288 GI/2018
(559)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 4]
ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 21—tuojh 27] 2018] 'kfuokj@ek?k 1— ek?k 7] 1939
No. 4]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 21—JANUARY 27, 2018, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 1—MAGHA 7, 1939
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
(कामक और िशण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 22 दस बर, 2017
का
का
का
का.आ
.आ
.आ
.आ.114
114
114
114 .—के सरकार, द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापन अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क धारा 6 के
साथ प ठत धारा 5 क उप धारा (1) "ारा #द$ त शि%य' का #योग करते *ए िमजोरम रा. य सरकार, सतक/ता िवभाग, ऐजल क
दनांक 27.10.2017 क अिधसूचना सं7 या सी. 31016/78/2017-वीआईजी "ारा दी गई सहमित से एत:ारा भारतीय दंड संिहता
1860 (1860 का अिधिनयम सं7 या 45) क धारा 120बी, 420, 467, 468, 471 और पीसी अिधिनयम 1988 क धारा 13(1)(घ)
के साथ प ठत 13(2) के तहत माच/, 2011 से जनवरी 2015 क अविध के दौरान EेFीय पैरामेिडकल एवं नIसग साइंस सं थान
(आरआईपीएएमएस), ऐजल, िमजोरम मK 22,99,779/- N. क किथत धोखाधड़ी के संबंध मK कए गए सभी #यास', दुR #ेरण और
षडयंF के अ वेषण के िलए मुकदमा दज/ करने तथा उT त अपराध' अथवा कए गए कसी अपराध/क ही अपराध' अथवा इस #कार के
लेन-देन से उUभूत अपराध' के दोषी V यि%य' के िवNW सEम यायाधीश के यायालय मK दांिडक अिभयोजन के संबंध मK द ली िवशेष
पुिलस थापन के सद य' क शि%य' एवं EेFािधकार का िव तार एतद्"ारा संपूण/ िमजोरम रा. य पर करती है।
[फा. सं. 228/54/2017-एवीडी-।।]
एस. पी. आर. िFपाठी, अवर सिचव
560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2017
S.O.114.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Mizoram, Vigilance Department, Aizawl vide Notification No.C.31016/78/2017-VIG dated 27.10.2017
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of
the State of Mizoram for registration of a case under section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Act No.45 of 1860) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and all attempts, conspiracies, abetment relating to
the alleged fraud involving Rs.22,99,779/- in Regional Institute of Paramedical & Nursing Sciences (RIPANS),
Aizawl, Mizoram during the period March, 2011 to January, 2015 to carry out investigation of the same and to
prosecute the offenders for the aforesaid offences or any other offence/offences made out of the same transaction in the
court of competent jurisdiction.
[F.No. 228/54/2017-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2017
का
का
का
का.आ
.आ
.आ
.आ.115
115
115
115 .—के सरकार एत:ारा दली पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम सं. 25) क धारा 6 क
सप ठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) "ारा #दX शि%य' का #योग करते *ए राजथान सरकार के गृह िवभाग (Gr.-V) क अिधसूचना
सं7या एफ.19 (33) गृह-5/2017 जयपुर दनांक 24.07.2017 "ारा #ाZ क गई सहमित से सांवराद मK दनांक 12 जुलाई, 2017 को
घ टत घटना से संबंिधत पुिलस थाना रतनगढ़, िजला- चु], मK दज/ केस एफआईआर सं7या 190/2017 दनांक 25.06.2017 तथा
पुिलस थाना जसवंतगढ़, िजला नागौर, मK दज/ एफआईआर सं7या 123/17 दनांक 18.07.2017 (पुिलस थाना अशोक नगर, िजला
जयपुर मK दज/ पूव/ एफआईआर सं7या 238/2017 पुिलस थाना जसवंतगढ़, िजला नागौर, राजथान मK थानांत रत); िजसके िलए
पुिलस थाना जसवंतगढ़, िजला नागौर, मK एक अ य एफआईआर सं7या 115/17 दनांक 13.07.2017 दज/ क गई है मK अथवा उ%
मामल' मK उसी संV यवहार मK कए गए अ य अपराध' क जांच करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के सद य' क शि%य' और
EेFािधकार का िवतार संपूण/ राजथान रा.य पर करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/34/2017-एवीडी-II]
एस. पी. आर. िFपाठी, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2017
S.O.115.—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 Rajasthan, Home (Gr.-V) Department issued vide Notification No. F.19 (33) Home-5/2017 Jaipur
dated 24.07.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
in the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the investigation of Case FIR No. 190/2017 dated 25.06.2017 Police Station
Ratangarh, District Churu and Case FIR No. 123/17 dated 18.07.2017 Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur
(earlier FIR No. 238/2017 registered in Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur transferred to Police Station
Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur, Rajasthan) related to the incident that took place in Sanwrad on 12th July 2017, for
which another FIR No. 115/17 dated 13.07.2017 Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur was lodged or any other
offences committed in the course of the same transaction arising out of the said case.
[F.No. 228/34/2017-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 25 जनवरी, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ
.आ
.आ
.आ.116
116
116
116.—कK सरकार, द ली िव शेष पुिल स थापन अिध िन यम, 1946 (1946 का अिध िन यम सं. 25) क धारा 6 के साथ
प ठ त धारा 5 क उप धारा (1) "ारा #दX शिT त य' का #योग करते *ए झारखंड रा. य सरकार के द नांक 03.01.2017 क
अिध सूचना सं7 या-10/सी.बी.आई.-601/2017-23 "ारा दी गई सहमित से एतद्"ारा भारतीय दंड संिह ता 1860 (1860 क
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
561
अिध िन यम सं. 45) क धारा 448/302/201/328/376/511/34 के अंतग/त अपराध करने, आपरािध क अनिध कृत #वेश करने, ज़हर
"ारा घायल करने, बला$ कार क चेR टा करने, ह$ या और सबूत' को िम टाने तथा उपरोT त अपराध' के संबंध मK तथा उT त संV यवहार मK
क ए गए क हd अ य अपराध' के िल ए द नांक 16.12.2016 को सदर थाना (रांची) मK पंजीकृत पी.एस. सं. 534/16 अपराध' के
अ वेषण के िल ए, द ली िव शेष पुिल स थापन के सद य' क शिT त और अिध कार EेF का िव तार संपूण/ झारखंड रा. य पर करती है।
[फा.सं. 228/11/2017-एवीडी-।।]
एस. पी. आर. िFपाठी, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 25th January, 2018
S.O.116.—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 Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.10/C.B.I.-601/2017-23 dated 03.01.2017 hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of
Jharkhand for investigation in the Sadar Thana (Ranchi) P.S.No.534/16 dated 16.12.2016 registered for committing
offences u/s 448/302/201/328/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No.45 of 1860), the criminal trespass,
hurt by means of poison, attempt to commit rape, murder and disappearance of evidence in connection with the said
offences and any other offences in the aforesaid transaction.
[F.No. 228/11/2017-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-117-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [akM (d) ds
vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] Vksd;ks] esa Jh yky Fkhvkaxyhek] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 11 tuojh]
2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@02@2018º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(C. P. V. DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2018
S.O.117.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Lal Thianghlima, Assistant
Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Tokyo to perform the Consular services with
effect from 11th January, 2018.
[No. T-4330/02/2018]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और प रवार क या
और प रवार क या
और प रवार क या
और प रवार क याण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
( वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और प रवार
और प रवार
और प रवार
और प रवार क या
क या
क या
क याण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 21 नव बर, 2017
का
का
का
का.आ
.आ
.आ
.आ.118
118
118
118 .—भारतीय आयुeवfान प रषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप- धारा (2) "ारा #द$ त
शिT तय' का #योग करते *ए के सरकार, भारतीय आयुeवfान प रषद से परामश/ करके उ% अिधिनयम क #थम अनुसूची मK,
िनgिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथा/त्:—
उ% #थम अनुसूची मK
(।) ‘मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “सी.एस.जे.एम. िवk व िवlालय,
कानपुर” के सामने अंितम #िविm के पk चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत
#िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:—
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (pुबरTयुलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी िडसीिसज़)”
एमडी (pुबरTयुलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी िडसीिसज़)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
यू.पी.]रल इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिससज एंड रसच/,
इटावा मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को
या बाद मK, सी.एस.जे.एम. िवk व िवlालय, कानपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ओटोरिsनलेtरगॉलोजी)”
एमएस(ईएनटी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ]रल
इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिससज एंड रसच/, इटावा मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
सी.एस.जे.एम. िवk व िवlालय, कानपुर "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामा/जीकॉलोजी)”
एमडी (फामा/कॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
यू.पी.]रल इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिससज एंड रसच/,
इटावा मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को
या बाद मK, सी.एस.जे.एम. िवk व िवlालय, कानपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइuोबॉयलोजी)”
एमडी (माइuोबॉयलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
यू.पी.]रल इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिससज एंड रसच/,
इटावा मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को
या बाद मK, सी.एस.जे.एम. िवk व िवlालय, कानपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
।।) ‘मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस
िवwिवlालय, जबलपुर” के सामने अंितम #िविm के पk चात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है] से संवंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयो डॉयxोिसस/ रेिडयोलॉजी)”
एमडी (रेिडयो डॉयxोिसस/ रेिडयोलॉजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
563
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवwिवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)”
एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ऑथyपीिडTस)”
एमएस(ऑथyपीिडTस)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ zTस)”
एमडी(पेिडयॉ zTस)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सज/री (ऑ{थॉलमॉलोजी)”
एमडी/एमएस(ऑ{थॉलमॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“ माटर ऑफ सज/री(ओटोरिsनलेtरगॉलोजी)”)”
एमएस(ईएनटी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/माटर ऑफ सज/री (ऑ|zे टTस एंड
गायनेकॉलोजी)”
एमडी/एमएस (ओ. बी.जी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(एिनथीिसयालोजी)”
एमडी(एिनथीिसयालोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाj त आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवk व िवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(pुबरTयुलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी
िडसीिसज़/पमोनरी मेिडिसन)”
एमडी(pुबरTयुलोिसस एंड रेपीरेटरी िडसीिसज़/पमोनरी
मेिडिसन)
564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंडैTस मेिडकल कॉलेज अपताल एंड रसच/ सेटर, इंदौर मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
मvय #देश मेिडकल सांइिसस िवwिवlालय, जबलपुर "ारा
#दX होगी।)
।।।) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “एच.एन.बी. गढ़वाल िवwिवlालय,
उXराखंड” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से
संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ओटो रहनोलेtरगोलोजी)”
एमएस(ईएनटी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ~ी
गुN राम राय इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल एंड हैथ सांइिसस,
देहरादून मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को
या बाद मK, एच.एन.बी. गढ़वाल िवwिवlालय, उXराखंड
"ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयो डॉयxोिसस)”
एमडी(रेिडयो डॉयxोिसस)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ~ी
गुN राम राय इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल एंड हैथ सांइिसस,
देहरादून मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को
या बाद मK, एच.एन.बी. गढ़वाल िवwिवlालय, उXराखंड
"ारा #दX होगी।)
IV) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “डॉ.एनटीआर वाय िवfान
िवwिवlालय, िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ऑ{थालमालोजी)”
एमएस(ऑ{थालमालोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
भाकर मेिडकल कॉलेज, येनकापली मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, डॉ.एनटीआर वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, िवजयवाड़ा "ारा #दX होगी।)
V) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता ’शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “राजीव गांधी वाय िवfान
िवwिवlालय, बKगलु]” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फामा/कालोजी)”
एमडी(फामा/कालोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह हसन
इंटीpूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, हसन मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
565
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइuोबॉयलोजी)”
एमडी(माइuोबॉयलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह हसन
इंटीpूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, हसन मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
िडjलोमा इन pुबरTयुलोिसस एंड चेट डीसीसीज़
डीटीडीसी
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ए.जे.
इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, मंगलूर मK #िशिEत कए
जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी
वाय िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
“मिजzार िच]ग€(यूरोलोजी)“
एमसीएच (यूरोलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ए.जे.
इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, मंगलूर मK #िशिEत कए
जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी
वाय िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बायो केिमzी)”
एमडी(बायो केिमzी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह बीदर
इंटीpूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, बीदर मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(क युिनटी मेिडिसन)”
एमडी(क युिनटी मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
रायचूर इंटीpूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, रायचूर मK #िशिEत
कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK 2014 को या बाद मK, राजीव
गांधी वाय िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX
होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(सोशल एंड ि#वK टव मेिडिसन/क युिनटी
मेिडिसन)”
एमडी(सोशल एंड ि#वK टव मेिडिसन/क युिनटी मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह हसन
इंटीpूट मेिडकल सांइिसस, हसन मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजीव गांधी वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, बKगलु] "ारा #दX होगी।)
VI) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता ’शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “जेएसएस िवwिवlालय, मैसूर”
के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत
#िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (अपताल #शासन)”
एमडी (अपताल #शासन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब जेएसएस
मेिडकल कॉलेज, मैसूर मK #िशिEत कए जा रहे छाF' के संबंध मK
2017 को या बाद मK, जेएसएस िवwिवlालय, मैसूर "ारा #दX
होगी।)
566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VII) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता ’शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] “कग जाज/ मेिडकल
िवwिवlालय(डी ड िवwिवlालय) लखनऊ” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके
आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(]मोटॉलोजी)”
एमडी(]मोटॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
कग जाज/ मेिडकल मेिडकल कॉलेज, लखनऊ मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2015 को या बाद
मK, कग जाज/ मेिडकल िवwिवlालय लखनऊ "ारा
#दX होगी।)
VIII) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता ’शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “द तिमलनाडु डॉ.एम.जी.आर.
मेिडकल कॉलेज, िवwिवlालय, चे‚ई” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे
कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एिनथीिसया)”
एमडी(एिनथीिसया)”
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
कोयंबXूर मेिडकल कॉलेज, कोयंबXूर मK #िशिEत कए
गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK, द
तिमलनाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर.
मेिडकल
कॉलेज,
िवwिवlालय, चे‚ई "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो डायxोिसस)”
एमडी(रेिडयो डायxोिसस)”
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
कलपौक मेिडकल कॉलेज, चे‚ई मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF'
के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, द तिमलनाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर. मेिडकल कॉलेज, िवwिवlालय, चे‚ई "ारा
#दX होगी।)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ऑ{थालमोलोजी)”
एमएस(ऑ{थालमोलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह ~ी
मुकाि बका इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, कयाकुमारी मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, द
तिमलनाडु डॉ.एम.जी.आर. मेिडकल कॉलेज, िवwिवlालय,
चे‚ई "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयॉलोजी)”
एमडी(फिजयॉलोजी)”
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
कपा/गा िवनाया इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, मधुरंतगम
मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
द
तिमलनाडु
डॉ.एम.जी.आर.
मेिडकल
कॉलेज,
िवwिवlालय, चे‚ई "ारा #दX होगी।)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
567
IX) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता ’शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “महाराƒ वाय िवfान
िवwिवlालय, नािसक” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3)
कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(जनरल सज/री)”
एमएस(जनरल सज/री)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
महाराƒ इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल ए.युकेशन एंड रसच/, पुणे मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
महाराƒ वाय िवfान िवwिवlालय, नािसक "ारा #दX
होगी।)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(ऑथyपीिडTस)”
एमएस(ऑथyपीिडTस)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
महाराƒ इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल ए.युकेशन एंड रसच/, पुणे मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
महाराƒ वाय िवfान िवwिवlालय, नािसक "ारा #दX
होगी।)
X) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “राजथान वाय िवfान
िवwिवlालय, जयपुर” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3)
कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(फॉरKिसक मेिडिसन)”
एमडी(फॉरKिसक मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
जवाहरलाल नेह] मेिडकल कॉलेज, अजमेर मK #िशिEत कए
गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजथान वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, जयपुर "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(बायोकेिमzी)”
एमडी(बायोकेिमzी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
झालावाड़ मेिडकल कॉलेज, झालवाड़ मK #िशिEत कए गए
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजथान वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, जयपुर "ारा #दX ह'गी।)
“माटर ऑफ सज/री(अनॉटमी)”
एमएस(अनॉटमी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
झालावाड़ मेिडकल कॉलेज, झालवाड़ मK #िशिEत कए गए
छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK, राजथान वाय
िवfान िवwिवlालय, जयपुर "ारा #दX होगी।)
XI) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “सांिविधक वायX” के सामने
अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत #िविm के
568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ zक हैपोटॉलोजी)”
डीएम (पेिडयॉ zक हैपोटॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंटीpूट ऑफ िलवर एंड िबिलएरी सांइिसस, नई दली मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK,
सांिविधक वायX "ारा #दX होगी।)
XII) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “सिवता
िवwिवlालय(डी ड), चे‚ई” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम
(3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(जनरल मेिडिसन)”
एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
सिवता मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड अपताल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु
मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
सिवता िवwिवlालय(डी ड), चे‚ई "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइuोबायलोजी)”
एमडी (माइuोबायलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
सिबता मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड अपताल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु
मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2017 को या बाद मK,
सिवता िवwिवlालय(डी ड), चे‚ई "ारा #दX होगी।)
XIII) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “आय/ भ„ नॉलेज
िवwिवlालय, पटना” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(पेिडयॉ zTस)”
एमडी(पेिडयॉ zTस)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
नालंदा मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF' के
संबंध मK 2013 को या बाद मK, आय/ भ„ नॉलेज िवwिवlालय,
पटना "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(जनरल मेिडिसन)”
एमडी(जनरल मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
नालंदा मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मK #िशिEत कए गए छाF' के
संबंध मK 2015 को या बाद मK, आय/ भ„ नॉलेज िवwिवlालय,
पटना "ारा #दX होगी।)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
569
XIV) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “चे „नाद अकादमी
ऑफ रसच/ एंड ए.युकेशन (डी ड) िवwिवlालय” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’
[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:—
(2) (3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडयॉ zTस)”
एमडी(पेिडयॉ zTस)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
चे „नाद अपताल एंड रसच/ इंटीpूट, कांचीपुरम मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK,
चे „नाद अकादमी ऑफ रसच/ एंड ए.युकेशन (डी ड)
िवwिवlालय "ारा #दX होगी।)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (योनेटॉलोजी)”
डीएम (योनेटॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
चे „नाद अपताल एंड रसच/ इंटीpूट, कांचीपुरम मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK,
चे „नाद अकादमी ऑफ रसच/ एंड ए.युकेशन (डी ड)
िवwिवlालय "ारा #दX होगी।)
XV ) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “बनारस िहदू
िवwिवlालय” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कॉeडयॉलोजी)”
डीएम (कॉeडयॉलोजी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह
इंटीpूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, बीएचयू, वाराणसी मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2015 को या बाद मK,
बनारस िहदू िवwिवlालय "ारा #दX होगी।)
XVI) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “शारदा िवwिवlालय,
…ेटर नोएडा” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा
गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:-
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (सोशल एंड ि#वK टव मेिडिसन/क युिनटी
मेिडिसन)”
एमडी (सोशल एंड ि#वK टव मेिडिसन/क युिनटी मेिडिसन)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह कूल
ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड रसच/ …ेटर नोएडा मK #िशिEत
कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK, शारदा
िवwिवlालय, …ेटर नोएडा "ारा #दX होगी।)
570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
XVII) ‘मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता’ शीष/क के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] “डॉ.बी.आर.अंबेडकर,
िवwिवlालय. आगरा, उXर #देश” के सामने अंितम #िविm के प}ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिEिZकरण’ [ िजसे इसके
आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत #िविm के संबंध मK िनgिलिखत अंत:थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा/त्:—
(2)
(3)
“डॉTटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बायोकेिमzी)”
एमडी (बायोकेिमzी)
(यह एक मायता #ाZ आयुeवfान अह/ता होगी जब यह रामा
मेिडकल कॉलेज और अपताल, कानपुर, उXर #देश मK
#िशिEत कए गए छाF' के संबंध मK 2016 को या बाद मK,
डॉ.बी.आर.अंबेडकर, िवwिवlालय आगरा, उXर #देश "ारा
#दX होगी।)
[फा. सं. यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-1(पाट/-4)एफटीएस.3129861]
डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 21st November, 2017
S.O.118.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:Ñ
In the said Schedule :Ñ
I)
against “C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:Ñ
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine
(Tuberculosis & Respiratory Medicine)”
MD (TB & Respiratory Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur. in
respect of students being trained at U.P. Rural
Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Etawah
on or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)”
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur. in respect of
students being trained at U.P. Rural Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research, Etawah on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD (Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur, in respect of
students being trained at U.P. Rural Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research, Etawah on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur. in respect of
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
571
students being trained at U.P. Rural Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research, Etawah on or after 2017).
II)
against “Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University, Jabalpur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis/ Radiology)”
MD (Radio-diagnosis/ Radiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)”
MS (Orthopedics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Pediatrics)”
MD (Pediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)
MD/MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)”
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery
MD/MS (OBG)
(Obstetrics & Gynecology)”
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University,
Jabalpur in respect of students being trained at Index
Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore on
or after 2017).
572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)”
MD (Anaesthesiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted
by
Madhya
Pradesh
Medical
Science
University, Jabalpur in respect of students being trained
at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Indore on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory
Diseases/ Pulmonary Medicine)”
MD (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases/
Pulmonary Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Madhya Pradesh Medical
Science University, Jabalpur in respect of
students being trained at Index Medical College
Hospital & Research Centre, Indore on or after
2017).
III)
against “H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Otorhinolaryngology)”
MS (ENT)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in
respect of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai
Institute of Medical & Health Sciences, Dehradun on or
after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)”
MD (Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by H.N.B. Garhwal University, Uttarakhand in
respect of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Rai
Institute of Medical & Health Sciences, Dehradun on or
after 2016).
IV)
against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijawada, Andhra Pradesh”, under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”
MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being
trained at Bhaskar Medical College, Yenkapally on or
after 2017).
V)
against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”
MD(Pharmacology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
573
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Hassan
Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Hassan
Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan on or after 2017).
“Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases”
DTCD
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at A.J.
Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalore on or after
2017).
“Magistrar Chirurgiae (Urology)”
M.Ch. (Urology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at A.J.
Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangalore on or after
2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Bio Chemistry)”
MD (Bio Chemistry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Bidar
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bidar on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”
MD (Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, Raichur on or
after 2014).
“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive Medicine/
Community Medicine)”
MD (Social & Preventive Medicine/ Community
Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification
when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students
being trained at Hassan Institute of Medical
Sciences, Hassan on or after 2017).
VI)
against “JSS University, Mysore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Hospital Administration)”
MD (Hospital Administration)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by JSS University, Mysore in respect of
students being trained at JSS Medical College, Mysore
on or after 2017).
574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VII)
against “King George’s Medical University (Deemed University), Lucknow”, under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Rheumatology)”
DM (Rheumatology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by King George’s Medical University (Deemed
University), Lucknow University in respect of students
being trained at King George Medical College,
Lucknow on or after 2015).
VIII) against “The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R.Medical College University, Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)”
MD (Anaesthesia)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R.Medical
College University, Chennai in respect of students
being
trained
at
Coimbatore
Medical
College,
Coimbatore on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis)”
MD (Radio Diagnosis)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R.Medical
College University, Chennai in respect of students
being trained at Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai on
or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”
MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical
College University, Chennai in respect of students
being trained at Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical
Sciences, Kanyakumari on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”
MD (Physiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical
College University, Chennai in respect of students
being trained at Karpaga Vinaya Institute of Medical
Sciences, Maduranthagam on or after 2017).
IX)
against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”
MS (General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Nashik in respect of students being trained at
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
575
Maharashtra
Institute
of
Medical
Education
&
Research, Pune on or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)”
MS (Orthopedics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Nashik in respect of students being trained at
Maharashtra
Institute
of
Medical
Education
&
Research, Pune on or after 2017).
X)
against “Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”
MD (Forensic Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,
Jaipur in respect of students being trained at Jawaharlal
Nehru Medical College, Ajmer on or after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,
Jaipur in respect of students being trained at Jhalawar
Medical College, Jhalawar on or after 2017).
“Master of Surgery (Anatomy)”
MS (Anatomy)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences,
Jaipur in respect of students being trained at Jhalawar
Medical College, Jhalawar on or after 2017).
XI)
against “Statutory Autonomous”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred
to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pediatric Hepatology)”
DM (Pediatric Hepatology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Statutory Autonomous in respect of students
being trained at Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences,
New Delhi on or after 2016).
XII)
against “Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in
respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical
College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or
after 2017).
“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”
MD (Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in
576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical
College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or
after 2017).
XIII)
against “Arya bhatta Knowledge University, Patna”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pediatrics)”
MD (Pediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Arya bhatta Knowledge University, Patna in
respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical
College, Patna on or after 2013).
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Arya bhatta Knowledge University, Patna in
respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical
College, Patna on or after 2015).
XIV)
against “Chettinad Academy of Research & Education (Deemed University)”, under the heading ‘Recognized
Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the
heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Pediatrics)”
MD (Pediatrics)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Chettinad Academy of Research &
Education (Deemed University in respect of students
being trained at Chettinad Hospital & Research
Institute, Kanchipurum on or after 2016).
“Doctor of Medicine (Neonatology)”
DM (Neonatology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Chettinad Academy of Research &
Education (Deemed University in respect of students
being trained at Chettinad Hospital & Research
Institute, Kanchipurum on or after 2016).
XV)
against “Banaras Hindu University”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for
Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Cardiology)”
DM (Cardiology)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Banaras Hindu University in respect of
students being trained at Institute of Medicaal Sciences,
BHU, Varanasi on or after 2015).
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
577
XVI)
against “Sharda University, Greater Noida”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive
MD (Social & Preventive Medicine/Community
Medicine/ Community Medicine)”
Medicine
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Sharda University, Greater Noida in respect
of students being trained at School of Medical Sciences
& Research, Greater Noida on or after 2016).
XVII)
against “Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, U.P.”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’
[hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, U.P.
in respect of students being trained at Rama Medical
College & Hospital, Kanpur, UP on or after 2016).
[F. No. U.12012/01/2017-ME-I(P-4)]/FTS No.3129861]
D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-119-—dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (4) ds
vuqlj.k esa] miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx) ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu
fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jkti=k esa vfèklwfpr
djrh gS %&
1- dsUæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]
{ks=kh; dk;kZy;]
dksfPp&682020
¹la- bZ&11011@1@2008&¯gnhº
dey nÙkk] la;qDr lfpo
578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.119.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Conumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), whereof
more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :
1.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Regional Office,
Kochi-682020
[No. E-11011/1/2008- Hindi]
KAMAL DATTA, Jt. Secy.
Lkkaf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe dk;kZUo;u ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-120-—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987) ds fu;e 10
ds mi fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Lkakf[;dh vkSj dk;ZØe dk;kZUo;u ea=kky; ds v/hu {ks=k ladk;Z izHkkx] jk"Vªh; izfrn'kZ losZ{k.k
dk;kZy; ds {ks=kh; dk;kZy;] fot;okM+k (vka/z izns'k) dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa vfèklwfpr djrh gS A
¹la- bZ&11013@6@2016&¯gnhº
v#.k dqekj ;kno] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.120.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended – 1987), the Central Government hereby notify the Regional Office, Vijaywada
(Andhra Pradesh) of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
in the Gazette of India where 80 per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E-11013/6/2016- Hindi]
ARUN KUMAR YADAV, Jt. Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-121-—jk"Vªifr] Jh izeksn dqekj prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/dkjh] dsUnz ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;]
vgenkckn dks fnukad 01-01-2018 ls N% ekg dh vof/ rd vFkok fu;fer vk/kj ij in Hkjus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] ihBklhu vf/dkjh] dsUæ ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds in dk vfrfjDr izHkkj lkSairs gSa A
[la- ,&11016@03@2009&lh,y,l&II]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
579
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2018
S.O.121.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur to Shri Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad for a period of six months with effect from
01.01.2018 or till the post is filled up, on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2009-CLS-II]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-122-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nh cSad vkWiQ
jktLFkku fy- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@174@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Bank of
Rajasthan Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2018.
[No. L-12012/174/2004-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 52@2004
Hkjr ik.Ms;
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L-12012/174/2004–IR (B-1) fnukad 25/08/2004
Shri Gopal Singh Sangkhal
S/o Sh. Madan Singh Sangkhal,
Behind Senapati Bhawan, Plot No. 11,
High Court Colony, Jodhpur - (Rajasthan)
v/s
1.
The Manager,
The Bank of Rajasthan Limited,
City Branch, Tambacoo Bazar,
Distt. Jodhpur - (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh ;ksxs'k 'kekZ & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh vkYkkSd Qrsgiqfj;k & ,MoksdsV
580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
% iapkV %
fnukad % 24- 11- 2017
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad
25/08/2004 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
^^D;k izcU/ku nh cSad vkWQ jktLFkku fyfeVsM] flVh 'kk[kk] rEckdw cktkj] tks/kiqj ds }kjk vius deZdkj
Jh xksiky flag lkWa[kyk iq= Jh enu flag lk[kWayk] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks fnuakd 16-10-2001 ls lsok ls
c[kkZLr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj vius fu;kstd ls D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^
2-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse es fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% ;kph dk dFku gS fd foi{k us viuh 'kk[kk esa
prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z lEikfnr djus ds fy, izkFkhZ Jh xksiky flag dks fnuakd 9-6-99 dks : 1500@&
izfrekg ds osru ij fu;qDr fd;kA izkFkhZ us fnuakd 15-10-2001 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;kA foi{kh us fnuakd
16-10-2001 dks izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA
3-
vkxs izkFkhZ Jh xksiky flag dk dFku gS fd tqykbZ 99 ls flrEcj 99 rd dh vof/k ds ikfjJfed dk
Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk i= ij mls fd;k x;k gS tks fd cSad ds ikl miyC/k gS rFkk LVksjdhij ds ;gka ls tks
lkeku ;kph ykrk Fkk mldk mYys[k Hkh LVksjdhij dh Mk;jh esa vafdr gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd og fot; vjksjk
dh QksVksdkWih dh nqdku ls cSad ds vfHkys[kksa dh QksVks djkdj ykrk Fkk ftlls lEcfU/kr lwpuk cSad ds ikl
miyC/k gS ftl ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj gS ,oa mDr vfHkys[kks ls ;g tkfgj gksxk fd izkFkhZ RkFkk cSad ds chp deZdkj
rFkk fu;kstd dk lEcU/k gSA izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ds Bhd iwoZ 240 fnu ls T;kns dh vof/k rd dk;Z
fd;k gS ijUrq izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ cSad us izkFkhZ dks u uksfVl nh] u uksfVl ds cnys osru fn;k u gh dksbZ
NaWVuh eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku fd;kA izkFkhZ ls dfu"d dehZ dks foi{k us fu;ksftr j[kk rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDRk dj
fn;k ,oa dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ ugha rS;kj dhA foi{k us NaVuh dh lwpuk lEcfU/kr ljdkj dks ugha
nh rFkk izkFkhZ dks volj fn;s fcuk u;h fu;qfDr;ka dh] bl izdkj foi{kh dk d`R; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th ,oa 25 ,p rFkk vkS|ksfxd fookn ¼dsUnzh;½ fu;ekoyh 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku gSA
vr% izkFkhZ us ;kfpdk izLrqr dj izkFkZuk dh gS fd lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k fujLr dj leLr foxr osru lfgr mls
lsok esa iquLFkkZfir djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
4-
foi{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds izLrjokj tokc esa izLrj ,d ds dFku ds lUnHkZ esa izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq Hkstuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS 'ks"k dFku vLohdkj gSA izLrj nks yxk;r
N% ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS] rRi'pkr ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh foi{kh cSad }kjk : 1500@&
ekgokj ikfjJfed ij fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h gS ,oa 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks fu;qfDRk dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS
fd izkFkhZ us u rks cSad ds v/khu u gh cSad ds fu;U=.k esa dksbZ dk;Z fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd cSad dh
mifLFkfr iaftdk esa Hkh izkFkhZ ds uke dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS rFkk cSad esa cSad ds deZpkfj;ksa dk Hkqxrku
psd@isvkMZj ds tfj;s fd;k tkrk gS tcfd izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gSA
5-
;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ekuuh; eU=ky; }kjk U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ekeyk c[kkZLrxh dk gS tcfd izkFkhZ
dk DYkse lsok ls fMLpktZ ls lEcfU/kr gS vr% lUnfHkZr fjQjsUl ls ;g ekeyk fuf.kZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA
6-
vkxs dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk dguk xyr gS fd mlus 15-10-01 rd dk;Z fd;k rFkk 16-10-01 dks lsok
ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k D;ksafd izkFkhZ foi{k ds fu;kstu esa dHkh ugha jgkA ;kph }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ 2 LVksj dhij ds
Mk;jh dks cSad dk nLrkost gksus ls foi{k us bUdkj fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd cSad esa ,sls fdlh fjdkMZ dk
j[k&j[kko ugha fd;k tkrk gS vr% bls cSad ds fo:) iz;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA QksVksdkih dh dwiu ij
izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj dks Hkh foi{kh us lqlaxr nLrkost u gksus dh ckr dgh gS ,oa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd cSad }kjk fou;
QksVksdkfi;lZ ls QksVksdkWfi;ka djk;h tkrh Fkh ftlds dwiu cSad fjdkMZ esa miyC/k gS ftu ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj
ugha gS ,oa fot; vjksjk QksVksdkfi;lZ ds dwiu cSad esa ugha gSA
7- izkFkhZ dh vkosnu ij tqykbZ 99 ls flrEcj 99 dh vof/k ds fy, ;kph dks cSad }kjk fdlh izdkj dk Hkqxrku
djus ds rF; ls Hkh budkj fd;k x;k gS ,oa dgk x;k gS fd bl vof/k esa ;kph dks dksbZ Hkqxrku ugha gqvkA ;g
Hkh dgk x;k gS fd cSad }kjk dsoy is vkMZj ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks ek= 280 :i;s ds
is vkMZj fnuakfdr 9-8-99 rFkk 720@&:i;s ds isvkWMZj fnuakfdr 27-2-2000 }kjk dsoy nks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS
,oa ;g nksuksa Hkqxrku VSadj }kjk ikuh dh vkiwfrZ djus ds lEcU/k esa fd;s x;s gSA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
581
8-
;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ cSad ds fu;kstu esa ugha Fkk blfy, mlds }kjk 240 fnu ls T;kns dk;Z djus]
uksfVl] uksfVl ds cnys Hkqxrku vFkok NaVuh eqvkotk u nsus rFkk ofj;rk lwph u cukus ,oa dfu"d dehZ dks
lsok esa cuk;s j[kus ;k u;s dehZ dks fu;qDr djus dh ckrsa vlaxr gS ,oa blls lEcfU/kr izkfo/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys
es ykxw ugha gksrs gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ foi{k }kjk dHkh fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd fu;e 71 gMrky
dh uksfVl nsus ls lEcfU/kr gSaA
9-
;kph }kjk ;kfpdk ds izLrj ikWp esa dgk x;k gS fd f}i{kh; ,okMZ ds vuqlkj ;kph lsok esa fu;fer fd;s
tkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA mlds fo:) foi{k us tokc esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us Li"V ugha fd;k gS fd og f}i{kh;
,okMZ dkSu lk gSA vr% bl lEcU/k esa foi{k viuk tokc dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr j[krk gS ,oa ;kph dks tc
fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k rks mls fu;fer gksus ds vf/kdkj dk iz'u ugha mBrk gSA foi{k us vUrr% izkFkZuk dh gS
fd ;kph dh ;kfpdk gtkZ lfgr [kkfjt dh tk;A
10-
izkjfEHkd vkifRr esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka dHkh fu;ksftr ugha jgk ,oa izkFkhZ rFkk foi{k ds chp
dHkh deZdkj ,oa fu;kstd dk lEcU/k ugha jgk gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk yxHkx Ms<+ o"kZ rd fookn
u mBk;k tkuk ;g fl} djrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn cnfu;riw.kZ gS ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ;kfpdk
ds lkFk layXu nLrkost QthZ ,oa cukoVh gSA
11-
tokcqytokc esa izkFkhZ us ;kfpdk esa izLrqr fd;s x;s dFku dh iqujko`fRr dh gSA ;g Hkh dgk fd mldh
nSfud gkftjh ugha curh Fkh rFkk dsoy Hkqxrku ds le; mldk gLrk{kj gksrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mldh
lsokeqfDr ds ckn eqds'k uke ds O;fDr dks fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA
12-
mHk;i{k ds vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij rRdkfyu fo}ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fopkj.k gsrq fuEu okn fcUnq
fopfjr fd;s %&
I.
Whether the workman was appointed as 4th Class on 9.6.99 by
the non-applicant, who continuously worked up to 15.10.2001
and whose service was orally terminated on 16.10.2001 in
violation of Section 25-F of the Act?
BOA
II.
Whether at the time of terminating the service of the workman,
the junior employees to him were retained by the Bank in
violation of Section 25-G of the Act?
BOA
III.
Whether after the termination of the workman the new
appointments were made by the management in violation
of Section 25-H of the Act?
BOA
IV.
Whether the claim is liable to be rejected on the ground
of raising the dispute belatedly?
BONA
V.
Relief, if any.
13-
izkFkhZ Jh xksiky }kjk ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa viuh 'kiFk i= lk{; esa izLrqr gS tks fnukad 3-6-05 dks
rLnhd dh x;h gSA ;kph dh izfrijh{kk foi{k }kjk fnukad 18-3-13 dks dh x;h gSA
14-
;kph us vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa fjQjsUl dh QksVksizfr izn'kZ&1 rFkk fot; vjksM+k QksVksLVsV dkWfi;lZ
dh nqdku ls QksVksLVsV djkus ls lEcfU/kr Mk;jh dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ nks izLrqr dh gSA izn'kZ nks dks foi{k us
QthZ vfHkys[k crk;k gS ftls lR; gksus dk rF; izkFkhZ i{k us lkfcr ugha fd;k gSA
15-
foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr gSA ekSf[kd lk{; esa Jh v'kksd dqekj tSu] 'kk[kk izcU/kd
dh 'kiFk&i= fnuakfdr 4 tuojh 16 fnukad 1-3-16 dks izLrqr gSA ;kph i{k }kjk foi{kh lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk
volj fn;s tkus ds ckotwn ugha dh x;h gSA fnukad 3-5-16 dks xokg mifLFkr jgk gS ijUrq ;kph i{k us volj
pkgk gS ftls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj vxyh frfFk fnukad 20-7-16 fu;r dh x;h gSA mlds ckn xokg fnukad
3-1-17 dks mifLFkr jgk gS ijUrq ;kph i{k vuqifLFkr jgk gS ftlls lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk ugha gks ldh gSA fnukad
20-7-16 dks rFkk mlds ckn ls lHkh frfFk;ksa 6-10-16] 1-12-16 rFkk 3-1-17 dks ;kph i{k fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgk gS
ftlds dkj.k 3-1-17 dks U;k;ky; }kjk foi{kh lk{kh dh ;kph i{k }kjk izfrijh{kk dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k gS
rFkk i=koyh ,di{kh; cgl gsrq fnukad 14-2-17 dks fu;r dh x;h gSA ,di{kh; cgl gsrq 14-2-17] 19-4-17]
13-7-17] 16-8-17 rFkk 18-9-17 frfFk;ka fu;r dh x;h gS ijUrq bu frfFk;ksa ij Hkh ;kph i{k mifLFkr ugha vk;k gSA
16- eSaus fnukad 16-9-17 dks foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA
582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
okn &fcUnq la[;k ,d
17-
;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k deZdkj Jh xksiky flag lka[kyk foi{k }kjk fnuakd 9-6-99 dks
fu;qDr Fkk\ ;kph i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k cgl ds le; mifLFkr ugha jgs gS rFkk muds }kjk vFkok ;kph }kjk
foi{kh lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h gSA foi{k us izkFkhZ dks vius ;gka fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k gS
vr% bl rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS fd mls foi{k us prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k
FkkA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us viuh cgl esa foIk{k }kjk ;kfpdk ds fo:) izLrqr tokc dh iqujko`fRr dh gSA
18-
;kph us vius 'kiFk&i= esa dgk gS fd mls foi{k us prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k Fkk
tcfd foi{k us dgk gS fd 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks fu;qDr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ;kph us viuh ;kfpdk esa gh
dgk gS fd mlds fy, fdlh mifLFkfr iaftdk dk j[k&j[kko foi{k }kjk ugha gksrk Fkk u gh mldh gkftjh fdlh
iaftdk esa gksrh FkhA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha izLrqr fd;k u gh
1500@& :i;k ekfld osru ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa mlus dksbZ vfHkys[k ;k vkns'k i=koyh ij nkf[ky fd;k
gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus vius vkosnu ij fu;kstu gsrq dksbZ vkns'k Hkh ugh izLrqr fd;k gSA ;g Hkh
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 'kiFk&i= ds izLrj ,d esa ftu dk;ksZa dks djus dk mlus mYys[k fd;k gS mlds lEcU/k esa
dksbZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ,ao 1500@& ekgokj ikfjJfed ikus ds lEcU/k esa Hkh mlus dksbZ okmpj
izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ& 2 Mk;jh] cSad dk vfHkys[k ugha gS rFkk bl ij cSad ds
fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ugha gS] ;g ckr lgh gSA izkFkhZ ds lk{; dh mDr fLFkfr ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ bl rF;
dks fl) djus esa lQy ugha gS fd prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij mldh fu;qfDr foi{k us fnuakd 9-6-99 dks dhA
19-
tgkW rd izkFkhZ ds 15-10-2001 rd yxkrkj dk;Z djus ,oa /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa izkFkhZ
dh lsok;sa foi{k }kjk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fnukad 16-10-2001 dks lekIr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS bl lUnHkZ esa
mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd fu;qfDr dh dfFkr frfFk fnukad 9-6-99 ls 16-10-01 rd dh
vof/k esa foi{kh cSad us dke djus gsrq dksbZ funsZ'k fn;k gks mlls lEcfU/kr dksbZ vkns'k izkFkhZ us ugha izLrqr fd;k
gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gkWa fu;qfDr ds rF; dks fl) ugha fd;k gS ,oaW dfFkr lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls iwoZ dh
,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks Hkh fl) ugh fd;k gS] vr% eSa bl
fu"d"kZ ij gWw fd ;kph bl rF; dks Hkh fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd mlus dfFkr fu;qfDr dh frfFk fnukad 9-6-99
ls 16-10-01 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k rFkk mldh lsok,a 16-10-01 dks /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa
foi{kh }kjk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lekIr dh x;hA okn fcUnq la[;k ,d ;kph ds fo:) rn~uqlkj udkjkRed :i esa
fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
okn &fcUnq la[;k nks
20-
;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k lsoklekfIr dh frfFk dks foi{k us izkFkhZ ls dfu"d deZpkfj;ksa dks
lsok eas j[kk vkSj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls eqDr dj fn;k\ mYys[kuh; gS fd ;kfpdk esa ,sls deZpkfj;ksa ds uke dk dksbZ
mYys[k ugha gS tks lsok esa fujUrj dk;Zjr jgs vkSj izkFkhZ dks foi{k us lsokeqDr dj fn;kA foi{kh ds ;gka izkFkhZ us
viuh fu;qfDr Hkh ugha fl) fd;k gS vr% izkFkhZ /kkjk 25 th ds mYya?ku dks fl) ugha dj ldk gS ;g okn fcUnq
;kph ds fo:) rn~uqlkj udkjkRed :i esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
okn &fcUnq la[;k rhu
21-
;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ds mijkUr foi{k us /kkjk 25 ,p ds izkfo/kku
ds mYya?ku esa u;h fu;qfDr dh rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iqu% vkus dk volj ugha fn;kA ;kfpdk esa izkFkhZ us bl ckr
dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd u;s fu;qDr deZpkjh dk D;k uke gS ijUrq lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= rFkk
tokcqytokc esa ;kph us eqds'k uke ds O;fDr dh fu;fDr fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gS ijUrq 'kiFk&i= esa
izLrqr dFku tokcqytokc ds dFku dh iqujko`fRr ek= gS D;ksafd fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa] fu;qfDr dh frfFk] inuke
vkfn dk dksbZ fooj.k ugha gSA ;g Hkh mYy[kuh; gS fd ;kph Loa; viuh fu;qfDr fl) ugha dj ldk gS vr%
/kkjk 25 ,p ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku dk iz'u ugha mBrk gSA ;g okn fcUnq rn~uqlkj ;kph ds fo:) udkjkRed
fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
okn &fcUnq la[;k pkj
22-
;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ }kjk fookn foyEc ls mBk;s tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr
;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd fookn foyEc ls mBk;s tkus ds
dkj.k [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA bl rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj foi{k ij gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e esa foyEc
ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk dks fujLr djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha iznr gSA foi{k us Ms<+ lky foyEc ls ekeyk mBk;s
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
583
tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gS ftlds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ i{k us tokcqytokc esa dgk gS fd mls foi{k }kjk yxkrkj ;g
vk'oklu fn;k x;k fd mls iqu% fu;ksftr dj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj tc yxHkx ,d lky dk le; xqtj x;k rFkk
;kph iqu% fu;kstu ugha gqvk rks mlus Ms<+ lky ckn fookn mBk;kA izfrijh{kk esa ;kph us dgk gS fd izcU/kd
egksn; Jh v'kksd tSu us dgk Fkk fd Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr vk;sxh rc Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxk blfy, izkFkhZ dks
;kfpdk izLrqr djus esa foyEc gqvkA ;kfpdk izLrqfr esa foyEc dh izd`fr ,slh gS ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk
[kkfjt dh tk;] ,slk dksbZ rF; foi{k fl) ugha dj ldk gS u gh ;g n'kkZus esa lQYk gS fd foyEc ds vk/kkj
ij ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tk ldrh gSA vr% ;g okn fcUnq fo:) foi{kh udkjkRed :i esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk
gSA
okn &fcUnq la[;k ikWp
23-
;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk gS fd ;kph fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\ okn fcUnq ,d yxk;r pkj
ds fuLrkj.k ls izkIr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl er dk gwWa fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd
nh cSad vkWQ jktLFkku fyfeVsM] flVh 'kk[kk] rEckdw cktkj] tks/kiqj ds izcU/ku }kjk vius deZdkj Jh xksiky flag
lkWa[kyk iq= Jh enu flag lk[kWayk] prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks fnuakd 16-10-2001 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr djuk vuqfpr
,oa voS/k gSA deZdkj vius fu;kstd ls rn~uqlkj dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk mij
fn;s x;s dkj.kkksa ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k
tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-123-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@57@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2018.
