5751 GI/2017

(7531)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 39]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 24—flrEcj 30] 2017] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 2—vkf'ou 8] 1939

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 24—SEPTEMBER 30, 2017, SATURDAY/ASVINA 2—ASVINA 8, 1939

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2264-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, tEew vkSj d'ehj jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx]

flfoy lfpoky;] tEew dh lgefr ls fnukad 16-02-2017 dh vf/lwpuk la- x`g@,vkj@53@2015@689 dh vf/lwpuk ds rgr] tEew

vkSj d'ehj Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] lEor 2006 dh /kjk 5(1)(?k ) vkSj 5(2) rFkk vk;q/ vf/fu;e] 1959 (1959 dk

vf/fu;e la- 54) dh /kjk 30 ds lkFk ifBr vkjihlh dh 120&[k] 420] 465] 467] 471] 472] 474 /kjkvksa ds v/hu fnukad 08-

09-2014 ds ekeyk la- 7293@ihbZ&6 (,l)@2014@lhchvkbZ@,llh&1] ubZ fnYyh rFkk mi;qZDr vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa vFkok Øe esa

iz;kl djus] nq"izsj.k vkSj "kM+;a=kksa RkFkk blds leku laO;ogkj vFkok leku rF;ksa ds lkeus vkus ij fd, x, fdlh vU; vijk/ vFkok

vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy,] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr vkSj vf/dkj {ks=k dk fodkl lEiw.kZ tEew vkSj d'ehj

jkT; esa djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@43@2017&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

7532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2017

S.O. 2264.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

State Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu vide Notification No.

Home/AR/53/2015/689 dated 16.02.2017, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to investigation of Case No. 7293/PE-

6(S)/2014/CBI/SC-I, New Delhi dated 08.09.2014 under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 471, 472, 474 of RPC read

with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat 2006 and Section 30 of

Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the

offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising

out the same facts.

[F. No. 228/43/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2265-—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8)

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, xka/huxj fLFkr xqtjkr jkT; esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk lkSais x, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

(dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks) }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa dk Vªk;y U;k;ky;ksa rFkk fof/ }kjk LFkkfir iqujh{k.k ;k vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa esa

vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k muls mRiUu ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr vf/oDrkvksa dks mudh fu;qfDr dh

rkjh[k ls 3 o"kks± ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSa%&

loZ Jh

1- eqds'k th- dikfM;k;

2- fnus'k ds- 'kekZ;

3- vkuan euksgjyky xqyckuh;

4- 'kf'kHkw"k.k ';keyky 'kekZ;

5- izoh.k dqekj ekusdyky f=kosnh A

[iQk- la- 225@15@2017&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2017

S.O. 2265.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints following advocates as Special Public prosecutor

for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation)

in the State of Gujarat at Gandhinagar as entrusted to them by Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and

appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in appellate or revisional courts established by law for a

period of three years from the date of appointment or further orders, whichever is earlier:-

S/Shri

(1) Mukesh G. Kapadiya;

(2) Dinesh K. Sharma;

(3) Anand Manoharlal Gulabani;

(4) Shashibhushan Shyamlal Sharma;

(5) Pravin Kumar Maneklal Trivedi.

[F. No. 225/15/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7533

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2266 dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la[;k 25) dh

/kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, gfj;k.kk jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] paMhx<+ dh

vf/lwpuk la- 20@12@2017&3 ,pthvkbZ fnukad 17-09-2017 ds ekè;e ls izkIr lgefr ls Hkk-na- lafgrk dh /kjk 302 ,oa vk;q/

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 25@54@59] ySafxd vijk/ksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k (ihvkslh,lvks) vf/fu;e dh /kjk 12 ,oa fd'kksj U;k;

(ts-ts-) vf/fu;e dh /kjk 75 ds lkFk ifBr Hkk-na- lafgrk dh /kjk 34 ds v/hu naMuh; vijk/ dkfjr djus ds fy, iqfyl Fkkuk

HkksaMlh] xq:xzke esa iathd`r ekeyk ,iQvkbZvkj la- 250 fnukad 08-09-2017 dh tkap djus rFkk mDr ekeys ls lEc¼ vijk/ksa esa fd,

x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM~;a=kksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd, x, ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu izklafxd vU; vijk/ksa dh tkap djus ds

fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk leLr gfj;k.kk esa foLrkj djrh gSA

[iQk-la- 228@45@2017&,ohMh& II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2017

S.O. 2266.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

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

Government of Haryana vide Notification No. 20/12/2017-3HGI dated 17.09.2017 hereby extands the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Haryana for

investigation of Case FIR No. 250 Dated 08.09.2017 u/s 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and

Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, (Act No. 104 of 1956), 12 protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act & 75 Juvenile justice (J.J.) Act r/w Section 34 IPC Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram and attempts, abetments and

conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences

committed in the course of the same transation arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/45/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2267-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] oSudwoj esa Jh egs'k 'kekZ] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

12 flrEcj] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 12th September, 2017

S.O. 2267.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mahesh Sharma,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officers in Consulate General of India, Toronto to perform the

Consular services with effect from 12th September, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

7534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2268-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] cxnkn esa Jh mes'k ;kno] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 13 flrEcj] 2017 ls

lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2017

S.O. 2268.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Umesh Yadav,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officers in Embassy of India, Baghdad to perform the Consular

services with effect from 13th September, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2269-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] guksbZ esa Jh eqdqy tSu] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 21 flrEcj] 2017 ls

lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2269.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mukul Jain, Assistant Section

Officer as Assistant Consular Officers in Embassy of India, Hanoi to perform the Consular services with effect from

21st September, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2270-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] nqcbZ esa Jh fcuksn dqekj frokjh] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

22 flrEcj] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2017

S.O. 2270.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Binod Kumar Tiwari,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7535

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officers in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the Consular

services with effect from 22nd September, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

वािणय एवं उोग मंालय

(वािणय िवभाग)

नई दली, 21 िसत बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2271

2271

2271.—केीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंण एंव िनरीण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के

साथ प$ठत, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंण एंव िनरीण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क) धारा 7 क) उपधारा (1) -ारा .द

शि0य1 का .योग करते 3ए, मैसस िमनरल लैब स5वसेज .ाइवेट िल., डी. नं. 1-30-18, "9ी दुगबा िनवास", ;ाउंड =लोर, 4 मेल,

बंगड़ा कुलूर, आनंद गेराज के पास, कोटारा चौक), मंगालूA, कनाटक -575013, (िजसे एतBपCात उ0 एजDसी कहा जायेगा), को इस

अिधसूचना के राजप मD .काशन क) तारीख से तीन वष क) अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणIय मंालय क) शासक)य राजप के

भाग- II, खJ ड-3, उप खंJ ड (ii), मD दनांक 20 दसबर, 1965 क) अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 के तहत .कािशत अिधसूचना मD

उपाबL अनुसूिचय1 मD िविनMदN खिनज और अयPक समूह-I, Qम सं॰ 2 पर िनMदN लौह अयPक को िनयात से पूव िनSिलिखत शतT के

अधीन मUगलोर पन, मD उV त खिनज और अयP क के िनरीण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के Wप मD मायता देती है, अथात् :

(i)

यह अिभकरण,खिनज और अयPक समूह- I का िनयात (िनरीण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीण क)

पLित क) जाँच करने के िलये िनयात िनरीण प$रषद् -ारा िनिम नामिनMदN अिधका$रय1 को पयाZ सुिवधाएं देगी;

और

(ii)

यह अिभकरण,इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायT के पालन मD िनदेशक (िनरीण और गुणवा िनयंण) िनयात

िनरीण प$रषद -ारा समय-समय पर, िलिखत Wप मD, दए गए ऐसे िनद\श1 से आबL ह1गी ।

[फा.सं. के-16014/17/2017- िनयात िनरीण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु0 सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2271.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 1-30-

18, “Shri Durgamba Nivas”, Ground Floor, 4^th Mail, Bangra Kulur, Near Anand Garage, Kottara Chowki, Mangaluru,

Karnataka-575013, as an agency (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), for a period of three years from the date

of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Iron Ore specified at serial number 2 under the heading Minerals

and Ores- Group I, in the Schedule to the notification number S.O. 3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, published in

the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said Ores

at Mangalore Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council

in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores -

Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency in performance of its functions under this notification shall be bound by such directions

as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give, in writing, from

time to time.

[F.No. K-16014/17/2017-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

7536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 26 िसत बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2272

2272

2272.—केीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंण एंव िनरीण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के

शि0य1 का .योग करते 3ए, मैसस एसजीएस इंिडया .ाइवेट िलिमटेड, इकोPपेस, bलॉक-3 ए, ि-तीय तल, ईPट dवग, प$रसर IIF/11,

एVशना ए$रया-II, राजरहाट, यू टाउन, कोलकाता- 700160, िजसे एतBपCात उ0 एजDसी कहा जायेगा, को इस अिधसूचना के

राजप मD .काशन क) तारीख से तीन वष क) अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणIय मंालय क) शासक)य राजप भाग-II, खंड-3,

उप खंड(ii), मD दनांक 20 दसबर, 1965 क) अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 के तहत .कािशत अिधसूचना मे उपाबL अनुसूिचय1 मD

िविनMदN खिनज और अयPक समूह-।, Qम सं॰ 3 पर िनMदN फेरोमUगनीज को िनयात से पूव िनSिलिखत शतT के अधीन कोलकाता पन,

पिCम बंगाल मD उV त खिनज और अयP क के िनरीण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के Wप मD मायता देती है, अथात् :

(i)

यह अिभकरण, खिनज और अयPक समूह-। का िनयात (िनरीण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीण क)

और

(ii)

यह अिभकरण,इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायf के पालन मD िनदेशक (िनरीण और गुणवा िनयंण) िनयात

िनरीण प$रषद -ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत Wप मD दए गए ऐसे िनद\श1 से आबL ह1गी ।

[फा.सं. के-16014/15/2017- िनयात िनरीण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु0 सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017

S.O. 2272.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s.SGS India Private Limited , Ecospace, Block-

3A, 2nd Floor , East Wing, Premises IIF/11, Actiona Area-II, Rajarhat, New Town, Kolkata - 700160, as an agency

(hereinafter referred to as the said agency), for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification,

for the inspection of Ferromanganese specified at serial number 3 under the heading Minerals and Ores - Group-I, in

the Schedule to the notification number S.O. 3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, published in the Gazette of India,

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at

Kolkata Port, West Bengal subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council

in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores -

Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency in performance of its function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in

writing, from time to time.

[F.No. K-16014/15/2017-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

नई दली, 26 िसत बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2273

2273

2273.—केीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंण एंव िनरीण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के

शि0य1 का .योग करते 3ए, मैसस एसजीएस इंिडया .ाइवेट िलिमटेड, एसजीएस हाउस, gलॉट नं आर -12 और एल -16, इंडिPhयल

Pटेट, बांध रोड, होPपेट, कनाटक -583203, िजसे एतBपCात उV त एजDसी कहा जायेगा , को इस अिधसूचना के राजप मD .काशन क)

तारीख से तीन वष क) अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणIय मंालय क) शासक)य राजप भाग-II,खंड-3, उप खंड(ii), मD दनांक

20 दसबर, 1965 क) अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 के तहत .कािशत अिधसूचना मे उपाबL अनुसूिचय1 मD िविनMदN खिनज और

अयPक समूह-।, Qम सं॰ 2 पर िनMदN लौह अयPक को िनयात से पूव िनSिलिखत शतT के अधीन यू मUगलोर पन, करवार पन तथा

बेलेकरी पन, मD उV त खिनज अयP क के िनरीण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के Wप मD मायता देती है, अथात् :

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7537

(i)

यह अिभकरण,खिनज और अयPक समूह-। का िनयात (िनरीण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीण क)

और

(ii)

यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायf के पालन मD िनदेशक (िनरीण और गुणवा िनयंण) िनयात

िनरीण प$रषद -ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत Wप मD दए गए ऐसे िनद\श1 से आबL ह1गी ।

[फा.सं. के-16014/16/2017- िनयात िनरीण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु0 सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017

S.O. 2273.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s SGS India Private Limited , SGS House , Plot

No. R-12 and L-16 , Industrial State , Dam Road , Hospet , Karnataka-583203, as an agency (hereinafter referred to as

the said agency), for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Iron

Ore specified at serial number 2 under Minerals and Ores Group-I, in the Schedule to the notification number S.O.

3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the

20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at New Mangalore Port, Karwar Port and Belekeri

Port subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council

in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores -

Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency in performance of its function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in

writing from time to time.

[F.No. K-16014/16/2017-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 21 िसत बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2274.— केीय सरकार ने पेhोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमD इसके पCात उ0 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क) धारा 3 क) उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क) गई,

भारत सरकार के पेhोिलयम और .ाकृितक गैस मंालय क) अिधसूचना संlया का.आ. 4078(अ) तारीख 14.12.2016 िजसका .काशन

भारत के राजप संlया 2974, भाग II, खJड 3, उप खJड (ii) तारीख16.12.2016 मD कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना मD संलp

अनुसूची मD िविनMदN तेलंगाना राIय के मंडल मिधरा िजला खमम क) भूिम मD, ओडीशा राIय मD पारादीप से तेलंगाना राIय मD

हैदराबाद तक पेhोिलयम उrपाद1 के प$रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप\रेशन िलिमटेड के -ारा Qयािवत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना” के संबंध मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के .योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के िलए अपने

आशय क) घोषणा क) थी:

और उ0 राजप अिधसूचना क) .ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.12.2016 तक उपलbध करा दी गई थv।

और उ0 अिधिनयम क) धारा 6 क) उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मD सम .ािधकारी नD केीय सरकार को अपनी $रपोट दे दी है।

और केीय सरकार ने उ0 $रपोट पर िवचार करने के पCात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ0 भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनw चय कया है:

7538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, केीय सरकार उ0 अिधिनयम क) धारा 6 क) उपधारा (1) -ारा .द शि0य1 का .योग करते 3ए एतद्-ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलp अनुसूिच मD िविनMदN भूिम मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ5जत कया

जाए:

और केीय सरकार उ0 अिधिनयम क) धारा 6 क) उपधारा (4) -ारा .द शि0य1 का .योग करते 3ए, यह िनद\श देती है क

उ0 भूिम मD उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के .काशन क) तारीख से केीय सरकार मD िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम1 से मु0

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप\रेशन िलिमटेड मD िनिहत होगा।

पेhोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क) धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपू5त के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप\रेशन िलिमटेड पूणतयः उरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के िवAL कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी कायवाही नहv हो सकेगी।

vuqlwph

uqlwph

मंडल: मिधरा

िजला : खमम

राIय : तेलंगाना

;ाम का नाम

सव\ नबर

ेफल

हेVटेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

िचलकुA

103

102

101

138

137

136

134

133

123

121/1

121/2

121/3

117

115

116

111/2

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7539

इलुA

वैरा नदी

सड़क

108

107

सड़क

191

190

185

186/1

186/4

7540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

186/2

186/3

183/1

183/21

183/20

183/19

183/18

183/5

183/4

183/3

रायापzनम

234

285

284

328

329

330

331

337

338

340

339

346

सड़क

453

सड़क

390

391

389

392

393

394

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7541

400

402

404

415

410

408

मदुपली

638

[फा. सं. आर-25011/05/2016-ओआर-I(पाट)]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2274.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 2974 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.12.2016 vide S.O. Number

4078 (E) dated 14.12.2016 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) the Central

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandal Madhira, District

Khammam in Telangana State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline

for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana

by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.12.2016.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his

report of 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 the 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

India 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 pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal : Madhira

District : Khammam

State : Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Chilkuru

103

7542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

102

101

138

137

136

134

133

123

121/1

121/2

121/3

117

115

116

111/2

Illuru

Wyra River

Road

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7543

Road

108

107

Road

191

190

185

186/1

186/4

186/2

186/3

183/1

183/21

183/20

183/19

183/18

183/5

183/4

183/3

Rayapatnam

234

285

284

328

329

330

331

337

338

340

7544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

339

346

Road

453

Road

390

391

389

392

393

394

400

402

404

415

410

408

Madupalli

638

[F. No. R-25011/05/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 िसत बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2275

2275

2275.— केीय सरकार ने पेhोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमD इसके पCात उ0 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क) धारा 3 क) उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क) गई,

भारत सरकार के पेhोिलयम और .ाकृितक गैस मंालय क) अिधसूचना संlया का.आ. 4077(अ) तारीख 14.12.2016 िजसका .काशन

भारत के राजप संlया 2974, भाग II, खJड 3, उप-खJड (ii) तारीख 16.12.2016 मD कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना मD संलp

अनुसूची मD िविनMदN तेलंगाना राIय के मंडल येAपालेम िजला खमम क) भूिम मD, ओडीशा राIय मD पारादीप से तेलंगाना राIय मD

आशय क) घोषणा क) थी:

और उ0 राजप अिधसूचना क) .ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.12.2016 तक उपलbध करा दी गई थv।

के िलए अपेित है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनw चय कया है:

जाए:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7545

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप\रेशन िलिमटेड मD िनिहत होगा।

कॉप\रेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के िवAL कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी कायवाही नहv हो सकेगी।

vuqlwph

uqlwph

मंडल: येAपालेम

िजला : खमम

राIय : तेलंगाना

;ाम का नाम

सव\ नबर

ेफल

हेVटेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

केिसरे{ीपिल

सड़क

[फा. सं. आर-25011/05/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2275.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 2974 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.12.2016 vide S.O. Number

4077 (E) dated 14.12.2016 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) the Central

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandal Yerrupalem, District

Khammam in Telangana State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline

for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana

by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.12.2016.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his

report of Central Government.

7546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 the 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

India 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 pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Yerrupalem

District: Khammam

State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kesireddipalli

Road

[F. No. R-25011/05/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7547

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2276-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV]

dsaæh; vk;q/ fMiks] tcyiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@92@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@6@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/CL/R/92/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur and their workman, which were received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-14012/6/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2011

Shri Devi Singh Maravi

S/o Shri Ram Singh Maravi,

H.No.1331, Uday Nagar, No.2, Opposite Sector-II Market,

VFJ Estate, Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Central Ordnance Depot,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of August 2017

As per letter dated 20-9-2011 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-14012/6/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur in removing Shri

Devi Singh Maravi, Ex-Fireman from the services vide order dated 20^th November 2009 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of Ist party is that he was working as Fireman No. 9652437 with 2^nd party. Memo was issued to him dated 26-10-

07 proposing to hold enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules. The charges alleged against workman about absence

from duty during the period 26-12-06 to 16-6-07 – worked for 73 days without permission. That workman shown lack

of devotion, discipline and exhibited conduct unbecoming on part of Government Servant in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii)

7548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of CCS Conduct rules. Workman submits he was sick and was receiving treatment during above said period.

Consequently he was absent from duty without prior permission that he belongs to SC community. He was ignorant

about instructions contained in part I No. 1839 dated 19-12-92. That A.R.Bhakta was appointed as Enquiry Officer

and OOC Francis Tete as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was conducted on various dates. After reading articles of

chargesheet, Enquiry Officer asked delinquent he feels guilty of charge. On the basis of his statement, Enquiry Officer

concluded the enquiry. It is reiterated that the Enquiry Officer concluded his findings without examining any

documents or witnesses produced by Presenting Officer. That Enquiry Report is given in short manner cannot be

sustained. That on the basis of findings of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority held him guilty of charges.

Punishment of removal is imposed. That workman was not given reasonable opportunity for his defence. Enquiry was

empty formality, any documents were not exhibited during enquiry proceedings. Workman was dismissed on 20-11-09.

Appeal preferred by workman on 27-1-2010. Appellate Authority did not consider the deficiencies. Punishment of

dismissal imposed against him is disproportionate. Appellate Authority rejected appeal. In reply to showcause notice,

workman had pleaded about his sudden illness from Hepatitis. He was unable to attend duty. Workman submitted

medical certificate of Dr.A.L.Gupta from said Govinda Government Hospital, Jabalpur. Enquiry Officer wrongly

concluded his findings on admission of the confession. Enquiry Officer not followed Rule 14 CCS CCA pertaining to

production of documents, inspection of documents and production of witnesses of prosecution. No opportunity was

given to explain the circumstances against delinquent employee. Enquiry Officer did not record verdict about genuiness

of medical certificate produced by workman. On such ground, workman submits that punishment of dismissal is illegal.

Workman prays that the punishment of dismissal is excessive. On such ground, workman prays for setting aside order

of removal/dismissal and reinstate with full backwages.

2^nd party filed Written statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that the workman was absent

from duty from 26-12-06 to 16-6-07- 173 days without prior permission. He failed to submit application for leave

within 3 days as per leave rule of 1972 and date 18-12-1992. Showcause notice was issued to workman on 19-6-07. In

reply to showcause notice, workman contented that he had gone home to see his family secondly he had suffered

mental problem. The explanation was not accepted. Enquiry was conducted against workman for major penalty. Shri

A.R.Bhakta was appointed as Enquiry Officer and OOC Francis Tete as Presenting Officer. Notice was issued in daily

Dainik Bhaskar on 31-1-08. All postal correspondence were received back. That workman had stated before Enquiry

Officer that he was suffering from Hepatitis. He refused to defend case by anyone. That workman was terminated after

issuing chargesheet and holding disciplinary action. Workman absented from duty. Enquiry Officer forwarded his

report on 17-8-09. Punishment of removal from service was imposed on 20-11-09. It is reiterated that the workman had

not submitted leave application. Punishment imposed against him is proper considering the gravity of proved

misconduct for absence of 173 days. On such ground, 2^nd party prays reference be answered in its favour.

As per order dated 15-5-17, enquiry conducted against workman is found vitiated. Management has not pleaded

permission to prove misconduct. Case was fixed for argument.

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:-

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman of unauthorised absence for 173 days is

proved by respondents?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the punishment of removal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order

REASONS

Point No.1,2- As per order dated 15-5-2017, enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal. 2^nd party

management has not sought permission to prove misconduct. The record indicates that the 2^nd party has not properly

participated in reference proceeding. As enquiry against workman is vitiated, evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot

be considered. When charges are not proved by independent evidence, punishment of removal imposed against

workman is rendered illegal. The argument submitted by counsel for 2^nd party is only reproduction of pleadings in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7549

Written Statement. When charge of unauthorized absence is not proved, punishment of dismissal imposed against

workman deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur in removing Shri Devi

Singh Maravi, Ex-Fireman from the services vide order dated 20^th November 2009 is not legal and

proper.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service with full backwages.

(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.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2277-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;

egkizca/d] nwjlapkj foHkkx] eè; izns'k l£dy] Hkksiky o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@97@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@79@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/CL/R/97/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal and others and their workman,

which were received by the Central Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-40012/79/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/97/2000

Shri Deepchand Sharma S/ Shri H.N.Sharma

Vill Baisana,

Tehsil Narsingarh,

Raigarh (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Telecom District Engineer,

Rajgarh, At Biaora,

Rahgarh (MP)

…Management

7550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 31-5-00 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-

40012/79/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of

Shri Deepchand Sharma S/o Shri H.N.Sharma w.e.f. 4-7-96 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

page 2/1 to 2/4. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed in May 1993 in Telecom Deptt. As casual labour

in different telephone exchange under control of Sub-Divisional Officer, Biaora, Distt Rajgarh. He was working to the

satisfaction of his superiors. His service record was unblemished. He was continuously working till 4-7-96. He

completed more than 240 days continuous service during each of the year. His services were not regularized by the

department. His services were dispensed on 4-7-96 without following statutory provisions. The act of management was

discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. That he was posted at Narsingarh Sub-

Division. He was entrusted with duty of maintaining trunk line listing, recording register and battery register. He was

engaged for permanent nature of work on vacant post. Termination of his service without reasons is unfair labour

practice. That services should have been regularized as he has worked continuously more than 5 years. His termination

without following statutory provisions amounts to illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25 of ID Act. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that as per record available in

SDO(T) Biaora office. Workman as never engaged by the management. his claim fo regularization is baseless and

fabricated. Workman as engaged as casual labour for specific work and specific period. Work is finished, his services

were automatically discontinued. There is no question of giving one months notice or paying retrenchment

compensation. Workman not completed more than 240 days continuous service during any calendar year. That

reference be decided in favour of the management.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Deepchand Sharma S/o Shri

H.N.Sharma w.e.f. 4-7-96 is justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman Deepchand

Sharma. Workman had filed application for production of documents on 13-7-07. Management filed reply to said

application contending that workman may be directed to furnish exact dates of working with the management so

management may be in position to answer subject to the working of the workman. Management was directed to file

affidavit, however no such affidavit was filed. Counsel for management on 23-4-2010 submitted that he has not to file

any documents. Case was then fixed for evidence of workman.

Management without filing affidavit not produced documents requested by the workman. In factual matrix,

evidence adduced by parties deserves to be considered.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He stated that he was working as casual labour from July 93 to April

96 in Telecom Deptt. He had completed 240 days continuous service during each of the year. His services were

terminated without notice. He is unemployed. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25 of ID Act.

Seniority list was not prepared. Any chargesheet was not served to him. In his cross-examination, workman says post

was not advertised, his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. His oral interview was taken,

appointment letter was not given to him. He was doing work of trunk line , token testing, battery reading he was not

given training for such work. He was paid wages for the days he had worked. Workman admits he was called for work

when work was available. He denies that he not worked for more than 240 days. The tenure of cross-examination is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7551

clear that workman was working with 2^nd party. The controversy whether workman had completed 240 days continuous

service workman as engaged as casual labour, no rules are pointed out for engagement of casual labours.

Management filed affidavit of Shri Shailendra. His affidavit is devoted on the point workman as never engaged

whereas in Written statement filed by management, it is pleaded that workman was engaged as casual labour. Affidavit

of witness of management is inconsistent with the pleadings in Written Statement and therefore cannot be relied.

Evidence of workman is not shattered that he was not continuously working. When he was called for work, documents

must be with the management. management has not produced documents despite application for production of

documents. It is clear that the management is with holding the material documents. Therefore evidence of workman

deserves to be accepted. Services of Ist party are terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation is not paid to

him. Therefore termination of services of workman is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Evidence of workman is clear that he

worked from May 93 to July 96 for about 3 years and 2 months long back in 1996. Considering the period of working,

in my considered view, compensation Rs.60,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Deepchand Sharma S/o Shri H.N.Sharma w.e.f. 4-7-96 is not proper and legal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.60,000/- to the workman.

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.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2278-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy

bathfu;j] vkWfIVdy iQkbcj izHkkx] gks'kaxkckn jksM] Hkksiky ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@137@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@95@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/137/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Divisional Engineer, Optical Fibre Division, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal and their workman, which were received

by the Central Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-40012/95/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/137/2002

Shri Gopal Singh,

S/o Shri Prabhulal

R/o Vill Badi Gorwar,

PO Bawsar (Jagir),

Tehsil Ishagarh, Distt. Guna

…Workman

Versus

7552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Divisional Engineer,

Optical Fibre Division,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21^st day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 8-10-2002 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-

40012/95/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer, Optical Fibre Division, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Gopal Singh S/o Shri Prabhulal w.e.f. 22-6-89 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim.

Case of Ist party is that he was appointed on 1-8-87. He was engaged in Sheopuri – Gwalior, Guna- Sheopuri in Co-

axial cable project of Telecom Department. He was employed on daily wages. Identity card was issued to him. He was

continuously working from 1-8-87 till 22-6-89. His services were orally terminated by Shri M.M.Singh Jr.Telecom

Officer. That he had worked more than 240 days preceding termination of his service. His services were terminated

without paying retrenchment compensation, one months notice or salary in lieu of notice was not paid to him before

terminating his services. That oral termination of his service is unfair labour practice.

That he had filed case in MP High Court subsequently CAT Jabalpur. It was held that as workman was claiming

relief as daily wager CAT Jabalpur has no jurisdiction. Subsequently the dispute was raised before ALC. The matter

was not settled in conciliation and dispute is referred. Workman reiterates his services are terminated in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act. After termination of his service, he is unemployed. After his termination, new employees Shiv

Charan, Babu Singh, Baijnath Singh, Parmal Singh, Ramesh Chandra, Pratap and many others were engaged. He was

not reemployed by the management. Termination of his service is violative of Article 14 of the constitution. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

After setting aside exparte order, it appears Written Statement is filed by management. 2^nd party has pleaded that

workman was engaged as daily rate employee on 1-8-87. Workman had left work without informing the management.

He had not reported back for duty neither collected payment for the work done by him. That in first spell from 1-8-87

to 31-3-88, workman had worked for 184 days, in 2^nd spell from 1-10-88 to 30-4-89- workman worked for 221 days.

Subsequently workman worked till 22-6-89. There was no question of terminating his services. Workman had not

completed 240 days continuous service. There was no question of paying retrenchment compensation as workman

himself left service on 30-4-89. Workman himself left service. There is no question of his reinstatement. Dispute is

raised after 17 years is not tenable. Claim of workman deserves to be rejected.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Engineer, Optical Fibre Division, Bhopal

in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Singh S/o

Shri Prabhulal w.e.f. 22-6-89 is justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence. Workman in his affidavit of evidence states that he was appointed on 1-8-87. He was engaged at Sheopuri-

Gwalior, Guna- Sheopuri section of Telecom Department in co-axial cable project. In Para-4&5 of his affidavit,

workman has shown his working days. His working days are shown till 30-4-89. In his cross-examination, workman

says he has studied 8^th standard, the post he was engaged was advertised in newspaper. He was given appointment

letter. He was doing work of digging channels. He denies that whenever work was available, he was engaged.

