This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 49] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 3—दिसम्बर 9, 2017, शनिवार/अग्रहायण 12—अग्रहायण 18, 1939

No. 49] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 3—DECEMBER 9, 2017, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA 12—AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2746.—dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6 lifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s mRrj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&4] y[kuÅ dh fnukad 17 tqykbZ] 2017 dh vkns'k la[;k&04 lh-ch-vkbZ-@VI&ih&4&2017&1¼39½ch@2017 ds rgr nh xbZ lgefr ls flapkbZ foHkkx] mRrj izns"k ljdkj }kjk dk;kZfUor **xkserh fjoj pSuykbts'ku izkstsDV** vkSj **xkserh fjoj ÝUV MsoysiesUV** ds dk;kZUo;u esa nqjk"k; ls dh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa tkap@vUos"k.k ds fy;s ,oa blds vfrfjDr bl lEcU/k esa Fkkuk xkserh uxj] ftyk y[kuÅ esa iathd`r Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ¼1860 dh vf/kfu;e la- 45½ dh /kkjk 409] 420] 467] 468] 471] 34 ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk&7 ,oa 13 ds vUrxZr eqdnek vijk/k la- 831@17 ds lEiw.kZ mRrj izns"k esa vkxs vUos"k.k djus ds fy;s fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ mRrj izns'k jkT; esa djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@30@2017&,ohMh-&II]

,Lk- ih- vkj- f=ikBh] voj lfpo

6916 GI/2017

(9127)9128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2017

S.O. 2746.—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 Uttar Pradesh, Home(Police) Section-4 vide Notification No. 04 CBI/VI-P-4-2017-1(39)B/2017 dated 17.07.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for enquiry/investigation into the irregularities committed with a criminal intent in implementation of entire "Gomti River Channelization Project" and "Gomti River Front Development" implemented by the Department of Irrigation, Government of UP. In addition, the Government of the State of U.P. accords consent for further investigation of Case Crime No. 831/2017 under section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act. No. 45 of 1860) and u/s 7, 13 of PC Act, 1988 registered at P.S. Gomti Nagar, Distt. Lucknow in the regard, under the above mentioned provisions.

[F. No. 228/30/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2747-&dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6] lifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s mRrj izns'k jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&11] y[kuÅ dh fnukad 31 tqykbZ] 2017 ds vkns'k la[;k&1611¼1½@6&ih&17&288,e@2017 ds rgr nh xbZ lgefr lss mRrj izns"k yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 01-04-2012 ls 31-03-2017 ds e/; ftu ijh{kkvksa ds ifj.kke ?kksf'kr fd;s x;s muesa yxs xaHkhj vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa tkap@vUos"k.k djus ds fy;s lEiw.kZ mRrj izns'k esa fnYyh fo"ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa ds dk;Z {ks= vkSj 'kfDr;ksa dks ,rn~}kjk foLrkfjr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@38@2017&,ohMh-&II]

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

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2017

S.O. 2747.—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 Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section-11, Lucknow vide Notification No. 1611(1)/6-P-17-288M/2017 dated 31.07.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for conducting enquiry/investigation into the serious allegations against the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad in which the examinations whose results were declared between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 will come in scope of enquiry.

[F. No. 228/38/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2017

काकाकाका....आ. आ. आ. आ. 2748274827482748....————के न्(cid:15) सरकार, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अधिनियम, 1946 (1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25)

की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते 3ए बिहार राज्य सरकार, गृह

विभाग (पुलिस शाखा) की सहमति से दिनांक 30.08.2017 की अधिसूचना सं. 8/सीबीआई-80-02/2017 एचपी-

7022/पटना के तहत धोखाधड़ी के अपराध के िलए ए.वी.एन. पब्लिक स्कू ल राजीवनगर, पटना के प्रधानाचार्य/प्रबंधन के

विHI उप सचिव (पटना) सीबीएसई द्वारा दायर की गई प्राथमिकी से संबंधित माननीय उJ न्यायालय, पटना की

एल.पी.ए.

सं. 1641,1643,1644 और 1645/2015 में दिनांक 08.02.2017 के आदेश के मद्देनजर भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860

(1860 का अिधिनयम सं. 45) की धारा 420/419/467/468/471/120 (बी)/197/198/406/34 के अधीन राजीव नगर,

पटना पुलिस स्टेशन मामला सं. 1501/15, दिनांक 22.06.2015 में अन्वेषण/पर्यवेक्षण तथा जांच करने के लिए दिल्ली

विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और न्यायधिकार क्षेत्र का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य पर करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/42/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9129

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2017

S.O. 2748.—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 Bihar, Home Department (Police Branch), vide Notification No.8/C.B.I-80- 02/2017 HP-7022/Patna dated 30.08.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Bihar to investigate/supervise and inquire into the Rajiv Nagar, Patna P.S. Case No. 150/15, dated 22.06.2015 u/s 420/419/ 467/468/471/120(B)/ 197/198/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No.45 of 1860), in the light of order dated 08.02.2017 in L.P.A. No.1641,1643,1644 & 1645/2015 of Hon'ble High Court, Patna which is related to F.I.R. lodged by Deputy Secretary (Patna) CBSE against Principal/Management of A.V.N. Public School Rajeev Nagar, Patna for the offence of forgery.

[F. No. 228/42/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3) मं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालय

((((वित्तीयवित्तीयवित्तीयवित्तीय सेवाएंसेवाएंसेवाएंसेवाएं िवभागिवभागिवभागिवभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 2749274927492749....————भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (6) द्वारा

प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते 3ए, एतVारा, सार्वजनिक सूचना के िलए यह अिधसूिचत किया जाता है कि के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने Wी राजीव कु मार के द्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के के न्(cid:15)ीय बोर्ड के अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद से दिए गए त्याग- पत्र को 4 सितम्बर, 2017 से स्वीकार कर िलया है।

[फा.सं. 1/10/2016-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2017

S.O. 2749.– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), it is hereby notified for public information that the Central Government has accepted the resignation tendered by Shri Rajiv Kumar as Part-Time Non Official Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of India, with effect from the 4th September, 2017.

[F. No. 1/10/2016-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

(((((cid:1)य विभाग(cid:1)य विभाग(cid:1)य विभाग(cid:1)य विभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2017

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 2750275027502750....————कें (cid:15) सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा विभाग में भारत सरकार के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय

जिसमें अस्सी प्रतिशत कर्मचरियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक Zान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को ,rn~}kjk अिधसूिचत करती है, अर्थात्:-

क्षेत्रीय प्रशिक्षण संस्थान, भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा विभाग, कोलकाता।

[सं. ए–12034/02/2014-ई. जी.]

ऐनी जॉर्ज मैथ्यू , संयुक्त सचिव9130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2750.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Government of India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi, namely:-

Regional Training Institute, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Kolkata.

[No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.

मानव मानव मानव मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

(उ(cid:19)च(उ(cid:19)च(उ(cid:19)च(उ(cid:19)चतर शिक्षा विभाग) तर शिक्षा विभाग) तर शिक्षा विभाग) तर शिक्षा विभाग)

(राजभाषा प्रभाग) (राजभाषा प्रभाग) (राजभाषा प्रभाग) (राजभाषा प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2751275127512751....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-नियम 4 के अनुसरण में, मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (उ_चतर शिक्षा विभाग) के अंतर्गत भारतीय प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान (काशी हिन्दू विश्वविद्यालय), वाराणसी को ऐसे कार्यालय के रूप में, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अिधक कर्मचारी-वृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक Zान प्राप्त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. 11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

सुखबीर सिह संधु, अपर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2751.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Department of Higher Education) as an office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have aquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 11011-3/2016-रा.भा.ए.]

SUKHBIR SINGH SANDHU, Addl. Secy.

विदेश मंत्रालय विदेश मंत्रालय विदेश मंत्रालय विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2752275227522752....————राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश।

एतद् द्वारा, के न्(cid:15) सरकार भारत के उ_चायोग,वेलिग्टन में Wी अमित कु मार शर्मा, निजि सहायक को दिनांक 29 नवम्बर, 2017 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक (कोंसुलर)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9131

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2017

S.O. 2752.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Personal Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Wellington to perform the Consular services with effect from 29 November, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2753275327532753....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में पेट्रोलियम पदाथj के परिवहन के लिए ''कोयली- अहमदनगर – सोलापुर पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन परियोजना के lियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबI अनुसूची में वqणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अत: अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार,पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते 3ए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है :

कोई sयक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वqणत भूमि में हितबI है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में Wी सी.जी. रावल, नायब कलेक्टर (अवकाश प्राप्त), सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन लिमिटेड, पtिमी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स प्रोजेक्टस 3/122, गुजरात रिफाइनरी टाउनशीप पी.ओ. – जवाहर नगर, वडोदरा गुजरात – 391320 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।

अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2017

S.O. 2753.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum from the State of Gujarat a pipeline should be laid for implementing Koyli – Ahmednagar – Solapur Pipeline Project under Koyli – Ahmendnagar Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation ;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is prposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule may submit objection in writing to Shri C.G. Raval, Deputy Collector (Retd.), Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Western Pipeline Projects 3/122, Gujarat Fefinery Township P.O. – Jawahar Nagar, Vadodara Gujarat-391320, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-11025(11)/104/2017-OR-1/E-8039]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2754-&dsUnzh ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko";d gS fd ^^iVuk & eksfrgkjh & cSrkyiqj "kk[kk ikbiykbu** ds varxZr isVªksfy;e inkFkksZ ds ifjogu gsrq ftyk xksikyxat] jkT; fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg, A

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

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk¼1½ }kjk iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk djrh gSA

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk &izdkf"kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh txnh'k izlkn flag] fc-iz-ls- o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM] ¼ikbiykbUl fMohtu½ iVuk] ih-,e-ch-ih-,y- uh"kh dqat] clar fogkj dkWyksuh] cksfjax jksM] ftyk iVuk] fiu% 800001] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@196@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&9925]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2754.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in District Gopalgunj in the State of Bihar for "Patna - Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline'' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Jagdish Prasad Singh, B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division), PMBPL Nishi Kunj, Basant Bihar Colony, Boring Road, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800001.

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-11025(11)/196/2017-OR-I/E-9925]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2755-&dsUnzh ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko";d gS fd ^^iVuk & eksfrgkjh & cSrkyiqj "kk[kk ikbiykbu** ds varxZr isVªksfy;e inkFkksZ ds ifjogu gsrq ftyk lkju] jkT; fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg, A

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

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk¼1½ }kjk iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk djrh gSA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9135 dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk& izdkf"kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh yyu izlkn flag] fc-iz-ls- o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM] ¼ ikbiykbUl fMohtu½ iVuk] ih-,e-ch-ih-,y- uh"kh dqat] clar fogkj dkWyksuh] cksfjax jksM] ftyk iVuk] fiu% 800001] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@196@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&9925]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2755.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in District Saran in the State of Bihar for "Patna - Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline'' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Lalan Prasad Singh, B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) PMBPL Nishi Kunj, Basant Bihar Colony, Boring Road, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-11025(11)/196/2017-OR-I/E-9925]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

(cid:10)म एवं रोजगार मं(cid:6)ालय (cid:10)म एवं रोजगार मं(cid:6)ालय (cid:10)म एवं रोजगार मं(cid:6)ालय (cid:10)म एवं रोजगार मं(cid:6)ालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2756275627562756....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार परियोजना निदेशक, राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण, चं(cid:15)नगर, पलक्कड़ व अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबI नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निyदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Wम न्यायालय, एर्नाकु लम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 50/2013, 51/2013, 52/2013,53/2013 को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 13.06.2017 को प्राप्त 3ए थे।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू),

एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू),

एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू),

एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजेन्(cid:15) जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2017

S.O. 2756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 50/2013, 51/2013, 52/2013, 53/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Project Director, National Highway Authroity of India, Chandranagar, Palakkad and others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 13.06.2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU), No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU), No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU), No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9139

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25th day of May, 2017/04th Jyaistha, 1939)

ID 50/2013

Workman/Applicant

Managements

: Shri N. Ramana Reddy, S/o Shri Venkata Reddy, Balayappalli, Ganganapalli Post 516 217, Kasinayana Mandal, Kadappa District, Andhra Pradesh. By Adv. Shri Ashok. B. Shenoy 1. The Project Director,

:

National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

By Adv. Shri. Thomas Antony

2. The Chief Project Manager,

KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Appollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur – 680 689.

3. M/s.Guruvayoor Infrastructures Private Limited, Additional Managements

:

Registered Office, Door No.1-80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032, Andhra Pradesh. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.111/2014)

4. M/s.Thrissur Expressway Ltd.,

NH 47 Project, Perambra P.O., Thrissur District – 680 689. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.4/2016)

By M/s. Jomy George & Associates

(for Management No.2 and Addl. Management Nos. 3 & 4)

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.05.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Matter was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalath today. Matter settled between the workman on the one hand and the management Nos. (1) & (2) on the other. Joint statement filed and compromise recorded.

3. Hence an award is passed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the joint statement. The joint statement shall form part of the award.

4. The second management is directed to produce before this Tribunal a banker's cheque for the sum of `1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty thousand only) in the name of the workman – Shri. N. Ramana Reddy, in full and final settlement of the claims as per this ID. The cheque shall be produced within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Award, failing which the workman is at liberty to execute the award in accordance with law.

5. On production of the cheque as aforesaid, it shall be handed over to the workman after obtaining proper acknowledgement.

6. Office is directed to hand over copy of the award to the parties as per Rule.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2017.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID NO. 50/2013

Shri, N. Ramana Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, Balayappalli, Ganganapalli, Post, 516 217, Kasinayana Mandal, Kadappa District, Andhra Pradesh.

…Workman

Vs.

1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

2. The Chief Project Manager, KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Apollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur-680 689

…Managements

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat between the workman and the 1st and 2nd Managements, the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms :—

1) The second management hereby agreed to pay a sum, of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only), to the workman in full and final settlement of all the claims in Id 50/2013 between the workman and the Managements.

2) Upon receiving the said amount, the workman in Id 50/2013 will not have any further monetary claim or claim for employment against the Managements in connection with his employment under the Managements in relation to the matter in dispute in this case.

3) A Banker's cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) favouring Shri. N. Ramana Reddy drawn on Axist Bank will be produced by the second management before this Tribunal within 45 days (Fourty five days) and it shall be handed over to the workman towards full and final settlement of all claims of the workman in I.D. No. 50/2013.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2017.

Workman : Sd/-

IInd Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Workman : Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9141

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25th day of May, 2017/04th Jyaistha, 1939)

ID 51/2013

Workman/Applicant

: Shri D. Ramesh Reddy, S/o Shri Easwar Reddy, House No.10/486-1, Vasavi Nagar (Raju Mill), Railway Kodur, Kadappa District – 516 201, Andhra Pradesh. By Adv. Shri Ashok. B. Shenoy

Managements

: 1. The Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

By Adv. Shri. Thomas Antony

2. The Chief Project Manager,

KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Appollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur – 680 689.