[No. L-12012/57/2011-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 36@2011
Hkjr ik.Ms;
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua- L-12012/57/2011–IR (B-1) fnukad 17/10/2011
Shri Suresh Sen S/o Sh. Badrichand Sen,
C/o Potla, Tehsil - Sahada,
Distt. Bhilwara - (Rajasthan)
v/s
584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The Regional Manager,
ICICI Bank, Ajmer Road,
Distt. Bhilwara - 311001 (Rajasthan)
2. The Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank, Potla, Tehsil - Sahada,
Distt. Bhilwara - 311001 (Rajasthan)
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh cyfoUnz flag & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh vkYkkSd Qrsgiqfj;k & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
fnukad % 01& 11& 2017
1-
dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad
17@10@2011 ds vkns’k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj
}kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
“Whether the action of the management of ICICI Bank Ltd, in terminating the services of
Shri Suresh Sain S/o Shri Badrichand Sen w.e.f. 1.3.2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2-
LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse eas fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% ;kph Jh lqjs'k pUnz lsu dk dFku gS fd foi{kh
cSad dh iksVyk] ftyk HkhyokM+k dh 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr nQ~rjh dh inksUufr gks tkus ds dkj.k ;kph dks nQ~rjh ds
in dk dk;Z djus ds fy, fnuakd 18-9-2007 dks iksVyk 'kk[kk esa j[kk x;k tgkWa izkFkhZ us fnuakd 18-9-2007 ls
Qjojh 2009 rd fu;fer deZpkjh dh HkkWafr fujUrj lqcg nl cts ls lka; 5 cts rd dk;Z fd;kA
3-
vkxs dFku gS fd izkFkhZ us izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls T;knk vof/k ds fy;s fu;fer :i ls dk;Z
fd;k ftldk Hkqxrku Hkh izkFkhZ dks fd;k x;k rFkk Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr leLr fjdkMZ okmpj vkfn foi{kh dh
iksVyk 'kk[kk esa ekStwn gSA Qjojh 2009 ds ckn foi{kh us ekSf[kd vkns'k ls izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa lekIr dj nh ftlds
lEcU/k esa dksbZ fyf[kr vkns'k ugha fn;k vkSj u gh izkFkhZ dks okil dk;Z ij j[kkA foi{kh us lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ
izkFkhZ dks u rks dksbZ uksfVl nh] u gh uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru fn;k vkSj u gh NaVuh eqvkotk dk
Hkqxrku fd;kA
4-
;kph dk vkxs dFku gS fd ;kph dh txg mls gVkus ds ckn foi{kh us nwljs O;fDr dks j[k fy;k rFkk
izkFkhZ dks lsok esa vkus dk dksbZ volj ugha fn;k] bl izdkj izkFkhZ ds fo:) foi{kh dk d`R; vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ,oa 25 ,p dk mYya?ku gS ,oa fof/k fo:) gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ lsok
eqfDr ds ckn ls vc rd csjkstxkj gS] vr% ;kph us izkFkZuk dh gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr vkns'k fnuakd 1-3-2009 dks
fujLr dj mls leLr foxr osru ykHk lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k fn;k tk;A
5-
foi{k dh rjQ ls ;kfpdk ds tokc esa ;kfpdk ds izLrj ,d yxk;r 10 ds dFku dks xyr crkrs gq,
vLohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr dFku esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;kph fn cSad vkWQ bfUM;k] jktLFkku fy- dh
iksVyk 'kk[kk esa va'kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa cSad ds izcU/kd }kjk cSad esa lQkbZ dk;Z gsrq j[kk x;k Fkk
ftls 50 :i;k nSfud etnwjh nh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZ dh fn cSad vkWQ jktLFkku fy- }kjk dHkh Hkh nQ~rjh ds in ij
fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h Fkh vkSj u gh foi{kh vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad esa mlus nQ~rjh ds in ij dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ
ftl fnu lQkbZ dk;Z djrk Fkk dsoy ml fnu ds fy, mls 50 :i;k nSfud dh nj ls etnwjh nh tkrh Fkh
rFkk izcU/kd us mls O;fDrxr rkSj ij j[kk FkkA izkFkhZ dh dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h Fkh u fu;qfDr dh dksbZ
izfdz;k viuk;h x;h FkhA 'kk[kk izcU/kd dks fdlh izdkj dh fu;qfDr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ;kph
1-11-2008 ds ckn dHkh Hkh iksVyk 'kk[kk esa lQkbZ dk;Z gsrq ugh vk;k vkSj u gh mls 1-11-2008 ds ckn ds le;
gsrq dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ch ds vuq:i ;kph us fdlh dys.Mj o"kZ
esa 240 fnu dh vof/k rd fu;fer dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA va'kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh gksus ds dkj.k mldk
dk;Zdky izR;sd fnu dh dk;Z lekfIr ij lekIr gks tkrk Fkk ,oa ml ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku
ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA ;kph us dsoy 18-8-2007 ls 1-11-2008 ds e/; dsoy dHkh&dHkkj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk dHkh Hkh
yxkrkj 240 fnu rd fdlh dys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks Qjojh 2009 esa dk;Z ls gVkus dk iz'u
ugha mBrk gS D;ksafd mlus 1-11-2008 ds ckn dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;kA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
585
6-
vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd mls cSad ds fdlh vf/kdkjh ls fyf[kr :i esa
lsokeqfDr vkns'k nsus ds fy, dgk gksA izkFkhZ us 1-11-2008 ds yxHkx nks lky ckn Je le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k
viuk fookn mBk;k ftlls Lor% ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr dk vf/kdkj gksrk rks og rqjUr fookn
mBk;k gksrk ,oa mDr vof/k esa og le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k fookn ugha mBk;k D;ksafd og vU;= dk;Zjr FkkA
izkFkhZ cSad dks ijs'kku djus ds fy, fookn mBk;k gS rFkk ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS tks [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSaA foIk{kh
cSad }kjk /kkjk 25 ,p dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk fdlh O;fDr dks nQ~rjh ds in ij fu;ksftr ugha
fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us foIk{kh ls vuko';d /ku mxkgus ds mn~ns'; ls ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS tks pyus ;ksX;
ugha gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkjfEHkd vkifRr ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha gS ,oa [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA
7-
izkjfEHkd vkifRr esa dgk x;k gS fd vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dks dHkh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ¼ch-ch-½ ds izkfo/kku ;kph ds ekeys esa ykxw gksus ds dkj.k ;kph
fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj ugha gS rFkk ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k dks fjQjsUl dh lquokbZ ds
vf/kdkj ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h blfy, U;k;kf/kdj.k vius vkns'k ls ;kph dks
fu;kstu eas fu;fer ugha dj ldrh gSA
8-
izkFkhZ us foi{k ds tokc ds fo:) fnukad 13-2-14 dks fjTok;UMj izLrqr dj tokc ds dFku dks vLohdkj
fd;k gS ,oa xyr dgk gS rFkk ;kfpdk ds dFku dk leFkZu fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mls jkst Hkqxrku ugha
fd;k tkrk Fkk cfYd ekg ds vUr esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd foi{k dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd
1-11-2008 ds ckn ;kph us dk;Z ugha fd;k gS rFkk dk;Z ij ugha vk;kA
9-
i=koyh ij fdlh Hkh i{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tcfd nLrkosth lk{;
izLrqr djus ds fy, fnuakd 12-12-12 ls 28-11-16 rd volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA
10-
izkFkhZ }kjk ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ 'kiFk&i= Hkh lk{; esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlds fy,
U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk 7-12-16 ls 10-10-17 rd volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA vUr esa fnukad 10-10-17 dks ;kph ds
lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k gSA foi{k dks lk{; dk volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k
us c;ku fd;k fd ;kph ds lk{; ds vHkko esa foi{k dks lk{; izLrqr djus dh vko';drk ugha gS] vr% foi{k dk
lk{; lekIr fd;k x;kA
11-
eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA
12-
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;kph i{k us fu;qfDr i= vFkok osru Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; ugha
izLrqr fd;k gSA ;kph i{k us ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ 'kiFk&i= Hkh ugha izLrqr fd;k gS u ;kph dh foIk{k }kjk
dksbZ izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ;kph }kjk izLrqr fdlh lk{; ds vHkko esa eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwa
fd ;kph ;g rF; fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd fnuakd 01-3-2009 ls vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fyfeVsM ds izcU/ku
}kjk ;kph Jh lqjs'k pUnz lsu iq= Jh cnzhpUn dh lsok,a lekIr djuk vuqfpr ,oa fof/k fo:) gSA rn~uqlkj ;kph
fdlh ;kfpr vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpr vuqrks"k gsrq izLrqr ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh
gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-124-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2018.
[No. L-12025/01/2018-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 13th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 28/2010
Between:
Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy,
S/o K. Venkata Reddy,
7th Ward, Sriramnagar,
Giddalur.
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager (Personnel),
State Bank of India, L.H.O.,
Bank Street,
Hyderabad.
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. S. Prasada Rao, K. Satyamurthy, A.P. Manoranjan,
K. Bharathi & R. S. Swamy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates
AWARD
Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, the Petitioner who worked as Messenger in the Respondent bank has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India seeking for
declaring the action of the Respondents in terminating the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.1997 as illegal, arbitrary
and consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full
back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The Petitioner workman has filed his claim petition and Respondent also filed their respective counter
statement.
3.
The case stands posted for hearing and recording of the Petitioner’s evidence.
4.
Inspite of availing several opportunities to adduce evidence, the Petitioner workman remained absent and there
is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has
already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner workman has got no claim to raise.
Thus, ‘No dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 13th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
587
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-125-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 4@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 4/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 19th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 4/2011
Between:
Sri Karedla Srinivas,
S/o Mallaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area, Bellampalli,
Adilabad District.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Goleti No. I Incline, Bellampalli,
Adilabad District.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Karedla Srinivas who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
seeking to declare proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/1664 dated 12.5.2008 issued by 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary
and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting
all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such
other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was initially joined the services of the Respondents’ company on 2.5.2006. The Petitioner used to be
regular to his duties. Ssubsequently the Petitioner suffered ill-health and other family problems due to which he
remained absent during the year 2007. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 9.2.2008 was issued to the
Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2007, which amounts to
misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time
of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances.
Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings
of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. BPA/PER/129/1664 dated 12.5.2008.
It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his
duties regularly during the year 2007, as it was only on account of his family problems and ill-health. But without
considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the
Respondents’ management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the
principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered one year of continuous service in the Respondents’
management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management
did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned
order No. BPA/PER/129/1664 dated 12.5.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the
same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant
benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was
appointed in the Respondents’ company on 24.1.2006 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved
charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given
full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the
principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry
report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to
make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is
proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has
gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take
a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in
fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to
him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is
justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the domestic enquiry conducted
in this case as valid, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case was held valid and legal vide order dated 16.11.2016.
5.
I have already heard both the parties under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Karedla Srinivas is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.
He was getting treatment in company’s area hospital. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above
facts but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment
of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness,
and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should
have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the
submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment
are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
589
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondents company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his
illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, and has remained absent in
his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the
charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of
service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already
realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 28 years, he is now aged about 34 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and
energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward at the age of 34 years to work under the
Respondent. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in order
to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders.
The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about one year under the Respondent. While imposing capital
punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family
members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it
can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to
Sri Karedla Srinivas is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Karedla Srinivas is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a
chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/1664 dated 12.5.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent is declared as illegal and is
hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Karedla Srinivas be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,
Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the
company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also
directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall
have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management
shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of
attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be
cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of
attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year successfully he will be allowed to
continue in service till the date of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on
account of Mine accidents/Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other
usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc. to
the workman for appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 19th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 9@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 9/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 13th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 9/2007
Between:
Sri Siddani Mallesh,
S/o Laxmaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No. G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK-1A Incline, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
…Respondents
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
591
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Siddani Mallesh who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. P/RKP/16/99/116 dt.1.1.2000 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal,
arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly
granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc.,
and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Filler in the year 1986 and later he was promoted as Coal Filler,
and was regular to his duties till the year 1997. During which time the Petitioner’s father expired in the year 1998 and
subsequently his son fell sick and expired. Due to these fatal incidents the Petitioner got depressed and was irregular to
his duties during the year 1998. While the matters stood thus, one charge sheet dated 10.2.1999 was issued to the
Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 1998 which amounts to
misconduct under company’s Standing Order No. 25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the
time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances.
Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings
of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. P/RKP/16/99/116 dt. 1.1.2000. It is
stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his
duties regularly during the above said period as it was only on account of his ill-health, death of his father and son, and
other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It
is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 12 years of continuous service in the
Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the
management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare
the impugned order No. P/RKP/16/99/116 dt. 1.1.2000 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set
aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other
attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was
appointed in the Respondents’ company on 6.2.1986 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges
of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The
Petitioner has attended the dates for the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair
and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the
principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry
report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show-cause notice giving him an opportunity to
make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is
proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has
gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take
a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in
fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to
him, and after receiving the show-cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is
justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, conceding the validity of the domestic enquiry
conducted by the Respondents, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is held as legal and valid vide order dated
2.2.2009.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec. 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
support of their claim.
592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Siddani Mallesh is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No. I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to illness, his father and son’s death and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to
attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been
considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from
service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his father and son’s death and
other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have
considered his case while imposing the punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the
Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the
company’s Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his
illness, the death of his father, son and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his
duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism
followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital
punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square
meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of
45 years, he is now aged about 55 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family
members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming
forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service.
Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first
offender and has worked for 12 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the
management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment
imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action
taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Siddani Mallesh is not legal and
justified.
Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No. I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Siddani Mallesh is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a
chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. P/RKP/16/99/116 dt.1.1.2000 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set
aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Siddani Mallesh be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in
Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company
Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to
take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman
shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the
management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
593
fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he
will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall
of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry and in case the workman completes the one year probation period successfully he will continue in service
till the age of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine
accidents/Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and
conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for
appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 13th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 9@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 9/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 20th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 9/2011
Between:
Sri Racharla Thirupathi,
S/o Rajam,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No. G7,
594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
2.
The Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RK-1A Incline, Mandamarri,
Adilabad District.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Racharla Thirupathi who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., seeking to declare proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/08/5356 dated 9.10.2008 issued by
1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the
Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all
other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was initially joined the services of the Respondent company in the year 2006. The Petitioner
used to be regular to his duties. The Petitioner’s mother suffered ill-health during the year 2007, for which the
Petitioner had to look after his ailing mother and to accompany his mother to the hospital. The Petitioner submits that
due to his mother’s ailments he also suffered ill-health and other family problems due to which he remained absent
during the year 2007. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 9.1.2008 was issued to the Petitioner by the
Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2007, which amounts to misconduct under
company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry,
the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such
lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry
Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/08/5356 dated 9.10.2008. It is
stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his
duties regularly during the year 2007, as it was only on account of his family problems and ill-health as well as the ill-
health of his mother. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is
also stated that the action of the Respondents’ management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered one year continuous service in the
Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the
management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare
the impugned order No. MMR/PER/D/072/08/5356 dated 9.10.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent is illegal and
arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service
duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner
was appointed in the Respondents’ company on 24.1.2006 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved
charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice.
The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given
full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the
principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry
report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show-cause notice giving him an opportunity to
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
595
make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is
proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has
gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take
a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in
fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to
him, and after receiving the show-cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is
justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the domestic enquiry conducted
in this case as valid, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case was held valid and legal vide order dated 23.1.2017.
5.
I have already heard both the parties under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Racharla Thirupathi is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to his illness as well as his mother’s illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be
able to attend his duty sincerely. He was getting treatment in company’s area hospital. Even in his show-cause the
Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account
of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has
taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and
remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority
has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner
when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondents’company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his
illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, and has remained absent in
his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the
charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of
service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already
realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 28 years, he is now aged about 34 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and
energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to the court at the age of 34 years to work under
the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in
order to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing
Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about one year under the Respondent. While imposing
capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his
family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh.
Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal
from service to Sri Racharla Thirupathi is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri Racharla Thirupathi is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a
chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
Proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/08/5356 dated 9.10.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent is declared as illegal
and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Racharla Thirupathi be taken into service as a fresh
employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical
fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The
management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman
shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the
management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short
fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will
be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of
attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year successfully he will be allowed to
continue in service till the date of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on
account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual
terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the
workman for appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 20th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 94@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018
S.O.128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 94/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
597
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 14th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 94/2009
Between:
Sri Ramchetti Srinivas,
S/o Rajamouli,
R/o 17-3-261/1, Dwarakanagar,
Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar District
…Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Goleti-I incline, Bellampally,
Adilabad
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. P. Sudha & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate
AWARD
Sri K. Narsinga Rao who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
seeking to declare the proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/1614 dated 06/09.05.2008 issued by Respondent as illegal,
arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly
granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc.,
and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner was initially joined the services of the Respondent company on 17.10.2005. The Petitioner was
regular to his duties till his dismissal from service dated 6.5.2008. The Petitioner submits that due to difference in his
marital life and divorce from his wife, he was mentally upset and remained absent from his duties for few days which
he used to inform the concerned officials from time to time. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 6.2.2008
was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2007,
which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted
and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth
his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the
erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No.
BPA/PER/129/1614 dated 06/09.05.2008. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has
categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2007, as it was only on account
of his family problems and ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed
from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is
wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 3 years of continuous
service in the Respondent’s management.The Petitioner approached the Respondent to consider his case
sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach
this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. BPA/PER/129/1614 dated 06/09.05.2008 issued by the Respondent is
illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into
service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner
was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 17.10.2005 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on
598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural
justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was
given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely
following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer,
the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the
enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an
opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the
Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary
Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating
circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service.
It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing
charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the
Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.
In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner is conceding to the validity
of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, and as such, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case was
held valid and legal vide order dated 16.1.2014.
5.
I have already heard both the parties under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to Sri K. Narsinga Rao is legal and justified?
II.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. He was
getting treatment in company’s area hospital. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but
it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of
dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and
other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should
have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the
submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of
punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that when the
Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed
by the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to
maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.
9.
Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his
illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, and has remained absent in
his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the
charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of
service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already
realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 25 years, he is now aged about 33 years and is
searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and
energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward at the age of 33 years to work under the
Respondent. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in order
to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders.
The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about three years under the Respondent. While imposing capital
punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family
members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it
can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to
Sri K. Narsinga Rao is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service
to Sri K. Narsinga Rao is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has
already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
599
a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the
sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances
atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s
management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the
opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only
entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
Proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/1614 dated 06/09.05.2008 issued by the Respondent is declared as illegal and is
hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri K. Narsinga Rao be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,
Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the
company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also
directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.
The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman
shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the
management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short
fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will
be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of
attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice
and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year successfully he will be allowed to
continue in service till the date of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on
account of Mine accidents/Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other
usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to
the workman for appointment afresh.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 14th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-129-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izca/
funs'kd] vkbZ-ts-,e- (bafM;k) baizQkLVªDpj fyfeVsM] xqaVwj ftyk vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
,ylh 26@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@04@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC 26/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Managing Director, I.J.M. (India) Infrastructure Ltd., Guntur District and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 06.12.2017.
[No. L-42025/04/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 10th day of October, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 26/2014
Between:
Sri Emmela Israel,
S/o Late Jaya Rao
H.No.9-313, Yuvajana nagar,
Pedakakani, Pedakakani Mandal,
Guntur District – 522509
…Petitioner
AND
The Managing Director,
I.J.M. (India) Infrastructure Ltd.,
Rain Tree Park, Dwaraka Krishna Villa
Type-A No.82, Opp. Nagarjuna University,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Pedakakani Mandal,
Guntur District – 522508
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
Sri Abid Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Legal Representative
AWARD
Sri Emmela Isreal, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
against the respondent I.J.M(India) Infrastructure Ltd., and it was registered in this Tribunal as LC No. 26/2014 and
notices were issued to the Respondents.
2.
The Petitioner filed claim statement stating that Respondent has illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 7.4.2013
without assigning any reason and without any prior notice. Further, the Petitioner prayed to direct the Respondent to
reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, full back wages with all attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner himself was
absent from duties and remained absent for duty after repeated notices. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected.
4.
The case posted for Petitioner’s evidence. But, on that date the Petitioner and his counsel were absent, inspite of
repeated calls. Since 18.8.2016, the Petitioner is found absent. Non-appearance of the Petitioner on the date of hearing
of the case clearly indicates that perhaps the matter has been settled between the parties and the Petitioner has no claim
to raise. Hence, the case of the Petitioner is closed in absence of his evidence and ‘No Dispute’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 10th day of October,
2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
601
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner/Workman
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-130-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@219@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 110/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/219/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 12th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2015
Between :
Smt. K. Kavitha,
W/o Kishan Naik,
R/o F.No.54, Adarsh Nagar,
Kapra, Secunderabad – 500 062
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Hyderabad – 500 062
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
Representative
For the Respondent
:
Representative
602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/219/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015
referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of
the workman Smt. K. Kavita W/o Kishan Naik, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID
Act 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 110/2015 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 behalf
of the workman. Non- appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute
with the Respondent and there is 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 12th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-131-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd] iwohZ
{ks=k ds fy, ty izkS|ksfxdh dsaæ (vkbZlh,vkj)] Hkqous'oj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
341@2001] 342@2001] 343@2001] 344@2001] 346@2001] 347@2001] 348@2001] 349@2001 vkSj 350@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@180@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42012@181@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@74@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@79@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@75@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@76@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@77@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@78@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@80@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
603
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 341/2001, 342/2001, 343/2001, 344/2001, 346/2001, 347/2001,
348/2001, 349/2001 & 350/2001) 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 Director, Water Technology
Centre for Eastern Region (ICAR), Bhubaneswar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18.12.2017.
[No. L-42012/180/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42012/181/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/74/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/79/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/75/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/76/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/77/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/78/99-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/80/99-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B.C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 341/2001
Date of Passing Award – 30th November, 2017
Between :
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Pradipta Kumar Mantry,
S/o. Shri Baishnab Ch. Mantry,
At. Bharigola, Po. Kusunpur,
Karur
…2nd Party-Workman
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 342/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Ganga Dhar Panda,
S/o. Shri Bansidhar Panda,
At. Bidyadharpur Po. Naya Bazar,
Dist. Cuttack
…2nd Party-Workman
604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 343/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Harihar Kalia & 3 others,
S/o. Sh. Bhaskar Kalia, At. Giringaput,
Po. Mendhasal, Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 344/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Narayan Behera & 4 others,
S/o. Shri Raj Kishore Behera,
At. Haridamala, Po. Mendhasal,
Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 346/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri P.K. Behera & 5 others,
S/o. Shri Gauranga Behera,
At. Giringaput, Po. Mendhasal,
Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 347/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri L.D. Behera & 5 others,
S/o. Shri Karitik Behera,
At. Haradimada, Po. Mendhasal,
Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
605
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 348/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Bishnu Charan Das & 7 others,
S/o. Shri Ghanashyam Das,
Po. Turintira,
Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 349/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Satya Sundar Samant & 6 Others,
S/o. Shri Sudarsan Samant, At. Haridamoda,
Po. Mendhasal, Dist. Khordha – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 350/2001
Between:
The Director, Water Technology Centre
for Eastern Region, (ICAR),
At./Po. Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Ajaya Kumar Behera & 6 others,
S/o. Shri Braja Mohan Behera,
Po. Kishore Nagar,
Dist. Khurda – 751 016
…2nd Party-Workmen
Appearances:
Shri Subrat Mishra, Advocate
…
For the 1st Party-Management
M/s. Amar Sahoo , Advocate
…
For the 2nd Party-Workmen
AWARD
The I.D. Cases bearing No. 341/2001, 342/2001, 343/2001, 344/2001, 346/2001, 347/2001, 348/2001, 349/2001
& 350/2001 are disposed of by this common award since cause of action giving scope to raise the industrial disputes,
pleadings advanced by the parties to the references in their claim statements and written statements and the reliefs
sought there-under as well as the schedule of references except the name of the disputants mentioned in the said
schedule are identical and common and all the references are against one and the same Management i.e. Water
Technology Centre for Eastern Reason, Bhubaneswar.
2.
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercising its authority conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein-after referred to as “the Act”) have
referred the disputes between the management of WTCER and the disputants namely S/Sh. Pradipta Kumar Mantry,
Gangadhar Panda, Harihar Kalia, Benudhar Nayak, Ramakanta Samal, Gumi Dei, Narayan Behera, Kusa Sethi,
Bansidhar Behera, Dhuleswar Jena Mihir Das, Pramod Kumar Behera, Niranjan Das, Nitima Lagia, Manulu Harsa,
Muralidhar Das, Muralidhar Jena, Laxmidhar Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Kedar Behera, Arat
606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sing, Bijaya Kumar Behera, Habib Khan, Nabakishore Pradhan, Bharat Singh, Bishnu Charan Das, Dilip Kumar
Pradhan, Nimai Charan Mall, Biswambar Jena, Ashok kumar Pradhan, Jagannath Das, Debraj Behera, Sukadev Samal,
Satya Sundar Samant, Saraswati Dei, Aditya Kumar Nayak, Ajaya Kumar Samal, Duburi Harsa, Taraisean Mangaraj,
Prasanta Kumar Behera, Ajaya Kumar Behera, Ashok Chandra Rout, Sukanta Jena, Ramesh Biswal, Salila Kumar
Behera, Prafulla Kumar Bardhan and Arun Kumar Barasl for its adjudication vide its letter No. L-42012/180/
99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000, L-42012/181/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000, L-42011/74/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000,
L-42011/79/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000 L-42011/75/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000, L-42011/76/99/IR(DU), dated
02.03.2000, L-42011/77/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000, L-42011/78/99/IR(DU), dated 02.03.2000, L-42011/80/99/IR
(DU), dated 02.03.2000 and the schedule of references in the common terms is “Whether the action of the Management
of WTCER, Bhubaneswar by changing the employment of the disputants as so-called contract labourers and afterwards
terminating their services is justified? Whether the action of the Management of WTCER by not reinstating or by not
giving temporary status to the disputants is legal and justified? If not to what relief the disputants are entitled to?”
3.
In the claim statements filed in the above reference cases the disputant-workmen have claimed that they were
employed/engaged by the 1st Party-Management in between the year 1989 to 1990 to do field work in Deras firm of
Mendhasala managed by the 1st Party. Initially their service was directly under the control and supervision of the
Management and they were also receiving their wages directly from the 1st Party-Management. The 1st Party did not
provide them any appointment letter and wage slips and their employment was on oral and verbal basis. According to
them they worked for more than 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly as casual labourers directly under the 1st
Party till a dubious method was adopted by the 1st Party by changing their engagement/employment through the
contractors with effect from 16.12.1990. It is the claim of the disputant workmen that such change in their service
condition was made without any prior notice to them and in violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act. Such
change of method of their engagement was only in paper transactions and it was sham and camouflage to avoid the
liabilities of extending temporary status to them. Their such employment and payment of wages are reflected in the
muster rolls maintained by the Management. Inspite of such change in the method of their engagement they continued
to work directly under the control and supervision of the officers of the 1st Party-Management. They were paid wages
in the same rate in which they were paid previously by the 1st Party. They were shown to have received wages from the
contractors only in paper transaction though payment was made to them directly by the officers of the Management.
When they raised objection to such change of their service condition, they were refused engagement with effect from
24.12.1994. Hence, they and some others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A. No. 51/1995
challenging the above whimsical action of the Management and prayed for regularization of their services for
conferment of temporary status as per the Scheme notified by the Central Government as well as for regularization of
their services. It has been further asserted by the disputants that in the said case they took a stand that their engagement
as contract labour was sham and camouflage in violation of contract labour Act and provisions of the I.D. Act for
which the Hon’ble CAT while dismissing their application directed them to raise an industrial dispute under the
provisions of the I.D. Act. Accordingly they have raised the present disputes.
4.
The 1st Party-Management in its written statements have taken a stand that it being a research oriented
institution is not an “Industry” as defined under the I.D. Act and as such the provisions of the I.D. Act is not applicable
to it. The disputants were never engaged or employed by it directly in view of circulars of the Central Government
issued from time to time more particularly after 16.12.1990. The institution being a research oriented centre in the field
of agriculture needs to do some seasonal works in its firm and as such contractors are entrusted on different occasions
to provide labourers intermittently to perform the seasonal nature of work in the field (as per the instruction of the
Council as per its letter No. 24(6)/88-CDM, dated 19.9.1990). The disputants might have been engaged intermittently
through the contractors as and when required. Hence, question does not arise on the part of the Management to
employ or engage them directly on daily rated/temporary casual labourer basis and there was no scope for the
Management to take continuous and uninterrupted service of the disputants and to take their attendance by taking their
signatures in any muster rolls or registers. When there was no appointment of the disputant workmen by the
Management, there was also no occasion on its part to terminate/retrench/disengage them. The scheme of 1/30th pay
implemented by the Central Government is not applicable to them. The seasonal work for which labourers are being
engaged through contractors is not also a permanent and perennial in nature job. As there was no “employer and
employee” relationship between it and the contract workers, the disputants are not entitled to any reliefs to which they
are claiming.
5.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties and same set of issues mentioned below are settled in all the reference
cases for just and proper adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the Management is an Industry as defined under section 2(j) of the I.D. Act?
2.
Whether the claimant is a workman?
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
607
3.
Whether the action of the Management of WTCER by changing the employment of the disputants as so
called contract labour is justified?
4.
Whether the termination of service of the disputants is legal and justified?
5.
Whether the action of the Management by not resisting or by not giving temporary status to the disputant
is legal and justified?
6.
To what relief the disputants are entitled?
6.
In order to substantiate their respective claims, the parties have examined one witnesses each separately in each
references and filed certain letters/documents like copy of the letter of the management dated 21.4.1990 relating to
intimation for the date of interview, copy of the office memorandum dated 8.2.1993 relating to the guidelines of 1/30
scheme, copy of the letter dated 10.9.1993 of the DoPT regarding grant of temporary status and regularization of casual
workers, copy of the extract of the order passed by the C.A.T. in O.A. 51/1995, copies of experience certificates which
are exhibited on behalf of the 2nd party-workman. On the other hand the Management has relied upon the same set of
documents in each cases like the copies of acquaintance/attendance rolls and a letter dated 19.9.1990 issued by the
ICAR, copies of agreements entered between the Management and the labour contractors and certain other documents.
7.
It is pertinent to mention here that maintainability of the reference was heard as a preliminary issue pursuant to
the direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 7080/2003. On that occasion main thrust was given by
the Management that the institution is not an “industry” as defined under the I.D. Act and as such the reference was not
maintainable. This Tribunal vide its order dated 29.7.2005 has answered the issue affirmatively in favour of the
disputant holding that the establishment of the management is an “industry” as defined under section 2(j) of the I.D.
Act in view of the principles and guidelines set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board –versus- A. Rajjapa. The said order was challenged by the 1st Party-Management before the
Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No. 11451/2005 and the Writ application was dismissed on merit vide order dated
19.10.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court. As such there is no need to give any findings afresh on the issue of
maintainability of the reference as well as the issue whether the WTCER is an “Industry” as defined under the Act.
8.
Coming to other issues, which are taken for consideration simultaneously for the sake of convenience, it is seen
that the disputants have claimed that they were directly engaged or employed by the Management in the field work and
they were receiving their wages directly from the Management of WTCER. But the Management changed their mode
of appointments and payment of their wages through contractors with effect from 16.12.1990 without giving them any
prior notice. Such change in nature of service being unfair labour practice is illegal and unjustified. It has been further
alleged that their engagement was terminated by the Management with effect from 24.12.1994 without due compliance
of the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including in the
case between The Range Forest Officer –Versus- S.T. Hadimani in Civil Appeal No. 1283/2002 (AIR 2002 SC 1147)
that when the disputant workman claims to have been engaged by the Management and he worked for more than 240
days continuously in a calendar year and his service was terminated or he was retrenched in violation of the provisions
of the I.D. Act and it is denied by the Employer/Management, the initial burden lies on the claimant disputant workman
to lead evidence to show that he was infact engaged/employed by the Management and he worked for more than 240
days continuously and uninterruptedly in the year preceding to his alleged termination/retrenchment. Filing of an
affidavit in this regard is not sufficient and the same cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or
Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the workman was infact engaged and worked for the Management for 240 days
in a year. When the pleadings and evidence of the disputant workmen is closely scrutinized keeping in view the above
settled principle, it is seen that not a single scrap of paper towards engagement/employment of any of the disputants
other than their own assertions in form of sworn affidavit is available on the record to arrive in a conclusion that the
disputants or any of them were, in fact, engaged either temporarily/casually or on a daily rated worker in any point of
time and they worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding to their said retrenchment either from the date of their
mode of engagement was allegedly changed i.e. 21.4.1990 or from the date on which they were allegedly wrongfully
disengaged i.e. 24.12.1994. In support of their engagement directly by the Management the disputants have filed some
photo-copies of letters purportedly issued to some of the disputant workmen for attending an interview to be held for
appointment of the posts of Firm/Field Technician and Laboratory Attendant. The said exhibits/documents do not
suggest that any of the disputant workmen was selected in such interview and given appointment/engagement to work
either as a daily rated or casual/temporary worker to discharge such duty of Field Technician or Laboratory Attendant.
Similarly some photocopies of the documents of experience certificates have been pressed into evidence to show the
engagement of the disputant workmen in the Management. Close examination of such photo-copies reveals that such
experience certificates do not disclose that the disputants were engaged directly or indirectly by the Management for
doing any work for the institution. That apart, some of such certificates are related to the period of two/three months
and contents thereof do not disclose that they were appointed or engaged by the Management to work as a
608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
casual/temporary or daily wager to do the field work for the Management. But, on such circumstances and evidence the
claim of the disputants cannot be out-rightly discarded when there is no specific and clear cut denial by the
Management on the engagement of the disputants as daily casual labourers prior to 21.04.1990. Further, it cannot be
over-looked that a daily casual labourers are usually engaged on verbal direction and no appointment letter or any other
document other than vouchers showing payment of wages to such casual labourers are usually issued/prepared for such
engagement of casual labourers. Those vouchers are in possession of the employers and the daily rated workmen are
not expected to produce the same to prove their engagement.
9.
On the other hand, it is emerging from the evidence of the Management witness, who is a Senior Scientist &
Head of Office and the photo copies of attendance registers and muster rolls maintained during the period 1989-90,
which are pressed into evidence by the Management that there is no serious dispute that prior to 21.4.1990 assistance of
daily/casual labourers were taken by the Management for doing seasonal works in the firm of the Management and
those labourers were receiving wages directly from the Management. Further, on a close examination of the sworn
affidavits of the Management witness filed in the different reference cases, it is found that the disputants were engaged
as labourers on daily wage basis. The statistics given in tabular form in those sworn affidavits further reveal that there
are two categories of casual labourers. Some of them are stated to have worked for more than 240 days in a year
preceding to adoption of contract labour system whereas others are found to have worked for a small period or much
less than 240 days in a year. The disputants namely Gangadhar Panda, Harihar Kalia, Narayan Behera, Kusa Sethi,
Pramod Kumar Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Kedar Behera, Arat Singh, Sukadev Samal, Satya
Sundar Samant, Saraswati Dei, Ajay Kumar Behera, Ashok Kumar Rout and Salila Kumar Behera worked for a period
of 329, 323, 479, 423, 291, 262, 332, 430, 380, 407, 299, 348, 488, 393 and 267 days respectively in between the date
of their initial engagement in the year 1988-89 and the date on which contract labour system is allegedly adopted i.e.
21.04.1990. If their such period of employments are taken into consideration vis-a-vis the initial dates on which they
were engaged as daily casual labourers, it is emerging that they had worked for a period of more than 240 days in a
year prior to 21.4.1990. Other disputants are found to have been engaged for a small period which is much less than
240 days in a year.
10.
It is not in dispute that the Central Government in the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension (DoPT) had issued
an Office Memorandum the copy of which has been marked as Ext.-2 and as per the said memorandum a scheme was
adopted for conferment of temporary status to the casual employees or persons engaged on daily wage basis for a
continuous and uninterrupted period of more than 240 days in a year preceding to such issuance of the memorandum.
The scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993 and clause-4(1) of the scheme temporary status would be conferred on all
casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this office memorandum and who have rendered a
continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days
in the offices observing six days week. Further, the scheme was applicable only to all Central Government offices other
than Department of Telecommunication, Posts and Railways. It is the contention of the disputants that having worked
for more than 240 days in a calendar year as a daily rated casual worker prior to their disengagement on 24.12.1994
they were automatically entitled to such conferment of temporary status with effect from 10.09.1993 and as such their
alleged disengagement with effect from 24.12.1994 without any reason and initiation of any departmental action is
illegal and nullity in the eye of law.
11.
As per the schedule and terms of the reference this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the disputes (i) whether the
action of the Management in changing the mode/method of engagement of the disputants by adopting contract labour
system with effect from 21.04.1990 can be legal and justified, (ii) whether the action of the Management in terminating
the services or retrenching the disputants after accepting the disputants as contract labourers was a violation of the
provisions of the I.D. Act for which they are to be reinstated either with or without back wages and other service
benefits and whether the disputants are entitled for conferment of temporary status as per the scheme adopted by the
Central Government of India vide its Office Memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10th September, 1993.
12.
Coming to the first point of dispute it is the stand of the disputant-workmen that they were engaged directly and
they worked under direct control and supervision of the Management till they were disengaged. It is contended that,
the pleadings and evidence advanced by the Management to show their engagement through contractor with effect from
21.4.1990 is sham and camouflage as provisions of Section 7 and 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act
were not complied by the Management. It is also argued that before adoption of alleged contract labour system the
Management failed to comply the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act as no notice was issued to any of them for such
change of nature of service and as such their alleged engagement through contractors with effect from 21.4.1990 till
their disengagement was also unfair labour practice. The Management having failed to comply the provisions of the
Contract Labour Act, the adoption of contract labour system with effect from 21.04.1990 is to be sham and camouflage.
Besides, it is their claim that no tender was floated for such engagement of contract labourers and some of the
disputants were shown as contractors in paper transactions only. Therefore, the disputants should be presumed to have
been working directly under the supervision and control of the Management. Though such contention has been
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
609
advanced by the disputants, admittedly no pleadings or evidence has been advanced on behalf of the disputants to
establish that any notification was issued by the appropriate authority/Advisory Board prohibiting the engagement of
contact labourers in the establishment of the Management for which the Management was required to comply with the
requirements as contemplated under Section 7 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act.