Workman reiterates that he was continuously working. He denies that he left work himself. He denies that he

completed 240 days continuous service.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7553

Workman has produced copy of service card. Working days are already shown in Para 4& 5 of his affidavit. If

the date of termination is pleaded in statement of claim and evidence of workman is accepted 22-6-89, his working

days during preceding 12 months comes to 220 days. Workman has not completed 240 days continuous service

preceding 12 months of his termination prior to 22-6-89.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Meharban Singh. However the witness remained absent for

his cross examination. His evidence could not be considered.

Besides above, the dispute is raised after 17 years. Legal position is rather settled that dispute raised after such

long delay is not tenable. Workman has also failed to prove 240 days continuous service.

10.

Advocate Rajnish Gupta for workman relies on ratio held in case between

Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another reported in 2015(4)SCC-458. For violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act, relief for reinstatement with full backwages was allowed as in present case, workman has not completed 240

days continuous service, violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is not established.

Therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at my hand. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional Engineer, Optical Fibre Division, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Gopal Singh S/o Shri Prabhulal w.e.f. 22-6-89 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2279-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] [kefj;k] tcyiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@

61@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@74@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/61/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and their workman, which were received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-14012/74/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2003

Shri Ayodhya Prasad,

H.No.1891, Baldi Kori di Dafai,

Banskar Mohalla, East Karriyapathar,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

…Management

7554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 25-3-03 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-

14012/74/2002/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Khamaria, Jabalpur in awarding the punishment of

compulsorily retirement on the basis of chargesheet dated 29-1-2000 on Shri Ayodhya Prasad

Ex.T.No.Y&E/80/62841 w.e.f. 18-9-2000 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 3/2 to

3/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed on 10-2-82. He worked with devotion. He was sick during the

period May 88 to July 2001. In initial stage of his sickness, family members considered he was under influence under

superstitious power. He was provided treatment from Tantrik. That he belongs to backward class. The treatment from

pandas, ojhas and tantric was continued and workman got relief. Such treatment was continued during 1988 to July

2001. During above said period, he was not in his full senses. Thereafter he had approached management vide letter

dated 0-7-01 and requested to supply documents w.r.t. disciplinary action taken against him. Arguments were supplied

to him as per letter dated 7-8-01. Documents supplied included chargesheet, proceedings of enquiry order of

punishment. He was compulsorily retired. Workman further submits he had not received chargesheet, notice of

enquiry. He had challenged order of punishment filing appeal on 9-10-01. However Appellate Authority not decided

his appeal. Workman reiterates that enquiry was not conducted as per CCA CCS Rules 1965. Chargesheet was not

served on him. Notices of enquiry were not served on him. He was not allowed for his defence. The punishment

imposed against him without application of mind is severe. On such ground, Ist party workman prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 7/1 to 7/8. 2^nd party management submits

that workman was employed as carpenter in Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. Complaints dated 20-12-98, 4-12-99 were

received. Chargesheet was issued to workman under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules. Ist party workman had absented from

duty from 3-6-90 to 25-12-98 without any leave or notice. It amounted to gross misconduct. Letters were sent by

RPAD on his address mentioned in service book was received back undelivered. After issuing chargesheet dated 19-4-

00, Shri R.M.Recriwal was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri Guljar Singh as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was

conducted on 16-5-00, 29-5-00, 15-6-00, 16-6-00. Statements of management’s witnesses were recorded. Enquiry was

conducted in absence of workman. Defence counsel was also not present in enquiry. Enquiry was conducted exparte.

Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 6-6-00 holding workman guilty of the charges. Enquiry Report was sent by

registered post on his address. Disciplinary Authority considering the report of Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of

compulsory retirement as per the rules.

Management further submits that absenteeism of employees erodes the very potentiality, credibility and

productivity of any company or establishment. Punishment imposed by management is proper and legal. In parawise

reply, it is reiterated that the workman was unauthorisely absent during 3-6-98 to 21-12-98. After conducting enquiry,

charges were found proved by Enquiry Officer. Punishment of compulsory retirement is proper. 2^nd party management

prays for rejection of claim.

Workman filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim. He further submitted that registered

notice sent by management were never received by him. Punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed on report by

Enquiry Officer that enquiry was conducted exparte. He did not get opportunity for his defence. Punishment is harsh.

As per order dated 8-8-13, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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:-

(i) Whether the charge of unauthorized absence of

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of compulsory

retirement against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7555

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against workman.

Chargesheet was issued to workman for unauthorized absence from 3-6-98 to 25-12-98. The chargesheet is produced

along with record of enquiry at Page 7. As the order on preliminary issue is found legal, said order is not challenged,

the order is binding. Statement of management’s witness Shri N.M.Sheikh shows workman was absent from duty from

3-6-98. Any application for leave was not received from workman. After 28-2-98, workman had not attended duty.

Statement of management witness Vishram corroborates evidence of witness No.1 that workman was absent from duty

from 3-6-98 to 25-12-98. Enquiry Report is submitted at Page 23 holding workman guilty. Findings of Enquiry Officer

are supported by evidence of management’s witnesses as discussed above. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Vijay

Tripathi submits during course of argument, notices were sent to workman on incomplete address. Notices were not

sent on his residential address, those argument can not be considered at this stage as the enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal vide order dated 8-8-13.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212. Their Lordship

dealing with scope of judicial review in the matter of services and departmental enquiry held that evidence considered

by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority- reappreciation is impermissible.

Reliance is also placed on ratio held in case between Commissioner of Police versus Jayasurian and another

reported in 1997(6)SCC-75. Their Lordship dealing with Enquiry Report and alleged inconsistency and unreliable

evidence held that there was no infirmity in approach of the competent authority in appreciation of evidence adduced in

the enquiry. The Tribual in exercise of power of judicial review was not justified in interfering with the finding of

competent authority.

In case of State of Tamil Nadu versus Thiru K.V.Perumal and others reported in 1996(5)SCC-474. Their

Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review held question as to whether charges were established on the material

available is beyond the scope of judicial review.

10.

Evidence of management’s witness proves charge of unauthorized absence against workman. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11.

Point No.2- In chargesheet, workman was shown absent from duty during the period 3-6-98 to 25-12-98 , 1-1-99

till date of chargesheet 21-1-2000. Charges alleged against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Period of absence is more than 2 years. The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against workman cannot be

said disproportionate. I hold that no interference is required in punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on

workman.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of General Manager, Khamaria, Jabalpur in awarding the punishment of

compulsorily retirement on the basis of chargesheet dated 29-1-2000 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2280-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;

egkizca/d] nwjlapkj foHkkx] eè; izns'k l£dy] Hkksiky ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@ vkj@36@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@300@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/36/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

7556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal and their workman, which were

received by the Central Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-40012/300/99-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2000

Shri Sattar Khan

S/o Yusuf Khan

Vill Akodia,

Shajapur Distt.

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal(MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 27-1-2000 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-40012/300/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Sattar Khan S/o Shri Yusuf Khan w.e.f. 4-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is filed at Page 4. Case of

workman is that he was in continuous services of 2^nd party DET, Shajapur. He worked continuously more than 240

days preceding termination of his services. He was not paid retrenchment compensation prior to the termination of his

service. 2^nd party management not obtained prior permission for his retrenchment as per Rule-74. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party contends that workman was not

appointed as casual labour during 1988. Workman was not working in sub division. There was no question of paying

allowance on regularization of his service. That workman never worked in the Division. There was no question of

termination of his service. That no question arise for terminating services of workman in violation of Section 25-F of

ID Act. Workman had not worked more than 240 days in any calendar years. There was no question of paying

retrenchment compensation to him. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom in terminating the

services of Shri Sattar Khan S/o Shri Yusuf Khan

w.e.f. 4-3-99 is legal and justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his

evidence claiming that he was working in the department from 2-1-87 to 1999 at SDO(T) Sujalpur. Management has

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7557

framed scheme giving temporary status to casual employees working during 30-3-85 to 22-6-88. That his services were

terminated in February 99 without giving benefit of the scheme. In his cross examination, workman says he has studied

Vth standard, post was not advertised. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange, appointment letter

was not received by him. He denies that he did not work in the department. He denied that affidavit of his evidence is

false.

Management’s witness Shri S.D.Kulkarni filed affidavit of his evidence. Witness of the management has stated

that claim of workman for regularization is prevalous and not tenable. Workman is not entitled for regularization.

Affidavit is filed in complete contravention of the terms of reference. Term of reference pertains to termination and not

regularization. Evidence of management’s witness is absolutely not supporting claim of workman. Workman had filed

application for production of documents on 26-3-03.

Management’s witness Diwkar Jain filed affidavit that workman was never engaged. Therefore filing of

application for production of documents cannot help claim of workman. Evidence of workman cannot establish that he

was working more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. Workman is not entitled to protection of

Section 25-F of ID Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Shri

Sattar Khan S/o Shri Yusuf Khan w.e.f. 4-3-99 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;

egkizca/d] nwjlapkj foHkkx] eè; izns'k l£dy] Hkksiky ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@338@99) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@277@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/338/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, MP Circle, Bhopal and their workman, which were

received by the Central Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-40012/277/99-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/338/99

Shri Lalsingh S/o Shri Padamsingh,

Vill Nenavath,

Tehsil Tarana,

Distt. Ujjain

…Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle, Bhopal (MP)

…Management

7558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 19-11-99 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-40012/277/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecom and their workman Shri Lalsingh

S/o Padam Singh w.e.f. 26-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 16.

Case of workman is that he was employed as casual mazdoor against clear vacancy in 2^nd party, BSNL during January

1983 to March 1990. His services were terminated violating due process of law. His termination amounts to

retrenchment. He was not paid retrenchment compensation prior to termination of his services. Principle enumerated

under Section 25 G,H of ID Act were not followed. Workman was not given benefit of temporary status as per scheme

available in the industry. That junior employees were retained in service. Workman was terminated. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party reiterates workman was not engaged or

appointed as casual labour from 1987. It is denied that he was working in the sub division. No question of paying

allowance arise as workman was not engaged. There is no question of his regularization. Workman not worked for 240

days in any calendar year. His termination does not arise, payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise.

2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager Telecom and their workman Shri

Lalsingh S/o Padam Singh w.e.f. 26-3-99 is legal

and justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

The term of reference is not clear whether it pertains to denial of regularization or termination of services of

workman. Considering pleadings between parties, it appears that term of reference pertains to termination of workman.

Affidavit of evidence is filed by workman. Workman has stated that he was continuously working in the department

from March 1987 to March 1999. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not

paid to him. In his cross examination, workman says he signed on affidavit of his evidence on say of his counsel. He

claims ignorance what is written in affidavit of evidence. He was not given appointment letter. His oral or written test

was not conducted. He denies that he was not working in BSNL.

Evidence of management’s witness Shri H.D.Kulkarni is filed supporting contentions in Written Statement that

workman was never engaged. He did not work more than 240 days during any of the year. Cross examination of

management’s witness shows he had seen record in SDO office of period 1983 to 1990. Record of 700-800 employees

were checked by him. He did not find record of workman. Evidence of workman is not corroborated by any documents,

any co-worker is not examined. Workman has failed to establish more than 240 days continuous working. 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.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecom and their workman Shri Lalsingh S/o

Padam Singh w.e.f. 26-3-99 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7559

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] [kefj;k] tcyiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@

55@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@72@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/55/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and their workman, which were received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-14012/72/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2001

Shri Sunil Kumar Shrivastava,

General Secretary, Ordnance Labour Union,

Khamaria, 10/2, Hospital Quarters,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory, Khamaria,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 28^th day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 9-2-2001 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-14012/72/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in compulsory retiring

Shri Bharat Kumar, MS/299/Yard w.e.f. 19-11-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as male sweeper with 2^nd party management. His

service record was unblemished. Chargesheet was issued to him on 6-2-95 under of CCS CCA-Rule 14. Charges

alleged against him were availing leave in afternoon without prior sanction ad unauthorized entry in office of Assistant

Foreman and misbehaving, abusing with sr.staff, consuming alcohol on duty hours and act unbecoming on behalf of

Government servant. Ist party workman submits that he has not committed alleged misconduct. On 30-4-94, he had

applied for half day leave. For said purpose, he had gone to Y & E Section for submitting application. That Mr.

Gangopadhyay misbehaved with him. He was abused in filthy language. Workman explained that he had come for

leave application and he has right for going office for official work. That Mr. Gangopadhyay attached him with grass

cutter causing injury to him. He reported said incident to police. Shri Gangopadhyay and J.P.Agrawal were prosecuted

on chargesheet for offence under Section 294, 324 IPC. Both were convicted in criminal case No. 738/94 by Judicial

Magistrate C.P.Verma. workman reiterates that Gangopadhyay had assaulted him. Instead of taking action against

Gangopadhyay, chargesheet was issued to him on false complaint. He submitted reply to chargesheet denying charges

7560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged against him. Enquiry was conducted against him and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.

Appeal preferred by him was rejected. That chargeheet issued to him was vague. Specific misconduct was not alleged

against him. Enquiry was not conducted following principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer asked leading question

to the witness of the prosecution. He was not allowed co-worker of a choice. Cross examination of management’s

witness was not allowed. Statements of management’s witnesses before Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him. It is

reiterated that he was not given full opportunity for his defence. He could not examine witnesses of his defence. It is

submitted that punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against him is illegal. Charges are not proved. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/13 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits

that it is engaged in production of amination for armed forces as such discharged sovereign functions of the

Government, it is not covered as industry in view of Bangalore Water Supply case. Management submits that

chargesheet was issued to Ist party workman under Rule 14 of CCS CCA. Charge against workman was on 30-4-94, he

had entered E&Y Section. He misbehaved with Gangopadhyay, manhandled him, abused in filthy language. After

message was received on telephone, security persons rush to the place and recorded statements. GRC Panikar,

O.P.Yadav, Nair , R.S.Tiwari had assembled at the place of occurrence. Gangopadhyah had narrated details of the

incident. Shri S.C.Khanojia was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Bhattacharya was Presenting Office. Enquiry was

conducted on various dates, details given in para 13 of the Written Statement. Enquiry Officer submitted his report

holding that charges against workman were proved. Considering the report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of

compulsory retirement was imposed. Appeal preferred by workman was rejected. It is denied that enquiry was

conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, it is denied that workman was not allowed opportunity for his

defence. It is also denied that management’s witnesses were not allowed to be cross examined. 2^nd party management

reiterates that for proved charges of serious nature, punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against workman is

proper and legal. Workman is not entitled to any relief.

Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 23-7-5, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal.

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:-

(i) Whether the charges alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

Charge No.2,4 & 5 are proved against workman.

(ii) Whether the punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed against workman is proper and

legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 23-7-15, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal. Question

remains for consideration whether charges alleged against workman are proved. Said point needs to be decided on the

basis of evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charge No. 1 availing leave in afternoon without prior sanction. Availing

leave in the afternoon doesnot contemplate prior sanction and rule is brought to my notice that such act can constitute

misconduct. Though leave is not a right but submitting leave application cannot be said misconduct. So far as the main

charge pertains to workman entering in drunken condition in E&Y office, abusing assaulting. Statement of

management’s witness Israr Ahmed is that he was on duty in Yard. Workman had come to office and asked for leave

form. When he was giving leave form, Gangopadhyay said how workman entered office without his permission. When

Gangopadhyay tried to call security giving call on telephone, Ist party workman had abused him in name of his mother,

sister, manhandled him and left the office. Statement of Israr Ahmed is silent about drunken condition of workman.

Management’s witness Gangopadhyay had fully supported management about the incident. His evidence is

corroborated by witness J.P.Agrawal. Workman had abused in filthy language and also pulled down Gangopadhyay

and left the office. Statement of J.P.Agrawal is silent about drunken condition of workman. Statement of

Gangopadhyay is not clear that workman had entered office in drunken conditions. His statement is devoted only on

the point workman had entered office concealing his presence. He was abused and manhandled. Charge of drunkness

cannot be established from evidence of Enquiry Proceedings. As such Charge No.1 & 3 cannot be proved from

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7561

evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Charge of unauthorized entry and misbehaving with the superior officers, mandling

and act unbecoming of Government Servant are established from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Ist party has also produced copy of judgment in criminal case. Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal and Ashok

Gangopadhyay were convicted for offence under Section 294, 324, 323 IPC and sentenced to six months fine. During

course of argument, it was however submitted that both of them were acquitted by Hon’ble High Court. The convection

of J.P.Agrawal and Ashok Gangopadhyay cannot be ground for exonerating workman in present case. For the reasons

discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 that all charges except Charge No.1 & 3 are proved.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 that all charges except Charge No.1 & 3 are proved, question

remains for decision whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against workman is proved. The

proved charge against Ist party workman pertains to abusing superior officer in filthy language, pulling him,

manhandling him is certainly serious misconduct.

10.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management on the point relies on ratio held in case between-

West Bokaro Colliery versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220(SC). Their Lordship dealing with

Section 11-A of ID Act Industrial Tribunal setting aside dismissal of workman, interference by Tribunal with findings

in domestic enquiry not warranted. Standard of proof in departmental proceedings different from that in criminal case.

In present case from evidence on record, Charge No. 2, 4 & 5 are proved. Charge No. & 3 are not proved,

punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said shockingly disproportionate. Considering the evidence on record,

I donot find reason to interfere in the punishment of compulsory retirement, Point No.2 is answered in Affirmative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in compulsory retiring

Shri Bharat Kumar, MS/299/Yard w.e.f. 19-11-99 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] [kefj;k] tcyiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@

56@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@73@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/56/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and their workman, which were received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-14012/73/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/2003

Shri Emmanual,

Ex.T.No.ME/03/65056, Ranital,

Sarwodya Nagar,

Marghatia Road, PO Gandhiganj,

Jabalpur

…Workman

7562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of July, 2017

As per letter dated 21-3-03 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-14012/73/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur in awarding the punishment

of compulsory retirement on the basis of chargesheet dated 29-5-2001 on Shri Emmanual T.No.ME/03/65056

w.e.f. 18-1-2002 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 7 to 11. Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as labour in Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. He was

suffering from illness during 1995 to May 2001. He was receiving treatment from Doctors for his illness. He had

informed management about his illness along with medical certificates. Management had sent him for medical

examination by Principal, Medical Officer of the factory. Chargesheet was issued to him on 7-5-99 for unauthorized

absence for the period 18-1-99 to 29-3-99. On 17-8-99, he had submitted representation requesting certain documents

for filing reply to chargesheet. Workman had explained compelling reasons for his absence from duty and requested to

drop charges against him. That his mental condition was not proper, he was not in position to defend effectively.

Enquiry Officer conducted exparte enquiry. That he was not given opportunity to cross examine witnesses of

prosecution. He was not allowed opportunity to examine defence witnesses. He was not informed for submitting

defence. Enquiry Report was received by him along with letter dated 10-4-2001. In his reply, workman had reiterated

that he was mentally disturbed and unable to defend himself. That punishment of compulsory retirement imposed

against him without considering his defence. That appeal preferred by him was not decided by the authority. Enquiry

Officer recorded his report ipse-dixit. Workman reiterates that he was not given opportunity for his defence.

Punishment imposed against him is extremely harsh and disproportionate. On such ground, he prays for his

reinstatement with backwages.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that workman was issued

chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS CCA rules for unauthorized absence from 18-1-99 to 29-3-99. Workman was

alleged to be habitual absentee. The act on part of workman is unbecoming. Names of witnesses were given in the

chargesheet itself. That punishment of stoppage of increment for one year was imposed against workman for

unauthorised absence in 1996. Workman was warned for unauthorized absence in the year 1995. That workman did not

submit reply to chargesheet. Shri R.B.Tripathi was appointed Enquiry Officer, Shri A.K.Choudhary was appointed as

Presenting Officer. Workman and his Defence Assistant not participated in the enquiry. Despite repeated opportunities

given to them, enquiry was proceeded exparte. Enquiry was held on various dates, details given in Para-6 of the Written

Statement. Management’s witness examined witnesses Shri T.R.Singh and Shri S.S.Kapoor. documentary evidence was

produced. Charges against workman are proved. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charges against workman

are proved. Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of compulsory

retirement. The appeal preferred by workman dated 14-7-01 was forwarded to Appellate Authority. Workman had

taken ground in appeal that he was not allowed opportunity for defence. The copies of Enquiry Proceedings were not

supplied to him. Management reiterate that workman was given opportunity but he did not participate. Principles of

natural justice were followed. Considering gravity of proved charges, punishment of compulsory retirement is proper.

Above contentions are reiterated in parawise reply given in the Written Statement. That copy of Enquiry Report was

forwarded to workman. He submitted his reply to Enquiry Report and explained that due to sickness he could not

attend his duty. Workman did not cooperate in Enquiry Proceedings. The Appellate Authority found appeal without

merit, any procedural irregularity was not committed. Appeal was rejected on 29-7-02. 2^nd party submits that workman

is not entitled to any relief.

Ist party workman filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 16-2-2017, enquiry held against workman is found legal and proper.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7563

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:-

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

Only charge No.1 is proved.

(ii) Whether the punishment of compulsory

retirement imposed against workman is proper and

legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 16-2-2017. Whether charges

of unauthorized and habitual absence against workman are proved or not needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. Exhibit M-7 is Enquiry Report finds clear reference of charges against workman for absence from 18-1-

98 to 29-3-99. That workman was found habitual absent. Evidence of management’s witness T.R.Singh in enquiry is

clear that workman was absent from 18-1-99 to 30-3-99. In Attendance Register, endorsement in Letter “B” was made

for the period 18-1-99 to 3-4-99 meaning that workman was absent without intimation. for the period 1-2-99 to 29-3-

99, endorsement in Attendance Register was made “D” mentioning workman was absent without prior intimation.

witness of management was cross examined by Defence Assistant. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says that he sent report about the absence of workman to vigilance. Workman in his further cross examination says his

report is in the section, he had not brought with him. copy of muster roll was produced in enquiry dated 9-3-00.

Witness of management was not further cross examined. Witness No.2 S.S.Kapoor examined in enquiry says that

workman had not given intimation about his absence from duty during the period 18-1-99 to 29-3-99. Any such

intimation was not received by post. Management witness produced report Form No.43 regarding absence of the

workman. The evidence on record proved Charge No.1. management has not produced documents about earlier

absence of workman and punishment against him as pleaded in Written Statement. Therefore Charge No.2 alleged

against workman is not proved.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Charge No.1 is proved against workman, Charge No.2

pertaining to habitual absence is not proved. Question remains for consideration is whether punishment of compulsory

retirement against workman is proper nd legal. The proved unauthorized absence is for about one year and 2 months

which cannot be said a short period. Workman had died during pendency of reference. Shri R.K.Soni for deceased

workman submits that LRs of deceased workman are not brought on record, unauthorized absence is for short period.

There is no evidence of punishment for previous absent. Punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh, punishment be

modified to imposing punishment withholding 2-3 increments.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management reiterates that the workman was habitual absent. Punishment of compulsory

retirement doesnot call for interference. Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

State Bank of India and others versus Narendra Kumar Pandey reported in 2013(2)SCC-740. Their Lordship

held the dismissal order passed by Enquiring Authority after full fledged enquiry in compliance with Service rules,

where charges against delinquent officer were found to be proved was justified. High Court erred in interfering with

dismissal.

As facts of present case are not comparable, ratio cannot be applied to case at hand. Workman is dead.

Considering period of long absence, I donot find appropriate to interfere in the punishment of compulsory retirement.

Even punishment of withholding increments if imposed, as workman is dead, such punishment cannot be implemented

therefore I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur in awarding the punishment of

compulsory retirement on the basis of chargesheet dated 29-5-2001 on Shri Emmanual

T.No.ME/03/65056 w.e.f. 18-1-2002 is legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

7564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;

vf/dkjh] iksLV vf/dkjh] jk;x<+ fMfotuy] jk;x<+] Nrhlx<+ ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@102@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@11@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/102/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Chief Superintendent of Post Offices, Raigarh Divisional, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh and their workman, which were

received by the Central Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-40011/11/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/102/2012

Shri R.D.Haripriya Divisional Secretary,

National Union of Postal Employees Group “C”,

Chhattisgarh Raigarh Division, Head Post Office,

Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief Superintendent of Post Offices,

Raigarh Divisional,

Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 9-10-12 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-40011/11/2012-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of the Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur (CG) &

the Chief Superintendent of Post Offices, Raigarh Divisional Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) in engaging and

continuing of Shri Subhash Singh Malakar as Driver on daily wage basis for the years together (i.e. 28-7-93

onwards till date) and depriving him of the status and privilege of permanent employee is legal proper and

justified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to and from which date?”

After issuing reference notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim. Case of Ist

party workman is that he was appointed as daily wage worker from 28-7-73 in clear vacant post. He is continuously

working as inspection jeep. He holds valid licence for heavy vehicles. He possess requisite qualification for post of

Driver. He is satisfactorily working since his engagement. Though he is doing work of regular nature, he deprived

benefits of regular employee. On such ground, workman prays for regularization of his services.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that one post of driver is

sanctioned for office of Suptd., Post Office, Po Raigarh for inspection vehicle. One Tribhuwan Singh was working as

jeep driver who was compulsority retired on 7-4-95. After his retirement, the post is lying vacant. The inspection

vehicle is being driven by outsider jeep driver on daily wages. Workman Subhash Malkar has been working on outsider

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7565

jeep driver on daily wages in said vacant post. Daily wages as per minimum rates fixed and admissible DA is paid to

the workman. That he doesnot fulfill eligibility norms prescribed by the department. Workman holds valid licence for

light four wheeler vehicles but he doesnot fulfill eligibility for post of Driver. The dispute was raised before ALC has

been referred to this Tribunal. Above contentions are reiterated in parawise reply also that the workman was working

as outside jeep driver on daily wage basis. He holds valid driving licence. That he fulfills requirement of educational

qualifications but has crossed prescribed age limit. Workman is working on daily wage basis temporarily. Recruitment

to the post to be made following instructions received from the department. Workman’s name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. Workman is not fulfilling criteria of upper age limit. On such ground, 2^nd party prays

that claim of workman cannot be accepted.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of the

Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle,

Raipur (CG) & the Chief Superintendent of Post

Offices, Raigarh Divisional Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh

(CG) in engaging and continuing of Shri Subhash

Singh Malakar as Driver on daily wage basis for the

years together (i.e. 28-7-93 onwards till date) and

depriving him of the status and privilege of

permanent employee is legal proper and justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of denial of regular status of workman. Workman has filed

affidavit of his evidence supporting his claim that he was appointed in vacant post on daily wages on 28-7-93. That

during course of his services, his juniors were regularized, he was left out. That his services were orally terminated on

13-5-13 during pendency of reference. That he was continuously working since his initial appointment till termination

of his service. In his cross, workman says his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange., he was paid for

his actual working days. He was engaged as per exigency of work.

Management’s witness Shri D.K.Panda filed affidavit of his evidence. Management’s witness in his affidavit

also says one post of jeep driver for inspection vehicle is sanctioned. That after compulsory retirement of Tribhuwan

Singh, said jeep is driver by outsider on daily wages. Workman Subhash Malkar is engaged as outsider on daily wages

when ever his services were required, his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. That workman

holds driving licence but he doesnot fulfill eligibility for appointment to the post. That workman not completed 240

days continuous service. He was called for working on daily wages but not appointed as regular drivers. In his cross,

management’s witness says he is working in office of Supt of Post from 14-2-2017. He claims ignorance that workman

was working as Driver in said office from 1993. Post of driver was lying vacant. He claims ignorance about

appointment made in the department on 14-2-17. He has not seen service record of the workman.

Documents produced by Ist party Exhibit W-1 experience certificate shows that workman was working on daily

wages on inspection vehicle since 28-7-93, certificate was issued on 27-12-02. Exhibit W-2 workamn was paid on

daily wages, document is dated 23-8-93. In Exhibit W-3 payment on daily wage basis is made to workman on 3-9-93,

Exhibit W-4 is representation submitted by workman dated 21-4-08, Exhibit W-5,6 are letters given by workman.

Exhibit W-7 payment of daily wages to workman on 23-8-93. W-8 payment of daily wages paid to workman on 3-9-93.

Exhibit W-9 is payment of daily wages to the workman on 5-2-96, W-10 is payment made on 11-3-96, W-11 is

payment made to workman on 2-4-96, W-12 is payment made on 1-5-96, W-13 is payment made on 3-6-96, W-14 is

payment made on 1-7-96, W-15 is payment made on 1-8-96, W-16 is payment made on 3-9-96, W-17 is payment made

on 4-10-96, W-18 is payment made on 4-11-96, W-19 is payment made on 2-12-96, W-20 is payment made on 2-1-97.

Exhibit W-21 is application submitted by workman to ALC. From above documents, it is clear that workman was

engaged on daily wages since 1993 and continued on daily wages till his termination in the year 2013. Management has

not produced documents about working days of workman. Witness of management has no personal knowledge.

Shri R.C.Shrivastava for workman relies on ratio held in case between

7566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others reported in

2015(6)SCC-494. Their Lordship considering clause 2(ii) of the standing orders of ONGC. Temporary employees

concerned appointed directly by corporation on monthly salary basis completed 240 days of service in a calendar year

were regularized.

In present case, workman is engaged on daily wages since 1993 for years together without regularizing his

services amounts to unfair labour practice.

On the point learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri R.K.Soni relies onratio held in case between

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others reported in AIR-2006-SC-1806. Their

Lordship held regularization of daily wage contractual employees appointed in violation of constitutional scheme

would not extend to directing regularization as in permanent service.

