<+½ ,oa jkaph ¼>kj[kaM½ rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy;s bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ßikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbuÞ fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe] ftlds uhps ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznŸk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] muesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwfp esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy,] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds laca/k esa Jh izse panz oekZ] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] xzkmaM ¶yksj] ch&CykWd] 'kkgnso Vkoj] ih-ih- dEikmUM] jkaph&834001 ¼>kj[kaM½ dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2174.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the Public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi (Jharkhand), a "Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline" Should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, Object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor, B-Block, Shahdeo Tower, P.P. Compound, Ranchi – 834001 (Jhar Khand).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/15/2017-OR- I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2175-&dsUnzh ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls jk;iqj ¼NŸkhlx<+½ ,oa jkaph ¼>kj[kaM½ rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy;s bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ßikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbuÞ fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe] ftlds uhps ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznŸk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] muesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwfp esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy,] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds laca/k esa Jh izse panz oekZ] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jkiqj&jkaph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] xzkmaM ¶yksj] ch&CykWd] 'kkgnso Vkoj] ih-ih- dEikmUM] jkaph&834001 ¼>kj[kaM½ dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7139

vuqlwph

[Qk- la- vkj&25011@15@2017&vksvkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2175.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the Public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi (Jharkhand), a "Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline" Should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, Object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor, B-Block, Shahdeo Tower, P.P. Compound, Ranchi – 834001 (Jhar Khand).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/15/2017-OR- I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2176-&lkoZtfud ifjlj ¼vuf/kÑr dCtk/kkfj;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk izkf/kÑr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx rFkk ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj dh fnukad 28 vxLr] 2014 dh vf/klwpuk la- 25015@1@2007&vksvkj&1 dk izfrLFkkiu djrs gq, Hkkjr ljdkj uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds ¼dkye 2½ esa vf/kdkfj;ksa dk Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ds led{k gksus ds ukrs lEink vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS A ;s vf/kdkjh mDr vf/kfu;e esa lEink vf/kdkjh ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx mDr lkj.kh ds dkye 3 esa of.kZr lkoZtfud ifjljksa ds fy, lhfer LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr vius dk;Zikyu ds fy, djsaxs A

सारणीसारणीसारणीसारणी

[फा. सं. आर-25015/1/2007-ओआर-I]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव7142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2017

S.O. 2176.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas No. R-25015/1/2007/OR.I dated Twenty Fifth May, 2017, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the table below, being officer of equivalent rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table .

TABLE

[F. No. R-25015/1/2007-OR.I.]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

$म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय$म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय$म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय$म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2017

का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 2177217721772177....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्+ीय सरकार मेसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:133) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निoर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्+ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं lम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 07/2008, 34/2008, 46/2007, 163/2007, 161/2007, 73/2007, 110/2007, 72/2007, 75/2007, 120/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो के न्+ीय सरकार को 06/09/2017 को प्राप्त (आ था।

[सं. एल-29012/80/2007-आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/34/2008- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/58/2006- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/54/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/52/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/9/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/11/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/8/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/12/2007- आईआर(एम),

सं. एल -29012/59/2006- आईआर(एम)]

राजेश कु मार, अवर सिचव7144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2017

S.O. 2177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2008, 34/2008, 46/2007, 163/2007, 161/2007, 73/2007, 110/2007, 72/2007, 75/2007, 120/2007) 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 workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06/09/2017.

[No. L-29012/80/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/34/2008-IR(M),

No. L-29012/58/2006-IR(M),

No. L-29012/54/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/52/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/9/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/11/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/8/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/12/2007-IR(M),

No. L-29012/59/2006-IR(M]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 29th AUGUST 2017

PRESENT : Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer

COMMON AWARD

(i) C R No. 07/2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Smt. R. Mayamma W/o C Range Gowda, MML Worker, Mysore Minerals Limited, Chevenahalli Village, Nagar Navile Post, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Bangalore.- 560001 Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/80/2007-IR(M) dated 06.02.2008 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. R. Mayamma by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited

w.e.f. 02.06.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(ii) C R No. 34/2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M G Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Smt. M. Savitramma, W/o Late Masthi Gowda, Honnamaranahalli Village, Jamboor Post, Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/34/2008-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. M. Savitramma by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited

w.e.f. 29.05.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(iii) C R No. 46/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited,

Sh. Giddiah, S/o Late Sh. Nanjaiah, Bandi Halli Village, Bagevelu Post, No. 39, M G Road, Gandasi Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk Bangalore.- 560001 Hassan District

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/58/2006-IR(M) dated 07.03.2007 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 Sri. Giddaiah w.e.f. 28.02.2001? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

(iv) C R No. 163/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Sh. D. Shivalingaiah, S/o Late Dasappa, Kanakatte Village, Post Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/54/2007-IR(M) dated 17.12.2007 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 termination of Sri. D. Shivalingaiah by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f.

20.05.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(v) C R No. 161/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Sh. H. Thimmaiah, S/o Late Hanumaiah, Nandihalli Village, Bageshpura Post, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/52/2007-IR(M) dated 17.12.2007 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 termination of Sh. H. Thimmaiah by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited

w.e.f. 25.07.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(vi) C R No. 73/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Sh. K. Mahadeva Shetty, S/o Late Madashetty, MML Worker, Mysore Minerals Limited,7146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Kelamballi Village & Post, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/9/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 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 01.06.1998 on

Shri. K. Mahadeva Sheety, Ex-Mining Worker, Kare Mines (Nanjangoodu Taluk, Mysore District) of

M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from

which date?"

(vii) C R No. 110/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Smt. Nanjamma, W/o Late Boregowda, MML Worker, Mysore Minerals Limited, Karekere Village, Hattihalli Post, Nuggehalli Hobli Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/11/2007-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 termination of Smt. Nanjamma 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?"

(viii) C R No. 72/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited,

Smt. J. Rangamma, W/o Javare Gowda, K.B. Byrapura Village, Kembalu Post, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk Bangalore.- 560001 Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/8/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 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. J. Rangamma w.e.f. 28.01.1998? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(ix) C R No. 75/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Smt. K Parvathamma, W/o Late Vishnushetty, Kallkere Village, Hattihalli Post, Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/12/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 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.K. Parvathamma w.e.f. 16.04.1998? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(x) C R No. 120/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

No. 39, M G Road, Bangalore.- 560001

Sh. Puttegowda, S/o Late Sh. Kalase Gowda, MM L Worker, Mysore Minerals Limited, Bidare Village, Kembalu Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/59/2006-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 action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services /

superannuating the services of Shri. Puttegoda w.e.f. 29.06.1998 is just and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?"

Appearance

I party : M/s. K.T. Govinde Gowda & Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates

II party : Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy & Mr. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocates

1. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-

(i) In CR No. 07/2008, the I Party submits that on 20.11.1980, she has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Thagadur Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 38 years i.e., her date of birth being 02.11.1942. Further, the II Party, Thagadur Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 02.06.1998. 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.07/2008.

(ii) In CR No. 34/2008, the I Party submits that on 10.06.1979, she has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Thagadur Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker under Token No. 650. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 32 years i.e., her date of birth being 10.06.1947. Further, the II Party, Thagadur Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 29.05.1998. 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. 34/2008.

(iii) In CR No. 46/2007, the I Party submits that on 01.07.1986, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Haladahalli Chromite Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan 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 01.07.1956. Further, the II Party, Haladahalli Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 28.02.2001. 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. 46/2007.

(iv) In CR No. 163/2007, the I Party submits that on 11.05.1982, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Bhaktarahalli Chromite Mines and later on transferred to Doomgere Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining Worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 23 years i.e., his date of birth being 11.05.1959. Further, the II Party, Doomgere Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 20.05.1998. 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. 163/2007.

(v) In CR No. 161/2007, the I Party submits that on 13.10.1983, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Nandhihalli Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan 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 13.10.1957. Further, the II Party, Nandhihalli Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f. 25.07.1998. 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. 161/2007.

(vi) In CR No. 73/2007, the I Party submits that on 15.11.1985, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Chamarajanagar Granite query and later on transferred to Kare Mines, Nanjanagoodu Taluk, Mysore 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 01.04.1957. Further, the II Party, Kare Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f. 01.06.1998. 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. 73/2007.

(vii) In CR No. 110/2007, the I Party submits that on 01.05.1979, she 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 her age as 31 years i.e., her date of birth being 01.05.1948. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her 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. 110/2007.

(viii) In CR No. 72/2007, the I Party submits that on 02.11.1980, 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. 758. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 28 years i.e., her date of birth being 04.08.1952. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 28.01.1998. 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. 72/2007.

(ix) In CR No. 75/2007, the I Party submits that on 01.09.1982, she 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. 185. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 35 years i.e., her date of birth being 01.09.1947. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her 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. 75/2007.

(x) In CR No. 120/2007, the I Party submits that on 04.08.1981, 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. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 35 years i.e., his date of birth being 04.08.1946. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his 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. 120/2007.

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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7149 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. TheII 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 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 I7150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7151 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 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 to7152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7153 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 Manager 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 crisis7154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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 and Ex M-2, except in the case of CR No. 07/2008, CR No. 34/2008 and CR No. 73/2007. Further, in the case of CR No. 07/2008, it is seen that, as per Employees Register, the date of birth of I Party is 02.05.1942, in the case of CR No. 34/2008 the date of birth of I Party is 10.06.1946 and in the case of CR No. 73/2007 the date of birth of I Party is 21.01.1957. 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7155 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.

(i) In C R 07/2008 R. Mayamma Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ R. Mayamma with effect from 02.06.1998 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, 02.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 02.05.2000 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. 34/2008 M. Savitramma Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/M. Savitramma with effect from 29.05.1998 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, 29.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 10.06.2004 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 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. 46/2007 Giddiah Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Giddiah with effect from 28.02.2001 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, 28.02.2001 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 01.07.2014 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.

(iv) In C R No. 163/2007 D. Shivalingaiah Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ D. Shivalingaiah with effect from 20.05.1998 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, 20.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 11.05.2017 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. 161/2007 H. Thimmaiah Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ H. Thimmaiah with effect from 25.07.1998 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, 25.07.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 13.10.2015 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.

(vi) In C R No. 73/2007 K. Mahadeva Shetty Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ K. Mahadeva Shetty with effect from 01.06.1998 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, 01.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 21.01.2015 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.

(vii) In C R No. 110/2007 Nanjamma Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Nanjamma 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, 01.05.2006 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.

(viii) In C R No. 72/2007 J. Rangamma Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ J. Rangamma with effect from 28.01.1998 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, 28.01.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 04.08.2010 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.

(ix) In C R No. 75/2007 K Parvathamma Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ K Parvathamma 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, 01.09.2005 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.

(x) In C R No. 120/2007 Puttegowda Vs. MML

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Puttegowda 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, 04.08.2004 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 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 29th August, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

(i) In C R No. 07/2008 R. Mayamma Vs. MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(ii) In C R No. 34/2008 M. Savitramma Vs. MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(iii) In C R No. 46/2007 Giddiah Vs MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(iv) In C R No. 163/2007 D. Shivalingaiah Vs MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW 1 Sh. D. Shivalingaiah, 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:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(v) In C R No. 161/2007 H. Thimmaiah Vs MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW 1 Sh. H. Thimmaiah, 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:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(vi) In C R No. 73/2007 K. Mahadeva Shetty Vs MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(vii) In C R No. 110/2007 Nanjamma Vs. MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:

(viii) In C R No. 72/2007 J. Rangamma Vs MML

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

List of Witness on the side of II Party:

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

(ix) In C R No. 75/2007 K Parvathamma Vs MML

(x) In C R No. 120/2007 Puttegowda Vs MML

नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2017

काकाकाका. आ. . आ. . आ. . आ. 2178217821782178....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्+ीय सरकार मेसर्स बिहार राज्य मिनरल डेवलपमेंट काप(cid:127)रेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:133) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निoर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्+ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं lम न्यायालय-

1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 194/1994) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो के न्+ीय सरकार को 01/09/2017 को प्राप्त (आ था।

[सं. एल- 29012/33/1993-आईआर(एम)]

राजेश कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2017

S.O. 2178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 194/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/09/2017.

[No. L-29012/33/1993-IR(M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

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. 194/1994

Employer in relation to the management of BSMDC,

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman

: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Mines

Dated: 16.8.2017

AWARD

By order No. L-29012/33/1993-IR(M) dated 29/07/1994, 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 Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, Chandula,

simalgoda Project, Bakudih in suspending mining operations from 12/01/1993 to 26/01/93 and

withholding wages of Shri Badal Soren and 79 other workmen is justified ? If not, to what relief are the

workmen entitled to?

Note :- List of workman is not enclosed alongwith order of reference

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7163

नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2017

का.का.का.का.आ. आ. आ. आ. 2179217921792179....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में

के न्+ीय सरकार मेसर्स भिलाई इस्पात संयंत्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:133) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध

में निoर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्+ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं lम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 88/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो के न्+ीय सरकार को 01/09/2017 को प्राप्त (आ था।

[सं. एल-26012/4/2009-आईआर(एम)]

राजेश कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2017

S.O. 2179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01/09/2017.

[No. L-26012/4/2009-IR(M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/2009

The President, Metal Mines Workers Union, Dallirajhara, Durg (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Assistant General Manager (P Mines & ES), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of July, 2017

1. As per letter dated 22-10-2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-26012/4/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in their Rajhara Mines, Dallirajhara is justified in not changing the date of birth of Shri Bishal Singh P.No.857483 from 8-4-1950 to 4-4-1958 as demanded by President of Metal Mines Workers Union? To what relief the workman is entitled?"7164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party President of Metal Mines workers Union submitted statement of claim on behalf of workman Bishal Singh. Case of Union is Bishal Singh is engaged in mine of 2nd party through contractor on 20-6-93. After departmentalization, respondent management posted workman at DPR vide order dated 12-10-96. Workman was working as Attendant at Dalli Manual Mines. Earlier contractor had orally engaged workman as labour on 20-6-93. The contractor had not called any documents about his educational qualifications. Workman was appointed as DPR unskilled on regular basis on 12-10-96 and his seniority had also been considered. At the time of absorbing workman as DPR, management did not call any documents relating to his qualification. Workman also not submitted any documents to the management. Appointment order was issued on 12-10-96. Then workman came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded 18-4-50 instead of 12-2-48. That he passed 5th standard examination in 1971, his date of birth was mentioned 14-2-58 in marksheet as well as transfer certificate.

3. It is submitted that workman had immediately approached management for correction of his date of birth in 1997. He submitted middle school transfer certificate along with his representation. Management had replied that on the basis of medical examination form filled by workman prior to departmentalization, his date of birth was mentioned 18-4-50. Said date of birth mentioned in Form B despite workman had not submitted any document to contractor. That workman had filled medical examination form. His signature was obtained on blank form. Workman was not aware on what basis contractor has mentioned his date of birth 18-4-1950. Workman submits that management did not give him opportunity of hearing or prove that his date of birth was 14-2-58. Management not corrected his date of birth workman was victimized without his fault. Procedure adopted by management amounts to victimization violating natural justice. On such ground, workman prays for correction of his date of birth.

4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. It is contented that as per terms of reference his date of birth is 14-4-1958. The statement of claim submitted by Ist party is not as per terms of reference. In statement of claim and documents produced by workman, the date of birth is shown 14-2-58. Workman further submits that workman was engaged as contractual labour on 20-6-93 prior to departmentalization on 31-5-96. Workman declared his date of birth to 18-4-50. In all the documents Form B Register, service book- same date of birth was recorded. Workman had obtained driving licence on 16-2-72 assuming he was of 18 years at the time of getting driving licence. Age of workman would be only 14 years. It is reiterated as per his date of birth, notice of superannuation was received on 6-11-09 and workman superannuated on 6-1-10. That Assistant General Manager (P-Mines and ES) impleaded as party to the reference. No such post is existing. However Written statement is submitted on behalf of Bhilai Steel Plant. It is reiterated that Bishal Singh was contractual labour, he was departmentalized as DPR on 12-10-96. Workman himself has declared his date of birth 4-2-58 at the time of departmentalization. 2nd party submits that it is responsibility of workman to prove that date of birth at time of appointment as contract labour and departmentalization. 2nd party prays claim of workman be rejected.

5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-

REASONS

7. The term of reference pertains to legality of not correct date of birth of Bishal Singh. Claim of workman is denied. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That he was working as contract labour from 20-6-92. On 2-0-96, he was departmentalized on the post of unskilled attendant. When appointment order was issued, he noticed that date of birth was recorded 18-4-50 instead of 14-2-58. He had passed 5th standard in 1971, in marksheet, date of birth was recorded 14-2-58. He submitted correction of his date of birth in 1997. Contractor or management had not asked documents about date of birth. On his request, his date of birth was not corrected. Service book was prepared on 22-6-99. Prior to it, he submitted application for retirement. Illegally, he is superannuated on 30-6-2010. In his cross examination, workman admits before departmentalization in Bhilai Steel Plant, he was working under contractor, his Form B was not prepared. His signature was obtained on plain paper. He[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7165 says that he doesnot know what is written in his affidavit. After appointment in Bhilai Steel Plant, he had filled PF Form. That form for medical examination Exhibit M-5 bears his signature. He was holding driving licence Exhibit M-6. He also admits his signature on M-7. He denies that his date of birth is of 1950. Workman was re-examined and documents W-2 to 4 were admitted in evidence. In his cross examination, workman says he was working under contractor before his appointment in Bhilai Steel Plant in 1996. During 1993 to 996, he was working under contractor. He was departmentalized as per agreement between Union and management. Exhibit W-3,4 were received by him from School in 1971. He not produced those documents with contractor or management of Bhilai Steel Plant. After his departmentalization in Bhilai Steel Plant, his Form B was prepared.

8. Management's witness Mahadev filed affidavit of evidence supporting whole contentions in Written statement filed by management. That the date of birth of workman 8-4-50 was declared by workman himself. Workman had obtained licence on 16-2-72. His age was only 14 years. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-11 are admitted from evidence of management's witness. In his cross, witness says he was appointed by management. His date of birth was recorded by management in Form B. that Form B remains in custody of Mines Manager. Any document was not called from management about his date of birth. After receiving Form B from contractor, any document about date of birth was not called from workman. After workman was appointed as regular employee in 1996, documents about his date of birth was called from him. Management's witness claims ignorance that the date of birth of workman in Form B register was written by oral information or on the basis of documents. Management's witness claims ignorance whether in 1997, workman submitted application for correction of date of birth along with School Leaving Certificate of 5th standard. He admits that service record of workman, his date of birth was shown as per Form B Register. Management's witness denied copy of Form B Register shown to him. Management's witness claims ignorance whether information in M-5 was not personally filed by workman.

9. Though workman claims that he had submitted application for correction of date of birth, said document is not proved. Turning to documentary evidence, in Exhibit W-1 order of superannuation, Exhibit W-2 appointment order dated 12-10-96 date of birth of workman is recorded 18-4-50. In Exhibit W-3 Marksheet W-4 Transfer Certificate date of birth of workman is recorded 14-2-58. Those documents were not produced by workman before contractor or management of Bhilai Steel Plant. Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 is Circular No. 87. Para 2(1) provides- Wherever the date of birth/ age of employees has already been established on the basis of any valid documents once produced such as Educational Certificate, Gram Panchayat Certificate or Service Certificate from the previous employer etc. the same should not be changed at all. Para-2 provides that personal data, service book, attestation form, application for admission to CPF etc. duly signed by the employee and accepted by the management, the same should be treated as final and no more change be allowed at a subsequent stage. Exhibit M-2 is circular dated 10-4-04- Para 3(ii) provides- No change in the date of birth shall be allowed if such requests are received from employees during the last 5 years of their service for any reason whatsoever. In Exhibit M-4,5 & 7, date of birth of workman is recorded 18-4-50. Exhibit M-6 is Driving Licence issued to workman on 16-2-72. Workman was informed about superannuation vide Exhibit M-7. In Exhibit M-8, his date of birth is recorded 18-4-50. There is no cogent evidence that workman requested correction of his date of birth in 1997or till his retirement. Exhibit M-11 is judgment by Civil Court in case of Kailash Nath Yadav which is not useful for deciding dispute between parties. Considering evidence and the circulars produced by management, claim of workman for correction of date of birth is not justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant is justified in not changing the date of birth of Shri Bishal Singh P.No.857483 from 18-4-1950 to 14-4-1958 is legal and proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2017 dk-vk- 2180-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012/326/1994–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh7166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2017

S.O. 2180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/1995) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2017.

[No. L-22012/326/1994 - IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 06@1995

lhvkbZ,l uacj 59@2014

jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k Øekad ,y&22012@,Q ¼326½@94& vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&II½ fnukad 1-2-1995

Jh ys[kjkt iq= Jh vrqjke flag ekQZr diM+k oL= HkaMkj Jh fot; uxj] ftyk&Jhxaxkuxj &izkFkhZ

cuke

{ks=h; eSustj] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] Mh&39] lqHkk"k ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj &vizkFkhZ

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh vkj-lh- tSuA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh lrh'k pan feRryA

fnukad vokMZ % 15-05-2017

vokMZ

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad ,y&22012@326@94&vkbZ-vkj-¼lh&II½ fnukad 1-2-1995 ds LFkku ij fnukad 24-7-2002 dks vuqlwph dk fuEu fookn dk jsQjsal izkIr gqvk fd % "Whether the action of the management of FCI at regional office jaipur and that at its Depot sribijainagar in terminatting Sh. Lekhraj from services is legal & justified ? If not what relief the workman is Entitled to?"

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gSa fd izkFkhZ Jfed ys[kjkt dh fu;qfDr foi{kh fuxe ds ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fot; uxj vkxkj esa dh xbZ FkhA foi{kh fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks vdkj.k gh fnukad 15-4-1989 dks lsok ls vyx dj fn;kA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ,d o"kZ dh lsok vof/k esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk gVkus ds ckn Lo;a iqu% dk;Z ij ysus ckcr~ izkFkZuk djus ij Hkh mls dke ij ugha fy;k x;kA ftldh f'kdk;r dsUnzh; lgk;d Je vk;qDr t;iqj ds le{k dh tkus ij dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gqvkA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dh ofj"Brk lwph cukbZ x;h tks lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; t;iqj ds ;w-vks- uksV fnukad 9-10-92 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dk uke dze la[;k 2 ij ofj"Brk esa vafdr FkkA foi{kh fuxe }kjk ofj"Brk lwph esa ls 1 ls 2 rd ds Jfedksa dks LFkkbZ dj fn;k x;k ysfdu izkFkhZ Jfed dks LFkkbZ ugha fd;k x;kA foi{kh fuxe }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn ds fu;e 1957 dh /kkjk 77&78 dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA foi{kh fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus ds ckn vius pgsrs Jfed dkukjke] gqdepan] uUnwjke vkfn dbZ Jfedksa dks j[k fy;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&th ,oa 25 ,p] 25 ,Q ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks dHkh dksbZ uksfVl ;k vkjksi i= ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr o voS/k gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr ,oa voS/k rFkk 'kwU; djkj fn;s tkus rFkk mls iqu% fiNyh iwjh osru lsokvksa dk ykHk rFkk eqdnek [kpkZ fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7167 foi{kh fuxe }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k oju~ og eSllZ egsUnz flag j.ktks/k flag] gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªDVj Jh fot; uxj }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk dHkh Hkh yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k rFkk lacaf/kr o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk LosPN;k ls dke ij vkuk can dj fn;k FkkA foi{kh fuxe }kjk gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªDVj }kjk fu;ksftr deZdkjksa dks ,d le>kSrs ds rgr LFkkbZ djus dk QSlyk fy;k x;k Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk yxkrkj 3 o"kZ rd dk;Z ugha djus ds dkj.k dksbZ ykHk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk o"kZ 1990&91 esa Hkh dk;Z ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks foi{kh fuxe }kjk dHkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªDVj dks Hkh i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

izkFkhZ us tokc vizkFkhZ dk tokcqytokc is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk fnukad 19-12-1986 ls dstqvy yscj ds dk;Z ij j[kk Fkk rFkk fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ lk{kh ys[kjkt ijhf{kr gqvk gS rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa nLrkost izn'kZ MoY;w&1 ,oa MoY;w&2 izn'kkZafdr gq, gSaA foi{kh fuxe dh vksj ls foi{kh lk{kh loZJh jkeohj flag] ujsUnz nso 'kekZ] cyfoUnz flag] ds'kwjke ijhf{kr gq, gSa rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&8 izn'kkZafdr gq, gSaA

eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk ,oa vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

vc loZizFke izkFkhZ lk{kh ys[kjkt dh lk{; dk ifj'khyu djsa rks bl xokg us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh [kk| fuxe vkxkj fot; uxj esa nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fnukad 19-12-1986 dks 11 :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls ekSf[kd vkns'k }kjk dh xbZ Fkh rFkk og fu;qfDr frfFk ls yxkrkj dk;Z djrk vk jgk Fkk rFkk foi{kh laLFkku us mldks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 15-4-1989 dks lsok ls vyx dj fn;k ftldk dksbZ dkj.k Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k rFkk mlus lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ izfro"kZ vFkok ,d o"kZ dh lsok vof/k esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn mlus O;fDr'k% lEidZ dj dk;Z ij ysus dk fuosnu fd;k ysfdu dksbZ lquokbZ ugha dh rFkk fQj mlus f'kdk;r Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; t;iqj ds le{k dh ftldk tokc foi{kh us izn'kZ MoY;w&1 is'k fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ foi{kh ds xksnke esa lQkbZ pkSdhnkjh ,oa nokbZ Mkyuk vkfn dk dk;Z djrk Fkk rFkk foi{kh ds lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd }kjk fnukad 26-7-1989 dks izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tks izn'kZ MoY;w&2 gS rFkk mldh gkftjh foi{kh ds dstqvy Jfed ds jftLVj esa gksrh Fkh rFkk mldks Hkqxrku foi{kh laLFkku ds lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd }kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk o"kZ 1992 esa foi{kh laLFkku esa dk;Z djus okys vkdfLed Jfedksa dh ,oa Bsdsnkjksa ds Jfed dh ofj"Brk lwph dsUnz dks Hksth xbZ ftlesa Hkh mldk uke vafdr gS rFkk mlls dfu"B Jfed lksguyky vkt Hkh dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk mldks lsok ls vyx djus ds ckn gqDekjke] dkukjke dks dstqvy Jfed j[kk x;k gS rFkk og gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed dHkh ugha jgk gS rFkk og foi{kh laLFkku dk Jfed jgk Fkk rFkk mldks lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k ,ot esa ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru ;k {kfriwfrZ eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl xokg us vfHklk{; nh gS fd og lu~ 1989 esa vizsy eghus rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk lu~ 1989 esa ngkM+h ds fglkc ls rhu ekg dh ru[okg feyh Fkh rFkk vukt ds mrkj&pko ls badkj fd;k gS fd mldks Bsdsnkj us fu;qDr fd;k gks vkSj Bsdsnkj gh osru nsrk gksA