Furthermore, as per the settled principles violation of the provisions of the Section-7 and 12 of the said Act if any, by
the Management cannot lead to a conclusion that the disputants were direct workmen of the Management. It cannot be
over-sighted that the disputants were engaged on daily rated casual labourers and they were not given appointment
against any sanctioned posts either temporarily or on casual daily wages basis. It is not in dispute that the Management
is required to take assistance of labourers for doing agriculture activities in its firm and judicial notice can be taken that
such agriculture activities are always seasonal and requirement of casual/daily labourers must be varying from time to
time or season to season depending upon the nature of crop/agriculture activities taken up in the firm. Therefore, the
Management is not required to engage same number of daily wagers/labourers in its firm. Services of certain number of
daily casual labourers through-out the year must be necessary to look after the agricultural activities in the firm and
therefore, it can be safely presumed that the disputants namely Gangadhar Panda, Harihar Kalia, Narayan Behera, Kusa
Sethi, Pramod Kumar Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Kedar Behera, Arat Singh, Sukadev Samal,
Satya Sundar Samant, Saraswati Dei, Ajay Kumar Behera, Ashok Kumar Rout and Salila Kumar Behera who worked
for more than 240 days in a year were rendering services to the Management as a casual labourers through-out the year
and they stands in a different footing than the disputants having worked for a lesser period than 240 days. In case of
those disputants no compliance as required under section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H are required to be made. Their services
being intermittent and on need basis and less than 240 days in a year and more particularly on the daily wage basis,
they are not required to be issued with any notice for change of method of their engagement as contemplated under
section 9-A of the I.D. Act. Hence, the action of the Management by changing the employment of such disputants
namely P.K. Mantry, Benudhar Nayak, Ramakanta Samal, Gumi Devi, Bansidhar Behera, Dhuleswar Jena, Mihir Das,
Niranjan Das, Nitima Lagia, Mangulu Harsa, Muralidhar Jena, Laxmidhar Behera, Bijay Kumar Behera, Habib Khan,
Naba Kishore Pradhan, Bharat Singh, Nimain Ch. Mall, Dilip Kumar Pradhan, Bishnu Charan Das, Biswambar Jena,
Ashok Kumar Pradhan, Jagannath Das, Debraj Behera, Tarinisen Mangaraj, Aditya Kumar Nayak, Dumbi Harsa,
Prasanta Kumar Behera, Sukanta Jena, Ramesh Biswal, Prafulla Kumar Bardhan & Arun Kumar Baral by adopting
contract labour system and afterwards terminating their services cannot be held illegal and unjustified in absence of the
compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Since these disputants are stated to have been contract labourers
or engaged intermittently less than 240 days in a year preceding to their alleged disengagement and they being
employed seasonally purely on temporary basis, the Management cannot be said to have committed any illegality by
not giving temporary status to such disputants as per the Central Government Scheme adopted vide Office
Memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10th September, 1993.
13.
So far the disputants namely Gangadhar Panda, Harihar Kalia, Narayan Behera, Kusa Sethi, Pramod Kumar
Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Kedar Behera, Arat Singh, Sukadev Samal, Satya Sundar Samant,
Saraswati Dei, Ajay Kumar Behera, Ashok Kumar Rout and Salila Kumar Behera who are found to have completed
more than 240 days continuous employment/engagement in a year, are concerned it is pertinent to mention here that
they are standing in different footing as their services can be terminated subject to compliance of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act otherwise the said termination would not be tenable in the eye of law. Admittedly they were
neither issued with any notice before their service was changed to contract labour system as required under section 9-A
of the I.D. Act nor they were disengaged with compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and re-
engaged through contractors by adopting contract labour system. In the case between workmen of the Food
Corporation of India and M/s. Food Corporation of India vide Civil Appeal No. 1055(NL) of 1981 the Hon’ble Apex
Court have held that once contract system abolished and workmen of contractors taken over by the Food Corporation,
any action on the part of the Management for reintroducing the contract labour system requires a prior notice under
section 9-A of the Act. Failure of compliance of the provisions of Section 9-A before introducing contract labour
system would be an illegal change and therefore, those workmen are to be treated to have been continuing as a casual
daily worker under the direct control and supervision of the Management of WTCER. Therefore, the action of the
Management by changing the employment/engagement of disputants namely Gangadhar Panda, Harihar Kalia, Narayan
Behera, Kusa Sethi, Pramod Kumar Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Kedar Behera, Arat Singh,
Sukadev Samal, Satya Sundar Samant, Saraswati Dei, Ajay Kumar Behera, Ashok Kumar Rout and Salila Kumar
Behera as contract labourers with effect from 16.12.1990 and afterwards retrenching them is totally illegal and
unjustified and such action of the Management is a contravention of the provisions of the I.D. Act.
14.
It is seen that as per a catena of decisions in recent time the Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly laid down that an
order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside, but an award of reinstatement
should not, however, be automatically passed. Such relief of reinstatement depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. A court may pass an order substitution for an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same
has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (i) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee is superannuated or
610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered
incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or (i) when he has lost confidence of the Management
to discharge duties. There may be appropriate case on facts which may be justify substituting the order of reinstatement
by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order
of reinstatement should be allowed or to be substituted by award of compensation. Keeping the above principles in
view when the pleadings and evidence of the parties are taken into consideration it can be safely concluded that the
Management being a research institute in agriculture field needs assistance of a certain number of regular casual/daily
wage labours for agriculture activities in its firm and the disputants can be reinstated and adjusted as such regular
casual/daily labourers. Furthermore, it cannot be over-sighted that Central Government formulated a scheme for the
grant of temporary status and regularization of services of the casual labourers working in the various departments
under the Government of India. The scheme came into effect from 1.9.1993. Clause-4 of the scheme stated that it
would apply to all casual labourers in the employment of the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and
their attached and subordinate offices other than Postal, Telecommunication and Railway Deptt. The scheme envisaged
conferring of temporary status on all casual labourers who had worked for at least 240 days in a year preceding to
Sept., 1993. It is already stated that the above named disputants completed 240 days of work in a year prior to
21.4.1990, when they were disengaged by the Management and method of their engagement was changed by
introducing engagement of labourers through contractors. Had they been continuing to work as casual/daily wage
labourer they would have been entitled for conferment of such temporary status under the scheme of the Central
Government. In the given situations the above named disputants should not be denied with reinstatement unless there
are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In the above
facts and circumstances reinstatement is the just and appropriate relief to which the above named disputants are entitled
to. The above disputants have not given any service to the Management during the period of their disengagement and
there is no evidence on record to establish that they were not in employment through-out the period of their
disengagement. Hence, I am not inclined to grant any relief of back wages or financial benefits usually extended to
such temporary status employees other than the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of fixation of their
wages and other future financial benefits likely to be accrued to them in the event of their reinstatement and conferment
of temporary status as per the Central Government scheme with retrospective effect. Further, each of these workmen
shall be given a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each for having fought the litigation to establish their case for the last
20 years.
15.
At the same time it cannot be over-sighted that in the meanwhile more than 20 years have been elapsed from the
date of the alleged refusal of service to the disputants and it may be expected that some of disputants might have
attained the age of superannuation or near to such age. It is also submitted during argument that one of the disputant
namely Harihara Kalia has committed suicide during pendency of the case. Having regard to the above facts and
circumstances I find it just and appropriate and for equity of justice to pass an alternative award of one time monetary
compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the disputant who are not willing to accept the relief of reinstatement.
16.
For the reasons mentioned above, the action of the Management in changing the employment of Gangadhar
Panda, Harihar Kalia, Narayan Behera, Kusa Sethi, Pramod Kumar Behera, Sarathi Paikarai, Prafulla Kumar Mishra,
Kedar Behera, Arat Singh, Sukadev Samal, Satya Sundar Samant, Saraswati Dei, Ajay Kumar Behera, Ashok Kumar
Rout and Salila Kumar Behera as contract labourers and afterwards terminating their services and refusing conferment
of temporary status to them can be safely held illegal and unjustified. Hence the above disputants are to be reinstated as
casual/daily rated workers without any back wages on the principle of “no work no pay” and their reinstatement should
be effected within two months of publication of award in the official gazette. Further, the above named disputants
being deemed to be continuing as daily wager with effect from 21.04.1990 are entitled to be conferred with temporary
status in view of the scheme adopted by the Central Government vide its Office Memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C)
dated 10th September, 1993 and therefore, the Management is to act accordingly to confer such status with retrospective
effect so as to enable the disputants to avail service and financial benefits prospectively in the event of their
reinstatement and conferment of temporary status. The above named disputants who are not willing to accept the relief
of reinstatement be paid of Rs. 1,25,000/- as a compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Besides each of the above
disputants are to be paid Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses in raising the dispute.
17.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
611
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-132-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 108@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@217@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 108/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/217/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 12th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 108/2015
Between :
Sri M. Bhikshapathi,
S/o Komaraiah,
R/o 3-10-1/232, Nehru Nagar Colony,
Block No. 3, Ashok Nagar, Mallapur,
Hyderabad – 500076
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Hyderabad – 500 062
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
Representative
For the Respondent
:
Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/217/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015
referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of
the workman Sh. M. Bhikshapathi S/o Komaraiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the
ID Act 1947 ? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to ?”
612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 108/2015 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 behalf
of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute
with the Respondent and there is 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 12th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 107@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@216@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 107/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/216/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 12th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 107/2015
Between :
Smt. Kamalamma,
W/o Ramulu,
R/o 3-10-1-210-3, Nehru Nagar Colony,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
613
Block No.3, Ashok Nagar, Mallapur,
Hyderabad – 500 076
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Hyderabad – 500 062
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/216/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015
referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of
the workman Smt. K. Kamalamma, W/o Ramulu, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the
ID Act 1947 ? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to ?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 107/2015 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 behalf
of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute
with the Respondent and there is 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 12th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-134-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 106@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@215@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 106/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/215/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 12th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 106/2015
Between :
Sri K. Sriramulu,
S/o Sattaiah,
R/o 1-107/1, Srinivas Nagar Colony,
Meddipally, Uppal Mandal,
Hyderabad – 500076
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Hyderabad – 500 062
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/215/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015
referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of
the workman Sh. K. Sriramulu, S/o K. Sattaiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID
Act 1947 ? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to ?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 106/2015 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 behalf
of the workman. Non- appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute
with the Respondent and there is 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 12th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
615
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn vkSj muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 105@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@214@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 105/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 01.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/214/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 12th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 105/2015
Between :
Sri D. Mallesh,
S/o D. Balaiah,
R/o 8-60, Ashok Nagar, Mallapur,
Nacharam, Uppal Mandal,
Hyderabad – 500076
…Petitioner
AND
The Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Hyderabad – 500 062
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Representative
616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/ 214/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015
referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of
the workman Sh. D. Mallesh, S/o D. Balaiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the
ID Act 1947 ? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to ?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 105/2015 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 behalf
of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute
with the Respondent and there is 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 12th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯izfliy]
,MoM~lZ] vk'kk Ldwy csl vLirky] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 33@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14012@15@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 33/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Principal, AWWA, Asha School Base Hospital, New Delhi and Other and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 11.12.2017.
[No. L-14012/15/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
617
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NO.2, ROOM NO. 512, DWARKA
COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR-10 DWARKA, DELHI
ID. NO. 33/2017
Ms. Reena Pathak,
R/o H, No. 56/3 , Gali No. 11,
Pratap Nagar, Mayur Vihar-I,
Delhi
…Claimant
Versus
1.
The Principal, AWWA, Asha School
Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi-110010
2.
Welfare Section , AG’s Br HQ
Delhi Area, Delhi Cantt,
Delhi-110010
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-14012/15/2017
(IR(DU)) dated 10.08.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the termination of services of workman Ms. Reena Pathak and non payment of appropriate wages who
worked as Safai Karamchari from 1.1.2006 till 31.10.2012 on renewal basis by the management of Asha School,
C/o 505 , Army Base workshop , Delhi Cantt, is legal and justified. If not, what relief is she entitled to and from
which date?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact
that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from
the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on her behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimant has neither put in her appearance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove her cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Date : November 30, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
eSllZ ikoj fxzM dkWjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
01@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@99@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018
S.O.137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2017) 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 General Manager, M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. & others and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 19.11.2017.
[No. L-42012/99/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Shri B.C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01/2017
No. L-42012/99/2016-IR(DU), dated 16.12.2016/26.12.2016
Date of Passing Order – 15th November, 2017
Between:
1.
The Assistant General Manager (HR & Admn.),
GET Power Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office,
Tecpro Towers, Plot No. 11-A 17, 5th Cross Road,
SIPCOT IT Park Siruseri, Chennai – 603 103.
2.
The General Manager,
M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
27, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
…1st Party-Managements.
(And)
Shri Jyoti Ranjan Bahali,
GET Power Ltd., EMP No. 10594,
At./Po. Irrigation Colony, Ps. Jeypore,
Dist. Koraput, Odisha – 764 004
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances :
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Managements
None
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman
ORDER
Case taken up. Parties are absent. The 2nd Party-workman has not filed any statement of claim despite notice
through regd. post. As such, it seems that the 2nd party-workman is not interested in prosecuting his case. However the
dispute cannot be adjudicated upon for want of pleadings on behalf of the parties. As such there is no alternative except
to return the reference to the Government for necessary action at its end.
2.
Accordingly the reference is returned to the Government unanswered for necessary action at its end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
619
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@139@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 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 19.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/139/2015-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. 01 of 2016
Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri S.K.Behra, Asstt.Manager
For the workman
:
Shri Akhatar Khan, Rep.
For J.C.M.U
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 21/12/2017
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/139/2015 IR-(CM-I), dated. 23/12/2015 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 East Bhagatdih Colliery under Bastacolla Area of
M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Parmeshwar Bouri , Ex- General Mazdoor, Pers. No. 01380880 vide letter
No. EBC/PD/05/ABS/2417 dated 17/19.12.2005 from the service of the company is fari and justified ? To
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 04.01.2016. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed. Both the Union are present. Rashtriya Mazdoor Union files their written statement on 19.02.2016 and
Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union files their written Statement on12.05.2016 but the management files their written
statement -cum-rejoinder on 21.10.2016. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed
from his services from 2005. No evidence adduced by either side.
3.
The short point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on
absenteeism. During pendency of this case only Rashtriya Mazdoor Union is contesting the case and defend the
workman concerned.
4.
During Preliminary hearing. it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. But
he has already out of service for last 12 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.
620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as under ground General
Mazdoor cat-I scale a fresh employee according to service excerpt, and Date of birth is verified from form ‘B” and
service excerpt. But the workman be kept under probation for a period two year . Therefore the question of granting
back wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@07@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 23 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 19.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/07/2016-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. 23 of 2016
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
:
None
For the workman
:
Shri Pintu Mondal, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 22/12/2017
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/07/2016 IR-(CM-I), dated. 12/04/2016 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 Incline Mine Sudamdih of M/S BCCL in dismissing
Shri Pitan Roy, Pers No. 02900058 , Ex-Miner Loader from the service of the company vide order dated
09/11.06.2009 is fair and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 09. 05.2016. After receipt of reference , both parties are
noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 17.11.2016. But after notice management neither
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
621
appears nor files any written statement. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed
from his services vide order dated 09/11.06.2009. No witness adduced from either side.
4.
The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of
long absence. But he has already out of service since last 8 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman
concerned to serve.
5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee in cat-I
subject to identity and proper verification. 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] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fVLdks
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@1995) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@351@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 47 of 1995) 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
08.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/351/1994-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. 47/1995
Employer in relation to the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s. TISCO Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
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- 22/12/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/351/1994-IR(C-1) dated 23/05/1995 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:
622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union for regularization by principal employer viz. Manager of Chasnall
Colliery of M/s TISCO Ltd., of Smt. Mangla Devi and other workmen ( as per lists enclosed ) employed
through contractor is legal and justified in the light of the supreme Court judgment in Dina nath case?
If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date?
Annexure
List of workmen
Sl.No
Name
Father’s Name
1
Harilal Rai
Rupan Rai
2
Madhusudan Bouri
Nakul Bouri
3
Kutri Deshwali
Rekhu Deshwali
4
Sanatan Deshwali
Jakhu Deshwali
5
Babulal Singh
Shiba Prasad Singh
6
Dhanu Bouri
Bhagarathi
7
Udhir Deshwali
Abhi Deshwali
8
Nani Bai
Jowala Prasad.
9
Jowlal Prasad
Sital Prasad
10
Sabitri Ray
Prabin Ch. Ray
11
Saktipada Ray
Mahendra Ray
12
Rahidas Manjhi
Jagdish Manjhi
13
Yudhistir Rajak
Aklu Rajak
14.
Manoj Bouri
Jogendra Bouri
15
Sarapada Bouri
Dhiru Bouri
16
Bhuban Bouri
Chatu Bouri
17
Suhan Bouri
Caaitu Bouri
18
Paresh Gope
Saru Gope
19
Debu Gope
Bhairo Gope
20
Saju Bouri
Fatik Bouri
21
Baju Bouri
Fatik Bouri
22
Padu Deshwali
Abhi Deshwali
23
Fanu Deshwali
Arjun Deshwali
24
Manohar Mahara
Jagdish Mahara
25
Narad Bouri
Madho Bouri
26
Achala Deshwali
Dhiren Deshwali
27
Santi Deshwali
Sudhir Deshwali
28
Thakurdas rewani
Gaju Rewani
29
Basu Bouri
Sachudant Bouri
30
Jadeo Rai
Dibhum Rai
31
Nitai Rai
Hansu Rai
32
Satrughan Bouri
Paban Bouri
33
Puna Bouri
Atul Bouri
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
623
34
Sarathi Bouri
Sudhir Bouri
35
Kalyan Bouri
Arun Bouri
36
Kanti Bouri
Bhutu Bouri
37
Ranjit Bouri
Satya Bouri
38
Ashok Bouri
Fakir Bouri
39
Ajit Bouri
Piru Bouri
40
Dharmdas Bouri
-----
41
Fakir Bouri
Hiru Bouri
42
Bimla Devi
W/O Fakir Bouri
43
Bilas Bouri
Prayag Bouri
44
Suga Bourin
W/O Kishore Bouri
45
Dukhan Bouri
Bhulan Bouri
46
Radhu Bouri
Sona ram Bouri
47
Animala
Raju Manjhi
48
Abala Devi
W/O San Manjhi
49
Anadi Bouri
Mahadeo Bouri
50
Asari Bouri
Atul Bouri
51
Mokhu Bouri
Bipin Bouri
52
Santu Bouri
Tinkori Bouri
53
Jagdish Rai
Bhiku Rai
54
Shreeram Bouri
Khandu Bouri
55
Bharat Bouri
Sanatan Bouri
56
Nitai Bouri
Balkisun Bouri
57
Arjun Rai
Srirant Bouri
58
Sarva Mallick
Benku Mallik
59
Tarapada Bouri
Jagnarayan Bouri
60
Chatu Bouri
Baldeo Bouri
61
Anil Rai
Haripada Rai
62
Sakuntala Bourin
Rohin Bouri
63
Ankur bouri
Bipin Bouri
64
Muchi Ram
Bistu Ram
65
Bhantu Boui
Basu Bouri
66
Kasuna Bouri
Ridhu Bouri
67
Chapu Bouri
Dhanu Bouri
68
Padam Lochan Rajak
Lal Mohan Rajak.
69
Binod Rai
Sambhu Rai
70
Murala Bouri
Kisto Bouri
71
Bhika Manjhi
Soni Manjhi
72
Rikhu Manjhi
Abhi Manjhi
73
Chinta Kumari
Kalipada Bouri
74
Prem Bala Kumari
Bhikhu Ram
75
Sagar Bouri
Banku Banku Bouri
624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
76
Ranjit Rajak
Mohan Rajak
77
Dinu Rajak
Mantu Rajak
78
Mantu Deshwali
Sohan Deshwali
79
Ajit Bouri
Manbodh Bouri
80
Ydhistir Rajak
Shankar Rajak
81
Ashok Mahara
Anand Mahara
82
Girdhari Mahara
Dukhu Mahara.
83
Arati Devi
Tilka Bouri
84
Tilka Bouri
Muhi Bouri
85
Babulal Bouri
Sambhu Bouri
86
Sanjoy Kumar Ojha
Sristidhar Ojha.
87
Hakim Mahato
Sahadeo Mahato
88
Kamesh Bouri
Chatu Bouri
89
Santi Bourin
Kamesh Bouri
90
Ranjit Bouri
Dhanu Bouri
91
Dandu Munda
Tapu Munda
92
Manu Bouri
Manti Bouri
93
Chandi Bouri
Upendra Bouri
94
Rabin Karmakar
G. Karmakar
95
Subhas Bouri
Dukhu Bouri
96
Siben Bouri
Suchand bouri
97
Achala Rajawarin
Mantu Rajwar
98
Dilip Bouri
Hari Bouri
99
Santosh Bouri
Hari Bouri
100
Biren Bouri
Hari Bouri
101
Nirmal Ojha
Bilopoda Ojha.
102
Sadhan Bouri
Ragho Bouri
103
Dagon Mahatha
Kinu Maha
104
Amrit Bouri
Dhanu Bouri
105
Alka Bouri
Dhanu Bouri
106
Kailash Bouri
Bharat Bouri
107
Parmila Devi
Lalu Sah.
108
Sambhu Sharma
Kisun Kistry.
109
Kukurmuni Majhian
Budhu Manjhi
110
Niyati Majhian
Khuchu Manjhi
111
Muruiya Bouri
Bharat Bouri
112
Achilal Sah
Moti Sah.
113
Bablu Bouri
Kailash Bouri
114
Ajit Karmakar
S. Karmakar
115
Swapan Ojha
Dipen Ojha.
116
Kartik Bouri
Sibu Bouri
117
Parimalm Ojha
Satish Ojha.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
625
118
Nitish Kr. Ojha
Nand Ki shore Ojha.
119
Prem Ojha
Deb Dayal Ojha
120
Deb Dayal Ojha
121
Tapas Ojha
Subodh Ojha
122
Subodh Ojha
Tarapada Bouri
123
Tarapada Bouri
Piru Bouri
124
Jagdish Gope
Panchu Gope
125
Amri Sripati Malick
Sripati Mohlick
126
Yosoda Mallick
Gokul Mallick
127
Gayaram Bouri
Akhru Bouri
128
Subhdra Bouri
Bish Bouri
129
Madhu Bouri
Jagdish Bouri
130
Kisto Muchi
Lakhiram Mouchi
131
Rampada Bouri
Jagdish Bouri
132
Santosh Bouri
Bhuban Bouri
133
Sri Kanti Bouri
Bhutu Bouri
134
Kalyan Bouri
Arun Bouri
135
Rajnit Bouri
Satya Bouri
136
Arjun Bouri
Rahani Bouri
137
Santi Bouri
Sudhir Bouri
Annexure-II
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
1
Smt. Sahri Devi
Dharam Singh
2
Guhiram Mahata
Shreedhar Rahata
3
Mongli Devi
Nimti Sahis
4
Akli Bouri
Gujari Bouri
5
Santosh Mahata
Ishwari Mahata
6
Sadhanlal Mahata
Bhikhu Mahata
7
Mahadeo Bouri
Bipan Bouri
8
Hitu Manjhi
Ashu Manjhi
9
Santosh Bouri
Santosh Bouri
10
Madhusudan Bouri
Mahabir Bouri
11
Swapan Bouri
Sasti Bouri
12
Manik Bouri
Shankar Puri
13
Paresh Bouri
Shankar Puri
14.
Madhob Bouri
Palati Bouri
15
Anil Chandra Bouri
Hari Bouri
16
Yamuna Bouri
Hari Houri
17
Lalta Bouri
Hari Houri
18
Dilip Bouri
Guhiram Bouri
626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19
Mihir Mahata
Dasarath Mahata
20
Nabu Deshwali
Dhiren Deshwali
21
Amal Deshwali
Radhakant Deshwali
22
Kisan Bouri
Tanu Bouri
23
Tarapada Bouri
Bideshi Bouri
24
Sristidhar Bouri
Murli Rouri
25
Santosh Bouri
Bhusan bouri
26
Kalidasi Bouri
Dhiren Bouri
27
Kartik Bouri
Radha Bouri
28
Dharam Bouri
Chait Bouri
29
Dhaltu Mia
Sarf Mia
30
Chadu Bouri
Saruf Mia
31
Thakur Mahata
Rishi Mahata
32
Sonaram Deshwali
Badya Deshwali
33
Nepal Rajwar
Rajaram Rajwar
34
Gopal Bouri
Dukhu Bouri
35
Hiralal Mahato
Dukhu Bouri
36
Lagen Bouri
Biru Bouri
37
Bijoy Bouri
Yoti Bouri
38
Chabi Bouri
Basudeo Bouri
39
Basudeo Bouri
Jalan Bouri
40
Santosh Bouri
Gokul Bouri
41
Kanja Bouri
Askar Bouri
42
Niranjan Bouri
Monzal Bouri
43
Naresh Bouri
Gopal Bouri
44
Fatik Bouri
Bikash Bouri
45
Binti Devi
Khudiram Bouri
46
Bhim Manjhi
Gujar Manjhi
47
Subhas Bouri
Prabhakar Bouri
48
Rameshwar Bouri
Bilash Bouri
49
Suyagan Bouri
Mansud Bouri
Annexure-III
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
1
Dasrath Bouri
Bhikhu Bouri
2
Nirmal Manjhi
Mathur Manjhi
3
Lugu Mudi
Biru Mudi
4
Brinda Bouri
Biru Mudi
5
Lachmen Mudi
Jugal Bouri
6
Mantu Rajwar
Bidshi Mudi
7
Ranjan Bouri
Panu Bouri
8
Tulu Bourin
Arjun Bouri
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
627
9
Nepura Bouri
Rama Bouri
10
Amulya Gope
Shankar Gope
11
Rampada Rajwar
Charu Rajwar
12
Khagen Rajwar
Mantu Rajwar
13
Kashi Rajwar
Bistu Rajwar
14
Achala Rajawarin
Santosh Rajwar
15
Neta Bouri
Jugal Bouri
16
Neta Bouri
Medhu Bouri
17
Dhani Mudi
Lachman Mudi
18
Santi Rai
Bhuban Rai
19
Balram Bouri
Cobardhan Bouri
20
Paraan Mudi
Mahindra Mudi
21
Panu Bouri
Gulam Bouri
22
Dibakar Mudi
Kashi Muidi
23
Mahabir Gope
Santi Gope
24
Buchu sekih
Abdul Major
25
Shakti Rajwar
Jagat Rajwar
26
Hakim Bauri
Ratan Bouri
27
Gopal Bouri
Rakhohri Bouri
28
Sarat Chandra Rai
Babulal Rai
29
Rajit Bouri
Srikant Bouri
30
Kali Dan
Bharat Dom
31
Arun Bouri
Amulya Bouri
32
Atika Bourin
Manmul Bouri
33
Swapna Bourin
Deshi Bouri
34
Ghaltu Bouri
Kharu Bouri
35
Santi Rajwarin
Kuju Rajwar
36
Piru Ansari
Jalaluddin Ansari
37
Alauddin Anaari
Jalaluddin Ansari
38
Gopal Rajwar
Dild ohemmand Ansari
39
Lalu Rajwar
Bona Rajwar
40
Haru Rajwar
Jitu Rajwar
41
Bharat Gope
Dhanu Gope
42
Faglu Rajwar
Charu Rajwar
43
Santi Bourin
Rhunja Bouri
44
Chuniram Mudi
Bhartu Mudi
45
Lakhikant Gunia
Kalipada Gunia
46
Barku Manijhi
Ram Hanjhi
47
Giddu Sahish
Baidnath Sahish
48
Sishu Sahish
Giddu Sahish
49
Dilip Gope
Rabi Gope
50
Munu Modi
Palu Mudi
628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
51
Ashok Bouri
Barekrishna Bouri
52
Digam Bouri
Rashu Bouri
53
Mepura Bourin
Raju Bouri
54
Geeta Bourin
Bhabani Bouri
55
Ambuj Bouri
Dukhu Bouri
56
Haru Bouri
Biatu Bouri
57
Mohar Dom
Hari Dom
58
Bittu Rai
Gambhir Rai
59
Bam Rajwar
Bhukhal Rajwar
60
Bibhuit Gope
Maheshwar Gope
61
Wakil Bouri
Ratan Bouri
62
Kartik Rajwar
Palu Rajwar
63
Salim Ansari
Bihari Bouri
64
Saru Bouri
Bihari Bouri
65
Samli Bourin
Palton Bouri
66
Sanju Bouri
Palton Bouri
67
Ramu Bouri
Hara Bouri
68
Arjun Rai
Rabi Ray
69
Radhi Rajwarin
Amul Rajwar
70
Phubeshwar Gope
Lochan Gope
71
Basanti Bourin
Taru Bouri
72
Bilashi Rajwarin
Hiralal Rajwar
73
Baldeo Rajak
Gobardhan Rajak
74
Gitu Rajak
Gobardhan Rajak
75
Ajit Bouri
Aklu Rajak
76
Mantu Bouri
Panchu Ansari
77
Dhiren Bouri
Tarini Bouri
78
Machu Bouri
Kistodhar Bouri
79
Sani Bourin
Dukhan Bouri
80
Raj Kumar Gope`
Shankar Gope
81
Bijoy Bouri
Lalchand Bouri
82
Atul Bouri
Babul Bouri
83
Dhanu Bouri
Jatal Bouri
84
Fuchi Bourin
Dasrath Bouri
85
Rajash Gope
Shankar Gope
86
Mahabir Rajak
Rabi Rajak
87
Poltan Bouri
Radhu Bouri
88
Arati Bourin
Bijoy Bijoy Bouri
89
Raju Bouri
Fani Bouri
90
Bharu Bouri
Bihari Bouri
91
Hirala Rajwar
Gangdhar Rajwar
92
Ganu Bouri
Yamuna Bouri
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
629
93
Durga Bouri
Jatal Bouri
94
Manpuran Bouri
Bipin Bouri
95
Balika Mudi
Dibakar Mudi
96
Bhim Mudi
Kali Mudi
97
Bhairo Bouri
Ratan Bouri
98
Gunadhar Modi
Dibakar Mudi
99
Anil Bouri
Atula Bouri
100
Durgacharan Bouri
Nakul Bouri
101
Manic Bouri
Indu Bouri
102
Molinda Bouri
Medho Bouri
103
Haradhan Rajwar
Alku Rajwar
104
Dibakar Bouri
Nakul Bouri
105
Bhagirath Bouri
Indu Bouri
106
Riranjan Rajwar
Bhim Rajwar
107
Shakitipada Rajwar
Falhari Rajwar
2.
This Case is received from the Ministry on 30.05.1995. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
During the pendency of the case Ld. secretary of the sponsoring Union submits that union/workman is not interested to
contest the case.
3.
It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@408@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 57 of 2000) 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 10.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/408/1999-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. 57 of 2000
Employer in relation to the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Compt. Case No. 5/2000
630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Arising Out of Ref. 57/2000)
Nakul Mahato S/O Gandori Mahato
Puma Operator workinf as Munshi
JOCP Block –II Area M/s BCCL ……………..………………………………….….Complainant
Vs
Project Officer
JOCP Block –II Area M/s BCCL …………………………..……………………….…Opp. Party
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- 26.12.2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /408/1999-IR(C-I) dated 21/01/2000, 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 Block II Area in not regularising to Sri Nakul
Mahato in the post of Munshi is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled from
what dates?”
2.
After receipt of the reference , both parties are noticed. But after appearance of workman for certain dates, the
workman did not attend, though management is remaining present. Case remain pending since long along with the
complaint petition. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed in respect to reference and Complaint. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@1995) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@291@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 87 of 1995) 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 10.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/291/1994-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. 87 of 1995
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
631
Employers in relation to the management of Block II 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 D. Mukherjee, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 18.12.2017
AWARD
By order No. L- 20012 /291/1994 /IR (C-1) dated 21.07.1995, 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 demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad for regularization of the services
of Shri Karma Mahato and 133 others (as per annexure enclosed) by the management of Block II Area
of M/s BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?”
Annexure
List of workmen
1. Lilia Devi
2. Jhilia Devi
3. Meghni Devi
4. Basanti Devi
5. Kamla Devi
6. Kalawati Devi
7. Chandri Devi
8. Somri Devi
9. Sugiya Devi
10. Dulali Devi
11. Gushri Devi
12. Manwa Devi
13. Shanti Devi
14. Rampati Devi
15. Yasoda Devi
16. Menwa Devi
17. Champa Devi
18. Rukmani
19. Gulabi Devi
20. Naroti Devi
21. Parbati Devi
22. Sunita Devi
23. Lalita Devi
24. Kalpana Devi
25. Fulia Devi
26. Fulmani Devi
27. Alpomani Devi
28. Kaima Devi
29. Manoj Pandey
30. Chandrashekher Mahato
31. Pramod Pandey
32. Jiwadhan Mahto
33. Rabilal Mahto
34. Krishna Saw
35. Kishun Mahto
36. Bishnu Mahto
37. Aghnu Mahto
38. Suresh Paswan
39. Lato Rabidas
40. Naresh Mahto
41. Nakul Rabidas
42. Ganga Ram Mahto
43. Raja Ram Paswan
44. Hari Thakur
45. Narayan Beldar
46. Furan Beldar
47. Amit Rewani
48. Hemlal Mahto
49. Santosh Bouri
50. Bhola Nath Jha
51. Jagjiwan Paswan
52. Ramdas Rabidas
53. Birendra Rewani
54. Shibram Bouri
55. Dhiran Saw
56. Sishupal Gope
57. Tulshi Rabi Das
58. Kailash Paswan
59. Hitram Mahto
60. Mala Mukherjee
632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
61. Gokul Gope
62. Bishunu Bhuia
63. Dashrath Mahato
64. Anil Pandey
65. Chetlal Rabidas
66. Shankar Rabidas
67. Radheshyam Dey
68. Gangu Das
69. Sarju Mohli
70. Lochan Rabidas
71. Kailash Mahto
72. Munarik Rabidas
73. Nageshwar Rabidas
74. Anand Thakur
75. Shakti Rewani
76. Tarachand Mahato
77. Rajkumar Rabidas
78. Mahadeo Mahato
79. Sibu Gope
80. Sanatan Mahato
81. Bhuneshwar Rewani
82. Rajendra Pd. Rewani
83. Birju Rewani
84. Amerdeep Rewani
85. Herdish Rewani
86. Bal Mitra Ram
87. Mohan Das
88. Somar Bhuia
89. Jay Nath Mahto
90. Sashi Bhushan Lala
91. Karan Mahato
92. Binod Mahato
93.Bhukhal Mahato
94. Kanik Mahato
95. Tapan Bouri
96. S.K.Rajak
97. Subodh Gope
98. Prashadi Mahato
99. Manoj Kr. Rajwar
100. Shiv Charan Beldar
101. Jitendra Ch. Dey
102. Bali Chouhan
103. Dilip Chouhan
104. Moujilal Mahato
105. Bhikh Bhuia
106. Manoj Das
107. Bineshwar Paswan
108. Shibu Thakur
109. Kalu Ram Sao
110. Prabhu Lal Sao
111. Kailash Mahato
112. Lakhi Dhobi
113. Sanjay Kr. Sao
114. Budhu Dhobi
115. Moti Rewani
116. Rakesh Rewani
117. Kishore Bishwakarma
118. Dhoba Rabidas
119. Hemlal Rabidas
120. Aklu Mahato
121. Uday Pd. Mahato
122. Dukhan Gope
123. Dhanik Lal Rajak
124. Amullay Rajak
125. Kala Chand Manjhi
126. Bishundeo Rabidas
127. Gobardhan Rabidas
128. Tej Narayan Mahato
129. Dwarika Mahato
130. Gokul Bouri
131. Suresh Gope
132. Gita Mahato
133. Bhagirath Mahato
134. Dashrath Pandey
2.
The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 28.07.1995. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 25.08.1995, and the management files their written statement on 29.01.1996. Thereafter rejoinder and document
filed by the parties. One witness from each side examined on their behalf. Documents of the management marked as
M-1 to M-7 and documents of workman marked as W-1 series.
3.
The case of the Sponsoring Union is that Shri Karma Mahato and other concerned workmen have been working
at Kessergarha siding since long in permanent nature of job within the premises of the mines under the direct control
and supervision of the management. The concerned workmen have been performing the job of shale picking, lump coal
breaking, line cleaning and removal of stones etc.
4.
It is further submitted by the union that the coal raised from Jamunia and nudkhurkee collieries are also
transported to keshergarha siding for loading into wagons and for performing the same and similar nature of job other
workmen of M/S BCCL and other coal companies are getting category-I wages.
5.
The management has implemented the wage Board recommendation and the same has got statutory force, and as
per wage Board recommendation the concerned workmen are entitled for at least category-I wages.
6. It is further submitted by the union that the concerned workmen are rendering services and producing goods for the
benefits of the management but the management has been disbursing their wages in the name of intermediaries
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
633
only to create a smoke screen and the entire system is a camouflaging system. The management have made perfect
paper arrangements to conceal the real facts and to call them as the employees of intermediaries. The entire alleged
intermediary system is not genuine and it is only a sham.
7.
The union also submitted that the action of the management in not regularizing the concerned workmen and not
paying them at least category-I wages are illegal, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice but the action of
the management is discriminatory in nature and denied of equal pay for equal work.
8.
The concerned workmen and the Sponsoring Union on behalf of the concerned workmen represented before the
management several times for their regularization and at least payment of category –I wages in view of several
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court but without any effect. However the Union on behalf of the workmen raised an
Industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour commissioner (C), Dhanbad but the same ended in failure. However the plea
of the management that the concerned workmen may have been engaged through different alleged transport contractor,
and the union vehemently challenged the contention of the management and directed the management to prove the
same but the management failed to prove the same and the conciliation proceeding ended in failure, hence the reference
arose.
9.
On the other hand the case of the management is that the demand of regularization of Shri Karma Mahato and
other alleging that they were working at Keshergarh siding on the job of shale picking and lump coal breaking under
the direct control and supervision of the management although they were paid through intermediaries by adopting some
legal camouflage.
10.
It is further submitted by the management that the list of workmen contained few contractor workers, who
worked on some occasion or other under the transport contractor and the rest of the persons are all job seekers , who
combined together for keeping themselves recorded with the help of litigation. The sponsoring union cited the Supreme
Court ruling reported in 1978 LAB IC 1264 and others are relating to absorption of contractor workers on the roll of the
principal employer under certain facts and circumstances before coming into force of the contract Labour Act 1970.
Thus the sponsoring union has made out the present case of some contract workers, including with them large number
of job seekers who intend to get employment under the public sector under taking with the helf of litigation.
11.
It is also submitted that the management allotted contract works to transport contractor from time to time for
transporting coal from the colliery depot to the railway siding and loading the same into wagons. The transport
contractor deployed pay loader for loading coal into dumpers which transported the coal and mechanically unload at
the kesergarh railway siding.
12.
It is further submitted by the management that the management is not engaging manual Labour on the jobs of
loading coal, unloading coal or in any other job which comes within the prohibited category as per provision of section
10 of the contract labour Act. 1970.
13.
It is also submitted that the lump coal coming out from the mine pass through feeder breakers and the lump coal
is prepared into proper size mechanically through the feeder breaker is loaded thereafter into the dumper by pay loader
of the contractor and the same is transported to the kesergarha Railway siding. Therefore there is no question of any
lump coal being broken at the railway siding by engaging any manual labour or by any contractor. The coal is
processed at the colliery siding where shale pickers are engaged to pick out shale and stone from the dump and the coal
with proper quality is transported to the railway siding for loading into wagon, therefore there is no requirement of
engaging shale pickers by the contractor.
14.
The management also submitted that for maintenance of high quality of coal to certain kinds of consumer, the
contractor is required to ensure loading of coal, free from stone and shale and in that connection the contractor engages
few persons as and when required for the purpose of picking shale and stone in the process of loading, if the same
remains undetected at the colliery depot and were transported along with coal through the dumper of the contractor. As
such jobs are casual in nature and maintenance of quality has been the responsibility of the contractor some of the
concerned persons might have worked as shale pickers on casual basis as and when required under him. It is absurd to
suggest that such a large number of workmen would be deployed on the job of shale picking by contractor.
15.
It is submitted that as the concerned persons were never the workmen of the management, they were not
selected or recruited by the management and they were not issued appointment letter and identity card and pay slips to
enable them to draw wages from the management , thus they were never engaged on the roll of the management at any
time even as a casual worker. But some of the persons appearing in the list annexed to the schedule of reference had
worked as contractor workers under the transport contractor and they cannot demand for their regularization under the
management.
16.
The aforesaid case is filed to issue direction to regularize the workmen in the BCCL or not . the case of the
634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
union is that they are working for shale picker, lump coal breaking, line cleaning and removal of stones since long at
keshergarha siding, it is permanent nature of job within the premises of the mines under the direct control and
supervision of the management.
17.
The MW-1 Benedict Xalxo, sr. manager personnel, says in his cross-examination that there is no shale picker
designation in keshargarha railway siding . Shale picker are Category-1 workmen. We used blasting to get coal . Coal
are mixed with stone “Jhama” etc. we are selling only coal to parties by feeder breaker, big coal pieces are brought to
size.
18.
The WW-1 Smt Shanti Devi says in his cross-examination, that I have no appointment letter but I can file the
letter of Narula Saheb an officer of BCCL. We are getting wages from BCCL.
19.
On perusal of the record that out of 134 workmen , 28 workmen were died during the pendency of the
reference case whereas 67 workmen are alive and his names are filed on behalf of the sponsoring union. It means 106
are alive but rest names are not filed by the sponsoring union who are alive or dead, no comment filed by the
sponsoring union.
20.
22 workmen out of 106, who are filed pass book of CMPF which is marked as W-1 Series, on perusal of pass
book of CMPF if is noticed that Account number address and deduction is mentioned on it. It is also noticed that the
pass Book issued by project manager, Block II Area who has signed and stamped on it, and photograph is also pasted
on it, They filed the photo copy and original which is compared and original returned to each of the workmen.
21.
Witness of management, being sr. manager personal, stated in his cross-examination that “ It is a facts that shale
picker work done by contractor by his labourers, contractors are engage by us but I do not know personally the
concerned workmen or their work.
22.
It admitted by the management in his written statement that for maintenance of high quality of coal to certain
kinds of consumer, the contractor is required to ensure loading of coal, free from stone and shale and in that connection
the contractor engages few persons, but some of the persons appearing in the list annexed to the schedule of reference
had worked as contractor workers under the transport contractor.
23. It is also admitted by the management that coal is processed at the colliery siding where shale pickers are engaged
to pick out shale and stone from the dump and the coal with proper quality is transported to the railway siding for
loading into wagon.
24.
On perusal of the documents of workmen, there are many I.D Card and pay slip have been filed, in pay slip in
which it is mention that “main employer BCCL Block II Area (G.M)”.
25.
The evidence of the management is very much material while perusing the evidence of MW-1, is being senior
manager personal who said that workmen engaged through contractor for shale picking job , it is also admitted in his
written statement . There are many identity card filed in this case was signed by the management officer, though it was
issued by contractor. It is clear-cut camouflage. While perusing the whole record, following 22 nos. workmen have I.D
card and pass Book of CMPF whose name is given below:
1. Lato Ravi Das
2. Sapan Bouri
3. Narayan Beldar
4. Bhuneshwar Rewani,
5. Kalawati Devi
6. Shiv Ram Bouri
7. Mainwa Devi
8. Sunita Devi
9. Lalita Devi
10. Bishtu Bhuia
11. Kamla Devi
12. Gokul Bouri
13. Kishori Mistry
14. Prasadi Mahato
15. Shanti Devi
16. Somri Devi
17. Aghanu Mahato
18. Bhukhal Mahato
19. Dilip Chouhan
20. Chandra Shekher Mahato
21. Hari Thakur
22. Bishundeo Rabidas
26.
On perusal of pass Book of CMPF, it is issued and signed by project manager Block II Area, M/s. BCCL and
the photograph is also tally with the list of workmen filed by the workmen previously long time ago. Hence it is felt
that the shale picking job is look like regular nature of job and also felt that they were working continuously 240 days
in a year.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
635
27.
