970 GI/2018

(1675)

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- 9]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 25—ekpZ 3] 2018] 'kfuokj@ iQkYxqu 6—iQkYxqu 12] 1939

No. 9]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 25—MARCH 3, 2018, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 6—PHALGUNA 12, 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 िश ण िवभाग

कामक और िश ण िवभाग

कामक और िश ण िवभाग

कामक और िश ण िवभाग)

नई दली, 18 जनवरी, 2018

का

का

का

का.आ

.आ

.आ

.आ. 365

365

365

365.—द ड  या संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उप धारा (8) ारा द शिय

का योग करते ए क" # सरकार एतद्ारा $ी नारायण रे&ी एम., अिधवा को ब"गलु- ि.थत कना0टक उ3 4यायालय, म"

दली िवशेष पुिलस .थापन (सीबीआई) के िलए अिभयोजन, अपील, पुनरी:ण, करने या दली िवशेष पुिलस .थापन

(सीबीआई) ारा अ4वेिषत मामल से उ;भूत अ4य मामल हेतु िनयुि क तारीख़ से तीन वष? अथवा अगले आदेश, जो

भी पहले हो, तक के िलए िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक िनयु करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/27/2017-एवीडी–II]

एस. पी. आर. िCपाठी, अवर सिचव

1676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2018

S.O. 365.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Narayana Reddy M., Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore for

conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 225/27/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दली, 19 जनवरी, 2018

का

का

का

का.आ

.आ

.आ

.आ. 366

366

366

366.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk 8 }kjk

iznRr ‘kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,ukZdqye fLFkr dsjy mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk vUosf”kr ekeyksa esa

vfHk;kstu dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh vthr dqekj ,l-] vf/koDrk dks fnYyh fo’ks”k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼dsUnzh; vUos”k.k C;wjks½ esa mudh fu;qfDr

dh rkjh[k ls rhu o”kksZa ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns’kkas rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo’ks”k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[फा. सं. 225/25/2017-एवीडी–II]

एस. पी. आर ि पाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2018

S.O. 366.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajith Kumar S. Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulum for conducting

the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 225/25/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

िवदेश मंालय

िवदेश मंालय

िवदेश मंालय

िवदेश मंालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई द ली, 19 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 367

367

367

367.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फ स) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण म( वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद्+ारा के, - सरकार भारत के 0धान कसलावास, दुबई म(

(i)

2ी सुिमत कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी तथा

(ii) 2ी मनोज कुमार, िनजी सहायक को दनांक 19 फरवरी, 2018 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर

सेवा: के िनव;हन के िलए 0ािधकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/03/2018]

0काश च, द, िनदेशक (कसुलर)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1677

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2018

S.O. 367.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints:

(i)

Shri Sumit Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of

India, Dubai, and

(ii)

Shri Manoj Kumar, PA as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate Gereral of India, Dubai to perform

the Consular Services with effect from 19th February, 2018.

[No. T-4330/03/2018]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

 वा

 वा

 वा

 वा  य

  य

  य

  य और

और

और

और परवार

परवार

परवार

परवार क या

क या

क या

क याण मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

( वा

वा

वा

वा य

य

य

य और

और

और

और परवार

परवार

परवार

परवार क या

क या

क या

क याण िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 20 नव> बर, 2017

का

का

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 368

368

368

368.—भारतीय आयु?व;@ान पAरषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2) +ारा

0दC त शिD तय का 0योग करते Fए के, - सरकार, भारतीय आयु?व;@ान पAरषद से परामश; करके उH अिधिनयम क 0थम अनुसूची म(,

िनIिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उH 0थम अनुसूची म( ‘मा,यता 0ाJ आयु?व;@ान अह;ता’ शीष;क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है]

“डॉ.एनटीआर KवाKLय िव@ान िवMिवNालय, िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम 0िविO के पPात् और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिRिJकरण’

[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत 0िविO के संबंध म( िनIिलिखत अंत:Kथािपत कया जाएगा. अथा;त्:-

(2)

(3)

बेचलर ऑफ मेिडिसन और बेचलर ऑफ सज;री

एम.बी.बी.एस.