In Umadevi’s case cited above, question of unfair labour practice under Vth Schedule Item 10 has not been

considered. Though the term of reference pertains to claim for regularization, services of Ist party workmen are

terminated during pendency of reference without obtaining permission or approval of this Tribunal is void for violation

of Section 33(2)(b) of ID Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1, action of the management denying regularization in service is

illegal. The services of workman are terminated on 3-5-13 during pendency of reference without obtaining permission

or approval of this Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of ID Act. The termination of services of Ist party is illegal and

void. Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated that he is unemployed, management has not adduced evidence

about workman is in gainful employment. Therefore workman is entitled for regularization/ reinstatement in service

with full backwages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in not regularizing services of workman is illegal.

(2)

Termination of service of workman on 13-5-13 during pendency of reference is illegal.

(3)

2^nd party is directed to reinstate workman with continuity of service and full backwages and give him

benefit of regularization on post of Driver.

(4)

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.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV]

dsaæh; vk;q/ fMiks] tcyiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@24@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@30@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2017

S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/24/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which were received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2017.

[No. L-14012/30/93-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7567

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2007

Shri Sudesh Kumar

S/o Shri Late Vijay Singh through

Herrison Stephen, Bunglow No.52,

Narmada Road,

Jabalpur

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Gun Carriage Factory,

Jabalpur

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 2-1-2007 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-

14012/30/93-IR(DU) dated 25-1-07 The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Sudesh Kumar w.e.f. 30-11-85 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim. Case of Ist

party workman is that he was appointed as messenger boy in 1984 on compassionate basis vide order dated 11-9-84. He

worked honestly. His services were no longer required. That management alleged that he was unauthorized absent for

84 days without prior intimation. Workman submits he had informed authority about his illness. He has not inquired

management, did not know about illness of workman. Termination order was passed without giving proper

opportunity. That he worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. While terminating his services, provisions of ID

Act were not followed. He raised his grievances through SC ST Welfare Association but he did not get any result. The

request for reinstatement was not considered. That he was suffering from illness, he was menally not well. He had

received treatment of his illness. The intimation was given to management through his relatives was ignored.

Management did not try to find out his position, termination order was passed exparte without issuing showcause

notice, no enquiry was conducted. Termination of his service is in violation of natural justice. Due to sickness and

financial difficulties, he could not seek legal advice for the remedies. That only after he filed Writ Petition 2530/97,

Hon’ble High Court had issued direction, the dispute has been referred. It is alleged that management te3rminating his

services on ground that his services were no longer required has intentionally caused harassment to him. It is reiterated

that his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, Article 21 of the constitution. On such ground,

workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Workman was proceeded exparte. Prior to it, management filed Written Statement. Case of 2^nd party

management is that Ist party workman was proceeded exparte as he failed to file Written Statement. That the

appointment of workman was on probation for a period of 2 years after completion of probation period, his services

were to be treated temporary in nature. General Manager of 2^nd party was obtained to terminate his services. During

probation of one year period, attendance of workman was irregular, workman was frequently absent without prior

sanctioned leave. Workman was unauthorisely absent for 84 days. Considering period of unauthorized absence,

showcause notice was issued to workman. Since appointment was temporary in nature, considering irregular

attendance, his services were terminated vide order dated 30-11-85. Workman did not raise dispute for long period. The

dispute was raised after 9 years. Government had refused to refer dispute. Only after direction in Writ Petition No.

2530/97, Government referred the dispute. It is reiterated that termination of services of Ist party workman is proper

and legal. Ratio held in various cases has been referred. Workman himself was unauthorisely absent without

sanctioned leave, was irregular in attendance, such conduct was not expected from probationer. Workman did not reply

to the showcause notice. The Competent Authority considering terms and conditions of service terminated workman

for long unauthorized absence. Action of management is proper and legal.

After statement of claim filed by Ist party, management filed additional Written Statement reiterating

contentions that workman was unauthorisely absent without sufficient cause. Therefore his services were terminated.

7568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The conduct of the workman during probation period was not proper. Workman has made objectionable allegation. 2^nd

party prays reference be answered in its favour.

Workman filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

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:-

(i) Whether the dispute raised under reference by

workman is not tenable on ground of latches and

delay?

Reference is not tenable

(ii) Whether the action of the management of

General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur in

terminating the services of their workman Shri

Sudesh Kumar w.e.f. 30-11-85 is legal and

justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

2^nd party management has pleaded in Para 6 of the Written Statement that the dispute raised after lapse of 9 year

is not tenable. Infact the order of reference mentions that services of workman were terminated on 30-11-85. The

dispute has been referred vide order dated 25-11-07. In affidavit of workman he has stated that his services were

terminated on 30-11-85. The affidavit of evidence of management’s witness finds reference that Writ Petition was filed

by workman bearing 2530/97. Hon’ble High Court had passed order on 11-12-2006. On point of delay and latches,

Shri A.K.Shashi, counsel for management placed reliance in case between-

Nedungadi Bank Ltd. versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others reported in 2000-AIR-SC-830. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 10 of ID Act held that purpose of reference of dispute to Court/Tribunal is to keep

industrial peace. Power to make reference to achieve above purpose cannot be exercised at any time say after

delay of 7 years and there being no industrial dispute existing or apprehended.

Learned counsel for workman Shri Rakesh Soni has not brought any citation on the point to my notice.

Considering ratio in above case as the dispute was raised after 9 years as per pleadings in Written Statement is not

tenable. Infact after directions given by Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition, the dispute has been referred after

almost 22 years, reference is not tenable. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No.2- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of Ist party on 31-11-85.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence workman has stated that he was appointed on compassionate ground on 11-9-84

as messenger boy. His services were terminated on 30-11-85. Allegations were made against him of unauthorized

absence. He was suffering from illness, he could not attend the duty, he was not given showcause notice. He was

appointed against vacant post. No enquiry was conducted against him before terminating his services. In his cross

examination, workman says his appointment was on compassionate basis. He not received appointment order in

writing. He denied document Exhibit M-1, its copy was not given to him. He attended duty during 84-85 after other

persons told him about his appointment, workman denies that his appointment was on probation period for 2 years.

Workman was unable to tell how many days he worked in 985, for how many days he was absent from duty. Workman

explained he worked for 1 ½ years. Workman denies he not given intimation about his absence to the management.

workman explained that his mother has given intimation about his illness. He was unable to tell for how many days of

his absence, his mother had given intimation to the management. whether intimation was given orally in writing. He

admits that the employees of GCF and his family members get treatment in hospital run by management. that he was

residing at 2 ½ kms distance from GCF factory. He had not secured medical card, he not received medicines from GCF

hospital. He received treatment from outside Doctor. Workman was unable to tell his name. documents of prescriptions

are not produced. He denies that intimation about his illness was not given to his family members to the management.

10.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness A.K.Chourasia supporting his contentions in Written

Statement that appointment of Ist party workman was on probation for 2 years. Workman was appointed on

compassionate ground. Workman remained absent for 84 days. Showcause notice was issued to workman was not

replied. Services of workman were terminated on 30-11-85. After direction in Writ Petition, the dispute has been

referred. From evidence of management’s witness documents Exhibit M-1 to 4 are admitted in evidence. In his cross

examination, management’s witness says workman was appointed on probation of 2 years as regular employee.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7569

Showcause notice was issued to workman for absence from duty. Chargesheet was not issued to him. Enquiry was

conducted against workman. When documents were not given to workman alongwith showcause notice, workman was

not called for personal hearing. As per document Exhibit M-1 appointment order, appointment of Ist party workman

was on probation of 2 years. As per condition No. “C”, his services could be terminated at any time during probation

period by either side without notice. Document Exhibit M-2 shows the period of leave of Ist party workman in

showcause notice Exhibit M-3, period of absence of workman is shown 77 days from /4/85 to 9/10/85. Attendance of

workman is shown highly irregular. In Exhibit M-4 order of termination, the services of workman are terminated as his

services were no longer required.

11.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management on the point of termination of services during probation period relies on ratio

held in case between-

Governing Council of Kidwai Memoraial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore versus Dr.Padurang Godwalkar and

another reported in 1992(4)SCC-79. Their Lordship dealing with termination of services of probationer held unless

there is direct nexus between charge levelled and action taken, mere making of some preliminary enquiry or

examination of complaints against the probationer for assessment of his overall performance would not vitiate the

simple order of termination on ground of gainful employment.

In case between New India Assurance Co.Ltd versus Vipin Beharilal Srivastava reported in 2008(3)SCC-446.

Their Lordship dealing with unauthorised absence and removal from service held workman unauthorisely absent for

over 600 days. During period of absence , leave application sent to employer on which no order passed. Interference

as to implied sanction of leave, proper mode for obtaining sick leave. Tribunal directing reinstatement with full back

wages on grounds that respondent was suffering from TB and since management did not pass any order on his leave

application, the workman was not absent unauthorisely.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Workman not submitted leave application. Even his evidence

about giving intimation of illness is not satisfactory. In his cross examination, workman was unable to tell when his

mother had given intimation about his illness. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied.

In case of Judicature at Patna versus Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha and others reported in 1997(10)SCC-

409. Their Lordship dealing with termination of services during probation held in case of termination for unsuitability,

principles of natural justice not attracted. There is no obligation to communicate the adverse remarks to the probationer

before taking decision to terminate his services on the basis of the adverse material but uncommunicated adverse

materials can be taken into consideration for assessment of suitability of probationer and forming decision to terminate

his services.

In present case, the workman was absent for 77 days during proposed period. Exhibit M-4 order of termination is

received that his services were no more required. Workman had not replied to showcause notice M-3. Services of

workman are terminated as per condition “C” in appointment order Exhibit M-1.

12.

Learned counsel for workman submits that Ist party completed 240 days continuous service. His services are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman in his cross was unable to tell how many days he had

worked. On the point, Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

Surendranagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F,B ID Act held workman to claim protection under Section 25-F of ID Act must prove their

existing relationship of employer employee, workman under Section 2(s) ID Act, establishment in which he is

employed is an industry, he has put not less than one year continuous service.

13.

Shri R.K.Soni pointed out my attention to leave period of 77 days in Exhibit M-2,3 submitted that workman

has established he was working more than 240 days. His services are terminated without notice is illegal. From Exhibit

M-2, it appear that workman worked for 240 days. Workman was not served with notice. When appointment of

workman was on probation and his services are terminated as per condition “C” of Exhibit M- without notice,

conditions in appointment order are binding on workman and therefore violation of Section 25-F wouldnot be attracted.

Shri R.K.Soni relies on ratio held in Himanshu Bhatt versus indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation

and others in LPA 881/2013 by Delhi High Court. From reading of Para 15, it is clear that termination of service was

for unauthorized absence.

In present case, termination order Exhibit M-4 services of Ist party were terminated on ground that his services

were no more required. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

For the same reasons, Shri R.K.Soni also relies on ratio held in case between Pradip Kumar versus Union of

India and others by Apex Court. In Para 13 of the judgment, their Lordship observed in our opinion, there is clearly a

7570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

live nexus between the decision to discharge the respondent vide order dated 9^th November, 2009. The disturbance

caused by members of the bar in the court of the respondent and his leaving the bench and retiring to his chamber.

The facts of present case are not comparable. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Shri R.K.Soni also relies on ratio held in case between Harinandan Prasad and another versus employer to

management of FCI and another in appeal No. 2417-2418/2014. In Para 36,37 of the judgment, there is clear reference

that reference of circular dated 5-9-87 issued workman had completed 240 days continuous service were regularized as

per provision in circular dated 6-5-87. While giing the benefit of that circular to other similar situated employees and

regularizing them would therefore be clearly discriminatory. On these facts the CGIT rightly held that he was entitled

to the benefit of scheme.

The facts of present case are not comparable. No such circular has been issued in present case. The ratio held in

the case could not be beneficially applied to case at hand.

To sumup, the dispute raised by workman is not tenable in view of my finding in Point No.1. services of workman are

terminated as per condition “C” of appointment order M-1. Considering his long absence from duty during probation

period, termination of services of workman is legal. For above reasons I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Affirmative.

14.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Sudesh Kumar w.e.f. 30-11-85 is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 28@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@221@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.09.2017.

[No. L-12012/221/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2004

Shri Yashpal Singh Rathore,

S/o Shri Harpal Singh Rathore,

28, MIG Mukharji Nagar,

Dewas (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office, 18, Shanku Marg,

Freeganj,

Ujjain

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7571

AWARD

Passed on this 3^rd day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 23-2-2004 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-

12012/221/2003-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing the services of Shri Yashpal Singh

Rathore, S/o Shri Harpal Singh Rathore vide order dated 26-3-0 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the

concerned workman entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted exhaustive statement

of claim at Page 5/1 to 15. Case of Ist party is that he was working as Agricultural Assistant at Beesakhedi branch,

Distt. Dewas. He was illegally dismissed from service on 26-5-00. Appeal preferred by him to Regional Manager was

rejected on 18-9-01. Ist party workman has pleaded that the documents were exhibited without valid evidence.

Documents were not proved in Enquiry Proceedings. Workman was not allowed inspection of the documents. Enquiry

Officer has wrongly observed that original documents were produced. Agricultural Assistant is authorized to receive

loan amount in special circumstances. Enquiry Officer had insisted authority of Defence Representative. It is reiterated

that chargesheet issued to him for unauthorized absence illegally accepting money, unauthorisely collected cash. The

documents M-3 to M-11 are not relevant for proving the charges.

The photocopy of statements enclosed M-12-a,b,c were not submitted alongwith report of the Enquiry Officer.

It is reiterated that the statements of witnesses and documents cannot establish the charges against him. Ist party

workman has pleaded about the evidence in Enquiry Proceedings were imaginary and disactive. Enquiry was not

properly conducted. Evidence of complainants is not reliable. Thestatements of MW-1, M.K.Agrawal and Mr. Verma

were far from truth. It is reiterated that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. The charges are not proved.

Evidence of complainant is not reliable. Punishment of dismissal imposed against him is illegal and deserves to be

quashed. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/2 to 8 opposing claim of Ist party workman. 2^nd party submits that

chargesheet was issued by Disciplinary Authority, Dy.Chief Regional Manager, Dewas on 27-1-99, R.L.Chopra was

appointed as Enquiry Officer in place of Mr. A.K.Saxena. Enquiry was conducted against workman on 9-11-2000.

Charges were explained to workman. Workman pleaded not guilty. On 18-11-00, 24-11-00, 25-11-00, 27-11-00,

29-1-00, enquiry proceedings were conducted. Witnesses of management were examined and cross-examined.

Evidence of Defence Witnesses was recorded. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27-1-01 holding workman guilty

of charges. 2^nd party reiterates that enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. Considering report of

Enquiry Officer holding guilty of workman, after issuing showcause, punishment of dismissal was imposed. Appeal

preferred by workman was rejected. If enquiry is found vitiated, 2^nd party prayed permission to prove misconduct by

adducing evidence.

In parawise reply, 2^nd party prays that the charges against workman have been proved in Enquiry Proceedings.

All the documents were proved in the Enquiry Proceedings. Evidence of witness Agrawal, Mohan and Salaudin

recorded in Enquiry Proceeding is sufficient to prove charges against workman. That both parties were given

opportunity for adducing evidence and cross-examining the witnesses. That Bank is custodian of the money of

customers. Once money is put in Bank by the customer, Bank should repay customers money. It is reiterated for

proved charges against workman, punishment of dismissal is proper and legal.

As per order dated 4-7-3, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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:-

(i) Whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

7572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REASONS

Point No.1- Enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal as per order dated 4-7-3 whether

charges/ misconduct alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided on the basis of evidence on Enquiry

Proceedings. Chargesheet Exhibit M-1 issued to workman pertains to workman unauthorisely collected cash from Shri

Salauddin borrower of the branch for crediting to his Agricultural Loan Account and issued him counter foil for

Rs.3392.68 dated 2-5-88, Rs.10,000 dated 5-5-97 without making corresponding entry in Bank’s ledger. He did not

deposit said amount in loan Account of borrower and embazelled said amount. That his act amount to misconduct

under clause 19.5j. Doing act prejudicial to the interest of bank are gross negligence involving the Bank in serious loss.

At the time of argument, learned counsel for workman Shri R.C.Shrivastava was present and submitted that he will

submit written synopsis. However Shri R.C.Shrivastava did not submit anything in the matter. Statement of witness

No.1 A.K. Agrawal in his evidence says that Rs.10000 given by borrower on 3-5-97 was not credited by Mr. Rathore

workman. In his further evidence, witness of the management says workman may have returned amount on 3-12-97.

Salauddin had come on 3-12-97 enquiring about deposit of Rs.10,000 in his account. As per statement of Sunny Sai,

Salauddin was told to come lateron as Mr. Rathore workman and Mr. Verma were not present in the Bank. That the

complaint of Salauddin was about deposit of Rs.10,000 and abuses given to him. MW-2 K.Mohan in his evidence says

that in his investigation, he found Y.P.S. Rathore with counter foil dated 5-5-97 for Rs.10,000 and counter foil dated

2-5-88 for Rs.3392.68 to Mr. Salauddin. Both amounts were not credited in accounts of beneficiary. In his cross-

examination MW-2 says that the inspection report was based on Salauddin’s complaint and bank’s record. Statement of

complainant Salauddin was recorded as MW-3. Salauddin in his evidence in Enquiry Proceedings says that amount of

Rs.10,000 was not credited in his account. He deposited said amount on 5-5-97. He was having original receipt with

him. That he had also deposited Rs. 3392.68 on 2-5-88. He was having receipt No. 987622 with him. Said amount was

not credited in his account. Pass book was not issued to him. Statement of loan account was not given to him. In his

cross examination, Salauddin says he had taken loan for well, pipeline fertilizers and motor. He denied that he had

handed over Rs.10,000 to Ramchandra and Rs.13,170 to Mangilal for depositing in account. Defence Witness

Isharuddin, Ramchandra and Mangilal examined in Enquiry Proceedings tried to support defence of the workman.

However evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot be re-appreciated. Evidence of management’s witnesses MW-1 to 30

is sufficient to establish charge against workman. Workman had submitted his explanation in Enquiry Proceedings. I

donot find reason to disbelieve evidence of management’s witness which is consistent to complaint submitted by

Salauddin. Evidence of Salauddin is further corroborated by documents receipt of Exhibit M-6 for Rs.10,000. Amount

paid by complainant Salauddin was not credited to his loan account. As such charge against workman are established.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charge against workman are proved. Shri R.C.Shrivastava did

not submit written notes or synopsis as submitted at the time of hearing argument. Question remains for consideration

is whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal.

10.

Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212. Their lordship

dealing with punishment and misconduct scope of judicial review held Bank officer found to be connected with issue of

STDRs in the name of certain individuals against clearing cheques received from various trusts/ boards. He further

found to have got overdraft limits sanctioned for said individuals. Bank officer committing such mistake for his

personal ends and against the interest of the Bank and depositors held must be dealt with iron hands without any

leniency.

In present case, amount paid by complainant Salauddin depositing loan amount , received amount but did not

credit in his account. Punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be said improper.

Shri A.K.Shashi relied on ratio held in case between P.V.Balan Nair versus Superintendent of Post Offices,

Thalassery reported in 2001-I-LAB-I.C.3201. In para 4 of the judgment, their Lordship observed eventhough in the

deposition of the depositor, it is stated that the amount was recorded in the pass book on the same date Bank account

shows that amount was credited only on 25-9-93 while the amount was received on 1-9-93. In other words, amount was

kept by him unauthorisely from 1-9-93 to 25-9-93 which is misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings. Since

petitioner was acting as Branch Post master and dealing with Saving Bank account utmost integrity and honesty is

required.

In present case, workman received amount as discussed above and didnot credit to the loan account of the

customer. The punishment of dismissal cannot be said improper.

Reliance is placed in case between State Bank of Patiala and others versus S.K.Sharma reported in 1996(3)SCC-

364. Ratio held in above cited case pertains to the procedure and violation of Rule 16(b) clause 3 of CCS CCA Rules.

Detailed discussion is not required.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7573

Further reliance is placed on Union Bank of India versus Vishwa Mohan reported in 1998-I-LLJ-1217. Their

Lordship held in Banking business, absolute devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank

employee and in particular by bank officer. If this is not observed confidence of depositors would be impaired.

Considering ratio in above cited case and evidence on record discussed above, punishment of dismissal is

proper. No interference is required. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-

2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@56@2016&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.09.2017.

[No. L-12012/56/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

CASE NO. ID No 32 of 2016

Sh. Gulshan Passi/Vise president, PNB Workers Union,

House No. B IV-1543 Mohalla- Missaran,

Ludhiana (Punjab)

…Petitioner

Versus

The Dy. General Manager(Circle Head),

Circle Office,PNB House, Sector 17/B,

Punjab National Bank,

Chandigarh

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Nemo

For the Management

Nemo

AWARD

17/08/2017

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-12012/56/2016/ IR(B-II) dated 02.09.2016; the

Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

‘Whether the action of the management of Punjab National bank in not releasing the payment of subsistence

allowance w.e.f the date of suspension i.e 7.11.2014 to the workman Sh. Gulshan Passi and not paying interest

7574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on withheld amount of subsistence allowance for the period of 7.11.2014 to 31.12.2015 @ 18% per annum are

legal and justified? If not what relief the workman/Union is entitled to receive?’

This reference dates back to September 2016 but the workman has continuously been absenting right from day

one. The case has been adjourned for half a dozen times for appearance of the workman but it has not yielded any result

because the workman appears to be least interested in pursuing the matter.

The reference relates to non-payment of subsistence allowance to the workman with effect from the date of his

suspension i.e 7/11/2014 but the workman has not shown any interest in carrying the matter to its logical end. The

reference cannot be answered due to the unexplained long absence of the workman and his failure to substantiate his

claim because it was for the workman to establish that he had a right to get the subsistence allowance during the period

of the suspension which right was taken away by the management without any justifiable reasons but then the workman

has not been able to put forth his stand. So the case is dismissed for non appearance of workman. Accordingly the

reference fails.

Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 02@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.09.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 02/2011

BETWEEN :

Sri Raj Kumar

s/o Sri Ram Milan,

R/O E-74 Sector M-1, Ashiyana Colony

Kanpur Road, Lucknow(U.P.)

AND

The Zonal Manager

Bank of India,

Lucknow Zone, Star House

Vibhuti Khand, Gomati Nagar,

Lucknow,

Branch Manager

Bank of India, Branch Bijnaur

Lucknow

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7575

AWARD

The workman has filed petition directly under section 2A of the I.D. Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) against the Zonal

Manager and Branch Manager, Bank of India, Lucknow for adjudication.

As per the claim statement W-1, the workman has stated in brief that the application for conciliation was moved

by him but it failed and thereafter the present petition has been filed before this Court. It has been pleaded that the

applicant was appointed as Class IV employee for general work as Safai Karamchari and also for General Clerical work

by opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. 1.10.2016 and was paid @ Rs.100/- day, he has been working as per the instructions of

his superiors and he was paid his wages accordingly. He has asserted that he was assigned the work of Daftary and was

required to make entries in various forms and work of Safai Karmchari was also often assigned to him; and payment on

vouchers was made on the directions of the then Branch Manager Sri Vinood Bihari Mishra , he was required to write

the bank books such as dispatch register etc. in his own hand writing, local branch posts which was prepared only in the

year 2010, clearing register was also maintained by him and in his own hand writing which is available in the bank.

The workman has further stated that loan files of the bank was also dealt by him, thanks letter was prepared by

him on the directions of his superiors, village register, insurance register, pension register etc. were also prepared by

him. The petitioner has alleged that he has completed more than 3 years of service as Safai Karmchari but his services

were terminated on 6.6.2010 without any notice and without compliance of the provisions of Section 25 of the I.D.

Act., no compensation was paid to him, no reason of termination was given. With the aforesaid pleadings request has

been made to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service etc.

Several documents have been annexed as W-1/11 to W-1/79.

The management has filed written statement M-5 stating therein that there was no vacancy in the Bank at the

relevant point of time, the petitioner has never worked continuously instead the petitioner might have worked

intermittently and casually when any exigency would have arisen. The opposite party has submitted that petitioner is

not covered within the definition of workman as provided in the I.D. Act., neither he has ever completed 240 days in a

calander year, since he was not employed in the bank hence the question of alleged termination of service does not

arise. No process of recruitment was under taken, no officer other then Zonal Head is competent to appoint any

subordinate staff, and as per the settled law no back door entry is permissible in public employment.

Opposite party has stated that M/s. R.B. Air Express Courier Service used to provide services to the opposite

party bank as per the agreement entered with it from time to time and was paid accordingly for the same and in that

process Sri Raj Kumar used to vist the branch to collect the consignment in the name of M/s. R.B. Air Express Courier

Service, Lucknow and was paid accordingly as per the agreement but there was no relationship of master and servant

between the petitioner and the opposite party at any point of time. With the aforesaid averments the bank has requested

to reject the claim statement.

With strong denial of the counter allegations made in the written statement, and reiterating the pleas taken in the

claim statement, rejoinder W-6 has been filed by the petitioner. Later on as per list M-10 several documents have been

filed by the management.

The workman Sri Raj Kumar has filed his affidavit W-16 in its evidence and he has been thoroughly cross-

examined by the management. The management has filed the affidavit of Sri Hira Lal as M-19, he has been cross-

examined on behalf of the workman.

Arguments of Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has

been scanned thoroughly.

The petitioner has claimed himself as having been appointed as class IV employee/Safai Karmchari by the

Branch Manager of the bank and some clerical work was also performed by him on the directions of his superior

authority. The management while vehemently denying the version of the petitioner has submitted that he was merely an

employee of some Courier Service and during the normal course of business between the Courier Service and the Bank,

he used to visit the branch and some entries in the registers might have been written by him. The management has

denied any employer employee relationship as well.

Several material documents have been annexed by the petitioner with the claim statement, from W-1/11 to 1/79.

The workman has supported his claim statement with the affidavit. Sri Hira Lal, Sr.Branch Manager has filed affidavit

M-19 in support of written statement. Para 9 of the affidavit reads as under;

“That as matter of fact the concerned workman was providing the services of the courier in the Branch

thus a matter of practice the dispatch register and clearing register are maintained by them as employee

of the courier company. Moreover, mere entry in the register would not confer the right of public

employment with the workman….”

7576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

The Manager has admitted that dispatch register and clearing register were being maintained by the petitioner

but he was an employee of the courier company. Such type of submission made by the Branch Manager, is impliedly

admission on behalf of the management that bank’s day to day working was also performed by the petitioner with the

permission and under the direction of the bank authorities.

13.

The bank Manager Sri Hira Lal in his cross examination dated 13.10.2015, on page 4 has admitted document

1/40, 1/41 to 1/50, further 1/51 to 1/75. On page 5 other documents 1/76 to 1/78 have also been admitted. The

management witness has admitted on page no. 6 that documents 1/51,1/56,1/57, 1/61 have been written by the

petitioner Sri Raj Kumar on his directions (Directions given by the Branch Manager). Further several entries in the

bank registers have been admitted in the hand writing of the petitioner, as per the details furnished by the management

witness on page 7 of the cross examination. These bank documents were being written by the petitioner on the

directions of the Branch Manager.

14.

Letters dated 5.12.2007, 24.3.2008 have not been denied by the management. In these letters the signature of the

petitioner Sri Raj Kumar has been attested by the Branch Manager and he has been entrusted by the manager to bring

the important documents from Government Business Branch of State Bank of India. Another letter 1/76 dated

18.3.2010 sent by the Branch Manager to the Post Master has not been denied by the management. In this letter Sri Raj

Kumar petitioner has been referred as “STAFF” and his signature has also been attested by the Branch Manager.

During the Havan Ceremony in the bank the petitioner Sri Raj Kumar is apparently sitting alongwith other bank

employees in the photograph 1/78 to 1/79.

15.

The workman has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management, no material contradiction or

inconsistency has been reflected in his cross examination. The admission of the management witness before this court

regarding hand writing and work performed by the petitioner is quite material, and can not be ignored. The documents

filed by the management as per list M-10 also do not strongly support the version of the management, neither these

documents controvert the pleas taken by the petitioner, as inferred on comparative evaluation and analysis of the

evidence adduced by both the parties.

16.

Learned AR of the workman has relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BSNL Vs

Bhurumal, judgment dated 11.12.2013 (2013, Law Suit 1128).

17.

Learned AR for the management submits that the aforesaid citations does not apply to the fact of the present

case.

18.

Gross violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act is quite apparent in this case. As per the claim statement the

petitioner has submitted that he was appointed as Class IV employee for general work as Safaikarmchari @ Rs.100/-

per day and he was paid his wages accordingly by the opposite party. In para 6 of the claim statement it has been

pleaded that the applicant has completed more than 3 years of service as daily wager/Daftari/Safaikarmchari in the said

branch of the Bank. Although the opposite party has denied any master-servant relationship and has further submitted

that the petitioner was merely an employee of the Courier Service and he has got nothing to do with the bank

employment, even then it has been admitted in the documents submitted by the petitioner as well from the cross

examination of the Bank Manager that day to day maintenance of the bank registers was being carried out by the

petitioner on the directions of the Branch Manager. Under such circumstances it is clearly reflected from the evidence

available on record that the petitioner has worked in the bank for about 3 years as daily wager.

19.