As per order of Supreme court (L&S) 451 Sudarshan Rajpoot vs Utter Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation in Civil Appeal Nos. 10355-54 of 2014 decided on 18 Nov. 2014 some portion is quoted below :-
“Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 S-2 (ra) r/w Ss25 T, S, 25 U and sch-V Item 10 -Prohibition from
engaging workman as badlis, casual or temporary to work on permanent basis – service of appellant
workmen who was continuously working for more than 3 years and had rendered more than 240 days
of service in calendar year terminated without notice- Held extracting work of permanent nature
continuously for more than three years on contract basis is statutorily prohibited and hence
impermissible – same amount to unfair Labour practice and is punishable.”
28.
Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, I hold that the aforesaid 22 workmen at para 25 whose
CMPF is deducted are genuine workmen, therefore the above named 22 workmen are to be regularized as workmen
under the management after proper verification of the name from schedule of reference within 30 days of publication of
the award and other rest workmen whose name mention in the schedule of reference are not entitled to get any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 91@1998) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@695@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 91 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 10.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/695/1997-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. 91/1995
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
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 21.12.2017
636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /695/1997-IR(C-I) dated 10.09.1998, 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 action of the management of Laikdih Deep Colliery under C.V.Area of BCCL in
dismissing Sri Shastry Roy from the service of the company is legal & justified? If not to what relief is
the workman 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 Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh-lh-
,y- ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 171@1999) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-01-2018
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@95@1999&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 171 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 19.01.2018.
[No. L-20012/95/1999-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. 171/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Sounda Colliery 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- 26.12.2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/95/1999-IR(C-I) dated 14.10.1999, 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:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
637
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of 12 concerned workmen in the time rated job as
per enclosed list with retrospective effect is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled?”
Annexure
List of workmen
Sl.No. Name
Present Desig.
working as
Date of diveration to T.R. Job
1.
Shri Daroga Thakur
P.R
Driver
20.03.90
2.
Sri Juglal Munda
P.R
Driver
20.03.90
3.
Sri Chamar Munda
P.R
Trammer
26.12.94
4.
Sri Rajdeo Singh
P.R
Trammer
26.12.94
5.
Sri Binod Kumar
P.R
Shot fire Hel.
12.05.96
6.
Sri Mudula Bedia
P.R
-do-
12.05.96
7.
Sri Pakhan Lal Karmali
P.R
Trammer
10.11.95
8.
Sri Premdhan Ekka
P.R
-do-
-do-
9.
Sri Sewalal Munda
P.R
Haulage Khalasi
21.12.93
10.
Sri Mahabir
P.R
Motor Mechanic
20.05.93
11.
Sri Maheshwar Ram
P.R
Stowing Mazdoor
01.03.95
12.
Sri Ketwaru Mochi
P.R
Trammer
02.03.95
13.
Sri Jitan Mia
P.R
Expl. Carrier
06.04.95
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the sponsoring
Union/workman, none appears subsequently. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes
between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkfuns'kd]
Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@03@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director General, Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/03/2016-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 12 of 2016
Between :
Shri Man Singh S/o Bhagwan Sigh,
Mangla Vihar, Dahraura,
Agra (U.P) - 282007
Versus
1.
The Director General,
Archeological Survey of India,
Janpath,
New Delhi- 110011
2.
The Superintending Archeologist,
Archeological Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,
Agra (U.P.) -282001
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-42012/03/2016-IR (DU) dated 15.02.2016, has referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating the services of
Shri Man Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh workman with effect from 01.04.2013 is just fair & legal? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’
3.
In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court,
Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the
case.
4.
Worker has filed his claim statement with the facts that he was working as casual labour with management from
1-06-2006 to 31-03-13 continuously and has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year but he was
retrenched and his services was terminated without giving any notice on 01-04-2013 and management has not complied
with the provision of 25(F) of I.D ACT. It is also alleged that his attendance was taken on muster role and sometimes
his wages were paid through vouchers in different names.
5.
Management has filed w/s denying the facts alleged in claim statement. It is also alleged that worker has not
worked continuously for more than 240 days and has also not worked during the period as alleged in claim statement
and his services was never terminated by management. It is also alleged that there is no relationship of employee and
employer between the parties and therefore worker is not entitled to any relief.
6.
Worker has not filed any rejoinder.
7.
Parties have not filed any oral or documentary evidence. It is initial burden of worker to prove that he has
worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding alleged termination. Worker has also not filed any voucher nor
examined himself. Therefore worker has utterly failed to prove his case for want of oral and documentary evidence as
such worker is not entitled to any relief.
8.
The reference is answered against worker and it is held that worker has failed to prove his case for want of oral
and documentary evidence and he is not entitled to any relief.
9.
Award is passed accordingly against worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkfuns'kd]
Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
639
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2016) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@04@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Director General, Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/04/2016-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 13 of 2016
Between :
Shri Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Badan Singh,
Village- Chamrauli, Po- Pratap pura,
Shamshabad Road,
AGRA (U.P.)-282001
Versus
1.
The Director General,
Archeological Survey of India,
Janpath,
New Delhi- 110011
2.
The Superintending Archeologist,
Archeological Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,
Agra(U.P.) -282001
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, vide notification No.L-42012/04/2016-IR (DU) dated 15.02.2016 has referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating the services of
Shri Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Badan Singh workman with effect from 01.09.2013 is just fair & legal? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’
3.
In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court,
Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the
case.
4.
Worker has filed his claim statement with the facts that he was working as casual labor with management from
1-11-2008 to 31-08-13 continuously and has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year but he was
retrenched and his services was terminated without giving any notice on 01-09-2013 and management has not complied
with the provision of 25(F) of I.D ACT. It is also alleged that his attendance was taken on muster role and sometimes
his wages were paid through vouchers in different names.
5.
Management has filed w/s denying the facts alleged in claim statement. It is also alleged that worker has not
worked continuously for more than 240 days and has also not worked during the period as alleged in claim statement
and his services was never terminated by management. It is also alleged that there is no relationship of employee and
employer between the parties and therefore worker is not entitled to any relief.
640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Worker has not filed any rejoinder.
7.
Parties have not filed any oral or documentary evidence. It is initial burden of worker to prove that he has
worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding alleged termination. Worker has also not filed any voucher nor
examined himself. Therefore worker is utterly failed to prove his case for want of oral and documentary evidence as
such worker is not entitled to any relief.
8.
The reference is answered against worker and it is held that worker has failed to prove his case for want of oral
and documentary evidence and he is not entitled to any relief.
9.
Award is passed accordingly against worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ cksdkjks
bLikr la;a=k] lsy ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&43011@09@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.01.2018.
[No. L-43011/09/2011-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 50/2011
Employers in relation to the management of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri K.K.Mishra, Advocate
Industry : Steel
Dated- 26/12/2017
AWARD
By order No. L- 43011 /09/2011 /IR (M) dated 04/11/2011, 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 contract workers as per list enclosed should be regularized phase wise by the
management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled and
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
641
(2) whether the demand of contract workers that till they are regularized they should received equal
wages and facilities as available to the regular employee of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL is justified? If so, to
what relief the concerned workers are entitled?”
ANNEXURE
List of workmen
1. HOT STRIP MILL, BOKARO STEEL PLANT
SL. No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Raghu Nath Singh
Late Bachan Singh
Vill-Kheria, P.O.Nachap Distt. Baxur,
Bhojpur, Bihar
002808
2.
Antu Ram
Late Koday Ram
Vill- Bankatia, P.O- Lalatghat .Distt-
Ajamgarh,U.P.
002650
3.
Ram Jiwan Lal
Sri Phulchand Lal
Vill-Bhujahi, P.O.Sasarwa Distt. Mau,
U.P.
002709
4.
Saudagar Mahto
Ramdhari Mahto
Vill+ P.O Pur Rand, Via –Alang Ganj,
Distt.- Jamui, Bihar
002775
5.
Anil Kumar Sharma
Late Baidh Nath Singh
Vill-Surauna, P.O.Surauna,Thana-
Shiyakarganj,Via-Dhaka
Distt. Motihari, Champaran, Bihar
072851
6.
Ram Suner Ram
Late Chhotu Ram
Vill-Kurwa, P.O.Sagari Tahsil,Thana-
Jiwanpur, Distt. Ajamgarh, U.P.
072851
7.
Ghasi Sahu
Sri Rameshwar
Sahu
Vill-Madhuwan, P.O.Patiya,Thana-
Gumla, Distt. Gumla, Jharkhand
002816
8.
Harendra Singh
Late Koday Ram
Vill-Karampur, P.O.Nawanagar Bazar ,
Via-Bidupur,Distt. Baishali,Bihar
018613
9.
Chandeo Mahto
Sri Dhanai Mahto
Vill- Dhanbata, P.O. Askundipur, Vaya-
Maharajganj ,Distt-Siwan
017998
10.
Mohan Sahu
Sri Agaru Sahu
Vill- Kumharia, P.O. Kuranda ,Distt-
Gumla, Jharkhand
017980
11.
Dharm Das Minz
Sri Prabhu Charan
,Minz
Vill- Kinkel, P.O. Dumri Toli ,Distt-
Simdega, Jharkhand
002717
12.
Jaru Kauya
Vill- Ghaghrap, Belagali, P.O.
Garjora,Thana-Futi ,Distt-Ranchi
Jharkhand
002759
13.
Jaleshwar Prasad
Chaursia
Sri Matar
Chaursia
Vill- Jagatpur Pakri, P.O. krinagarh
,Thana-Barhara Distt-Bhojpur Bihar
002692
14.
Komti Devi
W/o Sri Manohar
Balmuchu
Vill- Gurha, P.O. Nawagao Thana-
Jhippani,Distt-West Singhbhum
018061
15.
Munia Devi
W/o Sri Ram
Mohan Oraon
Vill- Jhalmundi, P.O. Masmani Thana-
Bhandra Distt-Lohardaga Jharkhand
002890
16.
Sona Devi
W/o Sri Birbal
Kujur
Vill-+ P.o-Usra Colony, Vaya-
Kaswari,Distt-Sundargarh,Orissa
002949
17.
Guruwari Devi
Vill- Bhalujorri, P.O. Loha,Sira, Thana-
Sairampur,Distt-Mayurbhanj
002965
18.
Ramia Devi
W/o Raju Barua
Vill- Ghaghra,Belgali, P.O. Jarjora
Thana- Puti , Distt-Ranchi,Jharkhand
002882
19.
Chandu Devi
Vill- Churitola, P.O. Kanke Thana-
Kanke ,Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand
018029
642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
Hiramuni Devi
S/o -Sarna Soren/
Kastar Soren
Vill- Murgahutu, P.O. Tawarwan PS-
Rairampur ,Distt-Bawanhati Orissa
002923
21.
Sarmi Devi
W/O Takra Kitti
Vill-+ P.O Kokcho, Thana- Manjari
Jharkhand
002840
22.
Arsu Devi
W/O Sri Durga
Howerash
Vill- Kilajhari, P.O. Rairampur, Thana-
Rairampur , Jharkhand
002915
23.
Fulguni Devi
Baidu Marandi
Vill- Barudago, P.O. Chaibasa ,Distt-
Chaiwasa, Jharkhand
002907
24.
Niru Devi
W/O Faguram
Hansda
Vill- Pilka, P.O Pilka Thana- Manjhari
,Distt-Singhbhum, Jharkhand
018037
25.
Budhani Devi
W/O Gopal Ram
Vill- Harigandha, P.O. Kara, Thana-
Loghma , Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand
018057
26.
Jewa Tudu
W/O Durga Tudu
Vill- Mayurdarh, P.O. Kundasar,
Thana- Badam Pahar ,Distt-Kashi,
Jharkhand
018011
27.
Rusen Devi
W/O Surakh Ram
Oraon
Vill- Seramdan, P.O. Aadar Thana-
Ghaghara,Distt-Gumla, Jharkhand
01045
2. SLAB YARD, BOKARO STEEL PLANT
Sl. No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Manoj Kumar
Singh
Sri Jugal Kishor Singh
Vill-Bhajauna, P.O. Nachap,
Thana-Manjhi, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar
078932
2.
Satendra Rai
Late Ram Hoshiyar Rai
Vill-Khamhauri, P.O. Rajpur,
P.S-Maharajganj
Distt. Siwan, Bihar
089822
3.
Sanjay Kumar Sah
Sri Baliram Sah
Vill-+P.O.Gariwatola,Thana-Riwiganj,
Distt. Chhapra, Bihar
048208
4.
Baliram Sharma
Late Ram Lakhan Singh
Vill-Kishurpur, P.O.Paigambarpur
Thana-Kako, Distt., Jahanabad, Bihar
048187
5.
Rajkishor Singh
Late Ram Jatan Singh
Vill-Gagoe, P.O.Shamkodiya, Thana-
Eshuyapur, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar
089856
6.
Kishur Sah
Sri Sahodar Saw
Vill-Alinagar Chainpur,
P.O.Kala Dumra,
Distt. Siwan,Bihar.
048216
7.
Sanjal Kumar
Sarkar
Late R C Sarkar
Vill-Tilari,P.O.Badanganj,
Distt. Hugli, West Bangal
053223
8.
Pramod Sharma
Late Banaras
Singh
Vill-Jaikishun Bigha
P.O.Jaitiyakurwa ,
Distt. Jahanabad,,Bihar
089830
9.
Jaleshwar Nath
Tiwari
Sri Saheb Tiwari
Vill- +, P.O. Belhi Khas, Thana-
Kataiya, Distt-Gopalganj,Bihar
089814
10.
Wakil Prasad
Dharmnath Prasad
Vill- Hasanpura Nayatola, P.O.
Madhaura,Distt-Chhapra Bihar
024167
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
643
3. HOT STRIP MILL,
Sl.
No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Lalmani Ram
Sri Chhotan Ram
Mango (Ram Tola),
P.O- Tatri, Thana-Balidih, ,Distt.
Bokaro, Jharkhand
JH/Rno/11443/584
2.
Rakesh Ranjan
Ramchandra Prasad
B.S.L., L.H.,Stree-2, Qr.No.36,
B.S.City, Bokaro, Jharkhand
JH/Rno/11443/576
3.
Mahadeo Kumar
Mishra
Sharat Kumar Mishra
Sector-11 C, Qr.No.4027,
B.S.City, Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/579
4.
Pradeep Murmu
Kalicharan Murmu
Barudih, P O Balidih, Bokaro
Steel City,Bokaro
Jh/Rno/11443/577
5.
Junesh Oraon
Jataru Oraon
Sector-1c,Kartik Nagar P.O. Ram
Mandir,Thana-City Thana,
Bokaro
Jh/Rno/11443/590
6.
Bimlesh Rabidas
Kartik
Rabidas
Mango (Ram Tola)
P.O.Tatri,Thana-Balidih,Distt.
Bokaro,Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/585
7.
Govind abidas
Liladhar
Rabidas
-do-
Jh/Rno/11443/583
8.
Chhotu Rabidas
Jethu
Rabidas
-do-
Jh/Rno/11443/581
9.
Birendra Singh
Budha
Singh
Chaitatard ,P.O. Baghmara,
Thana- Harla,Bokaro,Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/526
10.
Mangari Devi
Etawa
Oraon
Sector-1c,Kartik Nagar, P.O. Ram
Mandir,Thana-City Thana,
Bokaro
Jh/Rno/11443/595
11.
Sumitra Devi
Charu
Bala
Vill- Okawa, P.O. Mamarala,
Thana-Sasiya, Distt-Bokaro
Jh/Rno/11443/594
12.
Ashish Kujur
Jorji
Kujur
Ajad Nagar,Ranchi Tola,
Siwandih, Thana-Marafari, Distt-
Bokaro,Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/
13.
Bikram Minj
Dharmdas
Minj
Ajad Nagar,Ranchi Tola,
Siwandih,Thana-Marafari,Dist-
Bokaro,Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/591
14.
Hiralal Das
Late Budhu Das
Mango(Ram Tola) P.O.Tatri,
Thana-Balidih,Distt. Bokaro,
Jharkhand
Jh/Rno/11443/
15.
Rajendra Ram
Meghu Ram
Mango (Ram Tola) P.O.Tatri,
Thana-Balidih,Distt. Bokaro,
Jharkhand
12108
16.
Badri Saw
Shivji Saw
Hanuman Mandir, Jhopri, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro, Jhar
JH/Rno/11443/575
17.
Munna Lal Byas
Lakshman Mahto Byas
-do-
JH/Rno/11443/580
18.
Sudendra Prasad
Verma
Working in re-
heating furnesh
19.
Sudeshwar Pradad
Verma
Late B P Verma
Dundibad Jhopri, Bokaro Steel
city, Bokaro, Jharkhand
578
644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. DEPARTMENT- COKE OVEN (DOOR REPAIR), BOKARO STEEL PLANT
SL. No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Salkhan Murmu
Late fagu Ram
Vill+P.O.Majhgaon, P.S-Bisue
Distt Mayurbhanj
025644
2.
Laxman Murmu
Sri Dhanay Murmu
Vill+P.O.Karmariya, P.S. Badampahar
Dist- Mayurbhanj , Orissa
025529
3.
Ganga Ram
Mundaeya
Ladu Mundaeya
Vill-Lakinpus P.O. Bahampur
Distt-Kayujhar
025579
4.
Kedar Singh
Sri Ram Lagan Singh
Vill- Tilhar P.O.Ekdanga Distt- Patna
Bihar
025333
5.
Suresh Chandra
Tirki
Late Daniyal Tirki
Vill Bugtel P.,O. Jari Distt- Gumla
Jharkhand
025537
6.
Sid Kumar
Singh
Sri Basudeo Singh
Vill –Thanas –Bind, Distt- Nalanda
Bihar
025305
7.
Dhyaneshwar
Sri Kuar
Vill-Bhubhstar P.O. Manjhigaon Distt-
Mayurbhanj
25652
8.
Narendra
Pandey
Sri C S Pandey
Vill-Laxmipur Sahadpur P.O.
Laxmipur Kalyanpur-Distt- Lakhisarai
Bihar
025389
9.
Pramod Pandey
-do-
-do-
025462
10.
Sri ram Singh
Sato
Singh
Vill+P.O. Dahma-Distt-Patna Bihar
025420
11.
Sarswati Reja
Matla Manjhi
Vill+P.O. Bagha-Thana-Tirin-Distt-
Mayurbhanj
025280
12.
Tarni Singh
S N Singh
Vill+P.O. Maithi-Distt- Muzaffarpur
025503
13.
Maina Reja
Megh Ram Murmu
Vill-Malkisua P.O. Vijaytar
Distt- Mayurbhanj
025602
14.
Kuliwala Devi
W/o Rajlal Mahtare
Vill-Ghamna tand P.O. Sisikala-Distt-
Hazaribagh Jharkhand
121806
15.
Ramdas Paswan
Late Shiv Charan
Paswan
Vill-Tikari P.O. Bhadwa Bazar Distt-
Aurangabad
25333
16.
Kameshwar
Prasad
Sri Bagli Sah
Vill- Abdulpur P.O. Nariganj
Distt-Nawada
025298
17.
Amod Singh
Kanta Singh
Vill+P.O- Kenwar, Distt- Banka Bihar
025470
18.
Vendu Lal Patel
Gurudas Patel
Vill+P.O.Tiruldih Thana-Eshgardh-
Distt-Singhbhum
025448
5. DEPARTMENT- COKE OVEN REPAIRING (TIE ROD) BOKARO STEEL PALNT
SL.
No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Arjun Singh
Sri Basudeo Singh
Distt- Giridih
001842
2.
Durga Charan
Mahato
Sri Babu Ram Mahato
Vill+ P.O.Charangi- P.S Petarwar -Distt-
Bokaro- Jharkhand
01862
3.
Ravi Gope
Mangru Gope
Vill+P.O. Damru, Distt-Purulia, West
Bengal
001909
4.
Abdul Karim
Abdul Jalil
Vill+P.O. Hajauli,Distt- Balia,U.P.
01991
5.
B.N.Thakur
Badhan Thakur
Vill+P.O. Sosokala,Distt- Raigardh
001925
6.
Gangadhar Mahato
Brinda Lal Mahato
Vill+ P.O.Bangenda
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
645
6. DEPARTMENT- STAND PIPE REPARING,COKE OVEN AND B.P.P.-BOKARO STEEL PALNT
SL. No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Upenda Yadav
Late Hira Yadav
093906
2.
Saidhun Ekka
Late Buhus Ekka
108135
3.
Anil Singh
Late Bindeshwari Singh
089244
4.
Sachida Kumar Singh
Late Sarju Pd.Singh
089278
5.
Bhrigunath Sah
Late Ganga Sah
089252
6.
Naresh Singh
Late Deo Nath Singh
089294
7. DEPARTMENT- COKE OVEN(COMPEN CENTRE) -BOKARO STEEL PALNT.
SL. No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Ram Lakhan
Choudhary
Sri Mogal Choudhary
Vill- Gandhinagar P.O.+ Thana- Dehri
Aonsan, Distt-Rohtas,Bihar
024357
2.
J.D.Jha
Late Dhaneshwar Jha
Vill+P.O. Jarail,Thana- Benipatti, Dist-
Madhubani, Bihar
024406
3.
Bishwanath
Pandit
Late Sarjug Pandit
Vill- Bajitpur,Chakasturi,P.O. Sahdei
Bujruk, Thana-Desri,Distt Baishali ,Bihar
024290
4.
Nand Lal Yadav
Late Mani Lal Yadav
Vill-Shribigaha,P.O+Thana-
Sakurabad,Distt-Jahanabad,Bihar
024323
5.
Bishwanath
Gope
Late Shiv charan Gope
Vill-Padampur, P.O. Aamada,Thana-
Kharsama, Distt-Saraikela, Jharkhand
024299
6.
Indro Gope
Late Pitam Gope
Vill-Manarkola,P.O.+Thana-
Rajnagar,Distt-Saraikela,Jharkhand
024307
7.
Baijnagi
Bandiya
Lt. Budhu Ram
Bandiya
Vill- Gondasai Udchawk,P.O.+Thana-
Ronwa,Distt- West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand.
024274
8. DEPARTMENT- COKE OVEN,PLATFORM CLEANING-BOKARO STEEL PALNT.
SL.
No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Ganesh Pandit
Late Sarjug Pandit
Vill- Bhini Bajitpur, Chaksturi P.O-
Sahdel Thana-Desri Distt- Baishali,
Bihar
147646
2.
Ram Nath Pandit
Late Sarjug Pandit
-
- do-
147654
3.
Chandan Kumar
Singh
Sri Tarni Singh
Vill- Dariyapur Tola , P.O. +Thana-
Hathdah,Distt Patna,Bihar
167470
4.
Birendra Sharma
Late Kailash Sharma
Vill-Bihta,P.O.Alipur,
Distt-Patna,Bihar
147555
5.
Chandramaul-I Singh
Sri Rajendra Singh
Vill-+P.O.Parsawa,Thana-Pandarak
Distt-Patna,Bihar
147597
646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Raju Mahto
Lt. Gunram Mahto
Vill-Telidih,P.O. Chaura , Distt-
Bokaro,Jharkhand
147670
7.
Prameshwar Pandit
Sri Ram Bilash Pandit
Vill- Kanchanpur,P.O.Rajashan,
Thana-Bindupur,Distt- Baishali,Bihar
8.
Rajendra Mahto
Lt. Garbhu Mahto
Vill-Juri,P.O.+Thana-Pakriverma,Distt-
Nawada,Bihar.
9.
Suresh Prasad
Lt. L.Sehu Prasad
Vill+P.O.Geyaribigha,Thana-
Shekhpura,Distt- Shekhpura,Bihar
9. DEPARTMENT- C.R.M.ZONE-1-BOKARO STEEL PALNT
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Surendra Singh
Late Mundrika Singh
Vill+P.O. Karath, Vaya- Tarari,
Distt-Bhojpur,(Arrah) Bihar
002121
2.
Ram Chandra Ram
Sri G D Ram
Vill-Bishrampur, P.O.Khursiya,
Dist- Rohtas
002220
3.
Raj Kishore Tiwari
Late S.D. Tiwari
Vill+P.O. Dyalpur,Vaya-Bidutpur,
Distt-Vaishali
002311
4.
Baldeo Yadav
Late Bishnudeo Yadav
Vill-Narar Kedi, Madhubani Tola,
P.O. Narar Vaya- Jainagar,
Distt-Madhubani
002254
5.
Kalika Yadav
Late Jeth Yadav
Vill+P.O. Barka Rajpur, Vaya-Semri,
Distt-Baxur
002296
6.
Shram Niwas Singh
Sri Ramjag
Singh
Vill-Bisenidera,P.O. Bharsar,Distt-
Balia,U.P.
020850
7.
Tarapado Kumbhkar
8.
Suresh Giri
Mehan Giri
Vill-Susmayjli,P.O.Jhalbera
Distt-Angul,Orissa
169278
9.
Shravi Karamkar
Mahandi Karamka
Vill-Gidi Ghali ,P.O. Tarana,
Distt-Mayurbhanj
208539
10.
Sumi
W/o Sri
Ghasi Ram
Vill-Gidi Ghali ,P.O. Tarana,
Distt-Mayurbhanj
002444
11.
Dalhi
W/o
Baleshwar
Hasda
Vill-Agoya,P.O. Sagra,Distt- Dumka
Vaya-Palajori
002456
12.
Sudha
J R Munda
Vill-Chama,P.O.Bukru,Distt-Ranchi
002494
13.
Semwari-11
W/o R. Mundueya
Vill-Rutesae, P.O.Chaiewasa,Distt-
Singhbhum
019374
10. DEPARTMENT-R.B.S.-2 C.R.M. BOKARO STEEL PLANT
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Birendra Jha
Late Shambhu Nath
Jha
Vill+P.O. Harka Manshahi,Thana-
Minapur, Distt- Muzaffarpur Bihar
027418
2.
J.Ansari
Mahmud Mia
Vill-Nagaura, P.O. Fulwaria Vaya-
Guruwa, Distt-Gaya ,Bihar
022676
3.
Sudama Prasad
Late G.P.Prasad
Vill-Shekhpura, P.O. Kalapahar
Tendua,Distt-Palamu,Jharkhand
116055
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
647
11. DEPARTMENT-BRACING UNITING WORKS C.R.M.-1,BOKARO STEEL PLANT
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Krishna Pd. Verma
Late Sukhdeo Pd
Verma
Vill+P.O.Ogari, Distt- Nalanda, Bihar
004507
2.
Tapeshwar Kumar
Sri Ram Bahadur Rajir
Vill- Jalpipri,P.O. Dubiha,Distt-Gajipur,
U.P.
011544
3.
Gautam Ram
Sri Nageshwar Ram
Vill-Patedha,P.O. Patedhi,Distt-
Siwan,Bihar
004515
4.
Ram Nagina Ram
Late Gahnu Ram
Vill-Edikpur, P.O.Punarji, Distt-
Aajamgarh,U.P.
011536
5.
Prameshwar Singh
Late Guhiram Singh
Vill-Lotpada,
P.O.Harbana,Distt-Purulia, West Bengal
004490
6.
M.C.Das
Shristidhar Das
Vill- Agardih,P.O. Kumardaga,Distt-
Bokaro,Jharkhand
004474
7.
B.N.Rao
Shri B.Potya
Vill- Plaskola,P.O. Adra,Distt-
Purulia,West Bengal
004456
12. DEPARTMENT-SHIPPING-1 AND 2 C.R.M.-2 , BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Sunil Kumar
Mohanti
Late J.Mohanti
Vill+P.O.Alalbindh-A, Vaya-Dehurada,
Distt- Balasor, Orissa.
019382
2.
Madhewar Ram
Late K.Ram
Vill-Dhadpi, P.O.+ Thana - Goh,
Dist-Aurangabad, Bihar
K 003244
3.
Kameshwar Pd
Pandit
Late B.L.Pandit
Vill-Jamghat, P.O.Dariyapur,
Vaya-Hamtayav, Kharakpur, Munger,
Bihar
K 003161
4.
Ghasi Ram
Late Pitae Ram
Vill-Sosodih, P.O.Daydeu,
Distt-Singhbhum, Jharkhand
K 003195
5.
Baleshwar Hansda
Late Rawan Hansda
Vill-Agoya, P.O. Sagara,
Distt-Dumka, Jharkhand
K 003202
6.
Sachida Nand Singh
Late S.N.Singh
Vill+P.O.Fuha,Via Aprankhipj
Distt-Arrah, Bihar
K 003187
7.
Ramendra Singh
Late B.Singh
Vill+P.O. Husepur, Dabrapar,
Distt-Chapra,Bihar
K 003179
8.
Ratan Singh
Late J.Singh
Vill-Samathpura, P.O. Makdumpur,
Distt.-Chapra, Bihar
K 003112
9.
Laldhari Yadav
Late P.Yadav
Vill-Kaithiskarpur, P.O. Khaniyara,
Distt.Ajamgarh, U.P.
K 003153
10.
Lakhan Sharma
Late B.Sharma
Vill-Pali, P.O.Utarayan, Distt-Gaya, Bihar
K 003262
648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. DEPARTMENT-C.R.M.ZONE-3, HDGC-SHIPPING-2BOKARO STEEL PLANT
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Ram Naresh Sharma
B.N.Sharma
Vill- Chauki, P.O.Pachpokhri,
Thana- nokha, Distt-Rohtas, Bihar
443458
2.
Rajendra Prasad
Shri Nandan
Vill-Sohada, P.O.Bahuria Bigha, Thana-
Barun, Distt-Aurangabad, Bihar
444278
3.
Mithilesh Kumar
Sri J.Ram
Vill-Jigani, P.O.Manihari,
Thana-Bhabhua ,Distt-Kaimur,Bihar
444490
4.
Suraj Thakur
Bhola Thakur
Vill-Nagla, P.O.Kinjar,Thana-Kinjar ,
Distt-Arwal,Bihar.
444282
14. DEPARTMENT-C.R.M.ZONE-3, BOKARO STEEL PLANT
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Lalmuni Devi
Late Etwa Oraon
Vill- Siyang, P.O.Chharda Thana-Sisae
Distt-Gumla, Jharkhand
024927
2.
Birbal Barik
Tino Barik
Vill- Raikish,Distt Ranchi, Jharkhand
024901
15. DEPARTMENT-C.R.M.ZONE-3, HDGL SHIPPING BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Vill+ P.O.Kenuar,Distt-
Banka
067076
2.
Vinod Kumar Singh
Sri Jitendra Singh
Vill-Bhagwanpur,
P.O.Mohmada,Dist-
Muzaffarpur, Bihar
047797
3.
Laxman Ram
Sri Shiv Kumar Ram
Vill+P.O. Gaayghat,
Distt.Baksar,Bihar
47789
4.
Bipin Kumar Sinha
Sri A.P. Srivastava
Vill- Bareja, P.O. Khasi,
Distt-Chhapra,Bihar
06083
5.
Akhilesh Singh
Sri Ram Lagan Singh
Vill-Mahuaani, P.O.
Saidpur, Distt- Chhapra,
Bihar
047804
16. DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC LOCOSHED-WAGON SHED,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Birendra Kumar
Singh
Sri Ram Gyan Singh
Vill-Dihra P.O.+Thana-Kudra Distt-
Kaimur, Bihar
219445
2.
Hira Devi
W/O Surendra Sharma
Vill-Jhopri Colony,P.O. Siwandih,
Distt- Bokaro
345935
3.
Shanti Devi
Gopal Sharma
Karnal Market, Marafari, Distt-Bokaro
179045
4.
Gowardhan Gope
Labin Gope
Vill-Kurma, P.O. Kashijharia,
P.S. Pindrajora, Distt-Bokaro
153601
5.
Bhutu Singh
Bhagat Singh
Vill-Kurma,P.O. Kashijharia,
P.S. Pindrajora,Distt-Bokaro
153594
6.
Ramu Bauri
Nepal Bauri
Vill- Dewatand Siyarda P.S. Pindrajora,
Distt-Bokaro
378738
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
649
17. DEPARTMENT-S.M.S.-1, BOILER DOWN TECH CLEANING BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Santosh Gope
M.Gope
Vill-Mantand,P.O. Chandra,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
2.
Narad Gope
M. Gope
Vill-Mantand,P.O. Chandra,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
3.
Mathur Gope
Badi Gope
Vill-Mantand,P.O. Chandra,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
4.
Montu Gope
Duryodhan Gope
Vill-Mantand,P.O. Chandra,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
5.
Prahlad Rai
S.P.Rai
Vill+P.O. Ulhanpur, Distt-Chhapra, Bihar
6.
Ravindra Sah
K Sah
Vill+P.O. Bihya, Distt-Bhojpur, Bihar
18. DEPARTMENT- BRACING UNITISING H R C F (O.P.),BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Radha Shyam
Sharma
Late-Girija Sharma
Vill- Paro,P.O. Matiya, Distt- Jamue,
Bihar
000977
2.
Ramawatar Sharma
Late Hari Lal Sharma
Vill+P.O. Bishunpur P.S.Parwata,
Distt-Khagaria
001024
3.
Rameshwar Sharma
Late Karam Sharma
Vill- Mohanpur,P.O. Matiya, Distt-
Jamue,Bihar
001032
4.
Girija Sharma
Late Sarju Sharma
Vill- Jonadih,P.O. Godhaur,
Distt- Jamue, Bihar
001058
5.
Prahlad Das
Kanhaiya Das
Vill- Adamdih, P.O. Alkusa, B.S.City,
Dist-Bokaro
001074
6.
B.Ram
Sukhram Ram
Vill-Lohra Sahiyorar P.O. Suket
Distt-Sonwada
1001123
7.
Pratap Narayan
Pandey
Sri Balbhdra Pandey
Vill-Teghara, P.O. Narwan,
Distt- Chhapra, Bihar
001305
8.
Nand Kishore
Thakur
Late Babu Lal Thakur
Vill+P.O. Bishunpur P.S.Parwata,
Distt-Khagaria
001149
9.
Kuldip Pd.Singh
Jaikrishna Pd. Sharma
Vill-Barautha,P.O. Kirana,
Distt-Bhagalpur,Banka
001206
10.
Pradeep Kumar
Sharma
Sukhdeo Sharma
Vill- Paro,P.O. Matiya, Distt-
Jamue,Bihar
244335
11.
Laldeo Lohar
Mangu Lohar
Vill-Ghutiya,Jamgae,
P.O.Halhunda,
Ranchi
001230
12.
Hukum Yadav
R.N.Yadav
Vill+P.O. Balua Distt-Bhojpur, Arrah,
Bihar
119314
13.
Suresh Sharma
Late Janki Sharma
Vill- Paro,P.O. Matiya, Distt- Jamue,
Bihar
001040
14.
Ram Sarikan Singh
Dayal Chandra Singh
Vill+P.O. Durki Disttmuzaffarpur,
Bihar
1001090
15.
Braj Kishore Sharma
Ram Ratan Sharma
Vill+P.O. Mohmadpur,Distt-
Bhojpur,Bihar
000943
650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
Chandrika Prasad
Laxman Prasad
Vill-Kushhachak, P.O.Sirdala,
Distt-Nawada
001115
17.
Raj Kumar Rajak
Madan Rajak
Vill+P.O.Sahora, Distt-Munger, Bihar
001181
18.
Krishna Deo Singh
Rammad Singh
Vill-Harpur, P.O.Namad, Distt- Bhojpur
001256
19.
Kailash Das
Chalitar Ram
Vill+P.O. Katki, P.O.Deo,
Distt-Aurangabad, Bihar
001173
20.
Pramod Singh
Gauri Singh
Vill+P.O. Arkhango, Distt-Giridih
001240
21.
Satyanarayan
Paswan
Latlu Paswan
Vill-Rajadih,P.O. Gaukhdih,
Distt-Munger, Bihar
1001090
22.
Shri Kishun Ram
Deepa Ram
Vill-Tiyari,Distt-Gajipur, Bihar
001199
23.
Madan Singh
Khubi Singh
Vill+P.O.Paliganj, Distt- Giridih,
Jharkhand
001298
24.
Nitya Nand Pandey
Satyanarayan Pandey
Vill+P.O Dalan Chhapra, Distt Balia U.P
000969
19. DEPARTMENT-H R.C.F. CLEANING, BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Raghu Nath Giri
Late K.D.Giri
Vill-Morpokhar, P.O.Maniyar Bhae,
Distt-Balia, U.P.
003335
2.
Raut Jamuda
Late D.Jamuda
Vill-Ghaghra Ghat,P.O. Mahal Pani, Distt-
West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
003351
3.
Narayan Lohar
Late C.Lohar
Vill+P.O.Moranda Distt-Mayurbhanj, Orisa
003385
4.
Chandu Lohar
Late Tipap Lohar
Vill+P.O.Moranda Distt-Mayurbhanj,
Orissa
3377
5.
Giridhari Lohar
Late Ghurda Lohar
Vill+P.O.Moranda Distt Mayurbhanj,Orissa
003393
6.
Satyanarayan Prasad
Late R.C.Prasad
Vill-Loharpur
003400
7.
Bipendra Sharma
R.K.Sharma
Vill+P.O.Lahuyar, Distt-Gazipur, U.P.
003583
8.
Santosh Kumar Das
Late Bimba Das
Vill-Maharajganj, P.O. Rajnagar,
Distt- Saraikela, Kharsawa, Jharkhand.
167256
9.
Smt Maya Devi
Late S.Lohar
Vill+P.O.Moranda Distt-Mayurbhanj, Orissa
3318
10.
Smt Kusum
R.Prasad
Vill-Sibhani, P.O. Sanmula,
Distt- Balagir, Orissa
003426
11.
Smt.Shishumati
Late S.Singh
Vill-Ukari,P.O.Sinni
003434
12.
Smt Sukurmani
D.Gope
Vill-Kulughutu, P.O
Jirae,Distt-Mayurbhanj, Orissa
003468
13.
Smt.Munia
Devi
Late Bisu
Vill-Bandhua, P.O. Chasi,
Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand
167256
14.
Smt.Namsi
Late B.Putti
Vill+P.O.Kuelisuta, PO- Sono
3484
15.
Smt.Padma
C.M.Patro
Vill+P.O. Jamda Distt-Mayurbhanj, Orissa
003525
16.
Smt.Yashoda
Khudiram
Vill+P.O. Aru, Distt-Lohardaga,
Jharkhand
003517
17.
Smt.Hiramuni
Late D.Gope
Vill+P.O. Tatnagar, Distt -West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
003533
18.
Smt.Shakuntala
Late Anant Singh
Vill-Dorga, P.O.Balrampur,
Dist--Purulia,W.B.
003559
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
651
19.
Smt Chinta Muni
Late Panu Sahu
Vill- Ratilo,P.O. Tarahat,
Distt-Kuelisuta
003567
20.
Smt.Devanti
Late Anand Ram
Vill- Gorae Digri, P.O. Marcha,
Distt.Ranchi
120337
21.
Smt Chandrakala
W/O Late K.N.Jha
Vill+P.O. Ranti, Distt-adhuwani,
Bihar
287276
20. DEPARTMENT- STORES GROUP FIVE-SMALL,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Alku Thakur
Late Rishi Thakur
Gopinathpur, Jaridih Bokaro, Jharkhand
333381
2.
Charku Singh
Sri Nandu Singh
Vill+P.O. Bhandargora, Jaridih, Bokaro,
Jharkhand
3.
Gauri Singh
Late Roshan Singh
Vill-Tiropathuria, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro,Jharkhand
333930
4.
Kanhai Singh
Sri Gobind Singh
Vill-Dharampura, Radhanagar, Balidih
Bokaro, Jharkhand
345745
5.
Alku Singh
Late Kailash Singh
Vill+P.O. Bhandargora, Jaridih,Bokaro,
Jharkhand
333906
6.
Sukdeo Singh
Late Arjun Singh
Vill+P.O. Bhandargora, Jaridih, Bokaro,
Jharkhand
345662
7.
Maheshwar
Hembram
Sri Prameshwar
Hembram
Vill+P.O. Karharia, Kashitard, Balidih,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
333899
8.
Ashraf Ansari
Thbrahim Ansari
Vill+P.O. Karharia, Kashitard, Balidih,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
333865
9.
Chhotu Singh
Sri Raghunath Singh
Vill-Raikod Kot, Chandankiyari, Bokaro,
Jharkhand
333873
10.
Lalbabu Rai
Late Sahatu Rai
Vill-Narav P.S. Awtar Nagar,
Distt-Chhapra, Bihar
333918
11.
Nageshwar Singh
Late Biru Singh
Vill+P.O. Tetariadih, P.S. Jainamore,
Bokaro
345753
12
Lalbabu Singh
Late Jalin Singh
Vill- Jobradih,P.O.Agyav Bazar,
Distt-Bhojpur,Bihar
J.S.1145/02
13.
Arun Singh
Late Fagu Singh
Vill-Tiropathuria, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
345711
14.
Karamchand Singh
Sri Mahendi Singh
Vill-Tiropathuria, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
345737
15.
Chhotlal Singh
Late-Gahnu Singh
Vill-Tiropathuria,P.O-Jaridih, Distt-Bokaro,
Jharkhand
333922
16.
Sehrai Singh
Late Shanichar Singh
Vill+P.O.Dharampura, Radhanagar,
Balidih, Bokaro, Jharkhand
345690
17.
Shiv Dyal Singh
Late Shanichar Singh
Vill+P.Dharampura, Radhanagar, Balidih,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
333918
18.
Badhan Singh
Sri Khadu Singh
Vill+P.O.Dharampura, Radhanagar, Balidih
Balidih, Bokaro, Jharkhand
345729
19.
Kripal Singh
Late Thakur Singh
-do-
345688
20.
Lakhi Prasad Singh
Late Ful Singh
Vill+P.O. Bhandargora, Jaridih,Bokaro,
Jharkhand
652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21
Ratan Lal Singh
Late Shyam Singh
Vill+P.O.Dharampura, Radhanagar,
Balidih, Bokaro, Jharkhand
356833
22.
Jageshwar Singh
Late Rakhal Singh
-do-
JS.11454/63
23
Ratan Singh
Late Pran Singh
-do-
356809
24
Dilip Singh
Sri Darshan Singh
Tard Mohanpur, Jainamore, Bokaro,
Jharkhand
358817
21. DEPARTMENT- STORES,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Mahendra Ram
Banshi Mehra
Bangora Site, B. Block, B.S City,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
376039
SL.NO.
6000273657
2.
Suresh Mehra
Baliram Mehra
-do-
403139
SL.NO.
6002736457
3.
Baliram Mehra
Late D.Mehra
-do-
30087
SL.NO.
6002736456
4.
Raj Kumar Mehra
Makhan Mehra
-do-
300054
SL.NO.
6002736469
5.
Shankar Mehra
Late A. Mehra
-do-
364480
SL.NO.
6002736450
6.
Chhotu Mehra
Late D. Mehra
-do-
403155
SL.NO.
6002736459
7.
Bishnu Kumar
Sri Dinu Kumar
Bangora Shed B. Block, B.S City,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
403113
SL.NO.
6002918247
8.
Chhote Lal Mehra
Late D.Mehra
-do-
376021
SL.NO.
6002736451
9.
Naresh Mehra
Late S.Mehra
-do-
403147
SL.NO.
6002736458
10.
Kailash Mehra
Jagdish Mehra
-do-
409682
SL.NO.
6002918245
11.
Tulshi Mehra
Late Chand Mohan
Mehra
-do-
383240
SL.NO.
6002918246
12.
Shankar Mehra
Dhani Mehra
-do-
409723
SL.NO.
6002918249
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
653
13.
Dhani Mehra
Late Thakur Mehra
-do-
376005
SL.NO.