(यह एक मा,यता 0ाJ आयु?व;@ान अह;ता होगी जब यह

राजीव गांधी इंिKटUूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, :गोल म(

0िशिRत कए गए छा  के संबंध म( फरवरी, 2016 को या

बाद म( 100 एमबीबीएस छा वा?ष;क 0वेश Rमता के

साथ, डॉ. एनटीआर KवाKLय िव@ान िवMिवNालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, +ारा 0दX होगी।

नोट

नोट

नोट

नोट: 1. एमबीबीएस िडYी 0दान करने के िलए अधोZातक कोस; को दी गई ऐसी मा,यता अिधकतम 5 वष; के िलए होगी और उसके

बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा,यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क 0[या वही होगी जो मा,यता 0दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिRत मा,यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म( िवफल रहने पर, पAरणामKव\प, िनरपवाद \प से, संबंिधत एमबीबीएस

अधोZातक कोस; म( 0वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/224/2015-एमई-I(एफटीएस. 3101873)]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 368.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act:

In the said First Schedule after “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada” and under the

heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry

relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration” [Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following

shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

M.B.B.S.

This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. NTR University of

Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of students

being trained at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical

Sciences, Ongole with annual intake of 100 MBBS

students on or after February, 2016.

Note: 1. The recognition so granted to an under graduate courses for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum

period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to

the concerned undergraduate Course.

[F. No. U-12012/224/2015-ME-I (FTS. 3101873)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 1 जनवरी, 2018

का

का

का

का.आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 369

369

369

369.—भारतीय आयु?व;@ान पAरषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2) +ारा

0दC त शिD तय का 0योग करते Fए, के, - सरकार, भारतीय आयु?व;@ान पAरषद से परामश; करके उH अिधिनयम क 0थम अनुसूची म(,

िनIिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथा;त:-

उH 0थम अनुसूची म( ‘मा,यता 0ाJ आयु?व;@ान अह;ता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीष;क के अधीन “द

तिमलनाडु डॉ. एम. जी. आर. मेिडकल िवMिवNालय, चे]ई” के सामने अंितम 0िविO के पPात् और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिRिJकरण’

[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत 0िविO के संबंध म( िनIिलिखत अंत:Kथािपत कया जाएगा. अथा;त् :-

(2)

(3)

आयु?व;@ान Zातक और शय-िचकCसा Zातक

एम.बी.बी.एस.

(यह एक मा,यता 0ाJ आयु?व;@ान अह;ता होगी जब यह

करपागाम फैकटी ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड Aरसच;,

कोयंबXूर म( 0िशिRत कए गए छा  के संबंध म( 150

एम.बी.बी.एस. छा  के वा?ष;क 0वेश Rमता के साथ,

फरवरी, 2017 को और या बाद म( द तिमलनाडु

डॉ. एम. जी. आर. मेिडकल िवMिवNालय, चे]ई +ारा

0दX होगी।

नोट

नोट

नोट

नोट: 1. अधोZातक कोस; को दी गई ऐसी मा,यता अिधकतम 5 वष; के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा,यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क 0[या वही होगी जो मा,यता 0दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1679

3. अपेिRत मा,यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म( िवफल रहने पर,पAरणाम Kव\प,िनरपवाद \प से संबंिधत अधोZातक

कोस; म( 0वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/224/2015-एमई- I (भाग ii)(एफटीएस. 3135553)]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2018

S.O. 369.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act:

In the said First Schedule after “The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai” and under the

heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [Hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry

relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration” [Hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following

shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

M.B.B.S.

This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR

Medical University, Chennai in respect of

students being trained at Karpagam Faculty of

Medical Sciences & Research, Coimbatore

with annual intake of 150 MBBS students on or

after February, 2017.

Note: 1. The recognition so granted to an undergraduate courses for award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum

period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

2. The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to

the concerned undergraduate Course.