In 2013, Law Suit (SC) page 1128 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 23:

“ While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally

and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc However, when it comes to the

case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of

procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act., this Court is consistent in taking

the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is in lieu of reinstatement. In Man Singh which was

also a case of BSNL, this Court had granted compensation of Rs.2 Lakh to each of the workmen when

they had worked for merely 240 days. Since the respondent herein worked for longer period, we are of the

view that he should be paid a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs….”

20.

Principle propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (6) SCC, Telegraph Department vs Santosh Kumar

Seal, page 773 is also quite relevant.

21.

After having heard intellect arguments of Learned ARs of both the parties, in the light of the record available

before the Court and law propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is inferred that the petitioner

has successfully proved that he has worked for about 3 years as daily wages in the opposite party bank and violation of

Section 25-Fof the I.D. Act. is quite apparent. Instead of his reinstatement, it would be quite just and appropriate to

award compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner, and it shall be paid by the opposite party within ten weeks from the

date of notification of Award, failing which the management shall pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7577

22.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

25.07.2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 5@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.09.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

CASE ID No. 5 of 2016

Satish Kumar son of Sh.Chhajju Ram R/O Jai Maa Nagar,

Street No. 3L, Ferozepur

…(Petitioner)

Versus

Dy.General Manager, Bank Of Baroda (Region PJKR)

Regional Office, Foot-ball Chowk,Jalandhar City.

Branch Manager, bank of Baroda, The mall,

Opposite Tower Hall, Ferozepur City

…(Respondents)

For the Workman

Nemo

For the Management

Nemo

AWARD

16/8/2017

The workman raised a dispute directly before this Tribunal regarding his termination from service by the

respondent Management of Bank of Baroda, on the certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Jalandhar vide its letter No.JAL/7(01)/2016/ALC dated 08-04-2016 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 as the conciliation proceedings could not be concluded within the prescribed time.

The record bears testimony to the fact that the workman is continuously absent since last 5 hearings,which is

suggestive of the fact that he has settled the claim with the management or has no interest to pursue this matter. It is on

his motion that the dispute has found way to the court but the workman is not interested in going along with the

litigation, so the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the case for non prosecution. The case is accordingly

dismissed and file be consigned to records after completion.

The Industrial Dispute is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be

sent to the Central Govt.for publication.

A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer

7578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 81@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-09-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@86@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2017

S.O. 2290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.09.2017.

[No. L-12012/86/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 81/2003

Ref.No. L-12012/86/2003 IR(B-II) dated 25.07.2003

BETWEEN :

Sri Rajendra Kumar

268/5, Subhash Nagar

Meerut(U.P.)-250001

AND

1. The General Manager,

Union Bank of India

239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point

Mumbai-400021

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/86/2003-IR(B-II) dated 25.07.2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Rajendra Kumar, Meerut and

the General Manager, Union Bank of India, Mumbai for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF UNION BANK OF INDIA IN DISMISSING

SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR, CLERK-CUM-CASHIER FROM SERVICE W.E.F. 12.7.1999 IS JUST,

FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF IS HE ENTITLED TO?”

The workman in his claim statement A1-3 dated 27.10.2003, has stated in brief that he had completed about 13

years of service with clean service record in the opposite party Bank, he has been working in the Bill Department, he

was attending the job of balancing of Books w.e.f. March 1996 to July 1997, and on 12.4.1996 when he was working

in Bill Department, his seat was adjacent to Current Account Ledger Counter, two cheques amounting to Rs.23,582/-

and Rs.19,960/- were submitted by M/s Narendra Tyre to credit the same to the current account of M/s Apollo Tyres

Ltd. It has further been asserted that the bearer of the cheques being in hurry he wanted immediate draft from M/s

Apollo Tyres account, however since the Ledger Keeper was not on the counter, so on the request of the bearer the

cheques were posted by the workman. Later on it was found that the cheques were encashed by another workman

namely Sri G.S.Rawat but the applicant workman was suspended from service since the cheques were posted by him,

enquiry was conducted and workman was dismissed although the punishment was based upon the perverse findings of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7579

the enquiry officer, intervention of the Conciliation Authority was sought, management did not agree to settle the case,

later the case was sent to the Ministry which referred the schedule to this Court.

The petitioner has asserted that he joined the service of the Bank on 29.01.1984 as Clerk-cum-Cashier, was

posted at Delhi Road, Meerut branch from 10.03.1992 to 24.04.1997, he has completed 13 years of service with clean

record. The aforesaid cheques were scrolled and token issued by another Clerk Sri G.S. Rawat and those cheques were

paid by him. Credit entry of Rs.43,542/- to M/s Appollo Tyres was made by the workman on the basis of credit voucher

on 4.6.96, which was properly supervised by the officer of the bank. The workman was unduly suspended vide bank

letter dated 17.4.97, charge sheet on 6.6.97 was issued, false charges were framed. Charges of gross misconduct and

minor misconduct was leveled against the workman which was denied by him, enquiry officer and disciplinary

authority was appointed, material on record was ignored and perverse findings were recorded, upon his own

imagination he arrived at wrong decision, defence submitted by the workman was ignored. The workman has stressed

that the cheques drawn in favour of Limited Company, were not to be paid in cash but cash payment was made by Sri

G.S.Rawat even then the workman was punished without any basis. Had the Supervisor officer been little more

attentive, fraud could have been avoided and guilty person would have been caught. Allegations have been made by the

management that the workman made fictitious entries without supporting voucher, in the enquiry proceeding no staff of

the branch was adduced in evidence against the workman. Even then he has been dismissed from service without any

cogent reason. Appeal submitted by him has also been decided against him without proper application of mind and

consideration of the material available on record. The workman has alleged that he has been without employment since

his dismissal. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the petitioner seeking direction to the bank so as

to withdraw illegal order of dismissal and to reinstate him with full back wages, increment, seniority etc.

As per list C-4 several documents have been annexed by the workman.

The opposite party bank in its written statement A2-13, denying therein the main allegations of the claim

statement, has stated in brief that the petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier during the period 1996 to 1997 at

Delhi Road Branch, Meerut and certain acts of omission and commission were reported against him, so he was

suspended vide memo dated 17.4.97, charge sheet dated 6.6.97 was issued for gross and minor misconduct on duty,

although the charges were denied by the petitioner. Thereafter departmental domestic enquiry was ordered, enquiry

proceeding were conducted as per Rules. The management has further asserted that enquiry proceeding commenced on

3.3.99 and were concluded on 4.3.99 in two sitting, workman was provided full opportunity to defend himself, he

appointed Sri V.K. Bhargava as defence representative, copies of relevant documents were provided to him, two

witness were cross examine by the management, the workman was asked to cross examined the witness and

oppourtnity to further adduce evidence in defence was also provided but he deliberately avoided his oral evidence and

also his cross examination by the management.

The opposite party has asserted that the enquiry is quite fair and proper, even then this Hon’ble Tribunal if

comes to the conclusion otherwise, the management may kindly be allowed to lead evidence afresh. After elaborate

enquiry proceedings, proposed punishment therefore letter dated 19.6.95 was conveyed after considering the written

and oral submissions of the petitioner workman, he was dismissed from service from the bank, thereafter appeal was

preferred. After personnel hearing of the workman, the Appellate Authority inferred that the findings of the enquiry

officer were based on proper evaluation and evidence.

The opposite party has stressed that the petitioner got hold of the two cheques for Rs.23,582/- and Rs.19,960/-

to be credited in the account of M/s Appollo Tyres and he asked Sri G.S. Rawat, Clerk cum Cashier of the branch to

scroll and issue the token, thereafter the petitioner workman posted both the cheques in the current account and took

the payment of Rs.43,542/- from Sri G.S.Rawat and utilized the amount for his personal gains, fictitious credit entries

for the sum were made in the current account of M/s Appollo Tyres without any supporting vouchers on 4.6.96 with

malafide intention to cover his misdeeds. The opposite party has alleged that the workman handed over the cash of

Rs.38,542/- and Rs.5000/- on 5.7.96 and 19.7.96, respectively to Sri G.S.Rawat so as to deposit the said amount in the

current account of M/s Appollo Tyres. It has been alleged that the workman in connivance with Sri G.S. Rawat

committed fraud to the tune of Rs.43,542/- and he utilized the same for his personal needs.

The opposite party has asserted that the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in mind the principle of

natural justice, and Rules were followed by the bank authorities, adequate assessment of entire evidence was made. The

Appellate Authority after thoroughly perusing the record available and after deep consideration of defence version as

well, decided the appeal preferred by the appeal.

10.

The management has further asserted that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is

commensurate to the nature of charges proved against him and dishonesty on duty can never be adjusted. With the

aforesaid pleading, the management has claimed its action as fully legal and justified, and has submitted that the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

7580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

As per list C-14 several documents have been filed by the management.

12.

With denial of the averments in the written statement, rejoinder A-17 dated 23.6.2004, has been filed by the

petitioner workman, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

13.

The petitioner has got himself examined in the evidence. He has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of

the management. The management has filed affidavit A-25 of Sri P.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Sr. Manager as evidence. He

has been comprehensively cross examined on behalf of the workman.

14.

On 3.11.2009, following two preliminary issues were framed by the then Hon’ble Judge/Presiding Officer;

Whether the enquiry officer followed the principle of natural justice during the enquiry proceeding;

Whether the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer was perverse and prejudiced?

15.

Vide order dated 25.1.2016, preliminary issue no.1 has been decided by this Court in favour of the management.

The opportunity was afforded to both the parties to forward their arguments regarding issue no.2. Further on the request

and with the consent of both the parties arguments at length were heard of both the parties on issue no.2 as well on

merit of the case. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

16.

It has been emphasized on behalf of the workman that prejudiced and unfair enquiry was conducted by the

management although being innocent, he was held guilty and improper punishment of dismissal from service was

awarded to him. Per contra, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the management that reasonable opportunity to

defend himself was provided to the workman, copies of all the relevant documents were also given to him and he was

asked to lead evidence in his defence. Principle of natural justice and established Rules were followed by the Bank

authorities.

17.

The petitioner Sri Rajendra Kumar in para 2 of his statement on oath recorded on 18.11.04, has admitted that the

enquiry was conducted properly. In his cross examination dated 22.3.05 he has asserted that he was asked to appoint his

defence representative and consequently Sri V.K. Bhargava was appointed by him as Defence Representative but

neither any witness nor any bank employee was adduced by him in defence, moreover no defence witness was

requested by him to be summoned. During the enquiry, all the documents requested by him were provided to him.

18.

It has been brought to the notice of this Court during the argument that the other employee Sri G.S. Rawat,

whose connivance with the petitioner workman has been alleged, is also no more in the service of the bank, and Sri

Rawat has also been dismissed by the management.

19.

It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that he has been performing his duties in the Bank with sincerity

and dedication and he has got a clean record of about 13 years, some other employee of the Bank committed a fraud but

the petitioner was unduly suspended, enquiry was conducted, frivolous charge sheet on fake charges were issued, and

he was dismissed from service, without affording any sufficient opportunity. It has also been stressed that the enquiry

officer and superior authorities were prejudiced, and the conclusion was drawn on the basis of perverse domestic

enquiry, and principle of natural justice was not followed. The management has strongly refuted the allegations and has

submitted that the sum to be credited in the account of M/s Apollo Tyres, was illegally encashed by the petitioner in

connivance with another employee Sri G.S. Rawat and with such dishonesty one has got no right to be a Bank

employee. The opposite party has further emphasized that thorough and comprehensive enquiry was conducted,

sufficient opportunity was given to defend himself and defence representative was also appointed but the petitioner

intentionally refrained himself from adducing his evidence, consequently the management could not cross examine

him. Later on the petitioner after about 3 months, handed over the cash embezzled by him to the other bank employee

so as to deposit the same in the current account of M/s Apollo Tyres.

20.

It is quite evident from the perusal of the record that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner

employee to defend himself during the domestic enquiry. Defence representative as per the choice of the petitioner was

also appointed, management witness were examined during the enquiry but the petitioner did not adduce himself for

cross examination. There is no reason to infer that the enquiry officer has ever been prejudiced, the whole proceeding

of the domestic enquiry was fair, transparent, as per Rules, keeping in view the principle of natural justice as well.

Preliminary issue no.2 is decided accordingly in favour of the management.

21.

Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following Rulings;

2000,SCC(L&S) Hardwari Lal Vs. State of UP page 85.

2010,(1) SCC,(L&S) Union of India Vs Gyan Chand Chattar page 129.

1999,SCC(L&S) Kuldeep Singh vs Commissioner of Police page 429.

2006, SCC(L&S), M.V.Bijlani vs Union of India page 919.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7581

1963, IT, LLJ, page 452, Hon’ble SC

AIR 1997, SC, Narayan D.Ram. Teerath Khar Vs State of Maharashtra, page 2148.

2013(2) SCC(L&S), page 270.

2013(4)SCC page 301.

WP No. 2326/04 dt. 2.3.05, Hon’ble High Court,AP

10.

(2009)1,SCC(L&S) page 398.

11.

(2013)4,SCC, 301.

22.

Learned AR for the opposite party submits that the aforesaid Rulings do not support the pleas taken by the

petitioner in this case. He refers in support of his assertion the following Rulings;

2005, SCC,(L&S), MP Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chand Sharma page 417.

2006,SCC, (L&S), SBI & Others Vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde page 1573.

23.

Learned AR for the petitioner workman stress that above Rulings of the management are not applicable in the

present case.

24.

It has been proved beyond doubt that the domestic enquiry was conducted in its full fairness, sufficient

opportunity was provided to the delinquent employee, principle of natural justice was followed, no prejudice was ever

caused, the explanation given by the workman was genuinely not found satisfactory. Under these circumstances it is

now to be ascertained whether the punishment awarded by the management is appropriate and judicially sound, or not.

25.

This fact can not be diluted that the Bank employee holds a position of confidence and trust. Account

holders and people involved in, commercial/financial transactions must not be put to sufferings or a cryptic

situation of uncertainty must not be permitted to arise, due to dishonesty and unfair working of Bank employee.

Integrity beyond doubt with utmost honesty and sincerity are inbuilt ingredients of bank functioning.

Embezzlement of public money can not be dealt with casually or leniently. Hon’ble Supreme Court in

(1989),2,SCC, Union of India vs Parmanand and others page 177/189, has directed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment can not be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. It has further

laid down that the Tribunal can not interfere with the findings of the enquiry office or competent authority where they

are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. Hon’ble Apex Court, in this regard has propounded noteworthy principles in the

following citations;

(2003) 4, SCC, Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs PC Kakkar, page 363

(Para 14)

(2003), 3, SCC, Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs Hoti Lal page 605 (Para 10).

(2005), 3, SCC, Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs Thiru Gnanasambandam, page 247 (para 15).

26.

After having heard, intellect arguments of both the parties thoroughly, and perusal of the record, in the light of

the above prouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts, it is inferred that the action of the

management of Union Bank of India in dismissing the petitioner workman Sri Rajendra Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier

w.e.f. 12.07.99, can not be adjudicated as unjust, unfair, and illegal. The petitioner workman is not entitled to any

relief.

27.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

28.08.2017

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

MCY;w-lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-

09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@14@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

7582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/14/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2015

Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)

Ambara Colliery, Kanhan Area,

PO Dungaria, The Junardev,

Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area,

PO Dungaria, The Junardev,

Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of July, 2017

1. As per letter dated 13-5-17 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Dehi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/14/ 2015-

IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference to :

“D;k izca/d }kjk Jh rsthyky] xquoar ¯lg ,oa Jh vuoj gqlSu lHkh Vc yksMj] vEckMk dksfy;jh dk ihl jsV ls Vkbe jsV ij

in ifjorZu vius iwoZ vkns'k Øekad Amb./Conv.PR to TR/2011-61-374, fnukad 22&7&2011 ds ,d o"kZ ds varjky ds

ckn vius vkns'k Øekad Amb./Conv/PR To TR/2012-394 fnukad 20&7&12 }kjk djuk rFkk osru #Ik, 1386 ds LFkku ij

#Ik, 1366 izfrfnu djuk U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn ugh arks deZdkj D;k vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/dkjh gS \

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman failed to appear in reference

proceeding. Claim against workman is proceeded exparte on 4-5-2017.

3. Management filed Written Statement. Management submits that workman has not filed statement of claim. Claim

under reference pertains to pay protection due to conversion from piece rated to time rated post. That all the workers

were piece rated their Form B are produced. The service conditions of employees are covered by NCWA, standing

orders. Coal mine were nationalized in 1973. During the period manpower was used for execution of several category

of work. After modernization and open mechanized mine, manual work is not required. The employees rendered

surplus were offered alternative job. The employees did not agree for alternative job. To avoid termination from

service, settlement was arrived between Union and Management. That management shall on conversion from piece

reted to time rated fully protect the gross wages including SPRA wherever applicable. The basic pay so fixed in time

rated EMR category, balance will be treated as personal pay etc. such clause is reproduced. It is also agreed that the

cases alrady converted between 4-11-90 to 3-12-91 shall be considered for notional only and earalier cases will not be

considered. It is reiterated that because of modernization of mines and intoduction of new mechanism for extracting

coal, manual working is not required. The piece rated workers have no job to offer. They were converted in time rated

mechanized mines to avoid retrenchment.

4. Management also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Arun Kumar Sharma supporting contentions in Written

Statement.

5. Ist party workman has not participated in reference proceeding therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7583

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

(1) The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-

lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@140@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. N.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/140/2006-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2007

The President,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

Qr.No.B-10, Amlohari Project, NCL,

Sidhi (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Nigani Project of NCL,

PO Nigahi, Sidhi (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 20^th day of July 2017

As per letter dated 6-3-2007 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-22012/140/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Union that Shri S.K.Saxena is entitled to get proper designation/ wage as per

terms and conditions of selection for the post of large capacity Excavator Operator/ Draline Operator and is

also entitled to operate Dragline Excavator is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submits his statement of claim.

Case of Ist party workman is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on 2-8-81. He was posted

atGorbi Project of NCL. He alongwith Shri S.C.Bhattacharya, Shri Fate Bahadur Singh were selected for the post of

Large Capacity Excavator Operator/ Dragline Operator vide order dated 12-1-1985. That as per terms and conditions in

said order, workman and Bhattacharya were entitled to get designation and pay scale of large capacity excavator/

dragline operator special grade after completion of 9 year service as large capacity excavation operator. After his

selection, workman was posted at Bina Project where he joined on 25-1-85. Thereafter workman was transferred to

Amlohri project where he joined on 3-9-85. That the facility for training of dragline was not available in Amlohri

7584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Project. That he was ready to receive training for dragline operator. Management deliberately did not give him training

of operator though the management was bound to give him such training. Workman submits that he is therefore entitled

to designation and wages for the post of large capacity excavator operator from 12-1-94. Management has given

designation and wages of dragline operator of Mr.Bhattacharya and Fate Bahadur as per order dated 16-4-97 w.e.f. 20-

1-92. The act of the management is discriminatory and illegal. On such ground, Ist party workman prays that reference

be decided in its favour. Difference of wages for post of Clerk Grade III be allowed. It appears prayer has been made

for regularization of services of Smt. Sandhya Gupta not consistent with terms of reference.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that

the terms of reference is vague. The particulars of the designation which is being demanded by workman, particulars

of wages and particulars of the alleged selection process as well as period from which the demands have been made are

missing. The reference is not tenable. 2^nd party submits Shri S.K.Saxena was initially appointed on 24-1-1985, he was

posted at Bina Project as Asstt. Store Keeper. Workman was not selected under Excavator Operator Training Scheme.

Vide order dated 9-4-85, workman was posted at Gorbi for training for 36 weeks. He joined as Excavator Operator

Trainee on 5-4-85. He was allowed to join on 3-9-85. Workman was directed to report to join VTC training. Thereafter

he was transferred to Amlohri project. On 3-8-95, workman resumed his duty submitting the joining report as per

order dated 4-1-90. On recommendation of DP, Ist party workman and Singh were drawing difference of wages as

Shovel Operator Group A in terms of training scheme. The training scheme for operating large capacity excavator for

existing employees. Cadre scheme applicable to workman’s cadre is produced. Training scheme along with selection

letter dated 12-1-85 shows cadre scheme for promotion on completion of training and select trainees will become

excavator operator special grade subject to passing the test and recommendation by DP. That workman did not pass

Trade test. His case was not recommended by DP for promotion to the post of Large capacity Excavator operator/

dragline operator. Workman on selection was granted appropriate grade from Assistant Store Keeper to Daily rated

excavator category. Training scheme is clear that trainee will be given post of operator higher capacity excavator. If

post is available in the project, workman was regularized as shovel operator Grade A from 25-1-85. After 5 years, he

was posted at Amlohri project. No cadre scheme is formulated by JBCCI for providing training large capacity dragline

operator after 9 years. While workman was working at Amlohri project, he was careless in his duty, did not carry his

duty. He was obstructing work and production. Chargesheet were issued to him. Workman did not show improvement

in his conduct. He was not working with devotion at Nigahi. When the test was conducted in 2002 for post of dragline

operator, workman was not found fit and eligible. Workman is not entitled for promotion to the post of dragline

operator special grade. In parawise reply, above contentions are reiterated by the management. It is submitted that

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Rejoinder is filed by Ist party workman reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

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:-

(i) Whether the demand of the Union that Shri

S.K.Saxena is entitled to get proper designation/

wage as per terms and conditions of selection for

the post of large capacity Excavator Operator/

Draline Operator and is also entitled to operate

Dragline Excavator is legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- The terms of reference pertains to legality of the demand of Union for giving proper designation and

wages to Saxena in terms and conditions for selection for the post of excavator/ dragline operator. Ist party workman

filed affidavit of his evidence. He was selected under Excavator Operator Training Scheme. He was sent for training

toGorbi project and thereafter Amlohri Project. Dragline machine was not available at Amlohri Project. 2^nd party did

not transfer him to any other project, where dragline machine was available for training. That only excavator operator

special grade can operate P & H 10 cu.m and 20 cu.m Dragline machine and all machines of which capacity is more

than 8 cu.m. That he couldnot complete his training due to non-availability of dragline machine and nor he was

transferred to any other project where dragline was available. He was working from 3-9-85 to Sept.1998. That he was

transferred to Amlohri Project with ulterior motive. In his cross examination, workman denies from ASK to daily rated

operator, promotion at monthly rated was given to him. He admits that he was given promotion from ASK to Grade

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7585

“C”. he denies that from 25-1-89, he was regularized on post of Shovel Operator. He was regularized on post of

Excavator Operator Grade “A”.

Management’s witness Matloob Khan filed affidavit of evidence supporting whole contentions of management

in Written Statement. That JBCCI has not formulated scheme that trainee will get designation and wages for the post of

dragline operator after 9 years. He denied that workman was selected for post of large capacity excavator operator. That

workman and others were selected under Excavator Operator training scheme. That workman had not passed trade test.

He was not recommended for promotion by DP for post of Dragline operator. The training scheme for promotion

shows that cadre scheme for promotion on completion of training of 10 years selected trainees will become excavator

operator subject to passing test and recommendation by DPC. Management’s witness in his cross examination admits

workman was selected as per training scheme Exhibit M-7. It was responsibility of management to give training. The

period of training was 9 years. In 10^th year, DPC was to be constituted. The details of the training scheme are given in

Exhibit M-7. Workman was selected for training on 12-1-1985. After one month, his training started. For training,

workman was sent to Gorbi Colliery. Witness was unable to tell its exact date. On 3-9-85, workman joined at Amlohri

colliery. In 1999, workman was transferred from Amlohri Project to Nigahi colliery. He was given 9 years training

except training on dragline machine. Workman had completed all other trainings. In Amlohri project dragline machine

was not available. Management’s witness was unable to tell why workman was not sent for training in machine to other

place. Management’s witness admits trainees who completed training on dragline machines were selected in 10^th year

after constituting DP. Workman was considered by DPC, he was not found fit. Witness of management was unable tell

that as workman had not received training on dragline machine therefore he was not found fit by DPC. Evidence of

workman is silent when dragline machine facility was not available, why he didn’t approach management immediately

that he transferred to other places where dragline machine was available. Without any kind of grievance, workman

continued to work at Amlohri Project.

Management’s witness Sunil also supported management. Document M-11,12 are proved from his evidence.

Above witness of management in his cross examination was unable to tell when DP was constituted for selection of

Dragline Trainees. He was also unable to tell after completion of training of Dragline trainees in 1995, when DPC was

constituted.

So far as the documents is concerned Exhibit M-1 is order dated 24—85. Ist party workman along with

A.K.Srivastava were released for joining at Bine Project. Exhibit M-2 is Ist party workman and others were posted at

Gorbi Project on 9-4-85. M-3 is relieving order dated 5-9-85 for joining Gorbi Project. M-4 is joining report submitted

by workman to Amlohri Project. M-5 is office order dated 4-1-90 Ist party workman and Bisen Singh were absorbed on

post of Shovel operator Grade A from 25-1-89. Exhibit M-6 is service record, M-7 is Training Scheme.

10.

Shri S.Mishra for Ist party workman pointed out my attention to page 3 of the scheme which provides- in 10^th

year, they will be confirmed in the Grade of Special Grade subject to the recommendation of DP to be set up for this

purpose. Exhibit M-8 is annexure in 9^th year of training Grade A+ (Special Grade A) was to be given, in 0^th year special

Grade was to be accorded. When Ist party workman himself did not approach management for training on dragline

machine, he was happy with work at Amlohri project. Workman had failed trade test, he was found unfit by DPC

constituted after 10 year. Demand of the Union cannot be said proper.

11.

The argument advanced by S.Mishra for workman that management be directed to give training to workman on

dragline machine cannot be accepted as the age of workman in his affidavit of evidence filed in 2014 is shown 55

years. By this time, workman must be of 58 years age. Directing management to provide training on dragline machine

to workman will not serve any purpose. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

12.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of the Union that Shri S.K.Saxena is entitled to get proper designation/ wage as per terms

and conditions of selection for the post of large capacity Excavator Operator/ Draline Operator and is

also entitled to operate Dragline Excavator is not proper and legal.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-

bZ-lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

7586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 62@93) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@84@1992&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/84/1992-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/93

The Secretary,

MP Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),

Post South Jhagrakhand colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Dy.General Manager/ Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar Opencast Mines of SECL,

PO Bengawam,

Distt. Shahdol

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9^th day of August 2017

As per letter dated 17-3-93 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-22012/84/92-IR(C-II) . The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Rajnagar Sub Area/ Opencast Mines of Hasdeo Area of SECL in

denying the payment of wages as demanded by the Union and not regularizing Shri Shiv Kumar and 21 others

(as per list enclosed) is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. MPKMS Union submitted statement of claim on

behalf of 22 workmen shown in the list along with order of reference. Case of Ist party is that SECL is undertaking of

Government of India. It is state within Article 2 of the constitution. That Shiv Kumar and 22 other claimants were

initially working at Bellassiding for breaking of coal, levelling and cleaning of track as well as shunting purpose. After

closure of the Bellas siding, they have been engaged at Rajnagar7/8 siding for same purpose. Union raised dispute

before ALC. Management not given specific reply except that it admitted that workers were working as unskilled

mazdoors. The dispute ended in failure. The report was sent to Ministry. Vide letter dated 2-6-92, Government had

refused to make reference. After Miscellaneous petition 2667/92 was filed on direction given by Hon’ble High Court,

dispute has been referred.

Ist party submits that all 22 workers were working in permanent perennial regular nature of job which were

usually done by departmental workers. Work done by them is covered under clause “Raising or Raising cum Selling”.

It is prohibited category of work as per notification dated 1-2-75. It is further contented that under Clause 11.5.0 of

NCWA-III, IV, management agreed for not engaging contract labour in permanent and perennial nature of work.

Clause 11.5 of the NCWA-III is reproduced. Ist party further contends that claimant workman were engaged in mining

job defined under Section 2(1)(j)(vi) Mining Act, 1952. That as per said section, all adits, levels, planes, machinery

works, railways, tramways and sidings in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine verbatim is reproduced. Ist party

further submits that claimant workers were not paid standard wages ranging from Rs.10 to 15 per day. They were

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7587

deprived of NCWA wages and regularization. Their services were utilized for profit and business of the company.

Livelihood of the claimants is dependent on job. Management has projected a contractor for name sake simply to

exploit poor workmen, deprive them NCWA Cat-II wages. It is further reiterated that workmen were performing their

duty under direct supervision of SECL officers. Their attendance were marked by company staff and payments were

made by them.

As per provisions of Mines Act 1952, management of SECL is bound to maintain certain documents such as

Form B Register, Attendance Register, payment register etc. which are strictly under the possession of the

management. those documents are vital for deciding the reference. That management be directed to produce those

documents. That during pendency of dispute before ALC Shahdol, management terminated services of workman

violating Section 33 of ID Act. The services of workman could not be terminated except approval of the concerned

authority. No such approval was sought for terminating services of workman. It is alleged that action of the

management is covered as retrenchment under Section 25-F of ID Act. It is also reiterated that similarly situated

workman working for same job in Rajnagar siding were taken on company roll and regularized. Workman have been

discriminated violating Article 14,16 of the constitution. Ist party submits that workmen were directly engaged by

management for profit and business. They worked more than 240/190 days in a year many times. They were engaged in

permanent and perennial nature of job. As per clause 11.5.0 of NCWA-III, IV, management had agreed not to employ

contractor’s labours on jobs of perennial and permanent nature. Similarly situated workmen were regularized. Workers

were paid less wages than prescribed under NCWA, workers were doing their duty under direct supervision of

management. On such ground, Ist party prays that management of SECL be directed to treat those workman as its

employees from date of employment and pay wages and other consequential benefits.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 15/1 to 15/8 opposing claim of

workman. Preliminary objection is raised that reference is not tenable as order of reference doesnot disclose particulars

of the individuals. Order of reference was made without application of mind. Management is not in position to identify

individuals. Management had contented before ALC that claimants workmen were never employed by the

management. question of their regularization doesnot arise. Reference is based on non-existing facts. The conciliation

proceeding ended in failure. Government had refused to make reference. Reference is based on non-existing facts and

therefore not tenable.