6002736455
22. DEPARTMENT-REFRACTORIES STORES,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
Sl.No.
Name
Father’s Name
Permanent Address
P.F.Code
1.
Manoj Kumar Gorai
Prasad Ram Gorai
Vill-Kalapathar, P.O.Chiksiya, P.S. Chas,
Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/117
2.
Anay Mahto
Hakim Mahto
-do-
J.H.
10863/28
3.
Devi Lal Mahto
Bhalku Mahto
-do-
J.H.
10863/35
4.
Rup Lal Gorai
Banshi Gorai
-do-
J.H.
10863/141
5.
Mukund Gope
Bhadari Gope
-do-
J.H.
10863/112
6
Raj Kishore Rai
Dashrath Rai
Vill-Purasakpura, P.O.Chainpur,
P.S. Gariakoti, Distt-Siwal
J.H.
10863/121
7
Abhi Singh
Sri Pran Singh
Vill- Tiro, P.O. Pathuria, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt- Bokaro
J.H.
10863/121
8
Budhan Singh
Late Bhadu Singh
-do-
J.H.
10863/116
9
Faku Kumbhkar
Late Haradhan
Kumbhkar
-do-
J.H.
10863/133
10
Dubraj Singh
Late Fagu Singh
-do-
J.H.
10863/54
11
Aajadi Kumar
Late Moti Singh
Vill-Amyua, P.O-KajIsari
P.S.+ Dist- Jahanabad, Bihar
J.H.
10863/115
12
Yamuna Singh
Late Roshan Singh
Vill- Tiro, P.O.Pathuria P.S. Jaridih,
Dist- Bokaro
J.H.
10863/114
13
Shibu Singh
Adhanu Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar, P.S.
Balidih,Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/158
14
Kishun Singh
Late Basu Singh
Vill-Bhandargora, P.O. Jainamore,
P.S. Jaridih, Distt- Bokaro
J.H.
10863/106
15
Josaph Lakara
Late Bishram Lakara
Vill-Jamgai, P.O.Jamgai, P.S. Bhandara,
Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/68
16
Amrit Singh
Sarju Singh
Vill-Bhandargora, P.O. Jainamore,
P.S. Jaridih, Distt- Bokaro
J.H.
10863/88
17
Ravi Singh
Newar Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar, P.S.
Balidih,Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/134
18
Bishu Singh
Jagu Singh
Vill-Khutari Rangachhutu, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/147
19
Bishu Singh
Jagu Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S.Balidih, Dist-Bokaro
J.H.
654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10863/59
20
Pedaku Singh
Late Lalu Singh
-do-
J.H./R.N.C.
10863/145
21
Ajay Singh
Dhrub Singh
Vill- Tiro, P.O.Pathuria, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt- Bokaro
22
Sampat Singh
Darshan Singh
Vill-Dharampura,P.O. Radha -nagar
P.S. Balidih,Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/131
23
Dileshwar Singh
Panna Singh
-do-
J.H.
10863/127
24
Bigan Singh
Panna Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih,Distt-Bokaro
New
25
Arjun Manjhi
Hari Manjhi
Vill-Khutari Rangachhutu, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro
J.H./R.N.C.
10863/148
26
Kartik Singh
Late Makur Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih, Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/125
27
Bhrigu Nath Prasad
Shramprit Prasad
Vill- Baijnath Chhapra,P.O. Raniganj,
P.S. Bairiya, Distt-Balia
J.H.
10863/66
28
Jyotilal Singh
Khudu Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih, Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/130
29
Bablu Kumar Singh
Baijnath Singh
Vill- Chatma Bazar, P.O. Karmdih
P.S. Shambhuganj Distt- Bala
J.H.
10863/113
30
Basudeo Hasda
Vill- Partard, P.O. Bandhdih, P.S. Jaridih,
Bokaro
J.H./R.N.C.
10863/143
31
Kanhai Singh
Late Bholu Singh
Vill-Bhandaragora, P.O. Jainamore,
P.S Jaridih, Dist.Bokaro
J.H./R.N.C.
10863/144
32
Mahabir Manjhi
Adhnu Manjhi
Vill- Banddih Kochagora, P.O. Bandhdih
P.S. Jaridih, Distt-Bokaro, Jharkhand
J.H.
10863/140
33
Raj Kumar Singh
Kailash Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih,Distt-Bokaro
NEW
34
Sukurmani Champia
Smado Champia
Vill-Chhotatola, P.O. Siwandih,
P.S. Marafari, Distt-Bokaro.
J.H.
10863/123
35
Shaile Guria
Late Niral Guria
Vill-Bhendra P.O. Barda, Distt-Khuti
J.H.
10863/142
36
Shakuntala Devi
Shyam Sundar Singh
Gaiman Colony Fabrication Road Bangali
Hotel P.S. Marafari, Distt-Bokaro.
J.H.
10863/30
37
Shukmati Devi
Late Gopi Saw
Vill-Ajadnagar P.O. Siwandih
P.S. Siwandih, Distt Bokaro
J.H.
10863/63
38
Santoshi Lakara
Josaph Lakara
Kurmidih Kaibin Toli, P.O. Railwlay
Colony, P.S. Balidih, Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/62
39
Kapla Devi
Bhrigunath Singh
Gaiman Colony Fabrication Road Bangali
Hotel P.S. Marafari, Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/195
40
Dulari
Vill-Partard P.O. Bandhdih, P.S. Jaridih
Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/95
41
Nirmala
Vill-Birsadam P.O. Gangjari P.S. Jaridih
J.H.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
655
Distt-Bokaro.
10863/114
42
Shaktipad Gorai
Niwaran Gorai
Vill-Harila Goda, P.O. Dudhigajar,
P.S. Chas(M) Distt- Bokaro
43
Sahdeo Hasda
Ratan Manjhi
Vill-Baradih,P.O. Bandhdih, P.S. Jaridih,
Distt-Bokaro
44
Sukhdeo Pal
Narayan Pal
Vill-Dubara P.O. Dubara, P.S. Para
Distt- Purulia
45
Dilip Singh
Jagat Singh
Vill- Tiro, P.O. Pathuria,P.S. Jaridih,
Distt- Bokaro
J.H.
10863/87
46
Dhiren Singh
Kapil Singh
Vill+P.O. Karharia, P.S. Balidih,
Distt-Bokaro
J.H.
10863/107
47
Shambhu Singh
Pachu Singh
Vill-Bhandaragora, P.O. Jainamore,
P.S – Jaridih Dist.Bokaro
J.H.
10863/94
48
Bhola Singh
Ledu Singh
-do-
49
Ajit Marandi
Amin Mrandi
Vill-Asansol, Simultard,P.O.
Jogidih,P.S. Chandankiyari,Distt-
Bokaro
J.H.
10863/59
23.DEPARTMENT-STORES,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Anita Kumari
Sukhdeo Murmu
Vill-Jaina Basti Mishra, P.S. Jaridih Site,
Distt-Bokaro
397837
2.
Sumitra Kumari
Hari Chand Murmu
-do-
397845
24.DEPARTMENT-STORES,GROUP-FIVE GAS SECTION BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Jagdish Singh
Late Bhakur Singh
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih, Distt-Bokaro
181331
331192
2.
Dilip Singh
Sri Bisheshwar Singh
Vill-Gaychhanda Gangjori, Jaridih,
Bokaro, Jharkhand
181331
3341116
3
Hapa Mahto
Late Bhukhal Mahto
Vill- Patharkatta Site, P.O. Chas,
Distt.Bokaro
331158
4
Sukar Sardar
Sri Ramadhan Sardar
Vill- Dumar P.O.Handu
Distt-Mayurbhang, Orissa
331190
5
Haldhar Mahto
Brindawan Mahto
Vill+P.O. Bagarad Distt-Singhbhum,
Jharkhand
331083
6
Bibhas Singh
Sri Akleshri Singh
Vill+P.O. Bheudih Sangrampur
Distt- Munger,Bihar
181331
001331
7
Bagedan Saw
Sri Lalan Saw
Vill-Kodaghapara P.O. Pashurampur
Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar
294207
8
Gopal Majhi
Sri Dewan Manjhi
Vill-Dharampura, P.O. Radhanagar,
P.S. Balidih, Distt-Bokaro
9
Maheshwar Singh
Sri Kaleshar Singh
-do-
J.N.
11454/50
10
Tepu Singh
Sri Khadu Singh
-do-
3111174
656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11
Kalipad Mahto
Sri Jamtu Mahto
Vill+P.O. Bhawanipur Site, Chas, Bokaro
331140
12
Jagan Mahto
Sri Jamtu Mahto
Vill+P.O. Alkusha Basti, Chas, Bokaro
331108
13
M.D.Nazir
M.D.Abdul Karim
Vill+P.O.- Ukrid Basti, Distt- Bokaro,
Jharkhand
331137
25.DEPARTMENT-SLABBING MILL(O),BILLING BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Ram Karan Ram
Deo Charan Ram
Vill-Pipra Kadhar P.O.Bhairofaj
Distt- Mau, U.P.
K 003963
2
Manoj Tiwari
Late Sudarshan Tiwari
P.O. Bhakhli, Siwan, Distt-Siwan, Bihar
K 04086
3
Dewanand Singh
Late Khusar Singh
P.O. Baghia Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar
K 3856
4
Ram Ashish Pd.
Singh
Bardari Singh
Vill+P.O. Bakahara Distt-Shekhpura,
Bihar
K 003921
5
Ram Nandan Singh
Udit Singh
Vill-Balawalpur, P.O-Hari, Distt-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
K 3905
6
Sudama Yadav
Badaulabh Yadav
Vill-Arsan Tola P.O. Bharnid Chhapra,
Bihar
K 001784
7
Ambuj Das
Baijodas
Vill-+P.O. Alkusha, Distt-Bokaro
K 3898
8
Kamlesh Thakur
Mithae Thakur
Vill+P.O.Barhara Distt-Chhapra, Bihar
K 004101
9
Shankar Yadav
N. Yadav
--
K 005005
10
Karn Thakur
Vill- Kondhar Distt- Chhapra, Bihar
K 004002
11
Gurpat Singh
Hol Singh
Vill+P.O. Kalati Distt-Purulia W.B.
K 003939
12
Lalinda Singh
Jitu Singh
Vill-Kalwar Porand P.O. Halda, Purulia,
W.B.
13
Vill-Dhawa, P.O. Purnia
Distt- Singhbhum, Jharkhand
K 04052
14
Dhanji Yadav
Baijnath Yadav
Vill-Katahi, P.O.Sonwali,
Distt- Purulia,W.B.
15
Basanti Devi
Mangara
Vill-Para Tola P.O. Safarpur
Distt-Gumla, Jharkhand
16
Banli Devi
W/O Parshuram
Prasad
Vill+P.O. Muhmmadabad Distt-Aajgate
K 004127
17
Champa Devi
Raw Singh
Vill-Hasara P.O.Aldat Punia
K 004121
18
Thamni Devi
W/O Etwa Ekka
Vill- Tanko Puna P.O. Haria
Distt- Ranchi
K 04276
26. SAFAI AND SULABH SHAUCHALAYA,BOKARO STEEL PLANT.
SL.No.
NAME
FATHER’S NAME
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.F.CODE
1.
Nawal Kishore
Rawat
Srirajendra Ram
Vill-Brindawan P.O.Kiul I.S.
Distt-Lakhisarai, Bihar
133364
2
Mahendra Rabidas
Late Munilal Rabidas
Vill-Koluha,Dewal P.O. Malepur
Distt- Jamui, Bihar
135360
3
Surendra Das
Late Jagat Das
Vill+P.O. Tajnipur, Vaya-Badh
P.S. Sabhima Bind Distt-Nalanda,
Bihar
133504
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
657
4
Bahadur Ram
Late Bhula Ram
Vill-Pandeypur, P.O. Rajapur Pashiwar
P.S. Maharajganj, Siwan,Bihar
133504
5
Mahendra Rabidas-2
Sri Babulal Rabidas
Vill- Gobindpur P.S. Jhajha
P.O.Gidhor, Distt-Jamui, Bihar
157132
6
Nageshwar Ram
Sri Bandhu Ram
Vill-Samgiya,P.O. Barachakiya,
P.S. Madhuwan Motihari, Bihar
133512
7
Subhash Rabidas
Madneshwar Lakara
Vill-Chinberia, P.O. Gaura
P.S. Laxmipur, Distt-Jamue, Bihar
133562
8
Rajeshwar Lakara
Madneshwar Lakara
Vill-Kanke Road Johar Nagar,
PO+ PS- Johar Nagar, Distt- Ranchi
9
Sakaldeo Rabidas
Late Dahu Manjhi
Vill-Koluhakewal, P.O.Malaypur
P.S. Barhat, Distt-Jamue, Bihar
133504
10
Mudhan Manjhi
Late Dahu Manjhi
Vill-Babhabawrue P.O.+P.S. Hilsa,
Distt-Nalanda, Bihar
142943
11
Pahlu Oraon
Late Pankhe Oraon
Vill-Tigara, Nawatoli, P.O.Pari,
P.S. Ratu, Distt-Ranchi, Jharkhand
158114
12
Birendra Das
Sri Ishwar Das
Vill-Munjapur, P.O.P.S. Rahue
Distt- Nalanda, Bihar
133083
13
Anil Kumar
Late Ashok Kumar
Vill-Chinakothi, Harijan Colony, Utari
Mandir, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Budha
Colony, Distt-Patna, Bihar
133562
14
Sanjiv Kumar
Sri Narayan Ram
Vill- Barhan State Tola, Rampatti Band
Ke Pichhe, P.O. Narhan, P.S.Bibhutipur,
Distt- Samastipur, Bihar
137415
15
Manoj Kumar
Sri Narayan Ram
-do-
137382
16
Shambhu Das
Late Ravi Saday
Vill- Madhepur, Tola Rajwa,
P.O. Barari, P.S. Benipatti,
Distt- Madhuwani, Bihar
134229
17
Vijay Kumar Thakur
Sri Badri Thakur
Vill-Chinakothi, Harijan Colony, Utari
Mandir, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Budha
Colony,Distt-Patna, Bihar
133257
18
Kundan Kumar
Late Jhari Ram
Vill- Rajwa,P.O. Barari, P.S. Benipatti,
Distt- Madhuwani, Bihar
134205
19
Surendra Ram
Late Beni Ram
Vill+P.O.+P.S. Chenari, Dist-Sasaram,
Rohtas, Bihar
133744
20
Mahendra Mahli
Sri Bandhu Mahli
Vill-Chakmai, P.S Budmu, Distt-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
157106
21
Surendra Ram
Sri Bharat Ram
Vill+P.O. Pali Thara Ratu, Distt-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
133744
22
Vijay Ram
Sri Bharat Ram
Vill+P.O. Khuti, Distt-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
13309
23
Sudin Das
Sri Bachu Das
Vill+P.O. Badh Ladma, Distt-Patna,
Bihar
142969
24
Bachu Das
Sri Jageshwar Das
-do-
133554
25
Shivnath Ram
Sri Laxman Ram
Vill+P.O. Jamela Madneshwar Asthan,
P.S. Andhra Thari, Distt-Madhubani,
Bihar
13330
26
Jahrang Ram
Sri Prahlad Mahli
Vill+P.O. Chaknai Budmu
P.O. Chakmae, Distt. Ranchi
137457
658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27
Ranjan Ram
Sri Sita Ram
Vil+P.O.Yarpur, Ambedkar Nagar
135328
28
Chandradip Paswan
Sri Banwari Paswan
Vill-Chinakothi Utari Mandir,
Distt-Patna, Bihar
132979
29
Ludhka Ram
Sri Bandhu Mahli
Vill+P.O.Chaknai Budmu
P.O. Chakmae, Distt. Ranchi
133468
30
Pradeep Kumar
Late Babu Lal Das
Vill+P.O. Utrai, Distt- Nalanda, Bihar
133299
31
Ajay Kumar
Sri Badri Thakur
Vill-Chinakothi Utari Mandir,
Distt-Patna, Bihar
379231
32
Radheshyam Kumar
Bachu Das
Vill+P.O Badhaldama, Distt-Patna,
Bihar
379249
2.
The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 28.11.2011. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement
on 24.02.2012. But the management files their written statement on 01.11.2012. Thereafter rejoinder and document
filed by the parties. Seven witnesses examined on behalf of the management but two witnesses examined on behalf of
the workmen.Documents of the management marked as M-1 & M-2 series and documents of workman marked as W-1
to W-32.
3.
The case of the Sponsoring Union is that the Sponsoring Union raised the demand that in M/s Bokaro Steel
Plant at in major departments several contract Labourers are working on the permanent and perennial nature of job
since last several years. The Jharkhand State Teka Mazdoor Advisory Board has investigated and it has been found that
in nine major departments contract Labourers are working since last several years. The Sub-committee of the
Advisory Board has also found that in these departments contract system which has been applied is not actual but
camouflage and the contract labourers who are working in these departments alongwith permanent workers are being
deprived with equal pay for equal work and other benefits. They have been also deprived with the provisions of the
Minimum wages Act.
4.
It is further submitted by the Sponsoring Union is that when production started from the BSL in 1976 , right
from very beginning contract labourers have been appointed in Hot Strip Mill, Coke Oven, Cold Rolling Mill, Traffic
Department, Steel Melting Shop, H.R.C.P Plant, Central Store Board, Slabing Mill and Dusting , cleaning and
sweeping . The contract labourers were used for the dispatch of materials going outside in the railway wagon and they
were also used for loading materials in the wagon but they are not paid even the minimum wages. These contact
workers worked at par with the regular workmen and when the regular workmen connived for doing the work is being
taken by contract labourers
5.
It is further submitted by the sponsoring Union that the workmen doing cleaning and sweeping job also in CRN
cleaning department. The sweeping , dusting and cleaning have been totally prohibited by notification No. S.O No. 779
(E) dated 9.12.1976 prohibiting employment of contact labour and watching of building or occupied by and whichever
taken the work of sweeping, cleaing and dusting by the contract labour and ex-facie violate section 10 of the Act and it
creates the master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the contract labour. The management of
Bokaro Steel Plant is deliberately and knowingly violating the provisions of the law so for it relates to the contract
laboures since last several years.
6.
The Jharkhand State Advisory Board had constituted a sub-committee and they had submitted a report. The
Deputy Labour Commissioner –cum-President of that sub- committee Bokaro Steel City submitted a report in detail
that how the work is being taken by the Bokaro Steel Plant from the contract Labourers in the Hot Strip Mill, Coke
Oven, Cold Rolling Mill, Traffic Department, Steel Melting Shop, HRCF Plant, Central Store, Slabbing Mills, Stock
yard and contract Labourers are engaged in sweeping, Cleaning and dusting.
7.
It is also submitted by the union is that the provident fund of the contract labourers working are being deducted
and the share of the management is being paid by the management and each and every contract workers should have
allotted code No. by provident fund Department.
8.
It is also submitted by the sponsoring union that the management is directed to contractor to engage the
workmen here and there, the contractor had no choice to engage the workmen, it shows that here is existence of
relationship of employer and employee between the SAIL , Bokaro Steel Plant and the workers engaged by the
contractor since last several years as such they are entitled to regular employment in Bokaro Steel Plant Ltd. and they
are entitled to all benefits arising out of that. It will not out of place to mention here that the contractor workers have
been assigned the job of cleaning . The work involves cleaning in around scale yard and slabbing mill at Sl. Mill and
the surrounding and also removal of scale scrapes pieces from the equipments and the above Areas. The railway tracks
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
659
are to be kept clean from all foreign materials and any other terms which may be required to be cleaned. Cleaning job
must be to the satisfaction of the suptd. Sl.Mill.
9.
It appears that the management of Bokaro Steel Plant are violating the memorandum of understanding signed
between the management of SAIL and National Joint council of the steel dated 17th may 1995 clause 3.5.1 of the
memorandum of understanding deals with contract labour. R.L.C ( C) has pointed out that a large number of contract
workers are employed in Bokaro Steel Plant of permanent and perennial nature of job but the management not
regularized the workmen hence Industrial dispute arose.
10.
On the other hand the case of the management is that the management never appointed and engage the
concerned persons whose names appearing in the annexure to the reference hence the management is not aware about
the concerned persons, there is no employer – employee relationship between the concerned persons and the
management.
11.
It is further submitted by the management that the management never paid any wages to the concerned persons
and the management is also not aware whether these persons ever worked under any contractor or not.
12.
M/S Bokaro Steel Plant being a Govt. of India undertaking is legally bound to follow specific rules and
procedure of appointment and engagement of persons and its employees.
13.
It is also submitted by the management that the management of Bokaro Steel Plant engaged contractor
exclusively in casual and temporary nature of job and the contractor is genuine and the contract is only awarded when
the contractor completed the legal procedure as per contract Labour Act.
14.
The management also submitted that to get regularization phase wise, it is mandatory to prove the vacancy for
phase-wise regularization but in the written statement of the workmen there is no mention of the alleged vacancy for
regularization of phase –wise. It is pertinent to mention that there is no vacancy for regularization of any persons.
15.
It is also submitted by the management that to claim equal pay for equal work , it is mandatory to prove that
nature of work, designation, reliability, experience, circumstances, post and nature of job almost similar and source of
engagement are the same , then only a workman can claim equal pay for equal work, and they did neitherdo the same
before the conciliation Officer nor in the written statement the union stated in details to claim equal pay for equal work.
16.
The management also submitted that the union in its written statement did not disclose the name of alleged
contractor under whom the alleged person have been working. The details of the alleged persons name in the annexure
to the reference is highly speculative and fictitious and their demand for regularization is without any basis.
17.
It is further submitted by the management that there is no merit in the reference case and the persons named in
the reference are not entitled for regularization nor they are entitled for wages and other facilities at par with
management’s employees.
18.
The point involved in this reference is that whether the workmen is rendering services to the Bokaro Steel Plant
(SAIL) under contractual service, who are to be regularized or not. The workmen submit that they are rendering service
to the BSL continuously and they were issued gate pass by BSL and their E.P.F were also deducted. Evidencing that
they produced the photocopy of gate pass, I.D Card and E.P.F papers.
19.
But the management urges, that the workman was engaged through contractor but has not denied the
workman’s document and took the plea that the management, has not issued any appointment letter, regularization of
workman is only giving scope of backdoor entry which is not permissible.
20.
The case of union is that , the contractor changes but the workers continue to do the same job continuously in
the main production departments of the plant since more than two decades.
21.
The list of workmen are mentioned many other departments like Hot Strip Mill, Coke Oven, Cold Rolling Mill,
Traffic Deptt, Steel Melting Shop, Hot Rolled Coil Finish, Central Store, Slabbing Mill and Cleaning jobs under
contractor.
(i)
Hot Strip Mill – Related to Production work, it is regular and continuous nature
(ii)
Coke Oven – Directly related to production , It is permanent and continuous job.
(iii)
Cold Rolling Mill – Essential job of production, it also permanent job.
(iv)
Traffic Department- Essential for efficient function of production job are also continuous work.
(v)
Steel Melting Shop – Essential production job, it is also continuous nature of work.
(vi)
Hot Rolled Coll Finish – It is production job, is also continuous job.
660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(vii) Central Store Group- Related to production job, it is also continuous job.
(viii) Slabbing Mill- Related with production are also important
(ix)
Cleaning jobs- The job are essential for health and hygiene of the employees deployed in inside plant are
also continuous work.
All works are of continuous and permanent nature of job and the workers are carrying out these jobs
continuously since more than 15-20 years as per report of ALC & Labour advisory Board.
22.
On perusal of the record it is seen that the management examined seven witnesses in all witnesses there are
officers, contractor and others. The MW-! Sri Prabhakar Kumar working as AGM (Pers) Says in his cross examination
that I am working in Contract Labour Cell of personal deptt. of BSL. We take case of contact workers, in CLC.
Categorization of contract workers is categorized by contractor. He again says job are categorized and the persons who
are working there comes to that category. We are paying the money to contractor not to workmen. He also says the
management will deduct their wage. Since I am now not in CLC, I can not say the actual position.
23.
The MW-2 Sri Subhash Chandra Jha says in cross examination few portion of cross examination is quoted
below :-
“ I am a contractor there since 20 years. From 2009 to 2010, I was also executing work as contactor, I
engaged persons in coke oven, hot strip Mill. Names appearing in the list of names under reference,
worked under me for eleven months. Job can be categorized. I am still doing contract in coke oven and
hot steel. My workmen works in General Shift. Job I am executing the A category job”.
24.
The MW-3 Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari says in cross examination, few portion of cross examination is quoted
below:-
“ I am doing job contract since 1993 in Bokaro Steel Plant. Now I am doing contract work in cold
rolling mill, I am engaging 25 workmen in CRM since 11 months. The job my workmen doing is of Cat-
A. My workmen are cleaning the machines of the plant and also looking after that thought ,I have
power to take action against the workmen on the ground of misconduct. I have not taken any action
since I have not noticed any misconduct”.
25.
The MW-4 Shri Jagdish Choudhary says in cross examination, few portions of cross examination is quoted
below:-
“ In Stores, I am executing job contract. The workmen engaged, to take material to oxygen Plant to
railways etc. My workmen also do the work of material feeding i.e to Sub Stores. Some contractors
does permanent job contract, some temporary”.
26.
On perusal of volumes document, in which one document marked as Ext- W-17 , it is report of contract Labour
advisory Board , Jharkhand state, Sub Committee of Bokaro Steel Plant under the chairmanship of Dy Labour
commissioner, it is Joint committee of Management representative as well as Labour representative unions , and in
Ext- W-16 it is also report of ALC, Bokaro Thermal, and one other Ext- W-15 report of Jt. Secretary of Jharkhand
Govt. Mrs Alis Usha Rani Singh.
27.
On perusal of all above three documents mentioned the job performed by listed workmen are permanent and
perennial nature and directly related to production and processes of the plant. These reports have been prepared by the
respective authorities based on the spot inspection of the various departments of Bokaro Steel Plant on the direction of
contract Labour Advisory Board of the State of Jharkhand. It is stated in tripartite report and reported that the
concerned listed workmen carrying out assigned jobs alongwith the permanent employees of company since more than
decades such as since 1976 so on continuously is permanent nature of job.
28.
It has further been stated in that report that contract worker is engaged in permanent nature of job of cleaning in
Hot Strip Mill of the company since 1977, and similarly in the slab Yard out of 25 contract workers engaged, and some
of them out of it continues also since then. Some contractor workers are earlier engaged in the job of cleaning and
moping of bathrooms situated in the plant.
29.
The listed contract workers were deployed in the production unit of BSL (SAIL) along with permanent workers
and carry out the same and similar job and not paid even the minimum wages for which they are fully entitled. They are
also deployed in cleaning sweeping and dusting job which are totally prohibited by the Govt. vide notification No. SO
No. 779(E) dated 09.12.1976 and thus the engagement of contract workers in these prohibited job is exfacie violation
of contract labour ( Regulation and abolition) Act 1970 .
30.
On this context the Supreme Court judgment is fully related, in Civil Appeal No. 3209-3210 of 2015 arising
out of SLP ( C) Nos 7105-7106 of 2014 Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs Secretary, Municipal Employees Union-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
661
“Industrial Disputes Act 1947- Section 2 (ra) read with Entry No.10 of Fifty Schedule and Section25 (t) and
25 (u) REgularisation of daily wagers- work which was being done by concerned workmen and same as that of
permanent workmen of appellant- Panchayat – they have also been working for similar number of hours-
However, discrepancy in payment of wages/ Salary between permanent and non permanent workmen is
alarming and same has to be construed as being unfair labour practice- there is no restriction for recruitment of
workmen in panchayat set up- there would be no difficulty for appellant – panchayat to bear extra cost for
payment of wages/salary and other monetary benefits to concerned workmen if they are made permanent-
Principle “ equal work equal pay” has been violated by appellant panchayat as they have been treating
concerned workmen unfairly- Services of concerned workmen are permanent in nature since they have worked
for more than 240 days in a calendar year for date of their initial appointment – High court rightly not
interfared with award of Labour Court as same is legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons- Appeal
dismissed.
31.
In addition to above in Ext W- 15 it has also been stated in that report that in Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), that
contract workers have been categorized as category A and B. The contractor workers of Category A had been offered
VRS by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and contract workers opted for it but which was discontinued from
2002. It is also mentioned that the contractor changes but the workers continue to do the same job continuously in the
main production departments of the plant since more than two decades.
32.
Ext-W-32 it is the document of management of BSL issued by personal Department (Contract Labour Cell)
stated to be issued with the approval of the competent Authority, for revision of rated of wages and allowance for
contract workers has been conveyed to Asstt. General Manager I/C . In that latter in a Note it has been stated by CPM
(P/W) that engaged contract workers participating in work stoppage for more than two hours will lose special
allowance payable them for six days.
33.
As per Ext W-5 and W-20 series written by the various concerned authorities of the management, It is a Note
sheet of various dated submitted to the respective higher authority for approval, in which it is noticed that the job being
under taken by the listed workers are of continued and permanent including urgent nature which are directly related to
production, dispatch and sale of the company. It is also noticed that most of the case, the contract workers are allowed
to work under the direct supervision and control of the management when work period of the existing work order get
expired, in the intervening period till fresh work order is issued. As well as in that situation wages is also paid by the
management to the concerned workmen not only this the PF Accounts and contribution is also maintained by the Board
of PF trustee of Bokaro Steel Plant and for that annual PF statement is also issued by the company to the workmen
concerned.
34.
As per WW-3 some workmen is categorized as A category it is also verified by Ext-W-8 stand to prove that
Cat-A contractor workers, they are appointed and their service are dispensed with by management. WW-4 is admitted
that some contract work is permanent nature of job. This also reported by ALC, Bokaro and State Advisory Board that
works listed in this case is permanent nature of job which is done by the concerned workmen continuously without any
break. But is also seen that CL and holiday also allowed to the workmen. In view of judgement of Supereme Court
reported in AIR 1986 SC 132 RBI Vs Tikka Mazdoor, All Sunday & paid holiday shall be taken into Account for
calculation of 240 days as provided U/S 25 B of I.D.Act.
35.
As per fifth Schedule of I.D Act, 1947, it is pertinent to mention here that “ To employ workmen as badlis ,
casual, temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and
privileges of permanent workmen”.
36.
As per Ext W-8 it also noticed that category A contractor workers, they are appointed and their services are
dispensed with by the intervention of management which is supported by MW-3. It is also noticed that slabing mill,
HRCF and trafic department is doing the job of cleaning, which is prohibited category work. In this context the one
judgement of 2700 worker in Bombay Tribunal of Municipal corporation of Mumbai Vs Kachara Vahtuk Shramik
Sang in Reference 13/2007 goes in favour of workmen which is comfirmed by High Court Bombay in writ petition
11519 of 2014 and also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 4929 of 2017 in which cleaning job
is permanent category work, but abolished.
37.
In view of above facts it is proved that all concerned workmen are working continuously for 20-25 years, even
in cleaning job hence now the workmen concerned were worked more than 240 days in direct related to production in
supervision by management. Production work is continuous work without break, it means all workmen are working
continuosly. On conclusion it find that the contract system of company Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) is camouflage and
smoke screen which deprive the contract workmen from getting legitimate benefits and for that in that case they
deserverd regularisation.
662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
38.
As per order of Supreme court (L&S) 451 Sudarshan Rajpoot vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation in Civil Appeal Nos. 10355-54 of 2014 decided on 18 Nov. 2014 some portion is quoted below :-
“Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 S-2 (ra) r/w Ss25 T, S, 25 U and sch-V Item 10 -Prohibition from
engaging workman as badlis, casual or temporary to work on permanent basis – service of appellant
workmen who was continuously working for more than 3 years and had rendered more than 240 days
of service in calendar year terminated without notice- Held extracting work of permanent nature
continuously for more than three years on contract basis is statutorily prohibited and hence
impermissible – same amount to unfair Labour practice and is punishable.”
39.
Facts are not disputed but it is said that the contractor workers were engaged by them and they are paying the
wages to them though intermidiaries but prodcution is done by the concerned workmen for management and profits is
also taken by the management which is proved . All listed work is permanent nature of job and company is running and
factory is generating the production. In these circumstances when the workmen were rendeing permanent nature of
work they are to be benefited at par with regular employee. It is directed as under:
(i)
The workmen who have rendering service and it appears that their EPF has been deducted , their EPF
contribution and their accumulation be given to them or their legal representative immediately if any.
(ii)
Each workmen be given lump-sum-Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of their regularisation who are already died or
attained age of superannuation, either to their LR or the retired workmen as the case may be for the ends
of justice.
(ii)
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the contract workers as per list enclosed be
regularized from date of reference phase wise by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in any
department and the departments in which they are working within 30 days from the publication of the
award, if the award is not implemented within 30 days, the management to give the workmen back
wages from the date of publication of award.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-148-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;
thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@34@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-17012/34/2013-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 19th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 50/2014
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
663
Between :
Sri P. Ramesh,
S/o P. Ramu,
D.No.5-123, Sivalayam Temple Street,
Poranki (P.O.) Penamaluru (M).
Krishna District
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam (AP).
2.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, CB-III Branch,
Swarnalok complex, Eluru Road,
Governor Pet, P.B. No.318,
Vijayawada – 520002
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent
:
Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/34/ 2013-IR(M) dated 5.3.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India, and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Shri P. Ramesh, Ex-Temp. Class-IV, LIC of India, Vijayawada, CB-III
branch w.e.f. 21.1.2013, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 50/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that
the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’
award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-149-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@67@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-30012/67/2013-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 19th day of December, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 61/2014
Between :
Sri Ch. Nageswara Rao,
S/o Rama Rao,
D.No.7-67, Sivlayam Veedhi,
Kasimkota (Village and Mandal)
Visakhapatnam district
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The OSTS Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Visakha Territory (Retail), Post Box No.213,
Near Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam – 530014.
2.
Lt.Col. (Retd.) V. N. Raju,
D.No.43-18-168, First Floor,
Venkataraju Nagar, T.S.N. Colony,
Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam -530016
…Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. Dr. R. Sreeramulu & R. Praveena, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy, V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 30012/ 67/2013-IR(M) dated 1/4/2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
665
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Lt.Col (Retd.) Vegi Nooka Raju, Contractor as well as Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Territory (Retail) Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sh. C.
Nageswara Rao, Ex-filling Boy, Kasikmkota Petrol Bunk (Contract Worker) w.e.f. 30.11.2007 is legal and/or
justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled for?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 61/2014 and
issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their
respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:
The workman was working in the management company through contractor since 19.8.2002 as Filling Boy and
through out his service period he has given performance to the satisfaction of the management. It is submitted that
the management is doing retail/wholesale selling of petrol through its outlet bunk situated at Kasimkota. While so, on
17.11.2007 when the workman was in his duty as Filling Boy, Labour Inspector Shri K.V.S. Sarma visited the bunk of
the first management for inspection. During inspection, the Labour inspector questioned the workmen who were
working in the bunk, in presence of the Bunk management, Sales Officer and the contractor Shri Vegi Nooka Raju,
whether the management is paying wages regularly or not. By that time as the second management is due to pay one
month wages to the workers, the said fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Inspector by the workman. The
Labour Inspector in turn warned the management that action will be taken, if they do not pay the wages in time to the
workers in future. Keeping grudge on the information given to the Labour Inspector on the previous day, the
management without showing any cause and without issuing any notice, removed the workman from services. When
the workman asked the management why he was removed from services, the sales contractor Mr. Vegi Nooka Raju
called the workman into his chamber and hit the workman on his right cheek and directed the workman to go to his
house and bring his parents immediately or bring an apology letter from his parents stating that their son will not
interfere with the issues of the bunk by giving such information like the above to the third party like Statutory
Authority etc. The workman was threatened in the room and was asked to obtain an undertaking letter from his parents
stating that he will not disclose anything to the third party about the management company. It is also threatened that
unless the workman gives that letter they will not reinstate him. Having no option under coercive situation, the
workman and his parents executed an undertaking letter and gave it to the management. But the management has not
kept their word to reinstate the workman. It is submitted that the workman was removed from the services basing on
the instructions of BPCL management. It is also submitted that with an ill-intention a letter was taken by the
management forcibly from the workman on the ground of the workman’s ill-health he will not work. The workman
submits that he made rounds around the management for about six years and it was in vain. He made representation to
the District Collector in prajavani, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, which in turn marked
to the Joint Labour Officer, Anakapalli, who in turn called the management to appear before the authority on
19.12.2009. Though the management agreed before the Labour Authority to reinstate the workman and sought five
days time to do the same. But, inspite of such assurance, the workman was not reinstated into service by the
management, the workman finally approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) for redressal of his grievance.
Hence, the reference. It is further stated that the workman served from 19.8.2002 to 30.11.2007 in the bunk of the
management as Filling boy and during the above said period the management had deducted around Rs.50,000/-
towards PF and ESI from the salary of the workman and out of the above amount, he was paid only Rs.5000/-, after
getting a letter forcibly which was projected as a purported resignation. The workman submitted that he has not given
any resignation as such and management No.2 had virtually and factually terminated the workman form the service
illegally. The workman has been terminated from service without valid reason and without issuing any notice which
contravenes the legal provisions and also tantamounts to unfair labour practice. The old parents of the workman are
entirely depending on him for their livelihood. Therefore the workman has prayed to direct the management to
reinstate him with continuity of service with back wages and with all attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondent management appeared and did not submit their respective counters and as such, the
management is set ex-parte.
4.
The Petitioner workman filed his chief evidence affidavit and marked thirteen documents as Ex.W1 to W13.
But the Respondents Management though appeared, did not prefer to file their counter.
5.
I have already heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the evidence adduced so far from the
side of the workman.
6.
The points for determination of this case are:-
I.
Whether the action of the management of Lt.Col(Retd) Vegi Nooka Raju, Contractor as well as Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakha Territory (Retail) Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of
666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sh. C. Nageswara Rao, Ex-filling Boy, Kasikmkota Petrol Bunk (Contract Worker) w.e.f. 30.11.2007 is
legal and/or justified?
II.
If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled for?”
7.
Point No. I : The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the workman was
working as filling boy in the Respondent management through a contractor since 19.8.2002 and since the day of
inception of his service he has given good performance to the management up to its satisfaction. The management is
doing retail/wholesale selling of petrol through its outlet bunk situated at Kasimkota. On 17.11.2007 while the
workman was in his duty as Filling Boy, Labour Inspector Shri K.V.S. Sarma visited the bunk of the management for
inspection and during the course of inspection, the Labour inspector questioned the workman in presence of the Bunk
management, Sales Officer and contractor Shri Vegi Nooka Raju, who was working in the bunk, whether the
management is paying wages regularly or not. During that time as the second management is due to pay one month
wages to the workers, the above fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Inspector. Immediately, the Labour
Inspector warned the management that action will be taken, if they do not pay the wages to the workers in time.
Keeping grudge on the information given to the Labour Inspector by the workman on the previous day, the
management without showing any cause and without issuing any notice, removed the workman from services and when
the workman asked the management about his removal from services, sales contractor Mr. Vegi Nooka Raju called the
workman into his chamber and assaulted the workman on his right cheek giving slaps and directed the workman to go
to his house and bring his parents immediately and also bring an apology letter from his parents stating that he will not
interfere with the issues of the bunk. The workman was threatened in the room and was asked to obtain an
undertaking letter. The Management also threatened the workman that unless such an undertaking was given, they will
not reinstate him. Having no option under coercive situation, the workman and his parents executed an undertaking
letter and gave it to the management. It is further contended that the management did not keep its word to reinstate the
workman and the Management removed the workman from the services basing on the instructions of BPCL
management. It is also contended that with an ill-intention a letter was taken by the management forcibly from the
workman on the ground of the workman’s ill-health that he will not work in the Management. The workman moved
round the management for about six years for his reinstatement but it was in vain. He made representation to the
District Collector in prajavani, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, which in turn marked to
the Joint Labour Officer, Anakapalli, who in turn called the management to appear before the authority. Though the
management agreed before the Labour Authority to reinstate the workmanin service and sought five days time to do
the same. But, inspite of such assurance, the workman was not reinstated into service by the management, and the
workman finally approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter, the
matter was referred to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. It is submitted that during the service period the
management had deducted around Rs.50,000/- towards PF and ESI from the salary of the workman, and out of the
above amount, he was paid only Rs.5000/-after getting a letter forcibly which was projected as a purported resignation
letter. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the workman has been terminated from service
without valid reason and issuing any notice which contravenes the legal provisions and also tantamounts to unfair
labour practice. After removal from service the workman is suffering like anything. He is unable to maintain his
family and also to provide a square meal to his old parents. Under the above circumstances the workman be reinstated
into service.
8.
The Petitioner has been examined himself as WW1 and also filed his chief evidence affidavit. The averments
made in the chief evidence affidavit fully supports the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
WW1 also proved 13 documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W13. Inspite of service of notice, the Respondents did
not turn up to challenge the claim of the Petitioner. The sole unchallenged testimony of the workman finds support
from the averments made in the claim statement.
9.
Admittedly the workman was working as a filling boy in the bunk of the Respondent management, and while
the workman is in service, the Respondent illegally terminated him. But, at the time of termination, the Respondent
has not issued any notice to him. Law is well settled that, if the services of a workman are terminated in violation of
any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such termination is unlawful and ineffective and the
workman would ordinarily entitled to reinstatement with the payment of full back wages.
10.
Further more, in this case, the workman, was engaged as a Filler boy and has discharged his duty through out
the year like that of a permanent worker but the Respondent management has engaged the workman through the
contractors, which the Management was not empowered to do. The Respondents have adopted such practice for
appointment of the workman through contractor only to exploit the labourers. The work done by the workman appears
to be perennial in nature and the Respondent management can not engage the workmen through contractors when the
work done by the workman is perennial in nature. Engagement of contract labour has been found to be unjustified by a
catena of decisions of the Apex Court. When the work of the Petitioner is of perennial in nature and inspite of
engaging regular workmen, the system of contract labour is resorted to, it would only be for fulfilling the basic purpose
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
667
of securing monetary advantage to the Principal Employer by reducing expenditure on work fords. It would obviously
be an unfair labour practice and is also an economically short sighted and unsound policy, both from the point of view
of undertaking concerned and the country as a whole. In this case, the management had adopted unfair labour
practice only to exploit the labourers. Further more, without serving any notice, as required under Sec.25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the management has terminated the services of the workman. Section 25F stipulates
mandatory conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen that any order of retrenchment in violation of Sec.25F
will render retrenchment order illegal. If any part of the provisions of Section 25F is violated and the employer
thereby, resorts to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with the privilege as provided under
the Act, the employer can not justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was
in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. In this case the management has not complied with the mandatory
provisions required under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the workman is entitled to be
reinstated into service. Thus, it can safely be said that the action of the management is not legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I, is answered accordingly.
11.