[F. No. U-12012/224/2015-ME- I (pt. ii) (FTS. 3135553)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

कोयला मंालय

कोयला मंालय

कोयला मंालय

कोयला मंालय

नई दली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 370

370

370

370.—के,-ीय सरकार, सरकारी Kथान (अ0ािधकृत अिधभािग: क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40)

क धारा 3 +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए और भारत के राजप , भाग II खंड 3, उपखंड (ii), तारीख 29 अगKत, 2010 से

4 िसत>बर, 2010 म( 0कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 2178, तारीख 25 अगKत, 2010 को

उन बात के िसवाय जो ऐसे अित[मण से पहले क गई या कए जाने का लोप कया गया है, को अिध[ांत करते Fए, नीचे दी गई

सारणी के Kत>भ (2) के अिधकारी को जो स(fल कोलफ gस िलिमटेड के अिधकारी हh और के,-ीय सरकार के राजपि त अिधकारी क

पंिH के समतुय हh, उH अिधिनयम के 0ायोजन के िलए, स>पदा अिधकारी के \प म( िनयुH करती है, जो उH सारणी के Kत>भ (3) क

तCसंबंधी 0िविO म( िविनiद;O, सरकारी Kथान के 0वगj क बाबत अपनी अिधकाAरता क सीमा: के भीतर उH अिधिनयम +ारा या

उसके अधीन स>पदा अिधकारी को 0दX शिHय का 0योग कर(गे और उन पर अिधरोिपत कत;k का पालन कर(गे।

1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सा

सा

सा

सारणी

रणी

रणी

रणी

[म

स(fल कोलफ gस िलिमटेड

सरकारी Kथान के 0वग; और अिधकाAरता

संbया

के अिधकारी का पद नाम

क Kथानीय सीमा

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

Kटाफ ऑफसर (पAरयोजना

स(fल कोलफ gस िलिमटेड के सभी पAरसर, जो

और योजना), स(fल कोलफ gस

मगध-आlपाली Rे के भाग \प हh और झारखंड

िलिमटेड, मगध-आlपाली,

राnय म( िKथत चतरा तथा लातेहार िजल म( फैले Fए हh ।

िपन कोड- 829210.

[ फा. सं. 43022/2/2018-एलए एoड आईआर]

आर. एस. सरोज, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 370.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal number S.O. 2178, dated the 25th August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(ii), dated the 29th August, 2010 to 4th September, 2010, excepts as respects things done or omitted to be done before

such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer of Central Coalfields Limited mentioned in

Column (2) of the Table below, being the officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Central Government,

to be the Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties

imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdictions in respect

of the categories of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.

TABLE

Serial

Number

Designation of the Officer of the Central

Coalfields Limited.

Categories of the public premises and local limits

of jurisdiction.

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

Staff Officer (Project and Planning), Central

Coalfields

Limited,

Magadh-Amrapali,

Pin Code-829210.

All the premises belonging to Central Coalfields

Limited and forming part of Magadh-Amrapali

Area spread over in the Districts of Chatra and

Latehar, in the State of Jharkhand.

[F. No. 43022/2/2018-LA & IR ]

R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 16 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 371

371

371

371.—क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसा 0तीत होता है क लोक िहत म( यह आवpयक है क आंq 0देश राnय म( पेfोिलयम

उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना के [या,वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड +ारा

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए यह आवpयक 0तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म( जो इससे

उपाबt अनुसूची म( व?ण;त है, और िजसम( उH पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 0Kताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार,पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए उस भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1681

कोई भी kिH, जो उH अनुसूची म( व?ण;त भूिम म( िहतबt है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म( युH भारत के

राजप क 0ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलyध करा दी जाती हh, इz स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के

िलए उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार के संब,ध म( 2ी के. ए. एस जेि]सन, सRम 0ािधकारी (आंq 0देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड

(पाइपलाइन 0भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना,{लॉट संbया 33, कनका दुगा; ऑफसस; कॉलोनी, गु|नानक नगर मेन