Additional Managements

: 3. M/s. Guruvayoor Infrastructures Private Limited,

Registered Office, Door No.1-80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032, Andhra Pradesh. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.111/2014)

4. M/s. Thrissur Expressway Ltd.,

NH 47 Project, Perambra P.O., Thrissur District – 680 689. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.4/2016)

By M/s. Jomy George & Associates

(for Management No. 2 and Addl. Management Nos. 3& 4)

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.05.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Matter was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalath today. Matter settled between the workman on the one hand and the management Nos. (1) & (2) on the other. Joint statement filed and compromise recorded.

3. Hence an award is passed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the joint statement. The joint statement shall form part of the award.

4. The second management is directed to produce before this Tribunal a banker's cheque for the sum of `47,000/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand only) in the name of the workman – Shri. D. Ramesh Reddy, in full and final settlement of the claims as per this ID. The cheque shall be produced within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Award, failing which the workman is at liberty to execute the award in accordance with law.

5. On production of the cheque as aforesaid, it shall be handed over to the workman after obtaining proper acknowledgement.

6. Office is directed to hand over copy of the award to the parties as per Rule.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2017.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID NO. 51/2013

Shri, D. Ramesh Reddy, S/o Easwar Reddy, Hose No. 10/486-1, Vasavi Nagar, (Raju (Mill), Railway Kodur Kadappa District, Andhra Pradesh.

…Workman

Vs.

1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

2. The Chief Project Manager, KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Apollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur-680 689

…Managements

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat between the workman and the 1st and 2nd Managements, the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms :—

1) The second management hereby agreed to pay a sum, of Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand only), to the workman in full and final settlement of all the claims in Id 51/2013 between the workman and the Managements.

2) Upon receiving the said amount, the workman in Id 51/2013 will not have any further monetary claim or claim for employment against the Managements in connection with his employment under the Managements in relation to the matter in dispute in this case.

3) A Banker's cheque for Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand only) favouring Shri. D. Ramesh Reddy drawn on Axist Bank will be produced by the second management before this Tribunal within 45 days (Fourty five days) and it shall be handed over to the workman towards full and final settlement of all claims of the workman in I.D. No. 51/2013.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2017.

Workman : Sd/-

IInd Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Workman : Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9143

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25th day of May, 2017/04th Jyaistha, 1939)

ID 52/2013

Workman/Applicant

: Shri Ganesh Kundo,

S/o Shri Bhart Kundu, Bijaya Lakshmi Narayanpur, Nuvakada (Via), Ganjam District – 761 011, Odissa.

By Adv. Shri Ashok. B. Shenoy

Managements : 1. The Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

By Adv. Shri. Thomas Antony

2. The Chief Project Manager,

KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Appollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur – 680 689.

Additional Managements : 3. M/s. Guruvayoor Infrastructures Private Limited,

Registered Office, Door No.1-80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032, Andhra Pradesh. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.111/2014)

4. M/s.Thrissur Expressway Ltd.,

NH 47 Project, Perambra P.O., Thrissur District – 680 689. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.4/2016)

By M/s.Jomy George & Associates

(for Management No.2 and Addl.Management Nos. 3 & 4)

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.05.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Matter was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalath today. Matter settled between the workman on the one hand and the management Nos.(1) & (2) on the other. Joint statement filed and compromise recorded.

3. Hence an award is passed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the joint statement. The joint statement shall form part of the award.

4. The second management is directed to produce before this Tribunal a banker's cheque for the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) in the name of the workman – Shri. Ganesh Kundo, in full and final settlement of the claims as per this ID. The cheque shall be produced within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Award, failing which the workman is at liberty to execute the award in accordance with law.

5. On production of the cheque as aforesaid, it shall be handed over to the workman after obtaining proper acknowledgement.

6. Office is directed to hand over copy of the award to the parties as per Rule.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette. Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2017.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID NO. 52/2013

Shri, Ganesh Kundo,, S/o Bhart Kundu, Bijaya Lakshmi Narayanpur, Nuvakada (Via), Ganjam Direct- 761 011 Odissa

…Workman

Vs.

1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

2. The Chief Project Manager, KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Apollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur-680 689

…Managements

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat between the workman and the 1st and 2nd Managements, the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms :—

1) The second management hereby agreed to pay a sum, of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only), to the workman in full and final settlement of all the claims in Id 52/2013 between the workman and the Managements.

2) Upon receiving the said amount, the workman in Id 52/2013 will not have any further monetary claim or claim for employment against the Managements in connection with his employment under the Managements in relation to the matter in dispute in this case.

3) A Banker's cheque for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) favouring Shri.Ganesh Kundo drawn on Axist Bank will be produced by the second management before this Tribunal within 45 days (Fourty five days) and it shall be handed over to the workman towards full and final settlement of all claims of the workman in I.D. No. 52/2013.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2017.

Workman : Sd/-

IInd Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Workman : Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9145

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.K Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25th day of May, 2017/04th Jyaistha, 1939)

ID 53/2013

Workman/Applicant

: Shri S. K. Jilani,

S/o Shri S. K. Raheem, House No.5-1-235, Sivanagar, Bedwel Post Mandalam, Kadappa District – 516 227, Andhra Pradesh.

By Adv. Shri Ashok. B. Shenoy

Managements

: 1. The Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

By Adv. Shri. Thomas Antony

2. The Chief Project Manager,

KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Appollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur – 680 689.

3. M/s.Guruvayoor Infrastructures Private Limited, Additional Managements

:

Registered Office, Door No.1-80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032, Andhra Pradesh. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.111/2014)

4. M/s. Thrissur Expressway Ltd.,

NH 47 Project,

Perambra P.O., Thrissur District – 680 689. (Impleaded as Additional Management vide Order dated 11.05.2016 in IA No.4/2016)

By M/s. Jomy George & Associates

(for Management No.2 and Addl.Management Nos. 3 & 4)

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.05.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Matter was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalath today. Matter settled between the workman on the one hand and the management Nos.(1) & (2) on the other. Joint statement filed and compromise recorded.

3. Hence an award is passed in accordance with the terms and conditions in the joint statement. The joint statement shall form part of the award.

4. The second management is directed to produce before this Tribunal a banker's cheque for the sum of `70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) in the name of the workman – Shri. S. K. Jilani, in full and final settlement of the claims as per this ID. The cheque shall be produced within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Award, failing which the workman is at liberty to execute the award in accordance with law.

5. On production of the banker's cheque as aforesaid, it shall be handed over to the workman after obtaining proper acknowledgement.

6. Office is directed to hand over copy of the award to the parties as per Rule.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2017.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID NO. 53/2013

Shri, S.K. Jilani, S/o S. K. Raheem, House No. 5-1-235, Shivanagar, Bedwel Post Mandalam, Kadappa District-516 227 Andhra Pradesh.

…Workman

Vs.

1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Office, NHAI, Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007.

2. The Chief Project Manager, KMC Constructions Limited, NH 47 Project, Behind Apollo Tyres, Perambra Post, Thrissur-680 689

…Managements

The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat between the workman and the 1st and 2nd Managements, the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms :—

1) The second management hereby agreed to pay a sum, of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only), to the workman in full and final settlement of all the claims in Id 53/2013 between the workman and the Managements.

2) Upon receiving the said amount, the workman in Id 53/2013 will not have any further monetary claim or claim for employment against the Managements in connection with his employment under the Managements in relation to the matter in dispute in this case.

3) A Banker's cheque for Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) favouring Shri. N. Ramana Reddy drawn on Axist Bank will be produced by the second management before this Tribunal within 45 days (Fourty five days) and it shall be handed over to the workman towards full and final settlement of all claims of the workman in I.D. No. 53/2013. Dated this the 4th day of May, 2017.

Workman : Sd/-

IInd Management : Sd/-

Counsel for Workman : Sd/-

Counsel for Management : Sd/-

Sd/-

Mediator[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9147

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2757275727572757....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार जयपुर नागौर आंचलिक uामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबI नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निyदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 76/1990) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त 3ए थे।

[सं. एल-12012/192/90-आईआर(बी-1)]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2017

S.O. 2757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 76/1990) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Jaipur Nagaur Anchalic Gramin Bank and their workmen, by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/192/90-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

vuqca/k

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

dsl uacj lh-vkbZ-Vh- 76@1990]

lh-vkbZ-,l- la- 27@14]

jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns"k

,y&12012@192@90& vkbZ-vkj-¼ch-&3½ fnukad 08-11-1990-

Jh v'kksd dqekj ekQZr egkea=h] xzkeh.k cSad ,EiykW;t ;wfu;u] vkpk;ksZ dh gosyh] fd'kuiksy cktkj] t;iqjA

---izkFkhZ Jfed

cuke

v/;{k] t;iqj ukxkSj vkapfyd xzkeh.k cSad] 56] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA ---vizkFkhZ

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

mifLFkr %

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh vkj- lh- tSu]

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh izeksn 'kkafMY; A

fnukad 11-04-2017

vf/kfu.kZ;

dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYYkh ls mijksDr vkns'k ds tfj;s fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnuakd 23-11-1990 dks izkIRk gqvk gSA

"Whether Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Driver,was the workman of Jaipur Nagaur Anchalic Gramin Bank? If so,Weather the action of the bank management in terminating his service w.e.f.18-12-89 is just and legal? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to? "9148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnuakd 19-3-1991 dks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh izFke fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 11-8-1984 dks MªkbZoj ds #i esa nSfud osru ij gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnuakd 31-5-1985 dks lsokeqDr dj ,d u;s MªkbZoj dks fu;qDr dj fy;k x;kA mlds ckn izkFkhZ dks iqu% fnuakd 11-11-1988 dks pkykd ds #i esa fu;qDRk fd;k x;k] tgka izkFkhZ us fnuakd 17-12-1989 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks foi{kh }kjk vdkj.k gh fnuakd 18-12-1989 dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k] ftldk dksbZ vkns'k Hkh tkjh ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&25th- o &25,p] dk mYya?ku fd;k gS rFkk jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e&1958 ds fu;e&77 o 78 dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ Jfed leku dk;Z leku osru ds fl)kards vuq;kj fu;qfDr frfFk ls eSlsUtj@prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh fu;fer osru Üka`[kyk esa osru o HkRrs izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh Fkk ijUrq Jfed dks dsoy nSfud osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] tks vuQs;j yscj izSfDVl gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks fujUrj lsok esa ekurs gq, iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus o leLr vkfFkZd o vU; ykHk e; gtkZ [kpkZ fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSaA

foi{kh cSad }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk fnuakd 11-7-1991 dks tokc izLrqr dj izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnuakd 11-8-1984 dks MªkbZoj ds in ij j[ks tkus] fnuakd 31-5-1985 dks mls lsokeqDr fd, tkus rFkk fnukad 11-11-1988 dks mls iqu% MªkbZoj ds #i esa j[ks tkus rFkk fnuakd 17-12-1989 rd dk;Z djus ds dFku ls bUdkj fd;k gSA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed foi{kh cSad es crkSj MªkbZoj dHkh Hkh lsok esa ugha jgk gS] rks mls lsok ls i`Fkd djus] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&25 th-] 25,p- dk mYya?ku djus rFkk fu;e &77 o 78 dh ikyuk ugha djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA foi{kh cSasd }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks dHkh fdlh izdkj dh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h vkSj u gh mls lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd foi{kh cSad ds ifji= fnuakd 3-08-1986 ds vuqlkj cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ks dks okgu lqfo/kk dk miHkksx djus gsrq okgu dk lapkyu Lo;a djus rFkk fof'k"B ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa okgu Lo;a u pykdj viuh futh gSfl;r ls MªkbZoj fu;qDr dj ldrk gS] ftldk 'kSM;wy ds rgr vf/kdre jkf'k dk mDr vf/kdkjh dks iquHkZj.k fd;k tkosxkA ftlds vuqlkj foi{kh cSad ds v/;{k }kjk futh gSfl;r ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks okgu pykus ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk ftldks Hkqxrku Hkh cSasd v/;{k }kjk viuh gSfl;r ls fn;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed dHkh cSad dk deZpkjh ugha jgk vkSj u gh izkFkhZ }kjk dHkh cSad deZpkfj;ks ds gkftjh jftLVj esa gLrk{kj fd, x, vkSj foi{kh cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse e; [kpkZ [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSaA

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls vius LVsVeasV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ Jfed Lo;a v'kksd dqekj flag dks ijhf{kr djok;k gS rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh ckcwyky eh.kk ,oa Jh vkseizdk'k dks ijhf{kr djok;k gS rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa foi{kh dh vksj ls ifjf'k"V vkj&1 o vkj&2 is'k gq, gSaA

eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh ,oa vfHkys[k dk ifj'khyu fd;kA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed us foi{kh cSad esa MªkbZoj ds #i esa fnuakd 11-11-1984 ls fnuakd 17-12-1989 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gSA mlds i'pkr mls fnuakd 18-12-1989 dks lsok ls i;kZolku dj fn;k x;k rFkk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tokc esa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd cSad ds v/;{k ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks futh MªkbZoj ds #i esa j[kk Fkk]ftldk cSad }kjk cSad ds v/;{k dks mldk osru fjEclZesaV fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk vizkFkhZ cSad dh tks lk{; vkbZ gS mlesa nksuksa xokgku ds dFkuska esa ijLij fojks/kkHkk"k gS rFkk ftudh lk{; vfHkopuksa ds foijhr gS rFkk vizkFkhZ dh cSad ;wdks cSad }kjk izk;ksftr cSad Fkh ftlds nks ifji= fnuakd 30-8-1986 o fnuakd 6-8-1989 is'k fd, x, gSaA fnuakd 6-1-1989 ds ifji= esa Li"V #i ls izko/kku gS fd osru cSad }kjk fn;k tk;sxk rFkk fnuakd 30-8-1986 ds ifji= ds laca/k esa Hkh ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; esa MªkbZoj dks cSad }kjk fn, x, osru o nh xbZ vU; lqfo/kkvksa dks ns[krs gq, cSad dk gh MªkbZoj gksuk ekuk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ dh dksbZ ,slh Hkh lk{; ugha gS fd izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds ckn dksbZ ykHkizn fu;kstu esa jgk gksA vr% izkFkhZ dks[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9149 cgky fd;k tkos vkSj mls cdk;k osru vkfn ykHk fnyk;s tkosa A izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku U;kf;d fofu'p;&laHkkxh izcU/kd] ;wdks cSad cuke jruflag HkkVh o vU;&2006[iii] L L J.650 dh vksj vkd`"V fd;k gSA