Point No. II :
In view of the discussion made in Point No.I, as the Respondents have not shown the
reasons for retrenchment of the workman and even the workman was not in receipt of any notice of termination or
notice pay/one month pay and further the workman was not paid any retrenchment compensation of 15 days average
pay for every completed year of service, the workman is entitled to be reinstated into service.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
Result:
In view of the fore gone discussion, the reference is answered as follows:
The action of the management of Lt.Col(Retd) Vegi Nooka Raju, Contractor as well as Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd., Visakha Territory (Retail) Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sh. C. Nageswara Rao, Ex-filling Boy,
Kasikmkota Petrol Bunk (Contract Worker) w.e.f. 30.11.2007 is neither legal nor justified. The Respondents are
directed to reinstate the Petitioner workman in duty without back wages as a Filler in their Bunk within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the award. It is further directed that if the Petitioner/workman is not eligible
under the rules for his appointment as a Filler boy, the Respondents are at liberty to retrench the Petitioner only by
following the procedure laid down for retrenchment under the relevant Act.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 19th day of
December, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1: Sri Ch. Nageswara Rao
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of identity badge issued in the year 2002
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of identity badge issued by Manager, Bharat Petroleum, Anakapalli, NH-5, Kasimkota
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of Annual statement of P.F. Contribution of the workman for the year 2006-2007
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of wage sheet
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of witness of the co-workers on the termination of WW1
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of complaint No.6131 dt.24.11.2009 through prajavani to Dy. Commissioner of
Labour, Visakhapatnam by District Collectorate
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of Lr. from the office of Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam to Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Circle-I, Anakapalli dt.4.12.2009
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 19.12.2009 to Mr. Vegi Nooka Raju by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Anakapalli
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 12.1.2010 to Territory Manager by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)
668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of proceeding of Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) dt. 5.1.2010
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of lr. to Central Labour Commissioner, Visakhapatnam
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of lr. Central Labour Commissioner, Visakhapatnam
Ex.W13:
Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 20.8.2013
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-150-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
egkfuns'kd] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
14@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@05@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director
General, Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 15.01.2018.
[No. L-42012/05/2016-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 2016
Between :
Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Chheeter Singh,
Vill.- Dahraura, PO-Dahtaura,
Agra (U.P) - 282007
Versus
1.
The Director General,
Archeological Survey of India,
Janpath,
New Delhi- 110011
2.
The Superintending Archeologist,
Archeological Survey of India,
Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,
Agra(U.P.) -282001
AWARD
1.
Central Government, MoL, vide notification No. L-42012/05/2016-IR (DU) dated 15.02.2016 has referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating the services of
Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Chheeter Singh workman with effect from 01.01.2014 is just fair & legal? If not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
669
3.
In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court,
Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the
case
4.
Worker has filed his claim statement with the facts that he was working as casual labor with management from
1-04-2008 to 31-12-13 continuously and has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year but he was
retrenched and his services was terminated without giving any notice on 01-01-2014 and management has not complied
with the provision of 25(F) of I.D ACT. It is also alleged that his attendance was taken on muster role and sometimes
his wages were paid through vouchers in different names.
5.
Management has filed w/s denying the facts alleged in claim statement. It is also alleged that worker has not
worked continuously for more than 240 days and has also not worked during the period as alleged in claim statement
and his services was never terminated by management. It is also alleged that there is no relationship of employee and
employer between the parties and therefore worker is not entitled to any relief.
6.
Worker has not filed any rejoinder.
7.
Parties have not filed any oral or documentary evidence. It is initial burden of worker to prove that he has
worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding alleged termination. Worker has also not filed any voucher nor
examined himself. Therefore worker is utterly failed to prove his case for want of oral and documentary evidence as
such worker is not entitled to any relief.
8.
The reference is answered against worker and it is held that worker has failed to prove his case for want of oral
and documentary evidence and he is not entitled to any relief.
9.
Award is passed accordingly against worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;
foekuiÙku izkf/dj.k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11011@12@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.01.2018.
[No. L-11011/12/2002-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 14/2003
Date of Passing Award – 18th December, 2017
670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Between :
1.
The Director, Airport Authority of India,
Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar,
Orissa. Pin – 751 009.
2.
The Senior Manager (Electrical), Engg. Wing,
Airports Authority of India, Biju Pattnaik
Airport, Bhubaneswar
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
The General Secretary,
Biju Pattnaik Bimana Bandar Thika
Mazdoor Sangh, Plot No. 219/A,
Mancheswar Industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa – 751 010
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances :
M/s. S. Pattnaik, Advocate
…
For the 1st Party-Managements.
M/s. Subrat Mishra, Advocate
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercising its authority conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”) have
referred a dispute between the Management of the Director, Biju Pattnaik Airport and allegedly its workmen vide letter
No. L-11011/12/2002 – IR(M), dated 31.03.2003 for its adjudication and the schedule of the reference is as follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India in relation to their Biju Pattnaik Airport,
Bhubaneswar not to regularise the services of sixteen contract labourers as per list enclosed as well as not
giving them equal pay for equal work at par with various categories of employee employed in their own
establishment considering their length of service, experience and essentiality to the Organization is legal &
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
The case of the disputant workmen, as revealed from their statement of claim, is that they are engaged under
different contractors from time to time for doing day to day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plant,
generator sets, electrical installations, electrical maintenance of high-mast towers, car parks, flood lights, street lights
etc. and to maintain proper air traffic and air transport service as well as to maintain adequate safety device in the
establishment of the Management. It is alleged that the work performed by the disputants are permanent and perennial
in nature and they have been working continuously and uninterruptedly since long under the direct control and
supervision of the officers of the Management. It is also averred that by virtue of notification dated 16.11.1999
published in the official gazette by the Government of India under section 10(1) of Contract Labour (R & A) Act the
employment of such contract labourers in the jobs, operation and processes specified in the schedule appended to the
notice was prohibited with effect from 16.11.1999. Despite such prohibition of contract labour system in the
establishment of the Management their services were neither regularized nor permanent status was conferred on them.
To deny them their legal and legitimate entitlements the Management has taken a recourse of sham arrangement of so
called contract system. Such system is a smoke screen only though in reality the real employer is the Management. It
has been further averred that they are performing the same work which their counter-parts in regular service are doing
and as such they are also entitled to the wages and other financial benefits at par given to the regular employees in view
of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. That being the facts the services of the disputants are to be regularized
by the Management and they are entitled to receive the wages and other financial benefits, which are extended to a
regular employee of the same class. As the Management paid no heed to their genuine demand, they raised a dispute
before the labour machinery resulting in the present reference.
3.
The Management has filed its written statement refuting the pleadings advanced by the disputants and averred
that it is not known whether the disputants are working continuously and uninterruptedly under any contractor for
maintenance of air conditioning plant, generator sets, electrical installations etc. According to it the contractors are
engaged and entrusted with the works of maintenance and installation of air conditioning generator sets, electrical
installations, etc. works from time to time through open tender process. The disputant, may being employed and paid
by those contractors, are standing in different footing than the regular employees of the Management. Their nature of
job is not identical to the duties discharged by the regular employees as much as responsibility, reliability and
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
671
confidentiality are concerned. As such, the disputant can neither be regularized in service nor they can be paid wages
similar to the wages paid to the regular employees. According to the Management no provision has been incorporated
in the Contract Labour (R & A) Act for absorption or regularization of workers engaged by the contractors in the event
of issuance of notification under section 10(1) of the Act. It is further pleaded that the gazette notification dated
16.11.1999 whereby engagement of contract labour was prohibited is quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a
Civil Writ Petition No. 6540/1999 and as such, the contention raised by the disputants that their services should have
been regularized in the event of the alleged notification and they being employed for the work of permanent and
perennial in nature has no merit. Therefore, the Management has strenuously contended that the claim of the disputants
has neither any merit nor it is tenable in the eye of law.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for effective adjudication of the
dispute.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the 16 numbers of contract labourers (as per list) deserve to be regularized by the Management.
2.
Whether the aforesaid contract labourers are entitled to get equal pay at par with their counter-part
regular employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work?
3.
If not, to what relief the contract labourers are entitled?
5.
The 2nd party-Union has examined one of the disputants workman namely Shri Abhimanyu Mallick and
exhibited Xerox copies of the documents like copy of the letter of demand for regularization of services filed before the
A.L.C.(C) dated 28.9.2001, copy of the gazette notification of the Ministry of Labour prohibiting certain employment
pertaining to contract workers, copy of the registration of Trade Union under Trade Union Act, copy of the affiliation
certificate of the Trade Union and copies of different educational qualification certificates, experience certificates etc.
in support of the claims advanced by the disputants marked Ext.-1 to 5 whereas the Management has examined two
witnesses including Shri Mukesh Yadav who is working as Asst. General Manager Engg. (Elect), to refute the claim of
the disputants.
FINDINGS
6.
Coming to the first issue whether the Management is legally bound to regularize the services of 16 contract
labourers it is seen from the pleadings advanced in the claim statement of the 2nd party-Union and the evidence adduced
by them that no specific and clear cut stand is taken by the disputants that they were actually employed or appointed by
the Management before the gazette notification dated 16.11.1999 prohibiting engagement of contract labourers or they
were paid wages directly by the Management. It is not also pleaded or in evidence of the 2nd party-Union that their
services were hired in paper transaction only after abolition of contract labour system by virtue of the gazette
notification. It is not also denied by the disputants that contractors were engaged or entrusted to do the maintenance
work of the air conditioner, electrical installation etc. There is also nothing specific either in the claim statement or in
the oral testimony of the W.W.-1 that they are working directly under the control and supervision of the officers of the
Management or their official conduct is being regulated by the Management. It has not been pleaded or adduced in
evidence that the disputants are being shown as contract labourers. Nothing specific is also advanced either in the
pleading or in evidence to claim that there was no agreement in regard to engagement of contract labourers or the
agreement if any was sham and camouflage to deny statutory benefits to the disputants. It is not specifically claimed by
the disputants either in the pleading or in evidence that the contractors and the Management have not complied with the
requirements of Section 7 and 12 of the Contractor Labour (R & A) Act while engaging them in day to day
maintenance work in air conditioning plant and other departments. The term of the reference is also silent if the
Tribunal is required to find out the engagement of disputant workman as contract labourers was sham and camouflage.
7.
It is argued on behalf of the Management that in absence of specific pleading and the term of reference being
silent as to whether the contract system is sham or a camouflage, the Tribunal has no scope to go beyond the terms of
reference to determine whether relationship of “employer and employee” exists between the parties or to determine
whether the disputants are deemed to be the employees of the Management in view of contract system being found
sham or a camouflage. To counter this argument the learned counsel for the 2nd party-Union has cited the decisions in
the case of International Airport Authority Employees Union & Anr. –versus- International Airport Authority of India
& Ors. (2000(8) Supreme 286, Pola Satyanarayana And Others –Versus- Secretary, Government of India (2000) IILLJ
1278 AP, and International Air Cargo Workers Union –versus – International Airport Authority of India and Others
(2002) 2 LLJ 79 and forcefully contended that the facts and circumstances of the present case being identical to the
above noted cases, the principles and observations set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court are applicable in the instant case
and the disputants are deemed to be the employees of the 1st Party in view of the Management having failed to produce
672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
any document or agreement between it and the contractors to prove their stand that the disputants were never employed
as contract labourers or they worked under any contractor in any point of time. Admittedly, in the case at hand no
contractor has been named either by the parties or in the term of reference. On a close reading of the decisions relied
upon by the disputants it is seen that the workmen in those cases had, through-out the proceedings contended that
though they were the employees of the principal employer they were shown as the employees of the contractor in paper
transactions only and the contract/agreement, if any, was sham or a camouflage. But in the instant case no specific
stand is either mentioned in the term of reference or in the pleadings of the disputants that their engagement by the
contractor is shown by virtue of a contract/agreement which is sham or a camouflage. In the case of International
Airport Authority of India –versus- International Air Cargo Workers Union & Another in Civil Appeal No. 2244 of
2002 relied upon by the Management the Hon’ble Apex Court keeping in view its own decision in the case of Gujarat
Electricity Board have observed in the following terms:-
‘’....the exclusive authority to decide whether the contract labour should be abolished or not is that of the
appropriate Government under the said provision. It is further not disputed before us that the decision of the
Government is final subject, of course, to the judicial review on the usual grounds. However, as stated earlier,
the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act arises only where the
labour contract is genuine and the question whether the contract is genuine, or not can be examined and
adjudicated upon by the court or the industrial adjudicator, as the case may be. Hence in such cases, the
workmen can make a grievance that there is no genuine contract and that they are in fact the employees of the
principal employer.
If the contract is sham or not genuine, the workmen of the so called contractor can raise an industrial dispute
for declaring that they were always the employees of the principal employer and for claiming the appropriate
service conditions. When such dispute is raised, it is not a dispute for abolition of the labour contract and
hence the provisions of Section 10 of the Act will not bar either the raising or the adjudication of the dispute.
When such dispute is raised, the industrial adjudicator has to decide whether the contract is sham or genuine. It
is only if the adjudicator comes to the conclusion that the contract is sham, that he will have jurisdiction to
adjudicate the dispute. If, however, he comes to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, he may refer the
workmen to the appropriate Government for abolition of the contract labour under Section 10 of the Act and
keep the dispute pending. However, he can do so fit the dispute is espoused by the direct workmen of the
principal employer. If the workmen of the principal employer have not espoused the dispute, the adjudicator,
after coming to the conclusion that the contract is genuine, has to reject the reference, the dispute being not an
industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. He will not be competent to give any
relief to the workmen of the erstwhile contractor even if the labour contract is abolished by the appropriate
Government under section 10 of the Act.”
8.
Keeping in view the specific stand of the disputants that a notification under section 10(1) of C.L. (R&A) Act
has been issued prohibiting engagement of contract labours in the establishment of the Management and in absence of
wording in the reference “whether engagement of the disputants was a sham or a camouflage” or in the pleadings
advanced in the claim statement in this regard, the argument advanced by the Management that it is only the
appropriate government which has the authority to take any action under section 10(1) of the said Contract Labour Act
cannot be out-rightly rejected. Further, in the case of Ram Singh –versus- Union territory, Chandigarh, AIR 2004 SC
969 it is observed that the industrial adjudicator is required to consider the question as to whether the contractor has
been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for
supply of contract labourers for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to
evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there-under. If the
contract is found to be not genuine the so-called contract labourers will have to be treated as the employees of the
principal employer and they shall be directed to be regularized in the establishment of the principal employer. It is
further observed that in determining the relationship of employer and employee “control” is one of the important tests.
However, all other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of
the contract. It is also observed that “integration test” is one of the relevant tests which is applied by examining whether
the person was fully integrated into the employer’s concern or remained apart from and independent of it. Facts which
may be relevant are who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contribution,
organize the work, supply tools and materials, and what are the mutual obligations between them. Inj General Manager
(OSD) Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajanandagaon –versus- Bharat Lal, 2011 (128) FLR 560 it is laid down that two
of the well recognized tests to find out whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal
employer are (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor; and (ii) whether the principal
employer controls and supervises the work of the employee.
9.
In International Air Port Authorities –versus- International Airport Cargo Workers Union, 2009 (123) FLR 321
(S.C) it is observed that if the contract is for supply of labour necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor will
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
673
work under the direction, supervision and control of the principal employer, but that would not make the worker a
direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by the contractor, if the right to regulate employment is
with the contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. It is further observed that the
principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labourer when such labourer is
assigned/allotted/sent to him. But, it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be
allotted/assigned to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, the worker being the employee of the contractor,
the ultimate supervision and control likes with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and subject
to what conditions. Only when the contractor send/assigns the workers to work under the principal employer, the
worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control.
10.
Keeping these principles in mind when the evidence on record is examined it is seen that the workmen, who has
been examined as a witness, has not asserted in his evidence that he was appointed or he is under the employment of
the Management and he is receiving his wages directly or indirectly from the Management or his duty was supervised
or controlled by the Management. Except a bald and a sweeping version that disputants are engaged in different years
since 1990 onwards, not a single scrap of paper or any document is filed in support of such assertion that the disputants
were working in different capacities for a long period under the direct employment of the Management before the
contract system was adopted by the Management. Law is well settled that initial burden lies on the workman to
establish that he is under the employment of the Management and he worked under the Management for more than 240
days and mere oral assertions to that effect is not sufficient to discharge the initial onus of the workman. Neither the
statement of claim nor the evidence advanced by the disputant discloses the manner in which the disputants were
selected or given appointment. It cannot be over-sighted that the Management being a Central Government
undertaking is required to follow the recruitment rules, guidelines and circulars for any appointment in its
establishment. There is also no claim that the disputants were engaged against any sanctioned posts or vacancies.
When the Management has taken a specific stand that the contractors have been engaged from year to year to look after
the electrical installations and its maintenance and there was no employer and employee relationship between the
parties, a heavy burden lies on the disputants to establish the said relationship. The Hon’ble Supreme Court have
observed in the case of General Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur (supra) that it is for the employees to aver and prove
that he was paid salary directly by the principal employer and not by the contractor. In the reported cases the
genuineness of the contract system was under consideration and the industrial Tribunal while deciding that the contract
was a camouflage had placed the onus upon the principal employer to prove that the workman was being paid by the
contractor. But, their lordships have observed that the Tribunal placed the onus wrongly upon the appellant. In the
same judgement it is also observed that the employee did not establish that he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the principal employer. Basing on such observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court it can be safely said that
initial onus lies on the disputants to establish their relationship with the Management.
11.
On the other hand the pleadings in the claim statement and oral evidence of W.W.-1 indicate that the disputants
are working under the contractors. It is not also their claim that they have been shown contract labourers being hired
through different contractors. They have not either pleaded or adduced any evidence that they were working as contract
labourers. Similarly, no-where it is claimed specifically that they were working under the Management being employed
by it directly. There is no averment that no contractor was ever engaged by the Management or there is no agreement
between the Management or any contractor for such continuous work or engagement of contract labourers or there is no
specific averment that agreement, if any, in this regard was sham and camouflage. On the other hand it is the stand of
the Management that works of air condition plant maintenance, electrical installations and its maintenance works are
being entrusted to the different contractors from time to time by adopting open tender process. At the same time the
disputants have pleaded that they were working under the various contractors. Hence, there is no relationship of
“employer and employee” between the parties. Law is well settled that the Labour Courts/Tribunals cannot travel
beyond the terms of reference. It is also now settled law that where the workman claimed that the contract between the
principal, employer and the contractor is sham and camouflage, he has to raise an industrial dispute to that effect and it
is industrial adjudicator, who after going through the evidence and the terms and conditions of the contract and other
circumstances has to decide whether the contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham and
camouflage. If the Industrial Adjudicator comes to conclusion that the contract is sham and camouflage, the industrial
adjudicator can order the absorption of workman by the principal employer. In absence of any specific term in the
schedule of reference in this regard as well as in the pleading that the contract between the principal employer and the
contract is sham and camouflage and in the event of the disputants being working under the contractors and in absence
of employer and employee relationship between the parties, the demand raised by the disputants are not tenable in the
eye of law i.e. I.D. Act. The Tribunal cannot go beyond the pleading and evidence and pass award on sympathy and
emotion on account of the disputants are working for a long period under a contractor for the cause of the Management.
12
For the discussions made above it is apparent that the 2nd party-workmen in this case do not seem to have raised
neither a correct dispute nor approached the appropriate government with the contentions that the contract labour
674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
system adopted by the Management was sham and camouflage or that the contract labour system should be abolished.
Rather, it is coming-forth from their pleadings and evidence that they got referred a dispute that they were the
employees of the Management and they were not being regularized and they were denied equal wages, that was being
paid to their counter-parts who are in regular service of the Management. It is settled law that Labour Courts/Tribunals
cannot travel beyond the terms of reference. If no reference has been made for determining whether the contract is
sham and camouflage, the Labour Court/Tribunal cannot enter into this issue and decide whether the contract is sham
and camouflage. The facts and circumstances of the decisions relied by the 2nd party-Union in support of their
contention are clearly distinguishable to the facts and issues involved in the present case and as such they have no
relevancy and they are not helpful to decide the fate of the present reference. The onus to prove the employer and
employee relationship is always on the disputant workmen at the first instance. The disputants having failed to
discharge such onus in a creditable and efficacious manner and in absence of any specific and clear-cut pleadings and
evidence in regard to their initial appointment/engagement, payment of wages and supervision and control of their
services by the Management, the Tribunal has no alternative than rejecting their claim for regularization of their service
by the Management.
Coming to the other issue whether the disputant workmen are entitled to get equal pay at par to their counter-
part in regular employment under the principles of “equal pay for equal work” it is pertinent to mention here that the
specific stand of the Management is that the work of maintenance of electrical installations etc. are given to the
contractors by inviting tenders from year to year. That being the stand of the Management, it is crystal clear that the
Management has also denied the engagement of the disputants as contract labourers and it is their plea that work of
cleaning, electrical installation and maintenance are being carried out through the contractors directly and the disputants
might have been engaged by those contractors to carry out the works entrusted to the contractors. In view of such stand
of the Management, a heavy burden also lies on the disputants to establish that they were working under the supervision
of the principal employer being engaged as contract labourers. The 2nd party has also failed to establish their status of
contract labourer engaged under the establishment of the Management. The disputants being found to be the employees
of the contractor I am of the considered view that their claim for equal wages and financial benefits at par with the
regular employees of the Management has no leg to stand in the eye of law. Had they been engaged as contract labourers
or hired through a contractor to do the day to day work of the establishment of the Management under its control and
supervision, their claim would have a legal sanction so far entitlement of minimum regular pay scale given to a regular
employee is concerned in view of the principles set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.
–versus- Jagjit Singh & Ors. But, they are standing in a different footing being employees of contractors. From the
pleadings and evidence of the parties it can be concluded at best that the services of the disputants are hired by different
contractors from time to time to carry-out the work entrusted to the contractors in a open tender process and in that
context the disputants cannot be said to have been discharging similar and same duties as discharged by the regular
employees as much as to the responsibility, reliability and confidentiality of such regular employees are concerned.
Hence, their demand for equal pay for equal work has no legal sanction. However, the Management may ensure that the
disputants shall not be exploited by the contractors and they shall not be deprived of minimum wages as fixed by the
Government from time to time.
For the discussions and analysis made above, the reference is answered against the 2nd party-Union and
accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lsy]
cksdkjks bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26012@22@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
675
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-26012/22/2015-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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 69 OF 2015
PARTIES
:
Jt.Gen. Secretary,
Bokaro Steel Rastriya Mazdoor Sangh,
Qr. No. 175, Sector -III/D, Bokaro Steel
Distt: Bokaro,
Vs.
The General Manager (P & A)
SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant,
P.O. Bokaro Steel City
Distt.Bokaro-827001
Order No. L-26012/22/2015-IR(M) dt. 23.09.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
: None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Steel
Dated, Dhanbad, the 14th Dec., 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-26012/22/2015-IR (M) dt.23.09.2015
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant in not paying the salary for
53 days during the period from June, 2000 to May, 2001 to Sri S.N.Singh is fair and justified? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled? ”
2.
Neither the workman nor any one on behalf of the Sponsoring Union is reported to be present on date nor did
file the much-awaited WS due on them since long even after serving a fresh notice; whereas Mr. D.K.Verma, LD
Advocate for the Management is present. not for this time but almost all along. Though Notices dtt.5. 9.16 and the last
one posting date on 06.01.2016 were mailed to the address of the Sponsoring Union referred in the Order of the
Reference itself but to no avail. The case is relating to non-payment of salary of the workman for 53 days seeking relief
therein by challenging the action of the Management.
From the perusal and materials on record it has been absolutely clear that case seems to be stalled over filing the
W.S. an onus resting on the part of the Union / workman for over more than two years or so . Even after inception
and rolling out as Reference, they failed to file the much awaited WS despite two notices and adjournments as much
as more than ten times since 24.02.2016. This show the gesture that the workman is no more interested to get the
instant case to final adjudication fuelling speculation that the case either must have been resolved out of Court or an
issue of non-existent , as of now. Simultaneously the Tribunal do not differ over of the view of keeping the case rolling
676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
merely for dates, is of no use rather wastage of time and energy even after adjournments for more than seven times ,
finally extract the conclusion of closing down for the end of the natural justice. Under these circumstances the case is
closed; and an order of the “No Dispute Award” is passed.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vEcqtk
lhesUV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- tsM&16025@3@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.01.2018.
[No. Z-16025/3/2017-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
CGIT 69/2015
Sh. Brajesh Pandey
S/o Sh. Dharmpal Pandey
Pandey Niwas, Sendada Road,
Byawar, Distt: Ajmer.
V/s
Unit Head
Ambuja Cements Ltd.
Unit Rabriyawas, P.O: Rabriyawas,
The: Jaitaran, Distt: Pali (Raj.)
Present :
For the applicant
:
Sh. R.C. Jain, Representative.
For the non-applicant
:
Sh. R.K. Jain, Advocate
AWARD
Dated :15.11.2017
1.
According to statement of claim dated 17.8.2015 filed u/s 2-A of I.D.Act, 1947 briefly fact of the case is that
applicant Sh. Brajesh Pandey for the first time was appointed as Trainee Clerk on 12.8.1994 under non-applicant. On
28.3.96 he was engaged to the post of Junior Assistant & confirmed on this post on 11.4.96. Vide order dated 28.1.2005
his post of Junior Assistant was re-designated as Senior Assistant . Applicant after his first appointment worked
continuously with establishment of the non-applicant till 27.2.15, the date on which his services were terminated by
non-applicant.
2.
The nature of the work of the applicant was permanent & was in existence till the date of his termination from
service. It has been further contended that before termination of his service he was neither chargesheeted nor any
enquiry was conducted before his dismissal, thus it is clear that his termination from service was not on account of
misconduct.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
677
3.
It has been further contended that retrenchment compensation was not given to him according to provision of
section 25-F of I.D.Act, 1947 & before his removal from service no sanction of retrenchment was obtained under
Section 25 N(b) from the competent authority. There were nearly 500 permanent workmen & 1600 contractual
workmen at the time of removal of the applicant from the service hence, there should have been three months notice or
three month’s pay in lieu of notice because of application of the provision of section 25-N of I.D.Act, 1947. It has been
alleged that only one month’s pay was given to the applicant in lieu of one month’s notice which is unjust & illegal &
order of termination is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It has been further alleged that reason of removal of
the applicant from service is change of condition of service which requires notice u/s 9-A of I.D.Act, 1947. In absence
of such notice termination of the applicant is illegal & unjust.
4.
It has been further alleged that provision of section 25-G, 25-H of I.D.Act, 1947 & rule 77 & 78 of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1958 have been violated in the matter of dismissal of the applicant from service because
before dismissal seniority list was not prepared & employees junior to the applicant are still working with non-
applicant & some employees have been appointed after removal of the applicant from service. Applicant has alleged
that he is still jobless since his dismissal. He has prayed that order be passed to declare his order of dismissal as unjust
& illegal with further direction for his reinstatement in service with continuity & back wages.
5.
Reply to statement of claim consists of four parts. Part one contains preliminary objection & part three contains
parawise reply to statement of claim. Part two deals with facts relating to applicant about his status as a supervisor &
part four contains the prayer by non-applicant to hold that statement of claim is not maintainable on the basis of
preliminary objection & applicant is not entitled to any relief. In preliminary objection it has been alleged that Central
Government is not the appropriate government & state government is the appropriate government because factory of
the non-applicant has been granted license by state government hence, industrial dispute must be raised by the applicant
with labour department of Rajasthan Government. Accordingly, Central Labour Department has no jurisdiction to
entertain any dispute raised by applicant. It has been further alleged that the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) vide certificate dated 21.12.2015 has directed the applicant to file the claim before the Labour
Court, Jaipur hence, statement of claim of the applicant is not maintainable before CGIT, Jaipur & CGIT, Jaipur is not
having jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It has been further alleged that applicant is not a workman within the meaning
of section 2(s) of I.D.Act, 1947 & the dispute raised by applicant is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of
section 2(k) of I.D.Act, 1947.
6.
In parawise reply to statement of claim it has been alleged against statement of para 1 to 3 & 5 that contents
therein are matter of record & at the time of termination of his services the applicant was working in HR department of
the company in management cadre (M grade). Contents of para 4 has been denied with further allegation that
contention of the applicant is wrong that the duties carried out by him existed at the time of termination of his service.
Against para 6 to 10 it has been submitted that applicant is not a workman as per section 2(s) of I.D.Act & his duties
were of supervisory in nature & hence, various sections of the I.D.Act, 1947 are not attracted in case of the applicant.
Contention of para 11 of statement of claim has been denied. Against para 12 it has been alleged that applicant has
deliberately withheld the facts relating to proceeding before the Conciliation Officer. It has been contended that
applicant has filed claim u/s 2-A of I.D.Act prior to the month of October, 2015 whereas certificate was issued to him
on 21.12.2015 wherein he was permitted to pursue the matter before the Labour Court, Jodhpur hence, application is
not maintainable before the CGIT, Jaipur & applicant is not entitled to any relief.
7.
In rejoinder, it has been alleged that this tribunal is competent to entertain the statement of claim filed by
applicant. Further, it has been alleged that contention made by non-applicant in reply to statement of claim is denied.
8.
During proceeding for further advancement of the case, on 5.10.2017 there was proceeding for filing amended
order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer by applicant about jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain
the statement of claim which was not filed. Argument of learned representative of both the parties was heard on the
point of jurisdiction & case was reserved for order. On 15.11.2017 following order was passed in relation to
jurisdiction which reads as under :-
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
CGIT 69/2015
Sh. Brajesh Pandey
V/s
Ambuja Cement Ltd.
678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Disposal of the issue of jurisdiction on the point of place of filing statement of claim by
applicant Sh. Brajesh Pandey.
Order
Dated : 15.11.2017
1.
Heard the argument of learned represenrtative of both the parties & perused the record carefully.
2.
It has been argued by learned representative of the non-applicant that this court situated at Jaipur is not having
jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim filed by applicant u/s 2-A of I.D.Act, 1947 because applicant vide
direction of the Conciliation Officer was directed to file the statement of claim u/s 2-A of the I.D.Act, 1947 before
Labour Court, Jodhpur. It has been further submitted that applicant has no propriety in law to decide the place of
jurisdiction himself & he has deliberately filed the statement of claim ignoring the direction of the Conciliation
Officer. Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that Conciliation
Officer is not empowered to decide & give direction to the applicant to file the case before the Labour Court, Jodhpur.
It has been further submitted by learned representative of the applicant that applicant has not received any direction as
mentioned in letter dated 23.2.2016 issued by Conciliation Officer wherein direction has been made about filing of the
case before the Labour Court, Jodhpur. Against above submission of the learned representative of the applicant it has
been alleged by learned representative of non-applicant that direction to file the case before Labour Court, Jodhpur has
been given to applicant hence, it is duty of the applicant to comply it & he cannot be permitted to say that he has not
received any direction because application has been moved by applicant himself on 21.12.2015 & on same date
direction has been given to file the case before the Labour court, Jodhpur.
3.
In view of arguments advanced by the learned representatives of both the parties I consider it necessary to
reproduce the copy of the letter dated 23.2.2016 written by Conciliation Officer to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India, New Delhi which reads as under :-
lajk/ku izfrosnu
Hkkjr Lkjdkj@Je ,oa jkstxkj eU=ky;
dk;kZy; mi eq[; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½]
gfjHkkm mik/;k; uxj ¼foLrkj½] iq"dj jksM] vtesj
Øekad %&,sts&5 ¼59½@2015@lJvk
fnukad 23-02-2016
izsf"kr %&
Jheku lfpo egksn;]
Hkkjr ljdkj
Je o jkstxkj ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh
fo"k; % & izcU/kd] eSllZ vEcqtk flesUV fy-] ;wfuV jkcfj;kokl] rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh ,oa Jh fczts'k
ik.Ms fuoklh lsnMk jksM] C;koj ftyk vtesj ds e/; lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds fookn esa lajk/ku izfrosnu izLrqr
djus ckcr A
egksn;]
Jh fczts'k ik.Ms iq= Jh /keZiky ik.Ms fuoklh lsnMk jksM] C;koj ftyk vtesj ds }kjk vius i= fnukad
'kqU; ¼izkIr fnuakd 24-3-2015½ ds rgr vkS|ksfxd fookn izcU/kd] eSllZ vEcqtk flesUV fy-] ;wfuV jkcfj;kokl]
rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh ds fo:) lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds lEcU/k esa izsf"kr fd;k x;k ¼^vuqyXud ^^,^^½A
ekeys esa izcU/ku dks izfrfyfi Hksts Hkstrs gq, la;qDr okrkZ@lqyg okrkZ fnuakd 8-5-2015 dks ,oa rni'pkr
fofHkUu vU; frfFk;ksa dks lEcfU/kr i{kksa ds e/; j[krs gq, vUr esa fnuakd 21-12-2015 dks j[kh xbZA fnuakd
21-12-2015 dks deZdkj dh vksj ls muds izfrfuf/k us mifLFkr gksdj deZdkj dk izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k ftlesa
deZdkj dh vksj ls izkFkZuk dj mDr izdj.k dks Je U;k;ky; esa is'k djus gsrq izek.k i= dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA
deZdkj izfrfuf/k ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds rgr
izek.k i= fnuakd 21-12-2015 deZdkj dks tkjh fd;k x;k ¼vuqyXud ^^ch^^½A
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
679
pwWafd izdj.k@fookn esa deZdkj ds izkFkZuk ij Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa fookn nkf[ky djus gsrq izek.k
i= tkjh fd;k x;k gS vr% deZdkj ds }kjk izsf"kr fookn ij dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj i=koyh dks cUn dj fn;k x;k
gSA bl gsrq lajk/ku izfrosnu Jheku~ ds le{k lwpukFkZ izLrqr gSA
layXu % mijksDrkuqlkj
Hkonh;
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,oa
lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] vtesj
izfrfyfi %&
1-
Jh eku mi eq[; Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] vtesj dks e; vuqyXudksa ds lkFk izsf"kr gSA
2-
izfrfyfi izcU/kd] eSllZ vEcqtk lhesUV fy-] ;wfuV jkcfj;kokl] rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh ¼jktLFkku½
¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,oa
lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] vtesj
4.
This case u/s 2-A of I.D.Act, 1947 was filed on 17.8.2015 by learned representative of the applicant Sh. Brajesh
Pandey which was registered by the tribunal as CGIT case no. 69/2015 & notice was sent to opposite party fixing
8.10.15 for reply. The proceeding continued & reply to statement of claim was filed on 14.3.2016 by non-applicant &
rejoinder was filed by applicant on 2.5.2016.
5.
From perusal of the order sheet & record of case it appears that only four documents have been filed by
applicant which consist of (i) order of termination dated 27.2.2015 (ii) notice dated 30.4.2015 issued by Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer informing applicant & opposite party to appear on first date of conciliation
proceeding on 8.5.2015 for conciliation (iii) detail of payment of gratuity to applicant (iv) detail of gratuity amount of
the applicant issued by trustee of ‘Ambuja Cement Limited Employees Gratuity Fund Trust’. Letter dated 23.2.2016 as
mentioned above has been filed by non-applicant alongwith other documents.
6.
During proceeding before this court vide order dated 30.11.2016 applicant was directed to file conciliation
failure report on next date 22.12.2016. On 22.12.2016 conciliation failure report was not filed hence, applicant was
further given time to file failure report on 6.2.2017. On 6.2.2017 applicant sought adjournment & requested further
time to file conciliation failure report on 17.4.2017. On 17.4.2017 applicant was further given time to file the alleged
report on 20.6.2017. On 20.6.2017 also conciliation failure report was not filed & argument was heard on the point of
failure of the applicant in filing conciliation failure report despite many opportunity given to the applicant. Reference
was also made to letter dated 23.2.2016 by learned representative of non-applicant & it was contended that this tribunal
is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 2-A because applicant was directed to file his application u/s
2-A before the Labour Court, Jaipur. Letter dated 23.2.2016 indicates that on the last date of conciliation proceeding on
21.12.2015 an application was moved before conciliation officer by learned representative of the applicant to issue
certificate to the applicant to facilitate him to proceed u/s 2-A by filing case before the Labour Court which was
allowed & a certificate u/s 2-A of I.D.Act, 1947 was issued on 21.12.2015 for facilitating the applicant to present his
statement of claim before the Labour Court, Jodhpur. On the basis of the certificate wherein applicant has been directed
to file his statement of claim before the Labour Court, Jodhpur it has been argued by learned representative of non-
applicant that this tribunal is not having jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim & only Labour Court, Jodhpur is
competent to entertain the statement of claim of the applicant Sh. Brajesh Pandey. Countering the above argument on
20.6.2017 it was submitted by learned representative of the applicant that applicant will secure the order from the
Labour Commissioner, Ajmer about change of jurisdiction from Jodhpur to Jaipur. Accordingly, applicant was directed
to get the amended order obtained from Labour Commissioner , Ajmer & file it before this tribunal on 23.8.2017 failing
which his statement of claim shall be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
7.
From above facts & circumstances it is evident that applicant on his own accord has opted to file the case before
this tribunal on 17.8.15 much before the termination of proceeding before conciliation officer on 21.12.15, the date on
which he has moved application to issue certificate. In above circumstance applicant cannot be allowed to say that he is
not aware of any direction dated 21.12.15 because direction has been given to him on same date on which he has
moved the application & he was aware of the fact that he has to file the certificate along with statement of claim before
680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the concerned court. Further, it appears from above facts that applicant was parallelly pursuing the case before this
court as well as before the Conciliation Officer.
8.
On 23.8.2017 none appeared from either side & the case was suo-moto adjourned by the tribunal & further
opportunity was given to the applicant to file the amended order regarding jurisdiction on 20.9.2017 failing which
further proceeding in the case will be terminated. On 20.9.2017 further adjournment was granted in favour of applicant
to file the amended order regarding jurisdiction on 5.10.2017 providing last opportunity to the applicant.
9.
On 5.10.2017 no amended order regarding jurisdiction was filed by applicant & on the insistence of the learned
representative of both the parties further argument was heard whether only Labour Court, Jodhpur is having jurisdiction
to entertain the statement of claim.
10.
It has been argued by learned representative of applicant that Conciliation Officer or Labour Commissioner
(Central), Ajmer is not empowered to give direction to the applicant about place of filing statement of claim.
Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned representative of the non-applicant that due to direction
dated 21.12.2015 by Conciliation Officer, this tribunal is not having jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim of
the applicant. Further, referring to preliminary objection it has been submitted that factory of the non-applicant came
into existence on the basis of license by State of Rajasthan hence, any industrial dispute has to be raised before the
labour department of the State Government & Central Government is not the appropriate government in the present
case.
11.
As far s the question of the ‘appropriate government’ in the present case is concerned I am not inclined to
intermix this point at this stage with the issue of place of suing.
12.
This fact is undisputed that applicant has raised the dispute on 24.3.2015 before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Ajmer wherein first date for conciliation was fixed for 8.5.2017. This fact is also undisputed
that statement of claim u/s 2-A has been filed before this tribunal on 17.8.2015 & learned representative of the
applicant has filed application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 21.12.2015 for issuing certificate to file
statement of claim before the Labour Court which has been issued on 21.12.2015 itself & direction has been given to
approach the Labour Court, Jodhpur. From the above circumstance, it is evident that filing of statement of claim u/s 2-A
before this tribunal was done much before securing the certificate u/s 2-A on 21.12.2015. Decision of the applicant to
choose the forum of Jaipur for filing the claim was his own. It was obligatory on the part of applicant to secure the
certificate first & then file the statement of claim along with the certificate which has not been done by the applicant as
required by law. During course of hearing many opportunities were given to the applicant to file the conciliation failure
report which was not filed by him. Applicant himself sought many adjournments & tribunal suo-moto also has granted
time more than once to file amended order about jurisdiction which was not done by the applicant. In above fact &
circumstances & on the basis of above discussion I am of the view that this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain
the statement of claim of the applicant & according to direction dated 21.12.2015 Labour Court, Jodhpur is having
jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim of the applicant. In opinion of the applicant if Conciliation Officer was
not empowered to give direction about place of suing it equally applies to applicant that he himself was not empowered
to choose the place of suing. Accordingly, instead of dismissing the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction I find it
just & proper to return the statement of claim to the applicant for presentation to proper court.
ORDER
13.
Statement of claim of the applicant dated 17.8.2015 is returned to the applicant for presentation to proper court.
Record of the case be consigned to record room after completion of proceeding of returning the statement of claim to
the applicant.
9.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-154-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;
thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@8@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
681
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-17012/8/2007-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 40/2007
Reference No.L-17012/8/2007-IR(M) dated: 2/4.7.2007
Sh. Ganesh Meena
S/o Shri Nanak Ram Meena
B-183, Anandpuri,
Moti Doongri Road,
Jaipur.
V/s
The Sr. Divisional manager
LIC of India
Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash
Buldg. Ambedkar Circle,
Jaipur – 302006.
Present :
For the applicant
:
Sh. Surendra Singh, Advocate.
For the non-applicant
:
Sh. J.K. Agrawal, Advocate
AWARD
29.11.2017
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 action of the management of LIC of India, Jaipur through Sr. Divisional Manager, Jaipur
in dismissing the services of Shri Ganesh Meena, Peon vide its order dated 13.5.2006 without conducting
any enquiry is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2.
Briefly fact of the case is that applicant was appointed to the post of peon on 15.3.1997 by Senior Divisional
Manager, LIC. While working on the above post applicant was served with a charge-sheet Ex-1 on 21.12.2005 wherein
he was charged for taking cheque no. 59932 from the custody of the opposite party by theft & withdrawing a sum of
Rs.25000/- after forging the signature of authorised signatories Sh. C.P.Goyal, Assistant Administrative Officer &
Sh. Mohan Lal, U.D.C. on the above said cheque & depositing the same on 13.10.2005 in his account held with UTI
Bank, Ajmer Road, Jaipur & further withdrawing the amount from his account, thus, misappropriating the amount in
his favour & thereby violating Rule 21 & 24 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Karamchari) Viniyam, 1960
punishable under either 1 or more of the provisions prescribed under Rule 39(1) (A) to (G). Thus, a sum of Rs.25,000/-
of the Corporation was misappropriated by applicant.
3.
Applicant submitted reply to the charge sheet which has been filed on record as Ex-2. According to para 4 of the
statement of claim neither an enquiry officer was appointed nor enquiry was done. After reply to the charge sheet on
20.3.2006 a show cause notice on proposed punishment under Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Karamchari) Viniyam, 1960 was given to the applicant by disciplinary authority / Senior Regional Manager, marked
Ex-3 and annexed to the statement of claim. Applicant submitted reply (Ex-4) to the above said show cause notice.
682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Based upon reply to the show cause notice & reply of the applicant an order of punishment dated 13.5.2006 (Ex-5)
was passed by disciplinary authority dismissing the applicant from service. An appeal dated 24.5.2005 (Ex-6) by
applicant was preferred before the appellate authority, the Zonal Manager against the order of dismissal.
5.