vizkFkhZ lk{kh ujsUnz nso tks fd lgk;d izca/kd Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe esa gS bl xokg us vfHklk{; nh gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj dks Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k oju~ og eS- egsUnz flag j.ktks/k flag gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliskVZ dkUVªsDVj Jh fot; uxj ds }kjk fu;ksftr Fkk rFkk fnukad 19-12-7168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1986 ls foi{kh laLFkku }kjk dk;Z ij yxkuk drbZ xyr fy[kk x;k gS rFkk Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj }kjk fu;ksftr deZdkjksa dks vius laLFkku esa j[kus o LFkk;h djus dk QSlyk ,d le>kSrk fnukad 12-4-1991 ds vUrxZr gqvk Fkk ijUrq mDr le>kSrk ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk rhu o"kZ yxkrkj dk;Z ugha djus ds dkj.k dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha jgkA D;ksafd izkFkhZ }kjk o"kZ 1990&91 esa vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk dk;Z ugha fd;k Fkk vr% izkFkhZ dks mDr le>kSrk dk dksbZ Qk;nk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha ik;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk dHkh Hkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k gS izkFkhZ Lo;a lu~ 1990&91 esa dk;Z ij mifLFkr u gksus ds dkj.k o le>kSrk ds rgr dksbZ Hkh ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha jgkA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd dstqvy yscj dh ofj"Brk lwph mlds lgk;d us cuk;h Fkh rFkk izn'kZ ,e&4 ij , ls ch mlds gLrk{kj gS blesa dk;Zfnol lgh gS Bsdsnkj dk dksbZ fjdkMZ ys[kjkt ds ckjs esa is'k ugha gS rFkk Bsdsnkj dk fjdkMZ izn'kZ ,e&5 o 6 gS rFkk ys[kjkt dks LFkk;h ugha fd;k FkkA

vizkFkhZ lk{kh jkeohj flag us vfHklk{; nh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku us fu;ksftr ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk 12 ekg esa izkFkhZ us 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj dk Jfed Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k cfYd izkFkhZ Lo;a gh dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls badkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ys[kjkt us fnukad 19-12-1986 ls 15-4-1989 rd dke fd;k gks vkSj dk;Z fnol dk pkVZ izn'kZ ,e&3 gS rFkk izn'kZ ,e&4 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 is'k fd, gSaA bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls badkj fd;k gS fd ys[kjkt dks foHkkx us j[kk gks vkSj gkftjh o isesaV nsrk gksA

vizkFkhZ lk{kh cyfoUnj flag us vfHklk{; nh gS fd og lu~ 1982 ls gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj ds ;gka ukSdjh djrk gS rFkk ys[kjkt Bsdsnkj dk dStqvy Jfed Fkk rFkk fnukad 12-4-1991 dk le>kSrk izn'kZ ,e&7 gS rFkk fnukad 1-10-1991 dks ehfVax ,QlhvkbZ ds lkFk gqbZ ftlesa dstqvy Jfed dks ofj"Brk ds vuqlkj foi{kh Jfed dh lsok esa fy;k Fkk ftldh izfr izn'kZ ,e&8 gS rFkk ys[kjkt us vizsy 1989 esa dsoy 16 fnu dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk ys[kjkt us fuxe esa lu~ 1986 esa lsok esa fu;qDr ugha gqvk rFkk mls dHkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us izn'kZ MoY;w&2 izek.k i= Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lgk;d izca/kd }kjk tkjh gksuk Lohdkjk gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us ;g Lohdkjk gS fd ys[kjkt gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dk dk;Z ugha djrk Fkk rFkk og Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh gks ,slk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSA

vizkFkhZ lk{kh ds'kwjke us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd og gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ Bsdsnkj ds ;gka lu~ 1980 ls dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk ys[kjkt dstqvy Jfed Fkk rFkk fuxe us ys[kjkt dks fnlEcj 1986 esa lsok esa fu;qDr ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk ekg vizsy 1989 esa lsokeqDr ugha fd;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd ys[kjkt Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh gks] ,slk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSA mlus 'kiFk i= i

vc U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh ysa[kjkt foi{kh fuxe ds }kjk fu;qDr deZdkj Fkk ;k dkUVªsDVj ds ekQZr\ bllaca/k esa foi{kh fuxe ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed us fu;qfDr dk dksbZ vkns'k is'k ugha fd;k gS rFkk foi{kh laLFkku esa Bsdsnkj ds ekQZr deZpkjh yxk, tkrs jgs gSa rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed Fkk tks nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&3 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 ls izdV gS rFkk izn'kZ MoY;w&2 o"kZ 1989 dk gS blls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd izkFkhZ Jfed us fdrus fnu fdlds ek/;e ls dk;Z fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ }kjk fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA

blds izfrdkj esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds xksnke esa lQkbZ] pkSdhnkjh o nokbZ Mkyus ds dk;Z ds fy, dstqvy yscj ds :i esa 11@&#- izfrfnu ds fglkc ls fnukad 19-12-1986 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dk dHkh Jfed ugha jgk Fkk tks fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds tokc izn'kZ MoY;w&1 o izek.k i= izn'kZ MoY;w&2 ls Li"V gS rFkk gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&5 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 ls dksbZ Jfed bl Bsdsnkj dk Jfed jgk gks ,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS cfYd ekg vizsy 1988 esa gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dks Bsdk fn;k x;k Fkk tcfd izkFkhZ Jfed rks lu~ 1986 ls foi{kh fuxe dk nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh lk{; ls ;g rF; drbZ LFkkfir ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed gksA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7169 eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh ekSf[kd o fyf[kr cgl ij euu fd;kA ,oa vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls izkFkhZ lk{kh ys[kjkt dh lk{; dk foospu djsa rks izkFkhZ lk{kh ys[kjkt us viuh eq[; ijh{kk rks 'kiFk i= ij nh gS mlesa lkQrkSj ls vfHklk{; nh gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh [kk| fuxe vkxkj fot; uxj esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 19-12-1986 dks 11@&#- izfrfnu ds fglkc ls dh xbZ FkhA bl xokg dh ftjg esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd ekg vizsy 1989 rd yxkrkj fd;k gS rFkk lu~ 1989 esa mldks rhu ekg dk osru ngkM+h ds fglkc ls feyk Fkk rFkk mldks Hkqxrku foi{kh fuxe dk dSf'k;j nsrk Fkk rFkk lu~ 1987 esa mlus yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA bl xokg dh ftjg esaa bl fcUnq ij dksbZ izfrijh{k.k ugha gS fd mldks foi{kh fuxe }kjk fnukad 19-12-1986 dks 11@&#- izfrfnu ds fglkc ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;ksftr u fd;k gks rFkk izn'kZ MoY;w&1 o izn'kZ MoY;w&2 dks Hkh ftjg esa ,lsy ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk foi{kh lk{khx.k ujsUnz nso 'kekZ o jkeohj flag ,oa cyfoUnz flag ,oa ds'kwjke dh lk{; ls Hkh ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vk;h gS fd lu~ 1986 o lu~ 1987 esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gks cfYd xokg cyfoUnz flag dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd eS- egsUnz flag j.ktksr Bsdsnkj o"kZ 1988&89 o 1989&90 o 1990&91 esa dkUVªsDVj Fks rks fQj vizkFkhZ ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 tks fd ekg vizsy 1988 ls ekpZ 1991 rd dk LVsVesaV mifLFkfr dk gS ftlesa dstqvy yscj ds :i esa Øe la[;k 2 esa izkFkhZ Jfed ys[kjkt dh mifLFkfr o"kZ 1988&89 esa 267 fnol fn[kk j[kh gS rFkk ;g nLrkost foi{kh fuxe dk gS rFkk ftlesa dksbZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed izkFkhZ dks ugha crk;k gqvk gS gkykafd izn'kZ ,e&3 esa ,p ,.M Vh dkUVªsDVj ds Fkwz crk j[kk gS ysfdu o"kZ 1986 ls 1987 dks tc izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd vizkFkhZ fuxe gS rks ;g dksbZ vdkV~; ;k lEHkkO; lk{; bl gsrq izkFkhZ ds eqdkcys ugha gS rFkk izn'kZ ,e&5 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk dksbZ uke vafdr ugha gS rFkk tc vizkFkhZ fuxe dh lk{; ls gh ;g Li"V gS fd eS0 gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj rks ekg vizsy 1988&1989 ls foi{kh fuxe ds lkFk lafon dh gS rks fQj izkFkhZ Jfed rks fnukad 19-12-1986 ls foi{kh fuxe esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa dk;Zjr gqvk gS tks foi{kh fuxe ds }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; t;iqj ds ;gka is'k tokc izn'kZ MoY;w&1 esa foi{kh fuxe ds ;gka fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fu;ksftr gksus dk rF; n'kkZrk gS rFkk foi{kh fuxe ds lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd dk izek.k i= izn'kZ MoY;w&2 izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 1-1-1987 ls foi{kh fuxe esa dk;Zjr gksus dk rF; n'kkZrk gS ftldh foi{kh fuxe dh vksj dksbZ [k.Mdkjh lk{; bl rF; ds ckjs esa ugha gS rks fQj mHk; i{k dh lk{; ds foospu ds QyLo:i U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fouez er ;g gS fd izkFkhZ lk{kh ys[kjkt dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth 'kgknr ls izkFkhZ Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd foi{kh fuxe esa dk;Zjr gksuk LFkkfir gSA</p> <p>vc U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok ls gVk, tkus ds iwoZorhZ o"kZ esa ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ij layXu jgk gS\</p> <p>bl laca/k esa izkFhkZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd dk;Zjr jgk gS rFkk ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd le;kof/k esa lsok esa jgus ls 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks] ;g rF; LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS tcfd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k rd dk;Z djuk LFkkfir gSA blds izfrdkj esa vizkFkhZ fuxe ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd jsQjsal ds fucU/ku esa lsokeqDr fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ekg o"kZ vafdr u gksus ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lsok i;Zolku izkFkhZ deZdkj }kjk crk, tkus ij og frfFk ekuus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed us 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ fuxe ds fo}ku izfruf/k us bl rdZ ds laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gS &</p> <p>1- , vkbZ vkj 2002 ,l-lh- 1147</p> <p>2- ,e dkWujhy] mn;iqj cuke NksVk yky o vU;A</p> <p>2003 MCY;w ,y lh ¼jkt-½ ;w lh 127</p> <p>3- egkohj daMDVj cuke uanfd'kksjA<span class="header-text">7170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> 2003 MoY;w ,y lh 425</p> <p>4- lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r cuke ng;kHkkbZ vej flag</p> <p>2006 ,l lh lh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 38</p> <p>5- nsgyh DykWFk ,.M tujy feYl ,.M daiuh fy- cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt-] vkj ,y vkj 1991 ¼1½ 265</p> <p>6- xouZesaV vkWQ vkU/kzizns'k cuke ch- lR;ukjk;.k jko , vkbZ vkj 2000 ,l-lh 1729 7- Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy- cuke eku flag 2012 ¼132½ ,Q ,y vkj 500</p> <p>8- tsMh, cuke tt yscj dksVZ t;iqj o vU;] 2015¼4½ MoY;w ,y lh ¼jkt½ 331 9- th-,l- dksy MoY;w MoY;w ;wfu;u cuke ,EiykW;lZ eSustesaV vkWQ nqX/k ok'kjh vkWQ chlhlh,y , vkbZ vkj 2016 ,l-lh- 4441</p> <p>blds izfrdkj esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us nyhy izLrqr dh fd deZdkj us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls de dk;Z fd;kA ;g rF; LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dk fnukad 15-4-1989 dks lsok ls u gVk;k x;k gks bl rF; ij fookn u gksdj vizkFkhZ fuxe dk ;g vfHkopu o lk{; gS fd o"kZ 1989&90 esa deZdkj Lo;a dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk blfy, tgka lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk dk fookn u gks ogka jsQjsal ds fucU/ku esa lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk vafdr Hkh u gks rks dksbZ QdZ ugha iM+rk gS cfYd foi{kh fuxe us jsQjsal dh oS/krk dks pqukSrh nh Fkh ftldks ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vkns'k ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVhlu uacj 6551@2003 fnukad 24-5-2005 ls [kkfjt gks xbZ gS rFkk tks Mh-ch- flfoy Lis'ky vihy fjV uacj 728@2005 vkns'k fnukad 11-8-2005 ls foi{kh fuxe dh [kkfjt gks xbZ Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gS &</p> <p>1- Jhjke b.MfLVª;y ,UVjizkbtst fy- cuke egd flag o vU;A ¼2007½ 1 ,l lh lh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 961</p> <p>2- 1998 MoY;w ,y lh ¼;w lh½ 178</p> <p>3- 2000 ¼87½ ,Q ,y vkj 228 cEcbZ</p> <p>4- 2003¼1½ MoY;w ,y lh 47</p> <p>5- gfjuanu izlkn o vU; cuke ,EiykW;j vkbZ@vkj eSustesaV vkWQ ,QlhvkbZ o vU;A 2014 ¼141½ ,Q ,y vkj 74</p> <p>6- ih oh ds fMfLVyjh fy- cuke egsUn jke</p> <p>, vkbZ vkj 2009 ,l lh 2205</p> <p>7- eS- jhrw ekcZy cuke izHkkdkar 'kqDyk 2010 ¼124½ ,Q ,y vkj 72</p> <p>8- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU; 2007¼5½ MoY;w ,y lh 466 9- fgUnqLrku e'khu VwYl fy- vtesj cuke bUMfLVª;y fVªC;quy t;iqj o vU;A 1993¼1½ MCY;w ,y lh 415</p> <p>10- eS- Mhlh,e Jhjke daalksfyVsM fy- cuke LVsV o vU;A 2010¼4½ MoY;w ,y lh 660 eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa mijksDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk lEekuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls vizkFkhZ fuxe dk tokc izn'kZ MCY;w&1 esa fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd izkFkhZ Jfed dk dk;Z ij layXu gksuk ,oa ekg vizSy 1989 esa Lo;a dk;Z ij mifLFkr u gksus dk vfHkopu fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed fnukad 19-12-1986 ls ,oa o"kZ 1987 esa izek.k i= izn'kZ MoY;w&2 ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z djuk izR;{k :i ls izdV gS rFkk izek.k i= tkjh djus<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7171</span> okys lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd dks lk{; esa is'k djds izn'kZ MoY;w&2 dk dksbZ [k.Mu Hkh foi{kh dh vksaj ls ugha gS rFkk foi{kh ds gh nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 esa ekg ekpZ 1988 ls vizsy 1989 rd 284 fnol rks dk;Z djuk Li"V gS rks fQj izkFkhZ fujUrj lu~ 1987 o lu~ 1988 esa dk;Z fd;k rks dys.Mj o"kZ 12 ekg esa 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks ;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj tc izkFkhZ Jfed us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; ,oa nLrkost izn'kZ MCY;w&1 o foi{kh fuxe dk izek.k i= izn'kZ MoY;w&2 ls izkjfEHkd Hkkj dk fu"iknu djus ds i'pkr~ foi{kh fuxe us dksbZ izkFkhZ lk{; dk [k.Mu ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed us 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks cfYd vizkFkhZ ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 ls Hkh o"kZ vizsy 1988 ls ekpZ 1989 esa gh 284 fnol dk;Z djuk rks izdV fLFkfr gS cfYd izkFkhZ Jfed us rks yxkrkj o"kZ 1987 o o"kZ 1988 esa rks iwjs dys.Mj o"kZ dk;Z djuk vk;k gS rFkk foi{kh lk{; ls rks dsoy bruk vk;k gS fd Jfed us ekg vizsy 1989 esa Lo;a dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk cfYd vizkFkhZ dh lk{; rks o"kZ 1990&91 dh ckr vk;h gS rFkk tgka rd vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh ;g nyhy jgh gS fd jsQjsasl fucU/ku esa NaVuh dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS blfy, jsQjsal fof/k fo:) gksus ls U;k;kf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA bl rdZ ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p; 2003 MCY;w ,y lh ¼jkt½ ;w lh 127 o 2003 MCY;w ,y lh jkt- ;w lh 424 dh vksj U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gS tcfd vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd tc Jfed o"kZ 1987 o 1988 dys.Mj o"kZ esa ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd yxkrkj 240 fnol ls vf/kd lsok dj yh gS rks fQj fnukad 15-4-1989 dks lsok ls i;Zolku dk dksbZ fookn ;k vkifRr foi{kh fuxe }kjk ugha mBk;h x;h gS cfYd ;g vfHkokd~ vk;k gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe dh izkFkhZ us Lo;a dke ij vkuk can dj fn;k rks fQj bl frfFk ij dksbZ fookn ugha gSA bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku U;kf;d fofu'p; jktLFkku jkT; o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU; 2007¼5½ MoY;w ,y lh jkt- 466 dh vksj U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gSA</p> <p>mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds rdksZa ij xaHkhjrk ls euu fd;k ,oa mijksDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk lEekuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls vizkFkhZ dk tokc izn'kZ MCY;w&1 esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk dk;Z foi{kh fuxe esa fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd djus ds ckjs esa vfHkdFku gS ysfdu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha djuk crk;k gS rFkk ekg vizSy 1989 esa izkFkhZ Jfed LosPN;k dk;Z ij mifLFkr u gksuk crk;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa fnukad 15-4-1989 dks dk;Z ls gVkus dk vfHkopu gS ftldk foi{kh fuxe ds tokc esa bl frfFk ls fofuZfn"V :i ls badkjh ugha gS rFkk tc jsQjsal dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa vizkFkhZ us psysUt fjV fiVhlu esa fd;k rks bl fcUnq dks psysUt ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk gLxrr ekeys esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z Jfed }kjk fd;k tkuk LFkkfir gS rks fQj i;Zolku dh frfFk dk lkjoku fookn i{kdkjku esa u gksus ls ,oa jsQjsal esa lsoki;Zolku dh U;k;ksfprrk dk iz'u vUrofyZr gksus ls ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa ds ekeys ds rF; i;Zolku dh frfFk dk 240 fnol dh frfFk ls x.kuk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls fookn vzUrxZLr gksus ls tcfd jktLFkku jkT; o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU; 2007¼5½ MCY;w ,y lh 466 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk is'k 17 o 18 esa izfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks'kuh esa gLrxr ekeys esa lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk lkjoku fookn i{kdkjku ds e/; u gksdj vuq"kaxh fo"k; gksus ls jsQjsal voS/k gks ,slk ekus tkus ds fy, dksbZ vk/kkjHkwr fLFkfr u gksus ls vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh bl nyhy esa dksbZ lkj utj ugha vkrk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ fuxe dh lsok esa izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z NksMk gks ,slh vizkFkhZ dh dksbZ fof/ktU; lk{; u gksus ls vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ tks fd dstqvy Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh Fkk mldk fnukad 15-4-1989 dks lsok i;Zolku fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS cfYd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk foi{kh fuxe }kjk ugha fd, tkus ls izkFkhZ Jfed fdlh fu;fer in ds fo:) inLFkkfir u gksus ls ,oa fu;ferhdj.k dk dksbZ ekeyk izkFkhZ dk u gksus ls izkFkhZ Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fnukad 19-12-1986 ls fnukad 15-4-1989 rd djhc 2 o"kZ 4 ekg rd dk;Z djus ls foi{kh fuxe dk deZdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dk foi{kh fuxe }kjk vfrya?ku djus ls mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh jks'kuh esa izkFkhZ deZdkj iqu% dstqvy yscj ds :i esa iquZ%LFkkiuk dk lek;kof/k dkQh O;ixr gksus ds i'pkr~ Jfed }kjk fookn mBkus ls ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks ,d yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfriwfrZ ds crkSj voS/k NaVuh ds dkj.k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZ Jfed dk foi{kh fuxe }kjk lsok i;Zolku fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha gksuk ik;k tkrk gS<span class="header-text">7172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> ,oa izkFkhZ Jfed foi{kh fuxe ls izkFkhZ dh lsok ls NaVuh vfof/klEer gksus ls crkSj izfrdj ,d yk[k ipkl gtkj #i;s fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA</p> <p>vr% mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i bl jsQjsal dk mRrj mijksDrkuqlkj nsrs gq, fuEu vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk lehphu izrhr gksrk gS &</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ;</p> <p>vr% ^^foi{kh Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe {ks=h; dk;kZy; t;iqj ds vkxkj Jh fot; uxj }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ys[kjkt dk lsok i;kZolku fd;k tkuk fof/klEer~ ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh ys[kjkt foi{kh fuxe ls crkSj NaVuh izfrdj ds ,d yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s ikus dk eq'rgd gS tks foi{kh fuxe vf/kfu.kZ; dh frfFk ls 6 ekg esa izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh ys[kjkt dks lank; djsa vU;Fkk izkFkhZ Jfed mDr vokMZ dh frfFk ls 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ikus dk gdnkj jgsxkA ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa i{kdkjku~ [kpkZ viuk&viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA**</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ; fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad 15-05-2017 dks ljs btykl gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA</p> <p>fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2181-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@1995) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@09@2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&22012/414/1994–vkbZ- vkj- (lh-II)]</p> <p>jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 8th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/1995) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/09/2017.</p> <p>[No. L-22012/414/1994 - IR(C-II)]</p> <p>RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer</p> <p>vuqca/k</p> <h4>dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj</h4> <h4>dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 25@1995</h4> <h4>lhvkbZ,l uacj % 60@2014</h4> <p>jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k Øekad ,y&22012@414@94&vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh&II½ fnukad 1-6-1995</p> <p>Jh isekjke iq= Jh iz/kkuey flU/kh ¼e`rd½</p> <p>tfj;s fof/kd okjhlku</p> <p>1@1 psru yky iq= Lo- isekjke<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7173</span> 1@2 y{eh nsoh iq=h Lo- isekjke</p> <p>loZfuoklh;ku&50 thch ukud Mh gVh]</p> <p>Jh fot; uxj] ftyk*&Jh xaxkuxj</p> <p>---izkFkhZ</p> <p>cuke</p> <p>{ks=h; eSustj] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] Mh&39]</p> <p>lqHkk"k ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj</p> <p>---vizkFkhZ</p> <h4>ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ+] vkj-,p-ts-,l- mifLFkr</h4> <p>izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh vkj-lh- tSu</p> <p>vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh lrh'k pan feRryA</p> <h4>fnukad vokMZ % 15-05-2017</h4> <p>vokMZ</p> <p>Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad ,y&22012@414@94&vkbZ-vkj-¼lh&II½ fnukad 1-6-1995 ds LFkku ij fnukad 24-7-2002 dks vuqlwph dk fuEu fookn dk jsQjsal izkIr gqvk fd</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of FCI at regional office jaipur and that at its Depot sribijainagar in Terminating Sh. PEMARAM from services is legal & justified ? If not what relief the workman is Entitled to?"</p> <p>izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gSa fd izkFkhZ Jfed isekjke dh fu;qfDr foi{kh fuxe ds ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fot; uxj vkxkj esa eLVjksy ij nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa dh xbZ FkhA foi{kh fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks vdkj.k gh fnukad 08-7-1991 dks lsok ls vyx dj fn;kA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ,d o"kZ dh lsok vof/k esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk gVkus ds ckn Lo;a iqu% dk;Z ij ysus ckcr~ izkFkZuk djus ij Hkh mls dke ij ugha fy;k x;kA ftldh f'kdk;r dsUnzh; lgk;d Je vk;qDr t;iqj ds le{k dh tkus ij dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gqvkA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dsUnzh; ds le{k tokc izLrqr dj ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd Jfed dh vk;q 70 o"kZ ls vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z ij ugha j[kk tk ldrk tcfd izkFkhZ dh vk;q eSMhdy izek.k i= ds vuqlkj 52 o"kZ gh FkhA foi{kh fuxe }kjk vius pgsrksa dks ykHk igqapkus dh uh;r ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k tks fd vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl esa vkrk gSA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25th ,oa 25 ,p] 25 ,Q ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks dHkh dksbZ uksfVl ;k vkjksi i= ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr o voS/k gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokeqfDr o vk;q vf/kd gksus dh dk;Zokgh vuqfpr ,oa voS/k rFkk 'kwU; djkj fn;s tkus rFkk mls iqu% fiNyh iwjh osru lsokvksa dk ykHk rFkk eqdnek [kpkZ fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA</p> <p>foi{kh fuxe }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k oju~ og eSllZ egsUnz flag j.ktks/k flag] gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªDVj Jh fot; uxj }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk dHkh Hkh yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k rFkk lacaf/kr o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk lsokfuo`fr dh mez ikj dj ysus ds dkj.k mls le>kSrs ds rgr fuxe esa ysus ds fy, fu;ekuqlkj ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks dHkh foi{kh fuxe }kjk fuxe fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk lsokfuo`fr dh vk;q izkIr gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk /kkjk 25,Q] 25&th] 25 ,p ds izko/kku ykxw djuk ljklj xyr gSA izkFkhZ dks dHkh foi{kh fuxe }kjk fu;ksftr gh ugha fd;k x;k rks lsokeqfDr dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA izkFkhZ o"kZ 1991 esa 60 o"kZ dh mez ikj dj pqdk Fkk tks nLrkostksa ls lkfcr gSA dsUnz ljdkj esa lsokfuo`fr dh vk;q 58 o"kZ gSaA var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA ftldk izkFkhZ us izR;qRrj nsdj tokc esa feF;k dFku djuk crk;k gS cfYd fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fnukad 08-07-1991 rd foi{kh fuxe esa fu;ksftr gksus dk vfHkopu fd;k gSA<span class="header-text">7174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ lk{kh isekjke ijhf{kr gqvk gS rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa nLrkost izn'kZ MCY;w&1 ,oa MCY;w&2 izn'kkZafdr gq, gSaA foi{kh fuxe dh vksj ls foi{kh lk{kh loZJh jkeohj flag] ujsUn nso 'kekZ] cyfoUnz flag] ds'kwjke ijhf{kr gq, gSa rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&8 izn'kkZafdr gq, gSaA</p> <p>eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh ,oa fyf[kr cgl dk ,oa vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vc loZizFke izkFkhZ lk{kh isekjke dh lk{; dk ifj'khyu djsa rks bl xokg us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh [kk| fuxe vkxkj Jhfot; uxj esa nSfud etnwjh 9@#i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls fnukad 10-01-1983 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k }kjk dh xbZ Fkh rFkk og fu;qfDr frfFk ls yxkrkj dk;Z djrk vk jgk Fkk rFkk foi{kh laLFkku us mldks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 08-7-1991 dks lsok ls vyx dj fn;k rFkk mlus lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ izfro"kZ vFkok ,d o"kZ dh lsok vof/k esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn mlus O;fDr'k% lEidZ dj dk;Z ij ysus dk fuosnu fd;k ysfdu dksbZ lquokbZ ugha dh rFkk fQj mlus f'kdk;r Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; t;iqj ds le{k dh ftldk okrkZ izfrosnu fnukad 6-7-1994 izn'kZ MCY;w&1 gS rFkk og jkstkuk xksnke dh lQkbZ djuk o nokbZ Mkyus dk dk;Z djrk FkkA foi{kh }kjk fnukad 28-9-1987 dks izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tks izn'kZ MCY;w&2 gS rFkk mldh lsok lekfIr ds le; mez 51 o"kZ dh Fkh rFkk fnukad 8-1-1992 dks mldh eSMhdy izek.k i= esa mez 51 o"kZ ekuh ftldk izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w&3 o 4 gS rFkk mlds ckn Bsdsnkj ds Jfed gqDekjke o lksguyky dks j[kk x;k ftUgsa LFkk;h dj fn;k x;k rFkk og foi{kh laLFkku dk Jfed jgk Fkk rFkk mldks lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k ,ot esa ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru ;k {kfriwfrZ eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl xokg us vfHklk{; nh gS fd mldks ru[okg n¶rj ls nh tkrh Fkh rFkk Bsdsnkj us dHkh iSls ugha fn, FksA Bsdsnkj ds deZpkfj;ksa dks foi{kh fuxe esa ysus dk le>kSrk gqvk FkkA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ lk{kh ujsUnz nso tks fd lgk;d izca/kd Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe esa gS bl xokg us vfHklk{; nh gS fd izkFkhZ deZdkj dks Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk dHkh fui;qDr ugha fd;k x;k oju~ og eS- egsUnz flag j.ktks/k flag gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliskVZ dkUVªsDVj Jh fot; uxj ds }kjk fu;ksftr Fkk rFkk fnukad 10-01-1983 ls foi{kh laLFkku }kjk dk;Z ij yxkuk drbZ xyr fy[kk x;k gS rFkk Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk gS.Mfyax ,oa VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj }kjk fu;ksftr deZdkjksa dks vius laLFkku esa j[kus o LFkk;h djus dk QSlyk ,d le>kSrk fnukad 12-4-1991 ds vUrxZr gqvk Fkk ijUrq mDr le>kSrk ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ lsokfuo`r dh vk;q iwjh djus ls og ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd dstqvy yscj dh ofj"Brk lwph mlds lgk;d us cuk;h Fkh rFkk izn'kZ ,e&4 ij , ls ch mlds gLrk{kj gS blesa dk;Zfnol lgh gSA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ lk{kh jkeohj flag us vfHklk{; nh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku us fu;ksftr ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj dk Jfed Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ deZdkj dh mez 70 o"kZ dh FkhA ftjg esa bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls badkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ isekjke us fnukad 10-1-1983 ls 08-07-1991 rd dke fd;k gks vkSj dk;Z fnol dk pkVZ izn'kZ ,e&1 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 foi{kh fuxe dk gSA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ lk{kh cyfoUnj flag us vfHklk{; nh gS fd og lu~ 1982 ls gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj ds ;gka ukSdjh djrk gS rFkk isekjke Bsdsnkj dk dStqvy Jfed Fkk rFkk fnukad 12-4-1991 dk le>kSrk izn'kZ ,e&7 gS rFkk fnukad 1-10-1991 dks ehfVax ,QlhvkbZ ds lkFk gqbZ ftlesa dstqvy Jfed dks ofj"Brk ds vuqlkj foi{kh Jfed dh lsok esa fy;k Fkk ftldh izfr izn'kZ ,e&8 gS rFkk isekjke us vizsy 1989 esa dsoy 16 fnu dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk isekjke us fuxe esa lu~ 1986 esa lsok esa fu;qDr ugha gqvk rFkk mls dHkh lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us izn'kZ MCY;w&2 izek.k i= Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds lgk;d izca/kd }kjk tkjh gksuk Lohdkjk gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us ;g Lohdkjk gS fd isekjke gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dk dk;Z ugha djrk Fkk rFkk og Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh gks ,slk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ lk{kh ds'kwjke us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd og gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ Bsdsnkj ds ;gka lu~ 1980 ls dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk isekjke dstqvy Jfed Fkk rFkk fuxe us isekjke dks fnlEcj 1980 esa lsok<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7175</span> esa fu;qDr ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk ekg tqykbZ 1991 esa lsokeqDr ugha fd;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd isekjke Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh gks] ,slk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSA mlus 'kiFk i= i<k ugha Fkk] vQljksa us 'kiFk i= ij gLrk{kj djok fy, FksA</p> <p>vc U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh isekjke foi{kh fuxe ds }kjk fu;qDr deZdkj Fkk ;k dkUVªsDVj ds ekQZr\ bl laca/k esa foi{kh fuxe ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed us fu;qfDr dk dksbZ vkns'k is'k ugha fd;k gS rFkk foi{kh laLFkku esa Bsdsnkj ds ekQZr deZpkjh yxk, tkrs jgs gSa rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed Fkk tks nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&3 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 ls izdV gS rFkk izn'kZ MCY;w&2 ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd izkFkhZ Jfed us fdrus fnu fdlds ek/;e ls dk;Z fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ }kjk fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA</p> <p>blds izfrdkj esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds xksnke esa lQkbZ] pkSdhnkjh o nokbZ Mkyus ds dk;Z ds fy, dstqvy yscj ds :i esa fnukad 10-01-1983 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dk dHkh Jfed ugha jgk Fkk tks fd vizkFkhZ fuxe ds tokc izn'kZ MCY;w&1 o izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w&2 ls Li"V gS rFkk gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&5 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 ls dksbZ Jfed bl dkUVªsDV dk Jfed jgk gks ,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS cfYd ekg vizsy 1988 esa gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj dks Bsdk fn;k x;k Fkk tcfd izkFkhZ Jfed rks lu~ 1986 ls foi{kh fuxe dk nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh lk{; ls ;g rF; drbZ LFkkfir ugha gSA</p> <p>eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh ekSf[kd o fyf[kr cgl ij euu fd;kA ,oa vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls izkFkhZ lk{kh isekjke dh lk{; dk foospu djsa rks izkFkhZ lk{kh isekjke us viuh eq[; ijh{kk rks 'kiFk i= ij nh gS mlesa lkQrkSj ls vfHklk{; nh gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh [kk| fuxe vkxkj Jh fot; uxj esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 10-01-1983 dks dh xbZ FkhA bl xokg dh ftjg esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha vk;k gS tks mlds eq[; dFku ds foijhr gksA bl xokg dh ftjg esaa bl fcUnq ij dksbZ izfrijh{k.k ugha gS fd mldks foi{kh fuxe }kjk fnukad 10-01-1983 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;ksftr u fd;k gks rFkk izn'kZ MCY;w&1 o izn'kZ MCY;w&2 dks Hkh ftjg esa ,lsy ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk foi{kh lk{khx.k ujsUnz nso 'kekZ o jkeohj flag ,oa cyfoUnz flag ,oa ds'kwjke dh lk{; ls Hkh ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vk;h gS fd lu~ 1983 ls 1991 esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gks cfYd xokg cyfoUnz flag dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd eS- egsUnz flag j.kthr Bsdsnkj o"kZ 1988&89 o 1989&90 o 1990&91 esa dkUVªsDVj Fks rks fQj vizkFkhZ ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 tks fd ekg vizsy 1988 ls ekpZ 1991 rd dk LVsVesaV mifLFkfr dk gS ftlesa dstqvy yscj ds :i esa Øe la[;k 1 esa izkFkhZ Jfed isekjke dh mifLFkfr o"kZ 1988&91 esa 700 fnol fn[kk j[kh gS rFkk ;g nLrkost foi{kh fuxe dk gS rFkk ftlesa dksbZ dkUVªsDVj dk Jfed izkFkhZ dks ugha crk;k gqvk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ lk{; izkFkhZ ds izkFkhZ ds eqdkcys ugha gS rFkk izn'kZ ,e&5 ls izn'kZ ,e&8 esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk dksbZ uke vafdr ugha gS rFkk tc vizkFkhZ fuxe dh lk{; ls gh ;g Li"V gS fd eS- gS.Mfyax ,.M VªkaliksVZ dkUVªsDVj rks ekg vizsy 1988&1989 ls foi{kh fuxe ds lkFk lafon dh gS rks fQj izkFkhZ Jfed rks fnukad 10-01-1983 ls foi{kh fuxe esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa dk;Zjr gqvk gS rFkk foi{kh fuxe dk izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w&2 izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 28-9-1987 foi{kh fuxe esa dk;Zjr gksus dk rF; n'kkZrk gS ftldh foi{kh fuxe dh vksj dksbZ [k.Mdkjh lk{; bl rF; ds ckjs esa ugha gS rks fQj mHk; i{k dh lk{; ds foospu ds QyLo:i U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fouez er ;g gS fd izkFkhZ lk{kh isekjke dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth 'kgknr ls izkFkhZ Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa foi{kh fuxe esa dk;Zjr gksuk LFkkfir gSA</p> <p>vc U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok ls gVk, tkus ds iwoZorhZ o"kZ esa ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z ij layXu jgk gS\</p> <p>bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fnukad 08-7-1991 rd dk;Zjr jgk gS rFkk ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd le;kof/k esa lsok esa jgus ls 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks] ;g rF; LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS tcfd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd<span class="header-text">7176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> vof/k rd dk;Z djuk LFkkfir gSA blds izfrdkj esa vizkFkhZ fuxe ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd jsQjsal ds fucU/ku esa lsokeqDr fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ekg o"kZ vafdr u gksus ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lsok i;Zolku izkFkhZ deZdkj }kjk crk, tkus ij og frfFk ekuus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed us 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA</p> <p>vizkFkhZ fuxe ds fo}ku izfruf/k us bl rdZ ds laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gS &</p> <p>1- , vkbZ vkj 2002 ,l-lh- 1147</p> <p>2- ,e dkWujhy] mn;iqj cuke NksVk yky o vU;A 2003 MCY;w ,y lh ¼jkt-½ ;w lh 127</p> <p>3- egkohj daMDVj cuke uanfd'kksjA 2003 MCY;w ,y lh 425</p> <p>4- lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r cuke ng;kHkkbZ vej flag 2006 ,l lh lh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 38</p> <p>5- nsgyh DykWFk ,.M tujy feYl ,.M daiuh fy- cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt-] vkj ,y vkj 1991 ¼1½ 265</p> <p>6- xouZesaV vkWQ vkU/kzizns'k cuke ch- lR;ukjk;.k jko , vkbZ vkj 2000 ,l-lh 1729</p> <p>7- Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy- cuke eku flag 2012 ¼132½ ,Q ,y vkj 500</p> <p>8- tsMh, cuke tt yscj dksVZ t;iqj o vU;] 2015¼4½ MCY;w ,y lh ¼jkt½ 331</p> <p>9- th- ,l- dksy MCY;w MCY;w ;wfu;u cuke ,EiykW;lZ eSustesaV vkWQ nqX/k ok'kjh vkWQ chlhlh,y , vkbZ vkj 2016 ,l-lh- 4441</p> <p>blds izfrdkj esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us nyhy izLrqr dh fd deZdkj us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls de dk;Z fd;kA ;g rF; LFkkfir djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dk fnukad 08-07-1991 dks lsok ls u gVk;k x;k gks bl rF; ij fookn u gksdj vizkFkhZ fuxe dk ;g vfHkopu o lk{; gS fd o"kZ 1991 esa deZdkj dh mez lsokfuo`fr dh gks pqdh Fkh] ds fucU/ku esa lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk vafdr Hkh u gks rks dksbZ QdZ ugha iM+rk gS cfYd foi{kh fuxe us jsQjsal dh oS/krk dks pqukSrh nh Fkh ftldks ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vkns'k ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVhlu uacj 6550@2003 fnukad 24-5-2005 ls [kkfjt gks xbZ gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gS &</p> <p>1- Jhjke b.MfLVª;y ,UVjizkbtst fy- cuke egd flag o vU;A ¼2007½ 1 ,l lh lh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 961</p> <p>2- 1998 MCY;w ,y lh ¼;w lh½ 178</p> <p>3- 2000 ¼87½ ,Q ,y vkj 228 cEcbZ</p> <p>4- 2003¼1½ MCY;w ,y lh 47</p> <p>5- gfjuanu izlkn o vU; cuke ,EiykW;j vkbZ@vkj eSustesaV vkWQ ,QlhvkbZ o vU;A 2014 ¼141½ ,Q ,y vkj 74</p> <p>6- ih oh ds fMfLVyjh fy- cuke egsUn jke , vkbZ vkj 2009 ,l lh 2205</p> <p>7- eS- jhrw ekcZy cuke izHkkdkar 'kqDyk 2010 ¼124½ ,Q ,y vkj 72</p> <p>8- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU;</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7177</span> <p>2007¼5½ MCY;w ,y lh 466</p> <p>9- fgUnqLrku e'khu VwYl fy- vtesj cuke bUMfLVª;y fVªC;quy t;iqj o vU;A 1993¼1½ MCY;w ,y lh 415</p> <p>10- eS- Mhlh,e Jhjke daalksfyVsM fy- cuke LVsV o vU;A 2010¼4½ MoY;w ,y lh 660</p> <p>eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa mijksDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk lEekuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ fuxe dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fnukad 08-07-1991 rd izkFkhZ Jfed dk dk;Z ij layXu gksuk vk;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed fnukad 10-01- 1983 ls o o"kZ 1987 ds izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w&2 ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z djuk izR;{k :i ls izdV gS rFkk izek.k i= tkjh djus okys lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd dks lk{; is'k djds izn'kZ MCY;w&2 dk dksbZ [k.Mu Hkh foi{kh dh vksaj ls ugha gS rFkk foi{kh ds gh nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 esa ekg vizsy 1988 ls ekpZ 1991 rd 700 fnol rks dk;Z djuk Li"V gS rks fQj izkFkhZ fujUrj lu~ 1983 ls 1991 rd dk;Z fd;k rks dys.Mj o"kZ 12 ekg esa 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks ;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj tc izkFkhZ Jfed us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; ,oa nLrkost foi{kh fuxe dk izek.k i= izn'kZ MoY;w&2 ls izkjfEHkd Hkkj dk fu"iknu djus ds i'pkr~ foi{kh fuxe us dksbZ izkFkhZ lk{; dk [k.Mu ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed us 240 fnol ls de dk;Z fd;k gks cfYd vizkFkhZ ds nLrkost izn'kZ ,e&4 ls Hkh o"kZ vizsy 1988 ls ekpZ 1991 rd 700 fnol dk;Z djuk rks izdV fLFkfr gS rFkk tgka rd vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh ;g nyhy jgh gS fd jsQjsasl fucU/ku esa NaVuh dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS blfy, jsQjsal fof/k fo:) gksus ls U;k;kf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA bl rdZ ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p; 2003 MCY;w ,y lh ¼jkt½ ;w lh 127 o 2003 MCY;w ,y lh jkt- ;w lh 424 dh vksj U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd tc Jfed o"kZ 1988 ls 1991 dys.Mj o"kZ esa ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd yxkrkj 240 fnol ls vf/kd lsok dj yh gS rks fQj fnukad 08-07- 1991 dks lsok ls i;Zolku dk dksbZ fookn ;k vkifRr foi{kh fuxe }kjk ugha mBk;h x;h gS cfYd ;g vfHkokd~ vk;k gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe dh izkFkhZ us Lo;a dke ij vkuk can dj fn;k rks fQj bl frfFk ij dksbZ fookn ugha gSA bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku U;kf;d fofu'p; jktLFkku jkT; o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU; 2007¼5½ MCY;w ,y lh jkt- 466 dh vksj U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k gSA</p> <p>mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k ds rdksZa ij xaHkhjrk ls euu fd;k ,oa mijksDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk lEekuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA</p> <p>vfHkys[k ds ifj'khyu ls izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ dh lk{; ls Jfed dk dk;Z foi{kh fuxe esa fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fnukad 08-07-1991 rd djus ds ckjs esa vfHkdFku gS ysfdu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha djuk crk;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa fnukad 08-07-1991 dks dk;Z ls gVkus dk vfHkopu gS ftldk foi{kh fuxe ds tokc esa bl frfFk ls fofuZfn"V :i ls badkjh ugha gS rFkk tc jsQjsal dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa vizkFkhZ us psysUt fjV fiVhlu esa fd;k rks bl fcUnq dks psysUt ugha fd;k Fkk rFkk gLxrr ekeys esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z Jfed }kjk fd;k tkuk LFkkfir gS rks fQj i;Zolku dh frfFk dk lkjoku fookn i{kdkjku esa u gksus ls ,oa jsQjsal esa lsoki;Zolku dh U;k;ksfprrk dk iz'u vUrofyZr gksus ls ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa ds ekeys ds rF; i;Zolku dh frfFk dk 240 fnol dh frfFk ls x.kuk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls fookn vUrxZLr gksus ls tcfd jktLFkku jkT; o vU; cuke Jhefr xhrk ckbZ o vU; 2007¼5½ MCY;w ,y lh 466 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iSjk 17 o 18 esa izfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks'kuh esa gLrxr ekeys esa lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk lkjoku fookn i{kdkjku ds e/; u gksdj vuq"kaxh fo"k; gksus ls jsQjsal voS/k gks ,slk ekus tkus ds fy, dksbZ vk/kkjHkwr fLFkfr u gksus ls vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh bl nyhy esa dksbZ lkj utj ugha vkrk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ fuxe dh lsok esa izkFkhZ lsokfuo`fr dh mez dk gksus ls dk;Z NksM+k gks ,slh vizkFkhZ dh dksbZ fof/ktU; lk{; u gksus ls vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ tks fd dstqvy Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh Fkk mldk fnukad 08-07-1991 dks lsok i;Zolku fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS cfYd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh<span class="header-text">7178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> ikyuk foi{kh fuxe }kjk ugha fd, tkus ls izkFkhZ Jfed fdlh fu;fer in ds fo:) inLFkkfir u gksus ls ,oa fu;ferhdj.k dk dksbZ ekeyk izkFkhZ dk u gksus ls izkFkhZ Jfed nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fnukad 10-01-1983 ls fnukad 08-07-1991 rd djhc 8 o"kZ 6 ekg rd dk;Z djus ls foi{kh fuxe dk deZdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dk foi{kh fuxe }kjk vfrya?ku djus ls mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh jks'kuh esa izkFkhZ deZdkj o"kZ 2000 esa e`R;q gksus ls iquZ%LFkkiuk dk lek;kof/k dkQh O;ixr gksus ds i'pkr~ Jfed }kjk fookn mBkus ls ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks nks yk[k :i;s {kfriwfrZ ds crkSj voS/k NaVuh ds dkj.k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZ Jfed dk foi{kh fuxe }kjk lsok i;Zolku fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA pw¡fd izkFkhZ Jfed Jh isekjke dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS ,oa mlds fof/kd okjhlku dks U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 15-06-2009 }kjk fjdkMZ ij fy;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ Jfed ds iqu% fu;kstu esa ysus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ Jfed ds fof/kd okjhlku dks foi{kh fuxe ls izkFkhZ dh lsok ls NaVuh vfof/klEer gksus ls crkSj izfrdj nks yk[k #i;s fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA</p> <p>vr% mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i bl jsQjsal dk mRrj mijksDrkuqlkj nsrs gq, fuEu vf/kfu.kZ;</p> <p>ikfjr fd;k tkuk lehphu izrhr gksrk gS &</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ;</p> <p>vr% ^^foi{kh Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe {ks=h; dk;kZy; t;iqj ds vkxkj Jh fot; uxj }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed isekjke dk lsok i;Zolku fd;k tkuk fof/klEer~ ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh isekjke ds fof/kd okjhlku foi{kh fuxe ls crkSj NaVuh izfrdj ds nks yk[k #i;s ikus dk eq'rgd gS tks foi{kh fuxe vf/kfu.kZ; dh frfFk ls 6 ekg esa izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh isekjke ds fof/kd okjhlku dks lank; djsa vU;Fkk izkFkhZ Jfed mDr vokMZ dh frfFk ls 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ikus dk gdnkj jgsxkA ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa i{kdkjku~ [kpkZ viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA**</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ; fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad 15-05-2017 dks ljs btykl gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA</p> <p>fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2182-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&41011@40@92&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I)]</p> <p>ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-41011/40/92– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B. S. BISHT, Section Officer<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7179</span> </p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>AHMEDABAD</h4> <p>Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 28th July, 2017</p> <h4>Reference: (CGITA) No- 19/2004</h4> <p>1. The General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400001</p> <p>2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kothi Compound, Rajkot – 360001</p> <p>3. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Loco), Western Railway, Kothi Compound, Rajkot – 360001</p> <p>…First Party</p> <p>V/s.</p> <p>The Jt. Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 209-E, Sarvottamnagar, Nr. New Railway Colony, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad …Second Party</p> <p>For the First Party : Shri Janak R. Pandya</p> <p>For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <p>The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/40/92-IR(DU) dated 07.12.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:</p> <h4>SCHEDULE</h4> <p>"Whether the action of DRM, Western Railway, Rajkot and other officers, not adhering to the promotion policy formulated by Rly. Board vide letter dated 03.11.1987 and contravening the same by promoting the fireman, Diesel Asstt./Electric Assistant to the post of Steam Shunter in the ratio 110:9 against 79:40 and averaged workman, is justified, legal and proper? If not, to what relief the affected workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?"</p> <p>1. The reference dates back to 07.12.1997. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 20.01.1994 along with number of documents and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on 20.06.1995 but now the second party union Jt. Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad through its Office Bearer Shri R.S. Sisodia stated that the Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad does not want to prosecute the case.</p> <p>2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as not pressed.</p> <p>P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2183-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lriqjk {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼45@2006] 43@2004] 44@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12025@3@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I), la- ,y&12025@289@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I), la- ,y&12025@293@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh<span class="header-text">7180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> </p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 45/2006, 43/2004, 44/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12025/3/2006– IR(B-1), No. L-12012/289/2003-IR(B-1), No. L-12012/293/2003-IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/45/2006</h4> <p>Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, C/o General Secretary, MBKGB Karamchari Union, Motinagar, Ward No. 24, Balaghat …Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>The Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, South Civil Lines, Chhindwara …Management</p> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/43/2004</h4> <p>Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, C/o General Secretary, MBKGB Karamchari Union, Motinagar, Ward No.24, Balaghat …Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>The Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, South Civil Lines, Chhindwara …Management</p> <h4>NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2004</h4> <p>Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, C/o General Secretary, MBKGB Karamchari Union, Motinagar, Ward No. 24, Balaghat … Workman</p> <p>Versus</p> <p>The Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, South Civil Lines, Chhindwara …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 11th day of August, 2017</h4> <p>1. (a) As per letter dated 18-8-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12025/3/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>" Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, Shri Jethu Singh Kulasthe, Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia & Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</p> <p>(b) As per letter dated 5-4-2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/289/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7181</span> <p>" Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in not regularising Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</p> <p>(c) As per letter dated 5-4-2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/293/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>" Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in not regularising Shri Jethu Singh Kulasthe is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</p> <p>2. Though evidence is recorded separately, R/43/04 & 44/04 are connected with claim Case No. R/45/06 and therefore it is appropriate to decide all those reference by common award.</p> <p>3. In R/45/06, after receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, Shri Jethu Singh Kulasthe, Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia & Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda submitted statement of claim jointly at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party workman is that name of 2nd party Bank was changed on 1-6-06 as Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank amended in order of reference has been carried out. That Ist party workmen claims that they were working between 10-8 years in 2nd party Bank. Their services were not regularized, they were members of the Union. Conciliation proceedings were submitted before ALC, Shahdol. During pendency of conciliation proceeding, their services were terminated without notice. The dispute was raised before competent authority in Writ Petition No. 2067/04 was filed by them. Hon'ble High Court vide directions issued on 1-2-05 directed management of 2nd party to decide the claim for regularization within 9 months.</p> <p>4. Ist party workman further reiterates that their services were terminated on 25-11-03. After the dispute was raised before ALC, the conciliation proceedings failed and dispute has been referred. After termination of their services, all the workman claimants are unemployed, their family members and old parents are dependent on them. That after termination of their services, relatives of the employees in the Bank are working in the Bank. Workmen were not paid retrenchment compensation but amount of PF was not paid to them. Termination of their services is in violation of Section 25-F,H,N, Section 33 of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for their reinstatement with consequential benefits.</p> <p>5. The detailed statement of claim is also filed at Page 6/1 to 6/4 by workman reiterating above contentions that workman Ashish Kachwaha was engaged in Bank on 28-6-95 at Head office of the Bank at Balaghat. Workman No.2 Jethu singh was engaged in the Bank at Shahpura branch on 14-4-90. Claimant No.3 Lakhanlal was engaged on 15-7-85 at Bakori branch. Claimant No.4 Dhruv Kumar Nanda was engaged on 16-6-97. That they had rendered continuous service morning to evening as messenger cum peon. That in the year 2004, 2nd party Bank was having 57 branches over districts Dindori, Balaghat in MP. Only 6 permanent messengers cum peon were working in the Bank, rest of the work were managed through daily rated workers like claimant. Bank has not regularized their services. Management thereby committed unfair labour practice. After the workman raised industrial dispute for regularization, Bank with ulterior motive terminated their services of all workmen on 25-11-03 without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid. Bank violated Section 25-F, 33 of ID Act. Bank had also not followed circular dated 8-10-84 issued by department of Finance and letter issued by NABARD dated 10-10-84. The recommendations of Gupta Award and award passed by NIT were not followed by the Bank. On such ground, workman prays for their reinstatement with consequential benefits.</p> <p>6. In R/45/06, Written Statement is filed at Page 13/1 to 5 opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that the statements of claimant is not tenable as monetary requirements of Rule 4(c) ID Act not followed. That there is no employer employee relationship. Provisions of ID Act are not applicable. Management denied engagement of workman against sanctioned post of messenger cum peon on daily wages. Management denied engagement of claimant No.1 on 25-6-95, claimant No.2 on 14-4-90, claimant No.3 on 15-7-85, claimant No.4 on 16-6-97. 2nd party denied that claimants rendered services morning to evening. It is denied that workmen were not assigned duty claimed by them of regular messenger/ peon. That it is denied that Bank had managed the work of messenger cum peon by daily rated workman like claimants. The work was not of permanent nature. The claimants were not appointed. There was no question of their regularization in service. The demand of claimants for regularization is prevalous. That management terminated their services on 27-11-03. There was no question of terminating services of workman with ulterior motive. 2nd party denies that claimants have worked more than 240 days during any of the year. It is denied that there was no question of payment of retrenchment compensation as workmen were not appointed by the Bank. 2nd party denies that claimants were assigned work of collecting stamps, cheques, documents within the inter branch dealings of the Banks. It is contented that management deliberately not provided appointment orders is false. There cannot be any appointment order without statutory appointment. There was no master servant relationship between parties. It is denied that job of messenger cum farrash is of perennial nature. That circular dated 8-10-84 of Finance Department Circular IDD(RRB)CC dated 7-5-87 is not applicable to the<span class="header-text">7182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> claimants. The recommendations proponed by Gupta Committee are also not applicable to the claimants. That daily wager is engaged for specific work as per quantum of work. Wages are paid to such casual and temporary persons. there is no continuity of service. Such person cannot claim regularization. He has no right for claiming regularization, there is no sanctioned post. On such contentions, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.</p> <p>7. That Ist party submitted rejoinder at Page 14/1 to 14/2 reiterating their contentions in statement of claim.</p> <p>8. In R/43/04 in his statement of claim, Dhruv Kumar Nanda has pleaded that 2nd party Bank established on 14-11-82 in District Mandla and Balaghat. Bank had 31 branches in Mandla district, 26 in Balaghat district, dindori district was also included. Bank had total 57 branches. 167 employees were working including officers, clerks, typist etc. only 6 messengers cum peon were working in the Bank. Work of peon cum messengers was extracted from daily wagers like claimants. That workman was working continuously from 1997 to 24-11-03. His services were not regularized. The service of workman as terminated on 25-11-03. The Bank had failed to comply circular dated 8-10-84, award of NIT, recommendations of Gupta committee. Workman claims regularization on post of messenger cum peon.</p> <p>9. In R/43/04, management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/3 denying employer employee relationship. It was denied that workman was engaged on daily wages , master servant relationship was denied, ID Act is not applicable. It is denied that workman was discriminated or his services were terminated in violation of Section 22,33 of ID Act. It is denied that services of workman were terminated during pendency of reference.</p> <p>10. In R/44/04, in statement of claim, workman has pleaded identical contentions that he was continuously working from 14-4-90 to 24-11-03. His services were not regularized. Claimant was offered services on temporary/ daily wage basis. He had continuously worked till 24-11-03. He rendered more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. Bank had not followed circular dated 8-10-84, recommendations of Gupta Committee and circular dated 20-3-93 of NABARD. Workman claimed regularization in service.</p> <p>11. In R/44/04, management filed Written Statement denying employer employee relationship. It was denied that workman was engaged on daily wages , master servant relationship was denied, ID Act is not applicable. It is denied that workman was discriminated or his services were terminated in violation of Section 22,33 of ID Act. It is denied that services of workman were terminated during pendency of reference.</p> <p>12. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.</p> <p>My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <p>In Case No.R/45/06-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, &#10;Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services &#10;of Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, Shri &#10;Jethu Singh &#10;Kulasthe, Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia & Shri Dhruv Kumar &#10;Nanda is legal and justified?</td> <td>I&#10;n Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>As per final order</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>In Case No.R/43/04-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, &#10;Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in not regularising Shri &#10;Dhruv Kumar Nanda is legal and justified?</td> <td>As &#10;services of workman are &#10;terminated, &#10;claim for regularization is not tenable.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>In Case No.R/44/04-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, &#10;Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in not regularising Shri &#10;Jethu Singh Kulasthe is legal and justified?</td> <td>As &#10;services of workman are &#10;terminated, &#10;claim for regularization is not tenable.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7183</span> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>13. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of claimants Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, Shri Jethu Singh Kulasthe, Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia & Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda. All the claimants filed their identical affidavit of evidence. Shri Dhruv Kumar in his affidavit has stated that he was engaged on daily wages messenger on 5-5-96, his services were terminated on 25-11-03. He was regularly working for 7 years. He had paid Union contribution. Letter dated 24-11-03 was issued by management. that his services was regularized, his services were terminated on 25-11-03 without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. During 5-5-96 to 25-11-03, he had rendered more than 240 days continuous service. He was paid salary, arrears of bonus. He was doing various kinds of work, handling work of inward, outward and handling of record. Union had given letter dated 21-6-97 for regularization of daily wage employees. 12 % amount of PF was deducted from his salary from 1-10-99. That fresh recruitment process was started by the Bank for messengers. His services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him.</p> <p>14. Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha also filed identical affidavit claiming that he was working in the Bank from 28-6-95 till 25-11-03. He was regularly working for 8 ½ years. His services were terminated on 25-11-2003. He worked more than 240 days during each of the year. Jethu Singh filed affidavit of his evidence that he was orally engaged on 14-4-90 as daily wage messenger cum peon. He was continuously working till 25-11-03. Amount of PF was deducted. He was doing various kinds of work.</p> <p>15. Lakhanlal in his affidavit of evidence has stated that he was working in the Bank from 20-7-85. He was continuously working for 18 years till 25-11-03, his services were terminated on 25-11-03. He was initially paid Rs.5/- per day. He was interviewed on 30-4-88. All the claimants have stated in their affidavit that they are unemployed after termination of their services. He says that from 1-10-99, 12 % PF was deducted from his salary. As per head office circular dated 17-7-01, PF Account was opened in his name. Loan for purchasing bicycle was sanctioned by management on 15-12-86. As per circular dated 3-3-11, management has started fresh recruitment.</p> <p>16. Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda in his cross examination says post was not advertised at the time of his engagement. The notice was displayed on notice board, his written test was not taken. His name was enrolled in Employment Exchange. Registration cared of Employment Exchange is not produced. He not received appointment letter. The appointment letter was issued by the Bank but it was with the Branch Manager. He was doing work of cleaning, sweeping distribution of dak. Sweeper was not appointed in the branch. He denies that he was engaged as per need of work. His wages were paid at end of month. His attendance was maintained. He has not produced attendance register in the case as register is in custody of the Bank. That he had not given application for production of attendance register. It is brought to my notice that application for production of document was filed. They received wages for his actual working days, the intimation about termination of his service was given to him by Branch Manager, order in writing was not given to him.</p> <p>17. Shri Ashish Kachwaha in his cross examination says that he has also raised dispute for regularization. 2nd party has appointed him, his name was enrolled in Employment Exchange office. Document is not produced as same is not required. He was engaged as daily wage messenger, written test was not conducted, his oral interview was taken. He was appointed as messenger. He denies that there is no post of messenger. Before termination of his service, meeting of the manageme3nt was held. In said meeting, it was decided the employees who raise dispute be terminated from service, its intimation was given to him by Branch Manager. He was appointed by Branch Manager. He denies that Branch Manager has no authority to appoint him. Appointment letter is not produced. He was continuously working, copy of attendance register is not produced.</p> <p>18. In his cross examination, Jethu Singh says appointment letter was not given to him. He was appointed as peon on daily wages. He denies that he was engaged only for 1-2 hours. After his interview, head office had issued appointment letter. He was working as messenger cum peon. Branch Manager had send information about him to head office thereafter he was interviewed. Presently he is working in the agricultural lands. He received wages for his actual working days.</p> <p>19. Shri Lakhanlal in his cross examination says he produced letter for interview dated 30-4-88. Appointment letter was not given to him. Management has no enmity with him. He was paid wages for his working days deducting 12 % PF contribution. He denies that he not worked more than 240 days during any year. Work of messenger is distributing dak from one place to another.</p> <p>20. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness Vimal Kumar Jain is that all 4 claimants were not engaged calling their names through Employment Exchange or publishing advertisements engagement of claimants was a stop gap arrangement of casual nature. Claimants were not engaged against sanctioned vacant post. Their engagement was intermittent. Claimants had not worked more than 240 days during any calendar year. There was no need to issue notice or payment of compensation to the claimants. Master servant relationship<span class="header-text">7184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> was not existing. Management's witness in his cross says he was appointed on 5-10-84. Since 2014, he is working in personal department. Personally he not acquainted with claimants. During 2001-02, he was posted at Mandla branch. He had seen documents w.r.t. claimant Dhruv Kumar at Ghugri branch. He was not working as regular employee. during 96 to 2003, Dhruv Kumar was working at Ghugri branch but witness of management was unable to tell his working days. That he was not posted at Shahpura branch.l claimant Jeetu singh was working in Shahpura branch from 14-4-90 to 25-11-03 but he was not continuously working. He was not posted at Bakori branch. Claimant Lakhan worked from 1991 to 2003 but he was not continuously working. Witness denied that all the claimants were stopped from working on 25-11-03. He explained that claimants did not attend work. Notice was not issued by management to claimants. Claimants were not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. The claimants had raised dispute for regularization before ALC. Witness of management denies that during pendency of proceeding before ALc, their services were terminated. In his further cross, management's witness denies that all the claimants have worked more than 240 days during calendar year. He claims ignorance about deduction of PF contribution of Ashish Kushwah from 2001 to 25-11-03. He denies that Ashish Kushwah was paid TA DA bonus cycle allowance and EPF contribution. Witness of management claims ignorance that appointment letter was given to Ashish Kushwah, Dhruv Kumar. Management's witness denied that all claimants completed more than 240 days continuous service before their termination on 25-11-03. That entries of payments made to the claimants are recorded in cash book. their names are not recorded about payment. That information about deduction of PF of claimants may be available in PF office. Record of EPF is also maintained by the Bank. He had seen that record but it is not produced. Witness says record is not maintained beyond 60 days. Management's witness claims ignorance that claimants Ashish Kumar worked for continuous 8 years, Dhruv Kumar for 7 years, Jethu for 13 years, Lakhan for 12 years on daily wages. That during 1990 to 03, post of messenger was not vacant. Witness was unable to tell sanctioned post in the Bank. Evidence about working of all claimants is not shattered in their cross examination. From evidence of claimants Dhruv Kumar, documents Exhibit W- 28,29, from evidence of Ashish Kachwaha documents Exhibit W-1 to 12, from evidence of Jethu documents Exhibit W-13 to 21, from evidence of Lakhanlal documents Exhibit W-22 to 27 are admitted. Exhibit W-22 relates to payment of daily wages Rs.162. Exhibit W-23 pertains to total 9 articles of stationary in name of Lakhan. Exhibit W-24 EPF receipt for the year 2006-07 in name of Lakhan lal. Exhibit W-25 pertains to taking statement by Lakhanlal, W-26 pertains to part time service of Lakhan dated 30-4-88. W-7 pertains toi payment of wages to Lakhan in 1991. W-28 pertains to payment of wages to Lakhan Exhibit W-1 is letter dated 24-11-03 issued by Branch Manager prohibiting to terminate services of claimants as they had filed proceedings against management. Exhibit W-2 is letter dated 21-6-97 given by President of Union for regularization of daily wage employees, W-3 is letter given by General Manager dated 30-9-99 for deduction of PF of daily wage employees. W-4 is letter issued by Chairman of Bank regarding deduction of PF of daily wage employee Ashish Kushwah. W-5 pertains to deductin of PF of Ashish Kushwah., Exhibit W-6 is letter given by APO dated 10-6-11 that amount of Rs.13712 was deposited in GPF account of Ashish Kushwah. W- 7 is order passed under RTI in appeal. Exhibit W-8 pertains to information under RTI. W-9 pertains to information about recruitment process for post of messenger was started in the year 2011. Exhibit W-13 are copies of 15 payment vouchers to farrash without mentioning the name. W-17 is letter dated 8-8-03 relating to information under RTI Act about working of Jethu singh and others. W-19 pertains to delivering of stationary articles in Shahpura branch by Jethu Singh. Exhibit W-28 is letter under RTI Act regarding contribution of PF of Dhruv Kumar – amount deposited in his account are shown. In Exhibit W-29, letter under RTI Act amount deposited in PF Account of Dhruv Kumar are shown. Management has not produced any documents about working days or payments made to the workman. Evidence of all the claimants about their working on daily wages is corroborated by documents produced on record. Management has withheld the documents about working and payments made to the claimants. Though Ist party has alleged violation of circular of 1984, recommendations of committee, documents in that regard are not produced. Management's witness has not produced documents about sanctioned post of all branches. Workmen are engaged on daily wages for years together amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 10, Schedule V of ID Act.</p> <p>21. In written note of argument submitted by management, general submissions are made that appointment not made as per the recruitment rules. The daily wagers are not entitled for regularization. Claimants were not appointed following recruitment rules, they had not completed 240 days continuous service, provisions of ID Act are not applicable. Argument of management cannot be accepted as evidence of claimants corroborated by documents establish that Ist party claimants were engaged for years together on daily wages.</p> <p>22. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Amravasti and another versus Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare, Amrati reported in 2008-II-CLR-301. Their Lordship dealing with complaints under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 held that best possible evidence with the appellant on the point of total service put in by the respondents not brought on record by the appellant. Appellant has to blame itself for this failure on its part.</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7185</span> <p>In present case management has not produced any documents about working days, attendance and payments made to workman.</p> <p>In case between Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in 2015(4)MPLJ-5. Their Lordship held termination of daily rated workman who worked more than 240 days in a calendar year without complying Section 25-F,G and H of ID Act is void ab initio. Reinstatement with continuity of service with full backwages was upheld.</p> <p>In case between Amarkant Rai versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2015(146)-FLR-75. Their lordship dealing with the claim for regularization held appointment has been lacking any qualification nor bears any blemish on record during his employment for over two decades and services of similarly situated persons on daily wages would be regularized. Appellant initially working against unsanctioned post, he was working continuously since 3-1-02 against sanctioned post. He was working continuously since 3-1-02 against sanctioned post. Their Lordship directed authorities to regularize the services of appellant w.e.f. 3-1-02.</p> <p>In case between Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL reported in 2014-AIR-SCW5816. Their Lordship allowed reinstatement instead of compensation awarded by Division bench. Their Lordship laid down criteria when compensation is to be awarded, whether industry is closed, whether employee is superannuated or going to retire shortly etc.</p> <p>In case between Raj Kumar versus Director of Education and others reported in 2016(6)SCC-541. Their Lordship held Section 25-F-a,b,c is mandatory. That termination of services of driver of private school without obtaining prior approval of Director of Education was bad in law.</p> <p>Counsel for management not submitted any citation in support of his argument. Evidence on record is cogent and clear that all workmen had completed more than 240 days continuous service before their services were terminated on 25-11-03, their services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Therefore termination of services of Ist party claimant is illegal. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.</p> <p>23. Point No.2- From evidence on record, termination of ser4vivces of claimant is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act as per ratio held in above cited cases, when termination of services without notice or without complying Section 25-F is void. Claimants are entitled for reinstatement. The services of claimants were terminated on 25-11-03. Claimants in their evidence stated that they are unemployed. However nothing is explained from their evidence how they are surviving all these years. Only Shri Jethu Singh stated that he was doing agricultural work. Considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, workman deserves to be allowed reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 % back wages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.</p> <p>24. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) In R/45/06, action of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ashish Kumar Kachwaha, Shri Jethu Singh Kulasthe, Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia & Shri Dhruv Kumar Nanda is illegal.</p> <p>(2) Management is directed to reinstate all claimants with continuity of service with 50 % backwages.</p> <p>(3) Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.</p> <p>(4) In R/43/04 & 44/04, no relief is granted to the claimants.</p> <p>25. Copy of Award be kept in record of Case No. R/43/04 & 44/04.</p> <p>R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dkvk- 2184-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12012@72@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh<span class="header-text">7186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> </p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.7/2014) of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12012/72/2009- IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/7/2014</h4> <p>Shri Bhavsingh, S/o Shri Mukamsingh Chouhan, R/o Patel Phalia, Jobatt, Distt. Jhabua (MP) … Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore, Jobat Branch, Jhabua (MP) …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 21st day of July 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 21-7-17 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/72/2009-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of the then State Bank of Indore, Jobat branch, now State Bank of India, Jobat Branch in terminating the services of Shri Bhav Singh, S/o Shri Mukam Singh Chouhan w.e.f. 12-1-2007 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim. Case of workman is that he was engaged as peon in Jobat branch of the Bank in the year 2003. He was required to work from 8 AM to 8 PM. He was doing cleaning, sweeping, dusting work, supplying drinking water, distribution of dak. That he was continuously working from 2003 to 12-11-07. He was working all 7 days in a week. However he was paid salary deducting wages for holidays and Sunday. The payment was made to him under yellow vouchers obtaining his signatures. The record is available in the bank. Branch Manager Bharat was making payment to him on reimbursement basis. On 12-11-07, his services were terminated without notice. That during 2003 to 2007, he worked more than 240 days during each of the year. He was regular employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation as not paid to him. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <p>3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that it is established under State Bank of India Act. State Bank of Indore was merged with it on 28-7-2010. As per notification dated 27-8-2010 only permanent employees working in State Bank of Indore are absorbed in State Bank of India. Ist party workman worked on daily wages is not entitled for absorption in the Bank. Workman was not eligible for giving option as per the notification. 2nd party denies that workman worked as peon on daily wages in State Bank of India since 2003. It is denied that he was working from 8 AM to 8 PM. Workman was not in continuous service. Workman has not disclosed details of his working. It is denied that the record about his working is available in the Bank. 2nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases and submits that as workman was not appointed following recruitment rules against sanctioned vacancies, his claim deserves to be dismissed.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7187</span> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether the action of the management of the then State Bank of &#10;Indore, Jobat branch, now State Bank of India, Jobat Branch &#10;in &#10;terminating the services of Shri Bhav Singh, S/o Shri Mukam Singh &#10;Chouhan w.e.f. 12-1-2007 is legal and justified?</td> <td>The &#10;dispute &#10;under &#10;reference &#10;could not be decided on merit.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any &#10;relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>5. After reference of the dispute, both parties submitted their pleadings. Workman did not produce his evidence. It appears workman was dead. His LRs are not brought on record. No evidence is adduced by workman or his LRs in the matter. Evidence of Ist party was closed on 1-5-2017.</p> <p>6. 2nd party management also not adduced evidence. In absence of evidence by both parties, reference could not be decided on merit. accordingly I record my finding in point No.1.</p> <p>7. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The dispute under reference could not be decided on merit.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dkvk- 2185-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lAc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12011@89@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur 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 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12011/89/2014– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/10/2015</h4> <p>General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan, F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engineering College, Ujjain (MP) …Workman/Union Versus</p> <p>State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, 5, Yashwant Niwas Indore, Bhopal …Management<span class="header-text">7188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> </p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 3rd day of July 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 1-1-2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/89/2014-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the demand by the General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan w.r.t. Shri Suresh Chandra Solanki working in State Bank of India during period 1-6-07 to 31-10-2011 for difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement is justified? If so to what relief workman Shri Suresh Chandra Solanki is entitled for?