blds izfrdkj es foi{kh cSad ds izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ dks cSad }kjk dHkh Hkh fu;ksftr ughas fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vizkFkhZ cSad esa p;jeSu ;wdks cSad ls izfrfu;qfDr ij vk;s Fks] ftUgksaus izkFkhZ dks futh pkyd ds #i esa j[kk gS rFkk ;wdks cSad esa ;g izko/kku Fkk fd ps;jeSau tks futh MªkbZoj j[krk gS] ftlls cSad dk dke ysrk gS] mls fjECklZesaV fn;k tkrk Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ cSad us dHkh Hkh ugha j[kk rFkk tks ifji= gS] og ;wdks cSad ls lacaf/kr gS] blfy, izkFkhZ vkSj vizkFkhZ cSad dk deZdkj o fu;ksDrk dk lEcU/k Hkh ugha jgk gSA

eSaus mHk; i{k dh cgl ij euu fd;k vkSj ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr U;kf;d fofu'p; dk lEekuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA

vc U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jh v'kksd dqekj flag foi{kh cSad dk deZdkj Fkk\ vc bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ lk{kh deZdkj v'kksd dqekj flag dh lk{; dk ifj'khyu djsa rks mlus viuh eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFki= ij izLrqr dh gS] ftlus viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mlus foi{kh cSad esa fnuakd 11-8-1984 ls fnuakd 31-5-1985 rd fujUrj MªkbZoj ds #i esa dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk mlds i'pkr iqu% fnuakd 11-11-1988 ls fnuakd 18-12-1989 rd MªkbZoj ds #i esa dk;Z fd;k rFkk mlus foi{kh cSad esa miyC/k lHkh xkfM;ka pykbZ Fkh rFkk mldks fnuakd 18-12-1989 dks voS/k #i ls lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mldks lsokeqDr djus ds i'pkr foi{kh cSad us u;s MªkbZojksa dks fu;qfDr nh gSA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd fnuakd 11-11-1988 dks mls fu;qfDri= ugha fn;k Fkk] ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd cSasd eas gkftjh jftLVj gksrk gSA mlus gkftjh jftLVj esa dHkh gkftjh ugha dh Fkh rFkk ps;jeSu ,Q- ,e- ckfB;k FksA mlds ckn ds- ds -[kUuk vk;s FksA ckfB;k ds le; esa mls 425@& #i;s izfrekg osru feyrk Fkk tks 1150@& #i;s izfrekg rd igqapk FkkA mlds ckn [kUuk yxs Fks] muds le; esa 1250 #i;s ekgokj ls 'kq# gksdj mldks 1800@& #i;s izfrekg rd fn;k x;k FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd ps;jeSu ;g iSlk mls pSd }kjk nsrs Fks rFkk pSd ij mUgha ds nLRk[kr gksrs Fks rFkk [kkrk ps;jeSu dk gks rks irk ugha gSA ftjg esa vkxs bl xokg us crk;k gS fd pSd ij igys ckfB;k ds gLrk{kj gksrs Fks rFkk ckn esa [kUuk ds gLrk{kj gksrs Fks rFkk ps;jeSu dh xkMh ?kj ds mi;ksx esa Hkh bLRkseky djrs Fks vkSj cSad ds mi;ksx esa Hkh ysrs FksA ftjg esa bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd cSad us mls dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k gks vkSj ps;jeSu ds }kjk mls futh rkSj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksA

vizkFkhZ lk{kh ckcwyky us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh cSad lsok esa ugha fy;k vkSj u gh gVk;k Fkk rFkk o"kZ 1984&85 esa izkFkhZ bl cSad ds rRdkyhu v/;{k ,Q- ,e- ckfB;k ds futh MªkbZoj ds #i esa dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk ckfB;k v/;{k ds tkus ds ckn MªkbZoj dks iquHkZj.k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA blh izdkj o"kZ 1988&89 esa cSad ds rRdkyhu v/;{k ds- ds- [kUuk Fks A mudks Hkh blh izdkj iquHkZj.k fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk foi{kh cSad ds izk;ksftr ;wdks cSad }kjk tkjh ifji= fnuakd 30-8-1986 }kjk vf/kdkfj;ksa dks cSasd dh dkj fn;s tkus o muds mi;ksx miHkksx ds fo"k; esa funsZ'k fn;s gq, gSaA bu izko/kkuks ds rgr dksbZ vf/kdkjh vius okgu dk lapkyu Lo;a djsxk rFkk fof'k"B ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn og pkgs rks Lo;a ugha pykdj viuh futh gSfl;r esa dksbZ MªkbZoj fu;qDr dj ldrk gSA ,sls vf/kdkfj;ks }kjk Lo;a }kjk MªkbZoj dks osru fn;k tk;sxk] ysfdu cSad fu;eksa ds rgr fn;s x;s f'kM;wy ds rgr vf/kdre jkf'k mDr vf/kdkjh dks iquHkZj.k cSad djsxh vkSj blh izdkj rRdkyhu v/;{k }kjk dkj dks pykus ds fy, futh gSfl;r esa izkFkhZ dks MªkbZoj j[kk Fkk rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd fnuakd 30-8-1986 dk ifji= ps;jeSu us ykxw fd;k Fkk] tks ;wdks cSad dk Fkk] vizkFkhZ cSad dk ugha FkkA9150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vizkFkhZ lk{kh vkse izdk'k us Hkh viuh eq[; ijh{kk vizkFkhZ lk{kh ckcwyky ds dFkuksa dks nksgjk;k gS rFkk bl xokg dh lk{; dk lkj ;gh gS fd izkFkhZ ps;jeSu dh O;fDrxr dkj pykrk Fkk rFkk cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ps;jeSu MªkbZoj dks tks iSls nsrk Fkk mldks cSad ls fjECklZesaV esa ysrk FkkA

bl izdkj mHk; i{k dh tks lk{; vkbZ gS mlls izkFkhZ dk fu;kstu vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk fd;k x;k gks] ,slh ys'kek= Hkh lk{; vfHkys[k ij ugha vkbZ gS rFkk tks ifji= gS og ;wdks cSad ds gSa rFkk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh cSad us dHkh fu;kstu esa j[kk gks vkSj mls ckn esa lsokeqDr fd;k gks] ,slk Hkh dksbZ vkns'k vfHkys[k ij is'k ugha gS rFkk tks lk{; vk;h gS] mldk lkj ;gh gS fd izkFkhZ dks p;jeSu ds }kjk futh #i esa j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk ps;jesSu dks cSad ds }kjk ;g lqfo/kk nh xbZ Fkh] ftldk og fjEclZesaV ;wdks cSad ls ifji= }kjk mBkrk Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks cSad us dksbZ vU; lqfo/kk nh gks rFkk cSad ls crkSj deZpkjh osru mBkrk gks] ,slh izkFkhZ dh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS cfYd mldks mldh lk{; ls ;gh Li"V gS fd mldh cSasd ds gkftj jftLVj esa gkftjh ugha gksrh Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us tks U;kf;d fofu'p; is'k fd;k gS ml ekeys ds rF; esa pkyd dks cSad }kjk ;wfuQkseZ] twrs] okf'kax HkRrk vkfn cSad ds LVkQ dh rjg Hkqxrku fd;s tkrs Fks] tcfd gLrxr ekeys esa ,slh dksbZ Hkh rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr izkFkhZ dh lk{; esa ugha vk;h gSA vr% tc izkFkhZ dk vizkFkhZ cSad esa fu;kstu gh ugha Fkk rks fnuakd 18-12-1989 dks lsok ls i;kZolku dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gks] ,slh dksbZ fLFkfr gLrxr ekeys esa ugha ik;h tkrh gSA vr% lsok i;kZolku futh pkyd dks ps;jeSu }kjk fn;k x;k gS rks bldk rkRi;Z ;g ugha gS fd cSad }kjk mldh lsok dk i;kZolku fd;k x;k gSA blfy, izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA D;ksafd izkFkhZ tc cSad izcU/ku dk deZdkj gh ugha Fkk rks mldh lsok i;kZolku dh fof/k lEerrk vkSj U;k;ksfprrk dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk A vr% bl jsQjsUl dk mRrj udkjkRed nsrs gq, fuEUk izdkj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%&

vf/kfu.kZ;

vr% Jh v'kksd dqekj flag pkyd] t;iqj ukxkSj vkapfyd xzkeh.k cSad dk deZdkj ugha Fkk] blfy, mldks foi{kh izcU/k }kjk fnuakd 18-12-1989 dks lsok ls i;kZolku djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ekeys ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr esa i{kdkjku [kpkZ viuk&viuk Lo;a ogu djsxsaA

fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2758275827582758....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार पtिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबI नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निyदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/1997) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त 3आ था।

[सं. एल-42012/213/95-आईआर(बी-1)]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2017

S.O. 2758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 09/1997) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/213/95-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9151 vuqca/k

U;k;k/kh'k] dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua- lh-vkbZ-Vh- 09@1997

jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns"k d- ,y-&42012@213 @95&vkbZ-vkj-¼ch-1½ fn- 07-02-1997

vejhd flag cXxk ekQZr if'pe jsyos deZpkjh ifj"kn~] vtesjA

---izkFkhZ

cuke

eq[; dkj[kkuk izca/kd] yksdks dkj[kkuk] vtesjA

---vizkFkhZ

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

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh y{e.k izlkn fla?ky

fnukad % 12-04-2017

vokMZ

dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh us mijksDr vkns"k ds tfj;s fuEu fookn bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k gS%

^^D;k eq[; izca/kd dkj[kkuk izca/kd ¼yksdks½ if'pe jsyos] vtesj ds }kjk Jh vejhd flag cXxk dks Jh jks'ku yky ,oa izgykn pan ls Mhty eSdsfud xzsM II osrueku 330&480 esa dfu"B ekuk tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls fnukad 07-05-1997 dks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is"k dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ vejhd flag cXxk us mPp dq'ky Mhty eSdsfud xzsM f}rh; dh nLrdkjh ijh{kk vkcwjksM esa fnukad 13-07-1977 dks mRrh.kZ dh rFkk mlds i'pkr~ mPp dq'ky Mhty eSdsfud xzsM f}rh; ds in o osrueku ij fnukad 20-12-1977 dks inksUur dks fd;k x;k rFkk fnukad 09-05-1978 dks Mhty ih-vks-,p 21] yksdks odZ'kkWi vtesj esa iz'kklu fgr esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks xzsM f}rh; ds in ij fnlEcj 1982 rd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dk uke ojh;rk lwph esa Øekad 197 ij o nwljh ojh;rk lwph ij 162c ij vafdr gSA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 1-1-1984 ls mPp dq'ky Mhty eSdsfud xzsM izFke esa inksUufr dk ykHk fn;k x;k ,oa fnukad 25-07-1986 dks Mhty eSdsfud xzsM&izFke dh nLrdkjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh rFkk fnukad 20-12-1977 ls izksQkekZ osrueku fuf'pr fd;k x;kA Jh izgykn pan o Jh jks'ku flag tks CySd fLeFk yksdks odZ'kkWi yqgkj [kkuk vtesj ls Mhty ih-vks- ,p- 21 esa LFkkukarfjr gksdj vk;s Fks ftUgksaus xzsM f}rh; dh nLrdkjh ijh{kk 28-02-1979 dks ,oa xszsM&izFke dh nLrdkjh ijh{kk fnukad 16-01-1979 dks mRrh.kZ dh Fkh] budks foi{kh us nLrdkjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ls iwoZ gh fnukad 23-12-78 ds vkns'k ls fnukad 01-08-1978 ls mPp dq'ky xzsM&izFke ,oa f}rh; ds in ij inksUur dj fn;k x;k tks jsy fu;eksa ds fo:) gSA ftlls izkFkhZ bu nksuksa ls ofj"B gksus ds ckotwn Hkh izkFkhZ dks le; le; ij feyus okyh inksUufr ls oafpr gksuk iM+kA vr% vUr esa izkFkhZ dks Jh igykn pan o Jh jks'ku flag ls ofj"B ekudj inksUur djok;k tkos ,oa le; le; ij feyus okys in o osrueku] lqfo/kk;sa] HkRrs fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

foi{kh laLFkku }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ vejhd flag us ,oth vodk'k esa fnukad 20-12-77 ls 20-2-78 rd 32 fnu Mhty eSdsfud xzsM& II ds in ij rnFkZ :i ls dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk fQj fnukad 20-2-78 dks Mhty eSdsfud xzsM&III ij inkour fd;k x;k rFkk mlds ckn fnukad 19-6-80 dks vtesj esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k FkkA Jh jks'ku flag o Jh izgykn flag mPp dq'ky xzsM&I ds in ij LFkkukarj.k gksdj vk;s Fks ftudh inksUufr vkns'k fnukad 23-12-78 }kjk fnukad 1-8-78 ls vixzsM inksa ij gks pqdh FkhA mDr dkfeZdksa us yqgkj [kkuk yksdks esa LFkkukarj.k ls iwoZ gh xzsM&II dh ijh{kk fnukad 21-11-78 dks o xzsM&I dh ijh{kk fnukad 6-12-78 o 7-12-78 dks ikl dj pqds FksA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed bu nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa ls ofj"B ugha gksus ls dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ dk Dyse [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds leFkZu esa ekSf[kd lk{; esa izkFkhZ lk{kh vejhd flag dks ijhf{kr djok;k gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh foØe flag dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gksus ls foi{kh lk{kh ls ftjg ugha dh xbZ gSA9152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] eSaus vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh] i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA

vc U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ deZdkj vejhd flag ls vU; deZdkj jks'kuyky o izgykn pan twfu;j Fks\

bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ lk{kh vejhd flag us lk{; dFku fd;k gS fd mlus mPp dq'ky Mhty eSdsfud xzsM f}rh; dh nLrdkjh ijh{kk vkcwjksM esa fnukad 13-7-1977 dks mRrh.kZ dh FkhA mlds i'pkr~ mls eSdsfud xzsM f}rh; dk osrueku ij fnukad 20-12-1977 dks inksUur fd;k x;k rFkk mls fnukad 1-1-1984 dks mPp dq'ky Mhty eSdsfud xzsM izFke ij inksUur fd;k x;k rFkk blh chp fnukad 25-06-1979 dks izgykn pan o jks'kuyky yksdks odZ'kkWi yqgkj[kkuk&3 vtesj ls Mhty ihvks,p 21 esa LFkkukarfjr gksdj vk;s rFkk bUgksaus nLrdkjh ijh{kk xzsM izFke o f}rh; xzsM dh ckn esa mRrh.kZ dh ysfdu mUgsa VsLV xzsM dh inksUufr nsus ls izkFkhZ dh jsad ls ofj"Brk esa vk x,A ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k dksbZ ijh{kk ugha gksrh gS ofj"Brk dk gh vk/kkj gksrk gSA ftjg esa bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls badkj fd;k gS fd og jks'ku yky o izgykn pan ls twfu;j gksA

foi{kh lk{kh foØe flag us foi{kh foHkkx ds tokc esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa dh eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFk i= ij izLrqqr dh gS rFkk bl xokg ls dksbZ izfrijh{k.k Hkh ugha gS rFkk bl xokg us nLrkost izn'kZ vkj&1 ls izn'kZ vkj&4 dks lefFkZr vius eq[; ijh{kk ls fd;k gS rFkk bl xokg dh lk{; dk lkj ;g gS fd deZdkj jks'ku yky o izgykn pan us igys xzsM&kk dk VªsM VsLV fnukad 21-11-1978 dks o xzsM&I dk VªsM VsLV fnukad 6-12-1978 o 7-12-1978 dks mRrh.kZ fd;k Fkk rFkk tks Mhty odZ'kkWi esa vkus ls igys ls VªsM VsLV ikl Fks rFkk xzsM&I esa dk;Zjr Fks rFkk Jh vejhd flag ls lhfu;j Fks rFkk Jh vejhd flag dks xzsM& II vkSj xzsM&I fnukad 1-10-1983 o fnukad 1-8-1986 dks fujUrj dk;Z djus ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk ojh;rk nh tk pqdh gSA

bl izdkj izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth 'kgknr ds foospu ls izkFkhZ deZdkj Jh vejhd flag ls jks'ku yky o izgykn pan twfu;j gksuk izkFkhZ lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gSA vr% vejhd flag dks Jh jks'ku yky o izgykn pan ls Mhty eSdsfud xzsM f}rh; osrueku 330&480 esa dfu"B ekuk tkuk mfpr o oS/k gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA

mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i fuEu izdkj vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS

vf/kfu.kZ;

vr% ^^eq[; izca/kd dkj[kkuk izca/kd ¼yksdks½ if'pe jsyos] vtesj ds }kjk Jh vejhd flag cXxk dks Jh jks'ku

yky ,oa izgykn pan ls Mhty eSdsfud xzsM II osrueku 330&480 esa dfu"B ekuk tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk gdnkj ugha gSA **

fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh"k

'kqf)&i=

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2759-&Hkkjr ds jkti= Hkkx&II, [kaM&3, ds mi [kaM (ii), fnukad 09@08@2016 ds i`"B la- 3827 rFkk