2^nd party further submits it is Government company having recruitment policy for recruitment of employees.

Vacancies are required to be notified to local Employment Exchange after the names of eligible candidates are

sponsored, selection committee constituted and after interviews etc successful candidates are selected. Claimants were

not appointed following such recruitment process. That mines are covered by various legislations including Mines Act.

Management is required to maintain Form B Register, Bonus Register, Attendance Register, Form C, D, E Register,

entire particulars of employees are entered in Form B Register, service register. Management provides various

facilities to employees- free medical, free food, water supply employees are issued medical cards, coal cards. Those

documents in possession of the employees are proof of being employed by the management. management is not

empowered to appoint any person without following the recruitment process discussed supra. That in coal industry,

certain civil and temporary nature of work are being executed through local contractors for the purpose of

establishment of township bldg. etc are given to the contractors. That construction of road, cleaning, maintenance of

colliery premises are done through local contractors inviting tenders. The contractors engagelocallabours,they are paid

minimum wages declared by Collector in the area. For purpose of correctness of payment made by contractors to

labours, management representative use to attest payment disbursement list prepared by the contractors. After

completion of work, contractors are paid according to the contract. Local labours engaged by contractors for execution

of work. Union functioning in colliery taken up the matter for employment and regularization of those labours with

management of SECL. That Shiv Kumar and 21 others were never employed by management of SECL. They might

have been engaged by contractor for execution of work. Contractor Mahesh, Birendra and others were given contract

for execution of work of cleaning and maintenance of siding of Raj Nagar Open Cast Mine. The contracts were given

after tendering, issuing work order etc. As soon as the work was completed, contract automatically came to end.

Contractors are better persons to tell whether Shiv Kumar and others were engaged by them or not. Management denies

employer employee relationship. Those persons were not engaged by SECL. There was no question of maintaining any

documents w.r.t. those workers. That management is maintaining statutory records under various legislation.

That terms and conditions of the employment of persons employed in coal industry are governed by NCWA.

The NCWA wages are not extended to labours engaged by contractor. Contractors are employer who have to decide

the rate of wages paid to labours employed by them. Management has to ensure labours engaged by contractor are

paid minimum wages declared by District Authorities. It is reiterated that NCWA wages are not applicable to labours

engaged by contractor. Management has referred to ratio held in various cases. The claimant workmanwere not

engaged by management, regularization of services of claimants workman would be back door entry which is not

7588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

permissible. It will defeat rights of employment of other persons. On such ground 2^nd party prays claim of 22 claimants

for regularization is not maintainable. Reference be answered in his favour.

Ist party Union filed rejoinder reiterating its contentions in statement of claim. It is denied that reference is not

tenable for want of particulars. It is denied employer employee relationship doesnot exists. Case of workers in

reference cannot be compared with normal recruitment in the company. It is totally different matter. Contentions of

management w.r.t. recruitment rules is irregular. The civil and temporary nature of work executed through contractor

but in instant case, work performed by workers are not in civil nature rather they were engaged in mining jobs covered

under Section 2(1)(j)(vi) at Bellas and Rajnagar sidings. They completed 190/240 days attendance. Management had

agreed in NCWA-III, IV not to engage contract labour in permanent and perennial nature of job. That management is

bound to maintain documents of contract labour as per circular dated 1-2-85 issued by Director of Mines Safety,

Jabalpur. Management to deprive legitimate rights of workers shown them contract labourby paper arrangement.

Workers were directly engaged by the management. For purpose of payment, they were projected as contractor’s

labours. That coal industry is not schedule industry under Section 2(g) of M.W.Act. the workers were entitled to

NCWA wages and not minimum wages. Only certificate holders of management personnels were competent to

supervise work in the mine and not the contractors. There was absolute control and supervision of management over

the work of the labours. Ist party Union prays claim of workman be allowed.

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:-

(i) Whether the claimantsShivkumar and 21 others

name appearing in list with order of reference were

employees of the SECL and contractors were

camouflage?

Claimants/ workmen are employees of management

of SECL and contractor were shown by paper

arrangement/ camouflage.

(ii) Whether the action of the management of

Rajnagar Sub Area/ Opencast Mines of Hasdeo

Area of SECL in denying the payment of wages as

demanded by the Union and not regularizing Shri

Shiv Kumar and 21 others ( as per list enclosed) is

justified?

In Negative

(ii) If so, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

10.

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to denial of NCWA wages and regularization of Shri Shiv Kumar

and 21 others shown in the list annexed with order of reference. Management has filed application for better

particulars. Ist party has produced particulars of the workers giving name, father’s name, age, caste, identification

mark, present address, date of engagement with photo affixed. Identical affidavit of Smt. Sukhanti Bai widow of Indal,

Smt. Sarita Singh widow of Lallu Singh, Shri Chhotelal S/o Shri Harmangal Singh have been filed supporting claim of

workmen, all of them were cross-examined. Shri Sukhwanti bai in her affidavit of evidence has stated that her

husband and other workmen were working at Rajnagar open cast mine, Bellas siding during 1983 to 1986 and

Rajnagar from 1986 to 1989. Her husband was working in siding- cutting wagon, loading, joining the wagons, cleaning

and breaking coal in small pieces, work of maintenance. Similar statement is made in affidavit of Smt. Sarita Singh

W/o Lallu Singh,Chhotelal S/o Harmangal Singh. In their cross examination, work done by Indal, Lallusingh,

Harmangalsingh has not been shattered. Sukhanti bai in her cross says she got prepared her affidavit and she knows its

contents. Sarita Singh in her cross examination says she was married in 1986, her husband died in 1995. Her husband

was working in Rajnagar. Documents about working of her husband are not produced. Shri Chhotelal in his cross

examination says in his affidavit, he has made averments about working of his brother while he was accompanying his

brother, he was of 15-16 years of age. He claims ignorance that his brother was working with the contractor. In his

further cross examination, he says that permission was required for entering the mine. Without permission, no body

can enter in the mine. He denies that he deposed false that he accompanied his brother.

11.

Ist party also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Bhondal, Ramcharan S/o Shri Netlal,

ShriNanku S/o Laxman, Shri Chhotelal S/o Rajkumar, Shri Premlal S/o Dhanushdhari, Shri Sonsai S/o Mathau, Shri

Samaylal S/oArjun, Shri Lalman S/o Charku, shriRamPrasad S/o Maiku, Kumarishantibai S/o Late Udairam, Shri

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7589

Baldhari Singh S/o Dhanushdhari, Shri Amir Singh S/o Dhanushdhari& Shri Chandradev S/o Tehlooram but they did

not appear for cross examination.

12.

Shri Shiv Kumar Bhondal and RamcharanNetlal filed affidavit of evidence that they and other claimant workers

were working at Bella Siding from 1983 to 86 at Rajnagar 7/8 incline from 1987 to 1989. The place of their working is

covered under Section 2(1)(j)(vi) of Mines Act. Their work is covered as Mining job. They were doing work of

separating wagon from rack, taking wagons to the loading point, joining loaded wagons, shunting , cleaning line,

breaking coal by hammer into small pieces. That claimants Ramkripal S/o Harmangal Singh C.No.4, Sukhlal s/o

Mithailal C.No.5, Lallusigh S/o Kamta Singh CNo.16 have died. Shri Udairam S/o Shivcharan C.No.15, Shri Sohan

S/o Budhai C.No.11 also died and they were engaged by colliery management during 1983 to 1986, payment was made

directly to them, in 1987 to 89bogus contractor was shown at the time of payment. Contractor was seen only on the day

of payment. After 1986, the officers of the management shown payment through contractor, their signatures used to be

obtained on plain paper. They being illiterate could not know its contents. That ChandradevTehlura C.No.6,

RamcharanMahipal C.No.7, Shri Sarvan Kumar C.No.8, Shri Amir Singh S/o Dhanushdhari C.No.18, Shri Mahabir S/o

Dhanushdhari C.No.19 are given employment by the management. that contractor was not holding licence. The

establishment was not registered under CL(R&A)Act. Their attendance was marked by attendance clerk. Siding

Incharge was giving instructions to them about the work. They were working under direction of management, their

services were terminated in 1989. Shri Shiv Kumar in his cross examination says he iss illiterate. He joined Union in

1983, he was unable to tell name of Union. He was paying Rs.40,50 as membership contribution in a year. He had

come searching employment, he was engaged by counter clerk but unable to tell his name, appointment letter was not

given to him, he was not interviewed. They were doing work of breaking coal into pieces, line supply, loading wagon

to point. He did not have certificate about his working. He was engaged by SECL, he was not engaged by contractor.

Shri Naresh Babu was giving instructions for work. In his cross he says Sukhlal andPremlal died,

Chandradev,Amarsingh and his brother total 4 persons got employment, they were interviewed. He was engaged by

contractor Mahesh Singh, Veerendrasingh, Anil Singh and Ranjit Singh. Work of cleaning was given to the contractors.

Payment was made at counter and not by the contractors. They were getting payment every 15 days or at end of the

week on daily wage basis. Their signatures were obtained on plain papers. He was unable to tell name of attendance

clerk. Shri Naresh was siding Incharge. Siding Incharge and Babu Brij Kishore and Veerendra were giving

instructions for work. Manager was not telling them work. His further cross shows that he had met with accident and

compensation Rs.32,700 was paid by the management.

13.

Shri Ramcharan in his cross says during 1983 to 1987, he was working as labour. He was doing work of cutting

rack and taking to siding point. Loading, cleaning line, taking wagon from loading point. That 5-6 workers have died.

He joined membership at the time of raising dispute. He was called on work by Manager. At that time, he was working

on road. Manager told him he should receive the amount what he was getting. Manager had engaged him on work. He

denies that he was engaged by contractor. He has no certificate about his working or engagement by the Manager.

During 1987 to 1989, Mahesh Singh was making payment. Virendra Singh, Anil Singh, Ranjit Singh are not

contractors, they are labours. Mahesh Singh and those persons are from same family. That they were doing work of

maintenance. He claims ignorance about contract between Mahesh Singh and management.

14.

Turning to the evidence of management’s witness, RamcharanMahipal in his affidavit of evidence stated that he

was employed as land oustee in 1991. He remained absent for his cross examination. The evidence cannot be

considered.

15.

Affidavit of evidence of management’s witness Shri Y.N.Singh is devoted on the point that claimant were not

appointed following recruitment rules of coal industry. That work of civil nature and temporary work are being done

through contractors. That work of establishment of township, construction of buildings, road, drainage etc are done

through contractors. Work of removal of ash, cleaning and maintenance of colliery premises are also awarded to the

local contractors. Claimant Shiv Kumar and 21 others were never engaged by management of SECL. That contractor

Mahesh Singh, Birendra Prasad Singh, S.R.Mehta and others were given contract after tendering and issuing work

orders. There is no employer employ relationship. Management never paid wages to the claimants. Management not

taken work from claimants at any time. Labours of contractors are provided treatment in colliery hospital etc. In his

cross examination, Shri Y.N.Singhsays he was posted at Rajnagar Open cast from 88 to 2013. During his period, the

workers connected with the dispute were working through contractors. He was unable to tell when the workers were

disengaged, he had not seen payment of wages made to the workers, at what rate payment was made. Till 1989, work

was carried in blast siding. Thereafter the work at Rajnagar siding was carried. Rack was loaded every day at both the

sidings. The contractor’s labours were doing work of cleaning line. That work of siding maintenance comes under sales

department. On question put to the witness that work of cleaning, billing should be done from civil department. He

replied that work was done as per directions of Area Manager. Witness further explained that work of siding

maintenance pertains to cleaning the coal falling at the time of loading of rack so that rack doesnot go out of track. He

was unable to tell whether contractors Anil Singh, Ranjit Singh and Birendra Singh were from one family.

7590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Management’s witness Shri Sarwan Kumar in his affidavit of evidence says since 1991, he is appointed by

SECL after acquisition of his land. Prior to his appointment in 1991, he was working under contractor Mahesh Singh at

Rajnagar OC on daily wages. In his cross examination, this witness says he was working along with workers connected

with the dispute. Work at blast was carried from 1983 to 1986, at Rajnagar from 1986 to 1990. Attendance was marked

by Mahesh Singh. Shiv Kumar was working with him. Shiv Kumar had suffered injury to his leg. His leg was

amputated. H was appointed after acquisition of his land. Payments were made by contractor.

17.

Management’s witness SatyawanTripathi filed affidavit denying employer employee relationship that

management did not pay wages to the claimants, they were not engaged by management. management had no control

over contractor’s labours. In his cross examination, this witness says he was working in Rajnagar Mine during 1984 to

1992 in mines department. Work of Raj Nagar Open Cast siding was looked after by other persons. it is clear from his

evidence in cross examination that he has no knowledge about work at Rajnagar sidings.

18.

Management’s witnessR.N.Roy filed affidavit of his evidence denying employer employee relationship. That

the work of civil nature and temporary work are being done through contractors. That the work of establishment of

township, construction of buildings, roads, drainage etc are done through contractors. Shiv Kumar and 21 others were

never employed by the management. That 3 workers at Sl.No.4,5,16 died, 5 workers at Sl.No.6,7,8,18 & 19 are given

employment in SECL. Management had no control or supervision on contractor’s labours. From his evidence,

documents M-1 to 41 are admitted in evidence. Witness R.N.Roy in his cross examination says he was working as

surveyor at Rajnagar Mines. At Rajnagar mines, there were 2 sidings- Bijuri siding and Rajnagar Open Cast Siding. It

is possible that the workers connected with dispute were working at both the sidings. He admits that the work of

siding pertains to sale department. From siding, coal is transported for sale. His work related to survey as provided

under Section 49 of Mining Act. He denies that siding is part of coal mines. That at blast siding & open cast, coal was

loaded every day during 1986 to 1989. Coal was loaded at Rajnagar open cast from 1986 to 1990. Loading of coal was

supervised by contractors. The attendance of labours was maintained by the contractor. The payments were made by

contractor and not by SECL. Coal from CHP was sent to Amarkantak after tender notice, no agreement was executed.

Work order were issued.

19.

The documents proved from evidence of this witness Exhibit M-1 to 41 are tender notices, work order and office

note for approval of tenders. Work orders M-9, 4,22,24,38,39 bears signatures of the contractors. Shri Mahesh Singh,

Anil Singh and Ranjit Singh. The tender notice as well as work order shows nature of work, cleaning and maintenance

of siding at Rajnagar. The tender amount is shown between 9999, 10,000, 15,000 etc. The rate of contract is also

mentioned on tender notice. Though 2^nd party has pleaded in Written Statement that the payments made by contractors

to its workers were attested, any documents about payments made by the contractors to workers are not produced. As

per order dated 31-2-15, learned counsel for management had agreed to produce registration certificate of establishment

and contractor’s licence, those documents are not produced.

20.

At the time of argument, Shri Nathulal Pandey pointed out my attention that in reply filed before AL by

management, document P-2 is working of claimants workers was admitted and it was explained that miscellaneous

mazdoors performing unskilled temporary nature of job in non-prohibited category was done by the claimants. Shri

Nathulal pointed out my attention to section 2(1)(j)(vi). It defines mines means any excavation where any operation for

purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes all adits levels planes

machinery works, railway tramways and siding in or adjacent to and belonging to mine. Circular of 1975 at P-6

prohibits employment of contract labour in raising cum selling of coal.

From above provisions, it is clear that the work of maintenance of sidings and other related work including

breaking of coal is certainly the mining work. Shri N.L.Pandey also pointed out my attention to nomenclature job

description and categorization of coal employees. At Sl.No.17. Shunting is mentioned, its job description is workman

employed in moving wagon at colliery sidings.

My attentionis also drawn to Para 11.5.0 of NCWA-IV. It provides industry shall not employ labour through

contractor or engage contractor’s labour on jobs of permanent and perennial nature. As per clause 11.5.1 of NCWA IV,

engagement of contractor workers in perennial nature of work has been prohibited. The documents Exhibit M-1 to 41

are of tender notice and work order of contractors or work completion certificates. Registration certificate or licence of

contractor are not produced. The working of claimants workman was not disputed. In reply submitted before ALC,

document P-2. Even management’s witness Y.N.Singh in para 14 of his cross examination has admitted that claimants

were working at Rajnagar open cast mine.

21.

Shri N.L.Pandey relies on ratio held in case between-

General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar versus Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Contractual Workers Union reported in 2008(12)SCC-275. The present case is not for regularization simpliciter such as

in the case of an adhoc or casual employee claiming this privilege. The basic issue in the present case is the status of

workmen and whether they were employees of ONGC or ofr a contractor and in the event they were employees of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7591

former a claim to be treated on a par with other such employees. This was the basic issue on which the parties went to

trial, notwithstanding confusion created by the ill worded reference.

In para 19 of the judgment, their Lordship discussed analysis of the case discussed above shows they fall in

three classes (i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and

employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/ court ordered abolition of

contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act, no

automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered, (ii) where the contract was found

to be a sham and nominal, rather a cafouflage in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the

principal employer were held, infact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself.

In case between Secretary, HSEB versus Suresh and others reported in 1999(3)SCC-601. Their Lordship held on

facts contractor found only to be a name leader and that there was no genuine contract with him. In such circumstances,

High Court rightly lifted the veil and held the said Safaikarmcharis to be employees of the Board and therefore entitled

to reinstatement .

In case between Hussainbhai versus the Alath Factory Tezhilali Union and others reported in AIR-1978-SC-

1410. Their Lordship held where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other is infact the employer. He has economic control over the workers

subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any reasons, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The

presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relation ex contractu is of

no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, it is found

though draped in different perfect paper arrangement that the real employer is the management not the immediate

contractor.

In case between Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd versus State of UP and others reported in 2003(6)SCC-528. Their

Lordship dealing with employer employee relationship contract labour. Test of control engaging workmen through

intermediary but maintaining record of attendance and supervising their work through own employees. Lifting the veil

or looking at the conspectus of factors governing the employment held involvement of the direct contractor was merely

figurative and sham. Failure to produce record alleging they were not available, their Lordship held inference was

rightly drawn.

In present case, 2^nd party has not produced documents Registration Certificate, contract licence, therefore it

could be presumed if those documents would have been produced certainly those documents would have been against

the management. my attention is pointed out by Shri N.L.Pandey to certificate issued by DGMS of attendance of labour

employed by contractor is not recorded. It is contravention of provisions of Mines Act 1952 and Mines Rules 1955. It is

therefore necessary that attendance of all persons including those employed by contractors should be recorded in

prescribed attendance register.

22.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

Deenanath and others versus National Fertilisers Ltd and others reported in 1992(1)SCC-695. Their Lordship

held question as to necessity or bonafides of employment of contract labour in the establishment concerned. Question

as to necessity or bonafides of employment of contract labour can be referred to as an industrial dispute and Labour

Court can give appropriate directions in the matter of principal employer. That non-compliance of Section 7 & 12 of

CL(R&A)Act is penal provision for which reference may be made to Section 23 & 25 of the Act.

Reliance is also placed on General Manager, OSD Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon versus Bharat Lal

and another reported in 2011-I-LLJ-321(SC). Their Lordship did not sustain findings of Industrial Court that person

concerned direct employee of cotton mills and not of contractor. Their Lordship held that 2 well recognized test to find

out whether an employee was contract labor or direct employment or through contractor.

In present case, though 2^nd party management has alleged that work was given to contractor, documents Exhibit

M-1 to 41 are produced are tender notice and work orders application for impleading contractor was opposed by Ist

party. Contractor has not been impleaded but statutory documents w.r.t. contractor labours required to be maintained by

the management are not produced. Payment sheets and work completion certificates are also not produced. Therefore

evidence on record clearly shows that workmen who were working with the management was only camouflage. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

23.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 Ist party workman were employees of the management of

SECL and contractor was camouflage. Workmen were engaged on perennial nature prohibited under clause 5.1.0 of

NCWA-IV. The term of reference pertains to non-payment of NCWA wages and denial of regularisation. Evidence on

record clearly shows that claimant were working from 1983 to 1989. Their services were terminated in 1989. Violation

7592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Section 33 of ID Act cannot be accepted as the reference order is issued on 17-3-93. The reference proceeding was

not pending before this Tribunal at the time of termination of services of claimants.

24.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management submits that as services of Ist party claimants are terminated, claim for

regularization cannot be considered. It is also argued that the workman have not proved completion of more than 240

days continuous working and therefore relief for reinstatement cannot be allowed. Shri A.K.Shashi on the point relies

on ratio held in case between-

In case between Surendra Nagar District Panchayat versus Dahyabhai Amarsingh reported in 2005(8)SCC-750.

Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-F,B, workman to claim protection under Section 25-F of ID Act facts must be

proved that their existed relationship of employer employee, is workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Establishment in

which he is employed is industry within meaning of Act, he has put not less than one year continuous service.

Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others versus Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and another reported in

2015(2)SCC(L&S)-513. Their Lordship dealing with proof of continuous service held burden to prove such continuous

service lies on workman. On facts held respondent on basis of certificate issued by officer proved that he completed

240 days continuous service.

In present case in P-2, reply before AL, engagement of workman was not disputed. Contractor is found only

paper arrangement. Management has not produced documents about payment of wages to workman. Payment of wages

and attendance required to be maintained as per DGMS directions. Evidence of workman deserves to be accepted that

the workman had completed 240 days continuous service.

25.

On the point Shri N.L. Pandey relies on ratio held in case between-

Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others versus National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in

2001(7)SCC-1. In Para 68 of the judgment, their Lordship held it is common ground that consequent of prohibition

notification under Section 10(1) of CL(R&A)Act, prohibited employment of contract labour is neither spelt out in

Section 10 nor indicated anywhere in the Act.in our view the following consequence follow on issuing a notification

under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act-

(1)

Contract labour working in the establishment concerned at the time of issue of notification will cease to

function

(2)

The contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labour comes to an end.

(3)

No contract labour can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or other work in

the establishment to which the notification relates at any time thereafter

(4)

The contract labour is not rendered unemployed as is generally assumed but continues in the employment

of the contractor as the notification doesnot sever the relationship of master and servant between

contractor and contract labour.

(5)

The contractor can utilize the services of the contract labour in any other establishment in respect of

which no notification under Section 10(1) has been issued where all benefits under CLRA Act which

were being enjoyed by it will be available.

(6)

If a contractor intends to retrench his contract labour, he can do so only in conformity with the provisions

of ID Act.

Shri A.K.Shashi placed reliance on ratio held in case between Steel Authority of India versus Union of India

and others reported in 2006-12SCC-233. Their Lordship discussed a definite stand was taken by employee that they

had been working under the contractors, it would thus in our opinion not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and

inconsistent plea that they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea

is impermissible in law.

In present case, the pleading in statement of claim are that they were working in Rajnagar siding. However to

deprive the wages under NCWA, they were shown as employees of contractor. In my considered view the pleadings in

statement of claim and evidence are not inconsistent. Ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relies on ratio held in case between employees in relation to management of “D”

Ropeways of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad versus workmen represented by Secretary Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union. Dhanbad reported in 2010(2)LLN-84. His Lordship held order of Tribunal appears to be based on the fact that

these people were working for a number of years and therefore the job is of permanent nature and they were under the

control and supervision of the management. such finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained at all.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7593

In present case under Section 2(1)(j)(vi) as workmen were engaged for mining activities under clause 11.5.1 of

NCWA-IV engagement of contractual labour on perennial nature of work is prohibited. As per circular of 975, contract

labour employment in raising and sale of coal is prohibited. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between Oshiar Prasad versus employers in relation to management

of Sudamdih coal Washery of BCCL, Dhanbad reported in 2015-I-LLJ-513(SC). Their Lordship held no enquiry can be

made on question not specifically referred to Tribunal while answering reference. However their Lordship allowed

claim for retrenchment compensation.

26.

Shri N.L.Pandey relies on ratio held in case between Harinandan Prasad and another versus employer in relation

to management of FCI and another reported in 2014-II-LLJ-54(SC) held that Tribunal can create new rights and

obligations. Reliance is also placed in case between Rajkumar versus Director of Education and others reported in

2016(6)Scc-541. In support of argument that as management has not adduced evidence about gainful employment, full

backwages be allowed.

27.

Shri N.L.Pandey also submits that some workmen are dead, their dependents have filed affidavit of evidence,

compassionate employment provided under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA be allowed. Reliance is placed in case between

Mohan Mahto versus Central Coal Field Ltd. reported in 2007(8)SCC-549. The term of reference doesnot include claim

for compassionate ground. No enquiry can be made about claim for compassionate appointment in view of ratio held in

Oshiar Prasad case.

28.

Evidence on record is clear that the claimants were employed in Railway siding, Rajnagar during 83 to 89. In

view of my finding in Point No.1 they were employees of 2^nd party, contractor was camouflage. Considering period of

6 years working, compensation Rs. One Lakh to the LRs of deceased employee would be appropriate. Shri N.L.Pandey

submits that stoppage of service in violation of Section 25-F ID Act relying on ratio held in Jaipur Zila Sahakari

Bhoomi Vikas Bank versus Ram Gopal Sharma and others reported in 2002(2)SCC-244. Workman be deemed in

continuous service and entitled to consequential benefits. The claim for full backwages for other claimants relying in

ratio held in ONGC Ltd versus Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others reported in 2015-II-LLJ-257(SC) by Shri

N.L.Pandey. though dispute is raised for the year 1993, after workmen were terminated in 1989 dispute was not

punctually prosecuted, claim for fullbackwages cannot be allowed. Other claimants are not examined. Their details

about working, no evidence is adduced. Without considering age and other details of workman, claim for reinstatement

with backwages cannot be allowed. Considering evidence of workman Shri Shiv Kumar Bhondal and RamcharanNetlal

and my finding on point that as they are employees of management , that other workers were also working with them.

That Shri Chandradev Tehlura, Ramcharan Mahipal, Shri Sarvan Kumar, Shri Amir Singh S/o Dhanushdhari, Shri

Mahabir S/o Dhanushdhari are employed in the management , claim w.r.t. above claimants cannot be allowed. As other

workman are employees of 2^nd party management in view of my finding in Point No.1, they are entitled for NCWA

wages and absorption in service. However considering reference was not punctually prosecuted, there was delay in

prosecuting claim under reference, in my considered view those works deserves to be absorbed with 20 % backwages

from date of reference. Point No.2 is answered in Negative.

29.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management denying the payment of wages as demanded by the Union and not

regularizing Shri Shiv Kumar and 21 others is illegal.

(2)

2^nd party is directed to absorb claimants Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Bhondal, Ramcharan S/o Netlal, Premlal

Dhanushdhari, Lalman S/o Charku, Nanku S/o Laxman, Ramprasad S/o Majhku, Anil Kumar S/o

Rajeshwar Singh, Sonsai S/o Mathau, Chhotelal S/o Ramkumar, Samaylal S/o Arjun, Mithailal S/o Lalla

& Indal S/o Laxman with continuity of service with 20 % backwages from date of reference.

(3)

The LRs of the deceased workman Shri Ramkripal S/o Harmangal Singh, Sukhlal S/o Mithailal, Lallu

Singh S/o Kamta Singh, Shri Udairam S/o Shivcharan & Shri Sohan S/o Budhai be paid compensation

Rs. One Lakh.

(4)

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.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-

bZ-lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

7594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@198@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/198/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2005

Secretary,

M.P.Koyla Khan Mazdoor Union,

Sadak Dafari, Daman Hill Road,

NCPH Colliery, PO Haldibadi,

Korea, Chhattisgarh

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Chirimiri Area of SECL,

PO Chirimiri,

Korea (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 24-5-2005 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-22012/198/2004-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the CGM, Chirimiri Area of SECL in terminating 4 gotamakers from services w.e.f.

31-10-1996 instead of regularization is legal and justified and Whether the action of the management in denying

NCWA-I to NCWA-II wages as per order of CGIT dated 27-0-84 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is submitted by Ist party

Secretary MPKMS. Case of Ist party is that Union is registered under Trade union Act bearing No.1147, Registration

No. 2707. That the claimants Sobran Category I unskilled under Central Wage Board for coal Mining Industry at

Bartunga colliery on 30-1-1973. They were continued in employment of the colliery till 31-10-96. They worked for

23 years in the collieriy. That after nationalization of Coal Mines Act 1973, it was decided not to terminate any of the

employees. In view of it all 4 employees were absorbed in Bartunga Colliery as gota makers. That Ist NCWA came into

operation w.e.f. 1-1-1975 , 2^nd NCWA on 1-01-1979, wages of Category I workers were enhanced from existing

Rs.5.75 to Rs.17.70 per day to Rs. 9.69 per day. Gotamakers were paid Rs. 25 to 27 per day after revision of wages.

That the employees working in coal industry including clay cartridge makers were placed in Wage Board for coal

mining. The sincere duty of preparing gota unless gota/ cartridge is prepared, no blasting can be made. That except

colliery, area, in all other areas of SECL, all clay cartridge workers working since 1973 were absorbed as regular

workers in Category I. benefit of NCWA was not given by management to them. Gotamakers were discriminated while

absorbing in service. Claimants were singled out.