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. The case of Ist party workman is that services of Bank employees are covered by Para 20.7 of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66. On 1-6-07, workman was orally engaged as permanent peon on daily wages Rs.60/-. The wages were increased to Rs.80, 100, 150 per day. The record is available with the Bank. The monthly payments were made through Saving Bank Account. State Bank of Indore is merged in State Bank of India in August 2010. He was not paid bonus for the year 2007 to 2012. He worked under various Branch Managers. Workman further submits that daily wage employees were paid scale wages as per Para 5.191 of Desai Award & Bipartite Settlement dated 9-0-96. He claims to be entitled to scale wage as per 4th to 9th bipartite settlement. The scale wages were paid to Vir Singh, Sushil Tiwari, Chhotelal Kushwah in Vindyanchal and Chholaroad branch, Bhopal. On such ground, workman prays for payment of difference of wages.</p> <p>3. 2nd party is proceeded without Written Statement on 5-8-2015.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.</p> <p>My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether demand by &#10;the General Secretary, &#10;Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan &#10; w.r.t. &#10;Shri Suresh Chandra Solanki working in State Bank &#10;of India during period 1-6-07 to 31-10-2011 for &#10;difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement is &#10;justified?</td> <td>I&#10;n Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>5. Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to demand of Union for difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement. 2nd party management had not filed Written Statement. 2nd party is proceeded without Written Statement on 5-8-15.</p> <p>6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that he was engaged as daily wage peon on 1-6-07. He was paid Rs.60 per day. Wages were increased to Rs.80,100,150 per day. He was working 8 hours in Bank from 9.30 AM to 6 PM. He worked more than 240 days in the branch. His services were terminated without notice on 31-10-11. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. He worked with various Branch Managers. That as per 9th Bipartite Settlement dated 27-4-00, applicable from 1-11-07, the pay scale of employees in sub cadre was Rs.5500-000 & from 1-5-10 Rs.5815 to 1315. The difference was paid to Vir Singh, Sushil Tiwari, Chhotelal Kushwah in Vindyanchal and Chholaroad branch, Bhopal as per settlement dated 1-6-07. The minimum wages prescribed are for unskilled, skilled categories as narrated. From evidence of workman, documents Exhibit W- to 5 are admitted. In his cross examination, workman admits Exhibit W-4,5 are not bearing seal of Bank. In his further cross, he admits any selection process was not followed before his engagement. Appointment letter was not given to him. Wages were paid in cash and depositing in Bank. He was not paid wages 4-15 days. He claims ignorance about bipartite settlement mentioned in his affidavit of evidence. On re-examination, workman says he had paid membership subscription as per Exhibit W-6.</p> <p>7. Management has not filed Written Statement as well as evidence. Document Exhibit W-1 is Banker's cheque issued in name of workman for amount of Rs.2012/-. Exhibit W-3 is copy of Banker's cheque for Rs.1217 in name of workman. Exhibit W-/2-22 are entries in account in name of workman Suresh Chandra amount debited and credited in account are shown but entries donot disclose on what account, amount was credited in his account. Workman has not produced bipartite settlement. Therefore it is not possible to consider whether workman who was engaged on daily wages is entitled for wages under Bipartite Settlement. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7189</span> <p>8. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The demand by the General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan w.r.t. Shri Suresh Chandra Solanki working in State Bank of India during period 1-6-07 to 31-10-2011 for difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement is not proper and legal.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2186-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12012@94@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12012/94/2005– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/13/2007</h4> <p>Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra S/o Late Ram Shipahi Mishra, H. No. 874, Lal Mati Chand Mari Talia, Near Hanuman Mandir, Jabalpur … Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ridge Road Branch, Jabalpur.</p> <p>Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur</p> <p>…Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 6th day of July 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 9-1-17 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/94/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in not considering the services rendered from 1990 to 1996 for regularization and terminating the services of Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra from the year 1996 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was employed in 2nd party No.3 GCF branch Jabalpur on post of waterman from January 1990. He worked till 31-12-91. Thereafter he was transferred to SBI Ridge Road branch Jabalpur-2nd party No.3 where he worked till 1996. He was appointed following<span class="header-text">7190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> selection process. He was continuously working to the satisfaction of his superiors. His services were discontinued by 2nd party No.3 without notice in 1996. He completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the calendar year. He had acquired status of permanent employee. That discontinuation of his service is arbitrary and act of victimization, unfair labour practice. It amounts to retrenchment under ID Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. After his discontinuation, 2nd party appointed fresh persons for same job and regularize them. As such violate Section 25 H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <p>3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party contends that reference made by Government assuming workman in employment of management is not legal. Said disputed question is required to be decided by this Tribunal. While making reference, submissions of 2nd party were overlooked. Management had denied employer employee relationship on conciliation proceeding. That workman was employed in staff canteen managed by Implementation Committee/ Welfare Committee. Bank management had no concern with function of the committee.</p> <p>4. 2nd party further reiterates Ist party was not employed by the management. There was no question of his transfer to other branch. Ist party was not employed by management. There was no question of his selection. That workman has taken contradictory pleas about his employment to pleas taken in conciliation proceedings. Before ALC Jabalpur, Ist party had claimed that he worked as machine boy in GCF branch SBI. No such post is existing in the branch. Management never employed workman. There was no question of his termination or discontinuation. It is denied that workman had worked continuously more than 240 days in a year. It is reiterated that employer employee relationship does not existed between Ist party and management. There was no question of his retrenchment in violation of provisions of ID Act. 2nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases and prays that workman is not entitled to any relief. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating that he was working as waterman, messenger, canteen boy. His salary was prepared along with other staff in the Bank. Charge register was maintained in the branch. Payments were made from petty cash by cheque.</p> <p>5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether the action of the management of State &#10;Bank of &#10;India &#10;in not &#10;considering &#10;the &#10;services &#10;rendered from 1990 to 1996 for regularization and &#10;terminating &#10;the &#10;services of Shri Vinay Kumar &#10;Mishra from the year 1996 is justified?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>6. The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization and legality of termination of services of workman. Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman supporting his claim. From January 990, he was appointed as waterman on vacant post. He was continuously working till 31-12-91. Thereafter he was transferred to Ridge Road branch where he worked till 1996. His services were orally terminated in 1996. He completed more than 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of termination of his service. He was paid from petty cash ledger vouchers were prepared. More than 100 employees are working in the Bank. Notice of termination was not given to him. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. After termination of his service, he is unemployed. In his cross examination, workman says appointment letter was not given to him. He was interviewed before his engagement. The post used to be advertised. He was appointed on vacant post of waterman. Even after his request, appointment letter was not given. He denies that he was engaged as per exigencies. After his disengagement, Manoj Tiwari, Vikas Sharma are engaged in GCF branch. He denied that he not worked more than 240 days during any year.</p> <p>7. Management's witness Anup Bannerjee filed affidavit of his evidence. Management's witness in his affidavit says workman was employed in staff canteen managed by Welfare Committee. He was never employed by management, there was no question of his transfer. Recruitment in Bank is done through selection process. Recruitment is done through SSC. Management's witness in his cross says he was posted in FCF branch, Ridge Road branch during 1990 to 1996. From record available in the Bank as to who were working during the period 90-96, he filed affidavit of his evidence. He had seen documents for the period 1991 to 996. Those documents are not produced on record.</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7191</span> <p>8. During course of argument, learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri R.K.Soni submits that application for production of documents was filed by Ist party on 1-2-2011. Management has not produced documents. The record shows 2nd party had filed reply to application for production of documents. As per ordersheet dated 27-6-12, counsel for management submitted that he will verify documents and will give report as well as relevant documents if possible will be produced. Case was fixed for production of documents. Documents are not produced by management. Shri R.K.Soni also submits that list of cheques about payments made to workman was admitted. Said list bears endorsement "Admit" but it is not certain who has made said endorsement, list of cheque was not exhibited.</p> <p>9 Learned counsel for management Shri R.C.Shrivastava in support of his argument relies on short note on the point that burden of proof lies on workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment. Employee doesn't derive any legal right to be regularized in service.</p> <p>10. Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case between</p> <p>Surendranagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in 2005-AIR-SCW-5562. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F, 2(oo), 25B and 240 days continuous service held workman claims to have worked more than 10 years as daily wager apart from oral evidence workman has not produced any evidence to prove fact that he has worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that regard was produced, no co-worker was examined, muster roll produced by employer has not been contradicted. That workman failed to discharge his burden that he was in employment for 240 days during preceding 12 months of date of termination of his service.</p> <p>He is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>11. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 workman has failed to prove termination of his service is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>12. I may also refer to ratio relied by Shri R.C.Shrivastava in case between-</p> <p>C.N.Ramappa Gowda versus Chandregowda and another reported in 2012(5)SCC-265. Ratio relies to uncontested or exparte judgment and decree when warranted. Matters to be proved by burden of proof on plaintiff. Existence of disputed questions of fact established from plaint itself.</p> <p>Ratio held in the case has no bearing to the facts of present case.</p> <p>Next reliance is placed in case between M.P.Housing Board and another versus Manoj Shrivastava reported in 2006(2)JLJ-1. Ratio held in the case pertains to Section 21(2)(B) of IE(SOS)Act1961(MP). The pleadings of parties are absolutely silent w.r.t. provisions of said act. Ratio held in the case therefore cannot be applied to case at hand.</p> <p>To sumup, the workman is not entitled to any relief as he has failed to establish his working more than 240 days preceding termination of his services. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.</p> <p>13. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of State Bank of India in not considering the services rendered from 1990 to 1996 for regularization and terminating the services of Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra from the year 1996 is legal and proper.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2187-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh Ek/; jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&41012@122@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh<span class="header-text">7192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> </p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-41012/122/2000– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/17/2004</h4> <p>Shri Ganesh Prasad, S/o Shri Babloo Lal C/o C.D. Lakhe, Near Kasturba Girls School, Near Gandhi Nagar, Po Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)</p> <p>…Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Divisional Office, Engineering Branch, Bhusawal</p> <p>…Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 11th day of July, 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 10-3-2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/122/2000-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of Central Raiwlay in terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Prasad S/o Shri Baboo Lal w.e.f. 22/11/1986 is justified? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of workman is that he was engaged as casual labour on 19-4-76. Casual service card was issued to him on payment of fees of Rs.2/-. On the basis of service card, he was appointed on post of permanent gangman during the period 19-4-78 to 22-10-86, he was working under PWI Harda. Service card No. 211623 was issued by PWI Harda. Service card was taken back from him telling him that he acquired permanent post. On 8-4-84, workman was informed vide notice by PWI Burhanpur that the post was not available in his jurisdiction. He would be disengaged from his work of gangman. That on 17-6-85, he was ill. He received treatment from Medical Officer Khandwa. Chargesheet was issued to him on 28-12- 85 for unauthorised absence. His signatures were obtained on certain documents. Workman was not asked anything. Documents were in English. His services were terminated on 26-12-85. He was given understanding for filing appeal within 45 days. He was not supplied any documents. On 9-6-87 workman had sent appeal by RPAD. He didn't receive any order from Appellate Authority. Workman submits order of his termination is void. He raised dispute. However the Government had refused to make reference without any reasons. Workman filed Writ Petition 6832/00. As per order dated 3-12-03, dispute has been referred by Government. By amendment, Ist party has pleaded that he has studied 4th standard. He was in service till 28-12-85. Chargesheet was issued to him for unauthorized absence. He had submitted medical certificate bout his illness. He received order of termination on 24-10-86. Exparte enquiry was conducted against him. He was not given opportunity of Defence Assistant for producing evidence of his witnesses. Enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. He was dismissed from service without issuing chargesheet. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7193</span> <p>3. Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 6/3 to 6/7 opposing claim of workman. Engagement of workman is not disputed. 2nd party submits that he was engaged as MRCL and not permanent gangman. It is denied that services of workman were terminated without following proper procedure. Workman was engaged as casual labour. After fulfilling conditions as per procedure, he was posted as MRCL. Workman was absent from duty. From 29-9-85 to 8-12-85 for 77 days broken period. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 28-12-85. Workman had acknowledged the same. That M.C.Chaco was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was fixed on various dates 18-9-86. Workman was present in enquiry. After completion of enquiry, report was submitted. Considering the findings of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 18-10-86. Considering workman was found guilty of charges, punishment of removal was imposed. Workman failed to submit appeal against Enquiry Report. After dispute was raised by workman, Government found that dispute was raised after lapse of 14 years did not refer the dispute. It is reiterated that workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>4. As per order dated 30-8-16, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.</p> <p>5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) Whether &#10;the charge of unauthorized absence &#10;alleged &#10;against workman &#10;is &#10;proved &#10;from &#10;evidence in Enquiry proceedings?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) Whether the punishment of removal imposed &#10;against workman is proper and legal?</td> <td>I&#10;n Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>As per final order</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>6. Point No.1- As per order dated 30-8-16, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Whether charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceeding. Management has produced documents at Exhibit M-1 to M-11. Chargesheet Exhibit M-3 issued on 11-12- 85 for unauthorized absence of 77 days broken period. Enquiry Proceeding Exhibit M-8 in reply to Q.4, Ist party workman admitted his absence for 77 days. Workman explained that he was not well consequently remained absent. Enquiry Officer submitted his report at Page 102 holding workman guilty of charges. Workman has not produced any document applying for leave or medical certificate about his illness. In evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, workman admitted his absence is sufficient to prove charge of unauthorized absence against workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. in Affirmative.</p> <p>7. Point No.2- As per my finding in Point No. charge of unauthorized absence for 77 days is proved against workman, question remains for consideration whether punishment of removal from service imposed against workman is proper and legal. Learned counsel for management Shri R.K. Soni submitted written notes of argument contending that the dispute is raised after long delay is not tenable.</p> <p>8. Reliance is placed on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Nedungadi Bank Ltd. versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others. Their Lordship observed it could not be said that in the circumstances industrial dispute arise or not even after lapse of about 7 years of dismissal of the respondent. Whenever workman raised some dispute, it doesnot become industrial dispute and appropriate Government cannot in a mechanical fashion make a reference of the alleged dispute treating it as industrial dispute. Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under Section 10 of the Act and there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended.</p> <p>Learned counsel for workman Shri P.Yadav on the point relies on ratio held in case between</p> <p>Shahaji versus Executive Engineer PWD reported in 2007(115)FLR-675. Their Lordship dealing with delay held if reference is delayed by several years, reference made about 16 years difference, Labour Court not entertained the dispute on the ground of delay in making reference. Judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh lays down the correct law. In para-5 of the judgment, Lordship considering ratio held in Case of Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Coop Marketing cum processing Society Ltd and Nedungadi Bank Ltd case, Sapan Kumar Pandit case, held we have gone through the judgment, we have no doubt that the judgment of this court in Ajaib Singh's case lays down law correctly. In the instance case, there was no ground of delay urged by management. Even if there was delay in making the reference, the Labour court came to the conclusion that termination was illegal, it could have suitably moulded the relief to be granted to the workman in view of delay. In such cases, the award of backwages may either be not permitted or curtailed. In Nedungadi Bank's case what was challenged<span class="header-text">7194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> before the High Court was the order making the reference. That was not a case where Labour Court refused to entertain the dispute on ground of delay.</p> <p>Considering ratio held in above cited case and dispute is raised after delay of about 7 years, the relief could be suitably moulded, in present case, punishment of removal is imposed against workman for unauthorised absence for 77 days i.e. for short period. Removal from service would not be justified, the punishment appears harsh. Shri R.K.Soni on the point relies on ratio held in case between</p> <p>State of Rajasthan versus Mohammed Ayub Naz reported in 2006-AIR-SCW-197. Their Lordship dealing with punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority considering delinquent remaining absent for 3 years, interference in punishment of removal from service was held.</p> <p>The facts of present case are different. The admitted unauthorized absence is only for 77 days therefore ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied to present case.</p> <p>Reliance is also held in case between New India Assurance Company Ltd versus Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava reported in 2008-AIR-SCW-1629. The facts are not comparable. Workman was unauthorized absent for 600 days. Medical certificate from registered medical practitioner was not produced.</p> <p>Considering short period of absence of workman for 77 days, punishment of removal from service is not justified. In my considered view, punishment of removal is modified to withholding of 3 increments. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.</p> <p>9. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of Central Raiwlay in terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Prasad S/o Shri Baboo Lal w.e.f. 22/11/1986 is illegal.</p> <p>(2) Punishment of removal from service is modified to withholding of 3 increments. Workman be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages.</p> <p>R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2188-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12011@57@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12011/57/2012– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE ENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/33/2013</h4> <p>General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engg.College, Ujjain …Workman/Union</p> <p>Versus</p> <p>Assistant General Manager, HRMG, ICICI Bank Ltd., Trans Trade Center, MiDC, Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai …Management<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7195</span> AWARD</p> <h4>Passed on this 3rd day of July, 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 1-2-13 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/57/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"1. As claimed by Union whether Shiv Singh Gehlot is entitled for regularization in the service of non- application from 10-5-10. If so then the benefits if any he is entitled to? 2. ICICI-BOR is a Banking Industry? 3. The nearest Tribunal is CGIT, Jabalpur?</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working in Bank of Rajasthan since 26-11-93 as peon who was doing cleaning sweeping work. Bank of Rajasthan is merged in ICICI Bank. He was paid Rs.13 per day, he was doing work of cleaning, sweeping , supplying drinking water to staff and customers. Wages were increased to Rs.300. He was paid /3rd scale wages as per 6th to 9th Bipartite settlement. Payment was made to him in bogus name. After revision of pay as per 9th settlement, from 1-11-07, his pay was increased from Rs.740 pm to Rs.1030 pm. He was paid arrears. Revised pay was paid to him from November 2010. Arrears of Rs.3225 was deposited in his Saving Account No. 0040285101400. That he worked more than 240 days during each year. He had rendered 20 years unblemished service. He was eligible for regularization. Workman claims difference of wages claiming 1/3rd pay scale as per Bipartite Settlement.</p> <p>3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary objection that Shri R.Nagwanshi being a dismissed employee of State Bank of Indore is not competent to raise the dispute. 2nd party has referred to ratio held in various cases. Hon'ble High Court held that Shri R. Nagwanshi is not competent to raise and prosecute the dispute.</p> <p>4. 2nd party further submits that it is a banking establishment. Bank of Rajasthan was merged in ICICI Bank. Bank has rules and regulations for recruitment, appointments of clerks, sub staff etc. workman was not appointed following selection process, appointment letter was not issued to him. That during working hours of the Bank for cleaning sweeping work, workman was engaged on casual basis for 20-25 minutes as per exigency. Workman was paid as casual labour. He was not working as regular peon in the Bank. Branch Manager has no authority to appoint peon. Ist party is not covered as workman under ID Act. He not completed 240 days continuous service. That Ist party workman is working in private establishment. Workman had filed proceeding under MW Act. Competent Authority held that workman was not entitled to minimum wages. Claim of workman was rejected. Ist party workman is raising various disputes. 2nd party prays that claim of workman be rejected.</p> <p>5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether ICICI Bank is an industry?</td> <td>In Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;Whether the claim of Union that Shri Shiv &#10;Singh Gehlot is entitled for regularization in &#10;the service of non-application from 10-5-10 &#10;is legal?</td> <td>I&#10;n Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(iii) &#10;If so, to what relief the workman is entitled &#10;to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>6. Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to whether 2nd party Bank is an Industry. In Written statement filed by Bank and evidence of management's witness, it is clear that the Bank is engaged in Banking business. 2nd party is not discharging sovereign functions of State. Banking activities are covered under Section 2(j) of ID Act where Industry is defined. For above reasons, I hold my finding in Point No. that Bank is covered as a Banking Industry.</p> <p>7. Point No.2- The term of reference also pertains to demand by Union whether Ist party is entitled for regularization in service from 10-5-10 and consequential benefits workman is entitled to. Workman on 28-4-15 after documents Exhibit W-1 to 10 were admitted by management, submitted not to adduce evidence in the case. Documents Exhibit W-1 is interview call issued to Ist party workman dated 20-3-99, Exhibit W-2 is letter issued by Dy.GM(P) dated 3-8-99 wr.t. requirement of cleaning staff. The detailed information will be submitted while making recommendations. Exhibit W-3 to 5 are copies of payments by<span class="header-text">7196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> Banker's cheque in name of Satish Sharma- Rs.300, workman Rs.740/- on 3-1-03, 3-9-00 to 3-10-02, 3-1- 02, 3-7-02- Rs.480, 2/8/02- Rs.740/- & 4-3-02- Rs.300. Exhibit W-6 is reply filed before RLC, management contending that workman was engaged for 20 months. Exhibit W-7 shows demand of arrears to Ist party workman during year 99 to 2006. Total amount Rs.11200.70. Exhibit W-8 shows payment of Rs.6690 to Ist party workman on 5-8-07, Rs.4510.70 on 5-3-07, Exhibit W-9 is copy of entries in State Bank Account of workman showing different amount deposited during the year March 07 to Feb. 11 & entries of it. Those documents donot shows that workman was working for 8 hours s claimed by him. Exhibit W-10 is order of merger of Bank of Rajasthan in ICICI Bank.</p> <p>8. As Ist party workman has not adduced evidence, his claim that he was continuously working from 26-11-93 or he had completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12 months of termination of his service cannot be established.</p> <p>9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shristi Priya supporting contentions in Written Statement that workman was engaged for 20-25 minutes for cleaning sweeping work. Workman not completed 240 days continuous service. In her cross-examination, management's witness says that Bank of Rajasthan merged in ICICI Bank in August 2010. She was not posted in Neemuch branch. She claims ignorance at what rate workman was paid wages. She also claims ignorance whether difference of arrears was paid to workman or he was paid scale wages. Evidence in cross-examination of management's witness doesnot support that workman had continuously worked more than 240 days or he was continuously working for 8 hours since initial engagement in 993. Claim for regularization of workman is not substantiated from evidence on record. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.</p> <p>10. Point No.3- In view of my finding in Point No.2 claim for regularization of workman is not established, workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>11. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The claim of Union that Shri Shiv Singh Gehlot is entitled for regularization in the service of non- application from 10-5-10 is not justified.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2189-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad ¼bZchvksvkj½ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 114@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12011@27@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 114/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank (EBOR), and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12011/27/2002– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7197</span> </p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/114/2012</h4> <p>General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engg. College, Ujjain (MP) … Workman/Union</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Regional Manager, ICICI Bank (EBOR), ICICI Regional Head, 22, Y.N.Road, New Palasia, Indore</p> <p>…Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 7th day of July 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 19-10-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/27/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus for the period from April 1998 to February 2008 to Shri Ramachandra Prabhulal Pawar is legal and justified? To what relief, Shri Ramachandra Prabhulal Pawar is entitled?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through General Secretary, Daily Wage Bank employees Union. Case of Ist party is that he was engaged orally on post of permanent peon in April 1998. He was paid Rs.15 per day. Wages were increased to Rs.40, 55 per day. He had completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. His services were terminated violating Section 25-F of ID Act in February 2008. He was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Workman claims to be eligible for bonus under Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act. On such ground, workman prays bonus for the period April 98 to February 2008.</p> <p>3. Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party management submits that reference pertains to termination of services of Ist party workman R/83/0 is pending before this Tribunal. It is submitted that workman did not work as peon in the Bank. He was intermittently engaged for 1-2 hours as casual labour. He is not covered as workman. Ist party is not entitled for bonus. It is denied that workman was working from April 98 to February 2008. It is reiterated that Ist party workman is not employee of the Bank, he is not eligible for bonus. Reference is not tenable. So called General Secretary of Union Ram Nagwanshi is dismissed employee of State Bank of Indore is not competent to raise and prosecute the reference. Shri Ram Nagwanshi is carrying legal profession under name of Trade Union. Union is not functioning in the Bank. Branch Manager is not competent to appoint peon, messenger, Security Guard , Daftary. That recruitments in the Bank are made following selection process issuing public advertisement and calling names from Employment Exchange etc. It is reiterated that workman was engaged as per exigencies for cleaning, sweeping work for 30-40 minutes in a day in the Bank. That M/S Top Security Agency has sent workman for work of office boy. Workman was paid wages by said securities. Top security services disengaged workman on 1-3-08. Workman is not employee of the Bank. He is not eligible for bonus claimed by him. It is denied that workman was engaged as peon on daily wages. It is denied that workman was paid Rs.15 per day and wages were increased. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik &#10;Vetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari &#10; Sangathan &#10;for payment of bonus for the period from &#10;April &#10;1998 &#10;to &#10;February &#10;2008 &#10;to &#10;Shri &#10;Ramachandra Prabhulal Pawar is legal and &#10;justified?</td> <td>In Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>As per final order.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <span class="header-text">7198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>5. The term of reference pertains to demand of bonus by Ist party workman. He has not adduced oral evidence. Union Representative R.Nagwanshi submitted in writing not to give oral evidence. The documents produced by Ist party admitted by management Exhibit W- is notice inviting applications for sub staff holding educational qualification not above 8th standard is between 18 to 30 years, part time employees working for 180 days full time employee working 80 days. Exhibit W-2 is interview call issued to the workman. He was called for interview on 15-4-99. Exhibit W-3 is panel list, name of workman is not appearing in panel list. Exhibit W-4 is letter issued by G.R.Singhvi calling information w.r.t. engagement of casual labours in the branch. Exhibit W-5 is information submitted by branch shows Ramchandra Sharma was engaged as casual labour during Sept.1999 till 12-3-04, wages paid Rs.40 +15 per day. Said document doesnot pertain to the workman. Exhibit W-6 shows Top Security issued certificate that workman was working as office boy in Bank of Rajasthan during June 2005 to February 2008. Exhibit W- 7 to 9 is written note of argument submitted before RLC by management. Management had claimed that workman was engaged for 30-40 minutes for cleaning work. Exhibit W-11 is certificate issued by top security Ltd. Ist party workman was on pay roll of Rajasthan Bank during 2005 to 2008. Copy of affidavit of evidence of Ramdev Sinha in R/1/09 reference between Bhupendra Pawar and Bank is filed. Evidence in other case pertaining to Bhupendra Pawar is not relevant for deciding the claim under dispute. As management has admitted document Exhibit W-1 shows that Ist party workman was on its pay roll during June 2005 to February 2008 without any break. As per Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act, employee working more than 30 days is eligible for bonus. As per Section 10 of PB Act, 8.33% statutory bonus is payable to such employees. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>6. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management in not paying bonus to Shri Ramachandra Prabhulal Pawar for the period June 2005 to February 2008 is illegal.</p> <p>(2) 2nd party is directed to settle bonus payable to Shri Ramachandra Prabhulal Pawar for the period June 2005 to February 2008 at the rate of 8.33 %.