3828 ¼,l-vks- la-1706½ dh vf/klwpuk la- ,l&38013@38@2016&,l-,l&1 fnukad 09@08@2016 ds vkaf"kd vk"kks/ku esa

Øe la- 14 ij mfYyf[kr ftyk dk uke dkWye la- 2 ds fuEukuqlkj i<+k tk, %&

[Lka- ,l&38013@38@2016&,l-,l&1]

larks'k dqekj flag] voj lfpo[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9153

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2017

S.O. 2759.—In partial modification to the notification No. S-38013/38/2016-SS-I dated 09/08/2016 of Ministry of Labour & Employment (S.O.No.1706), published on page No. 3827 & 3828 of Gazette of India Part-II, Section-3, Sub-Section (ii) dated 09/08/2016 the name of districts in Sl. No. 4 & Sl. No. 14, may be read as mentioned correctly in Col. No. 2 given below :-

[No. S-38013/38/2016-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2760-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 03@1998½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@377@1996&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

(Ref. No. 03 of 1998) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/377/1996-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 03 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer Appearances : For the employers: None For the Workman.: Shri S.C. Gour, Rep. State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 25/10/ 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /377 /1996/IR (CM-I) dt. 31.12.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in denial to promote Sri Deo Nandan Singh, Mech. Fitter

Helper from Category-II to Category–IV from the date his juniors have been promoted is justified? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 27.01.1998. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case, Ld. Vice president of the sponsoring Union submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2761-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 7@1994 vkSj 9@1994½ dks izdkf"kr dks djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@206@1993&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I),

la- ,y&20012@216@1993&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 7 of 1994 and 9 of 1994) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/206/1993-IR(C-I), No. L-20012/216/1993-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1)(d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947 Reference No. 7/1994 & 9/1994 Employers in relation to the management of Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s. BCCL And Their workmen

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearance:-

For the Employers : Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate

Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate

For the workman : Shri R.K.Mukherjee Advocate

Industry : Coal

Dated : 24.10.2017

AWARD

Referance No. 7/1994

By order No . L-20012 /206/1993/IR (C-I) dated 10.02.1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub – section ( 1) and sub–section ( 2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of Khas Kusunda colliery, P.O- Kusunda, Dist-Dhanbad of M/s.

BCCL in denying regularization of the services of Shri Basiruddin Ansari and 46 others as per list

annexed is justified ? If not , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

Annexure

List of workmen

REFERENCE No. 9/1994

By order No. L-20012/216/1993/IR (C-I) dated 10/11-02-1994, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub–section ( 1) and sub – section ( 2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of Khas Kusunda colliery, P.O- Kusunda, Dist-Dhanbad of M/s.

BCCL in denying regularization of the services of S/Shri Krishna Gopal and 62 others as per list

annexed is justified ? If not , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

ANNEXURE

List of workman

2. Both the cases are received from Ministry of Labour on 15.02.1994. The workman files written statement on 23.03.1994 & 18.02.1994 respectively. The management files their written statement on 10.06.1994 & 22.06.19949156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] respectively. Two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman in 7/94 and three witnesses examined in Ref. 9/1994 but only one witness examined on behalf of the management for both the cases. But no documents marked from either side.

3. The case of the Sponsoring Union/ workman in Ref 7/1994 is that The above named workmen has been working as Stone Cutters continuously and regularly since April 1975 at Khas Kusunda Colliery under M/S BCCL till 1982 in said capacity in same colliery.

4. The job performed by the said workmen was a job of prohibited category as per order S.O No. 488 dated 01.02.1975 issued by the Central Govt. under the provision of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regularisation and abolition Act 1970 and as such all the said workmen were the direct employee of the concerned management and the payment was made through an intermediary/ Contractor, the concerned workmen were not paid the full amount and as such they got less payment for the period they worked from the amount for which they were legally entitled.

5. The concerned workmen were legally entitled for regularization and absorption on permanent roll of the management since 1975 and to get all the benefits and facilities of permanent employee.

6. It is further submitted by the workmen that the management did not do so and ultimately stopped them from work after 1982 without any justified reason and did so in order to escape from the liability and responsibility from the regularization of these workman for which they were entitled on the basis of their regular and continuous work for about 8 years under the said management as stone cutters.

7. The workman made several representation before the management for their regularization but the management did not listen at all and ultimately an Industrial dispute arose.

8. The case of the Sponsoring Union in Ref. No. 9/1994 is that the above named workmen were engaged in underground works of plastering, Cutting stopple pit between top & Bottom of 11 seam , Drilling cutting from 11 seam to III seam , Advancing Face, Dyke cutting at 9th Dip gallery, making fan of 11 seam top, making stopping at 11 seam top, Drift work and cleaning of Khas Kusunda Coliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Col Ltd. Which are a regular nature of work but the management abolished the work of regular nature which was done by them and gave such work to contractors, which is unfair labour practice.

9. It is also submitted by the union that the concerned workmen were employed in prohibited category of job in which is work by or through contract Labour have been prohibited long ago and they were employed underground as well as on the surface from time to time and the workmen concerned completed 190 /240 day or more attendance each year under direct supervision and control of the management.

10. On the other hand the case of the management is that no employer-employee relationship exists between the management and the concerned persons and as such no Industrial dispute can be raised for regularization of the concerned persons who are not the workmen of the management. The sponsoring Union has claimed before the conciliation officer that the concerned persons had worked as stone cutter through contractor, named Md. Zamir Ansari some times during the period from 1975 to 1982

11. It is further submitted by the management that the Sponsoring Union has not been able to give any details of employment of the concerned persons during the alleged period of their service under the contractor named Md. Zamir Ansari. The Union also could not give any reasons for not raising any dispute for such a long period of 10 years demanding employment for the alleged workmen of the contractor. The present claim made after a period of more than 10 years . This fact alone makes it clear that this is not a case for regularization of workmen of the contractor but in fact this is a case of demand of induction of persons into the employment of the management with the help of litigation from back door entry. It is also submitted that the claim of the union was found to be imaginary, baseless and unfounded, and the management rejected the demand of the Sponsoring Union for employment of the concerned persons. The Khas Kusunda colliery does not have thin seam working and there is no scope for engagement of stone cutters on regular basis.

12. It is further submitted that the concerned persons are not the genuine workmen of Md. Zamir Ansari and they are job seekers and approached the Sponsoring Union to provide them job under the management. It is submitted that Md. Zamir Ansari was a contractor and he was awarded contract on very rare occasion requiring engagement of not more than 8 to 10 persons in a day and payment receipt of MD. Zamir Ansari will indicate that he could not make payment of wages to more than 7 to 8 persons and that do not on regular basis but on occasional basis in any particular months.

13. The claim advanced by the sponsoring union is not at al bonafide and is an attempt to induct job seekers in the employment of the management through back door methods. Hence the concerned persons are not entitled to be regularized in the service of the management .

14. The short point to be decided in this reference for regularization of 47 workmen and 63 workmen respectively under Khas Kusunda Colliery management . It is the case of the union that the workmen were rendering services as workmen as such they are to be regularized there. On the other hand, the claim of the management is that the workmen[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9157 were not their workmen and the workmen through fake person are trying to make back door entry through sponsoring Union by litigation.

15. The Union official deposed in the case as witness, his cross examination is mentioned below:-

"I raised the dispute as Union leader. I can now file the fathers name of the workmen concerned. The

workmen were working under Zamir Ansari Contractor . The contractor did not give any I.D Card to the

concerned workmen. In the year 1982 the contractor did not give work to the concerned workmen."

The cross-examination of WW-2 of Ref. 7/94 is quoted as below :-

"I have no work order or appointment letter to work under management. Contractor Zamil Ansari has

also not give any appointment letter or I.D Card .''

Xxxxx

16. "Three witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen in Ref. 9/1994 and all say that " I don't have any document to show that I was working under BCCL/ Contractor. I am deposing on behalf of all the workmen. I was working as Civil mason."

17. In the case the fathers name and age of the workmen not mentioned. Regarding their identity after perusing the order of reference, the union has not taken any attempt or examined any witness regarding age of the workmen but in the meantime the Sponsoring Union filed name, father's name and photograph of workmen on 2.09.2015 but in which the union did not disclose the age of the workmen.

18. The management witness says, that they were taking workmen through contractor for a limited period or limited persons.

19. The Sponsoring Union submits in the Written statement that all the workmen were working since 1975, on calculation, now all the workmen were more than 60 years of age.

20. Sri Jamuna Mahto @ Anand Mahto WW-2 of 7/94 is aged about 41 years as on 15.01.2013 as per his affidavit. It means at the time of engagement in the mines he was a baby as he was working from 1975. In chief he is admitted In para 4 is quoted below:-

" My self and other workmen were employed under ground as well as on the surface from time to time during the period from 1976 to 1982 and we were completed 240 days in each calendar year." He is 41 years of old as per his affidavit. It means in 1975 they are 2 or 3 years old.

21. WW-1 WW-2 & WW-3 of Ref. No. 9/1994 is aged 40, 41& 42 reapectively as on 15.01.2013 as per affidavit filed, his condition is same. It is also admitted by all witnesses of workmen that " I have no paper to show that, I was working under BCCL/contractor. I am deposing on behalf of all the workmen. I was working as civil mason." Now on calculation, all are 2 to 3 years old baby in 1975. It means they are neither engaged by BCCL nor any contractor workmen. It is also noticed that all the witnesses stated that they were working as civil mason through contractor, whereas the claim of the union is that the workmen concerned were working as stone cutter. Accordingly the work of civil mason is not a permanent nature of job. Upon this one judgment of constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of SAIL-Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers reported in (2001) 7SCC-1 says that the engagement of the contractor in the instant work was not prohibited category of work. Therefore the claim of the union is not correct.

22. Now on Perusal of all the evidence of all witnesses it appear that the persons are fake, and claim of Sponsoring Union is that the workmen is stone cutter whereas the witnesses say that they were working as civil mason. Since the Union unable to prove that they were working in previous year for 190 days because the attendance register of workmen is also not filed, and their identity and age has not been proved , thus this Tribunal unable to regularize them.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of both the cases, I hold that the action of Management of Khas Kusunda colliery, P.O- Kusunda ,Dist-Dhanbad of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization of the services of Shri Basiruddin Ansari and 46 others and S/Shri Krishna Gopal and 62 others as per list annexed is justified . Hence they are not entitled to get any relief .

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2762-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 05@2017½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@36@2016&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh9158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

(Ref. No. 5 of 2017) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/36/2016-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947 Reference No. 05 of 2017 Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL

AND Their workman Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer Appearances: For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocat For the Workman : Shri Sadhan Banerjee, Rep State:-Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated : 24.10 .2017.

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/36/2016 IR-(CM-I), dated. 06/02/2017 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub–Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL in terminating the service of Shri Jitendra Kumar

Paswan pers. No. 02991107, Miner Loader without conducting enquiry in fair and legal manner is legal

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

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 02.03.2017. After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 21.03.2017. And the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.08.2017. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services w.e.f 29.07.2002.

3. During preliminary hearing of this case, domestic enquiry held by the management is accepted by the Sponsoring Union/workman as Fair & Proper .

4. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of long absence. But he has already out of service since last 15 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman concerned to serve.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee in cat-I. But the workman be kept under probation for a period of two year. Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award .

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2763-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 31@1999½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@310@1998&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9159

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

(Ref. No. 31 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/310/1998-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947. Reference: No. 31/1999 Employer in relation to the management of Gidi washery of M/s. CCL AND Their workmen

Present: Shri R. K. Saran Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated : 23/10/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/310/1998-IR(C-I) dated 22/02/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand for the protection of wages in respect of Sri Bhuneshwar Ram and 50 others ( As

per list submitted by the union ) which they were getting wages before their regularization from piece-

rated to time rated categories and their categorization as per N.C.W.A. IV for the job actually they are

doing is legal and justified? If so as to what relief these workmen are entitled to?"

Note :- list of workmen is not enclosed alongwith order of reference.