रोड िवजयवाड़ा-520008, आंq 0देश राnय को िलिखत \प से आRेप भेज सकेगा

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला: वे ट

िजला: वे ट

िजला: वे ट

िजला: वे ट गोदावरी

गोदावरी

गोदावरी

गोदावरी

रा!य: आ#$देश

रा!य: आ#$देश

रा!य: आ#$देश

रा!य: आ#$देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

पोलावरम

गुटाला

828

00

38

15

तलापुडी

तुपाकुलागुडेम

172/1B

00

09

06

172/2

00

27

72

तलापुडी

अ]ादेवरपेटा

179/3

00

07

90

272/1

00

00

05

263/4A

00

05

25

267/2

00

19

74

267/1

00

24

04

332

00

24

78

360

00

14

74

गोपालपुरम

गोपालपुरम

161

00

16

78

256/3A

00

10

80

कामावरपुकोटा

राम]ापालेम

20/19

00

06

21

20/8

00

06

76

20/4

00

08

93

20/3

00

01

30

कामावरपुकोटा

कामावरपुकोटा

653/5

00

03

50

653/4

00

05

82

653/3

00

08

02

653/2

00

04

11

575/1

00

02

23

574/3

00

10

76

574/4

00

01

65

53/2

00

08

98

53/1

00

07

41

टी. नारासपुरम

कृ}णारावुपालेम

10/1A

00

18

96

~चंतलापूडी

व(कमपालेम

75/8A

00

12

08

~चंतलापूडी

0गडावरम

670

00

14

76

1682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

575/2B

00

00

06

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2017

S.O. 371.—whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing

Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer’s Colony, Gurunank Nagar Main Road,

Vijayawada -520008 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general

public.

SCHEDULE

District : West Godavari

State : Andhra Pradesh

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Polavaram

Gutala

828

00

38

15

Tallapudi

Tupakulagudem

172/1B

00

09

06

172/2

00

27

72

Tallapudi

Annadevarapeta

179/3

00

07

90

272/1

00

00

05

263/4A

00

05

25

267/2

00

19

74

267/1

00

24

04

332

00

24

78

360

00

14

74

Gopalapuram

Gopalapuram

161

00

16

78

256/3A

00

10

80

Kamavarapukota

Ramannapalem

20/19

00

06

21

20/8

00

06

76

20/4

00

08

93

20/3

00

01

30

Kamavarapukota

Kamavarapukota

653/5

00

03

50

653/4

00

05

82

653/3

00

08

02

653/2

00

04

11

575/1

00

02

23

574/3

00

10

76

574/4

00

01

65

53/2

00

08

98

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1683

53/1

00

07

41

T Narasapuram

Krishnaraopalem

10/1A

00

18

96

Chintalapudi

Venkampalem

75/8A

00

12

08

Chintalapudi

Pragadavaram

670

00

14

76

575/2B

00

00

06

[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 16 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 372

372

372

372.—क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसा 0तीत होता है क लोक िहत म( यह आवpयक है क आंq 0देश राnय म( पेfोिलयम

उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना के [या,वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड +ारा

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए यह आवpयक 0तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म( जो इस से

ऊपाबt अनुसूची म( व?ण;त है, और िजसम( उH पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 0Kताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार,पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए उस भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी kिH, जो उH अनुसूची म( व?ण;त भूिम म( िहतबt है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म( युH भारत के

राजप क 0ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलyध करा दी जाती हh, इz स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के

िलए उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार के संब,ध म( 2ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सRम 0ािधकारी (आंq 0देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड

(पाइपलाइ,स 0भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एनेDसी भवन, िथzना (डायमंड पाक;)

रोड़, आर. टी. सी. कॉ>पलेDस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आंq 0देश राnय को िलिखत \प से आRेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला:

िजला:

िजला:

िजला: िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

रा!य: आँ$ देश

रा!य: आँ$ देश

रा!य: आँ$ देश

रा!य: आँ$ देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

'ाम

'ाम

'ाम

'ाम का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

सव)

सव)

सव)