</p> <p>Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2190-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh mTtSu {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12012@60@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 82/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ujjain Ksheriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12012/60/2001– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/82/2001</h4> <p>Shri Ganeshlal S/o Ramchandra Verma, Jharan Colony, Pipali Naka, Opp.Tapastall, Ujjain (MP) …Workman<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7199</span> Versus</p> <p>Chairman, Ujjain Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Dussehra Maidan, Ujjain (MP) …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 28th day of July, 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 26-4-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/60/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of Chairman Indore Ujjain Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ganeshlal S/o Ramchandra Verma w.e.f. 30-11-91 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 9/1 to 9/6. Case of workman is that he was permanent employee of the management of 2nd party. His services have been illegally terminated in violation of provisions of ID Act. That he was working in Indore Ujjain Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 26-10-87 to 19-8-88. During relevant period, some amounts credited in cash section of the bank and kept with him. It is alleged that workman credited such amount deposited by customers after some days and not on the same day. That he was suspended on 13-8-88. Chargesheet was issued to him. Charges pertain to –Charge No.1 withdrawal of Rs.1000 on 26-9-87 in name of Onkar Singh who had no account in the Bank, Charge No.2 is on 27-7-00, Shri Karan Singh given Rs.500 for depositing in his recurring account. It is alleged that said amount was deposited on 4-8-88. On 4-8-88, workman received Rs.2150 from Ramesh Chand Vardichand for depositing in his account No.11 and the same was deposited on 10-8-88. On 5-3-88, workman received Rs,100 from Tejram S/o Ratanlal Darji credited to his account on 24-3-88. On 28-12-87, workman received amount Rs.100 from Nanhuram Baghera amount credited on 1-1-88. On 2-5-88, workman received amount Rs.2000 from Shri R.K.Meena and another Rs.2000 on 9-5-88, the same was credited in the account on 3-5-88 and 11-5-88 respectively. On 11-6-88, workman Radam Singh S/o Khemraj gave Rs.1500 and Rs.3000 for crediting in his account. Workman credited these amount on 14-6-88 and 15-6-88 respectively. Making false entry and tampering the dates, workman possessed key of branch office from 11.30 AM on 1-8-88 to 13-8-88. When Branch Manager returned back and demanded key, workman misbehaved with him and threw keys on table and left back. Workman not followed condition of remaining at headquarter as per the order of suspension dated 13-8-88.</p> <p>3. Ist party further submits that charges against him pertain to crediting money to the accounts of customers. If he would have ulterior motive, he would not have deposited amount in the accounts. Workman claims to be innocent and submits that charges against him are false unless account number is not filled in the form, it is not possible to credit amount. Whenever complete form was given amount was credited, entry was made in the pass book. chargesheet is issued to him with malafide intention. That in majority of charges, amount involved is Rs.100 or 200. The workman alleges conspiracy against him in issuing chargesheet. That at the time of Ist charge, Branch Manager was on duty on 26-9-87. He performed his duty even in the matter of Onkar Singh. Workman is illegally implicated. That enquiry was not properly conducted. He had not committed violation of Rule 19 of the service conditions. Workman also submits that his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <p>4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at page 8 to 14 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Ist party workman was working as clerk cum cashier from 22-4-87 to 20-10-87. He was working at yokoba branch from 21-10-87. Workman was involved in several charges of misappropriation of customer's money. Workman was involving with Bank cash book, customers ledger book etc. chargesheet was issued to workman on 20-10-89. Charges pertain to misappropriation of money of customers on 26-9-87. Rs.1000 deposited by Onkar Singh, on 27-7-88 amount Rs.1500 deposited by karan Singh, on 4-8-88 amount Rs.2150 deposited by Ramesh Chand Vardichand, on 5-3-88, Rs.100 deposited by Tejram. On 28-12-87 Rs.100 deposited by Nanuram. On 2-5-88, 9-5-88 amount of Rs.2000 was deposited by Shri R.K.Meena. Amount Rs.5000 by Moolchand received by workman on 7-6-88 and deposited in bank on 9-6-88. Etc. the amount of customers were retained by workman for some period and misused. Workman had made false entries of different dates. The entries in account books of the Bank were changed. He misbehaved with Branch Manager. During suspension period, he had left headquarter without permission. DE was conducted against workman. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding workman guilty of charges. Findings of Enquiry Officer are based on evidence and documents. Punishment of removal from service imposed<span class="header-text">7200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> against workman is legal. Appeal preferred by workman was rejected. Workman was given opportunity for his defence. On such ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.</p> <p>5. As per order dated 31-3-14, enquiry conducted against workman is found not proper and legal/ vitiated.</p> <p>Management was granted permission to prove misconduct.</p> <p>6. Considering pleadings between parties and order on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether &#10;the &#10;charges &#10;alleged &#10;against &#10;workman are proved by management of &#10;2nd party?</td> <td>A&#10;ll charges are proved except charge No. 7 & 11.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;Whether &#10;the &#10;punishment &#10;of &#10;removal &#10;imposed against workman is proper and &#10;legal?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;If not, what &#10;relief &#10;the &#10; workman &#10;is &#10;entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>7. Point No.1 As per order dated 31-3-14, enquiry conducted against workman was found not proper and legal/ vitiated. Management was granted permission to prove misconduct. Corrected chargesheet is produced at Exhibit M-69. Charge No.2 to 8 pertains to late crediting the amount in account of customers of the Bank whereas Charge No. pertains to payment of Rs.1000 to Onkar Singh when there was no account in the bank in his name. charge No.9 pertains to taking false entries and fabricating entries etc. in account books of the bank. Charge No.10 pertains to on demand of key, throwing the key on table and leave bank. Charge No.11 pertains to workman not staying at headquarter as per the terms and conditions of suspension order. Judgment by Criminal Court produced by workman pertains to misappropriation of amount of Rs.5000 only. Workman was acquitted of the charges. After management was granted permission to prove misconduct, management has filed affidavit of evidence of witnesses Subbalal Dayma, Moolchand Heeralal Jain, Praveen Kumar Dhanna, Ramkishan Meena. Workman examined himself on oath.</p> <p>8. Learned counsel for workman Shri R.K.Soni in his written notes of argument emphasized that chargesheet only for 3 misconduct would be issued against workman. However in this regard, any rule or citation are not brought to my notice.</p> <p>9. Affidavit of evidence of Shri Subbalal Dayma pertains to transaction in Account No.72 by Karan Singh on 27-7-88. Said Karan Singh was respectable person, was acquainted with him. On 4-8-88, he was not present in the branch. Said Dhan Singh had loan account when he had gone for verifying the repayment of loan amount, Karan disclosed him that he deposited Rs.1500 on 27-7-88, its entry were taken on 4-8-88. During enquiry from workman, he had told that he spend amount of Rs.1500 received from Karan Singh and would deposit the amount in account. His affidavit is further devoted w.r.t. amount Rs.2150 deposited by Ramesh Chand in Account No.11. on 8-8-88, Ramesh Chand had told him for withdrawal of Rs.5000. when this witness verified the account, only balance of Rs.5617.40 was found in his account. Deposit of Rs.2150 dated 4-8-88 was not shown to his account. His evidence is also devoted w.r.t. workman had assured to deposit Rs.2150 in account of Ramesh chand. That amount of Rs.2150 was not arranged by the workman That Smt.Nagibai had assured to deposit Rs.35000 in double benefit scheme . affidavit of witness of management is in detail w.r.t. Charge No.2,3,4,5,8 though amount were received by workman, the amount was credited after some days. Documents M-22 to 67 are proved from evidence of this witness. Management's witness in his cross examination says Exhibit M-21 doesnot bear his signature. Said document was not directly given to him. Exhibit M-22 bears his signature, it is credit note. On credit note, signature of Manager and cashier are necessary. Witness in his further cross says he signed the documents after fully examining it . Amount of Exhibit M-22 was not deposited. He denies that after satisfying that amount Rs.500 shown in M-22 was deposited, he had signed on the documents. That he signed on M-22 for sending amount to the other Bank. In M-23, attendance for whole month is shown. In M-23, there is correction in green ink- workman was shown absent from duty. M-24 is charge register. There is some overwriting in Exhibit M-32 dated 4-8-88 is credited to 0-8-88. Exhibit M-41 complaint received by him. Complainant had directly come to him. There is separate inward outward section in the bank. In Exhibit M- 48 date 2-5-88 was corrected to 3-5-88. In Exhibit 49, date 9-5-88 was corrected to 11-5-88. Documents Exhibit M-48,49 bears his signature. These are deposit vouchers. the signature of cashier used to made at the time of preparing vouchers. witness admits that every day, cash received in the Bank used to be verified with payment vouchers. witness denies that in Exhibit M-64, the particulars of the incident are wrongly<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7201</span> written. Witness in his further cross examination denies that workman had given key to him and gone out of the Bank. Witness has re-affirmed that keys lying on ground were collected by him. Witness was unable to tell why it was not mentioned in punchnama.</p> <p>10. Evidence of management's witness Moolchand Jain pertains to deposit of Rs.5000 on 8-6-88 workman has been acquitted w.r.t. offence under Section 409 IPC by criminal court. The legal position is rather settled that the judgment by criminal court deserves to be respected. In view of acquittal of workman for offence under Section 409 IPC evidence of Moolchand needs no detailed discussion Shri Moolchand in his cross says in Exhibit M-16, there is overwriting. That M-55/2 to 55/3 donot bear his signatures.</p> <p>11. Management's witness Praveen Kumar Dhanna in his affidavit of evidence says on 26-9-87, he had signed on the documents except standard forms. From 27-9-87 to 30-9-87 he was on casual leave. Shri Onkarlal was not having saving account in his bank. Evidence of this witness is not much relevant w.r.t. charge No.2 to 8.</p> <p>12. Ramkishan Meena in his evidence before court says he had account in Ujjain Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On 2-5-88, he deposited Rs.2000 with workman Ganeshlal Verma cashier, its entry was taken in pass book Exhibit M-48. Exhibit M-47 is receipt of Rs.2000 given to him. It bears his signature. Receipt was given to him, entry of Rs.2000 deposited on 2-5-88 was taken on 9-5-88. In his cross examination, witness Ramkishan Meena says he was called in Enquiry Proceedings, his statement was recorded. Reply to Q.14 in the enquiry was readover to him. On 2-5-88 & 9-5-88, he twice deposited Rs.2000. The re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The Tribunal cannot act as Appellate Court.</p> <p>13. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Vijay Tripathi relies on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Inspector Premchand versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2007(4)SCC-566. Their Lordship dealing with meaning of misconduct and error of judgment of negligence simplicitor is not misconduct.</p> <p>The facts of present case are not comparable as from reading of Para 12 of the judgment, it is clear that it was a trap made by police and certain negligence were noticed that the tempted amount was not seized. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.</p> <p>Reliance is also placed in case between Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2009(2)SCC-570. Their Lordship held mere production of document is not enough, contents of documentary evidence has to be brought by examining witness.</p> <p>Management's witness Subbalal Dayma was examined in detail w.r.t. the documents Exhibit M-22 to 67.</p> <p>Considering detailed evidence given by witness, ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present case.</p> <p>Next reliance is placed in case between Union of India and others versus Gyan Chand Chattar reported in 2009(12)SCC-78. Their Lordship dealing with standard of proof in DE held proof and suspicion are distinct. That in case of corruption only punishment is dismissal in service therefore charge of corruption himself always be dealt and keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences. Upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer the severest penalty awardable</p> <p>Principles laid down is very well followed in this case. Evidence of management's witness discussed above is consistent that workman was working as cashier. Even in his statement of claim para-2, Ist party has pleaded that he was working as LDC/Assistant cashier. In his statement of claim, workman has not specifically denied the transactions pertaining to the charges against him. Rather the late crediting amount is undisputed therefore ratio held in abvoe case cannot be applied to present case.</p> <p>14. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.K.Soni in his argument submits that charge register was not produced. There was double control on money received in the Bank. Workman could have very well call charge register in respect of transactions connected with the charges. Workman did not make any effort for production of charge register. Only argument on the point cannot be a ground for discarding evidence of management's witness.</p> <p>15. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Bank of India versus D.Padmanabhadu and another reported in 1995-I-LLJ-233 their Lordship held temporary retention amounts to misappropriation.</p> <p>Evidence of management's witnesses is consistent that money received by workman was not punctually credited to their respective accounts. There was delay in crediting amount in the accounts.</p> <span class="header-text">7202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <p>In case between State Bank of Patiala versus S.K.Sharma reported in 1996(3)SCC-364. Their Lordship dealing with Rule 68 B III is procedural provision which is not substantial or mandatory character and substantial compliance having been made therewith, no prejudice caused to the respondent. In Para 32, their Lordship held justice means justice between both the parties. Interest of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which donot occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice.</p> <p>Judgment in Writ Petition 3545 of 2006 by their Lordship of Bombay High Court is also relied. Considering the evidence of management's witnesses discussed above, detailed discussion of the judgment is not called for.</p> <p>In case of Divisional Controller, NEKRTC versus H.Amaresh reported in 2006(60SCC-187. Their Lordship dealing with quantum of misappropriated amount and punishment held misappropriation of small amount of SRTC Rs.360.95 in the case by conductor grave act of misconduct is resulted in financial loss where said charge was proved in domestic enquiry, punishment of dismissal from service awarded by Disciplinary Authority not call interference.</p> <p>In case between Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and others versus Factory Manager Gwalior Sugar Co.Ltd. reported in 2001-II-LLJ-1239, their Lordship dealing with loss of confidence and principle things to be proved for application of principle are workman holding post of trust, commission by him of acts resulting in forfeiture of that rust and continuance of workman in service proving to be embarrassment ad inconvenience to employer or detrimental to discipline or security of establishment held on facts inference appropriately drawn.</p> <p>Reliance is also placed in case between Corporation of Nagpur versus Ramchandra. I have gone through the ratio held in the case, detailed discussion is not necessary.</p> <p>In present case for one or the charge pertaining to amount of Rs.5000 workman has been acquitted for offence under Section 409 IPC. Rest of the charges have been proved. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 that except charge No. 7 & 11 rest of the charges are proved</p> <p>16. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 the proved charge against workman pertains to various monetary transactions workman received amount and deposited late. Evidence of management's witness Subbalal Dayma is further clear that workman explained that he spent amount himself and deposited amount when it is available with him. The proved misconduct is of misappropriation which is a serious misconduct. I donot find any reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on workman. Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>17. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of Chairman Indore Ujjain Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ganeshlal S/o Ramchandra Verma w.e.f. 30-11-91 is legal and proper.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2191-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12011@19@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12011/19/2009– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7203</span> </p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/51/2010</h4> <p>General Secretary, Prathadit Karmchari Kalyan Manch, F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp Engg.College, Ujjain …Workman/Union</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, M.G. Road, Indore (MP)</p> <p>…Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 7th day of July 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 3-12-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12011/19/2009-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Indore in not paying wages equal to the regular employee to Shri Bhupendra Pawar from March 1996 to 15-1-2005 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim through General Secretary, Daily Wage Employees Union. Case of Ist party is workman Bhupendra Pawar was engaged by Branch Manager R.L.Mundra as sub staff/ peon on 1-3-96. He was working 8 hours in a day. He completed 240 days continuous service during each of the year. He was paid Rs.25/-, increased to Rs.30,40,50,60 per day. His services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act without notice. Retrenchment compensation not paid to him. Dispute pertaining to termination of his service in R/1/09 is pending. Workman reiterates that he is eligible for revised wages as per 6th to 8th Bipartite settlement. That State Bank of India, Karur Vaishya Bank, Bank of Maharashtra paid arrears of difference of wages to temporary peon/ daily wage employees. It is alleged that 2nd party violated bipartite settlement which is punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. Workman prays for difference of wages for the period 1-3-96 to 15-1-2005.</p> <p>3. 2nd party filed exhaustive Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2nd party submits that in R/1/09, legality of termination of Ist party workman is challenged. Award was passed on 1-3-13 against workman. Present dispute is raised claiming payment of wages as per bipartite settlement is not tenable. Ist party is not covered as workman, he was not appointed following rules of recruitment of sub staff. Workman was not continuously working from March 96 to 15-1-2005. So called General Secretary Ram Nagwanshi was dismissed from service of State Bank of Indore on 1-12-01. He is not competent to raise and prosecute the dispute under reference. It is reiterated that Bank of Rajasthan is merged in ICICI Bank. Bank has rules and regulations for recruitment of clerk and sub staff. Workman was not appointed following any recruitment process. Post was not advertised. Workman was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. It is submitted that for cleaning sweeping work and cleaning of toilets as regular peons are not doing said work, daily wage employees used to be engaged for one or two hours. Bhupendra Pawar was engaged as casual employee for 2 hours in a day for cleaning sweeping work. He was paid wages. Workman is not regular employee, he is not eligible for bonus. On such ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether the action of the management of Bank of &#10;Rajasthan Ltd., Indore in not paying wages equal &#10;to the regular employee to Shri Bhupendra Pawar &#10;from March 1996 &#10;to 15-1-2005 &#10;is &#10;legal and &#10;justified?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10; If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <span class="header-text">7204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>5. The term of reference pertains to claim for difference of wages equal to the wages paid to the regular employees. Though affidavit of evidence filed by workman, he remained absent for his cross examination. His evidence cannot be considered. Shri Ram Nagwanshi Union Representative submitted in writing not to give oral evidence.</p> <p>6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Lalit Mohan Sharma supporting whole contentions in Written Statement filed by management. That workman was engaged for cleaning sweeping work for 1-2 hours as casual employee. He is not eligible for equal wages paid to regular employees. In his cross examination, management's witness says he was not posted at MG Road branch during 1996 to 2005. He claims ignorance how much wages were paid to workman for working 1-2 hours in a day. The policy for payment of wages to sweepers, cleaners is not produced. Ist party was paid wages in name of regular employees by pay order. The documents regarding payment are not produced. Zerox copy of documents produced by Ist party are not proved by valid evidence. Admitted documents Exhibit W-1 pertains to information called by Dy.General Manager regarding qualification and payments made to workman, whether any permission was obtained from Central Office before engaging him. In Exhibit W-2, information submitted by Branch, earlier engagement of workman is shown from 96 till 10-3-04, wages paid Rs.30 per day in 1996, 40 per day in 1997. Exhibit W-3,4 is reply filed by management opposing claim of workman. Exhibit W-5 is application by management submitted to RLC requesting time. Exhibit W-6 affidavit of Ramdev submitted before RL devoted with daily wage employees working for 30 days is eligible for bonus. The document is not relevant for deciding claim for wages claimed by workman equal to regular employees. Exhibit W-7 is reply submitted before RLC opposing claim for daily wages by the management. Exhibit W-8 is copy of affidavit of management's witness Ramdev in R/1/09. Said copy of evidence doesnot support claim of workman for equal wages as paid to regular employees. Ist party has not produced any rules or settlements under which daily wage employee is entitled for wages on par with regular employees. Document P-4 produced on record pertains to payment of wages to cleaning staff as per the area of branch. The pleadings and documents produced by workman is silent about area of the branch. From above discussion, applicant's claim for wages equal to wages paid to regular employees is not established.</p> <p>7. Learned counsel for management Shri Shroti w.r.t. claim for equal wages relies on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>State of Punjab and others versus Surinder Singh and another reported in 2007(13)SCC-231. Their Lordship dealing with parity of employment and principle of equal pay for equal work held daily wager having not undergone process of regular selection cannot therefore compare himself with a regular employee. Such employee is not entitled to claim pay scale of regular incumbent.</p> <p>In case between State of Haryana and another versus Tilak Raj and others reported in 2003(6)SCC-123. Their lordship dealing with above point held applicability of principle requires complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and others who have already earned such pay scales. It is for the claimant to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination. Problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.</p> <p>Considering ratio in above cases, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>8 . In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Indore in not paying wages equal to the regular employee to Shri Bhupendra Pawar from March 1996 to 15-1-2005 is legal and proper.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2192-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwohZ jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&41012@177@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7205</span> </p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.69/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-41012/177/2001– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/69/2002</h4> <p>Shri B.S. Naidu, Branch Secretary, South Eastern Railway Mens Union, 145, Keshwar Awas, Smritivan Turning Point, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur … Workman/Union</p> <p>Versus</p> <p>The Sr. DEN, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, CG …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 4th day of August 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 19-4-2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/177/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of S.E.Railway, Bilaspur in not providing services to Shri Deendayal, S/o Saligram with backwages is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?'</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/2 to 3/6. Case of Ist party is that he was engaged as gangman on 26-2-89. He was posted under PWI, Shahdol. After his appointment, he was sincerely working to satisfaction of his superiors. He was never punished. That FIR was lodged against him at police station, Shahdol alleging fabrication of documents and fraud to department. On report by GRP, he was prosecuted for offence under Section 417,419 IPC in criminal case No. 381/95. He was acquitted by JMFC Shahdol on 26-6-97. After his acquittal in criminal case, workman approached PWI Shahdol on 28-6-97 requesting to reinstate him in service. His application was accepted by clerk in PWI office Mr. W.A.Kris. however he was not allowed to join duty. Workman was continuously in correspondence with the authorities. However he was not allowed to join duty. Workman submits that after his acquittal in criminal cased, no enquiry was initiated against him by the department. Action of management not permitting him to join duty is illegal. His services were terminated illegally, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him, termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, Article 14,16, 311 of the constitution. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <p>3. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party management submits that workman was not engaged under PWI Shahdol on 26-2-89. That workman had confessed before JMFC Shahdol for purchasing appointment order for Rs.5000/-. Said amount was paid in two instalments to Shri Satnarayan master and Prasanna. That the workman appointed at Bilaspur where he worked for about a month with Surendra Pal. Workman had also stated before JMFC that he worked at Raipur as Gangman. Conciliation proceeding before ALC Shahdol workman claimed he was appointed at Raiput as Gangman on 26-2-89 and worked till 28-3-89. Thereafter he was transferred to PWI Shahdol. Documents produced by workman were subjected to verification from PWI, Raipur. It was found that no person by name of workman was transferred to Shahdol from PWI Raipur. GRP was advised to initiate the matter. GRP had taken necessary action against workman. In criminal case before JMFC Shahdol, documents submitted by workman were found not genuine, he procured order paying Rs.5000/-. The Assistant Engineer, Raipur was appraised before JMFC that no person by name of workman was transferred from Raipur. That after acquittal in<span class="header-text">7206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> criminal case, workman produced judgment dated 28-6-97 in office of PWI. There is no question of allowing workman on duty as he is not bonafide Railway Servant. Order of acquittal bear no direction to engage him in service. There was no question of paying retrenchment compensation as workman was not bonafide worker of the department. On such ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether &#10;the &#10;action &#10;of &#10;the &#10;management &#10;of &#10;S.E.Railway, Bilaspur in not providing services to Shri &#10;Deendayal, S/o Saligram with backwages is justified?</td> <td>In Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>5. Point No. 1- The term of reference pertains to management of SE.Railway not providing service to workman with backwages. As per pleadings of Ist party after acquittal in criminal case, he was not allowed to join duty. Copy of judgment in criminal case is produced at Exhibit W-1. Workman was acquitted offence under Section 468, 419, 471 of IPC. Workman did not participate in reference proceeding.</p> <p>6. Evidence of workman was closed on 27-8-13. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Prakash.A supporting contentions in Written Statement that workman was not engaged under PWI, Shahdol. Management's witness also remained absent for cross examination. Workman has failed to adduce evidence. Thus case of Ist party workman is of no evidence. Therefore the claim of workman cannot be established. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>7. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of S.E.Railway, Bilaspur in not providing services to Shri Deendayal, S/o Saligram with backwages is proper and legal.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2193-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&12012@417@2001vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½] Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur 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 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-12012/417/2001– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/63/2002</h4> <p>Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE</p> <p>Shri Amarsingh Patel, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh Patel, R/o Madanmahal station, Amanpur, Patel ka Bageecha, Opp. Prem Nagar, Jabalpur (MP) …Workman<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7207</span> </p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Branch Manager, State Bank of India, City Branch, Ghamandi Chowk, Jabalpur (MP)</p> <p>Asstt. Manager, Region-I, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijaynagar, Jabalpur …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 3rd day of July, 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 4-4-2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/417/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Regional Office, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Amar Singh Patel, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh Patel Ex.Daftary w.e.f.9-3-98 after conducting departmental enquiry is legal and proper. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/17. Case of workman is that he was removed from service from post of Daftary. Chargesheet was issued to him on 28-4-95. Order of his removal was issued on 9-3-98. Appeal preferred by workman challenging order of his removal was rejected by non-speaking order. Ist party has reiterated that the ground in appeal were not considered. That he entered in service of the Bank on 3-7-69. There was no complaint about his working during past 30 years. Chargesheet was issued to him on 20-4-95 is vague on some false complaints against him. That 5 charges alleged against him can not be construed as misconduct as per Sastry Award. Charges alleged against him pertain to his unauthorized absence during working hours and illegal marking his attendance in the register over remarks leave by Branch Manager. Other charge pertain to purchase of furniture from Hind Furniture Mart for his personal use etc. He submitted reply to the chargesheet denying all charges against him. The contents that he did not commit any act amounts to misconduct. He had cordial relations with his superior officers, he never misbehaved with them. He not used unparliamentary language as alleged in the chargesheet. The management held enquiry against him appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Statement of claim is quite extensive. Workman claims that his reply to the chargesheet was not considered. That enquiry was not properly conducted. He was not given documents. Proper opportunity for his defence was not allowed. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Enquiry Officer violated principles of natural justice. Without issuing showcause notice, punishment was imposed against him. Disciplinary Authority was pre- determined. There was no evidence in Enquiry Proceedings to prove charges alleged against him. That he not admitted any charges.</p> <p>3. Ist party further submits Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that Charge No.1, 3 to 5 are proved against him on the basis of findings given by Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment without considering his explanation. Punishment of removal imposed against him is arbitrary and illegal. Because of punishment imposed against him, his family members are left to starving . Above ground are repeated by workman that Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced against him. Non-consideration amounts to denial of justice and fair play. That charges alleged against him are not of serious nature. Punishment of removal imposed against him is illegal. Ist party workman has also narrated evidence w.r.t. specific charges and reiterates that the charges alleged against him are not proved. Enquiry Officer has committed error, Disciplinary Authority has confirmed findings of Enquiry Officer is illegal. Findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Punishment of removal against him is illegal. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages setting aside order of his dismissal.</p> <p>4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/8 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that appeal preferred by workman challenging order of his removal was dismissed on 10-12-98. Workman was allowed reasonable opportunity for his defence. Order of punishment is not non-speaking order. Ist party workman was not properly discharging his duties. Without prior permission, he was submitting leave application, he used to remain unauthorized absent on several occasion he was marking his presence in Attendance Register. Workman used to left branch premises for long period. He was absent on 5-10-93, 12- 10-93,13-10-93, 14-10-93, 15-10-93. The Competent Authority had marked leave against his name in Attendance Register. On 16-10-93, workman came to the branch and removed comments of the authorities in Attendance Register. Workman was issued memos dated 6th, 8th October 1993, 12-2-94 and on various<span class="header-text">7208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> other dates details given in Para-2 of the Written Statement. Workman had not replied to the memos. He was also involved in obtaining furnitures worth Rs.3170 from M/S Hind Furniture Mart. Under the pretext that furniture was required for Shahpura branch. Workman misbehaved with other officers of the branch. Chargesheet was issued to workman for various kinds of misconduct. Workman did not submit reply to the chargesheet. Shri R.K.Sanghi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri L.P.Dubey as Presenting Officer. Workman was allowed Defence Assistant Vinod Pathak. Statements of 6 witnesses of management were recorded. All of them were cross-examined. Enquiry Officer submitted his report considering documentary oral evidence. Copy of report was sent to workman along with letter dated 11-10-97. Workman did not submit reply to the chargesheet. Enquiry Officer held workman guilty for charge No. 1,3 to 5. Management reiterates that workman was given opportunity for his defence. Management's witnesses were cross examined as per report submitted by Enquiry Officer in Charge No. 1,3 to 5. That removal of workman is illegal and arbitrary. The evidence w.r.t. charges is also referred in Written Statement. It is reiterated that punishment of removal imposed against workman is proper and legal. It is reiterated that order of removal doesnot suffer from any illegality. Management prays that reference be answered in its favour.</p> <p>5. Vide order dated 5-5-14, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.</p> <p>6. Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether the action of Assistant General Manager, &#10;State Bank of India, Region-I, Regional Office, &#10;Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Amar &#10;Singh Patel, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh Patel &#10;Ex.Daftary w.e.f.9-3-98 is legal and proper?</td> <td>I&#10;n Negative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>As per final order.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>7. Point No.2- The term of reference pertains to legality of the termination of services of Ist party workman. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 5-5-14. Question whether charges alleged against workman are proved requires to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that Charge No.2 alleged against workman is not proved. Charge No.1,3 to 5 are found proved by Enquiry Officer. Charge No. against workman pertains to his absence on 5th, 12, 13th,. 14th, 15th October 1993. Endorsement of leave was recorded in leave register. On 16-10-93, workman had made his initials on leave endorsement. Charge No.2 pertains to 7 memos of different dates were not replied by him. Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.2 is not proved. Charge No.3 pertains to workman unauthorisely remaining absent on 10-8-94, his explanation as called on 11-8-94. Workman did not submit his reply. Charge No.4 pertains to illegal purchase of furniture from Hind Furniture worth Rs.3170. Charge No.5 pertains to on 17-6-92, workman had misbehaved with his superiors and officers. He did not reply to memo. That workman had misbehaved with Shri S.P.Mishra. Exhibit M-3-1 is chargesheet issued to workman. Record of Enquiry Proceedings is produced at Exhibit ME-3(5). Workman in Enquiry Proceeding at Page 4 had admitted genuiness of documents produced by Presenting Officer. Documents were marked Exhibit PX-1 to PX-17. As such it is clear that genuineness of documents was not in dispute. Statement of management's witness No.1 R.K.sanghi representative of management was recorded w.r.t. documents PX-1 to 17. Statements of MW- Chari, PW-2 Ram Kumar Yadav were recorded. Bank's representative Sanghi was changed, in his place, S.P.Dubey was appointed. The statements of witness No.3 Ramesh Upadhyay, Witness No.4 S.P.Mishra were recorded in enquiry. Re-examination of witness No.1 & 3 was also recorded. All witnesses were cross-examined. Precise statement of Witness No.1 Chari is on the pint that on 16-2-95(Noon) workman was not present in the branch at 4.30 pm. Shri S.P.Mishra officiating accountant had made endorsement about absence of workman from duty. He further says on that day behavious of workman was exhibiting displeasure. Memo was issued to workman, no reply was given by him to it. Witness No.2 Ram Kumar Yadav in his statement says that on 17-6-92, 10.14 AM, he asked CSE to work in cash section. On that the CSE said that he was working as Daftary, he would talk about the work with the officer. Ram Kumar did not recollect whether order in writing was given to CSE. Witness No.1 in his cross examination says on 10-8-94, CSE appeared in branch and writing time of duty had gone out of branch. Memo was issued to CSE on 11-8-94. Witness No.2 in his re- examination says on 5-10-93, 12th to 15th October, workman remained absent. On 16th October, he had made endorsement over endorsement of leave. Witness No.2 further says on 17-6-92, as there was shortage of messenger staff, he asked CSE to work in cash section. Witness No.3 Ramesh Upadhyay in his statement in enquiry says he submitted complaint against CSE on 16-2-95 to the Branch Manager. CSE had<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7209</span> used unparliamentary language. Said incident occurred between 10.45 to 11 AM. Witness says CSE was standing in vision in hall of the branch. He submitted said complaint of his will.</p> <p>8. Witness No.4 Mishra in his statement in Enquiry Proceedings says he was working as Accountant at relevant time. On 15-2-95, CSE had attended branch around 0.45 AM. In his statement in Enquiry Proceedings, he says that from Nayak Ram Kumar Yadav, he had come to know that CSE was absent in the branch. He called Ram Kumar Yadav and asked where was CSE as draft vouchers and issue books were required. He did not receives the documents. He made endorsement in attendance register abut absence of CSE. The evidence of witness No.5 Deshpande Branch Manager also corroborate that the workman was remaining absent from branch on many occasions. Memos were issued to him. Witness No.6 Mahendra Tiwari in his statement in Enquiry Proceedings claims ignorance about defence of his name in complaint PEX-17. Management's witnesses were thoroughly cross examined. There are few inconsistencies with respect to the incharge of record, key of record room remaining with accountant. Ramesh Kumar Upadhyay had made endorsement in Attendance Register about absence of workman. However evidence of management's witness No.5 Deshpande fully corroborates evidence of all other witnesses about workman leaving branch office during working hours and issuing memos. Evidence of witness No.4 S.P.Mishra and witness No.3 Ravendra Upadhyay is consistent about workman using unparliamentary language against</p> <p>Shri S.P.Mishra Accountant- "यदि गांड में दम हो तो हमें नौकरी से निकलवा दें, अगर दम थी तो हाजिरी रजिस्टर में लिखकर काटा क्यों" Certainly use of such language is unparliamentary. workman had left office after writing time of joining. evidence of witness of the management about purchase of furniture, bill received from Hind Furniture Mart, amount was not paid by CSE. Furniture was purchased in name of bank is corroborated. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible as per ratio held in case between-State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212 relied by Shri Vijay Tripathi.</p> <p>Shri Vijay Tripathi also relies on ratio held in case between Syndicate Bank and others versus Venkatesh Gururao Kurati reported in 2006(3)SCC-150 pertains to violation of natural justice or account of non- supply of documents.</p> <p>Ratio held in above cited case cannot be applied at this stage as enquiry is already held proper and legal. In view of the facts discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 that Charge No.1,3 to 5 are proved against workman.</p> <p>9. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that Charge No.1, 3 to 5 are proved, question remains for consideration whether punishment of removal/ dismissal against workman is proper and legal. Charges proved against workman pertains to absence of workman on 5th, 12th to 5th October 1993. The statement of management's witness in enquiry shows that CSE was not paid pay for above period. Charge No.2 is not proved. Charge No.3 pertains to absence for one day. Charge No.4 & 5 pertains to using unparliamentary language and purchasing furniture in name of the branch. Workman not paid amount of bill. Proved charges 1, 3 for absence of short period would not justify dismissal or removal of workman. Other proved charges of using unparliamentary language and purchasing furniture worth Rs.3170 and bill was issued. Workman had not paid bill. When bill was issued in name of workman, Hind Furniture should have claimed said amount from CSE. Non-payment of amount of bill would not justify punishment of removal to CSE.</p> <p>10. Learned counsel for 2nd party relied on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Divisional Controller, NEKRTC versus H.Amaresh reported in 2006(6)SCC-187. In above cited case, for misappropriation of amount of Rs.360.90 by conductor, punishment of dismissal was upheld.</p> <p>In case between State of Maharashtra and another versus Madhukar Narayan Kardikar reported in 1991(1)SCC-57. Their Lordship held re-appreciation of evidence as if it were in appeal against decision of departmental authorities. The facts of present case are not comparable.</p> <p>Workman had not used amount of the Bank for purchase of furniture. Hind Furniture Mart could have recovered amount from workman. Considering evidence it cannot be said that workman had misappropriated amount of Bank. Workman was in service since 1969. Punishment of removal imposed against workman appears harsh and disproportionate to the proved charge. Instead of punishment of removal, punishment of compulsory retirement of CSE will be appropriate. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.</p> <p>11. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <span class="header-text">7210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <p>(1) The action of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Regional Office, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Amar Singh Patel, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh Patel Ex.Daftary w.e.f.9-3-98 is not proper and legal.</p> <p>(2) Punishment of dismissal/ removal of workman is modified to compulsory retirement.</p> <p>(3) 2nd party management is directed to pay all retiral benefits to workman.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2194-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe e/; jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 134@95½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&41012@9@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.134/95) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-41012/9/2005–IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/134/95</h4> <p>Shri Mahinder Kumar, S/o Shri Kirhori Lal, Rajender Nagar, Gali No.16, Satna (MP) … Workman</p> <p>Versus</p> <p>Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 11th day of July, 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 5-12-2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/9/2005-IR(B-I).The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of West Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri kishorilal w.e.f. 14-8-89 is justified or not? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"</p> <p>2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/ to 3/3. Case of workman is on 7-0-82, he was appointed as sweeper. He was continuously working till 14-8-82 under PWI Satna. Service card No. 54983 was issued to him. He was working continuously from 7-10-82 to 14-8-89. He was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. At the time of terminating service, he was given assurance for engagement in future. In special recruitment undertaken on 12-3-96, workman submitted his application but he was not appointed. The employees working with him were regularized in 2001. Workman had submitted application but he was given oral assurances for absorption. Workman reiterates that he completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. His services are terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7211</span> was not paid to him. Policy of last come first go was not followed. Management violated Section 25 H of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.</p> <p>3. Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that dispute is raised after 17 years is not tenable. Ratio held in the case between Nedungadi Bank Ltd is referred. It is further submitted that services of casual labours are covered under Chapter 20 of Railway Manual Para 2001(I) is reproduced. That casual labour who continues to do same work for which they are engaged for more than 120 days without break to be treated as temporary. It is submitted that workman not completed 240 or 120 days continuous service. Workman was not appointed as regular employee following recruitment policy of the Railway. Workman was initially deployed on 7-10-82. His date of birth is 22-12-63. As per letter dated 10-12-84 issued by Railway Board, casual labours are not engaged without sanction of General Manager. That the casual card produced by workman is fake and fabricated. Card No.54893 was not issued to him. That during 1-6-85 to 19-10-88, workman was deployed in broken period. Persons deployed as substitute, their engagement is casual, their services in one unit is not counted in other unit. 2nd party reiterates that 2nd party not completed 240 days service. His engagement for few days was as per requirement. Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether &#10;the action of &#10;the management of West &#10;Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services &#10;of Shri Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri kishorilal w.e.f. 14-&#10;8-89 is justified or not?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to any relief.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>5. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Though workman has pleaded that he was not appointed in recruitment drive of 1996 , 2001, the pleadings on above point are beyond the terms of reference.</p> <p>6. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions that he was continuously working with 2nd party from 7-10-82 to 14-8-89. He completed more than 240 days service during each of the year. He was issued service card No.45983. His services were orally terminated. He was not appointed in special drive of 1996. From his evidence, documents Exhibit W-1,2 are admitted in evidence. In his cross examination, workman says he had last attended duty on 14-8-89. He was unable to tell date of issuing notice through Advocate how notice was sent through his Advocate. He was unable to tell name of officer engaged him in service. He not submitted application, any examination was not held. He was not interviewed. Appointment letter was not issued to him. He received wages for his working days. Initially he was paid Rs.17 per day. Whenever work was available, he was told. He had not deposited amount for service card. After termination of his service in 1989, he raised dispute in the year 2005. He did not remember how many days he worked in the year 1989.</p> <p>7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Durga Singh Patel supporting contentions in Written Statement filed by management reiterating that workman was not appointed as regular employee. Workman had not continuously worked for 120 days or 240 days in calendar year. That Service Card No. 54983 produced by workman is fake. Evidence of management's witness M-1,2/1 to 2/2, M-3 are admitted in evidence. Management's witness in his cross says he is not personally acquainted with workman. He did not work under him. As per entries in live register, Ist party had worked intermittently as casual labour during 1982 to 1989. Workman was paid wages for his working days. Entries of payment were taken in pay register. The pay register is destroyed, same could not be produced. Entries of attendance used to be taken in casual card. The witness of management was unable to tell when pay register was destroyed. Any document about destruction of pay register is not produced. He had made enquiry as per direction of Personal Officer about casual card of workman. Said order is not produced on record. The report in that regard is also not produced. Page 46 of casual live register doesnot bear signature. Witness explained that same entries were recorded at page 38. Therefore no signature is appearing on it. Workman was not served notice of termination, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Witness of management was unable to tell how many days workman had worked in particular year. Documents casual card produced by Ist party workman had worked for 138 days during the period 19-9-87 till 9-0-88 and intermittent working till 14-8-89. Entries in Exhibit W-1 doesnot show workman was continuously working for 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. Exhibit W-2 is legal notice issued through Advocate. Exhibit M-1 is produced by management regarding rules for destruction of documents. Exhibit W-2/1 to 2 entries in live<span class="header-text">7212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> register shows working days of Ist party workman till 4-2-88. This entry also not support claim of workman that he was working 240 days preceding termination of his service on 14-8-89. Evidence on record is not sufficient to establish 240 days continuous service by Ist party workman. He is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.</p> <p>8. Learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750. Their Lordship held that claim of workman for protection under Section 25-F workman must establish their existing relationship of employer and employee. Workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act, establishment under which he is employed is an Industry. That he has proved one year continuous service. The burden of proving 240 days continuous service lies on workman.</p> <p>Shri A.K. Shashi also submits that dispute is raised after 7 years is not tenable. In support of it, reliance is placed in ratio held in case between-</p> <p>Chandrappagol AG versus Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal Construction reported in 2004-II-LLJ-460. Their Lordship dealing with the question of delay held dispute raised after lapse of about 7 years, dispute cease to exist.</p> <p>In case been Nedungadi Bank Ltd. versus K.P.Madhavankutty ad others reported in 2000-I-LLJ-561. Their Lordship considering delay of 7 years held no industrial dispute exist or apprehended.</p> <p>In case between Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka versus Shivalinga reported in 2002-I-LLJ-457. Their Lordship considering delay of 9 years in approaching Labour Officer held delay was held fatal to case.</p> <p>9. In this point, Shri K.B.Singh for workman relies on ratio held in case between</p> <p>Shahaji versus Executive Engineer, PWD reported in 2007(5)FLR675. Their Lordship dealing with delay of 16 years following ratio held in Ajaib Singh case held relief could be moulded considering the delay in raising dispute.</p> <p>However even if ratio in Shahaji case 2007(15)FLR-675 is applied, it cannot be overlooked that the workman has to establish 240 days continuous service 12 months preceding his termination. From evidence discussed above, workman has not established 240 days continuous service tendered by him preceding 12 months of his termination. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>10. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of West Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri kishorilal w.e.f. 14-8-89 is proper and legal.</p> <p>(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2195-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh e/; jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 243@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&41012@128@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]</p> <p>Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 243/93) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.</p> <p>[No. L-41012/128/92– IR(B-1)]</p> <p>B.S. BISHT, Section Officer<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7213</span> </p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>JABALPUR</h4> <h4>No. CGIT/LC/R/243/93</h4> <p>Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE</p> <p>Shri Mohan, S/o Shri Ramcharan, Near shiv Mandir, 12 Block, Rly. Colony, Harda (MP)</p> <p>…Workman</p> <h4>Versus</h4> <p>Chief Health Inspector, Central Railway, Itarsi</p> <p>PWI(S), Central Railway, Harda (MP) …Management</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <h4>Passed on this 16th day of June 2017</h4> <p>1. As per letter dated 7-12-93 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/128/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Mohan, S/o Shri Ramcharan, Safaiwala w.e.f. 1-10-87 is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"</p> <p>2. Award dated 9-8-14 is set aside by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1918/2015 and matter is remanded back allowing one more opportunity to adduce evidence by workman.</p> <p>3. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as sweeper by Station Master from 2nd June 1980. He was working at Charkheda Loco Foreman Itarsi till October 1987. He had worked with devotion. Certificate about his working was issued on 26-2-81 by Foreman Harda. As per letter dated 12-3-81, workman was directed to work with AEN, Khandwa. Service card was not issued to him despite of repeated correspondence. That certificate about working for 232 days was issued by the authority that he was continuously working from 2-6-90 to 1-10-87 for 8 years. He completed 240 days continuous service. His services were discontinued without notice or conducting any enquiry in violation of the law. He raised dispute between ALC, Bhopal. Failure report was submitted to Government. The dispute is referred by Govt. workman submits that he is illegally terminated by IInd party. Workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.</p> <p>4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/2. IInd party submits that workman be put to strictly prove his contentions. All material contentions of workman are denied. It is denied that workman was promoted in violation of provisions of I.D.Act. The dispute raised after delay is not tenable. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.</p> <p>5. Workman filed rejoinder at page 7/1 to 7/3 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim. Workman submits that he had filed original application 49/90 before CAT, Jabalpur. IInd party had denied his contentions in statement of claim without reasons. Workman denies that dispute is raised after delay.</p> <p>6. After amendment in statement of claim, IInd party filed additional Written Statement contenting that workman himself left services. There was no question of paying retrenchment compensation.</p> <p>7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—</p> <table style='white-space: pre-wrap;' border="1" class="dataframe"> <tbody> <tr> <td>(i) &#10;Whether &#10;the &#10;action &#10;of &#10;the management &#10;of &#10;Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, &#10;Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Mohan, &#10;S/o Shri Ramcharan, Safaiwala w.e.f. 1-10-87 is &#10;justified?</td> <td>I&#10;n Affirmative</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(ii) &#10;If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"</td> <td>Workman is not entitled to relief claimed by him.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <span class="header-text">7214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <h4>REASONS</h4> <p>8. Workman is challenging termination of his service for violation of provisions of I.D. Act. His services were terminated without notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. Despite workman was allowed opportunity to adduce evidence, workman has failed to appear for his cross-examination. Evidence of workman therefore could not be considered. As workman has failed to adduce valid evidence in support of his claim, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.</p> <p>9. In the result, award is passed as under:-</p> <p>(1) The action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Mohan, S/o Shri Ramcharan, Safaiwala w.e.f. 1-10-87 is legal and proper.</p> <p>(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.</p> <p>R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2196-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QlhvkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&22012/400/1993–vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&II½]</p> <p>jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 12th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2196.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 2/1994 of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court KOTA as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.09.2017</p> <p>[No. L-22012/400/1993 - IR(C-II)]</p> <p>RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer</p> <p>vuqca/k</p> <h4>U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk]¼jkt-½</h4> <p>ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh txeksgu 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad% vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&2@1994 fnukad LFkkfir% 25@3@94</p> <h4>izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k</h4> <h4>Øa-,y&22012@400@,Q@93&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½</h4> <p>fnukad 21@3@1994</p> <h4>funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½</h4> <h4>vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947</h4> <p>e/;</p> <p>jktsUnz izlkn cSjok iq= ewypUn cSjok fuoklh xzke e<sjMk]</p> <h4>iksLV [kVqiqjk ftyk lokbZek/kksiqj ¼jktLFkku½A</h4> <p>---izkFkhZ Jfed<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7215</span> ,oa</p> <p>1- ofj"B {ks=h; izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe]lh Ldhe] t;iqjA</p> <p>2- e.My izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] dksVkA</p> <p>---vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd</p> <p>mifLFkr</p> <p>% Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp</p> <p>izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh lh-ch- lksjy vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad% 27-1-2017</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ;</p> <p>Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 21@3@1994 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&</p> <p>^^D;k izca/kra=&Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe& ekQZr muds vf/kdkjh& ofj"B {ks=h; izca/kd] t;iqj ,oa e.My izca/kd] dksVk }kjk deZdkj Jh jktsUnz izlkn cSjok iq= Jh ewypUn cSjok ds LFkku ij Jh jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk LFkk;hdj.k djus ,oa deZdkj dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha] rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gS vkSj fdl rkjh[k ls\^^</p> <p>2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA</p> <p>3- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks gjdpUnz caly ,.M daiuh dkaV~zsDVj ds tfj;s vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Øe&1 ofj"B {ks=h; izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] lh Ldhe] t;iqj us Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ¼cEQj dkWEiysDl½ ckbZl xksnke] lokbZek/kksiqj esa o"kZ 1986 esa lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk rFkk mlds dk;Z ij fu;a=.k vizkFkhZ Øe&2 e.My izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] dksVk dk Fkk ,oa mlds dk;Z ij gjdpUn ,.M caly daiuh dk dHkh dksbZ fu;a=.k ugha jgkA 1@8@91 ls vizkFkhZ fuxe esa Bsdsnkjh izFkk dks lekIr fd;s tkus ds fu.kZ; ds lkFk fuxe esa dk;Z djus okys ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dks LFkk;h fd;k tkuk r; djus ls izkFkhZ dks Hkh 1@8@91 ls LFkk;h ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k] fdUrq ,slh LFkk;hdj.k dh lwph esa gsjkQsjh djds izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vU; Jfedx.k dks lwph esa ?kqlkdj izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij ';keyky tkxk tksfd fuxe esa dsUVhu pykrk Fkk] us vizkFkhZ fuxe ls lkaBxkaB djds izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dks LFkk;h fu;qfDr ns nh o izkFkhZ lfgr vU; Jfedx.k dks fnukad 11@2@92 dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;kA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd dh mDr dk;Zokgh vuqfpr ?kksf"kr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o vU; leLr lsok ykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA</p> <p>4- vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZx.k ds e/; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vkS-fo-mRiUu ugha gksrk gS vkSj uk vf/kfu;ekUrxZr izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa gh vkrk gSA muds ;k dfFkr Bsdsnkj ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks dHkh fu;qfDr ;k lsok ls i`Fkdrk dk vkns'k ugha fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk viuk;h x;h fdlh Hkh izcU/kdh; vkUrfjd dk;Z iz.kkyh ds lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ vk{ksi ;k vkifRr mBkus dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj izkFkhZ dks ugha gSA izkFkhZ us dHkh dk;Z dh fujUrjrk ugha cuk;h] uk mldk uke dHkh vfUre foHkkxh;d`r lwph esa vk;k blfy, mldk LFkk;hdj.k fd;s tkus dk dksbZ iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA vUr esa Dyse izkFkhZ fujk/kkj gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA<span class="header-text">7216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> 5- lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok o vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh lhrkjke 'kekZ] jkes'oj izlkn dq'kokgk iwoZ lgk;d izcU/kdx.k ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] ftuls nksuksa i{kksa ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ,d&nwljs i{k ds 'kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;hA</p> <p>6- fo}ku izfrfuf/k i{kdkjku dh cgl vfUre lquh x;h o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA nkSjku cgl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g rF; tkudkjh esa vk;k gS fd lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsÝsUl esa vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk dkSu lh frfFk ls LFkk;hdj.k djus o dkSulh frfFk ls izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS] bu frfFk dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk dkSulh frfFk ls LFkk;hdj.k djus o izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok;sa dkSulh frfFk ls lekIr djus dh frfFk ekudj] vizkFkhZ ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 McCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w- lh- i`"B 424& egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd lsokvksa ds i;Zolku dh frfFk dk jsQzsUl esa mYys[k ugha gksus ls Je U;k;ky; fdlh deZdkj ds dFkukuqlkj i;Zolku dh frfFk dks Lohdkj dj funsZ'k@jsQzsUl dh 'krksZ esa lq/kkj] la'kks/ku ;k mikUrj.k djus esa l{ke ugha gS ,oa uk gh U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ls ,slh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gksrh gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa deZdkj dh lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk of.kZr ugha gksus ls vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj fn;k x;kA bl mDr U;k;fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlkj tgkW funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa lsok ls gVkus] eqDr djus ;k i`Fkd djus dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rks Je U;k;ky; dks ml frfFk dks lgh djus ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk i{kdkjksa }kjk ,slh frfFk lq>kfor fd;s tkus ij Hkh izkIr ugha gks tkrh gSA vFkkZr ;fn funsZ'k esa lsok ls eqfDr] i`Fkd ;k gVkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugh gS o nksuksaa gh i{kdkj ,slh frfFk ;fn crk Hkh nsrs gksa rks Hkh Je U;k;ky; dks ml crk;h x;h frfFk dks ekudj mlds vk/kkj ij funsZ'k@jsQzsUl mRrfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrk gSA bl U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la-11 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ^^enuikyflag cuke mRrjizns'k jkT; o vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000 ,l-lh- 537^^ ds fu.kZ; dks foosfpr fd;k x;k gS rFkk vUr esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd Je U;k;ky; funsZ'k esa of.kZr fcUnqvksa rd gh lhfer {ks=kf/kdkj j[krk gS ,oa mldks i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa esa funsZ'k ls ijs tkdj la'kks/ku vkfn dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ;fn ukeksa ;k frfFk vkfn esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k vadu djkuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds le{k bl ckcr i{k j[kdj mlesa la'kks/ku djkuk gksxk] ijUrq Je U;k;ky; dks ,slk la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA vr% blh fu.kZ; dks vk/kkj ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ekurs gq, vikLr dj fn;k x;kA</p> <p>7- vc ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk dkSulh frfFk ls LFkk;hdj.k djus o izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok;sa dkSu lh frfFk ls lekIr djus dh frfFk ekudj] vizkFkhZ ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk\ rFkk D;k ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk ekudj izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; dj ldrk gS vFkok funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gS\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 McY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** ds isjk la[;k 12 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk jsQzsUl ds fucU/ku ;k lsok lekfIr frfFk esa la'kks/ku vkfn ckcr fuEu fLFkfr izdV dh x;h gS%&</p> <p>"Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to correct/modify/amend /alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or proceed with the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested by the workman and in case it does so, the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad reference."</p> <p>8- vr% ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr U;k;n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa gLrxr ekeys esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk@uke vkfn dks la'kksf/kr frfFk@uke ekudj izdj.k dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gSA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPpre ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Åij foosfpr fd;s x;s U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7217</span> esa bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ,sls i{kdkjksa dk la'kks/ku izLrko Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ;fn dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr Hkh djrk gS rks og {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksdj 'kwU; gksxkA bu U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds [k.Mu esa ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;fu.kZ; ,slk is'k Hkh ugha fd;k x;k ftlesa fd Åij of.kZr fLFkfr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k dks funsZ'k vf/kfuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksA vr% dqy feykdj fLFkfr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds gh vHkh rd izHkko'khy gksus dh ik;h tkrh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vkc) gSA vr% ,slh ifjLFkfr esa lEiw.kZ foospu ds mijkUr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk dkSu lh frfFk ls LFkk;hdj.k djus o dkSu lh frfFk ls izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS] bu frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ,sls funsZ'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gS ,oa ;fn i{kdkj l{ke ljdkj ls bl ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djrs gSa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k ,slk la'kks/ku izkIr gksus ij izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldsxk] ijUrq bl izdze ij fQygky ;g ekeyk bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ik;k tkrk gSA</p> <p>ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 21@3@1994 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½;w-lh- i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlj.k esa gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa of.kZr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ jktsUnz izlkn cSjok ds LFkku ij jktsUnz dqekj tkxk dk dkSulh frfFk ls LFkk;hdj.k djus o dkSulh frfFk ls izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS] bu frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls o bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn l{ke ljdkj ls mDr frfFk ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku@vadu djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k djsaxsa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vkxs izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dj ldsxkA</p> <p>txeksgu 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2197-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fizafliy] ,VkWfed ,uthZ] lsaVªy Ldwy ua- 3] dksVk vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-09-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y- 42012/120/2003–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]</p> <p>jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 12th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 4/2004 of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court KOTA as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Principal, Atomic Energy, Central School No.3, Kota and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.09.2017</p> <p>[No. L-42012/120/2003 - IR(CM-II)]</p> <p>RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer<span class="header-text">7218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> vuqca/k</p> <h4>U;k;k/kkh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½</h4> <p>ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh txeksgu 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&4@2004 fnukad LFkkfir%17@5@04</p> <p>izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k Øa- ,y&42012@120@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½ nukad 8@4@2004</p> <h4>funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½</h4> <h4>vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947</h4> <p>e/;</p> <p>fxj/kkjh yky ijekj iq= thokjke] gkV pkSd] cl LVs.M] jkorHkkVk] dksVkA ---izkFkhZ Jfed</p> <p>,oa</p> <p>fizafliy] ,Vksfed ,uthZ] lsUV~zy Ldwy ua- 3] jkorHkkVk] dksVkA ---vizkFkhZ fu;kstd</p> <p>mifLFkr</p> <p>izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%& Jh oh-ds-tSu vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad% 14-12-2016</p> <p>vf/kfu.kZ; Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 8@4@2004 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%& ''Whether the action of the Principal, Atomic Energy Central School No.3, Rawatbhata in terminating the services of Shri Girdhari Lal Parmar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"</p> <p>2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k x;kA</p> <p>3- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd mls U;wfDy;j ikoj dksjiksjs'ku fy- ,oa ijek.kq mtkZ foHkkx }kjk xfBr Ldwy lfefr }kjk lapkfyr Ldwy esa fn- 1@8@86 ls nSfud osru ij ysc vfl- ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us o"kZ 87 ls 95 rd cdk;k etnwjh] fu;fefrdj.k o 1@8@95 ls 30@6@01 rd U;wure osru dh ekax dh rks mls 1@7@01 ls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk fn- 1@8@86 ls 30@6@01 rd fujUrj dk;Z dj ysus o ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z dj ysus ds i'pkr Hkh vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj fn-1@7@01 ls lsok ls i`Fkd djuk voS/kkfud gSA vUr esa mls fn- 1@7@01 ls lsok ls vysgnxh dk vkns'k fujLr djrs gq, 1@8@86 ls fujUrj lsok esa ekurs gq, cdk;k osru] etnwjh o inksUufr ykHk vkfn vizkFkhZ ls fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7219</span> 4- mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc izLrqr djrs gq, vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us 1@8@86 ls fnlEcj] 87 rd ,Vkfed ,uthZ lsUV~zy Ldwy ua-3] jkorHkkVk esa dke fd;k gS ftl lEcU/k esa rRdkyhu jkifoi Ldwy ds osru fcy jsdkMZ ls tkWpus ij ik;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dks vkj,ihih Ldwy ls fu;fer vFkok nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dksbZ Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA o"kZ 86&87 esa ,oa ,Vkfed ,uthZ lsUV~zy Ldwy ua- 3 us vxLr 87 ls 'kq: gksus ds ckn izkFkhZ uke ds fdlh vkneh dks vLFkkbZ] rnFkZ] nSfud osru Hkksxh ;k fu;fer :i esa dk;Z djus ckcr dksbZ Hkqxrku ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us rRdkyhu vkj,ihih Ldwy esa 1@8@86 ls 28@3@87 rd nSfud osru Hkksxh ysc vfl- ds :i esa dke fd;k Fkk ftldk Hkqxrku mls dj fn;k x;k gksxk o mlds }kjk mDr vof/k esa 240 fnu iw.kZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;kA mDr Ldwy vkj,ihih izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk 3@8@87 ls LFkkbZ :i ls can dj fn;k x;k vkSj lHkh fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok;sa lekIr dj nh x;hA vUr esa izkFkhZ dk Dyse vk/kkjghu o fcuk nLrkosth izek.k ds gksus ds dkj.k lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA</p> <p>5- lk{; esa izkFkhZ Jfed fxj/kkjhyky ijekj dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftjg vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk dh x;hA</p> <p>6- nkSjku fopkj.k fn- 20@2@15 dks izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed fxj/kkjhyky ijekj dh e`R;q gks tkuk izdV djrs gq, dk;eeqdkeku dk izkFkZuk&i= is'k djus dk volj pkgus ij le; fn;k tkdj i=koyh esa 3@7@15 fu;r dh x;h] ijUrq bl frfFk ls ysdj vkt dh frfFk rd dbZ volj fy;s tkus ds mijkUr Hkh izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls dk;eeqdkeku ckcr dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k o uk gh vkt mifLFkr gksdj dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k cryk;k x;k] ,slh fLFkfr esa vc vkSj le; fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk] D;ksafd izdj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k esa 2004 ls yfEcr gksdj dkQh iqjkuk gSA blh izdze ij U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk vkt tc i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rks ;g ik;k x;k fd lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks fuf'pr :i ls dc lsok ls eqDr@i`Fkd fd;k x;k] bl frfFk dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA vr% ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugha gS fd ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dh dkSulh frfFk] lsok i`Fkd frfFk ekudj vizkFkhZ ds d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk\ bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 MCY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w- lh- i`"B 424& egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd lsokvksa ds i;Zolku dh frfFk dk jsQzsUl esa mYys[k ugha gksus ls Je U;k;ky; fdlh deZdkj ds dFkukuqlkj i;Zolku dh frfFk dks Lohdkj dj funsZ'k@jsQzsUl dh 'krksZ esa lq/kkj] la'kks/ku ;k mikUrj.k djus esa l{ke ugha gS ,oa uk gh U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ls ,slh vf/kdkfjrk izkIr gksrh gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa deZdkj dh lsok i;Zolku dh frfFk of.kZr ugha gksus ls vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj fn;k x;kA bl mDr U;k;fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlkj tgkW funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa lsok ls gVkus] eqDr djus ;k i`Fkd djus dh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rks Je U;k;ky; dks ml frfFk dks lgh djus ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk i{kdkjksa }kjk ,slh frfFk lq>kfor fd;s tkus ij Hkh izkIr ugha gks tkrh gSA vFkkZr ;fn funsZ'k esa lsok ls eqfDr] i`Fkd ;k gVkus dh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugh gS o nksuksaa gh i{kdkj ,slh frfFk ;fn crk Hkh nsrs gksa rks Hkh Je U;k;ky; dks ml crk;h x;h frfFk dks ekudj mlds vk/kkj ij funsZ'k@jsQzsUl mRrfjr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gks tkrk gSA bl U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la-11 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ^^enuikyflag cuke mRrjizns'k jkT; o vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000 ,l-lh- 537^^ ds fu.kZ; dks foosfpr fd;k x;k gS rFkk vUr esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd Je U;k;ky; funsZ'k esa of.kZr fcUnqvksa rd gh lhfer {ks=kf/kdkj j[krk gS ,oa mldks i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa esa funsZ'k ls ijs tkdj la'kks/ku vkfn dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ;fn ukeksa ;k frfFk vkfn esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k vadu djkuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds le{k bl ckcr i{k j[kdj mlesa la'kks/ku djkuk gksxk] ijUrq Je U;k;ky; dks ,slk la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA vr% blh fu.kZ; dks vk/kkj ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr ekeys esa Je U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ekurs gq, vikLr dj fn;k x;kA</p> <p>7- vc ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk] lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh frfFk ekudj vizkFkhZ ds mDr d`R; dh mfprrk ,oa oS/krk dk fofu'p; djsxk rFkk D;k ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk ekudj izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fofu'p; dj ldrk gS vFkok funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gS\ bl lEcU/k esa<span class="header-text">7220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 McY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** ds isjk la[;k 12 dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk jsQzsUl ds fucU/ku ;k lsok lekfIr frfFk esa la'kks/ku vkfn ckcr fuEu fLFkfr izdV dh x;h gS%&</p> <p>''Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to correct/modify/amend /alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or proceed with the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested by the workman and in case it does so, the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad reference."