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2764-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 84@1998½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@733@1997&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 84 of 1998) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/733/1997-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer9160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 84 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/S. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R .K.Saran Presiding Officer Appearances : For the employers: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman.: Shri D.Mukherjee, Rep.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 24/10/ 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /733 /1997/IR (CM-I) dt. 10.09.1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/S. BCCL in denying to regularise

Sri Satish Prasad Singh, Drodger Operator as Forman by the management Since 12.03.1992( when the

management has already regularised and promoted Sri R.P.Singh, fitter Excy. Cat- B, Sri C. Pandey,

D/Operator Cat-B and Sri SheoSagar Saw Crane Operator Cat-B to the post of Asstt. Foreman

Grade-C in the year 1985 and 1983 respectively) is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman

entitled? ''

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 21.09.1998. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case, Ld. Secretary of the sponsoring Union submits that workman is not interested to contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2765-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 69@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@39@1996&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 69 of 1997) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/39/1996-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9161

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 69/1997

Employer in relation to the management of jealgora colliery M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers  :   None
For the workman.   :   None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated : 23/10/ 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/39/1996-IR(C-I) dated 07/03/1997 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in denial to regularize S/Sh. Bikram Das &

Sheobadan as Munshi in Clerical Grade –II is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But after filing of written statement by the union, none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2766-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 48@2009½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@50@2009&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 48 of 2009) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/50/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer9162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 48 of 2009

Employer in relation to the management of Block-II Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the Workman. : Shri Laloo Oraon, in person.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated 24/10/ 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /50 /2009/IR (CM-I) dt.17.08.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Block-II Area of M/S. BCCL in deducting the House Rent

Allowance from the pay of Sri Laloo Oraon, EP Electrician is justified and legal (ii) To what relief is the

workman concerned entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case Ld. Counsel of the management appears and files acceptance letter of the workman concerned in which he submits that he does not want to contest the reference, and their demand has been fulfilled. Dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime, Therefore it is felt to pass an award of No.Dispute accordingly.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2767-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 45@1998½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@520@1997&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 45 of 1998) as shown in the 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 10.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/520/1997-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9163

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref.No. 45 of 1998

Employer in relation to the management of Jairampur Colliery of M/S. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer Appearances : For the employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate For the Workman. : Shri S.C.Gour, Advocate. State :- Jharkhand

Industry :- Coal

Dated : 24/10/ 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /520 /1997/IR (CM-I) dt. 13.08.1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jayrampur Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri Rai

Singh Munda from the services of the company w.e.f. 04.08.94 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case, Ld. Counsel of the Sponsoring Union appears and submits that the union/workman does not want to contest the case. Therefore it is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime. Hence No.Dispute award passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2768-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2016½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@130@2015&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 01 of 2016) as shown in the 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 8.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/130/2015-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT 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 01 OF 2016

PARTIES : : The Secretary, Rastriya Mazdoor Union,9164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] At & PO; Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad. Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J..Area of M/s. BCCL,

P.O. Bhowra, Distt. Dhanbad.828302.

Order No. L-20012/130/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 15.12.2015

APPEARANCES : On behalf of the workman/Union : Mr.A.Khan, Ld. Representative

On behalf of the Management : Mr.D.K.Verma Ld. Advocate . State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated Dhanbad, the 18th September, 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-20012/130/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 15.12.2015

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the Management of Patherdih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Thuluk

Hansda, Ex. Miner Loader. Pers. No. 02715472 from the services of the Company vide Order No.

BCCL /PEH/PERS/2001/1141 dated 28.06./05.07.2001 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/130/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 15.12.2015 on the above mentioned reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 01 of 2016 was registered on04.01.2016 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 Representative/ Ld. Counsel respectively appeared, and contested the case to the extent the case was reserved for Award.

2. This Reference relates to dismissal of the delinquent workman Shri Thuluk Hansda, a permanent employee of Patheridh Colliery bearing his Personal No. 02715472 under the Management of BCCL, a Group of the Collieries exclusively based at Dhanbad. The whole episode of the issue is, as narrated, by the Union in its WS. that the workman had started absenting himself from duty on the ground of ill health without information against which the Management came out with charge sheet framing charges of illegal absentism, thereby seeking explanation. Though workman concerned replied the charge sheet against the charges levelled against him but the Management went ahead as part of its larger plan with setting up a departmental enquiry to go to the bottom of the facts with suitable direction to participate in the enquiry proceedings that was to be conducted by the Management .Accordingly complying with the directive the workman appeared before in the Enquiry Committee and stated all about facts he had to remain on absentism .as stated by the workman. In belated violation of the principle of natural justice Management did not consider the facts nor did keep in mind the facts into accounts ,as stated by the workman in his reply to the charge sheet The absent from duty exclusively attributed to workman's sickness and nothing else , as alleged in the WS. The workman replied to the said charge sheet and subsequently, appeared in the Domestic Enquiry constituted later on blaming the said enquiry as unfair, improper and not in the line of the natural justice attributed to workman's sickness. Though the charge of misconduct brought upon against the workman in course of the Enquiry was absentism so the dismissal for committing petty misconduct had shockingly a serious blow and disproportionate as it stands capital punishment in service arenas .The workman was worst hit being rubbed off his livelihood in days hardship

3. Whereas categorically denying all the allegations brought in by the Sponsoring Union/workman, the Management argued raising question over maintainability of Industrial Dispute either in law and facts after elapse of fourteen years from the date of dismissal of workman concerned as the Union do not have locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute. It is deemed an Industrial Dispute not fit for adjudication under the provisions of 2A of the I.D.Act .The workman concerned was working as Badli M/Loader had started absenting from duty since 12.04.2000 without any information nor even prior permission The said act on the part of the workman is attracted and termed as misconduct in accordance with clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standing Order ,an by-laws of the Management of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9165 M/s. BCCL .Though the Management came out with charge sheet of alleged being remained absentism for prolong period ,that remained unresponsive ,leading to formation of Departmental Enquiry to go to bottom of the fact by the Disciplinary Authority solely in the line of the principle of natural justice. As the workman appeared before the enquiry and submitted his reply to the said chargesheet .The issue, in quest, was referred the Domestic Enquiry to go to bottom of the facts and the workman was held guilty of the charges brought against him during the enquiry proceedings. It is an extreme example of gross negligence on the part of the workman who later on turned habitual absentee that got deep rooted leading to his dismissal from service. The alleged act of dismissal from service by the Disciplinary Authority has been based on not merely singling out to a specific incident but taking into account the whole aspect of past attendances during his service career and other relevant service matters ,too.

Finally, the Disciplinary Authority came forward with handing out the dismissal letter dt.05.07.2001 only after going through his past history of cases on absentism inclusive this one. Since the workman concerned kept on indulging himself in absentism and turned it into habitual practice with no sign of abating in spite of full force with which the Management did its best not to let the efforts go in vain by slapping severe warning from time to time before resumption of duty . Thus, neither there was any short of violation of the principle of natural justice, nor did it get mired at any stage as alleged by the petitioner/Union rather the alleged action of dismissal against the workman stands as fair, legal and justified. .

4. So long as in relation to Group of the Collieries under the Management of M/s BCCL, a part of the Coal India Ltd., cases like this seldom get significant like one where numerous cases on same footing might have been pouring in slowly but steadily and the matter never gets more complicated when the labour forces are involved .Undeniably the workmen mostly belonging to illiteracy back ground are usually scared of stepping into the underground Mines due to safety hazards and unhealthy conditions, surrendering in and around the site despite best of safety mechanism/technique in place, However safety related issues have never carved out a permanent niche in the hearts of workers . The Management and its set ups associated in such matter presents an added dimensions and raises question on the efficacy of the present existing system and the practice to ignore the move of the such loopholes vulnerable on slightest safety omissions

There is nothing adverse report against the workman barring this one. Though alleged absentism had cost him employment. The punishment of dismissal imposed to the misconduct against the workman shielding under the name of penalty on ground of absentism appears to be disproportionate and a little bit harsher to bear, and what needs above all, a fresh outlook in view of easing out of strain in Industrial relationship.

5. The workman concerned who was stripped of his livelihood, needs a little with breather, be provided one more opportunity by offering him fresh appointment in the lowest Grade with two- year probation. Therefore it is ordered that the worker concerned be appointed as fresher in the lowest Cat-I with two-year period on probation with no back wages whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2769-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 84@2015½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@102@2015&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 84 of 2015) as shown in the 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 08.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/102/2015-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer9166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT 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 84 OF 2015

PARTIES : The Jt. General Secretary, Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Mines Rescue Station, Dhansar.

Post: Dhansar, Dhanbad

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th Sept., 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-20012/102/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.09.10.2015.

SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the Management of Katras Area of BCCL in not regularizing Sri Vijay Kumar Rajak in the post of Asstt. Foreman (Mech.) is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?' 2. Neither the Workman concerned/petitioner nor Representative, if any from the Sponsoring Union is reported to be present on date nor did file the much awaited WS on their part hanging over since inception of the very case despite having been issued formal notice dt, 11.01.2016 at the addresses referred in the order of the Reference itself as the case dates back to the year 2015 . Since then the proceedings virtually came to a grinding halt for not filing of much awaited WS, the onus that rests with the Union. The case is all about non regularization of the workman to the post of Asstt. Foreman (Mech.) by the Management seeking relief there under .Contrary to it, Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate from the Management side is reported to be present not for this time but all along since inception of the case. From perusal and emphatically scrutiny of the case record, it appears apparently clear the workman or his representative has all along remained absent since its inception and proved failure even in filing of WS despite providing ample opportunities and taking no less than ten adjournments as reflected through Order sheets of the record. It shows the conduct and manner ,the workman walks, has lost interest at all to get the case to final adjudication, simultaneously the Tribunal do not find justification to adjourn the case suo motto for uncertainty, rather push for closure immediately owning to reluctance of the workman concerned as the workman has in no way ever showed seriousness for adjudication. Under such circumstances, the case is closed; and accordingly an Award of 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2770-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 35@2001½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@365@1999&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh &I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute 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. 35 of 2001) as shown in the 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 08.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/365/1999-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9167

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT 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 35 OF 2001

PARTIES

: Sri A. Khan,

Area President,

BPCMC, E.J.Area, Bhowra, Dhanbad

Vs.

The Project Officer, Bhowra OCP of M/s. BCCL, PO: Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/365/99 (C-I) dt.02.02.2000

APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union :       None
On behalf of the Management    :       None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11 Sept., 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-20012/365/99 (C-I) dt.02.02.2000.

SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the Bhowra O.C.P. of M/s BCCL in dismissing Shri Lakhan Bhuia from the services of the Company w.e.f 26.06.97 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. None appeared on either side on date despite issuance of Regd. Notices dtt. 12.03.2002 and 06.07.2017 besides one Show Cause Notice at the addresses both the parties under the case referred in the Order of the Reference itself even after availing of adjournments not less than five times .Onus of filing of the WS rests with the Union/workman concerned who did not make appearance during the time nor did bother to file W.S. after rolling out as above Reference .So did the Management side too. Due to non appearance either sides no further headway in the case as the Sponsoring Union allegedly failed to move the case paving the way to let proceedings of the Court come to grinding halt since long .The case relates to dismissal of the Workman seeking relief from the Management challenging the alleged act of dismissal.

By going through the file & materials available on the case records, it transpires to dispel the doubts that the Sponsoring Union/workman seems to be in no hurry to file the WS. pending on their part since long as fact reflected in the order- sheet neither the Sponsored Union nor the workman appeared to be interested any more to get the case to finality through adjudication as no further step reported advanced despite more than five adjournments .It reflects the fact the real issue indeed ceases to exist in fact owing to utter reluctance on the part of the workman /union. It is of no use setting the case to be rolling further dates rather wraps it up for final closure presuming no more industrial dispute between the parties, as of now. Moreover this definitely points out to utter reluctance and unwillingness especially on the part of the workman/union to put the case for final adjudication but help add up piling pendency of cases. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper to keep the case alive further in the interest of natural justice .So the case is closed as "No Industrial Dispute". Accordingly an order of 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer9168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2771-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k≶&Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 17@2004½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@68@2003&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-22012/68/2003-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2004

PARTIES : The management of Girmint Colliery of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Babulal Hembram

REPRESENTATIVES:

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

For the union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 23.10.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/68/2003–IR(CM-II)dated 09.02.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Girimint Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Babulal Hembram U.G. Loader w.e.f. 28.07.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date? "

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/68/2003–IR(CM-II) dated 09.02.2004 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 17 of 2004 was registered on 16.02.2004. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

2. The workman Shri Babulal Hembram has filed written statement through his union representative. He has alleged in his written statement that he was a permanent employee of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Underground Loader, U.M. No. 28985. He was charge sheeted on 27.12.1996 for his absence from 10.05.1996. He replied to the charge sheet and requested to the management for allowing him to join his duty but he was not allowed. The management appointed Enquiry Officer and enquiry was conducted. The workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and stated during Enquiry Proceeding that his wife was died so he was mentally disturbed and could not perform his duty. He requested to the management to allow him to join the duty. Management did not consider his request and decided to dismiss him from the service of the company w.e.f. 28.07.1997. The workman was absent merely for near about 7 (Seven) months. The punishment of dismissal of management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is harsh. The management did not serve 2nd Show Cause Notice and violated the guidelines of Coal India Limited. The punishment is disproportionate. He belongs to Scheduled Cast community, which is a weaker section of society. He does not have any source of income. He is at the stage of starvation. The workman has prayed that management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to re-instate workman with full back wages and with all consequential benefits.

3. The reference belongs to the year 2004. But even after lapse of near about 12 (Twelve) years management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not care to file written statement though tribunal has provided ample opportunity to file written statement to the management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

4. The workman has filed the following documents :-

(i) Photocopy of the Identity Card of Shri Babulal Hembram, (ii) Photocopy of the Charge Sheet issued to the workman, (iii) Photocopy of the Order of Dismissal dated 28.07.1997, (iv) Photocopy of the Mercy Petition dated 04.11.2010, (v) Photocopy of the Mercy Petition dated 18.11.2010.

The workman Shri Babulal Hembram has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

The management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral evidence.

5. I have heard the arguments of Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative for the workman and Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

6. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative of the workman, Shri Babulal Hembram has argued that wife of the workman was ill, ultimately she expired. Due to illness of his wife he was absent from his duty. Management did not allow him to resume duty. The punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate for mere absence of 7 (Seven) months. On the other hand Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued that workman has participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. But he did not file any documentary evidence regarding illness of his wife. Punishment of dismissal is justified.

7. Though, Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed written statement but still it is undisputed fact that Shri Babulal Hembram had been permanent employee of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He has filed copy of Identity Card issued by Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He was Underground Loader and his C.M.P.F. account number is BKR-3/907. Neither party to the reference filed copy of Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, etc. The workman has filed only copy of Charge Sheet and Dismissal Order. The delinquent workman has admitted in Para - 5 of his written statement that he has participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. The workman has not challenged the bona fide and validity of departmental enquiry conducted against him by the management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He has only alleged in Para - 8 of his written statement that 2nd Show Cause Notice was not served on him before passing the Order of Dismissal. Since, the workman has not challenged the validity of enquiry. Therefore, it will be presumed that he has admitted the departmental enquiry to be valid, un-biased, legal and has been conducted in compliance of natural justice. If enquiry is bona fide and genuine then merely non-issuance of 2nd Show Cause Notice before passing Order of Dismissal will not adversely affect the departmental enquiry.

8. The delinquent workman in his cross-examination has stated "Due to my illness I could not attend my duty. I cannot file any medical proof in support of my illness."The workman has tendered evidence in contradiction to his allegation contained in his written statement. In his written statement he has alleged that due to sickness of his wife he was absent from his duty, but in his cross-examination he stated that due to his sickness he was unable to attend his duty. Even in his written statement he has not mentioned any kind of disease, treatment history, medicine, etc. further he has stated in his oral evidence " I cannot say the exact name of my disease……I sent intimation to the management about my illness but I have no proof at present."There is no allegation in his written statement that he sent intimation the management regarding himself or his wife. His evidence does not inspire confidence. From perusal of documentary as well as oral evidence it is manifest that the absence of workman, Shri Babulal Hembram was deliberate. Therefore9170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] absence from duty for 7 (Seven) months without any justified cause and without intimation to the management is punishable under Certified Standing Order of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

9. In view of the discussion above the action of management of Girimint Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Babulal Hembram, Underground Loader w.e.f. 28.07.1997 is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2772-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k≶&Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 84@2008½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@37@2008&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&II]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. M.C.L and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.11.2017.