The charge sheet Ex-1,reply to the charge sheet Ex-2, show cause notice about proposed punishment by
disciplinary authority Ex-3, reply to show cause Ex-4,order of punishment Ex-5 & memo of appeal Ex-6 read as
under:-
izn’kZ&1
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JAIPUR
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e] 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ds
vUrxZr vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh
,oa
'kk[kk dk;kZy; 2 t;iqj esa dk;Zjr Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh]
os-Ø-la- 140934] ds fo"k; esa
vkjksi i=
vki Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la- 140934] 'kk[kk ;wfuV 2 ij fuEufyf[kr vkjksi yxk;k tkrk gS&
;g gS fd vkius vius 'kk[kk dk;kZy; ;wfuV 2 esa pijklh ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, 'kk[kk ds cSad [kkrk la[;k 4
dk pSd la[;k 59932 'kk[kk ls pqjk dj mls vius Lo;a ds uke ls :Ik;s 25]000 dk cuk fy;k rFkk izkf/kd`r gLrk{kjdrkZ
ds :Ik esa Jh lh-ih-xks;y] l-iz-v-] ,oa Jh eksgu yky] m-Js-l- ds QthZ gLrk{kj dj fn;s rRi’pkr vkius ;g pSd fnukad
13-10-2005 dks vius LOk;a ds ;w-Vh-vkbZ- cSad vtesj jksM ds [kkrk la[;k 284059 esa tek djk fn;kA bl izdkj vkius fuxe
dh :Ik;s 25]000 dh jkf’k dk xcu fd;kA
bl izdkj mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa }kjk vki fuxe dh lsok esa vius drZO;ksa ds izfr visf{kr bZekunkjh rFkk fu"Bk
cjrus esa vlQy jgs gS rFkk fuxe ds fgr ds foijhr dk;Z fd;k gSA vkius Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e
1960 ds fofu;e 21 rFkk 24 dk mYya?ku fd;k gS] ftlds ifj.kke Lo:Ik fofu;e 39 ds vUrxZr vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh
djds fofu;e 39 ¼1½ ¼,½ ls ¼th½ rd of.kZr n.M esa ls dksbZ ,d vFkok vf/kd n.M vki ij yxk;s tk ldrs gSA
nLrkostksa dh vufUre lwph rFkk xokgksa dh vufUre lwph ftuds }kjk vki ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks ¼ifjf’k"V&I
rFkk ifjf’k"V&II }kjk½ fl) fd;k tkuk gS] layXu gSA
rFkkfi bl ekeys eas vkxs dh dk;Zokgh djus iwoZ ,rn~ }kjk vkidks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkjksi i= dh izkfIr
ds 15 fnu ds vUnj vki fyf[kr dFku djsa fd vki mDr vkjksiksa ds nks"kh gksuk Lohdkj djrs gS vFkok ughaA ;fn gkWa rks
LOkhdkjksfDr;ksa dk fyf[kr dFku nsaA ;fn ugha rks vLohdkjksfDr;ksa dk fyf[kr dFku] xokgksa ,oa nLrkostksa dh lwph ftuds
}kjk vki viuh izfrj{kk djuk pkgrs gS] v/kksgLrk{kjh dks mDr fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vUnj izLrqr djsaA ;fn vkidk
fyf[kr dFku fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa izkIr ugha gksrk gS vFkok ;fn vkidh LohdkjksfDr larks"kizn ugha ik;h tkrh gS rks bl
ekeys esa vkxs dk;Zokgh Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e] 1960 RkFkk vU; vkns’kksa ds vUrxZr dh tk;sxhA
t;iqj esa o"kZ 2005 ds fnlEcj ekg ds vkt 20 osa fnu dks gLrk{kfjr
gLrk{kj viBuh;
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd
vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh
e.My dk;kZy;] t;iqj
layXu
ifjf’k"V&I rFkk ifjf’k"V&II
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JAIPUR
ifjf’k"V&I
nLrkostksa dh vuafre lwph
¼1½ pSd la[;k 059932] fnukad 07-10-2005] :- 25]000@&Jh x.ks’k eh.kk ds uke ls] dh cSad izkf/kdkjh }kjk
izekf.kr QksVks izfrA
¼2½ pSd la[;k 059932] fnukad 07-10-2005] :- 25]000@&Jh x.ks’k eh.kk ds uke ls] dks ;w-Vh-vkbZ- cSad vtesj jksM
ds lsfoax cSad [kkrk la[;k 284059 esa tek djkus dh is-bu-fLyi fnukad 13-10-2005 dh cSad izkf/kdkjh }kjk
izekf.kr QksVks izfrA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
683
¼3½ ;w-Vh-vkbZ- cSad] vtesj jksM ds lsfoax cSad [kkrk la[;k 284059] Jh x.ks’k eh.kk ds uke ls] dk LVsVeSUV fnukad
20-10-2005 dh cSad izkf/kdkjh }kjk izekf.kr QksVks izfrA
¼4½ Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] ;wfuV&2] t;iqj ds ;w-Vh-vkbZ- cSad] vtesj jksM t;iqj eas [kkrk la[;k 4 ds cSad
LVsVeSUV fnukad 20-10-2005 dh cSad izkf/kdkjh }kjk izekf.kr QksVks izfrA
¼5½ Jh lh-ih- xks;y] rRdkyhu lgk;d iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj dk i= fnukad 20-10-2005 A
¼6½ Jh eksgu yky] m-Js- lgk;d] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj dk i= fnukad 20-10-2005 A
¼7½ Jh x.ks’k eh.kk ds i= fnukad 20-10-2005 ,oa 22-10-2005-
¼8½ Jh x.ks’k eh.kk }kjk 'kk[kk esa tek djk;s x;s :- 25]000@& dh ,e-vkj uEcj 833] fnukad 20-10-2005 A
ifjf’k"V&II
xokgksa dh vuafre lwph
¼1½ Jh lh-ih-xks;y] rRdkyhu lgk;d iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj] ,oa vc 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] lh-,-ch-&2 eas
inLFkkfirA
¼2½ Jh eksgu yky] m-Js- lgk;d] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj A
gLrk{kj viBuh;
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd
vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh
e.My dk;kZy;] t;iqj
Ex-2
lsokesa
Jheku ofj"B e.My izcU/kd egksn;]
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe]
e.My dk;kZYk;] ^^thou izdk’k^^
Hkokuh flag ekxZ]
Tk;iqj
fo"k;
fo"k;
fo"k;
fo"k; % vkjksi i= fnukad 20 fnlEcj 05 ds lanHkZ esaA
egksn;]
mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd eSuas vkjksi i= ysus ls iwoZ gh xyrh Lohdkj dj yh FkhA ;g xyrh eq>ls dkQh
ncko esa gqbZ FkhA esjs firkth dk nsgkUr Qjojh 2005 esa gks x;k Fkk] mudk dtkZ ,oa fØ;kØeZ dk [kpkZ eq>s dtZnkjksa dks
pqdkuk FkkA dtZnkj eq>s dtkZ ugha pqdkus dh fLFkfr esa rjg&rjg dh /kefd;ka ns jgs Fks] muds nokc esa vkdj eSaus ;g
xyrh dh FkhA eSaus esjk vkB o"kZ dk dk;Zdky iwjh esgur ,oa bZekunkjh ds lkFk fd;k gSA ;g esjs dk;Zdky dh igyh ,oa
vkf[kjh xyrh gSA eS vkils fuosnu djrk gwa fd esjs ifjokj ,oa esjh cw<h ekrkth dh lsok eas gh djrk gwa] blfy, d`Ik;k
vki esjh izkFkZuk i= ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj djds eq>s {keknku iznku djsaA vkidh vfr d`ik gksxhA
vkxs ls Hkfo"; esa eSa fuxe dh lsok iwjh fu"Bk ,oa yXu ds lkFk d:axk] ,slk eSa vkidks iw.kZ fo’okl fnykrk gwWaA
/kU;okn
Hkonh;]
gLrk{kj iBuh;
x.ks’k eh.kk
¼x.ks’k eh.kk½
os-Ø-la- 140934
'kk[kk dk;kZy; & t;iqj f}rh;
From :-
S.N.Meena
Jaipur D.O.
684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izn’kZ&3
izn’kZ&3
izn’kZ&3
izn’kZ&3
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JAIPUR
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e] 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ds
vUrxZr vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh
,oa
'kk[kk dk;kZy; 2 t;iqj esa dk;Zjr Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la-
140934] ds fo"k; esa
dkj.k crkvks uksfVl
fd Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la- 140934] 'kk[kk ;wfuV 2] t;iqj dks fnukad 20-12-2005 dks vkjksi i= fn;k
x;k FkkA
rFkk pwafd Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] vkjksfir deZpkjh us vkjksi i= dk tokc fnukad 04-01-2006 dks izLrqr fd;kA bl i= esa
vkjksfir deZpkjh us vius mij yxs lHkh vkjksiksa dks iw.kZr;k Lohdkj dj fy;k vr% bl izdj.k esa foLr`r tkWp dk;Zokgh
dh vko’;drk ugha eglwl dh xbZA
rFkk pwafd ekeys ds rF;ksa dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djds eSa vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh rkRdkfyd :Ik ls bl fu"d"kZ ij
igqWapk gwW fd vkius fuxe dh jkf’k dk xcu fd;k gSA vkidk mDr d`R; iw.kZr;k fuxe ds lkFk /kks[kk/kMh gS ftlds fy, eS
vki Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la- 140934] 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj dks Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh
o`Un½ fofu;e 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ¼th½ esa fofufnZ"V ukSdjh ls ^^c[kkZLrxh (dismissal)” dh 'kkfLr vkjksfir fd;k tkuk
izLrkfor djrk gwWA
fQj Hkh eS bl ekeys esa vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djus ls iwoZ vki Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la- 140934] 'kk[kk
dk;kZy;] ;wfuV 2] t;iqj dks bl dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds izkIr djus ds 07 fnukas ds vUnj ;g dkj.k crkus dk funZs’k
nsrk gwa fd vkidks ;FkkiwoksZDr vkjksi dk nks"kh D;ksa u Bgjk;k tk, rFkk vkidks mDr izLrkfor 'kkfLr ls nf.Mr D;ksa u
fd;k tk,a \
d`Ik;k /;ku j[ksa fd ;fn vkidk fyf[kr dFku fu/kkZfjr le; lhek esa izkIr ugah gksrk gS vFkok ;fn vkidk izR;qRrj
larks"kizn ugha ik;k tkrk gS rks vkidks fcuk dksbZ lwpuk fn, bl lEcU/k esa ;Fkksfpr fu.kZ; ys fy;k tk;sxkA
t;iqj ds o"kZ 2006 ds ekpZ ekg ds vkt 20 osa fnu dks gLrk{kfjr
gLrk{kj viBuh;
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd
vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh
e.My dk;kZy;] t;iqj
izn’kZ&4
izn’kZ&4
izn’kZ&4
izn’kZ&4
lsokesa
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd]
vuq’kklfud vf/kdkjh]
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe]
e.My dk;kZYk;]
Tk;iqj
fo"k;%
fo"k;%
fo"k;%
fo"k;% Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e] 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ds vUrxZr eq>s tkjh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl
fnukad 20-3-06 }kjk okafNr esjs fyf[kr dFku ds Øe esaA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
685
egksn;]
mDr of.kZr dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fnukad 20-3-2006 tks fd esjs }kjk fnukad 22-03-2006 dks izkIr fd;k x;k ds
vUrxZr esjs }kjk fuEu oLrqfLFkfr] ekufld 'kkjhfjd ,oa ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk foxr ,oa orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk
lfou; fooj.k fcUnqokj vkids vkns’kkuqlkj izLrqr gSa %&
1-
esjs firk th dk LoxZokl Qjojh 2005 esa gks x;k Fkk ftl gsrq eq>s leLr fØ;kdeZ lEcU/kh O;; bR;kfn
gsrq dqN yksxksa ls dtZ ysuk iMk Fkk ftlds Hkqxrku dk eq> ij vR;f/kd ncko FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa
esjh 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld fLFkfr dkQh [kjkc Fkh ,oa mDr nckoksa ,oa 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld chekjh ds
dkj.k eq>ls u tkus dSls ;g nq"d`R; gks x;k ftldk eq>s esjh cqf) ,oa foosd ls Hkh irk ugha py
ik;kA
2-
bl nq"deZ ds gksus ds mijkUr ,oa dk;kZYk; esa bldk irk pyus ij eq>s cgqr 'keZ ,oa Xykfu gqbZ D;ksafd
,slk djds eSa viuh laLFkk ds leLr vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh utjksa esa fxj x;k rFkk esjs }kjk fcuk
fdlh ladksp ds ;g nq"deZ rqjUr Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k ,oa esjs }kjk xcu dh xbZ jkf’k Hkh eSus ;Fkk
lEHko tYn ls tYn dk;kZy; esa tek djok nh (M.R.No.833 Dt. 22-10-25 Rs. 25000/- Cash)
3-
e.My dk;kZy; ls vk;s vf/kdkjh;ksa ,oa 'kk[kk ds vf/kdkfj;ks ds le{k Hkh eSaus rqjUr bl d`R; dks djus
dh ekSf[kd ,oa fyf[kr LohdkjksfDr dj yh FkhA
4-
esjs mijksDr d`R; gsrq eq>s vki }kjk vkjksi i= fnukad 20-12-2005 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk]
pwafd tSlk fd esjs }kjk igys gh fy[kk tk pqdk gS fd mDr nq"deZ djrs le; esjh ekufld ,oa
'kkjhfjd ifjfLFkfr [kjkc Fkh ,oa eaS vkt rd le> ugha ik jgk gwa fd ,slk nq"deZ eq>ls dSls gks x;kA bl lEiw.kZ
izdj.k us esjs fnyks fnekx ij cgqr xgjk vk?kkr fd;k gS ,oa ckj&ckj esjs eu esa vius thou dks lekIr djus ds
fopkj vkrs gSa ijUrq viuh cw<h fo/kok eka ifRu dk fopkj eq>s ,slk djus ls ckj&ckj jksd jgk gS D;ksafd mu nksuksa
dk bl nqfu;k esa esjs flok; dksbZ vkSj ugha gS rFkk nksuksa gh eq> ij iw.kZ :Ik ls vkfJr gSA
vr% vUr esa esjh vkils djc) izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr leLr rF;ksa vkfn ij fopkj djrs gq, eq>s d`i;k
ukSdjh ls (Dismiss) djus dh dk;Zokgh ugha djsa vfirq eq>s blds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh n.M ns nsosa D;ksfd esjs bl
nq"deZ ds fy;s eq>s nf.Mr fd;k tkuk vko’;d gSA tks fd eq>s vkthou vius bl v{kE; vijk/k dk cks/k
djokrk jgsxkA
vk’kk gS fd vki esjs }kjk of.kZr mijksDr lEkLr rF;ksa vkfn ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj dj eq>s ,d
vfUre volj vo’; iznku djsxsa ftlds fy;s eS ,oa esjs ifjokjtu vkidk ân; ls vkHkkj O;Dr djrs gSA
lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; dh vk’kk esa
Hkonh;]
gLrk{kj iBuh;
x.ks’k eh.kk
¼x.ks’k eh.kk½
os-Øekad 140&934
izn’kZ&5
izn’kZ&5
izn’kZ&5
izn’kZ&5
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JAIPUR
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh½ fofu;e] 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ds
vUrxZr vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh
,oa
Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-Ø-la- 140934] 'kk[kk dk;kZy; 2 t;iqj ds fo"k; esa
vkns'k
vkns'k
vkns'k
vkns'k
686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fd Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-dz-la- 140934] 'kk[kk ;wfuV 2] t;iqj dks fnukad 20-12-2005 dks vkjksi i= fn;k
x;k FkkA
rFkk pwafd Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] vkjksfir deZpkjh us vkjksi i= dk tokc fnukad 04-01-2006 dks izLrqr fd;kA bl i= esa
vkjksfir deZpkjh us vius Åij yxs lHkh vkjksiksa dks iw.kZr;k Lohdkj dj fy;k vr% bl izdj.k esa foLr`r tkWp dk;Zokgh
dh vko’;drk eglwl dh xbZA
rFkk pwWafd ekeys ds lHkh izys[kksa] rF;ksa o lk{;ksa dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ds mijkUr vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh ds
:Ik esa] esjs lUrq"V gksus ij vkjksfir deZpkjh Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-dz-la- 140934] 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj dks
fnukad 20-3-2006 dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa vkjksfir deZpkjh dks n.MLo:Ik Hkkjrh; thou chek
fuxe ¼deZpkjh o`Un½ fofu;e 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ¼th½ esa fofufnZ"V ukSdjh ls ^^c[kkZLrxh (dismissal)** dh 'kkfLr
vkjksfir fd;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA
rFkk pwafd vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk mDr vkjksi i= rFkk dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds izR;qRrj esa vius i= ds ek/;e ls
tks LIk"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlesa ,slk dksbZ uohu rF; ugha ik;k x;k ftl ij fopkj djds vkjksfir deZpkjh dks
mDr izLrkfor 'kkfLr esa dksbZ deh vFkok ifjorZu fd;k tkosA
vr% lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa RkF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, eS] vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl esa izLrkfor
'kkfLr dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, vkjksfir deZpkjh Jh x.ks’k eh.kk] pijklh] os-dz-la- 140934] 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] ;wfuV&2 t;iqj
dks Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼deZpkjh o`Un½ fofu;e 1960 ds fofu;e 39 ¼th½ eas fofufnZ"V ukSdjh ls ^^c[kkZLrxh
(dismissal)** dk n.M fn;k tkrk gSA
t;iqj esa o"kZ 2006 ds ebZ ekg ds vkt rsjgosa fnu dks gLrk{kfjr A
gLrk{kj viBuh;
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd
vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh
e.My dk;kZy;] t;iqj
EX-6
The Zonal Manager
(Appellate Authority)
L.I.C. of India, Zonal Office
New Delhi.
THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL
Sir,
Sub : Appeal under Reg. 40 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 against the order of dismissal dated
13.5.2006 passed by the Disciplinary authority (Sr. Divl. Manager), Jaipur.
Most respectfully I beg to submit this appeal as under :-
1.
That a charge sheet was issued to me on 20.12.2005 by the Sr. Divisional Manager, Jaipur
(Disciplinary Authority) for the charge of getting a cheque prepared for Rs.25,000=00 in my name and
depositing the same in my account on 13.10.2005. In that case the order of dismissal has been passed against
which the present appeal is being preferred before your goodself.
2.
That I admitted the mistake in my reply to the charge sheet and while giving the circumstances under
which it happened I also stated that the said amount was immediately deposited by me on 22.10.2005 with
LIC, thus the amount remained with me only for 8-9 days.
3.
Sir, the circumstances under which the said mistake came to be committed have been narrated by me
in my reply to the charge sheet as well as show cause notice and I had prayed for lenient view being taken
against me in view of the said precarious circumstances I was placed at the time when the error had take
place. But it appears that my fervent prayer has not been favourably considered.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
687
4.
I belong to Meena caste, which is a Schedule TRIBE in the State of Rajasthan and belong to village
where poverty is pervading all around. My father had expired in February, 2005 and in view of the customs
in my caste in the village I had helplessly to incur heavy expenditure on his last rites even by borrowing
money from which there was no escape. Although I had paid lot of money but still in view of lapse of long
time tremendous pressure was built on me to repay the balance amount. The pressure was so mind blowing
that sometimes I lost the balance and in such a situation the mistake had taken place but immediately on
detecting the error I on my own accord deposited the amount. I never thought the act to be permissible and I
never preferred such an act. I therefore sought to be beseeched and forgiven for this act and some such
penalty may be awarded so that at least I do not loose the only source of income.
5.
That in my family I have my old mother who is ailing one and is wholly dependent on me. Therefore
in case the penalty of dismissal is not eased out and I am not allowed to continue in service my mother will
expire for want of two square meals a day what to say of medical care.
6.
That the penalty of dismissal is also a bar and blot on my life and career. I have already suffered
immense hate and hatred from my colleagues and in the society. Therefore I humbly make this mercy appeal
to ease out the punishment in such terms as may be deemed just and expedient by your goodself but with
folded hands I pray that my service may be saved. I give my solemn assurance that such a mistake will never
repeat.
With these humble submissions I pray that the penalty of dismissal may be relaxed and substituted by
suitable punishment so as to save my service and life.
With hopes of being forgiven.
Jaipur/24.5.2006
Yours humbly,
(Signature ligible)
(Ganesh Meena)
S.R.No. 140934
Peon, BO-II Jaipur
r/o H.No. B-183, Anandpuri,
Moti Doogri Road,
Jaipur -302004.
7.
It has been alleged in para 5 & 6 of the statement of claim that the disciplinary authority/Senior
Regional Manager has mentioned in his show cause notice ( Ex-3) that the applicant in reply dated 4.1.2006
to charge sheet has accepted the entire charges levelled against him hence, punishment of dismissal of the
applicant is proposed by him. The applicant has mentioned in reply to the show cause notice Ex-3 that due to
physical & mental illness the act of charge levelled against him was committed for which he repents & he
has deposited the sum of Rs.25,000/- on 22.10.2005. It has been alleged by the applicant that thus, it was not
a complete confession or independent confession of the applicant.
8.
The applicant has further alleged that after dismissal he preferred an appeal (Ex-6) against the order of
dismissal dated 13.5.2006 on 24.5.2006 before the Zonal Manager, Delhi with detail of action taken by
disciplinary authority against the law & against the principle of natural justice. The applicant presented a
reminder (Ex-7) before the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal & the appeal was disposed vide
order dated 30.9.2006 by appellate authority dismissing it by passing an stereo type order with close minded
approach.
9.
Order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority & dismissal of appeal against the order of
disciplinary authority has been said to be illegal & against the principle of natural justice. It has been further
alleged that for the purpose of confession pressure was made on the applicant & under that pressure the
confession was prepared & made. The confession made by the applicant does not bear any date & it has
been made on single page yet, another confession was prepared by officers on 20.10.2005 wherein new
averments were added. Thereafter, a third confessional statement was prepared on 22.2.2006 which is
indicative of the fact that pressure was exerted on the applicant & thus, confessional statements were
688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
secured. Confessional statement dated 20.10.2005 was secured by Sh. C.P. Goyal & Signature of Sh. S.C.
Meena was done on this statement later on. In this confessional statement first time the endorsement was
made that signature of Sh. Goyal ji & Sh. Mohan Ji was done on the cheque by the applicant whereas in the
first undated & third confessional statement dated 22.6.2006 no such mentioned was made. In such
circumstances, legal error has been committed by passing of punishment order by disciplinary authority
without departmental enquiry.
10.
Further it has been mentioned in charge sheet that signature of Sh. C.P. Goyal & Sh. Mohan Lal was
forged by the applicant which has not been mentioned in first & third confessional statements hence, it was
necessary on the part of disciplinary authority that an impartial enquiry against charge sheet should have
taken place affording opportunity to the applicant to put his case & thereafter if charge was proved then the
order of punishment should have been passed thus, the order of punishment is fit to be set aside. The
confessional statement dated 20.10.2005 indicates that it was not written by the applicant on his own & the
same has been written by the applicant on the direction of officers. According to para 10(V) of statement of
claim admission by applicant that he has made the signature of Sh. Goyal & Sh. Mohan Lal Ji on the cheque
& he is ready to accept whatever punishment is awarded has been endorsed subsequently on the insistence of
the officers of the bank. This makes it clear that statement of the applicant dated 20.10.2005 is doubtful &
not a free confessional statement.
11.
Further it has been alleged that charge of misappropriation of Rs. 25,000/- has not been proved & the
Senior Mandal Prabhandak has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the charged employee has
accepted all the charges levelled against him. The applicant’s letter dated 20.10.2005 cannot be treated as
confession because facts have not been mentioned in charge sheet. The applicant has not admitted that he
has made signature of Sh. C.P. Goyal & Sh. Mohan lal & he has also not admitted the misappropriation of
Rs. 25,000/-. The applicant has not been given opportunity of defence. He has not been asked whether he
wants to produce any evidence in defence. The appellate authority & disciplinary authority have not taken
this fact into consideration that applicant has not been served with any charge sheet in his past 9 years career
& his conduct has been good for all these year, hence, they have committed error in awarding maximum
punishment which is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him & deserves amendment.
12.
It has been further alleged that the appellate authority has committed error in not complying the
provision of regulation 46(2) (A), (B) & (C). After a laps of a period of 9 days the applicant deposited the
entire cheque amount voluntarily before he was issued a charge sheet, hence, any action against the
applicant was unwarranted & the order of punishment is fit to be set aside.
13.
In reply to statement of claim appointment of the applicant on 15.3.97 has been admitted, thus, para 1
of statement of claim & para 2, 3, 5 ,7, 8 & 9 of the statement of claim has been admitted. It has been further
alleged that content of the charge sheet served upon the applicant is completely correct & true. The applicant
accepting the entire charges levelled against him deposited the misappropriated amount. As the applicant
had accepted all the charges levelled against him in writing there is no necessity to conduct further enquiry
in the matter because the enquiry is conducted to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. Against
para 6 of the statement of claim it has been alleged that it is wrong to say & not admitted that acceptance of
the guilt by the applicant is not a free & complete acceptance because applicant secured the cheque by theft
& filled the cheque for a sum of Rs.25,000/- & deposited the cheque in his account thus, the act of
misappropriation was successfully completed by the applicant & when the matter came to light then he
deposited the amount on 22.10.2005 in the corporation. The act of the applicant in above manner comes
within the scope of complete & free acceptance & the charge of misappropriation stands proved
automatically & thereafter there remains no need to prove the charge further. Against para 7 of statement of
claim it has been alleged that no other punishment except the punishment of dismissal could be passed by an
employer against the nature of wrong committed by applicant. Dismissal is the first & the last punishment
only that may be awarded in this matter.
14.
Against para 9 of statement of claim it has been alleged that the contention of the statement of claim is
wrong that the orders were stereo type. The nature of wrong committed by the applicant invites only one
punishment which is none other than the dismissal from the service. Dismissal of appeal was well within the
framework of law. Against the contentions of para 10 of the statement of claim it has been alleged that they
are the development of creation & afterthought. Order of punishment has been said to be in accordance with
law & principle of natural justice. Contention of para 10(II) has been denied strongly. It has been alleged
that no pressure of any kind was exerted either to commit theft of cheque or filling the amount in the cheque
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
689
or depositing in the account of the applicant. Entire activities were done by applicant himself in planned
manner with wrong intention & when the entire matter came into light, the applicant accepted freely the
wrong committed by him. No pressure of any kind was exerted on the applicant & the entire written
confession has been made by himself voluntarily. After accepting the charges in writing by the applicant
there remains no need to conduct enquiry.
15.
It has been further mentioned as ‘special statement’ in the reply to statement of claim that if for any
reason the tribunal comes to conclusion that enquiry is not complete in that event management reserves the
right to prove the charges against the applicant before the tribunal. It has been prayed that the statement of
claim be dismissed with heavy cost & the act of the applicant be declared as ‘Misuse of the process of law’.
16.
Heard Sh. Surender Singh Nalot, Advocate learned representative for the applicant & Sh. J.K.
Agrawal, Advocate learned representative of the opposite party & perused the record carefully. No written
arguments have been submitted from either side. During argument on fairness of enquiry written arguments
were submitted from both the side beside oral argument. Order on fairness of enquiry was passed on
22.12.2015.
17.
Following judicial precedent has been referred from the applicant side:-
1.
2003 II LLJ page 181, Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank …………Appellant v/s
P.C. Kakkar…………..respondent.
18.
Reference has been made to the following citations from the opposite side :-
1.
2015 (144) FLR 1009 (SC), Diwan Singh….Appellant v/s Life Corporation of
India…..Respondent.
2.
2013 (137) FLR 467, Karnataka High Court, C. Joseph ….petitioner v/s Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C., Mysore……Respondent.
3.
2008-III-LLJ-567(SC), State Bank of India and Others….Appellant v/s S.N. Goyal…..
Respondent.
4.
2007-I-LLJ, 562(SC), Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C…..Appellant v/s Raghuda Siva Sankar
Prasad…..Respondent.
5.
2005-I-LLJ, 865(SC), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd…..Appellant v/s M.Chandrasekhar Reddy
and Others…..Respondent.
6.
2002-I-LLJ, 454 (SC), Devendra Swamy…….Appellant v/s Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation……..Respondent.
7.
2001-I-LLJ, 998,(D.B.), Karnataka High Court, North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation……Appellant v/s H.B. Nadiger……Respondent.
8.
2000 –II-LLJ, 1395 (SC), Janatha Bazaar South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores
Ltd.
&
Others…..Appellant
v/s
Secretary,
Sahakari
Noukarara
Sangha
&
Others……Respondent.
9.
1971(1) SCC page 1, Channabasappa Basappahappali V/s The State of Mysore.
19.
It has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that charge against the applicant has not
been proved. It has been further submitted that plain papers with signature of the applicant were obtained
from him with influence & assurance that management intends the well being of the applicant & with
minimum possible punishment the matter against the applicant will come to end. Three plain papers signed
by applicant were utilised by management to record his admission towards guilt & applicant was awarded
maximum punishment of dismissal. It has been further argued on the quantum of punishment that
punishment is disproportionate to the nature of guilt of the applicant. Countering the above argument it has
been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that matter of obtaining three blank paper with signature
of the applicant and using them for recording his confession has been dealt at length by the tribunal while
dealing on the point of fairness of enquiry & domestic enquiry against the applicant has been held to be fair,
hence, applicant cannot be allowed to raise the same plea by way of repetition. On the point of adequacy of
690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment it has been argued that punishment awarded by disciplinary authority is suitable and
proportionate to the nature of the guilt of the accused. Reliance has been placed on the cases reported against
Sr. No.1 to 8 referred by opposite party as indicated above.
20.
From argument of both parties I consider it necessary at this stage to determine first whether in
response to charge levelled against the applicant admission to guilt made by the applicant is voluntary &
whether charge has been proved by management during doesmtic enquiry by adopting fair means.
21.
According to statement of charge dated 20.12.2005 applicant is alleged to have stolen the cheque No.
59932 belonging to the branch of the LIC i.e. his employer & forged the signature of the authorised
signatories Sh. C.P. Goyal & Sh. Mohan Lal on 13.10.2005. Further he credited the above said cheque to his
own account no. 284059 of U.T.I. Bank, Ajmer Road & misappropriated a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
22.
Reply of the applicant dated 4.1.2006 against memo of charge dated 20.12.2005 as mentioned above
clearly reveal that applicant has admitted in unambiguous terms that he had already accepted his guilt even
before receiving the chargesheet. Assigning the reason for stealing the cheque & misappropriating the above
said amount he has alleged in reply to memo of charge that his father had died in Feb., 2005 & there was
responsibility on the applicant to pay the debt of his deceased father as well as debt incurred by him to meet
the expenses of the last rites of his deceased father. The lenders were pressing him hard & issuing warnings
in the event of non-payment of debt hence, applicant committed the alleged wrong as a result of pressure
originated from the above circumstance. He has further alleged that the wrong committed by him would be
the first & last wrong of his service. Finally, he has requested that his family consists of the aged mother
whom he serves hence, his reply be considered sympathetically & the guilty act be pardoned. The above
mentioned reply (Ex-2) lacks any indication that it was a forged statement made by management after
securing signature of the applicant on blank paper. It has been contended by learned counsel for applicant
that out of three signed blank papers obtained by management after exercising due influence, one paper was
utilised as EX-2 & rest two paper were utilised for writing two other different statements both dated
20.10.2005 as shown at S.No.7 of Annex-1 to reply memo.
23.
After receiving the reply of the applicant dated 4.1.2006 against memo of charge & after considering
the statement of the applicant about his admission of the alleged guilt, Senior Divisional
Manager/Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause notice dated 20.3.2006 to the applicant with
observation that the applicant has accepted the charge levelled against him therefore, there is no need to
proceed further for a detailed enquiry. The disciplinary authority has alleged about his decision that
applicant has misappropriated the money of the corporation & has proposed the punishment of dismissal of
the applicant from service. Applicant has been directed to submit his reply within seven days after the date
of receipt of show cause notice. Show cause notice has been replied by the applicant (Ex-4) as mentioned
above wherein in para 1 he has reiterated the content of reply submitted by him against memo of charge. He
has further requested that instead of dismissing him from service some other punishment may be considered
to be awarded against him. After considering the reply to show cause notice disciplinary authority has
passed the order of punishment (Ex-5) dated 13.5.2006. From perusal of reply to statement of charge &
show cause notice against proposed punishment there is hardly any indication of the fact that reply to
statement of charge was prepared on a signed blank paper secured by management by exercising wrong
influence & adopting deceitful means over the applicant. It is further pertinent to mention at this stage that if
blank signed papers were secured from the applicant by management after exercising undue influence &
deceitful means it is expected that applicant must have made a complaint before the superior authority of the
LIC or before the police at least after passing of the order of punishment, if not earlier. It is also important to
mention that nowhere in the statement of claim also applicant has named any official who was responsible in
securing his signature on blank paper or took part in preparing his reply relating to admission of guilt.
Further, it is important to mention that nowhere during enquiry or before this tribunal it has been denied or
disputed by the applicant that amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the account of his UTI bank was not credited by him
or the alleged cheque was not stolen by him. Perusal of the conduct of the applicant reveals that date
mentioned on the cheque is 7.10.2005 & cheque has been deposited on 13.10.2005. This indicates that after
theft cheque was in possession of the applicant atleast for six days before crediting it to the account of
applicant in U.T.I. bank. A Close scrutiny of the memo of appeal (Ex-6) shows that nowhere applicant has
alleged that any fraud, pressure, deceit or any illegal act was exercised against him by any one to secure
admission of guilt by him. Admission has been made by applicant in memo of appeal (Ex-6) as well as reply
to show cause (Ex-4) also. Above conduct of the applicant makes it amply clear that theft of cheque &
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
691
misappropriation is the concious & voluntary act of the applicant & allegations of exercise of pressure for
first time in statement of claim is result of after thought. In background of the above facts it cannot be
accepted that reply to statement of charge regarding admission of the guilt of the applicant was result of
exercise of undue influence on applicant.
24.
Reference has been made by learned representative of respondent to 1971 (1) SCC page 1,
Channabasappa Basappahappali V/s The State of Mysore, on the point that admission of relevant facts is
enough to hold that charge against the delinquent has been established. In 1971 (1) SCC page 1,
Channabasappa Basappahappali V/s The State of Mysore, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
since the appellant admitted all the relevant facts on which decision could be given against him, therefore, it
cannot be stated that the enquiry was in breach of any principle of natural justice. It has been further held
that there is no distinction between admission of fact & admission of guilt.
25.
Based on the above discussion I am of the view that argument of the learned representative of the
applicant is not acceptable that admission of the guilt of the applicant is result of wrong influence of the
management over the applicant. Accordingly, I hold that the admission of the guilt by the applicant is
voluntary & without any pressure or influence & charge against the applicant has been proved by
management & contention of the learned counsel of the applicant is not tenable that admission of the guilt
by the applicant was obtained by deceitful means adopted by respondent management.
26.
After perusal of pleadings of both the side, documents filed by them in support of their pleadings,
result of the enquiry proceeding & precedents cited from both the side, I am of the view that there is no force
in the argument of the learned representative of the applicant that without conducting the enquiry or without
giving him opportunity of hearing order of punishment has been passed against the applicant. After receipt
of memo of charge applicant has replied to the charge levelled against him & has admitted to have
committed the wrong. After his admission there was no need to make appointment of an enquiry officer. His
admission to the guilt has been clear, unqualified & unambiguous to hold the charge proved against him.
Content of reply submitted by applicant is sufficient to infer that applicant committed the entire wrong
alleged against him beginning with moving away of cheque from the custody of the management to the stage
of misappropriating the fund by depositing the same in his account including forging of the signature of
authorised signatory. In above circumstance after admission of entire above mentioned act by applicant there
was no need to go ahead further with act of enquiry.
27.
As far as the question of quantum of punishment is concerned, it has been argued by learned
representative of the applicant that the punishment awarded is excessive & disproportionate looking into the
nature of guilt. Reliance has been placed on the case reported in 2003 II LLJ page 181, Chairman &
Managing Director, UCO Bank …………Appellant v/s P.C. Kakkar…………..respondent. Countering
the above argument it has been argued by learned representative of the respondent that disciplinary authority
has awarded the most suitable punishment in the fact & circumstances of the case because in the event of
loss of faith in the employee dismissal becomes inevitable against the misconduct of the delinquent.
Reliance has been placed on number of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Courts & various High Courts as
noted below :-
28.
In 2008-III-LLJ-567(SC), State Bank of India and Others….Appellant v/s S.N. Goyal…..
Respondent, charge against the respondent Sh. S.N. Goyal was that when he was posted as Branch Manager
he had received cash payments tendered by two customers of the bank, for being credited to their loan
accounts, and temporarily misappropriated such amounts & had belatedly deposited them to the borrower’s
accounts (after about five months in one case & two & half months in another). The act of the respondent
amounted to a misconduct violative of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. An
enquiry was held relating to above said charge & enquiry report dated 11.11.94 was submitted by the
enquiry officer holding the charge proved against the respondent. The disciplinary authority furnished the
copy of enquiry report to the respondent providing him an opportunity to show cause against the enquiry
report. The disciplinary authority was inferior in rank to the appointing authority hence, the disciplinary
authority after considering the enquiry record & representation against the respondent against the enquiry
report made a recommendation to the appointing authority to impose the penalty of ‘removal from service’
on the respondent. The appointing authority after considering the entire material on record accepted the
recommendation of the disciplinary authority & imposed the penalty of removal from service on the
respondent on 3.5.95 & this decision of the appointing authority was communicated to the respondent by the
disciplinary authority vide his letter dated 30.6.1995. Appeal & Revision (Review) against the order of
692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointing authority were dismissed on 29.11.95 & 27.11.96 respectively. The respondent, thereafter, filed
civil suit before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to declare the order of removal dated 30.6.1995 &
order of the appellate authority & reviewing authority as illegal & arbitrary & set aside the same with
direction to reinstate him in the service with all consequential benefits. Learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) found that there was no violation of principle of natural justice in conducting the enquiry & the
order holding the respondent guilty of misconduct was proper. However, the trial court found that the
disciplinary authority by his earlier note dated 18.1.1995 had recommended imposition of the penalty of
reduction of pay of respondent by four stages in his time scale & the appointing authority had agreed with
the said recommendation on 18.1.1995. In view of the trial court, the order dated 18.1.95 agreeing with the
recommendation of the disciplinary authority dated 18.1.95 was a final order of punishment by appointing
authority & the appointing authority thereafter sought the advice of Chief Vigilance Officer & acting on the
advice of Chief Vigilance Officer changed his earlier decision & imposed the higher punishment of removal
from service vide order dated 3.5.95 which was based on extraneous reason which rendered the order of
removal illegal, null & void. Accordingly, the order of removal dated 30.6.95 & order of the appellate
authority dated 29.11.95 & order of the Reviewing authority dated 27.11.96 was set aside & appellant bank
was directed to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. The trial court
reserved liberty to the appellant bank to pass a fresh order imposing appropriate penalty other than dismissal
or removal from service.
29.
Aggrieved by judgment of the learned Civil Judge both the parties filed appeals. The respondent did
not challenge the finding of the trial court that domestic enquiry was fair & proper & his guilt was
established. He limited his challenge to the quantum of punishment only & denial of back wages. It was
contended by the appellant bank that after finding by trial court that enquiry was fair & proper & the finding
of the guilt was justified, the learned trial court ought not to have set aside the order of punishment. The first
Appellate Court upheld the decree of the trial court & further it was held that respondent was entitled to full
back wages with 9% interest per annum thereon. Accordingly, the appeal of the bank was dismissed by the
first Appellate Court & appeal of the respondent was allowed in part. Aggrieved appellant bank preferred
second appeal which was dismissed.
30.
The appellant bank preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order confirming
the judgment of Hon’ble First Appellate Court which was allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court & judgment
& decrees of the courts below were set aside & suit of the respondent was dismissed. It was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment as under :-
“28………….. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the Bank or its
customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower
makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the Bank receiving such amount is required to
credit it immediately to the borrower’s account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it
will encourage other Bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire
banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected.”
31.
In 2013 (137) FLR 467, Karnataka High Court, C. Joseph ….petitioner v/s Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C., Mysore……Respondent, petitioner C.Joseph while working as Assistant Helper B on 2.10.2003
at 5.45 a.m. while leaving the depot of the respondent K.S.R.T.C. Mysore was found stealthily carrying a
new tube in a hand bag & was caught by the security personnel. He was issued with charge memo dated
5.12.2003 by disciplinary authority. Appellant submitted the reply to the charge memo & denied the charge
levelled against him. The enquiry officer found him guilty of charge levelled against him. Disciplinary
authority passed the order of punishment dismissing the appellant for misconduct of committing theft of the
property of the management. The labour court found that finding of misconduct recorded by enquiry officer
was correct & punishment was proportionate to the misconduct. Accordingly, claim petition of the appellant
was rejected. Aggrieved by the award of the labour court appellant filed writ petition against the award
before the Hon’ble High Court. Beside contending that finding of misconduct recorded against the petitioner
is based on no evidence it was further submitted before the Hon’ble High Court on the point of punishment
by learned counsel for the appellant that none exercise of power by labour court u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act,
1947 was unjustified because appellant had served the corporation for nearly 32 years hence, there was
substantial failure of justice. The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. It was
observed by Hon’ble High Court in para 14 of the judgment as under:-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
693
“14. The alternate contention of Sri M.C. Pyati with reference to the power of the Labour Court
under section 11-A of the Act is concerned, the grave charge of theft of the property belonging of
the Management having been proved, which being an heinous act, taking any lenient view with
regard to the punishment is concerned would be wholly unjustified. Under similar circumstances, in
the case reported at 2000 II LLJ 267, it has been held by this Court as follows:-
“7. In the instant case, the allegation made against the respondent is, committing theft of the
property of the Management which is a very heinous act. Under the circumstances, taking any
lenient view in the matter would cause damage to the discipline in the industry. Any lenient view in
the matter and showing sympathy to the delinquent workmen who are found to be guilty of theft and
fraud would amount to misplacing the sympathies. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, a stringent view has to be taken against the delinquent workmen and any leniency in the
matter of punishment is not warranted.”
32.
In 2002-I-LLJ, 454 (SC), Devendra Swamy…….Appellant v/s Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation……..Respondent, appellant was a conductor in K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore. On 17.1.85 at about 5
pm when he was on duty plying the bus, he was intercepted by checking staff on route. It was found that
there were 49 passengers in the bus & in spite of having collected the fare from all the passengers he had not
issued ticket to 8 passengers. Departmental enquiry resulted into dismissal of the appellant from service.
While imposing the punishment, the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration the previous service
history of the appellant wherein he was found to have been involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature.
On previous occasions the appellant was penalised by imposing punishment of withholding increments &
still appellant did not show any sign of improvements & continued the act of misconduct. The learned
Labour Court found the domestic enquiry defective & provided opportunity to the employer for adducing
evidence to substantiate the charges against the appellant. The Labour Court found the charge of misconduct
proved but formed an opinion that penalty of dismissal would be too harsh because amount of defalcation
involved was small. Appellant was directed to be re-inducted in the same post where he was working &
where from he was removed with denial of two increments with cumulative effect. He was also directed to
be paid all back wages along with consequential benefits & cost of proceedings. Aggrieved by the award of
Labour Court respondent corporation filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed by
Hon’ble Single Judge with finding that exercise of power by Labour Court u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act could not
be termed as illegal. Respondent preferred writ appeal which was allowed & order of the Hon’ble Single
Judge was set aside & the award of the Labour Court was quashed & order of the disciplinary authority was
restored. Aggrieved by the judgement of Hon’ble Division Bench appellant filed appeal by special leave
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 7 of
the judgement as under:-
“7………………………….. The opinion formed by the Labour Court that punishment of dismissal
imposed by the management on the workman was too harsh and undeserved, was perverse finding
and arrived at by ignoring the material as to previous acts of misconduct and punishments awarded
to the appellant brought to the notice of disciplinary authority and the Labour Court. We are also of
the opinion that the gravity of charge of misconduct for which the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated and which charge was found to be substantiated by the Labour Court, seen in the light of
previous service record of the appellant fully justified the punishment awarded by disciplinary
authority.”