</p> <p>8- vr% ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mijksDr U;k;n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa gLrxr ekeys esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk@uke vkfn dks la'kksf/kr frfFk@uke ekudj izdj.k dks xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gSA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPpre ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Åij foosfpr fd;s x;s U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj gLrxr izdj.k esa bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ,sls i{kdkjksa dk la'kks/ku izLrko Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ;fn dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr Hkh djrk gS rks og {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksdj 'kwU; gksxkA bu U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds [k.Mu esa ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;fu.kZ; ,slk is'k Hkh ugha fd;k x;k ftlesa fd Åij of.kZr fLFkfr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k dks funsZ'k vf/kfuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksA vr% dqy feykdj fLFkfr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa ds gh vHkh rd izHkko'khy gksus dh ik;h tkrh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k vkc) gSA vr% ,slh ifjLFkfr esa lEiw.kZ foospu ds mijkUr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa bruk gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk ls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] ,slh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k ,sls funsZ'k esa dksbZ la'kks/ku dj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha j[krk gS ,oa ;fn i{kdkj l{ke ljdkj ls bl ckcr funsZ'k@ jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k esa is'k djrs gSa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k ,slk la'kks/ku izkIr gksus ij izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldsxk] ijUrq bl izdze ij fQygky ;g ekeyk bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk ik;k tkrk gSA</p> <p>ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 8@4@2004 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar **2003 McY;w-,y-lh-¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424&egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUnfd'kksj** esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds vuqlj.k esa gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa of.kZr izkFkhZ Jfed fxj/kkjh yky ijekj dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk dkSulh frfFk dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] ,slh frfFk dk dksbZ vadu ugha gksus ls o bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks i{kdkjksa }kjk lq>k;h x;h frfFk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksus ls gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn l{ke ljdkj ls mDr frfFk ckcr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl esa la'kks/ku@vadu djkdj U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k djsaxsa rks U;k;kf/kdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fof/k vuqlkj vkxs izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dj ldsxkA</p> <p>txeksgu 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2198-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ellZ flaxjsuh dks;yjht dEiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22- 08-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&22012/172/2013–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]</p> <p>jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7221</span> </p> <h4>New Delhi, the 13th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017</p> <p>[No. L-22012/172/2013 - IR(CM-II)]</p> <p>RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT</h4> <h4>HYDERABAD</h4> <p>Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer</p> <p>Dated the 14th day of June, 2017</p> <h4>INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2014</h4> <h4>Between:</h4> <p>The Vice President, (Sri K. Devaiah), Godavari Loya Boggugani Karmika Sangh(IFTU), Qtr.No. D-166, RK-5 Colony, Coal Chemical Complex, Mancherial (M). Adilabad – 504 302</p> <p>… Petitioner Union</p> <p>AND</p> <p>The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur (P.O.)-504 303. Adilabad Distt.</p> <p>…Respondent</p> <h4>Appearances:</h4> <p>For the Petitioner : Sri M.V.L. Narasaiah, Advocate</p> <p>For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya laxmi Panguluri, Advocates</p> <h4>AWARD</h4> <p>The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/172/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17.12.2013 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,</p> <h4>SCHEDULE</h4> <p>"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Division, Adilabad Distt. in disallowing the service from 10.5.2009 to 16.9.2010 and not granting wages all other consequential benefits to Sri A. Chandra Babu, Overman is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"</p> <p>The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.</p> <p>2. The case is posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner union. Inspite of availing several opportunities, the Petitioner union and the Respondent remained absent and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union has no claim to raise. Thus, 'No dispute' award is passed.</p> <span class="header-text">7222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <p>Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.</p> <p>Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 14th day of June, 2017.</p> <p>MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>Appendix of evidence</h4> <p>Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner</p> <h4>Respondent</h4> <p>NIL</p> <p>NIL</p> <h4>Documents marked for the Petitioner</h4> <p>NIL</p> <h4>Documents marked for the Respondent</h4> <p>NIL</p> <h4>ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2017</h4> <p>dk-vk- 2199-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-,y-lh- fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA</p> <p>[la- ,y&22012/95/2014–vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]</p> <p>jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh</p> <h4>New Delhi, the 14th September, 2017</h4> <p>S.O. 2199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2015) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. NLC Ltd. and Other and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.08.2017</p> <p>[No. L-22012/95/2014 - IR(CM-II)]</p> <p>RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer</p> <h4>ANNEXURE</h4> <h4>BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,</h4> <h4>CHENNAI</h4> <h4>Tuesday, the 11th July, 2017</h4> <p>Present: K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>Industrial Dispute No. 22/2015</h4> <p>[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of NLC and Another and their workman] BETWEEN :</p> <p>Sri A. Sundar</p> <p>: 1st Party/Petitioner<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7223</span> </p> <h4>AND</h4> <p>1. The Chief General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent</p> <p>M/s. NLC Ltd. Mine-1 & 1A Neyveli-607803</p> <p>2. Sri S. Tamizhmani, NLC Contractor : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent</p> <p>489/2, Nayagi Street, Annai Theresa Avenue Periyakurichi Neyveli-2</p> <h4>Appearance</h4> <p>For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. Ajoy Khose, Advocates</p> <p>For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent : M/s. N. Nithianandam, Advocates</p> <p>For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent : Sri D. Muthukumar, Advocate</p> <p>The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-22012/95/2014-IR (CM.II) dated 19.02.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.</p> <p>The schedule mentioned in that order is:</p> <p>"Whether the action of the Management of M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Mine-I, Neyveli in removing the name of Sri A. Sunder from the Seniority List maintained as per the Supreme Court decision and denial of becoming member of INDCOSERVE Society is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"</p> <p>2. On receipt of notice both petitioner and the Respondent entered appearance through their counsel and fled Claim and Counter Statement respectively. The Second Respondent who was subsequently impleaded has also filed Counter Statement. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement filed by the First Respondent.</p> <p>3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are as below:</p> <p>The petitioner has joined as Contract Labour in Thermal Power Station-I of the First Respondent in the year 2000. From 2003 onwards he was continuously employed in Mines-I. Since the contract labors were exploited by the individual contractors the First Respondent formed an Industrial Service Cooperative Society shortly called INDCOSERVE Society in the year 1990. The Society did not enroll all the contract labourers as its members. While even the juniors were enrolled as members of the Society many senior workmen including the petitioner were left out. In 1995 a settlement was entered into to abolish contract labour system in the entire production area and also to absorb the workmen employed through INDCOSERVE Society in production areas as regular workers, in a phased manner. Since contract labourers who were not members of the Society but were working in production areas were denied absorption a Writ Petition was filed seeking to regularize the contract labourers based on Seniority without reference to membership in INDCOSERVE Society. This WP was allowed and the Writ Appeals filed against the order in the said Writ Petition were dismissed also. After dismissal of the Writ Petition the First Respondent issued circular to collect the details of the service particulars of the contract labourers. The petitioner though studied upto 8th Standard did not possess a copy of the Transfer Certificate issued to him. He was not having any document to show his date of birth. So he submitted the form for inclusion of his name in the Seniority List without filling up the column of date of birth, age, etc. However, the First Respondent mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1955 in the seniority list prepared by it. In the meantime the First Respondent filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against order in the Writ Appeals referred to earlier. The Supreme Court gave a direction that the contract labourers can make their objections if there is any mistake made in the Seniority List of contract labourers, with regard to their service particulars. Based on this direction the First Respondent issued a circular on 30.05.2013 directing the contract labourers to submit their objections to the Seniority List. only after issue of this circular the petitioner came to know that his date of birth and age were wrongly recorded in the Seniority List as 01.07.1955. In the meantime the petitioner was able to trace out his Transfer Certificate which gives his date of birth as 08.01.1959. The petitioner made a representation on 14.06.2013 alongwith the Transfer Certificate requesting to make necessary correction in the Seniority List regarding this date of birth and to give him absorption based on his seniority. However, the petitioner was made to retire from service on 30.06.2014 based on the entry made by the First Respondent regarding his date of birth. The dispute is raised accordingly. The First Respondent ought to have considered the objections of the petitioner and should have corrected his date of birth based on his Transfer Certificate on the basis of the direction given by the Supreme Court. An Award may be passed holding that the action of the First Respondent in terminating the petitioner from service w.e.f. 01.07.2013 is illegal and also directing the First Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits and to restore his name in the Seniority List of contract labourers and to absorb him as regular worker, as per the seniority list.</p> <p>4. The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:</p> <span class="header-text">7224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> <p>The dispute is not maintainable in law or on facts. There was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The non-impleadment of the respective contractors who had employed the petitioner is fatal to the dispute. Alteration of date of birth sought for by the petitioner by representation dated 14.06.2013, only 15 days prior to his admitted date of superannuation is legally impermissible. The dispute is not maintainable under Section-2K of the Industrial Disputes Act as there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent. The First Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in mining lignite and generation of power. It has a workforce of about 18000 of which 14000 are in the workmen category. The workmen are governed by the Certified Standing Orders of the First Respondent. All recruitment and appointment are in terms of the rules and regulations of the First Respondent. The First Respondent had been engaging private contractors for executing various types of works. The contractors shall submit a list of persons employed by them with the requisite details with a request to issue temporary gate passes to them till completion of the contract work. On verification of the details temporary passes are issued to the contract workers. It is the policy of the First Respondent that the respective contractors shall not engage contract workers who attained 58 years of age. The petitioner was engaged by S. Thamizhmani (the Second Respondent), one of the Contractors at the time when he attained the age of superannuation on 01.07.2013. The date of superannuation was determined based on the details furnished by the petitioner and maintained by the Contractor. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the First Respondent had collected details of the contract workmen. In the format submitted by him the petitioner had left the column for date of birth blank. He did not submit any documents in support of his date of birth, age and educational qualification. As per the details submitted by the petitioner he had completed the age of 58 in 2008. On collection of details of the contract workers in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court a provisional seniority list of contract workers was prepared by the First Respondent based on the details submitted by the respective contract workers. The list was displayed in the respective units. The petitioner had opportunity to make his objection at that time regarding any discrepancy in the date of birth, but he had failed to raise any objection. The Seniority List was published again in January 2011 calling upon objections, but this time also the petitioner had not raised any objection. The Supreme Court had disposed the Civil Appeal pending before it on 16.04.2013 with certain directions. On the basis of the direction the updated final seniority list was made available in all the units of the First Respondent from 30.05.2013 and this was displayed in the respective units also on the same date calling for objections to be given within one month from 01.06.2013. The updated Seniority List did not contain the name of the petitioner as he had attained 58 years in the month of June 2013. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to represent his grievances regarding the date of birth. He did not utilize them. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.</p> <p>5. The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:</p> <p>The Second Respondent is only a Contractor. He has no right to interfere in the Management of the First Respondent. When the petitioner produced his bio-data to the Second Respondent during the year 2012-2013 these were submitted to the NLC Management for getting security clearance and gate pass. After scrutinizing the documents, on 21.06.2016, the First Respondent decided to relieve the petitioner and some other workers as they have completed the age of 58 years. This order was intimated to the petitioner by the Second Respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is only against the First Respondent. During 2014-2015 the petitioner had worked under the Contractor by name Kuppusamy Constructions. Now he is working under M/s G.R. Engineering. The claim is liable to be dismissed.</p> <p>6. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and MW2 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W16 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M8.</p> <h4>7. The points for consideration are:</h4> <p>(i) Whether the First Respondent is justified in removing the name of the petitioner from the Seniority List prepared as per the direction of the Supreme Court?</p> <p>(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?</p> <h4>The Points</h4> <p>8. The petitioner had been working as a contract labour with the First Respondent. He had worked through the Second Respondent and prior to that through other Respondents. The First Respondent had prepared a Seniority List in respect of those contract workers who were members of the INDCOSERVE Society. A Writ Petition was filed challenging the decision to prepare Seniority List including the members of the INDCOSERVE Society only. The order in the Writ Petition directed the First Respondent to prepare a Seniority List including contract workmen who had worked under other Contractors also. The petitioner also had furnished particulars as called for but without giving his date of birth. According to the petitioner he was not having any document regarding his date of birth and as such he was not in a position to furnish the same. It is alleged by the petitioner that his date of birth was shown as 01.07.1955 by the First Respondent without any basis. The First Respondent had not been permitting contract labours who had attained the age of 58 years to work for it. In Civil Appeal 1629/11 a direction was given by the Supreme<span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7225</span> Court to give opportunity to the contract workmen to raise the objection regarding the Seniority List. Even as admitted by the First Respondent the petitioner had given his objection by representation dated 14.06.2013. According to the petitioner he had received his Transfer Certificate which was missing by this time and had shown his correct his date of birth in the representation. However, this was not considered by the First Respondent and the petitioner had to retire from his job at the end of June 2013 on the basis of the date of birth that was already available with the First Respondent. According to the petitioner his objection should have been considered by the First Respondent and he should have been allowed to continue in the job and retained in the Seniority List and absorbed in the First Respondent as and when his turn arrived.</p> <p>9. The only question to be considered is whether the First Respondent should have considered the representation given by the petitioner on the basis of the direction given by the Supreme Court and acted accordingly. The petitioner has given evidence stating his grievances. His Proof Affidavit is a replica of the Claim Statement filed by him. The petitioner has produced Ext.W2 the order in Writ Petition No. 8/96 on the file of the Madras High Court which has given order in favour of the contract workers other than those who are members of the INDCOSERVE Society and Ext.W3 the order in Writ Appeals by which the contentions of the First Respondent were rejected. Ext.W9 is the order of the Apex Court. This order states that if the workmen have any grievance with the Seniority List they can submit their grievance to the Management who shall consider the same.</p> <p>10. The case of the Respondent is that all along opportunities have been given to the contract workers to raise objections regarding the Seniority List but opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. Ext.M1 is the communication to display the Seniority List of contract workmen in all the units. However, this does not call for any objection from the workmen. Ext.M2 is said to be the bio-data prepared by the First Respondent on the basis of information submitted by the petitioner. In this the date of birth of the petitioner is given as 01.07.1955. However, even as deposed by MW1 this date of birth was provided by the First Respondent and was not one furnished by the petitioner. By Ext.M3 the First Respondent had directed to display the Seniority List of private contract workmen, INDCOSERVE Workmen and HOWSICO Workmen based on the interim order of the Supreme Court. Ext.W4 is part of the Seniority List published by the First Respondent. The name of the petitioner appears as S.No. 939 in this. His date of birth is shown as 06.03.1955 and his date of engagement as 01.04.1987. Ext.M4 is the publication of the Seniority List of contract workers calling for objections in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court. It is on the basis of this the petitioner has submitted his representation stating that his date of birth requires correction and he is entitled to continue in service on the basis of this. However, the First Respondent did not consider the objection at all. According to the First Respondent the name of the petitioner was removed from the Seniority List as he was to attain the age of 58 years by the end of June 2013 as per the details of date of birth available with it.</p> <p>11. The petitioner has produced the Transfer Certificate before this Tribunal and the same has been marked as Ext.W16. The First Respondent has not questioned the authenticity of this document which gives the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.01.1959. The only question that was put to the petitioner regarding this was that the District in which the school that had issued the Transfer Certificate to the petitioner is situated was not given in the Certificate. A perusal of Ext.W16 gives no room for doubt about the authenticity of the document. It is a very old Transfer Certificate, almost torn on all sides. The format for the Certificate is in a half sheet and contains the Number, T.C. Number, Admission Number, etc. So it is very much clear from this document that the real date of birth of the petitioner, the date of birth as given in the school records is 08.01.1959. If this has been accepted by the First Respondent as the date of birth the name of the petitioner would have remained in the Seniority List and he could have been absorbed in the service of the First Respondent as and when the time reached.</p> <p>12. It is not disputed by the First Respondent that in answer to the publication of the Seniority List calling for objection in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court the petitioner had given objection specifying 08.01.1959 as his correct date of birth. According to the First Respondent the objection was taken for consideration by the Management only after June 2013 and by then the petitioner had attained the age of 58 years. It is very much apparent that the petitioner was entitled to have his representation for correction of date of birth considered as directed by the Supreme Court. This was not done only because the Management had decided to consider the objections probably after the period of one month given for raising the objection had ended. So far as the First Respondent is concerned the matter of service of the petitioner might have been of least importance. But for the petitioner himself it was a matter of life and death. He had been working for the First Respondent for years and years, though under different Contractors. He was harping on becoming a regular worker of the First Respondent based on the Seniority List. There was no justification for the First Respondent in not considering the objection which was given in time. When direction was given by the Apex Court there was no justification at all in denying this on the ground that he did not avail the opportunities given to him to furnish his objections on earlier occasions.</p> <p>13. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 377/81 in support of his argument that the action of the First Respondent was not in the proper spirit. It was a case where alteration in the accepted birth date has been made without giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned appellant. In the present case though the petitioner has submitted an objection the First Respondent unilaterally decided to terminate the petitioner from his job without considering the objection. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision<span class="header-text">7226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 16, 2017/BHADRA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]</span> of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 560/2013 also in this respect. Here the Madras High Court has quoted an earlier decision of the Apex Court which held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred and the Court may in the larger interests of administration of justice may excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach of law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and pass orders which will serve the interests of justice best. The contentions raised by the First Respondent that the name of the petitioner was already removed from the Seniority List as he was about to attain the age of 58 years as per the details already available is only a trivial one which is to be rejected.</p> <p>14. One argument that has been advanced on behalf of the First Respondent is that the dispute is not maintainable as there was no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent. It was on the basis of the contention of the First Respondent the Second Respondent under whom the petitioner was working at the time has been impleaded. In any case preparation of Seniority List as directed by the Apex Court was the task of the First Respondent. On the basis of the very direction this Tribunal is entitled to adjudicate on the question of the correctness of the Seniority List.</p> <p>15. Now the question is what is the relief to be given to the petitioner. The issue revealed by the order of reference is the removal of the name of the petitioner from the Seniority List. In the Claim Statement he seeks to be reinstated with backwages and to be included in the Seniority List and to absorb him as a regular worker. He is asking for backwages also. However, it has come out during the evidence that even after the petitioner attained the age of 58 years he has been working for the First Respondent through some other Contractors. He has admitted this during his cross- examination. His claim for backwages need not be acceded to.</p> <p>16. If the correct date of birth was accepted the date of superannuation of the petitioner would be 07.01.2019. If the petitioner was retained in the Seniority List he might have been absorbed in service by this time. The petitioner is entitled to be in the Seniority List and has to be absorbed as per the order in the list.</p> <p>Accordingly, an Award is passed as below:</p> <p>• The correct date of birth of the petitioner is found to be 08.01.1959.</p> <p>• The First Respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the Seniority List for contract workers.</p> <p>• The petitioner shall be absorbed in the service of the First Respondent as and when his turn as per the Seniority List comes.</p> <p>• If those below the petitioner in the Seniority List are already absorbed the petitioner shall be absorbed in the service of the First Respondent with effect from the date on which he would have been absorbed if his name was retained in the Seniority List and shall be paid salary and other emoluments as on the said date.</p> <p>(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 11th July, 2017)</p> <p>K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer</p> <h4>Witnesses Examined:</h4> <pre> For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri A. Sundar For the 2nd Party/1st Management : MW1, Sri C. Thiagaraju For the 2nd Party/2nd Management : MW2, Sri S. Thamizhmani </pre> <h4>Documents Marked:</h4> <h4>On the Petitioner's side</h4> <h4>Ext.No. Date Description</h4> <pre> Ext.W1 18.05.1995 12(3) Statement Ext.W2 15.05.2002 Order in W.P. No. 8/1996 Ext.W3 06.02.2008 Order in W.A. No. 2045&2529/2002 Ext.W4 - Seniority List issued by the 2nd Party Ext.W5 - Entry pass Identity Card </pre> <span class="header-text">[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 16, 2017/भाद्र 25, 1939 7227</span> <pre> Ext.W6 - Format for collection of details of contract workman Ext.W7 - Format for collection of details of 1st Party Ext.W8 - EPF Receipt of 1st Party Ext.W9 16.04.2013 Order in Civil Appeal No. 1629/2011 Ext.W10 14.06.2013 Letter given to the 1st Party Ext.W11 7/2014 Counter Statement filed by the 2nd Party before the ALC Ext.W12 - Rejoinder filed by the 1st Party Ext.W13 05.11.2014 Reply to rejoinder filed by the 2nd Party Ext.W14 12.11.2014 Failure Report Ext.W15 19.02.2015 Order of Reference Ext.W16 13.06.1973 Transfer Certificate </pre> <h4>On the Management's side</h4> <pre> Ext. No. Date Description Ext.M1 09.11.2010 Publication of seniority list of private contract workmen and calling for objections circular issued by the 2nd Party Ext.M2 - 1st Party's bio-data prepared by the 2nd Party on the basis of information submitted by him Ext.M3 03.01.2011 Publication of seniority list of contract workmen Ext.M4 30.05.2013 Publication of seniority list of contract workers and calling for objections Ext.M5 - Response sheet with bio-data of the petitioner Ext.M6 - Details of the petitioner working under various Contractors Ext.M7 29.04.2013 Contract Agreement order of the 1st Respondent Ext.M8 21.06.2013 Relieving Order of the 1st Respondent </pre> <p>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.</p> <section class="footnotes"> <hr> <ol> <li id="fn-19-00" value="00"> <a href="#fnref-19-00">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-19-85" value="85"> <a href="#fnref-19-85">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-19-1265" value="1265"> <a href="#fnref-19-1265">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-20-00" value="00"> <a href="#fnref-20-00">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-20-05" value="05"> <a href="#fnref-20-05">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-20-18" value="18">[Qk- la- vkj&25011@15@2017&vksvkj&I] iou dqekj] voj lfpo <a href="#fnref-20-18">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-20-2177" value="2177"> <a href="#fnref-20-2177">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-21-00" value="00"> <a href="#fnref-21-00">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-21-03" value="03"> <a href="#fnref-21-03">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-21-56" value="56">iou dqekj] voj lfpo <a href="#fnref-21-56">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-21-2188" value="2188"> <a href="#fnref-21-2188">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-00" value="00"> <a href="#fnref-23-00">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-01" value="01"> <a href="#fnref-23-01">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-02" value="02"> <a href="#fnref-23-02">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-03" value="03"> <a href="#fnref-23-03">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-05" value="05"> <a href="#fnref-23-05">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-40" value="40"> <a href="#fnref-23-40">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-43" value="43">Vkaxhvk & 63 <a href="#fnref-23-43">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-55" value="55"> <a href="#fnref-23-55">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-69" value="69"> <a href="#fnref-23-69">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-84" value="84"> <a href="#fnref-23-84">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-87" value="87">573 00 04 01 <a href="#fnref-23-87">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-92" value="92"> <a href="#fnref-23-92">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-93" value="93"> <a href="#fnref-23-93">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-570" value="570"> <a href="#fnref-23-570">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-2203" value="2203"> <a href="#fnref-23-2203">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-3845" value="3845"> <a href="#fnref-23-3845">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-3849" value="3849"> <a href="#fnref-23-3849">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-3850" value="3850"> <a href="#fnref-23-3850">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-3851" value="3851"> <a href="#fnref-23-3851">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-4362" value="4362"> <a href="#fnref-23-4362">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-4365" value="4365"> <a href="#fnref-23-4365">↩</a></li> <li id="fn-23-4368" value="4368"> <a href="#fnref-23-4368">↩</a></li> </ol> </section> </body> </html>