In June 1982, dispute raised by workers claiming statement of Category-I as per Central Wage Board. In view

of said demand, management was annoyed to deprive them benefit. Management decided to place them in name of

gang distributing manpower. Said contracts was resisted on ground of discrimination. That even after distributing

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7595

manpower of gota makers, their service conditions were not changed. The gota makers were performing same duty.

Management unilaterally terminated their service on 31-8-96. They were not paid retrenchment compensation, notice

was not issued. They were not paid notice pay. All of them have completed 240 days continuous service. The services

were not regularized after completion of 240 days. As per definition of cartridge mazdoors, those formerly designated

as Goli Matti or Mud Pallot Mazdoors will hereinafter be known as Clay Cartridge Mazdoors. That their services are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.

Ist party Union further submits that proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) ID Act, C/347/81 was filed for

difference sof wages. This Tribunal vide order dated 27-0-84 directed management to pay difference of wages.

Management not paid said wages to gota workers. Secondly application under Section 33(C)(1) was filed before RLC.

RL passed order dated 17-5-04 directing management of SECL to pay difference of wages. Management feeling

aggrieved challenged said order before filing Writ Petition No.3537/05. Matter is pending. On above contentions,

claimant prays for regularization/ reinstatement with consequential benefits.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. 2^nd party submits that the claim is

highly belated. Claimants were terminated on 31-10-97. Dispute is raised in 2005 is not tenable. Union who sponsored

the reference has no locus to raise said dispute. The claimants are not members of the Union. Union is not functioning

in the industry. Management denies claim for wages as per NCWA-I,II order dated 27-10-94 passed by this Tribunal.

Case No is not given. Term of reference is not vague. That once order has been passed by the Tribunal, Tribunal

becomes functus-officio., mode of execution is provided. Again no dispute can be raised on the same matter. The case

filed by Supra S/o Agari and 11 others by koylaShramik, the dispute was closed. Same dispute is raised after 10 years.

SECL is subsidiary of coal India, it has recruitment policy. The vacancies required to be notified to Employment

Exchange and after interview, the selection is to be made by the committee. The claimants were not selected following

such recruitment policy. That claimants were not selected following such recruitment policy. That claimants are not

appointed by management. there is no employer employee relationship. Management used to award contract for supply

of mud clay for mining purpose. Rates were settled. The contractor undertakes to supply mud at fix rate. The supply of

mud is immaterial according to their convenience. Work of making mud on contract is not prohibited under Contract

Labour (R&A)Act. As there is no master servant relationship existing, provisions of ID Act are not applicable. That

claimants SubranAgarsai and 13 others were not employed by the management. reference is not tenable. The claimants

were not engaged as gota makers by management. it is denied that services of claimants were terminated on 31-6-96. It

is denied that claimants were working for 23 years as gota makers. It is denied that there is any particulars of wages for

payment of supply to gota makers. Claimants are not entitled to the monthly benefits. It is submitted that the persons

working as gotamakers are settled by management in 1989, specific terms with the gota makers who were not more

than 45 years of age and less than 18 years on 1-2-89 physically fit and medically fit be given preference for

employment. Their claim would have been considered by management in 1983. Claim of Ist party is false, fabricated.

Claimants were never engaged by management. 2^nd party further submits that particulars of the persons employed in

other areas are not given. Management cannot offer its comments. Violation of provisions of ID Act has been denied.

2^nd party submits that claimants are not entitled to any relief.

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:-

(i) Whether the action of the CGM, Chirimiri Area

of SECL in terminating 4 gota makers from services

w.e.f. 31-10-1996 instead of regularization is legal

and justified ?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the action of the management in

denying NCWA-I to NCWA-II wages as per order

of CGIT dated 27-0-84 is legal and justified?

Matter was already decided, has become redundant

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1 The term of reference pertains to legality of denial of wages and termination of services.

Management has denied employer employee relationship. Even functioning of Union has been denied. The dispute was

raised by Secretary, MP Koyla Mazdoor Union. Affidavit of evidence is filed by Smt.Rambai supporting contentions

in statement of claim that claimants were working as gota makers. Affidavit of evidence was filed by Rambai, W/o

Rampyari. However he did not turn up for cross examination. Said affidavit was not pressed. Smt. Vijiya Laxmi Soni

7596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

had filed her affidavit in support of claim of Ist party claiming to be Secretary of the Union. That claimants were

engaged during 1978 to 1981. That they were continuously working at Bartunga underground colliery. Their services

were terminated on 31-10-96. They were working 8 hours. That after completion of 190 days service, claimants were

entitled for regularization, their services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid.

Notice was not served. The salary in lieu of notice was not paid. Her affidavit is also devoted about violating

proceeding C/347/81 order passed by this Tribunal for payment of Rs.15 to the gota makers. The wages were not paid.

Proceeding under Section 33(C)() was filed. RLC had passed order for payment of Rs.21,91,280 total Rs.32,52,280.

Management has challenged said order filing Writ Petition. Matter is still pending. In her cross-examination,

VijayLaxmi says she is member of the Union, she doesnot know name of the Union. She joined membership in 1962

whereas her age in affidavit is shown only 40 years. That she knows Secretary of Union who resides at Delhi. She

doesnot know his name, doesnot know name of General Secretary. Union was closed. She is doing stitching work.

That the employees were regularized after 5 years. She had not submitted application for service, she was unable to tell

whether names of claimants were sent through Employment Exchange. They were not called for interview. Wages were

paid by Mining Sirdar. Their attendance was not marked in the register. Hey were paid wages for the actual working

days. They were continuously working for 5 years, they were not getting holidays, they were paid Rs.15/- for making

1000 gotas, they were getting more amount if more gotas were made by them. Considering age of Vijaylaxmi and she

was not even able to tell name of Union and General Secretary, claim under reference, evidence of Vijay Laxmi Soni is

far to be believed.

Management filed affidavit of Shri D.K. Goswami supporting contentions of management in Written Statement.

That master servant relationship is not existing. The contractors were engaged for supply of material as per

requirement. Management’s witness also not produced documents about the contractors. In his cross examination,

management witness says personally he is not acquainted with the claimants. He is aware about the process of gota

making. It is used for explosion in underground mine. For explosion, hole is to be made and filled by gota before

making explosure. Employees in coal mines are covered by NCWA. Documents are not produced as the claimants did

not work in the mine. Copy of Appendix IV of Central Wage Board is produced. Work of clay cartridge is appearing at

Sl.No.26. Exhibit W-1 is order passed by this Tribunal directing increased payment of Rs.15/- for making 000 gotas

size 9 inch, 11 inch. Names of claimants are not appearing in Exhibit W-1 except Sobran S/o Agar Singh Exhibit W-2

is copy of petition in Writ Petition 43/00 directing Government to refer the matter within 3 months. Exhibit W-3 is

copy of order of reference, W-4 is order passed by RLC dated 17-5-04 for payment of Rs.32,54,280/- . Admittedly the

said order is challenged before Hon’ble High Court, claim under reference cannot be decided on the basis of order

passed by RLC dated 7-5-04 for payment of Rs.32,54,280/-. Admittedly said order is challenged before Hon’ble High

Court, claim under reference cannot be decided on the basis of order passed by RLC. As observed above, evidence of

Vijay Laxmi is not worth reliance. Ist party has failed to establish that claimants were continuously working more than

240 days, their services were terminated violating Section 25-F of ID Act. Shri A.K.Shashi submits that the dispute is

not tenable for latches and delay. Reliance is placed on ratio held in case between-

Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd versus Prahlad Singh reported in 2001(1)SCC-424. Their Lordship held

because of 13 years long delay, no relief would be granted.

In case between Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka versus Shivalinga reported in 2002-I-LLJ-457- 9 years

delay was held fatal.

In case State of Punjab and others versus Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995-II-LLJ-679- 5 /2 years delay was

found fatal. Legal position is settled if the dispute is belatedly raised, relief would be moulded. However in present

case, evidence of Vijay Laxmi is not worth for reliance. Claim of Ist party cannot be established. With respect to claim

for regularization, the evidence of Vijay Laxmi is not worth to rely. Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case

between-2010(2)LLN-184, 2006(2)SCC-716, 2007(5) SCC-317 needs no detailed discussion. Written notes submitted

by complainant Pandey is by way of narrating the factual matrix. When evidence of Vijaylaxmi is not cogent and

worth to place reliance, ratio held in the case Jasmer Singh Versus State of Haryana and another cannot be applied to

case at hand. for above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

Point No.2- Claimants are claiming wages as per order passed by this Tribunal Exhibit W-1 directing payment

of Rs.15/- for making 1000 gotas. Evidence of Vijay Laxmi is not worth reliance about working of claimants after

order dated 24-0-84 was passed. The matter doesnot requires to be decided again. It is matter of execution after the

claimant worked, issue has become redundant. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the CGM, Chirimiri Area of SECL in terminating 4 gota makers from services w.e.f.

31-10-1996 instead of regularization is legal and proper.

(2)

The claim of wages as per order dated 27-10-84 has become redundant.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7597

(3)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2295-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-

bZ-lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@311@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/311/2001-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/114/2002

Shri Beni Ram Sahu, President,

Chhattisgarh Swathantra Mazdoor Union

Vill& PO Baradwar,

Distt. JanigirChampa (Chhatt).,

Janigir- Champa

…Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Vill& PO Rajgamar Colliery,

Distt. Korba (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of August, 2017

As per letter dated 5-8-2002 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-

22012/311/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of Chhattisgarh Swathanthra Mazdoor Union for providing employment on

compassionate grounds to Shri Domansingh, S/o Shri Puniram declared medically unfit by SECL is justified? If

so, to what relief is Shri Domansingh entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of workman is that his father Chouhan was working as Pump Khalasi in mine of 2^nd party.

Because of illness, he was declared unfit on 24-9-97. As per rules after employee declared unfit on medical ground, one

dependent is entitled for employment. That mother of claimant Sukhmati was dead. Claimant claiming to be son of

Puniram is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Puniram had submitted application for giving dependent

employment to claimant Domansingh. Affidavit and concerned deed were submitted for appointment of claimant

Domansingh on compassionate ground. However 2^nd party management instead of allowing compassionate

employment to Domansingh, appointed one Budhiari Bai who was not wife of Puniram. The repeated applications and

representations submitted by claimant Domansingh for dependent employment were not considered. Budhiari bai who

was not wife was illegally appointed by the management. Advocate M.S.Yadav issued registered notice on behalf of

workman. It is reiterated that claimant Domansingh son of Puniram be allowed dependent employment instead of

7598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointing outsider. On such ground, claimant is praying for dependent appointment. Statement of claim is signed by

President of Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor Union.

2^nd party management filed reply opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that it is registered under

company’s Act having registered office at Bilaspur. That clause 941 provides for dependent employment when the

employ dies while in service or employment dependent of workman who is permanently disabled. Verbatim of Para

9.4.1 , 9.4.2 are reproduced in the Written Statement. That Shri Puniram Chouhan was employed as Pump Khalasi at

Raj Nagar colliery on 24-8-71. He submitted family particulars. As per the service excerpts family members of

Puniram are given in Para 4 of the Written Statement - Wife Sukhmati, son Madan lal and Doman singh, daughters

Baharria and Sudha Kumari, son Kartik Kumar, father Prithvi Chouhan and mother Sadhmati. That Sukhmati w/o

Puniram died on 5-11-89. Puniram submitted options for LTC giving the particulars of his family that Budhiari bai was

his wife. It is further reiterated that Puniram has stated during life time of his wife Sukhmati he had kept Budhiari Bai

as co-wife as per rites in the society. He also filed affidavit that he had married with Budhiari bai. Puniram submitted

option for LTC on 22-9-92. Budhiari bai was shown as his wife. That Puniram had submitted Budhiari bai as his

nominee as per provisions of payment of gratuity rules. Puniram submitted application dated 26-8-00 that he was

declared medically unfit and his wife Budhiarin Bai was provided dependent employment. Application was supported

by affidavit. Accordingly Budhiari bai was considered for compassionate appointment. Puniram not submitted any

application for dependent employment for claimant Domansingh therefore he couldnot be appointed as dependent of

Puniram as per provisions of NCWA. All adverse contentions of claimant have been denied. It is reiterated that

Budhiari bai was wife of Puniram. On his application, Budhiari bai was appointed on compassionate ground. Claimant

is not entitled to appointment as dependent.

Budhiari bai was impleaded as 3^rd party in the proceeding. She has cosntented that she is wife of Puniram. On

application submitted by Puniram and affidavit, she was appointed on compassionate ground. She opposed relief claim

by Domansingh.

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:-

(i)

Whether

the

demand

Chhattisgarh

Swathanthra

Mazdoor

Union

for

providing

employment on compassionate grounds to Shri

Domansingh, S/o Shri Puniram declared medically

unfit by SECL is justified?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Claimant is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to demand of Union for providing employment on compassionate

ground to claimant Domansingh. However Union or claimant Domansinghdonot participate in the reference

proceeding. Evidence of Ist party was closed on 10-2-2015.

Management filed affidavit of witness Lalit Kumar supporting whole contentions in Written Statement filed by

the management. management’s witness remained absent for cross-examination. His evidence could not be considered.

Budhiari bai filed affidavit of evidence supporting claim that she was wife of Puniram. After Puniram was

declared medically unfit on 24-9-97, he submitted application on 16-8-00 for her appointment on compassionate

ground. She was appointed on compassionate ground on 28-8-00. From her evidence, documents I-1, I-II are admitted

in evidence. Ist party remained absent and failed to cross-examine her. Her evidence remained unchallenged. No

evidence is adduced in support of claim. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of Chhattisgarh Swathanthra Mazdoor Union for providing employment on compassionate

grounds to Shri Domansingh, S/o Shri Puniram declared medically unfit by SECL is not proper and legal.

(2)

Shri Domansingh is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7599

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2296-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u-

lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@30@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. N.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/30/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/2015

Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Shramik Sangh,

Officer Parmar Bhwan, PO Amlore Project,

Distt. Singrouli,

Singrauli

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief Manager (P),

NCL Headquarter Singrauli,

Singrauli

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7^th day of August 2017

As per letter dated 16-7-2015 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-22012/30/2015-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“आवेदक कमकार 9ी अ|नी कुमार पाJडेय को महा.बंधक् अलोरी के अनुमोदनोपरात महा.बंधक अलोरी (ख}) अलोरी

प$रयोजना -ारा से बखाPतगी आदेश देना Vया यायसंगत है? यद नहv तो कमकार Vया अ~तोश पाने का अिधकारी है?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim is filed by Union and workman

Ashwin. Case of workman is that he was working as UDC with 2^nd party No.1. workman was dismissed from service

vide order dated 13-8-12. It is alleged to raise that 2^nd party No.1 is incompetent to impose labour punishment therefore

order of punishment dated 13-8-12 deserves to be set-aside. Before dismissal of workman, 2^nd party had issued

chargesheet dated 15-12-06. Chargesheet deserves to be quashed as chargesheet was issued by incompetent authority.

Without considering reply to the chargesheet, DE was initiated against workman. Enquiry conducted by Enquiry

Officer is not legal. Workman was not given full opportunity for his defence. Defence Assistant was not allowed.

Documents were not supplied on the basis of which the chargesheet was issued. Charges levelled against workman. In

absence of documents, witnesses of management could not be effectively cross-examined. Workman did not get

opportunity to produce his evidence. Dr.Sanial was not called in enquiry to prove his signature on the documents. That

findings of Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence. Workman had not accompanied is mother Indranath Pandey

to go to Bhopal for treatment. Everytime his father was going with his mother for treatment and checkup to Bhopal.

That the bills and cash memos were handed over to him by his father Ramlakhan Pandey. That the punishment of

7600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissal imposed against workman is harsh and excessive. Workman was appointed as clerk on 31-12-89. He was

promoted on 25-10-10 as UDC. Workman prays to set aside punishment of dismissal imposed against him.

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim. 2^nd party submits that the workman Ashwin Pandey was

working as Sr.clerk at Almohri project of NCL. That his mother Indramati was cancer patient. She was referred to

Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Bhopal for better treatment. That workman submitted false and fabricated documents about

treatment availed by his mother. Huge amount has been reimbursed against those fake bills. That Indramati Pandey,

mother of workman was referred 31 times to Bhopal cancer Hospital. His mother went to Bhopal 5 times, she was

admitted 17 times in OPD, 9 times she did not go to hospital. Workman has received amount Rs.10,53,059/- producing

false bills. Chargesheet was issued to him after report submitted by Dr. D.K. Saraswat. Workman submitted reply to

chargesheet, his reply was found unsatisfactory. Management decided tos conduct DE on the chargesheet. Enquiry was

conducted on various dates from January 2007 to 24-4-07. Enquiry was adjourned as co-worker of workman was not

present. On 7-2-07, workman denied charges against him. Statements of management’s witness G.S. Pathak, Dr.

Mahesh Prasad was recorded. All of them were cross-examined. Statement of workman was recorded, he was cross-

examined. Enquiry Officer submitted report holding workman guilty of charges. After issuing show-cause notice and

reply given by workman, punishment of dismissal was imposed against workman. Workman had challenged order of

dismissal filing appeal. It is reiterated that charges against workman are proved in enquiry. If enquiry is held illegal,

management requested permission to prove misconduct by adducing evidence.

Management further submitted that workman was holding responsible post of Sr.clerk. he committed fraud in

the matter of treatment of his mother. Management provides medical facility to the workman and their family members.

Cases are referred to Specialized hospital for special treatment. Workman produced false documents pertaining to

availing treatment of his mother. His mother has not availed treatment. Such person is not entitled to be retained in

public service. It is denied that punishment is imposed by incompetent authority. Workman is not entitled to add any

authority. Order of reference prevail NCL is party to the dispute. That reply submitted the chargesheet was found

unsatisfactory and enquiry was conducted. Workman was given full opportunity for his deference. There was no

demand by workman for supplying documents during enquiry. Witnesses of management were cross-examined.

Workman was given full opportunity for his defence. Punishment of dismissal is imposed for proved misconduct. 2^nd

party management submits workman is not entitled to any relief.

As per order dated 27-4-17, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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:-

(i) Whether the charges/ misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings?

In Affirmative

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Point No.1- As per order dated 27-4-17, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal. Question whether

misconduct/ charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Management produced record of enquiry Exhibit M-1 is chargesheet. Charges against workman pertains to his mother

was referred for better treatment to Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital, Bhopal 31 times. She was admitted 5 times and

received treatment in OPD 7 times. She had not attended 9 times. Workman submitted bogus bills fraudulently and

received lakhs of rupees. Misconduct is alleged under clause 26.1 of standing orders. Exhibit M-2 is reply submitted by

workman to the chargesheet. That he had not accompanied his mother to Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital, Bhopal.

He was suffering mentally. His father Ramlakhan was accompanying his mother. He was satisfied with the treatment of

his mother. He had not committed any fraud submitting bogus bills. Statement of management representative was

recorded before Enquiry Officer. He has narrated charges alleged against workman that mother of workman suffering

from cancer was referred for treatment to cancer hospital, Bhopal 31 times. The mother of workman was admitted in

cancer hospital, Bhopal 5 times. She received treatment in OPD 17 times. Workman received amount of Rs.10,05,359/-

from the bills submitted for treatment of his mother. That 9 times his mother was not admitted in Bhopal cancer

hospital. That Vigilence from head office had enquired in the matter. That Director K.B,.Pandya has conformed in

writing document ME-1a. in Enquiry Proceeding statement of management’s witness G.S.Pathak was recorded.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7601

Statement of G.S.Pathak is devoted on the point that the bills submitted by workman and amount was paid are

produced at ME-1 consisting of 315 pages. Dr.K.B.Pandey Director of Bhopal Cancer hospital written letter dated 12-

7-06 ME-2. 2^nd letter from Cancer Hospital Bhopal issued by Dr.K.B.Pandya ME-3 copies of those documents were

supplied to workman and management both. As per letter dated 12-7-06 and oral enquiry made, mother of Ashwin

incurred expenses of Rs.83,099/- for her treatment. As per document ME-1, workman had received huge amounts

towards the bills submitted for treatment of his mother. As per ME-3, cancer Hospital Bhopal had verified the bills and

explained that mother of workman was admitted in cancer hospital Bhopal from 28-12-01 to 12-1-02, 21-1-02 to 20-2-

02, 6-5-02 to 8-5-02, 3-3-03 to 5-3-03, 16-9-03 to 26-9-03, mother of workman received treatment in OPD on 18-3-02,

25-3-02, 24-6-02, 25-9-02, 29-1-03, 14-7-03, 21-8-03, 23-4-04, 8-7-04, 11-10-04. On 14-2-05, 12-4-05, 3-5-05, 26-7-

05 & 24-10-05 only attendant had come without patient. The bills were submitted and payment was made to workman

besides above period. In his cross examination, Shri B.S.Pathak says he visited cancer Hospital Bhopal twice. First

from 10-7-06 to 12-7-06 & 2^nd from 2-8-06 to 5-8-06. In his further cross, he was unable to give information about his

tickets and bills for travelling on above dates. Mr. Pathak in his further cross says Pandya Director of Cancer Hospital

Bhopal and officer Mr. Joshi were contacted by him. Patient’s record were checked by them. Dr.Sanyal whowas

working in Bhopal cancer hospital had left said hospital before their visit. Employees in cancer hospital were surprised

to see their signatures on the bills. The signatures on bills were not matching with signatures on bills submitted by

workman. That workman had received amount Rs.10,53,059/- from 2^nd party. The inconsistencies with the amount is

explained by Mr. Pathak that as per ME-2 dated 12-7-06, expenses for treatment of mother of workman was

Rs.83,099/-. The details of exact amount received by workman could be obtained from the account department. The

variation in signature could be seen from Page 21 to 28 of ME-1. In reply to Q.9 G.S.Pathak explained that Indravati

Devi name of mother of Ist party workman was recorded in the Registration card and other papers of treatment.

Evidence of G.S.Pathak that mother of Ist party workman was admitted in cancer hospital Bhopal for 5 times, he

received OPD treatment 17 times. She did not attend cancer hospital Bhopal 9 times. That expenses for treatment for

mother of workman incurred Rs.83099/- is not challenged in his cross examination. Evidence that workman received

amount of Rs.10,53,059 is also not challenged.

Evidence of witness No.2 Mahesh Prasad is devoted on the point that he alongwithG.S.Pathak visited cancer

hospital Bhopal during 10-7-06 to 12-7-06,2-8-06 to 5-8-06. That SmtIndramati mother of workman receiving

treatment in cancer hospital , Bhopal. As per record of hospital amount of Rs.83,099/- were spent for her treatment. Ist

party workman had presented bills and received its amount. Shri G.S.Pathak from Head Office, Vigilence had collected

record about treatment in hospital. In his cross examination, witness No.2 Mahesh says they had inquired the matter of

payments incurred for treatment in cancer hospital. They had personally seen the record.

Statement of Ist party workman is recorded. In his statement before Enquiry Officer, he says that his mother was

receiving treatment in cancer hospital Bhopal for about 6 years. His mother was cured for her illness. His mother was

taken for treatment by his father. He had never accompanied his mother for treatment to cancer hospital Bhopal. After

returning from Bhopal Hospital, his father was handing over bills, prescription etc. Being employee of the 2^nd party,

he was submitting those papers in the office. He has received amount of the bills. His father had submitted complaint

on letter head of politician of Samajwadi party. In his cross examination, workman says he issued amount of bills

through Bank accounts. That on 16-2-06, he had taken his mother for treatment to Dr.Ila Chatterjee. That he had not

taken his mother to NSC for treatment. He was not accompanying his mother for treatment. His father used to

accompany his mother. Father of workman is not examined as witness in Enquiry Proceeding. In reply to showcause

notice M-5, workman claims that his father after returning from cancer hospital, Bhopal was handing over bills to him

and as employee of 2^nd party he was submitting those papers in the office and he was receiving bill amount. He handed

over amount to his father. Father of workman is not examined.

10.

As per letter dated 5-8-06 sent by Shri Pandya Director, amount of Rs.23,300 bill dated 31-1-01, Rs.40,000

under receipt dated 7-1-02, Rs.24,025/- bill dated 26-9-03, Rs.60,000 as per receipt dated 16-9-03, amount Rs.765 as

per receipt dated 14-2-05, Rs.317 as per receipt dated 14-2-05 were received in the hospital. Mother of workman was

admitted in hospital 5 times is shown. Details of OPD visits are given tallies with the evidence given by Shri Pathak.

Enquiry Proceeding letter dated 22-7-06 sent by Chief General Manager to Chief Vigilence, original medical

reimbursement claim along with cash memo of prescription , sanction orders were submitted. The details of the medical

bills received by applicant are shown at Page 53 for total amount of Rs.10,30,073/-. The application for reimbursement

and prescriptions, medical bills are produced at Page 54 to 91. Sanction order dated 27-12-2002, and prescriptions,

medical bills are produced at Page 92 to 128. Sanction order dated 6-9-02 is produced at Page 129. The copy of check

amounted to Cancer Hospital, application for sanction and bills are produced at Page 130 to 141, sanction order dated

20-10-03 along with application for sanction of bills and medical bills prescriptions are produced at Page 142 to 177.

Sanction order dated 26-12-02 is produced at Page 78, the medical bills, applicat6ion for sanction are produced at Page

179 to 229, sanction order of Rs.5000 is produced at Page 230 and application for sanctioning medical bills,

prescriptions are produced at Page 231 to 260. Sanction order dated 10-6-05 Rs.10,000 is produced at Page 261. The

application for sanction of bill and prescriptions and medical bills are produced at page 262 to 281. Sanction order

7602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 14-11-05 alongwithmedical bills, prescriptions are produced at Page 282 to 29, sanction order dated 4^th April

alongwith application for sanction and bills prescriptions are produced at Page 292 to 298. Sanction order dated 4-3-

05, 1-4-05 and application for sanction of bills medical prescriptions, medical bills are produced at 299 to 306.

Sanction order dated 4-2-85 is produced at Page 307. Letter by Dr.Pandya to G.S.Pathak, Vigilence is produced at Page

308 and accompanying documents at Page 309,310. The details of medicines, treatment charges of Indramati at

submitted at Page 311 to 314. The documents regarding treatment prescriptions are also produced at Page 315 to 346.

Letter of Dr.Pandya Director of Cancer Hospital, Bhopal is produced at Page 347 finds reference of the bills, OP

record, receipt of Rs.60,000 etc. the details of the patient admitted as indoor patient, OPD visits are shown at Page 348

tallies with evidence given by Shri Pathak. The documents regarding treatment and medical bills are produced at Page

350 to 385. Workman in his explanation has stated that his father was handing over receipts and bills and he was

submitting in office and he received amount of the bills. Evidence on record clearly shows that Indramati Pandey who

is mother of Ist party was referred to Cancer Hospital, Bhopal. Bills are claimed by workman for the days she was not

receiving treatment. The workman has not examined his father to support his defence. Workman has admitted receipt

of amount of medical bills whereas as per letter received from Director K.Pandya, amount of Rs.60,000 and 40,000 was

deposited by cheque, total amount Rs.83,099/- was spent for treatment. It is clear from evidence that workman received

amount of bills for period patient had not received treatment. Therefore it is clear that the bills submitted by workman

for excess period are bogus.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri S.Mishra submits that mere production of document is not enough,

the contents are not proved. In support of his argument, Shri S.Mishra relies on ratio held in case between

Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2009(2)SCC-570. Their Lordship held

mere production of documents is not enough. Contents of documentary evidence has to be proved by examining

witnesses. That Appellant alleged to have confessed to police that he was involved in stealing of bank draft book.

The facts of present case are different. Mother of workman was submitting bills etc. to Ist party workman and he

was submitting those documents in office. He received medical bills. In cross-examination of G.S.Pathak, the

documents received along with Exhibit 1 to 3 were not challenged. It was not contention of workman that bills under

which he received amount were not submitted by him.

12.

Shri S.Mishra for workman further submits that standard of proof in enquiry is different. In support of his

argument, learned counsel relies on ratio held in case between-

Ministry of Finance and another versus S.B.Ramesh reported in 1998(3)SCC-227. Their Lordship dealing with

standard of proof and findings of Enquiry Officer held that their Lordship dealing with Rule 14 & 8 of CCS CCA Rules

and evidence appearing against delinquent. That Enquiry Officer had not admitted to question delinquent employee.

That anyone of 7 documents were proved by witness and certain documents have been marked by delinquent. That the

said document allegedly containing the statement of the lady in question was relied on by the Enquiry Officer and the

disciplinary authority without offering her as a witness for cross examination, the witness in whose presence the said

statement was allegedly made had not spoken to the details of the contents thereof, the authenticity of the said

statement had been denied by the delinquent employee, inference drawn by the authorities merely on the ground of

similarity of handwriting, signature or telephone numbers that the name occurring in certain document as that of the

delinquent was merely a guess work and couldnot be relied on to prove the charge. Their Lordship held that witnesses

whose statements are relied on must be produced.

The facts of present case are not comparable. From evidence of Shri G.S.Pathak, he received documents Exhibit

1 to 3 in cross examination. Workman did not dispute genuiness of the documents given in his statement. Workman has

not stated anything about the documents referred in evidence of witness Shri G.S.Pathak.

13.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management submits that Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence. In support of his

argument, reliance is placed in

State Bank of India and others versus Ramesh DinkarPunde reported in 2006(7)SCC-212. Their Lordship

dealing with scope of judicial review held re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible.

Reliance is placed in case of State of Haryana and another versus Rattan Singh reported in 1977(2)SCC-49.

Their Lordship held in domestic enquiry, all the sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials

which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, though departmental authorities and administrative

tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not

relevant under the Evidence Act.