33.
In 2001-I-LLJ, 998,(D.B.), Karnataka High Court, North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation……Appellant v/s H.B.Nadiger……Respondent, respondent was conductor of the transport
corporation. On 19.8.91 he was on duty as conductor of the bus of the corporation in which on inspection by
checking squad it was found that 20 passengers were travelling without ticket though collection of fare @
Rs.3/- per passenger was collected by the respondent conductor. The respondent conductor was subjected to
disciplinary enquiry in which misconduct was dully proved & he was dismissed from service. Before the
Labour Court, he admitted the fairness of enquiry conducted by the corporation. Respondent offered to
Labour Court to suffer Rs.15000/- as penalty & forgo the back wages in lieu of a direction by labour court to
reinstate him back in service. The Labour Court without giving a finding that punishment awarded was
‘shockingly disproportionate’ accepted the plea of the respondent & directed to reinstate him in service
subject to penalty of a sum of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by respondent conductor as a fine to appellant
corporation. Aggrieved by award of the labour court corporation appealed against the award before the
694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon’ble High Court. The award of the Labour Court was affirmed by Hon’ble Single Judge of the High
Court. Appeal against the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge was allowed by Hon’ble Division Bench &
order of Hon’ble Single Judge was set aside & award of the Labour Court was quashed. It was held by
Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court in para 14 & 15 of the judgement as under:-
“14. On the fact of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said
that the punishment imposed by the management was ‘ shockingly disproportionate’. Therefore
neither the Laour Court nor this Court could have directed for reinstatement substituting the major
punishment of dismissal with a meager fine of Rs.15,000/- which such delinquents will always be
ready to pay.
15. Deprecating misplaced judicial sympathies tending to subvert the rule of law, the Supreme Court
in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan, 1994-II-LLJ-888 has held that in
P.890 of LLJ:
“7. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well meant but wholly
unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process.
The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tanable within the framework of the
law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of Courts tends to degenerate
into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain, the
integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from
the legal finds and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those
findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the
legitimacy, of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the
judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability.”
34.
In 2015 (144) FLR 1009 (SC), Diwan Singh….Appellant v/s Life Insurance Corporation of
India…..Respondent, appellant Sh. Diwas Singh was a cashier in LIC of India posted at Bilaspur, Distt:
Rampur, U.P. A policy holder deposited with the appellant a sum of Rs. 533/- towards half yearly insurance
premium on 13.8.90 but the amount was neither deposited with LIC nor credited in the account of policy
holder till 27.11.90, though a receipt was issued on the date of deposit on 13.8.90 by appellant. When LIC
agent did not get his commission out of deposited premium by policy holder & made enquiries in this
regard, aforesaid of amount of Rs.533/- was shown deposited by appellant with a late fee of Rs.15.90/- &
entry was made in the cash register on 28.11.90. Beside this, a forged entry was made in ledger sheet on
back date. A charge sheet was served on appellant in relation to above misconduct about temporary
embezzlement of Rs.533/- for the period 13.8.90 to 27.11.90 & for forging entry of Rs.533/- in carbon copy
of the ledger sheet dated 13.8.90 between two entries i.e. entries no.12 & 13. On conclusion of departmental
enquiry appellant was found guilty & removed from service vide order dated 21.1.92. Appeal against order
of dismissal was also dismissed by the department on 22.2.92.
35.
Civil Miscellaneous Writ petition against the order of dismissal was allowed by Hon’ble Single Judge.
Special appeal was preferred by employer before Hon’ble Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench
came to the conclusion that appellant had committed the forgery to cover his mistake & allowed the appeal
partly by substituting the punishment of compulsory retirement in place of removal from service. Aggrieved
by order of Hon’ble Division Bench the appellant employee challenged the order of Hon’ble Division Bench
by way of special leave petition on the ground that punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate,
unreasonable & harsh. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held in
para 10 of the judgement as mentioned below:-
“10. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another V. Bajrang lal, this court,
following the case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and others, has opined
that in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. It has been
further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public
interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is
relevant. In said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the respondent/employee was awarded punishment of
removal from service. In the present case it is compulsory retirement. Learned Counsel for
respondents submitted that on earlier occasion, appellant was awarded minor punishment, for his
misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now he is found guilty for the second time.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
695
36.
In 2000 –II-LLJ, 1395 (SC), Janatha Bazaar South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores
Ltd. & Others…..Appellant v/s Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Others……Respondent, the
management of appellant cooperative society charged four of its employees, namely Smt. Seetha B, Sri D.
Chandrashekhar, Sir Madhukar Shetty and Sri B. Damodhar Naik, with breach of trust and misappropriation
of the value of goods amounting to Rs.24, 239.97 and Rs.19,884.06 during the period July 1, 1977 to June
30, 1978. The said charges were based on shortage of goods noticed on stock verification for the abovesaid
period. After holding an enquiry, the management dismissed all the above employees. The Labour Court
found the charges proved against the employees. However, in exercise of its discretionary powers u/s 11-A
of the act ordered their reinstatement with 25% back wages with continuity of their service imposing penalty
of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect & for fixing their pay on the basis of imposition of
such penalty from the date of their dismissal till the date of their reinstatement. Aggrieved by award of
Labour Court both the parties filed writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. Both the writ petitions
were dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge confirming the award of the tribunal. Writ appeals filed by both the
parties against the common order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge were dismissed by Hon’ble Division
Bench. On the point of interference on punishment of dismissal by labour court it was held by Hon’ble
Division Bench that reason given by labour court for coming to its conclusion could be considered as
justifiable & sufficient to interfere with punishment imposed by the employer. Aggrieved by judgement of
Hon’ble Division Bench appellant preferred appeal by special leave before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
which was allowed. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgement as under:-
“…………… the learned single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the
findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust &
misappropriation of fund entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been
established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting
aside the order passed by the Management removing the workmen from the service and reinstating
them with 25% back wages. Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large
amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in
service. Law on this point is well settled…………………………. .”
37.
In 2007-I-LLJ, 562(SC), Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C…..Appellant v/s Raghuda Siva Sankar
Prasad…..Respondent, respondent Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad joined the A.P.S.R.T.C. as cleaner on
2.10.1976. While working as mechanic in the night shift on Aug, 23/24, 1986 he committed theft of a fuel
injection pump. Apart from this act he was also involved in stealing an alternator baring while on duty in the
night shift on Sep., 11, 1986. Further, on Sep., 23/24, 1986 he entered into the tyre section of the depot
unauthorisedly & stole a new tube. He was also alleged to have stolen a sponge sheet where he was working.
He was charged for committing theft of all the above mentioned things in departmental enquiry. A criminal
case was also initiated against him wherein he was acquitted of the charges by the criminal court. As a result
of departmental enquiry he was removed from the service. In industrial dispute the labour court found that
his removal was justified under factual circumstances of the case. Aggrieved by the award of labour court
respondent preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court . The Hon’ble Single Judge came to the
conclusion that charges were correctly proved against the respondent, however, punishment of removal was
found not in consonance with gravity of charges proved against him. It was held by Hon’ble Single Judge
that the respondent had put in 12 years of unblemished service & deserves a lenient view in the matter,
hence, he was directed to be reinstated in the service with continuity but without back wages. Aggrieved by
the judgement of Hon’ble Single Judge the appellant preferred writ appeal before Hon’ble Division Bench
under clause 15 of Letters patent which was dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated
29.6.2005. Aggrieved against the order of Hon’ble Division Bench appellant preferred civil appeal before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was allowed . It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 &
24 of the judgement as under:-
“23. It is also not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of
the one arrived at the domestic Tribunal. In the instant case, the opinion arrived at by the
Corporation was rightly accepted by the Tribunal but not by the Court. We, therefore, hold that the
order of reinstatement passed by the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is
contrary to the law on the basis of a catena of decisions of this Court. In such cases, there is no place
for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for interfering with the quantum of
punishment of removal which cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court can modify the
696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds
that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.
24. Interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment of the respondent herein, is not called for.
In our opinion, the respondent has no legal right to continue in the Corporation. As held by this
Court, in a catena of judgments that the loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the
amount of money and that sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor which is permissible in law in
such matters. When the employee is found guilty of theft, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation
losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. In such cases,
there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering
with the quantum of the punishment.”
37.
In 2005-I-LLJ, 865(SC), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd…..Appellant v/s M.Chandrasekhar Reddy and
Others…..Respondent, respondent was working as Assistant grade-I in stores department of the appellant at
Hyderabad. He borrowed House Building Advance by depositing title deeds of his properties as securities,
creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the appellant. As per the terms of the said title deeds of the
property belonging to the respondent was to be in custody of the appellant till the entire amount of the loan
with interest, was discharged. While the mortgage was still subsisting and an amount of Rs.1,34,951/- was
due from the respondent, the appellant’s Officers came to know that certain public notices were published in
the local Newspaper calling upon the intending purchasers to make their offers for the purchase of the
property belonging to the respondent which was mortgaged to the appellant by deposit of title deeds. On the
appellants coming to know of the same, its officers approached the advocate who on behalf of the
respondent had issued the publication. They came to know that the original title deeds which were supposed
to be in deposit of the company was in his custody. Obviously, because it was stealthily taken away from the
custody of the appellant. Based on said facts a departmental inquiry was instituted and on the reports
submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding the appellant guilty of the misconduct charged and taking into
consideration the seriousness of the charge the services of the respondent were terminated.
38.
The learned Labour Court confirmed the finding of the enquiry officer on the point of guilt but
observed that punishment of dismissal from service was harsh in the circumstances. Respondent was
directed by labour court to be reinstated in service as a fresh candidate in the post of Assistant grade-II.
Appellant preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the order of learned labour court.
Respondent also preferred writ petition against part of the order of the Labour Court holding respondent
guilty of misconduct. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge holding that there is
any amount of spectrum of discretion vested with the tribunal in taking into consideration the facts &
circumstances of the case. Against the judgement of order of Hon’ble Single Judge appeals were preferred
by both the parties before the Hon’ble Division Bench & the writ appeals were dismissed. It was observed
by Hon’ble Division Bench as under:-
“Having carefully considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any
impropriety or illegality in the award of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned single Judge
in modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of reinstatement into service as a fresh
candidate in the post of Assistant Grade-II. The Labour Court, in our opinion, had exercised its
discretionary power under Section 11-A judiciously and has given valid and cogent reasons for
modifying the punishment……..”. Aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble Division Bench appellant
preferred the appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was allowed & order passed in domestic
enquiry dismissing the respondent from service was upheld. Referring to its own various earlier
pronouncements on the point of punishment it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 22
& 23 of the judgement as under:-
“22.In our opinion all the above judgments apply with full force to the facts of this case. The Labour
Court has itself come to the conclusion the management has lost confidence in the respondent. If that
be the case question of it exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to alter or reduce the
punishment does not arise.
23. That apart the reasons given by the Labour Curt to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not
sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence by using its discretionary power. The fact that the
misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct again is no ground to condone the misconduct. On
the facts of this case as recorded by the Labour Court the loss of confidence is imminent. No finding
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
697
has been given by the Courts below including Labour Court that either the fact of loss of confidence
or the quantum of punishment is so harsh as to be vindictive or shockingly disproportionate. Without
such finding based on records interference with the award of punishment in a domestic inquiry is
impermissible.”
39.
Reference has been made by learned counsel for the applicant to the case reported in 2003 II LLJ page
181, Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank …………Appellant v/s P.C.Kakkar……..respondent,
on the point that punishment awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the guilt attributed to him which
has been countered by learned representative for the opposite party. In 2003 II LLJ page 181, Chairman &
Managing Director, UCO Bank …………Appellant v/s P.C.Kakkar……..respondent, respondent was
dismissed on 16.8.1988 by disciplinary authority after charges 1,2,3,6,7 & 8 were found established against
him for commission of several act of misconduct while functioning as Assistant Manager of Mirzapur
Branch. Appeal preferred before the appellate authority against the order of disciplinary authority failed.
Similar was the fate of review application before appellate authority. In writ petition against the order of
dismissal before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court finding against the charges recorded were not
challenged except the quantum of punishment. One of the point highlighted against the Quantum of
punishment was that in similar situation lesser punishment was imposed on one Sh. M.L. Keshwani though
the allegations against him were comparatively more serious than the respondent. The plea of the respondent
was accepted by Hon’ble High Court & punishment given was held to be misappropriate & excessive. The
order of punishment dated 16.8.88 was quashed & respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service. It was
further held by Hon’ble High Court that since the matter has been pending for a long time it is directed that
the petitioner will be given the punishment of being deprived of 75% of salary for the period from the date
of removal to the date of reinstatement & he will be given a severe warning not to make such mistake in
future but he will get seniority & continuity in service as if his service has not been terminated. Appellant
preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court & submitted that after having found the charges were
established the High Court committed an error in interfering with quantum of punishment. After referring to
various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court the matter was remitted back to the Hon’ble High Court
for fresh consideration on the point of punishment. The appeal filed by appellant employer was accordingly
disposed & the appeal of the employee was dismissed. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that there
was no scope of such interference unless the punishment shocked the conscience of the court.
40.
The case of Sh. Ganesh Meena is although a case of temporary misappropriation of the fund of the
department which has been deposited by him back to the department after gap of about nine days but this
fact cannot be allowed to escape from the notice that the applicant has deposited the money back only after it
has come to the notice of the department. This fact also cannot be ignored that the case of Sh. Ganesh Meena
is the one in which the department seems to have lost faith about the credibility of the applicant to have him
retained for future service in the department. The fact of case of Sh. Ganesh Meena with no parity is
completely different from the case of Sh. P.C.Kakkar referred by learned representative of the applicant
hence, no benefit can be derived in favour of applicant from P.C.Kakkar’s case.
41.
It has been argued by learned representaive of the applicant that applicant has deposited the alleged
amount & department has not suffered any monetary loss, hence, applicant is entitled for immunity from the
punishment which has been strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent that after the fact of
misappropriation proved against the applicant there can be no immunity from the punishment. It is pertinent
to mention that in 2005 LAB I.C.3682 (Supreme Court), State Bank of India & another......Appellant v/s
Bela Bagchi and others.......Respondents it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is no defence
available to say that no loss resulted to the management because case was withdrawan by complainant/
account holder or money was deposited back by delinquent. On the basis of the observation made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above I am of the view that plea of the learned counsel for the
applicant is unsustainable.
42.
Looking into the result of series of pronouncements by Hon’ble Supreme Court & various Hon’ble
High Courts as mentioned above it is clear that unless punishment awarded in facts & circumstances of a
particular case shocks the conscience of the court, there is no scope of interference by the court or tribunal
under section 11-A of the I.D.Act, 1947. In case of Sh. Ganesh Meena there appears no reason to interfere
with punishment of dismissal awarded by the disciplinary authority.
43.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that all the objections raised on behalf of applicant Sh.
Ganesh Meena are found to be meritless & unsustainable in law. Applicant has failed to prove that action
698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
taken by management of LIC of India, Jaipur through Sr. Divisional Manager, Jaipur in dismissing the
services of Sh. Ganesh Meena, Peon vide its order dated 13.5.2006 is illegal & unjustified. Applicant is not
entitled to any relief as claimed by him in his statement of claim. Statement of claim is dismissed
accordingly.
44.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-155-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
vksfj,aVy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 3@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17011@1@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-17011/1/2011-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/3 of 2012
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
The Regional Manager
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mumbai Regional Office No.2,
Oriental House, 7th Floor, 7, Jamshedji
Tata Road, Churchgate,Mumbai – 400 020.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Joint Secretary,
General Insurance Employees’ Union,
Sterling Cinema Building,
3rd Floor, 65, Murzban Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Manoj M. Gujar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 30th October, 2017
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
699
AWARD PART - I
1.
This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-17011/1/2011 – IR (M) dated 18.01.2012. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of management of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai in imposing the
penalty of reduction of pay scale by two stages and recovery of legal fees and other expenses amounting
to Rs.12,800/- on Shri P.J. Rakshe, Record Clerk is legal, just and proper ? What relief the workman
concerned is entitled to ?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.7. According to the second party workman he is a
permanent of first party management. He has been appointed by the first party management w.e.f. 10.6.1987. He has
been working in the promotional post of Record Clerk. He was informed by letter dated 28.4.2006 that the
departmental enquiry would be held against him under Rule 25 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1975. He was served with the charge sheet for alleged misconduct that while he was posted and functioning as
Record Clerk in the Division office, Dadar during the year 2001, he committed misconduct to the effect that he with
malafide intention went to Division office of Ghatkopar on 10.10.2001 to get the policy No. 31/2001/01905 expired on
16.7.2001 belonging to Shri Daulat S. Narwade, renewed, he unauthorisedly put the date stamp on the date and stamp
on the above office policy docket with date showing 9.10.2001 and put remarks “Please correct period and date” in
order to bring the accidental vehicle within purview of Insurance Policy No. 31/2002/03886 and thereby exposed the
first party to bear unwarranted T.P. liability vide MACT Case No. 2731/2001 arisen out of accident of vehicle No. MH-
3-F 673 on 9.10.2001 causing injury to a third party and thus by his above act failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty, exhibited the conduct unbecoming of a public servant and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest
of the company, thereby violated Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) Rule 4 (1), (5) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1975.
4.
According to the concerned workman, he had denied the charges leveled against him by his letter dated
9.6.2006. However, the enquiry proceedings were held on 10.7.2008 and 31.7.2008 before the Enquiry officer Smt.
Sunita Ingle, Assistant Manager of the First party and thereafter the first party without considering the submission
made by him vide his letter dated 3.11.09 imposed punishment of reducing his two increments.
5.
According to the concerned workman, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report in
haste and without considering all the facts on record. The principles of natural justice were not followed while
conducting the enquiry. As such the enquiry is bad in law and is liable to the set aside.
6.
It is also the contention of the concerned workman that the charge sheet has been issued under General
Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 which have no force of law. The first party is governed by the
Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules,
1946. There are no certified orders for the establishment of the first party. Similarly, the establishment of the first
party is not exempted by the Central Government from the Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946.
Therefore Model Standing Orders (Central) as prescribed in Schedule I to the Employment (Standing Orders) Central
Rules, 1946 have no application. Since the charge sheet has not been issued nor the disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated and conducted in accordance with Model Standing Orders (Central) Schedule I, the disciplinary action taken
against him is liable to be quashed.
7.
It is also the contention of the concerned workman that Mr. J.H. Kasar and W.G. Mhatre were present in the
enquiry held on 1.9.09 as charge sheeted employees and Mr. Jai Kumar and Mr. Bipin Navsariwala were present in the
said enquiry as Defence Assistant. Presenting Officer put leading questions to Mr. Ajay R. Pote, Vigilance officer of
the first party. Such action of the Enquiry officer to put the leading questions to the witnesses is against the principles
of natural justice.
8.
It is then contended that the hand writing expert was not examined during in the enquiry proceedings and no
second opinion from the hand writing expert approved by the government was obtained by the Enquiry officer who
relied upon the hand writing expert opinion and no opportunity was given to him to examine the hand writing expert.
As such the findings of the Enquiry officer are perverse. The punishment imposed of reduction of pay by two stages
and recovery of legal fees and other expenses amounting to Rs.12,800/- on the second party is illegal, unjust and
improper. He is therefore asking for giving directions to the first party to make the payment of wages and other
benefits to him without any reduction of pay and without any recovery of his wages as if no such punishment has been
700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
imposed upon him. He is also asking for directions to the first party to make the payment of arrears with interest @
10% retrospectively.
9.
The first party management resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.14. It is contended that the second
party workman was employed with the first party as Record Clerk at their Dadar Division office during the relevant
period. He during working hours without any intimation and / or permission of his superiors had gone to Division
office of the first party situated at Ghatkopar on 10.10.2001. The second party workman made the endorsement on
expired policy No. 31/2001/1905 in the arbitrary manner with a view to renew policy in favour of Shri D.S. Narwade.
The concerned workman unauthorisedly put the date stamp on the policy docket with the date showing 09.01.2001 and
put remarks “Please correct period and date” in order to bring the accidental vehicle of Mr. D.S. Narwade within the
purview of the expired Insurance Policy and thereby exposed the first party to bear unwarranted Third Party liability
and release the amount. The said action of the second party incurred the first party with financial losses as such the
second party acted dishonestly with first party company. Accordingly, he was charge-sheeted. Charge sheet was
issued on 28.4.2006. He received the charge sheet and replied the same vide his letter dt. 9.6.2006. The management of
the first party decided to institute disciplinary action against the second party. Accordingly, domestic enquiry was
initiated and conducted by the first party into the charges leveled against him as provided under General Insurance
(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975.
10.
It is the case of the first party management that Mr. S.K. Basu was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted
the enquiry in an impartial manner from 29.7.2009 to 1.9.2009 and full opportunity to defend the case was given to the
second party by the Enquiry Officer. The second party participated in the said proceedings and fully defended himself.
As such the enquiry held against the second party is fair, proper and legal.
11.
It is also the case of the first party management that Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings dt.
21.10.2009 to the management and has held that the charges leveled against the second party are duly proved and
second party is guilty of charges. Copy of the same was given to the second party. Entire due process of law was
completed. The report of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence. Copy of the enquiry report was given to the second
party and he has replied the same vide his letter dt. 3.11.2009. As such the first party complied with the entire process
of law before awarding punishment to the second party. Accordingly, after considering the entire records and findings
of the Enquiry Officer as well as the past service record of the second party, the first party passed order dt. 27.1.2010
and 8.2.2010 against the second party and punished him by imposing penalty of reduction of pay scale by two stages
and recovery of legal fees and other expenses amounting to Rs.12,800/-.
12.
It is thus the case of the first party management that the enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair
and proper and the findings of the Enquiry officer are based on evidence. First party management thus sought dismissal
of the reference.
13.
Following issues are framed at Ex.9. I reproduce the issue No.1 & 2 along with my findings thereon for the
reasons stated below :
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether the inquiry against the second party
workman was fair and proper ?
Yes
2.
Whether the findings of the Inquiry officer are
perverse ?
No
REASONS
Issue No. 1 & 2
14.
In respect of the enquiry proceedings, the Learned Counsel for the second party contended that the charge sheet
has been stated to be issued under General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 and as such the
General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 have no force of law at all. According to the Learned
Counsel for the second party, the first party is governed by Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946 and the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. Since there are no certified standing orders for the
establishment of the first party and the first party is not exempted by the Central Government from the Industrial
Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946, the Model Standing Orders (Central) as prescribed in Schedule I to the
Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 shall prevail. In the present case, according to him, since the
charge sheet has not been issued and the departmental enquiry has not been initiated and conducted in accordance with
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
701
Model Standing Orders (Central) Schedule I, the entire disciplinary action taken against concerned workman is liable to
be quashed and set aside.
15.
In this respect, it will have to be said that the second party workman has agreed to abide by rules and regulations
as provided by General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. Even it appears from the evidence of
the concerned workman that during enquiry he has not taken any objection for the enquiry in any respect. As such the
enquiry is conducted as per the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 in respect of
misconduct. The rules also provide for misconduct and penalty procedure thereof. By letter Ex.15 the concerned
employee was informed that the disciplinary enquiry under rule 25 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1975 was proposed to be held against him and accordingly article of charge was framed against him
alleging that he violated rule 3 (1)(i)(ii)(iii), Rule 4 (I) and 5 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1975. After receiving the charge sheet the concerned workman has not taken objection in writing mentioning
therein that such enquiry cannot be conducted in accordance with Model Standing Orders (Central) Schedule I. Even
otherwise it has not been established by the concerned employee that there is no certified standing orders for the
establishment of the first party or the establishment of the first party is not exempted by Central Govt. from the
Industrial Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946. At this stage it cannot be said that even after taking the objection
from the concerned employee in respect of procedure that has been followed for conducting the enquiry, the enquiry
was conducted in haste or they have not followed the procedure as is laid down in General Insurance (Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975.
16.
The question creeps in is whether the second party was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself or not ? It
is because in departmental enquiry the evidence is to be appreciated on the basis of preponderance of probability. If
sufficient opportunity is given to the second party to defend himself and to make out his defence and then thereafter the
evidence is appreciated then it cannot be said that the enquiry was not fair & proper.
17.
In this respect if we see the evidence of the concerned workman, he admits that he has received the charge sheet.
He even admits that he has received the documents during the enquiry. It is admitted by him that he has replied the
charge sheet through union. As per his own admission, he has participated in the enquiry and during enquiry he
himself as well as his representative has signed the proceedings. Admittedly, the evidence of the witness was recorded
in his presence and in the presence of his representative. As per his glaring admission, he was given opportunity to
submit his evidence in defence. The report & findings were made available to him. That itself is sufficient to
demonstrate that the enquiry held against the concerned workman in respect of charges leveled against him is fair &
proper.
18.
Even then the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that principles of natural justice have not
been followed while conducting the enquiry proceedings. He submits that the Enquiry officer of the first party held the
proceedings on 29.7.2009 vide Ex.21 and on 17.8.2009 vide Ex.23. On 17.8.2009 the second party was cross examined
by the Presenting officer even before the evidence led by the first party and thereby he was forced to disclose his
defence. Submission is also to the effect that the Presenting officer was allowed to put the leading questions to the
witness which is against the principles of natural justice and in that sense the principles of natural justice were not
followed while conducting the enquiry proceedings.
19.
I have gone through the enquiry proceedings. It appears that as per daily order sheet dated 10.7.2008, Presenting
officer was present, charge-sheeted employee was present and on that day the charge sheeted employee i.e. concerned
workman was asked whether he received charge sheet and whether he understood the charge sheet to which he
answered in affirmative. On that day it was also asked to charge sheeted employee whether he wanted to appoint the
Defence Assistant and accordingly the Defence Assistant was appointed.
20.
It is no doubt true that on 17.8.2009, it appears that Presenting officer asked some questions to the charge-
sheeted employee to which he replied and that time the D.A. Mr. George had asked for the attendance sheet of the
concerned employee and also suggested for second opinion of the hand writing expert and therefore it was decided to
take the decision on these points with the approval of the competent authority.
21.
On going through these proceedings dt. 17.8.2009 and on reading the entire daily working sheet of dated
17.8.2009 by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the concerned workman was forced to disclose his defence.
But then the fact remains that the evidence of the witness Mr. Pote was recorded on 1.9.2009 and that time the defence
representative was present who cross examined the witness in presence of concerned workman. Even this is admitted
by the concerned workman that during enquiry proceedings he did not take any objection in any manner. He fully
participated in the enquiry and opportunity was given to him to submit his evidence in defence. If this is so, then it
cannot be said that the enquiry was not fair & proper.
22.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of C.M. Rajasthan Road
Transport Corpn. Vidyadhar Nagar Depot Jaipur V/S. Sukhvir Singh [deceased] through legal heirs, 2011 II CLR 117
702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to submit that in domestic enquiry the employer should first take steps to lead evidence against the workman charge-
sheeted, give opportunity to the workman and his representative to cross-examine the said witness and then workman
be asked whether he wants to give explanation about the evidence led against him.
23.
In the instant reference the evidence of Mr. Pote was recorded by the employer. Even concerned workman and
his representative were given opportunity to cross examine the said witness and then the opportunity was also given to
the concerned workman to explain about the evidence. This is even admitted by the concerned workman in his cross
examination who admits that his representative cross examined the management witness on his behalf and he was made
to understand as to what happened during enquiry. Admittedly, his representative cross examined management witness
on his behalf and he has not made any objection in this respect during the enquiry. He even admits that he was given
opportunity to submit his representation during enquiry. He received the report and findings in respect of the enquiry
and also replied the report and findings. This clearly shows that the enquiry held against him was fair & proper. It has
not been established on behalf of the concerned workman that the Enquiry officer was biased against him.
24.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that during enquiry he has stated before the Enquiry
officer that the opinion taken by the first party of hand writing expert is not acceptable to him and it was necessary to
take the opinion of government approved hand writing expert. In this view it is submitted that first party has not
recorded the evidence of government approved hand writing expert but then took into consideration the opinion of hand
writing expert which was on record.
25.
In my considered view, when the appreciation of the evidence in departmental enquiry is on the basis of
preponderance of probability then while appreciating the evidence there is nothing wrong to take into consideration the
documents on record which were obtained during the enquiry to have corroboration to the evidence of the witness who
has been examined during enquiry. On going through the report of the Enquiry officer, it appears that he has
appreciated the evidence of Mr. Pote and came to the conclusion that the concerned workman has done the changes in
the policy period by putting remark “please change date and time” on the previous year policy copy when he got to
know that new policy bearing No. 2002/3886 is renewed from 10.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 and then the hand writing
expert opinion was considered as a piece of evidence to confirm his findings to come to the conclusion that the
misconduct of the concerned workman is proved. So on going through the enquiry report, it appears that his finding is
based on evidence. Mere denial of hand writing expert’s report by the concerned workman will not do. He has not
adduced the evidence to dis-approve the evidence of the hand writing expert which is on record.
26.
Learned Counsel for the concerned workman in the context seeks to rely on the decision in case of Kanchan
Singh V/S. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 [SC Pg. 1011].
27.
That was case wherein the appellant was convicted u/s. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 467,
471, 477 (A) of IPC. On perusal of judgment of Hon’ble High Court, it clearly showed that almost entire part of the
prosecution case has not been accepted by the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in that case has observed
that the expert’s opinion in that case was not relied. In the circumstances, it was observed that the prosecution has not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. This being the departmental proceedings as stated earlier, evidence is to be
appreciated on the basis of preponderance of probability and it is not necessary to prove the charges beyond doubt.
Obviously, therefore the observations in the cited dictum does not help the concerned workman.
28.
Considering all these facts, specifically the report of the Enquiry officer, I find that his report is based on
evidence. It cannot be said that his findings are perverse. Hence I answer the above issues accordingly as indicated
against each of them in terms of above observations.
29.
Hence, I hold that the departmental enquiry held against the concerned workman is just and proper and findings
are not perverse. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1.
Enquiry is held fair & proper.
2.
Findings of the Enquiry officer are not perverse.
3.
Parties are directed to argue / lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.
Date: 30.10.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-156-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
703
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@80@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.01.2018.
[No. L-30011/80/2005-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/65 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
O. N. G. C. & RAVI RAJ & COMPANY
The Executive Director,
O. N. G. C.,
Vasudhara Bhavan,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.
M/s. Ravi Raj & Company,
RH-5, Gimmy Park 1, Sector – 17,
Phase – 1, Nerul, Navi Mumbai,
Mumbai – 400 706.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Secretary,
Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers’ Union,
2nd Floor, Port Trust Kangar Sadan,
Nawab Tank Road, Mazagaon,
Mumbai – 400 010.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. G.D. Talreja, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 9th October, 2017
AWARD
1.
This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/80/2005 – IR (M) dated 08.04.2005. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers’ Union against the management of Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. for absorption of workmen employed for stevedoring justified ? If so, what relief the
workman is entitled ?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Learned advocate for the second party submits that the union has signed the Memorandum of Settlement dated
19.9.16 with the management of first party for protection and continuation of service of the concerned workman,
covered under this reference on payment of fair wages allowances and other benefits irrespective of the contractor that
may be appointed by ONGC for stevedoring work from time to time with the condition that the pending case in the
court of law would be withdrawn and therefore the union is not interested in pursuing the matter. The union is
therefore praying for disposing the reference for want of prosecution.
4.
Other side has no objection. Hence in view of Pursis Ex.52 the reference is disposed of for want of prosecution
by second party workman being represented by the union.
7.
Accordingly I pass the following order.
ORDER
Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.
Date: 09.10.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-
th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@38@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
19.01.2018.
[No. L-30012/38/2009-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/47 of 2010
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
O. N. G. C.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
O. N. G. C.,
Tel Bhavan,
Dehradun – 249 008.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Narayan Baburao Lokare,
D/704, Asha Shakti, Samarth Gardens,
Off. LBS Road,
Bhandup (W),
Mumbai – 400 078.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
705
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. P.A. Deogaonkar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 9th October, 2017
AWARD
1.
This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-30012/38/2009 – IR (M) dated 22.04.2010. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC, Mumbai dismissing Shri Narayan Baburao Lokare from
his services w.e.f. 29.6.1994 is justified and legal ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?“
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3.
Learned advocate for the concerned workman submits that the concerned workman is no more. Even though his
affidavit is filed on record, he could not be cross examined and after his death his legal representative could not be
brought on record.
4.
It appears that the legal representatives of the deceased workman have not been brought on record even after the
prescribed period of limitation. Written statement is filed but then since there is no evidence on behalf of the
concerned workman, I find that there is no material on record for granting the relief to the concerned workman since he
did not take steps in support of his claim.
5.
One Shaligram Mishra has filed application for allowing him to be the party in the case as majority of the
workers want to represent this case. That cannot be permitted since union has not espoused the case of concerned
workman at the time of reference.
6.
It appears that no one is interested in prosecuting the reference and no steps have been taken. Hence the
reference is disposed of for want of prosecution
7.
Accordingly I pass the following order.
ORDER
Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.
Date: 09.10.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-158-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eqacbZ
bUVjuS'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11011@5@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management of M/s. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-11011/5/2008-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/12 of 2009
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.
Shri G.V.K. Reddy,
CMD, Mumbai International Airport,
Private Ltd.,
CST International Airport,
Mumbai – 400 099.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Secretary,
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena,
Prabhul Ben Society, R.K. Vaidya Road,
Dadar [W], Mumbai – 400 028.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Ms. Mitra Das, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 1st November, 2017
AWARD
1.
This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11011/5/2008 – IR (M) dated 17.02.2009. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the contract between Mumbai International Airport Private Limited and Other contractors
employing the workers mentioned in the Annexure – A (List enclosed) to the industrial dispute and employed
in the establishment of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited, as loaders and Drivers is sham and
bogus? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3.
This is an application filed by the second party contending therein that it had passed the declarations of the
concerned workmen confirming that they do not want to pursue the reference and they wanted to delete their names
from the proceedings. Accordingly, their names are deleted from the proceedings.
4.
It is contended that total number of workmen is 24. They have separately filed their declarations and as per their
applications names of 11 workmen came to be deleted as per order dt. 14.12.2016. Names of 10 workers is also deleted
as per the declarations made by them. The workman namely Rajendra Ghawas has passed away and other workman
namely Hitendra Naik never joined the services of Shree Sai Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. Sanjay Kendre has also resigned
from the services of Shree Sai Rent A Car Pvt. Ltd. and those 3 persons have no claim as sought under the present
proceedings. Since other workers concerned with reference have settled the dispute and by their declarations itself their
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
707
names can be deleted, their names are deleted. Now the reference itself can be disposed of since the concerned
workmen have settled their claims.
5.
Other side has not filed any say to this application. However, considering the fact that 24 workmen have settled
the dispute and their names are deleted and the remaining 3 workmen have also no claim against the first party, the
reference is disposed of in view of the application of the second party.
4.
Accordingly I pass the following order.
ORDER
Reference is disposed of.
Date: 01.11.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2018
dk-vk-159-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ xqMfou
xzqi iQkWj iSQflfyVht ,.M l£olst] flD;wfjVh ,.M vykbM l£olst ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
34@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-01-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@11@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2018
S.O.159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Goodwin Group for Facilities & Services, Security and Allied Services and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 19.01.2018.
[No. L-30011/11/2015-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/34 of 2015
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
GOODWIN GROUP FOR FACILITIES & SERVICES,
SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES
The Proprietor,
Goodwin Group, For Facilities & Services,
Security and Allied Services,
807/1(5), Quinton Manor, NH-17,
Near Holy Family Chapel,
Above SBI Personal Banking,
Alto-Porvorim
Goa – 403 521.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Appt., Tisk-Ponda
Goa – 403 401.
708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Noel Goodwin, Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. P. Gaonkar, Representative
Mumbai, dated the 1st November, 2017
AWARD
1.
This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/11/2015 – IR (M) dated 03.06.2015. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of M/s. Goodwin Group, for facilities and services, Security and Allied services, Alto,
Porvorim, Goa in not taking the component of HRA while calculation of overtime payment contrary to the
provision of MW Act, 1948 in respect of security guard deployed by him in the establishment of ONGC Ltd.,
Institute of Petroleum Safety, Health and Environment Management, Betul, South Goa is legal, proper and
justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
Second party workman filed statement of claim Ex.6. According to the concerned workmen, party No.1 is an
establishment supplying contract workers at ONGC Institute situated at Betul, Selcette Goa. There are security guards
engaged by ONGC through party No.1 and they are working since last several years. On several occasions these
contract security guards are required to work overtime and for the last 3 years they have worked on overtime for several
times. But they are paid overtime only on basic wages and their other allowances such as HRA were not considered for
the purpose of overtime calculation.
4.
According to concerned workmen, the workmen who worked on overtime are entitled to overtime wages at the
twice rate of ordinary rate of wages. Hence the calculation ought to have done by taking into consideration HRA paid
to them in their monthly / daily wages. They are paid by DGRS rates and under DGRS rates the workers are entitled
for 10% HRA on basic and varied D.A. As such they are being paid HRA as one component in monthly salary of the
workers. They have worked for overtime for last 3 years and they are not paid overtime at the twice rate of ordinary
rate of wages. Hence they raised the industrial dispute before RLC [Central] Vasco De-gama. They are therefore
asking for declaration to the effect that the action of the management in not paying the overtimes by adding HRA is
illegal. They are also asking the relief of payment of balance overtime wages by adding HRA component to their
wages for the last 3 years along with 15% interest and the cost.
5.
First party management has resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.7. It is the case of first party that it
has paid overtime wages to the security guards at basic wages and D.A. which is the ordinary wage. It is submitted that
the first party is Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Dept. of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Department, Director
General of Re-settlement (DGR), New Delhi empanelled and sponsored by security agencies. The agencies sponsored
under this Ex-Servicemen Welfare Scheme by DGR to provide Ex-Servicemen security personnel for security covered
to public sector undertakings. In order to make out the short-fall of ex-servicemen, 10% of the entire strength can be
civilian guards as provisioned. The Welfare security scheme is governed by the directives / policies laid down from
time to time vide office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Dept. of
Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi. Thos directions are to be followed in letter and spirit. The scheme is stringently
governed by minimum wages governed by Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India for employment
of personnel for watch and ward duties. The Welfare security services scheme follows the extra wages for overtime
rules laid down in Chapter VI para 25(I) (B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Ordinary rate of wage or minimum
wages are the wages notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment from time to time. Minimum wages are
ordinary wages which include basic wage + variable D.A. In Variable D.A., the HRA is already included. The Central
Government wages have no separate HRA whereas the DGR has which is exclusively meant for ex-servicemen under
the provisions of para 2 (h) (IV) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Para 3 (b) of DGR letter clearly states that the
HRA given separately is not to be considered while calculating the overtime, as HRA is already included in the basic +
variable D.A. and is calculated for overtime. The separate HRA is only meant for ex-servicemen. HRA is not paid to
security guards and hence the question of paying overtime on HRA given out of ordinary wages does not arise at all.
6.
It is also a case of the first party that the party No.1 has not violated the DGR governed or DGR directives on
disbursement of the wages to its employees’, deployed in ONGC. It has thus sought the rejection of the reference.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 27] 2018@ek?k 7] 1939
709
7.
Following issues are framed at Ex.11. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether the second party workmen are entitled
to overtime wages at twice the rate of normal
wages by taking into account the HRA paid to
them in their monthly wages ?
No
2.
Whether the action of management in not
paying the overtime wages by adding HRA is
illegal and unjustified ?
No
3.
Whether the second party workmen are entitled
to payment of balance overtime wages by
adding HRA component to their wages for last
three years with 15% interest ?
No
4.
Whether the second party workmen are entitled
to relief sought ?
No
5.
What Order ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issue No. 1 & 2
8.
The dispute lies in narrow compass. It is on the point whether HRA which is part from minimum wage for
ordinary wages is to be included while calculating the overtime wages. There is no dispute in respect of payment of
overtime at twice the rate of ordinary wages to the workmen. The office of RLC [Central] Vasco De-gama had already
examined and satisfied that overtime were being paid at the twice rate of minimum / ordinary wage to the workmen by
first party. So now the dispute is whether the HRA given outside the basic + VDA should be included while
calculating the overtime wages or not ?
9.
Admittedly, the security guards have worked for overtime for last 3 years whenever they assigned the work and
they have been paid overtime wages at the twice rate of minimum wages. It is also admitted that the central
notification is being followed by DGR agencies. All employees engaged by DGR sponsored ESM for security work at
CPSU/s will be paid monthly wages in accordance with the minimum wages notified by Ministry of Labour &
Employment.
10.
The wages as defined under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 means all remuneration capable of being expressed in
terms of money, which would, if the terms of contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to
a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, [and includes house rent
allowance], but does not include gratuity, supply of light, water, medical attendance and travelling allowance etc. etc. .
11.
In the context, reliance is placed on the decision in case of V.E. Jossie, MCM (AE), NAY & Ors. V/S. The Flag
Officers Commanding in Chief & Ors. OP (CAT) No. 2154 of 2011 (Z) in which the Hon’ble Kerala H.C. held that,
“The Phrase ‘ordinary rate of wages’ appear in section 59 of the Factories Act, which required an employer to
pay ‘extra wages for overtime’ work in the factory where the workers work in the factory for more than
9 hours in a day or for more than 48 hours in any week, he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to
wages at the rate of twice of his ordinary rate. Ordinary rate if wages includes only salary and allowances for
the work [like D.A.]. It does not include such allowances which are either compensatory in character or
intensive in nature. Therefore the court held that HRA, city compensatory allowance, transport allowance and
Small Family Norm Allowance etc. are not part of ordinary rate of wages.”
12.
In view of this legal position, it can be said that HRA which is part from Minimum Wage or ordinary wage
cannot be included while calculating the overtime wages. It cannot be said therefore that party No.1 has violated any
act, rules or government notification in regard to overtime wages being paid to the concerned workmen.
13.
Even then the Ld. Counsel for the concerned workmen submitted that the calculation of overtime wages ought to
have been done by taking into account the HRA paid to them in their monthly wages. It is not possible to accept the
submission when it is admitted position that the concerned workmen are paid by DGRS rates. They are paid overtime
710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 27, 2018/MAGHA 7, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
at the twice rate of ordinary rate of wages and as per legal position in VDA, the HRA is included then there is no
question of paying them overtime wages by including HRA. Obviously, they are therefore not entitled to any interest
as is claimed by them on balance overtime wages by adding HRA component to their wages for last 3 years.
14.
Considering all these facts, I find that the second party workmen are not entitled to overtime wages by taking
into account HRA paid to them. Consequently, the action of the management in not paying the overtime wages by
adding HRA is legal and justified. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of
them in terms of above observations.
Issue No. 3, 4 & 5
15.
In view of my findings to the above issues, the second party workmen are not entitled to payment of balance
overtime wages by adding HRA component to their wages along with interest as claimed. They are also not entitled to
any relief. Hence order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 01.11.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2018.02.28
14:44:29 +05'30'