[No. L-22012/37/2008-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 84/2008

L-22012/37/2008 – IR(CM-II), dated 11.12.2008

Date of Passing Award – 13th October, 2017

Between :

The General Manager, Lakhanpur Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., At./Po. Bandhbahal, Jharsuguda. …1st Party-Management

(And)

The General Secretary, Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union, At./Po. Orient Colliery, Po. Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda.

…2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

M/s. Rakhi Sikdar, Advocate.     …        For the 1st Party - Management
M/s. P.K. Mallick Advocate       …        For the 2nd Party- Union

AWARD

This award is directed against the reference with the schedule "whether the action of the management of M/s. MCL in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Ram Chandra Behera as 19.01.1952 instead of 24.4.1949 is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short referred to as "the Act") in the event of an dispute arising between the Management of Mahanadi Cola Fields Limited and their workman.

2. Factual scenario giving rise to the reference may be stated follows:-

The disputant workman namely Shri Rama Chandra Behera was appointed as E.P.G.H under the General Manager, Western Coal Fields Limited pursuant to the appointment letter dated 22.3.1984 issued by the said organization vide Office Order No. WCL/GM/PER-134/55360. As per the said order the disputant workman was directed to produce the original documents of S.L.C., caste certificate, professional and technical qualification certificate, character certificate and five number of photographs within fifteen days of his joining failing which his appointment would stand withdrawn.

3. It is the claim of the workman that at the time of joining he furnished all the required documents. As per his school leaving certificate his date of birth was 19.01.1952. Prior to his joining in the Western Coal Fields Limited he was working as a Peon under Executive Engineer, Upper Kolab Irrigation Division being appointed as such in the year 1976. His service book was opened in the said office showing his date of birth 19.01.1952. But the Western Coal Fields Limited entered his date of birth as on 24.04.1949 in his service register. When it came to his notice he made a representation on 03.10.2000 to the present Management for correction of his date of birth in the service register by producing the copies of S.L.C. and service book of his erstwhile employer. But, the Management turned down his prayer on 27.11.2000 on the ground of the representation being moved in belated stage of his service carrear. He raised a dispute before R.L.C.(C) Rourkela on 18.8.2006 through the 2nd Party-Union resulting in the reference as stated in supra.

4. The Management has resisted the statement of claim of the 2nd party-Union taking a stand that the disputant workman did not furnish any certificate towards proof of his age and qualification at the time of his joining on 22.03.1984 as a result of which he was subject to medical examination by Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view the provisions enumerated in the Certified Standing Order of the Management. His age was determined 35 years as per the report of the Medical Officer and accordingly the date of birth of the disputant workman was entered as on 24.04.1949 in the service sheet of Form-B register and the disputant workman acknowledged the said entry by lending his L.T.I. as well as signature on the said service sheet of the register without raising any objection to such entry at that time. Hence, the disputant workman was found to have accepted his date of birth 35 years old on 21.04.1984 by putting his signature in Form-B register. According to the Management family welfare survey card was also issued in favour of the workman wherein his date of birth was entered as on 24.04.1949. Though, there is a provision to raise a dispute for correction of date of birth in the Certified Standing Order, the disputant did not raise any objection as per the procedure laid down in the Standing Order till he made a request to the Management for correction of his date of birth in the service record on 06.10.2000. Since the representation was made in a belated stage after sixteen years of service and it was not in accordance to the procedure laid down in the Certified Standing Order, the representation was turned down and the disputant workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of M/s. MCL in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Ram Chandra Behera as 19.01.1952 instead of 24.04.1949 is legal and justified?

2. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?

6. In order to substantiate its case the 2nd party has examined two witnesses including the disputant workman as W.W.-2 and filed copies of documents like xerox copies of his service book of his previous employer, letter No. WCL:GM:IBU;PER;13A:55360, dated 22.5.1984 issued by the Personnel Manager Ib Valey Area, Brajarajnagar, representation dated 3.10.2000 addressed to Senior Personnel Manager, Lakhanpur OCP, MCL, letter dated 27.11.2000 addressed to him, letter dated 18.8.2006 of General Secretary, BCWMU addressed to R.L.C.(C), Rourkela, letter dated 15.12.2006 of Head Master, M.R. Boys High school, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati addressed to Dy. Personnel Manager, Lakhanpur Area; letter dated 5.1.2007 of Executive Engineer U.K. Head works Division, letter dated 21.8.2007 of De. Secretary (Cert.), Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack, letter dated 25.1.2008 of R.L.C.(C), Rourkela addressed to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 14854/2008 and procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees dated 5.2.1981 marked as Ext.-1 to 11. On the other hand the Management has examined its Senior Manager (Personnel), Lakhanpur area and relied on the documents like copies of the medical report dated 21.4.1984, signature of the Medical Superintendent who has signed9172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on the medical report dated 21.4.1984, service register reflecting the age of the workman, register reflecting date of birth of the workman at Sl. No. 213 and family welfare survey card marked as Ext.- A to D to refute the claim of the disputant workman.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. Coming to the first issue and rival contentions taken by the parties it is in the pleadings and evidence of the disputant workman that prior to his appointment as E.P.G.H in the Western Coal Fields Limited he was working under the Engineer, Upper Kolab Irrigation Division being appointed as a Peon in the year 1976 and in the service book opened by his erstwhile employer his date of birth is shown as on 19.01.1952. According to him as per his S.L.C. issued in the year 1979 his date of birth is 19.01.1952. Both the documents have not been seriously challenged by the Management and there is nothing either in the pleadings or in the evidence of the Management to doubt the genuineness of both the documents as well as entries made therein. No attempt is seem to have been made by the Management while cross examining the disputant workman to establish that the entries as to the date of his birth made in those documents are not correct. On the other hand it is emerging from Ext.- 6, 7 and 8 that Deputy Personnel Manager Lakhanpur Open Cast Project Belpahar, Jharsuguda was given replies by the Headmaster M.R. Boys High School, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati, Executive Engineer, Upper Kolab Division and the Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack respectively to their quarries as to the correctness of date of birth of the disputant workman entered in his S.L.C. and service book opened by the Executive Engineer Upper Kolab Division. In their replies all the concerned authorities have confirmed the date of birth of the disputant workman as on 19.01.1952 as well as the genuineness of the documents produced by the workman before the Management. Be that as it may, there is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the 2nd party that the actual date of birth of the disputant workman is 19.01.1952.

8. There is no serious dispute to the fact that the date of birth of the disputant workman is entered as on 24.04.1949 in the B-Form register of the Management so also other connecting records of the Management. It is not also disputed that such entry was made on the basis of medical report under Ext.-A. It is the pleading and evidence of the Management that medical report was taken as a basis for entering the date of birth of the disputant workman as he could not furnish any document towards proof of his date of birth at the time of his joining in the Management. On a close reading of Ext.-A it is seen that there is nothing in the said report to suggest that the report was called for and the disputant workman was subjected to medical examination on account of his failure to furnish any document towards proof of his age. Further-more, the report is silent as to the method and mode of test on which the Medical Officer came to his opinion on the age of the disputant workman. Law is also well settled in respect to medical jurisprudence that accuracy of determination of age depends upon the various tests and there would be an error of two to three years by either side in Ossification Test conducted for the purpose of determination of age. In the above back-drops the date of birth as entered in the B-Form register cannot be accepted accurate or genuine merely in the event of the disputant workman lending his signature and thumb impression on those papers. Furthermore, it is emerging from the cross examination of M.W.-1 that the disputant workman is a literate person and as per the procedure for determination/verification of age of the employees as contemplated under the Certified Standing Order determination of the age of a non-matriculate but an educated employee is to be made on the basis of date of birth recorded in the S.L.C. and the same shall not be altered under any circumstances. In that view of the matter when the disputant workman is found to be literate and signed the B-Form a duty was cast upon the Management to insist the production of S.L.C. even the said workman could not furnish any certificate towards proof of his age at the time of his joining and not reflected the same while sending him for medical examination for determination of his age. In absence of any entry in the official records as to the reason for sending the disputant workman for medical examination the pleadings of the Management as well as the entry with regard to date of birth in B-Form register should not be accepted.

9. The Management seems to have turned down the representation of the disputant workman solely on account of the dispute having been raised sixteen years after joining of the disputant workman. Nothing has been produced or adduced before the Tribunal on behalf of the Management to substantiate that an employee/workman is required to raise a dispute with regard to his date of birth within a stipulated period. Moreover, the Certified Standing Order has a proviso to review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. As per the said provisions of the Certified Standing Order when there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management, the Management after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate action for correction through age determination committee/medical board. It also provides that wherever there are variations, a suitable provision for age determination committee or medical board should be made and the said committee/Board will be constituted by the Management. The committee may consider the evidence available with the Management or adduced before it by the employee and to determine the age. There is nothing either in the pleading or evidence of the Management to suggest that any committee or Board was constituted for determination of the date of birth of the disputant workman before his request was turned down.

10. Admittedly, the disputant workman had raised the dispute after sixteen years of his joining. But, the said dispute cannot be stated to have been raised at the verge of his superannuation since as per the said entry the year of his superannuation was 2009. In this regard law is well settled that at the fag eng of career a party cannot be allowed to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9173 raise a dispute regarding his date of birth. In the case at hand the disputant workman raised the dispute much before of his superannuation. That apart it is also well settled that a Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. It is also propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the case between Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department and others-versus- R. Kirubakaran passed in Civil Appeal No. 5076/1993 and in the case State of U.P. and Ors. – versus- Smt. Gulaichi passed in Civil Appeal No. 5207/2003 that an application for correction of date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunals or by the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the employee, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. The employee has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever, any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. In many cases it is a part of strategy on the part of public servants to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books the Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting any relief unless evidence of unimpeachable character is produced. Keeping in view the analysis made in supras and the principle set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court it cannot be stated or held that the disputant workman was late in raising the dispute or he has no genuine claim to raise such a dispute in the belated stage. On the other hand there is no specific period of stipulation in the Standing Order of the Management within which the disputant workman was to raise the dispute. Moreover, he had raised the dispute as much as in the year 2000 and the dispute was raised on the basis of concrete and credible documents such as S.L.C. issued in the year 1979 and service book opened in the year 1976 by his erstwhile employer. The entries in those documents cannot be over-looked and thrown out when their correctness and genuineness are never questioned by the Management. Thus, the date of birth of the disputant workman is 19.01.1952 which is conclusive and irrefutable in nature. In the above circumstances the action of the Management of MCL in not correcting the date of birth of the disputant workman as 19.01.1952 in his B-Form register/service book is illegal and unjustified. The decisions relied upon by the Management are not applicable in the instant case as the facts and circumstances of those cases are clearly distinguishable to the present one and in those cases the employee put-forth his grievances at the fag end of his service.

ISSUE NO. 2

11. Coming to the issue of relief to which the disputant workman is entitled to it is apparent on the face of the record that he has already been superannuated in the year 2009 on the basis of wrong entry of his date of birth as on 24.04.1949 and he has also completed the age of superannuation if the date of his birth is corrected as on 19.01.1952. Hence, no relief of reinstatement can be granted to the disputant workman. However, had his representation for correction of his date of birth is accepted by the Management he could have continued in service till 31.01.2012 and could have availed all financial benefits in his pay scale being treated in service. At the same time it cannot be over- looked that he did not render any service in between 01.05.2009 to 31.01.2012 and he approached the labour machinery for such correction of his date of birth in the year 2006, though there is no period of limitation to raise such dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Had he raised the dispute earlier soon after his representation was turned down the Management could avail his service in between the year 2009 to 2012 after award of this Tribunal.

12. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances I feel it just and appropriate to direct the Management to extend 65% of the financial benefits to which the disputant workman would have availed in the event of his continuance in service till 31.01.2012. The above benefits should be paid to the disputant workman within two months of the notification of the award in the official gazette failing which the workman is entitled to interest at the rate 7% on the benefit amount from the date of this award.

13. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2773-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@lg&Je&Uk;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 62@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@100@1996&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh &II]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh9174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.11.2017.

[No. L-22012/100/1996-IR(C-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 62 OF 1997

PARTIES : The management of Jambad Colliery of M/s. ECL

v/s

Sri Anandi Das

REPRESENTATIVES:

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

For the union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 17.10.2017

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/100/96–IR(C-II), dated 12.09.1997 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kajora Area of M/s. ECL in denying dependent employment to Sh. Anadi Das, son of Sh. Sahdeb Das is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Anadi Das is entitled? "

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/100/96–IR(C-II) dated 12.09.1997 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 62 of 1997 was registered on 16.10.1997. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.

2. Shri Anandi Das has alleged in his written statement that his father Shri Sahadeb Das had been working as Tyndal at Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He was declared medically unfit in the year 1983 while in service of the company and accordingly his name was removed from the role of the company. Shri Sahadeb Das nominated his son-in-law for providing employment in his place because his son namely Shri Anandi Das was minor at that time and was not eligible for appointment in the company as per existing rules. Subsequently Shri Sahadeb Das realized that his son-in-law shall not maintain him and his family even if he was offered employment. Therefore Shri Sahadeb Das was compelled to change the nominee in favour of his son. His son, Shri Anandi Das fortunately attained majority at that time and was eligible for employment. Shri Anandi Das submitted paper for employment. The management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited somehow manage to delay the matter and offer of employment could not be issued. Therefore union has raised the industiral dispute.

3. The Agent of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited filed written statement. He has alleged that Shri Sahadeb Das, Ex-Tyndal of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited applied for voluntary retirement from his service on medical ground and he was declared medically unfit. Accordingly his service was terminated. The ex-employee submitted his application, nominating one Shri Bhagwan Das alleging him to be his son-in-law. After termination of service, the ex-employee did not fulfil the other requirement for processing employment in favour of the said nominee. In view of the above position there was no scope for management to materialize the claim for employment. After theelapse of 11 years, one Shri Anandi Das submitted an application before the Agent of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on 07.02.1994 stating that the alleged nominee of Shri Sahadeb Das has severed all connection with them as such the claim for the employment was abandoned. The claim of union for employment is vague, indefinite and frivolous. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.