Reliance is also placed in case between Union of India versus A.Nagammaleshwar Rao reported in AIR-1998-

SC-III. Ratio held pertains to powers of Administrative Tribunals under Section 14. Powers under Section 11-A ID Act

are not comparable with the powers under Section 14 of Administrative Tribunal Act. Ratio cannot be applied to case at

hand. for the reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7603

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 charges of misconduct alleged against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, question remains for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal

against workman is proper and legal. The proved misconduct of workman of receiving huge amount of bills for the

period his mother had not received treatment in hospital is certainly grave in nature.

15.

On the point Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

Karnataka Bank Ltd versus A.L.Mohan Rao reported in 2006(1)SCC-63. Their Lordship dealing with

proportionality of penalty/ punishment and judicial review held Single Judge of High Court allowing writ petition and

ordering reinstatement even though it found that misconduct proved on simple grounds impermissible. The gross

misconduct of this nature doesnot vary dismissal, it cannot be seen what other type of misconduct would merit

dismissal. It is not for courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature with decision if disciplinary

authority on any mistaken notion of sympathy so long as inquiry has been fair and proper, and misconduct proved. In

such matters it is for disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relied in case of West Bokaro Colliery versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-

220(SC). Their Lordship held respondent as Sr. dumper operator. He was dismissed from service for leaving work

without permission and indecent and disorderly behavior. The Industrial Tribunal to which the dispute was referred

held the charges against him not proved and set aside the dismissal. The High Court confirmed the same. Their

Lordship held Tribunal has setaisde dismissal of workman beyond reasonable doubt. Industrial Tribunal should be

slow in interfering with conclusion in domestic enquiry.

In view of my finding that charges are proved and misconduct proved against workman is of grave nature,

punishment of dismissal doesnot call for interference. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

16.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management is proper and legal.

(2)

workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2297-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l-

bZ-lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 111@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-09-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@8@2008&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/8/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/111/2008

The President,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (INTUC).

PO Pali Project,

Distt. Umaria (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

7604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chief General Manager,

Johilla Area of SECL,

PO Nowrazabad,

Distt. Umaria, MP

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12^th day of July 2017

As per letter dated 25-11-08by 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-22012/8/

2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Union for re-fixation of pay of Shri Vidyanand on his conversion from SDL

Operator Gr “C” to the designation of Pump Khalasi Cat.2 on his request by way of protecting earlier wages

drawn by him is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

through Secretary of Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress. Case of Ist party is that workman Vidyanand was working as

SDL operator Gr-“C” in 1997. At the time of his conversion, basic wages were reduced. In May 1997, basic wages of

Vidyanand working as SDL operator Grade C were Rs.180.87. said workman was not keeping well. He submitted

application for conversion of his post. He was converted to the post of pump operator Cat-II. After his conversion to

pump operator Cat-II, his wages were reduced to Rs.129.79. workman was not given understanding about said

reduction of wages. That while converting loader General Mazdoor Cat-I basic wages were not reduced. After the

matter was raised before ALC, the management did not settle the dispute. Ist party prays that reduction of wages of

Vidyanand Pump Operator Cat-II be restored and arrears be paid to him.

Management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. Preliminary objection is raised that Ist party

claimed wages of SDL operator while working as Khalasi. Ist party has not mentioned the period. The particulars of

pay protection claimed by Ist party are missing. The reference is not tenable. It is further contented that service

conditions of coal mine workers are covered by NCWA. Cadre scheme formulated for purpose of promotions of

workers for each category, pay scale etc are provided. Pay protection is no where mentioned in service conditions that

workmanVidyanand was initially appointed as General Mazdoor at Pali Colliery. He was transferred to Birsinghpur

colliery. On recommendation of DPC duly approved by the Sub Area Manager, Pali Group, 8 workers working as

General Mazdoor were promoted to the post of SDL Operator Cat V vide order dated 9-10-92. Shri Vidyanand was

again promoted to the post of SDL Operator Cat-VI as per order dated 27-11-93. As per order 19-11-94, he was

designated as SDL Operator Cat-VI. Job of maintenance was given. He was placed in excavation on 2-11-94.

Workman Vidyanand submitted application for post of pump khalasi. His application was sympathetically

considered. On his option, he was allowed post of pump khalasi as per order dated 15-8-97. Accordingly he was

designated w.e.f. 1-5-97. Management has passed common order in respect of all the employees mentioned in the

office order. Vidyanand was re-designated on his demand to post of pump khalasi Cat-II. On demands of the Union for

pay protection, matter was discussed on 6-4-01, it was settled after said discussion after adding increments for 11 years

in Cat-II Scale on Pay Rs.8.49, wages were to be fixed Rs.151.89 till 1-10-00. Accordingly fixation of wages were

recommended. Above fixation of wages were recommended. Above decision was implemented as per order dated 4-6-

01. On recommendation of DPC, workman was promoted to the post of Pump Khalasi Grade III as per order dated 23-

3-02. Workman was granted maximum possible benefits. He was given promotion claim for pay protection is not

tenable. In parawise reply, 2^nd party management submits that basic pay of workman was not deducted. Engagement

of workman as SDL operator is not disputed. It is reiterated that while workman working as SDL operator was given

pay scale for said post. Workman opted to the post of lower category pump khalasi Grade II. He was given pay scale

attached to said post. There was no deduction in basic pay. If workman is willing to do job of SDL operator,

management is willing to offer said post to the workman. The wages of post of SDL operator could be availed by him.

On such ground, 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

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:-

(i) Whether the demand of the Union for re-fixation

of pay of Shri Vidyanand on his conversion from

SDL Operator Gr “C” to the designation of Pump

Khalasi Cat.2 on his request by way of protecting

earlier wages drawn by him is legal and justified?

Demand of Union is not legal.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7605

REASONS

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to re-fixation of pay of workman Vidyanand including pay protection

of the post of SDL Operator Grade C. workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman in his affidavit of evidence

says he was working as SDL operator Grade C in Pali colliery. Prior to 1-5-97, his basic pay as SDL Operator Grade C

was Rs.180.87. that due to illness, he applied for change of cadre. Management changed his post to pump operator

Category II. That after change in cadre, his basic pay was reduced from Rs.180.87 to Rs.129.79. The reduction in basic

wages was affected without giving any opportunity of hearing. In his cross-examination, workman says he was not

examined by medical board for giving light work. Certificate of medical board is necessary for giving light work was

not within his knowledge. Light work given to him by management was not recommended by Medical Board. He was

allowed light work by management of pump khalasi Cat-II. He not objected to it. In his further cross examination,

Category of several workers was changed by management but he was unable to tell their names. He was unable to tell

whether categories of workers were changed with consent or without consent.

Management filed affidavit of witness Shri P.S.Mundra supporting whole contentions in Written Statement filed

by management. Prominently on application of workman, he was re-designated as pump khalasi Cat-II w.e.f. 1-5-97.

As per discussion dated 16-4-01, workman was allowed increments for 11 years. His wages were fixed Rs.151.89.

documents Exhibit M-3 to 7 are admitted in evidence. In his cross examination, management’s witness says the service

conditions of employees of 2^nd party are covered by NCWA. He denies that after change of cadre employees are

entitled to pay protection. Management’s witness denies that at the time of conversion of workman from SDL operator

to Pump operator, he was not given understanding about pay protection would not be given to him.

Ist party workman produced document Exhibit W-1. He had submitted application requesting conversion from

post of SDL operator to post of pump khalasi on the ground of his illness. Exhibit W-2 is order re-designating

workman to the post of pump operator Khalasi. Exhibit W-3 is application submitted by Union that workman was not

given pay protection at the time of conversion from SDL operator to pump khalasi. Exhibit W-4 is also representation

submitted by Union pursuing some grievance.

Management produced appointment letter of workman at Exhibit M-1 on post of SDL operator Cat-V. Exhibit

M-1(a) order of promotion of workman along with others to SDL operator Cat-VI dated 20-11-93. Exhibit M-2 is

application submitted by workman requesting conversion to post of pump khalasi. Exhibit M-3 is order dated 16-11-94,

workman was placed in excavation Grade C. Exhibit M-4 is office order dated 15-8-97, workman was re-designated as

pump operator Cat-II. MJ-5 is management added 11 increments in Cat-II scale as per NCWA-V,VI & wages to Ist

party workman were fixed Rs.1151.89. Exhibit M-6 is order dated 2-6-01 allowing basic wages Rs.151.89 to

Vidyanand and other. M-7 is order dated 23-3-02 workman was promoted to the post of pump khalasi Cat-III.

Workman has not produced any document that at the time of conversion on his request, he was entitled to pay

protection benefits.

10.

At the time of argument, learned counsel Shri R.C.Shrivastava emphasized that management has not shown

how the wages of workman were reduced, any provision was not pointed out. The documents on record and evidence

of workman and management’s witness is cogent that on application submitted by workman, he was allowed

conversion to the lower post of pump khalasi Cat-II. Prior to it, workman was working on post of SDL operator Grade

C, a higher post. Application was submitted on ground of illness for conversion. On his request considering illness,

conversion from SDL operator Grade C to Khalasi Cat-II allowed by management. Workman is already given benefit

of 1 increments therefore demand of Union is not justified. I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The demand of the Union for re-fixation of pay of Shri Vidyanand on his conversion from SDL Operator

Gr “C” to the designation of Pump Khalasi Cat.2 is not legal and proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2298-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

MCY;w-lh-,y- ,oa vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 155@99) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 01-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@162@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

7606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 155/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and other

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.

[No. L-22012/162/1999-IR (C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/155/99

Shri Anand S/o Malkhan& others,

Newton Chikli, Tehsil Parasia,

Distt.Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

MECL, Seminary Hill,

MECL Bhawan, Nagpur (MS)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12^th day of July 2017

As per letter dated 8-4-98 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-22012/162/99-

IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not

regularizing Shri Malkhan and 283 others (list enclosed) employed by MECL contractor in prohibited category

is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Statement of claim on behalf of workman is

submitted by President, Lochan Prasad, Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union. Case of Ist party is that WCL allotted work of

Mahadeopuri incline to MECL in the year 1987 on contract. MECL appointed 284 workers. Union is situated in pench

valley coal project, Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara. That the workman worked in drifting in Mahadeopuri colliery incline.

That contract labour comes under prohibited category. The work of cutting, digging of stone comes in prohibited

category as per Contract Labour Act. That the workers worked more than one year in the colliery. Workers of MECL

were given VTC training under control of management of WCL. That MECL published list of workers of Mahadeopuri

incline mentioning category, names, skilled, unskilled, their appointment, age as on April 86 and qualification. On

31-8-88, MECL illegally terminated services. Management of MECL/WCL illegally terminated services of workman

without giving opportunity of hearing. Services of workman were terminated without notice not following principles of

natural justice. Workman opposed the act of management and demanded salary as per NCWA. Union had demonstrated

the matter calling strike. The matter was taken up before ALC, Chhindwara, the meeting was called on 7-9-88. It was

decided that demand of workers in Mahadeopuri was decided in arbitration. Shri K.Sammugavell was appointed as

Arbitrator. Arbitrator considering the matter on 5-2-94 no dispute award was passed. It is further reiterated that

arbitrator was unable to decide the matter. On 3-3-97, the dispute was raised before ALC, Chhindwara. ALC,

Chhindwara directed management to decide grievance of 284 workers as per law. Management did not decide the

matter, Writ Petition No. 3887/98 was filed before Hon’ble High Court as per order dated 30-10-98 passed by Hon’ble

High Court directions were issued to decide case according to law. The dispute has been referred by Government. It is

further submitted that 284 workmen were doing their duties in prohibited category under control of management of

WCL. That they are employees of WCL and entitled for regularization in service with consequential benefits. Ist party

prays that order of termination dated 31-8-08 be set aside and workman be regularized in service with backwages etc.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7607

2^nd party WCL filed Written Statement opposing claim of Ist party. Preliminary objection is raised that the

dispute was raised by Late P.P.Bannerjee in capacity of General Secretary of SKMS Union. Mr.Bannerjee died, SKMS

Union has not come forward to contest the reference. Claimants have also not come forward requesting permission to

contest or prosecute the reference. The present representative has no locus standi to prosecute the case. That statement

of claim signed by Lochan Prasad. Identity and status is not disclosed in statement of claim is not of SKMS Union

neither he is claimant in the dispute. Statement of claim cannot be said of SKMS Union. Objection in that regard was

also raised on 24-6-2010. Claim under statement of claim is not valid. That M/S MECL contractor is impleaded as

party. It is further reiterated that terms of reference are vague. In absence of particulars of claimants regarding

engagement by contractor and nature of job done by them, the reference is not tenable. 2^nd party has referred to ratio

held in various cases contending that the reference is highly belated. Workmen were engaged in the year 1988. Dispute

is raised in the year 1999 is not tenable. Reference is also prejudicial to the interest of management. There being

contrary facts on record that the claimant were never engaged by WCL, the identification of claimant is disputed.

Therefore particulars are not given in reference order. Union has no locus standi. Claimants were not members of the

Union. Shri P.K.Bannerjee has no authority to raise the dispute.

2^nd party further submits that WCL is subsidiary of coal India. There is no employer employee relationship.

Dispute raised by claimant is false. Claimants are not workman under ID Act. Appointments in coal industry are

covered by rules. Workmen were not engaged following recruitment rules, they were not sponsored by Employment

Exchange. That MECL undertakes several work of Government undertakings and private concerns. WCL had granted

contract of underground drifting from Seam 3 to 2, Rawanwara colliery, Seam 2 to Eklehra colliery. The contract of

drivage to new incline at Mahadeopuri was given to MECL in 1988. MECL completed job. Full accounts were settled.

Project was completed. The terms and conditions of contract were mutually settled after discussion and letter dated

3-12-86. Advance payments were made. The details of payments as per note sheet dated 17-6-87, 4-5-89, 23-3-91

several other letters are pleaded in Written Statement. Accounts were finally settled. It is reiterated that Arbitrator Shri

K.Sammugavell Retired CLC Madras was appointed, no dispute award was passed by said arbitrator on 5-2-94. Shri

Bannerjee thereafter raised the dispute. The dispute has been referred as per direction by Hon’ble High Court that the

work done by contract labour was not work done by regular employees, it was of casual nature. The contractor was

registered, establishment is also registered under CL(R&A)Act. WCL has registration under CL(R&A)Act. After

completion of work, notice was displayed inviting objections regarding non-payment of wages, any objection was not

received. That the contractor engaged labours for execution of work holding licence under CL(R&A)Act. WCL was not

concerned with engagement of contract labours. 2^nd party denies that WCL had given contract for digging coal mine in

1987. It is denied that MECL appointed 284 workers. 2^nd party admits that employees of MECL was provided VTC

training as per rules. It is denied that MECL published list of workers of Mahadeopuri incline. 2^nd party claims

ignorance about termination of services of employees by MECL. That Arbitrator had decided no dispute award, the

award was not challenged,. On such ground, 2^nd party WCL submits that the dispute if any is between the claimant

employees and MECL, WCL is not concerned with the claimants. On such ground, 2^nd party prays for rejection of

claim.

As per order dated 2-11-2010, MECL was impleaded as party. MECL has not filed Written Statement in the

matter.

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:-

(i) Whether Shri Malkhan and 283 others are

employees

engaged

for

work

prohibited

category?

In Negative

(ii) Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not

regularizing Shri Malkhan and 283 others employed

by MECL contractor in prohibited category is

justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

Before dealing with matters on merit, objection is taken by management w.r.t. locus of Union whether the

statement of claim filed on behalf of Ist party is valid. Shri A.K.Shashi for management submits that dispute is raised

7608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by Mr. Bannerjee. After his death, SKMS Union has not come forward. Statement of claim is filed by one Lochan

Prasad claiming to be President of Lal Jhanda coal Mines Mazdoor Union. Order of reference doesnot indicate that the

dispute was raised by Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union. How Lochan Prasad was competent to submit the statement of claim

on behalf of Ist party workman is not explained, any documents about membership of claimants of Lal Jhanda Union

are also not submitted on record. The statement of claim submitted by Lochan Prasad appears without locus. However

order of reference pertains to claim for regularization and in statement of claim, it is pleaded that the services of

claimants are terminated on 31-8-88. Legal position is settled that matter pertains to termination of services. Individual

employees can be permitted to prosecute their claim. With above observations, I consider that the dispute under

reference needs to be decided.

Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to engagement of employees of MECL contractor in prohibited

category. In statement of claim Para-2 it is pleaded that workman worked drifting in Mahadeopuri incline comes under

prohibited category. 2^nd party WCL has denied the work is of prohibited category. Ist party filed identical affidavit

Mahendra SinghVerma, Anand Kumar, Indal, and also examined claimant Shri Suresh Prasad Dixit. Mahendra Singh

Verma in his affidavit of evidence says that he was working as labour in Mahadeopuri incline of WCL. During 30-11-

87 to 31-8-08, he was doing work of tub loader, blasting MECL and had engaged him but he was working as labour of

WCL. WCL was providing instruments for work. Their attendance was maintained by officers of WCL. VTC training

was given to them. Anand Kumar, Indal have also in their affidavit have stated the similar facts. Suresh Prasad Dixit in

his evidence says he was working as labour in Mahadeo mines from 1-3-87 to 16-1-94. He was doing work of digging

earth/ mohra and for digging and helmet were given by WCL.

Shri Mahendra Singh in his cross denies that he did not work in WCL. He reiterates that he was working in

WCL during 87 to 88. He did not remember whether appointment letter was given to him. Post was not advertised, his

name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Anand Kumar in his cross says during 87-88, he was doing

work of cutting stone, digging coal. He denied that he was not working in WCL. He denies that appointment letter was

not issued to him. Indal in his cross says that appointment letter was given to him, it may have been produced in the

case. He denies that he did not work in WCL. He denied that he was engaged by MECL.

10.

Suresh Prasad Dixit in his cross examination says he was not engaged by MECL, he was engaged by WCL

Mine Manager, Chandran. Post was not advertised. He did not got interview call. He passed HSc. For engagement as

mazdoor in WCL, educational qualification is not required. He claims ignorance whether names of 284 claimants were

sent through Employment Exchange. He claims ignorance about the work carried by Mine Manager. He denies that he

did not work in WCL.

11.

On above point, evidence of management’s witnesses Tapan K.Mitra is that claimants were not engaged by

WCL, MECL was engaged as contractor for drivage of new incline at Mahadeopuri. Claimants were engaged by

contractor. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-19 are produced w.r.t. the work given on contract to MECL, licence

registration etc, payment of wages etc. Exhibit M-3 licence of MECL contractor, bills Exhibit M-8,9 certificates, M-

5,6 bill Exhibit M-7 shows that MECL was engaged as contractor and carried work of incline shaft. Pleadings in

statement of claim filed by Ist party as well as evidence of all witnesses is silent that contract between MECL and WCL

is sham , camouflage or bogus.

12.

Shri A.K.Shashi for management submits that the pleadings and evidence of claimants are contrary. The

claimants in their statement of claim pleaded that they were engaged by MECL but working with WCL, in the evidence

they claimed they were working in WCL. Evidence cannot be said contrary to the pleadings. On the point Shri

A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-

Municipal Committee, Tauru versus Harpal Singh and another reported in 1990-9-I-LLJ-1028. Their Lordship

held that evidence tendered in court should be based on claim statement. Courts will have to be alert on this.

inconsistent stand of party in court will not bring in any result.

Next reliance is placed on case between Steel Authority of India Ltd and another versus State of West Bengal

and others reported in 2009-I-LLJ-241(SC). Their Lordship dealing with Section 7-A and 10 of Contract Labour Act

held dispute referred by state Government, no pleading by workmen that contract was sham and bogus, the reference

was quashed.

In present case, in statement of claim and evidence, claimants are silent that contract is sham and bogus rather

the terms of reference pertains to contract labours of employees engaged by contractor in prohibited category. Ratio

held in the case therefore cannot be applied to case at hand. Though the dispute is raised in the year 1999 w.r.t.

prohibited category of work, notification issued by Government was not produced till the evidence of parties was

completed. Notification is produced at Exhibit W-1 at the time of argument. Exhibit W-1 notification dated 21-6-88

prohibits work (a) raising or raising cum selling of coal, coal loading and unloading, overburden removal and earth

cutting, soft cake manufacturing, driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground. The proviso B in

the notification is clear that notification doesnot apply to quarries located by the side of the river in pench valley and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7609

similar other patch deposits which can only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non rainy

season.

Considering proviso in notification Exhibit W-1 notification doesnot apply to prohibited work in pench valley

area, the claim that Ist party workman are employees of WCL is not supported.

13.

So far as evidence in cross examination of management’s witness TapanMitra shows he was working as finance

officer in WCL, Pench Area during 87 to 90. That for special mine incharge, Mine Manager used to be kept. He claims

ignorance that attendance of employees engaged by contractor is maintained under control of Mine Manager. The

Finance Officer makes contractual payment. Personal officer is posted in mines for welfare of the employees. In new

mines, Mines Manager remains incharge. He was not concerned with VTC given to the workman. Evidence of

management witness is not useful to support the claim of workman as there is no pleading or evidence that the

contractor MECL is engaged by WCL was camouflage. For the same reasons, the evidence in cross examination of

management’s witness Abhijit Dutta is not useful to support claim of Ist party. Evidence of management’s witness

Prakash Pandey is on the point of engagement of MECL contractor for work drivage of incline in Mahadeopuri mine.

His evidence is absolutely not related to prohibited category of work. As per notification Exhibit W-1 Pench Area is

exempted from said notification. Detailed discussion of evidence of management’s witness is not necessary.

14.

Learned counsel for Ist party Shri R.C.Shrivastava relies on ratio held in case between

Western Coalfields Ltd and another versus Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh reported in 2016(2)MPLJ-217.

Ratio held in the case pertgains to Appellant company has allocated work covered under prohibited catgory to a private

contractor for a period of more than one year. Their Lordship held that workman employed by Private contractor

claimed to be treated as workmen of appellant company, it would e open to said workman or Union to espouse his

cause by way of industrial dispute.

Considering Exhibit W-1 notification is not applicable to Pench Area, ratio cannot be beneficially applied to

case at hand.

Shri R.C.Shrivastava also relies on ratio held in case between Steel Authority of India Ltd and others versus

National Union Water Front Workers and others reported in 2001(7)SCC-1. Particularly my attention was pointed out

to para 68 to 125 of the judgment. However in present case, notification Exhibit W-1 prohibited work is not applicable

to Pench Area. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to present case at hand. For above reasons, I record my finding

on Point No.1 in Negative.

15.

Point No.2- The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization of Malkhan and others by WCL. As per

my finding in Point No.1 claimants were not engaged in prohibited category of work, claimants in their statement of

claim or evidence have not claimed that MECL contractor engaged by WCL was bogus or camouflage. Claimants have

not produced any documents about their engagement by WCL. Evidence in cross examination of witnesses of Ist party

clearly shows that appointment letters were not given to them. Documents regarding appointment of claimants are not

produced. There is no evidence that workman were appointed by WCL following any kind of procedure. So far as

evidence of management’s witness R.N.Singh pertains to documents Exhibit M-20/1 to 20/21 are the loss and profit

statements. The profit or loss by Industry hardly relevant for deciding claim of claimants for regularization. In view of

my finding in Point No.1 claimants were not engaged in prohibited category, there is no pleading in evidence that

contract was never camouflage or bogus. Ratio held in the case Hindustan Steel works construction versus

Commissioner of Labour and others reported in 1996(2)LLN-1068, ratio held in case Airport Authority of India versus

Indian Airport Kamgar Union reported in 2011-I-LLJ-211- Bombay, Oshiar Prasad and other versus BCCL reported in

2015-I-LLJ-53(SC) relied by Shri A.K.Shashi needs no detailed discussion.

Ratio held in case between State of Himachal Pradesh versus Suresh Kumar Verma reported in 1996(2)SLR-

321, State of Rajasthan versus Sarjeet Singh and another reported in 2007-I-LLJ-236, Post Master General Kolkata

versus Tutu Das reported in 2007(5)SCC-317, SAIL versus Union of India and others reported in 2006(12)SCC-233

needs no detailed discussion as workman were not engaged in prohibited category of work.

In view of my finding in Point No.1 as workman was not engaged in prohibited category of work, services of Ist

party were terminated on 31-8-88 itself, reference is raised in the year 1998 is belated. Action of the management of

WCL not regularizing the services of claimants cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point

No.2 in Affirmative.

16.

Before parting with the matter, it would be appropriate to consider that no dispute award was passed by

Arbitrator is produced at Exhibit M-7. From careful reading of said award shows that the Union had signed agreement

for reference on 8-4-91. The period was over on 31-3-92. Union had refused to extend the time to arbitrator to exercise

his authority and give award. Consequently no dispute award was passed and dispute was raised by union in 1998. No

7610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute award passed in the matter by arbitrator doesnot take away jurisdiction of this Tribunal as Union had not agreed

for extension of the period.

17.

In view of my finding recorded above, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not regularizing

Shri Malkhan and 283 others employed by MECL contractor in prohibited category is legal and proper.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2299-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafM;k ,vjykbZUl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1449@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 03-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@53@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 1449 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.09.2017.

[No. L-11012/53/2003-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th July, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1449/2004

The Manager,

Indian Airlines Limited, University Road,

Fatehganj, Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat,

Sharam Shakti, Post Box No. 77, GPO,

Opp. Prabhat Press, Mirjapur Road,

Ahmedabad – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Prakash Gogia

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/53/

2003-IR(C-I) dated 23.08.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7611

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat for reinstatement/regularisation of (1) S/Shri Santosh

D. Chalke (2) Iqbalhusain S. Gohil (3) Bhailalbhai D. Rathod (4) Rajakbhai Y. Shaik (5) Kanubhai D. Parmar

(6) Devidas N. Dhabhade (7) Sanjaykumar D. Patanbadia (8) Wasimbhai A. Shaikh (9) Bharatbhai D. Patil (10)

Jasubhai K. Rathod is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date?”

The reference dates back to 23.08.2004. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 02.05.2005

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 18.10.2009. Despite submitting the no. of documents by the

second party and also by the first party, the second party workman did not prefer to lead evidence even after a period of

8 years after the submission of written statement by the first party.

The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 15 in support of the written statement on 26.06.2014 reiterating the

averments made in the written statement.

On 20.03.2017, the second party whose representatives are usually very much in the court, were given last

opportunity to lead evidence but to no result. On the said date, the second party representatives were informed that if

they did not submit the evidence on behalf of the second party, the reference shall be disposed of in the light of the

affidavit/evidence of the first party.

The first party has fully denied the averments made in the statement of claim in their written statement as well as

in the affidavit Ex. 15.

Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party is disposed of with the observation as

under: “the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat for reinstatement/regularisation of (1) S/Shri Santosh D. Chalke

(2) Iqbalhusain S. Gohil (3) Bhailalbhai D. Rathod (4) Rajakbhai Y. Shaik (5) Kanubhai D. Parmar (6) Devidas N.

Dhabhade (7) Sanjaykumar D. Patanbadia (8) Wasimbhai A. Shaikh (9) Bharatbhai D. Patil (10) Jasubhai K. Rathod is

not justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2300-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

07-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@21@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 26 of 2011) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 07.09.2017.

[No. L-20012/21/2011-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 26 OF 2011

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union,

Mines Rescue Station, Dhansar

PO: Dhansar, Dhanbad.

7612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs.

The General Manager,

Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL

PO: Kustore, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/21/2011-IR (CM-I) dt.02.09.2011

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr R.R. Ram, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24^th July, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of

the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/21/

2011-IR (CM-I) dt.02.09.2011.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Hurriladih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Sheo Kumar

Nonia, Ex- M/Loader from the services of the Company vide order dated 07/17.06.2004 is justified and fair? To

what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/21/2011-IR (CM-I) dt.02.09.2011. of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 26 of 2011 was registered on 12.09.2011, and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels respective appeared respectively, and contested the

case.

The case as briefed in W.S. by the Ld. Advocate Shri R.R.Ram about the workman concerned is that the

workman was designated as Ex.M.Loader as a permanent workman with Pers.No. 03016235 of Hurraladih Colliery

under Groups of the Management of M/s. BCCL, left for native village unauthorisedly and remained prolonged

period on leave since 15.07.2003 and got himself involved over land dispute among his family members and to look

after his sick father as well .The Management issued a charge sheet on 30.12.2003 framing absentism ground for his

being remained on prolonged leave unauthorisely as misconduct alleged in WS by the workman ,to which in an

open admission .the sponsoring Union Rep. pleaded workman’s illiteracy and blissfully ignorant of the rules and

regulations ,enforced in the Management by the time .After having been charge sheeted, he was apparently

participated in the enquiry under which workman’s grievances remained unheard and he was formally dismissed

w.e.f 07/17.06.2004 without any concrete rhyme and reason whatsoever . The allegations, as came out by the

Management were not established nor did workman’s petition for prayer take into consideration before imposing

harsher punishment .So the alleged act of the Management about dismissal stands unjustified and arbitrary. seeking

reinstatement into service summarily

Contrary to it, the O.P./Management. categorically denying all the charges brought upon against it, asserted

that the dismissal order of the workman was not singled out to one incident engulfing therein but taking into

consideration of his past poor service records as to thin attendances. And even after this had tuned into a habitual

and regular practice against which he was slapped with charge sheet .On not being found satisfactory to the reply

against the chargehseet, the Management went ahead constituting domestic enquiry under the Disciplinary Authority

the then Dy. Manager in the capacity of Enquiry Officer. The worker concerned was found guilty of the charges

levelled against him and held him responsible as suggestions came out of the Enquiry Report submitted to the

Disciplinary Authority. Later on the Competent Authority issued Second Show Cause Notice with copy of Enquiry

Report upon the workman before dismissing the workman from service and taking into counts his past history track

records of absentism .So the conduct and manner in which enquiry held, got mired as alleged by the Union, was

absolutely baseless, unfair, improper and nothing to do with reality because full opportunity was provided to come

out in his defence. Even in eventuality of not being convinced, the Management does stand by its words to adduce

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7613

afresh evidence. At last the dismissal is legal and justified with no violation of the natural justice, the workman

deserves for

Though arguments and counter by each other and vice-versa with logics continue to haunt in best possible

way to suit the interest of the parties concerned .So long as the job of Coal Mazdoor obviously seems to be an

arduous and tedious in nature which needs a hale and hearty structure of health all the time and more physical labour

particularly in underground Mines surrounding very odds unhygienic atmosphere, apart from putting life into risks.