4. The applicant has filed the following documents :-

(i) Photocopy of the Letter No. 967, dated 04.10.1994, raising dispute by the union before ALC(C), Raniganj, (ii) Photocopy of the Written Statement submitted by the management dated 27.12.1994, (iii) Photocopy of the Rejoinder submitted by the union, (iv) Photocopy of the Application of Shri Anandi Das claiming employment, (v) Photocopy of the Relationship Certificate in respect of Shri Anandi Das, (vi) Photocopy of the Attestation Form signed by B.D.O., (vii) Photocopy of the List of Family of Late Sahdeo Das signed by the B.D.O., (viii) Photocopy of the Cast Certificate, (ix) Photocopy of the Affidavit of Shri Anandi Das, S/o Late Sahdeo Das, (x) Photocopy of the Letter of Dy. C.P.M. of Kajora Area addressed to the Agent of Jambad Colliery, (xi) Photocopy of the Minutes of the meeting held with G.M. (P&IR), ECL, (xii) Photocopy of the Provisions of Wage Agreement / NCWA regarding employment to the dependent, (xiii) Photocopy of the Letter of Director (P&IR) addressing to the Director, ECL, (xiv) Photocopy of the Minutes of the meeting held with GM (Pers.) on 29.11.1996.

The applicant Shri Anandi Das has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

The management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed the following documents :-

(i) Photocopy of the Application for voluntary retirement submitted by Shri Sahdeo Das, ex-Tyndal, (ii) Photocopy of the Application submitted by Shri Anandi Das dated 06.02.1994.

The management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed affidavit.

5. I have heard the arguments of Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative on behalf of the applicant and Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management.

6. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative on behalf of the applicant, Shri Anandi Das has argued that as per bipartite agreement the dependent son who is unemployed is entitled for employment. The management cannot refuse for providing employment to Shri Anandi Das as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. On the other hand Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of the management has argued that the deceased employee Shri Sahdeo Das proposed employment for his son-in-law. If son is alive then the son-in-law is not entitled for employment. But, afterward the deceased employee substituted the name of nominee in place of son-in-law. The purpose of employment as per National Coal Wage Agreement is to provide financial support. The provision of National Coal Wage Agreement does not guarantee employment. In reply, Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative of the workman argued that since Shri Anandi Das the deponent son of Shri Sahdeo Das was minor therefore Shri Sahdeo Das propose the name of his son-in-law but when he realised that his son-in-law will not maintain the family of Shri Sahdeo Das the ex- workman Shri Sahdeo Das change his mind.

7. "9.4.3 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place :-

(i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature

resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.

(ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by Coal Company concerned, no

arising out of injury or disease as in Para (i) above, the concerned employee will be eligible for the benefit

under this Clause if the employee is up to the age of 58 years.

(iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife / husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and

legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, younger brother, widowed

daughter / widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent

on the earnings of the employees may be considered."

8. From perusal of above bipartite agreement it is apparent that, if disability is due to general physical disability, it must be certified by the concerned coal company. Neither there is medical report nor any certificate from doctor regarding physical disability of the ex-workman Shri Sahdeo Das. If applicant is claiming on the basis of National Coal Wage Agreement then he ought to have fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the National Coal Wage Agreement. The applicant has not mentioned the name of brother-in-law who was nominated for employment by his father Shri Sahdeo Das. As per Clause 9.4.3 (iii) for the eligibility of the son-in-law for employment that son-in-law not only will be dependent on father-in-law who is in employment of the company but also he must resides with his father-in-law. The applicant has not mentioned this fact in his written statement that his brother-in-law residing with his father and was depended on him. The applicant Shri Anandi Das has stated in his evidence that "I do not know the name of my brother-in-law. I was aged about 12-13 years."Even if a boy at the age of 12-13 years very well can remember the name his brother-in-law. Therefore the evidence of the applicant do not conspire confidence. Further he was stated "I do not remember as to whether I have any paper to show that my father nominated me." If the brother-in-law of the applicant, Shri Anandi Das had been residing with his father-in-law and dependent on him the applicant Shri Anandi Das must be aware of this fact. Even Shri Anandi Das, the applicant neither mentioned his age when he became major and when he applied for job. The purpose of National Coal Wage Agreement is to provide financial support by offering employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, but it does not and cannot permit entry form backdoor.

9. In view of discussion above the action of management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri Anandi Das son of Shri Sahdeo Das ex-Tyndel is legal and justified. The applicant Shri Anandi Das is not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2774-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k≶&Je U;k;ky; vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 60@1999½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@244@1998&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-,e-&II]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. E.C.L and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.11.2017.

[No. L-22012/244/1998-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Ref. : Ministry's Order No. L-22012/244/98-IR (CM-II), dated 04.05.1999 This office Reference No. 60 of 1999, dated 07.06.1999

Management of Parascole Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. ECL

V/S

Late Shri Artha Torai

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 2nd November, 2017 at C.G.I.T.-cum-L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9177

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2775-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 02@2017½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@31@2016&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2775.—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. II, Dhanbad

(Ref. No. 02 of 2017) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/31/2016-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference No. 02 of 2017

Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate.

For the Workman : Shri Sadhan Banerjee, Rep

State: Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated : 06.11.2017

AWARD

By order No.-L-20012/31/2016 IR-(CM-I), dated. 06.02.2017 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub–Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.194, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL in terminating the service of Shri Bijay Manjhi pers.

No. 03003043, Miner Loader without conducting enquiry in fair and legal manner is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 24.02.2017. After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 21.03.2017. And the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.08.2017. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services w.e.f 17.08.2006.

3. During preliminary hearing of this case, domestic enquiry held by the management is accepted by the Sponsoring Union/workman as Fair & Proper .

4. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of long absence. But he has already out of service since last 11 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman concerned to serve.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee in cat-I. But the workman be kept under probation for a period of two year. Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award . R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer9178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2776-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 08@2007½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@71@2006&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 08 of 2007) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/71/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1)(d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947

Reference No. 08/2007

Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/S BCCL

And

Their workman

Present : Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

For the Employers : Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman : Shri N.M.Kumar, Advocate

Industry :- Coal

Dated : 02/11/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/71/2006/IR (CM-I) dated 06/02/2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub–section ( 1) and sub–section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of Balihari Colliery of M/S BCCL in not providing employment to

Smt. Chandmuni Bhuni, dependant wife of Late Gondu Bhuia under Clause 9:3:2 of NCWA is justified

and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned dependant of Late Gondu Bhuia entitled?"

2. The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 21.02.2007. The Sponsoring Union/workman files written statement on 26.10.2010, but after long delay the management files their written statement on 21.11.2011. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed by the parties. But no witness examined and no documents marked from either side.

3. The case of the sponsoring Union is that Late Gondu Bhuia was permanent employee of Balihari Colliery under P.B.Area of M/S BCCL as Miner Loader and who died on 25.10.1995 during his service period, and after death of deceased workman he left behind his only dependant wife Smt. Chandmuni Bhuini. She submitted all necessary document for her employment in the month of November 1995 before the management to get job in place her deceased husband as per provision of 9:3:2 of NCWA.

4. It is further submitted by the Sponsoring Union that the widow of deceased workman submitted many application before the management for providing employment but the management of Balihari Colliery did not take any interest and after long delay the management issued letter on 01.11.1999 for submitting necessary document for employment then Smt Chandmuni Bhuni submitted all necessary document before the management on 29.11.1999. But the management did not provide employment to Smt. Chandmuni Bhuni and also not communicated any letter as to what action taken by the management. Hence the Industrial dispute arose.

5. On the other hand the case of the management is that under NCWA provision, compassionate appointment to the dependant of the deceased employee who died while in service is available. But for purpose of implementation of NCWA the then CMD of the Company issued a direction and fixed 18 months time to submit application by the dependant of employment under the provision of NCWA.

6. As per circular of CMD it is specially mentioned that no application of compassionate appointment will be considered if the same is filed beyond the period of limitation of 18 months. But the applicant applied for employment after the lapse of five years i.e beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the CMD. Hence her application was regretted as belated case of 1995.

7. It Sponsoring Union raised the present dispute in the year 2006 i.e after the lapse of 11 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Present dispute is stale dispute and not competent for adjudication. it is also mentioned that after the issuance of order of reference in 2007 the sponsoring union files written statement on 26.10.2010, after the lapse of 3 years.

8. This is a reference to determine to ascertain as to whether the applicant lady is entitled to compassionate appointment or not. The management resisted the claim, and disputes the identity of the applicant.

9. As per NCWA if any workman died during job, his one of the competent legal heir is entitled to job or in lieu of job the monetary compensation. On perusal of service excerpt it is noticed that smt. Chandmuni Bhuini wife of deceased workman is 21 years of age on 1987, it means now she is aged about 52 years of age.

10. Since there is already delay, it is ordered to grant monetary compensation to the deceased heir. Therefore the management is directed to pay monetary compensation to the wife of the deceased from the date of reference made by the appropriate Govt. after verifying identity.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2777-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 22@2007½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@9@2007&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 22 of 2007) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/9/2007-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947

Ref. No. 22 of 2007

Employer in relation to the management of C.V.Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers : Shri S.N.Ghosh, Advocate

For the Workman. : Shri Lala Sahadeo Prasad,Rep.

State :- Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated: 06.11. 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /9 /2007/IR (CM-I) dt. 17.04.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Basantimata colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the

service of Sri Fulchand Bhuia, Timber Mistry w.e.f. 18.03.2004 is justified and legal? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. During the pendency of the case, Ld. joint General Secretary of the Sponsoring Union appears and submits that the workman does not want to contest the case. Therefore it is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime. Hence No.Dispute award passed.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017 dk-vk- 2778-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fVLdks fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 98@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@17@1996&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 98 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tisco Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/17/1996-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 98/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. TISCO

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers        :  Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman .        :   None
State : Jharkhand                                                                         Industry- Coal

Dated : 03.11.2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /17/1996-IR(CM-I) dated 01.04.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/S. TISCO in denial to provide

alternative employment to dependant of Sri Govind Bhuia, Miner is justified? If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman none appears subsequently but management is present. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Office

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2779-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 29@1998½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@273@1997&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 29 of 1998) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/273/1997-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 29/1998

Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Area, M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers       :   None
For the workman .       :   None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated : 03.11. 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /273/1997-IR(C-1) dated 15.05.1998, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union in demanding regularisation in respect of

S/Shri Paltan Singh, Durga Prasad Singh, Antosh Singh and Madhu Singh as cat-I Mazdoor is

justified? If yes, to what relief are these workmen entitled?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer9182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2780-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 56@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@159@1994&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 56 of 1997) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/159/1994-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 56/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present : Sri R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers       :   Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman .       :   None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated : 06.11. 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /159/1994-IR(C-I) dated 18.02.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand by the union for the revision of the date of Birth of Shri Nandji

Gope Ex-UG Trammer, Nadkhurkee OCP is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman none appears subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2781-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 52@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@504@1995&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9183

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 52 of 1997) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/504/1995-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 52/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Telulmari Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Sri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers       :  Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman .       :   None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated : 03.11. 2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /504/1995-IR(CM-I) dated 11.02.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the service

of workman Shri Satrughan Chouhan is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman none appears subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2782-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 42@1997½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-11-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@448@1994&vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh&I]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 42 of 1997) as shown in the 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 29.11.2017.

[No. L-20012/448/1994-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer9184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No.42/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers        :   None
For the workman .        :   None
State : Jharkhand                                                                           Industry- Coal

Dated : 3.11.2017

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /448/1994-IR(C-I) dated 05.02.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of the Union that the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL had

illegally denied to allow re-employment of S/Sh Anil Hari , Gendu Dusadh, Sitaram Bhuia and Barfu

Bhuia is correct and justified? If so, to what relief are these persons entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman none appears subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2783-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj baMlbaM cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 5@2015½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@81@2014&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5 of 2015) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indus Ind Bank Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-120011/81/2014-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 5/2015

Reference No. L-12011/81/2014-IR (B-I) Dated: 13.11.2014

The Regional Secretary Rajasthan (State) Bank Employees Welfare Forum (Regd.), Behind Kali Mai Temple, Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer.

V/s

1. The Zonal Manager Indus Ind Bank Limited Unique empire Tower Amparpali circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The Branch Manager Indus Ind Bank Limited Olympic tower, Station Road, Jodhpur.

AWARD 6.9.2017

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:- "Whether the demand of Regional secretary, Rajasthan (State) Bank employees welfare forum (regd.) for regularization of services of S/Shri Sunil Kumar Bora, Mana Ram and Virendra Singh temporary contractual workers, by the management of Indus Ind Bank Ltd Is justified or not? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date"

2. According to statement of claim briefly fact of the case is that applicants Sh. Sunil Kumar Bora, Sh. Mana Ram & Sh. Virendra Singh are working in the Indus Ind Bank Ltd w.e.f. Dec 2001, April 2003 & April 2009 respectively as temporary contractual workers on the post of Office Attenders. Applicants workmen requested many time to the bank management to regularise their services but management of the bank adopted reluctant attitude. The contract labour system adopted by bank management is sham & camouflage to avoid the benefits of regular employees of the bank although the applicants are continuously performing the same duties which are being performed by permanent employees. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 2001 SCC, L&S, 1121, Steel Authority of India Ltd v/s National Union Waterfront Workers that the term 'contractual labour' is a specie of workman.

3. It has been further alleged in para 6 of statement of claim that in 2009 (1) SCC L&S 661, General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v/s Contractual Worker's Union, it is settled that the Industrial Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate a dispute relating to regularisation of services of the employees working as contract workers. The bank management stated before the Conciliation Officer that bank has a contractual arrangement with M/s Knight Frank India Pvt Ltd for providing the services of certain nature & this firm has further engaged a sub-contractor, Express House Keeper Pvt Ltd which has engaged the services of the applicants. The statement of the bank before the Conciliation Officer was wrong, fanciful & contrary to the factual position.

4. In para 8 of the statement of claim it has been alleged that applicants are enclosing photo state copy of attendance sheet for Janurary, 2011 of Susmita Contractors Pvt Ltd to indicate that Susmita Contractors Pvt Ltd has placed their attendance register at Indus Ind Bank Ltd, Olympic Tower Branch, Jodhpur for marking attendance by the workers working in this branch. The name of the applicants are shown at serial number 1,2,3 in the attendance sheet for January, 2011. Thus, the applicants in para 9 of statement of claim have alleged that from the perusal of the photo copy of the attendance sheet it is established that the contract as stated by the bank is sham & Camouflage to deprive the applicants from benefit of a regular employee hence, it has been prayed that the management may be directed to regularise the services of applicants w.e.f. completion of two years of service of each workmen.

5. In reply to statement of claim Indus Ind Bank Ltd has denied that the applicants are not the employee of the bank. The bank has alleged that applicants were working with Jodhpur branch of the bank but they are working as contract workers & bank has no obligation against the workmen because they are employees of the contractor. The bank has specifically denied that applicants made any request with management of the bank for regularisation of their service because there was no reason for them to make such request of regularisation.

6. About finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in para 5 of the statement of claim it has been alleged that detailed reply was submitted before the conciliation officer about the quoted judgement by the applicant which may be treated as part of reply to statement of claim. The relationship of master & servant between bank & workmen has been specifically denied by the bank against para 5 of statement of claim. Reference has been made to 1994 II CLR 402, R.K.Panda & Ors. v/s Steel Authority of India & Ors with contention that observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the R.K.Panda's case is relevant wherein it has been held that no right flows from the provisions of Contract Labour Act in favour of contract labourers to be absorbed or to be declared as a employee of the principle employer.