However, there is nothing unusual on the part of the workman proceeding on prolonged leave even on a single call of

urgency, avoiding venturing out in the Mines for work. It sometimes proves fatal and forces them to expose casualty

keeping of lives at stake despite best mechanism of safety norms in place. Though the workman has set the logics very

candidly. The punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the workman to the alleged misconduct of absentism, he

committed, however does not stand proportionate and fair , rather be termed harsher in natural justice as he was

robbed off his bread and butter with no means of alternative livelihood in days of hardships .

Hence the Tribunal is of the view that the move will not be termed wrong and improper and against the natural

justice if the workman concerned be provided a little bit breather by way of employment as fresher in Cat.-I as General

Mazdoor before determination of his age with statutory record of Form-B Register but no back wages whatsoever. Thus

it is ordered for fresh employment of the workman concerned as fresher as Cat. - I with probation rolling over up to 2

years only after determination of his age.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2301-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-

09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@161@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 28 of 2016) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 07.09.2017.

[No. L-20012/161/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 28 OF 2016

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Vishwakarma Colony, Nutundih

PO: Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B. Area of M/s BCCL

PO: Kusunda, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/161/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.15.02.2016

7614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. P. Mandal, Ld. Union Rep.

On behalf of the Management

Mr U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24^th July, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-

20012/161/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.15.02.2016.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Kustore Colliery under P.B.Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri

Basudeo Mallick, M/Loader vide letter 07/08.12.2000 is fair and justified ? To what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/161/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.15.02.2016 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the

Reference Case No. 28 of 2016 was registered on 25.02.2016, and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date

fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by

the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Representative/ Counsel respective appeared respectively, and

contested the case.

The case as briefed in W.S. by the Union Representative Ld. Advocate Shri Pintu Mandal about that the

workman Basdeo Mallick an permanent employee of Kustore Colliery under P.B.Area had abruptly been absent of

duty since 10.08.1998 due to illness but reported the matter to the Management. After recovery from illness when he

went for resumption of duty, the Management denied permission to do so by issuing with a charge sheet dt.

13/14.10.1999 in accordance with the provisions under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standings Orders an by-laws of

the BCCL Management with no fault of any misconduct on the part of the workman. The contention of the workman

was never unheard both by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. Fairness of the enquiry got mired with

violation of the natural justice and put a question mark over the way the enquiry was conducted. Despite having an

unblemished service track record, the workman had to appear before the Enquiry Committee which was largely

constituted to deal with the misconduct itself implied for minor punishment, and finally he was dismissed from

services on 20.10.2005 by the Management of the Kustrore Ultimately, the Management of Kustore Colliery came out

with dismissal of the workman without issuing a second show-cause notice. Since after dismissal the workman’s

mercy to this regard could not be disposed of in accordance with provisions of the Certified Standing Orders by the

Appellate Authority itself attracts violation of clause 30 of the Certified Standing Orders. So the alleged action of the

Management about dismissal stands not only unjustified but arbitrary and bad in law also, seeking reinstatement into

service with full back wages summarily.

Contrary to the fact, categorically denying all the allegations as stated by the workman in his W.S., the

Management asserted that upon issuance the said charge sheet, the matter was refereed to get enquired in depth, by

forming an Enquiry Committee by S/ Sri A.Jha and A.K.Jha as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer providing

sufficient time to come out with his defence and the Enquiry Committee onwards submitted report to the Disciplinary

Authority who in turn, taking his past poor service track records over attendance, imposed penalty of dismissal based

on outcome of the Domestic Enquiry, in which the workman concerned was proved guilty of the charges brought upon

against him by the OP/Management. As the matter, in issue was taken up by the Union concerned before the ALC©,

Dhanbad for conciliation with making availability of the full facts etc followed with documents by the Management

to convince whatsoever actions felt imperative was taken as the Management still standby the action of dismissal. The

Disciplinary Authority also maintained the Enquiry was held largely to go to bottom of the facts of the issue providing

the workmen sufficient opportunity to come out in his self defence, and in the line of the natural justice. Thus, the

Disciplinary Authority decided to impose penalty of dismissal from service, taking into his past record of meager

attendances in account but without considering his appeal for reinstatement in view of his past poor attendances.

Though documents in Ext. M 1- to M-8 in series stayed Exhibited on mutual consent of both the parties concerned on

being waived formal proof. Post dismissal Management reiterated its commitment to go in for adducing afresh in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7615

eventuality of being unconvinced. So there is nothing short of violation of the natural justice, as alleged by the

workman but do affirm the so-called enquiry as fair and just.

No wonder ,cases of absentism get insignificant , unprecedented and unusual so long as Groups of the Collieries

under the BCCL Management are concerned as hailing illiteracy backgrounds of workmen, mostly intent to move

on prolonged leave as being scared of the safety points of view and often evade stepping into the underground Mines

which proved fatal and disastrous at times despite best mechanism of safety apparatus in place and its periodical

reviews. Summing up, quantum of the punishment as dismissal inflicted upon the workman concerned against the

misconduct of absentism appears a little bit harsher and not in proportionate too. So a fresh look at the issue cannot

be ruled out.

Though, there is nothing improper, unlawful and wrong-doings if the workman be provided a little bit breather

but simultaneously with severe warning to mend. Ultimately in the light of the above, it is ordered for fresh

appointment of the workman concerned as Cat. -I with probation up to two years but no back wages,whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2302-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-

09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@31@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 42 of 2015) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 07.09.2017.

[No. L-20012/31/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 42 OF 2015

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Post Box No. 59.Jharia, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

W. W Zone of M/s BCCL, PO: Mahuda, Dhanbad

Order No.L-20012/31/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 09.06.2015.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

7616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24^th July, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/31/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 09.06.2015.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Western Washery Zone of M/s BCCL in denying

regularization of S/Sri Rajesh Paswan, Bishnudeo Yadav and Uma Kant Singh as Security Guard is fair

and justified? To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?

Neither the workmen concerned nor any one from the Sponsoring Union made appearance on date nor did the

Management side too , nor did file the long awaited W.S despite issuance of formal notices dt 26.07.2015 on the

addresses of both the parties concerned referred in the Order of the Reference itself. None so far came out as

Representative of the Management. The case deals with regularization of the workmen which appeared to have been

denied by the Management seeking reliefs.

On maticioulous study of the record concerned it has been absolutely clear the case dates back to the year of

2015 and even after elapse of more than two years the case , it stands to where it was crawling on one stage over the

years despite adjournment over more than ten times . It appears that the workmen’s own initiatives seem to have paid

off as the case stayed to halt over one stage over years .This also points out to the gesture and conduct of the workmen

concerned as they are little interested to contest to the instant case to finality through adjudication rather bent upon to

get adjournments .In real sense the case has lost its merits and the very existence Industrial Dispute indeed any more

seems to has ceased just because silence maintained on their part, for long span of time and, the Tribunal is also

of the opinion to let it roll any further will be proved mere wastage of precious time and energy and a hindrance in

clearing the backlog of cases. Under these circumstances it would not amount to be unfair, unjust and in line of

violation of the natural justice if case is closed on presumption of non-existent of any Industrial Dispute as of now

between the parties concerned. Under such circumstance and facts, the case should be wrapped up as no-existent

Industrial Dispute any longer owning to sheer disinterestedness of the Union/workman. Accordingly “No Industrial

Dispute” Award is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2303-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-

09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@32@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 43 of 2015) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 07.09.2017.

[No. L-20012/32/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 2015

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7617

PARTIES

The Jt. General Secretary,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

M-7/144, Maligarh Dam Colony,

PO Nudkhurkee, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

Block II Area of M/s BCCL,

PO:Nawagarh, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/32/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.09.06.2015

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None,

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 07^th August, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/32/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.09.06.2015

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Block II Area of BCCL in denying regularization of Sri Suresh Kumar Mahtha as

Loading Supervisor in T & S Grade AI is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?”

Neither the Union Representative nor the workman concerned is reported to be present on date nor did file the

much awaited W.S. despite formal notice dtt 20.07.2015 were sent at the addresses of the both the parties referred in

Order of the Reference itself. Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate registered his appearance on date not for this time but all

along since its inception and rolling out as Reference .The case is all about the denial of the regularization by the

Management in T & S Grade AI by challenging the alleged act by seeking reliefs there under.

On perusal of the case record, it has been apparently clear that the Sponsoring Union /workman seems to be in

no hurry to file the W.S. despite having availed more than ten adjournments. The tardy pace of case appears to have

paid off its purpose as it stayed rolling over filing of the W.S since then. The way, the Union Representative

/petitioner walks with the case points to sufficient grounds to believe that they are least interested to get to finality

through adjudication rather any further rolling out could be turn out mere wastage of precious time and energy,

Simultaneously the Tribunal also do not see violation of the natural justice nor does it continue to be mute spectator.

The status of the case, as of now, stands yet be unfolded by not filing even the WS. As such proceedings have been

abruptly come to a grinding halt over filing of documents due to disinterestedness of the Union/workman, as the case

has lost its merits on this count, the Tribunal cannot let the situation crawl for a long spell of time rather pushing

it for final closure in the wider natural interest on presumption of non-existent of issue in real sense . So the case is

wrapped up as “No Industrial Dispute”. Accordingly an ‘Award of No Dispute’ is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2304-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fnYyh b.Vjus'kuy ,vjiksVZ fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 185@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@02@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

7618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Delhi (Ref. No. 185 of 2012) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.09.2017.

[No. L-20013/02/2017-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1, DELHI

ID NO. 185/2012

Shri Chetan Sharma,

Vill. Rampur, Tehsil Pataudi,

Distt. Gurgaon Haryana

…Workman

Vs.

The Management of

M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd.

New Uddan Bhawan, I.G.I. Airport,

New Delhi – 110037.

The Management of

M/s. Bird Worldwide Flight Services (India) Pvt.Ltd.

E-9 Connaught House, Connaught Place.

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

This is a claim directly filed under section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, the Act) by claimant with

the averments that he was appointed as a Loader by management No.2 M/s Bird Worldwide Flights Service (India) Pvt.

Ltd. on contractual basis. He has been serving the said management honestly and sincerely. His record is unblemished

and he was getting monthly wages Rs.7100/-. However, the management has been violating the labour norms and

paying lowest rate i.e. bare minimum wages to the claimant. Thus, the management is indulging in unfair labour

practices. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.12.2011 he was performing his duty and official of the management

forcibly snatched his photo Identity card without any reason and also asked the claimant not to enter the airport to

perform his duty. Since December 25, 2011, the claimant had been reporting to the office of management No.2 for duty

demanding his PIC but he has been denied PIC on one pretext or the other. Thereafter claimant served demand notice

dated 4.4.2012 on the management for his illegal and unjustified termination of service. The termination of the service

of the claimant is without any reason, notice, pay, charge-sheet and enquiry, as such same is unjustified and illegal and

is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Since management did not file any written reply to the demand notice, as

such claimant later on filed the present claim petition.

The claim was contested by both the management who filed separate reply thereto. The management No.1, in

its reply, took various preliminary objections. On merits, it was alleged that management No.1 is an independent

company and had entered into an agreement with M/s Airport Authority of India and accordingly operating the same

through its own work force. Management No.1 denied all the material averments made in the statement of claim.

The management No.2 filed separate reply and took preliminary objection that claimant was appointed as

Loader initially on contract basis for a period of one year w.e.f.1.8.2010 and service of the workman was regularized by

the management w.e.f. 1.8.2011 in terms of letter of appointment dated 31.7.2011. It is further alleged that claimant

was on duty in the morning shift on 25.12.2011 alongwith his co-worker Shri Bijender and U.H. found a pack of ‘Hair

Gel’ in a container while attending to flight No. 072 at BBA at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Both were found fighting over

the possession of the said gel by Team Leader Shri Sanjay Kumar who advised them to stay back at the said belt/ BBA.

Shri Sanjay Kumar was also advised to hand over the ‘Hair Gel’ to CISF staff at IGI Airport. Thereafter Sanjay Kumar

took the said Gel to hand over the CISF staff and in the meanwhile, claimant followed him and without any

provocation started beating him which led to bleeding from his nose and an inquiry was conducted by the management

through its Vigilance Officer who recorded statement of the claimant Chetan Sharma, Sanjay Kumar and Sanjiv Tiwari.

Sh.Chetan Sharma in his own handwriting admitted that he was on duty and had assaulted and beaten his senior Sanjay

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7619

Kumar which led to bleeding from his nose. Claimant was given full opportunity and having admitted his guilt, as such

management vide its letter dated 10.1.2012 terminated the service of the claimant on the ground of above serious

charges of mis-conduct. On merits, management denied most of the other averments and reiterated the afore-mentioned

averments in most of the paras. It is denied that management has indulged in any unfair labour practices rather the

claimant is guilty of suppression of material facts and his mis-conduct is established on record.

Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 05.03.13

framed the following issues :

(i)

Whether enquiry conducted by M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Service Pvt. Ltd. was just, fair and proper?

(ii)

Whether punishment of termination of service of the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

(iii)

Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service?

Both the parties adduced evidence in support of stand taken in their respective pleadings. The claimant in order

to prove the case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.WW1/A

and documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4. The management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri R.S.

Bhatti, Vigilance Officer as MW1, who also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.MW1/A and documents Ex.MW1/1 to

MW1/6. Shri Sanjay Kumar, MW2 has also been examined by the management.

Issue no. 1, 2 and 3 :

All these issues are taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and can be

conveniently disposed of.

It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that claimant was initially engaged by the management No.2 M/s

Bird Worldwide Flight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Terminal III, IGI Airport, as a Loader on contractual basis on

1.8.2010. Even management No.2 has admitted this fact in Para 1 and 2 of preliminary submissions of the written

statement wherein it is stated that claimant was engaged for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.8.2010 and subsequently the

service of the claimant was regularized by the management ( BWFS) w.e.f. 1.8.2011 in terms of letter of appointment

dated 31.7.2011.

The letter of appointment of the claimant herein is Ex.WW1/1 which has been issued by the management No.2

BWFS. The said letter is also signed by the authorized signatory of the said management and is dated 31.7.2011. All

terms and conditions of the management including basic salary, nature of duty, job, rest etc. are fully mentioned in the

said letter. There is also demand notice Ex.WW1/2 given by the claimant to the management No.2 and the receipt

thereof is Ex.WW1/3. The certificate of conciliation proceedings is also annexed with this document which shows that

conciliation proceedings failed before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (ALC) and copy of the statement of claim filed

before the ALC is Ex.WW1/4.

During the course of arguments, it was strongly contended on behalf of the claimant that there is no proper

inquiry conducted against the claimant nor any opportunity was given to the claimant to rebut the charges of mis-

conduct. It was also urged that so-called admission made by the claimant in his reply Ex.WW1/M2 is not voluntary and

same cannot be used against the claimant as he was made to sign this statement by the officials of the management

under pressure.

10.

Shri R.K.Mehta, Ld. A/R for the management urged that claimant herein has admitted the allegations made

against him in the charge sheet as such there was no requirement of conducting any regular inquiry. The management

has given him fair opportunity and claimant has voluntarily made a statement before the Inquiry Officer as such

claimant now cannot take the plea that he was not given opportunity to adduce the evidence when he has admitted his

guilt. Ld. A/R also relied upon certain rulings and I would be referring the same in my discussion in the subsequent

para.

11.

It is clear from perusal of letter dated 19.7.2010 Ex.WW1/M1 that claimant Chetan Sharma was selected for the

post of Loader on contractual basis for the period of one year. This fact during the course of arguments, was not denied

by the either party and the main controversy in the present case revolves around the point as to whether fair opportunity

has been given to the claimant under the law in respect of mis-conduct committed by him or whether there is any

violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act.

12.

It is clear from the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record hat claimant was working with

management No.2 and while appearing as WW1 claimant Chetan Sharma has admitted that document Ex.WW1/M1

bears his signatures at points A and B. He has further admitted that document Ex.WW1/M2 is in his hand writing.

There is also reference of hair gel pack in the statement of claimant which was found by him belonging to some

international passenger. He has also admitted the presence of Sanjay Kumar, Team Leader on the spot. Sanjay Kumar

has also been examined by management No.2 who has refer to the detail of assault and injury received by him. No

7620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

doubt, management herein has not filed he show cause notice given to the claimant culminating in initiation of inquiry

against the claimant. However, writing Ex.WW1/M2 clearly mention about the incident and claimant has taken the

false defence that he was assaulted by Sanjay Kumar which appears to be an afterthought as the claimant has not

examined any witness to show that Sanjay Kumar has slapped him. He has also not complained regarding slapping by

Sanjay Kumar to any of his superior officer. In such circumstances, merely because management has failed to file show

cause notice would not mean that incident has not taken place particularly when the factum of the incident had been

admitted in writing Ex. WW1/M1 by the claimant. It is only after the receipt of inquiry report submitted by Mr.

R.S.Bhatti that order of termination wad passed vide Ex.WW1/M3. Management has also examined Shri R.S.Bhatti,

Vigilance Officer who conducted the inquiry, as MW1. Though he admitted that no charge sheet was placed before him

but he has conducted the inquiry. Statement of Sanjay Kumar MW2 also prima facie proved the incident of assault as

well as bleeding from his nose caused by claimant. Claimant has also admitted in his writing Ex.WW1/M2 regarding

the above incident of assault and beating given to Sanjay Kumar by stating that “maine inke saath maar peet ki” He

further stated that it was his fist mistake for which he is seeking apology. The writing Ex.WW1/M2 appears to this

Tribunal to be voluntary and there does not appear any kind of force used by the management so as to procure writing

Ex.WW1/M2. Moreover, this is not the case of the claimant either in statement of claim or in his affidavit that at the

time of recording of the writing Ex.WW1/M2, any undue influence, coercion or force was used by any official of the

management. This writing in my humble opinion, is admission of the guilt/misconduct committed by the claimant and

does not require any further proof.

13.

Now, the vital question which requires determination is whether there was any necessity of further inquiry when

claimant has admitted his fault in his reply particularly when the said reply is in the hand of claimant.

14.

In the present case, as discussed above, in fact a formal inquiry has been conducted and there is substantial

compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, there was no question of serving of notice to the claimant under

Section 25 F of the Act. However, claimant is entitled for salary for the period during which he has tendered service.

15.

In the case of Corporation Bank vs. General Secretary & Anr. 2016 LLR 754, Hon’ble Bombay High Court

has held as under :

“It is settled position of law that once an employee admits the charge and there was no cogent material to

show that admission of charges was recorded under duress or by applying force or pressure and that

admission as unconditional and in unequivocal terms, no fault could be found on the part of the Enquiry

Officer, holding the charges proved against the delinquent employee.”

Moreover, there are no guidelines, office order issued by the management which require holding of inquiry in a

particular manner in case of such incident. Since there is substantial compliance of natural justice as such non –placing

of show cause notice on record would not vitiate the inquiry when the factum of guilt is admitted.

16.

There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the claimant that the statement/reply Ex.WW1/M1 is not

voluntary or claimant was forcibly made to sign the same. There is no pleading to this effect in the statement of claim

nor there is any circumstance on the record to suggest that statement Ex.WW1/M2 was forcibly got written from the

claimant. Moreover, said statement is in the hand of claimant as such the court has to believe the writing/statement

Ex.WW1/M2 when claimant has not adduced any evidence that the said statement was obtained by the use of force or

any fraud was exercised in obtaining the said statement. In view of this, this Tribunal is of the clear view that there is

no requirement for holding a detailed inquiry when the claimant has admitted the allegation of mis-conduct made

against him by the management. There is also no cross examination to any of the witness of the management that

management has exercised any force or caused any fear to the claimant when he has written in his own hand statement

Ex.WW1/M2. It is equally settled principle of law that when a fact has been admitted by a party in the pleadings or

otherwise in a statement, the same is not further legally required to be proved. The admission of a fact by a party by

itself is substantive evidence of the fact so admitted. The management has examined Shri R.S.Bhatti, Vigilance Officer

as MW1 and there is hardly anything in his cross-examination to help the case of the claimant. Though this witness has

admitted that no chargesheet was served on the claimant, yet the record clearly shows that he has conducted the inquiry

and it is also clear from the record that Shri R.S.Bhatti was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the said inquiry who has

recorded the statement of claimant as well as Sanjay Kumar and Sanjiv Tiwari. Statement of Sanjiv Tiwari recorded

during domestic inquiry is Ex.WW1/4 and report of the inquiry officer is Ex.MW1/5. The management has also filed

letter Ex.MW1/6 where there is mention of the misbehavior of the claimant with Sanjay Kumar. It is thus clear from the

perusal of the evidence on record that management has even otherwise proved before this Tribunal by examining

Sanjay Kumar MW2 and Shri R.S.Bhatti MW1 that claimant has assaulted and slapped his senior Sanjay Kumar

resulting in bleeding from his nose.

17.

Now, the other question before this Tribunal is whether the termination of service of the claimant

commensurates to his misconduct. In this regard, ld. A/R for the management heavily relied upon the case of Uttar

Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Subhash Chander Sharma, MP AIR 2005 SC 1924.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7621

18.

I have carefully gone through the ratio of the above authority and there is hardly any quarrel with the

proposition of law propounded in the said authority. In Subhash Chand case (Supra) the delinquent employee was a

driver in Corporation and charge against him was that he in a drunken state along with conductor went to the room of

Asstt. Cashier and demanded money from the said Cashier. When Asstt. Cashier refused, the driver threatened and

assaulted him and also hurled abuses against the Asstt. Cashier. Inquiry was conducted and misconduct was proved

against the driver. He was formally removed from the service. However, the labour court interfered with the finding of

removal. In a reference made at the instance of said driver to the Industrial Court, the industrial Tribunal held that

punishment of removal was excessive and same was set aside by the Tribunal whereby punishment of removal was

reduced to one increment and payment of 50% back wages. The Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition upheld the award

of the Tribunal and management finally approached the Hon’ble Apex Court who set aside the judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court as well as award of the Tribunal and the punishment of removal was upheld. It was observed that by the

Hon’ble Apex Court that the labour court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from

the service when the charge against him was proved. The discretion used by the labour court in the circumstances of the

case was held to be arbitrary and capricious. It was further held that the court in such case cannot interfere unless the

punishment was “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct.

19.

Similar view appears to have been taken in the case of Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. S.

Balakrishnan , 2016( 12) SCC 221.

20.

In MPEB vs. Jagdish Chander Sharma, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1924 the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing

with the case of workman on muster roll who had allegedly assaulted his superior officer, a Sub-Engineer and hit with a

tension screw on his back resulting in bleeding and serious injury in the nose. The service of the workman was

terminated on the basis of inquiry conducted by the management and at the instance of workman reference was made to

the labour court. The labour court took the view that punishment of termination imposed upon the workman was

punitive in nature and workman had been kept out of his service since long after his termination as a result of which

order of termination was set aside and workman was reinstated without back wages. The management took the matter

to the High Court who upheld the order of the labour court. Finally, matter was taken in appeal to the Hon’ble Apex

Court where the question was whether the interference with the punishment awarded by the Competent Authority by

the labour court was justified or awarding of the punishment was harsh and disproportionate where charges of assault

are proved against the workman or the same warranted any kind of interference by the labour court. The Hon’ble Apex

Court observed that the allegations regarding hitting of his superior officer resulting in injuring and bleeding from his

nose is serious charge against the delinquent employee and the punishment has to be proportionate to the gravity of the

offence. The Apex Court also laid down that the discipline at work place in any organization is sine qua non for the

efficient working of the organization. When an employee committed breach of discipline, he is not entitled for any

sympathy. In the present case also, claimant has assaulted the team mate and caused bleeding in the nose. Resultantly,

punishment cannot be said to be harsh.

21.

During the course of arguments on behalf of workman, it was urged that termination was in violation of section

25-F of the Act. To my mind, in the present case, there is no question of applicability of section 25-F of the Act.

Admittedly the service of the claimant had not been retrenched without reason as is clear from the record, service of the

claimant has been terminated for the reason that he had committed mis-conduct which has been proved on record. In

such circumstances there is no question of applicability of provisions of section 25-F which has no application to a case

when after due inquiry, the management has dispensed with the service of workman. Had there been no inquiry and

service would have been terminated without any show cause notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice, in that

eventuality, there could have been force in the plea of the claimant. Therefore, order of termination cannot be said to be

a simpliciter order of retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the claimant herein has committed

misconduct which has been proved on record.

22.

The net result of the discussion is that claimant herein has been removed/terminated from service in accordance

with a valid inquiry conducted by management No.2 and punishment of termination awarded to the claimant appears to

be disproportionate to the misconduct as commensurate to the misconduct committed by the workman. In such

circumstances, there is no question of granting relief of reinstatement to the claimant herein.

23.

It was brought to the notice of this tribunal that claimant has not been paid his salary for the months of October,

November and December 2011 and Ld. A/R for the management stated at the bar that in record, said salary has not

been paid. Management is ready and willing to pay his salary upto the date of termination 25.12.2011, if any, to which

claimant is entitled. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.

Dated : 06.09.2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

7622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2305-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lsUVªy os;jgkm¯lx dkiksZjs'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@14@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 19.09.2017.

[No. L-42011/14/2016-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID. NO. 06/2017

General Secretary,

Federation of CWC Employees Union,

WZ-677, Shiv Nagar Extn., Jail Road,

New Delhi-110058

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager (Pers.),

m/s Central Warehousing Corporation ,

4/1, Siri Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi -110016

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42011/14/2016-

IR(M) dated 06.03.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action on the part of management of CWC to discontinue abruptly the ACP Scheme in 2009 and

again introducing it w.e.f 01.07.2012 caused loss to the employees of CWC during the intervening period? If

yes, what relief the employees are entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant union as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article sent to the claimant union referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that

postal services remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact

that the above notice was served upon the claimant union. Despite service of the notice, claimant union opted to

abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on behalf of them. Thus, it is clear that the workman

union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7623

Since the workman union has neither put in their appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

Dated : September 07, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2306-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lsUVªy os;jgkm¯lx dkiksZjs'ku ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 188@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@17@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 188/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 19.09.2017.

[No. L-42011/17/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID. NO. 188/15

Shri Makhsood Ahamad S/o Sh.Ilatijahusen,

Through General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A , Nathu Colony (East), 100 Foota Road,

Delhi-110093

…Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. 32/33,

Eastern Chamber, 4^th Floor, 128-A,

Nandlal Jani Marg, (Poona Street),

Mumbai-400009.

The managing Director,

Central Warehousing Corporation ,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi -110016.

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First floor, Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi -110092.

The Manager,

M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD, Near Gazipur Village, Patparganj,

Delhi -110096

…Management

7624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2017/ASVINA 8, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42011/17/2014

(IR(M) dated 13.02.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether termination of Shri Makhsood Ahamad S/o Ilatijahusen, w.e.f. 03.01.2013 by the management No. 4

i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. without making payment of legitimate dues is just, fair and legal? If

not what relief will be given to the workman and from which date?” Whether the management Nos. 1 & 2 i.e.

Central Warehousing Corporation is responsible to ensure and secure continuance of employment of Shri

Makhsood Ahamad S/o Ilatijahusen in the establishment of new contractor appointed for undertaking the job of

such contractor i.e management No. 3 M/s Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt.Ltd. If not what relief workman

concerned is entitled to?

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the

above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : September 07, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2307-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lsUVªy os;jgkm¯lx dkiksZjs'ku ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 184@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@18@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2017

S.O. 2307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 184/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 19.09.2017.

[No. L-42012/18/2014-IR (M)]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO. 2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

ID. NO. 184/2015

Dhananjay Singh S/o Late Shri Nageshwar Singh,

Through General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 30] 2017@vkf'ou 8] 1939

7625

B-1/A , Nathu Colony (East), 100 Foota Road,

Delhi-110093

…Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. 32/33,

Eastern Chamber, 4^th Floor, 128-A,

Nandlal Jani Marg, (Poona Street),

Mumbai-400009.

The managing Director,

Central Warehousing Corporation ,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi -110016.

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First floor, Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi -110092.

The Manager,

M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD, Near Gazipur Village, Patparganj,

Delhi -110096

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42012/18/2014

R(M) dated 27.08.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether termination of Shri Dhananjay Singh S/o Late Shri Nageshwar Singh, , w.e.f. by the management No.

4 i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.03.01.2013 without making payment of legitimate dues is just, fair

and legal? If not what relief will be given to the workman and from which date?

“Whether the management Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. Central Warehousing Corporation is responsible to ensure and secure

continuance of employment of Shri Dhananjay Singh S/o Late Shri Nageshwar Singh, in the establishment of

new contractor appointed for undertaking the job of such contractor i.e management No. 3. If not what relief

workman concerned is entitled to?”