7. It has been mentioned that bank had contractual arrangement with contractor M/s Knight Frank India Pvt limited who appointed M/s Express House Keepers Pvt limited as their sub contractor. Against para 8 of statement of claim it has been alleged that contention in para 8 of the statement of claim itself shows that applicants are not the employees of the bank & they are contract labourers of M/s Sushmita Contractors Pvt Ltd who had placed their attendance sheet at branch office of the bank. It has been further alleged that for all purposes applicants are the employees of the contractor & contractors are providing the services, supervising the work of contract labourers, maintaining their attendance register, paying salary & supervising their work. It has been further alleged that as per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, contract labour can be provided by the contractor on certain terms & conditions & in that event employer-employee relationship lies with the contractor & contract worker & bank cannot be held liable for anything between contractor & their contract employee. Applicants are not in the employment of the bank & for all purposes they are employee of the contractor & not entitled to relief of regularisation in the service of the bank.

8. On 5.9.2017 case was fixed for rejoinder & document to be filed by applicant. Neither applicant appeared nor rejoinder & document were filed. None appeared on behalf of non-applicant also. From the perusal of order-sheet it appeared that applicant does not appear to be interested in continuing the case & participating in day to day proceeding of the case. Since 8.8.16 till 5.9.17 none among the applicants appeared in person & learned representative of the applicant had made appearance only on 7.12.16 after passing of the order for the day & later on 22.1.17. In above fact & circumstances & due to lack of interest of the applicant side further proceeding in the case was closed on 5.9.17 & the case was reserved for the award.

9. It is pertinent to mention that due to lack of the interest of the applicant in continuing the case further & due to absence of evidence it is not practicable to answer the reference made by Central Government for adjudication. In absence of evidence I am of the view that applicant has failed to prove that demand of Regional Secretary, Rajasthan (State) Bank Employees Welfare Forum (Regd.) for regularization of services of S/Shri Sunil Kumar Bora, Mana Ram and Virendra Singh, temporary contractual workers, by the management of Indus Ind Bank Ltd is justified. Thus, applicants are not entitled to any relief. Their statement of claim is dismissed accordingly.

10. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2784-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj baMlbaM cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 47@2013½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@84@2013&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)] Ckh-,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47 of 2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indus Ind Bank Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-12012/84/2013-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 47/2013

Reference No. L- 12012/84/2013-IR (B-I) Dated: 9.9.2013

Sh. Umrdan Charan S/o Shri Sawaldan Charan House No.596, Sector-23, Chopasani Housing Board Jodhpur.

V/s

1. The Zonal Manager Personal Product Division(Raj.) IndusInd Bank Ltd, Unique Inspire Tower, Amarpali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The manager Indusind Marketing & Finance services Limited Field Officer (P.E.) Indusind Bank Ltd., City Centre, Station Road, Jodhpur.

Present : For the Applicant : Sh. C.D. Chaturvedi, Representative.

For the non-applicants : Sh. Surendra Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD 20.9.2017 1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:- ßD;k izca/ku b.Mlb.M cSad fy-] tks/kiqj us Jh mejnku pkj.k ØsfMV osjhfQds'ku vkWafQlj dks vkns'k fnukad 22-02-2013 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr rFkk U;k; laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh gSa\Þ

2. According to statement of claim briefly fact of the case is that the applicant Sh. Umardan Charan, workman was appointed to the post of Credit Verification Officer w.e.f. 1.4.2011 vide appointment letter dated 16.4.2011. His employee number was enrolled as R-10549. He was given one year probation period which was extended by management to 1.7.2012. It has been further alleged that even after extension of his probationary period he was legally entitled to obtain confirmation order from the management but instead of confirming the services of the applicant his services were terminated w.e.f. 28.2.2013 vide order dated 22.2.2013.

3. It has been further alleged that after extension of his probation period upto 1.7.2012 there was no further extension of probation hence, the factual position was that he was to be deemed confirmed w.e.f. 2.7.2012 & as such his termination vide order dated 22.2.2013 & treating him under probation at the time of termination is illegal & arbitrary. By terminating the services of the applicant bank management has violated the statutory provision of section 25-G & 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has further violated Rule 76 & 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

4. It has been prayed by applicant that he may be reinstated in service w.e.f. 1.3.2013 with back wages & continuity in service. It has been further prayed that management be asked to declare the confirmation of the applicant w.e.f. 2.7.2012.

5. In para wise reply to statement of claim it has been alleged against para 1 that it requires no answer which is related to record. Statement in para 2 has been denied with further contention that it is in the knowledge of the applicant that his job is based on certain terms & conditions as mentioned in the appointment letter hence, applicant is not entitled to get extension automatically. The extension is based on the satisfaction of the management based on the performance of the applicant. Applicant joined the respondent bank under terms & conditions as mentioned in the appointment letter. The condition of appointment beside other conditions is as under :-

"Your services will be probationary for a period of Twelve months and the company will have to extend the probation period according to your performance reports. Your services will be confirmed only on receipt of a satisfactory performance report and you will be deemed to be on probation till your services are confirmed in writing".

6. Statements in para 3,4 & 5 of the claim have been specifically denied & said to be false. Further it has been stated that applicant cannot claim as of right to be confirmed & confirmation depends only upon the job performance of the applicant & satisfaction of the management. It has been alleged that no provision of I.D.Act, 1947 has been violated by respondent or their authorities. At the end of para 4 extract of appointment letter has been quoted as term & service conditions of the applicant as given in appointment letter. After mentioning the extract of appointment letter it has been further stated that unsatisfactory performance & doubtful integrity of the applicant has been reason for his termination from the service & applicant is not entitled to any relief from the tribunal.

7. In additional statement non-applicant has alleged that respondent is a non-banking financial company not covered within the definition of 'Industry' as defined in section 2(J) of I.D.Act, 1947. Non-applicant has further alleged9188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that applicant Sh. Umardan Charan is not a 'workman' as defined under section 2(S) of I.D.Act, 1947. Provisions of section 2(J) & section 2(S) has been quoted in the reply to supplement the fact that non-applicant is not an 'Industry' & applicant is not a 'workman'.

8. Further, it has been alleged that services of the applicant was terminated as per terms & conditions of appointment letter as given therein & termination is not covered within the definition of retrenchment as given under section 2(oo) of I.D.Act, 1947. At last, it has been prayed that statement of claim of the applicant may kindly be dismissed on the basis of contention of the non-applicant as given in reply.

9. Reply to statement of claim was filed by non-applicant on 5.1.2015 & it's copy was given to applicant fixing 23.3.2015 for filing rejoinder & document by the applicant. After 23.3.2015 next date 4.6.15, 27.7.15, 21.10.15, 23.12.15, 2.2.16, 4.4.16 & 1.6.16 were fixed consecutively for filing rejoinder & document by applicant but applicant failed to avail opportunities on those dates & did not file rejoinder or document or both. On 1.6.16 applicant filed an application to direct the non-applicant to produce copy of rules & regulations relating to recruitment, employees' confirmation & termination of services along with procedure to initiate disciplinary action against the employees. Copy of this application was given to non-applicant fixing 8.8.16 for reply & disposal of the application. After 8.8.16 next dates 19.10.16, 7.12.16, 18.1.17, 22.3.17 & 17.5.17 were fixed & application of the applicant dated 1.6.16 was allowed on 17.5.17 fixing 2.8.17 for filing the rules & regulations by non-applicant. On all these dates also no attempt was made by applicant to file rejoinder or document by applicant.

10. On 2.8.17 applicant did not appear. Learned representative of non-applicant was present. Case was adjourned by tribunal on its own motion fixing 24.8.17 for filing rules & regulations by non-applicant as directed vide order dated 17.5.17. Further, on 2.8.17 applicant was again given opportunity for filing rejoinder & document on 24.8.17.

11. On 24.8.17 neither anyone appeared on behalf of applicant nor rejoinder or document was filed by applicant for which tribunal has been giving time since 23.3.15. Learned representative of non-applicant appeared on 24.8.17 & objected to continuous suo-moto adjournments by tribunal for filing rejoinder & documents even during absence of applicant. Reference was made by learned representative of non-applicant to number of past dates when applicant was absent yet opportunity was given to applicant by tribunal adjourning the case on its own motion in the interest of justice. In above fact & circumstances, further proceeding & opportunity to applicant was closed for filing rejoinder & document by applicant & case was reserved for award.

12. From perusal of record it is evident that no documentary evidence has been filed by applicant on record. At the time of filing statement of claim also no documentary evidence has been filed with claim petition. Non-applicant on 21.10.15 has filed Letter of Offer with two annexure, Letter of Appointment, Welcome Letter & document relating to condition of appointment.

13. It is evident from the above facts & circumstances that applicant has not taken interest in persecution of the case. Since 23.5.15 till 24.8.17 he has failed to file rejoinder & document due to which case has not proceeded further which indicates his lack of interest. He has been absent on many dates between 23.3.15 till 24.8.17 yet opportunities have been extended by the tribunal by adjourning the case suo-moto providing opportunity to the applicant to persecute the case. In absence of evidence in support of statement of claim it is not practicable to answer the reference in question according to law. Applicant has failed to adduce evidence in support of his statement of claim. He has even shown lack of interest in further advancement of the case to end with a logical conclusion. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the view that applicant has failed to prove that his removal from services of non-applicant as Credit Verification Officer by management of Indusind Bank Ltd, Jodhpur vide order dated 22.2.2013 is unjust & illegal. Applicant is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, statement of claim of the applicant is dismissed.

14. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2785-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&1 paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 17@2017½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)]

Ckh-,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17 of 2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ICICI Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9189

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No.17/2017

Registered on 02.08.2017

Sh. Jagdish Chand Dogra, S/o Sh. Prabhu Ram, R/o Quarter No.240,, Railway Colony, Jalandhar.

Petitioner

Versus

1. M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, H. No. 33, New Defence Colony, Old Phagwara Road, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt.

2. Managing Director M/s. Checkmate Services Ptv. Ltd., Aman Tower, G.F. 6, 7, 8, 9, Surya Colony. Fateganj, Main road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390002.

3. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Chest Pudda Complex, Jalandhar (Punjab).

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh. Sham Lal Chitti, AR of the workman

For the Management : Sh. Deepak Kumar for Resp. No.1 and 2

Sh. Dinesh Garg for Resp. No.3

AWARD

Passed on:- 20.09.2017

According to the workman, he joined the services of respondent no.1 and 2 on 13.10.2008, who are service provider with respondent no.3. His services were terminated on 12.09.2014 without giving any notice. Conciliation proceedings were held before the Labour Commissioner which were not completed within 45 days as required under Section 2-A(2) of the Act and the Labour Commissioner issued a certificate dated 03.07.2017 to approach this Court.

Consequently, the workman submitted a statement of claim in this Court.

Today the case was fixed for notice to the respondent. The workman appeared along with his authorized representative and the respondents through their counsel. The workman moved an application for not pressing the present reference.

In view of the application moved by the workman, this reference is dismissed as settled.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer Cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2786-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MsDdu xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 21@2015½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@18@2015&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)]

Ckh-,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21 of 2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Deccan Grameena Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-12012/18/2015-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer9190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA- CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2015

Between:

Sri Pasupunooti Chandra Mohan, H.No.5-1-74, Padmashali Street, P.O: & (M): Jammikunta – 505122. Karimnagar District.

… Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager (Adm.) Deccan Grameena Bank, H.O., H.No.2-1-520, IInd floor, Vijaya Sri Sai, Sreet No.9, Nallakunta, Hyderabad – 500 044.

2. The Branch Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank, Jammikunta Branch,

Jammikunta – 505122, Karimnagar Dist.. 3. The Regional Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank, Regional Office, Mukarampura, Karimnagar – 505001. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s. S. Mujib Kumar, S. Vikramaditya Babu & K. Narasimhulu, Advocates for R1 & R3

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 18/2015-IR(B-I) dated 13.2.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Deccan Grameena Bank, H.O., and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Deccan Grameena Bank, Jammikunta Branch, Karimnagar Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Pasupunoothi Chandra Mohan, Ex-Sub-Staff/Driver in Deccan Grameena Bank, Jammikunta Branch, Karimnagar Dist., with effect from 13.6.2010 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 21/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on that date on behalf of the Petitioner. Non- appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and the Petitioner has no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9191

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2787-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj daVsuj dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 61@2015½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@25@2015&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)]

Ckh-,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61 of 2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Container Corporation of India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-41012/25/2015-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 9th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 61/2015

Between: Smt. V. Satiamma and 5 others, C/o Sri Swamy Vivekananda Swachanda Seva Sanstha, Opp: Krishna Theater, Vadaveddh, Visakhapatnam – 530 001. …Petitioner Union

AND

The Senior General Manager, Container Corporation of India Limited, Port Harbour Road, 1 Town Area, Visakhapatnam – 530 001.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Party in person For the Respondent : M/s. C. Niranjan Rao & M. Subramanya Sastry, Advocates9192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 9, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 18, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-41012/ 25/2015-IR(B-I) dated 15.7.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Container Corporation of India Limited and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sai Lakshmi Conservance, Hyderabad (Contractor) and M/s. Container Corporation of India Limited, Visakhapatnam (Principal Employer) in terminating the services of Smt. V. Satimma and 5 (five) other contract workers (as per list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 61/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement of the Petitioner union. Inspite of availing several opportunities, the Petitioner union remained absent and there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union is not interested in pursuing the dispute. Thus, 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 5 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2788-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MsDdu xzkehu cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 28@2014½ dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@08@2014&vkbZ- vkj- ¼ch&I)] Ckh-,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

S.O. 2788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28 of 2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Deccan Grameena Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05.12.2017.

[No. L-12012/08/2014-IR(B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 9th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2014

Between:

Sri Garigaboina Srinivas, H.No.1-533/1, Maruthinagar, P.O. & M : Choppadandi – 505415, Karimnagar District.

… Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 9, 2017/अग्रहायण 18, 1939 9193

AND

1. The Branch Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank, Choppadandi Branch, Choppadandi, Karimnagar Dist.

2. The General Manager (Adm.) Deccan Grameena Bank, H.O., H.No.2-1-520, IInd floor, Vijaya Sri Sai, Sreet No.9, Nallakunta, Hyderabad – 500 044.

3. The Regional Manager, Deccan Grameena Bank, Regional Office-V, Maruthinagar, Mancherial. Adilabad district. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M.V.L. Narasaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent : M/s. S. Mujib Kumar, S. Vikramaditya Babu & K. Narasimhulu, Advocates for R1 to R3

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 08/2014-IR(B-I) dated 20.2.2014 referred the following dispute between the management of Deccan Grameena Bank, and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Deccan Grameena Bank, Head Office, Hyderabad/Regional Office, Mancherial and Branch Office at choppadandi, Crossing 240 days continuous services of Shri Garigaboina Srinivas, Ex-casual Worker with effect from 9.2.2013 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 28/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the Petitioner on that date. Non- appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and the Petitioner has no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.