सव) न*बर

न*बर

न*बर

न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0मीटर

वग0मीटर

वग0मीटर

वग0मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

सyबावरम

नारपाडू

226

00

90

45

अनकापिल

तु>मपाला

704

00

33

32

13

00

18

11

705

00

16

87

15

00

28

18

17

00

13

19

47

00

37

50

अनकापिल

अनकापिल

743

00

27

44

741

00

37

71

740

00

10

04

732

00

09

69

684

00

31

94

681

00

19

80

686

00

28

39

1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

718

00

26

73

715

00

01

50

716

00

08

84

712

00

09

59

697

00

20

38

5

00

55

34

4

00

33

32

19

00

33

91

18

00

12

65

30-1

00

14

14

31

00

13

21

मुनगापाका

नागावरम

143

00

39

64

203

00

61

19

202

00

39

11

199

00

38

99

198

00

26

04

196

00

04

61

197

00

31

03

191

00

16

94

190

00

25

37

187

00

18

95

185

00

22

36

183

00

03

82

184

00

05

51

311

00

01

71

302

00

31

63

310

00

03

68

303

00

24

85

304

00

26

89

305

00

14

29

342

00

23

73

341

00

24

06

340

00

26

13

339

00

35

44

347

00

13

7

358

00

13

43

357

00

03

33

354

00

11

53

352

00

06

21

351

00

25

87

अयुतापुरम

दो{परला

40

00

19

46

42

00

12

14

45

00

65

18

47

00

00

10

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1685

46

00

28

96

86

00

03

14

84

00

03

22

83

00

42

10

82

00

00

20

76

00

22

92

77

00

28

55

75

00

00

37

74

00

23

06

72

00

51

72

176

00

19

67

177

00

22

04

179

00

58

17

181

00

08

24

185

00

13

32

184

00

07

05

183

00

25

27

219

00

58

32

213

00

44

62

226

00

08

18

212

00

07

22

अयुतापुरम

मड़‚तु|

477

00

13

76

469

00

00

04

468

00

61

83

460

00

15

30

462

00

14

44

463

00

13

98

464

00

24

54

456

00

01

64

457

00

29

86

424

00

26

30

293

00

12

47

294

00

01

46

296

00

14

87

288

00

18

47

303

00

62

70

305

00

04

11

306

00

00

13

308

00

38

37

309

00

00

01

310

00

23

50

103

00

13

93

104

00

41

12

105

00

08

75

1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

106

00

00

78

102

00

01

99

96

00

07

27

100

00

25

06

62

00

01

04

66

00

24

27

75

00

16

68

74

00

13

70

76

00

08

38

77

00

20

40

78

00

47

80

377

00

21

73

रामिबिल

दिमिल

265

00

25

84

रामिबिल

राजाला

28

00

31

34

रामिबिल

िवजयारामपुरम

अYहारम

27

00

68

21

26

00

05

28

24

00

06

48

31

00

04

43

25

00

18

14

23

00

04

34

21

00

06

87

19

00

24

39

14

00

23

42

17

00

02

74

16

00

01

13

यलामंिचिल

कृ}णापुरम

200

00

16

03

यलामंिचिल

पदमानाबाराजुपेटा

144/1E

00

31

35

144/1E-6A

00

31

35

144/1E-6B

00

31

35

एस. रायवरम

पेटासूदपुरम

50-4

00

00

27

322

00

07

42

338

00

26

24

नzापिल

गुिलपाड़‚

100

00

21

25

103

00

21

59

105

00

08

66

107

00

37

34

नzापिल

उƒंडापुरम

3

00

14

41

4

00

15

88

5

00

22

82

6

00

09

64

7

00

15

79

8

00

39

81

16

00

17

92

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1687

नzापिल

गोिड़चरला

311

00

07

22

312

00

32

31

310 (तालाब)

00

27

05

309

00

16

16

307

00

20

12

306

00

19

46

305

00

13

27

302

00

13

48

299

00

13

55

293

00

03

60

300

00

00

52

292

00

40

20

290

00

15

69

291

00

00

61

322

00

42

08

321

00

04

43

371

00

19

68

368

00

14

26

359

00

07

32

367

00

33

44

366

00

00

36

364

00

12

39

365

00

13

28

335

00

06

44

336

00

18

09

337

00

89

17

पायाकरावुपेटा

अरटलाकोटा

143

00

13

64

143/A-1

00

13

64

143/A-2

00

13

64

पायाकरावुपेटा

पटे|

34

00

02

75

33

00

27

90

32

00

37

58

3

00

01

37

4

00

16

7

5

00

04

97

6

00

15

19

7

00

27

51

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2017

S.O. 372 .—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing

Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

1688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC

Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification

issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the

general public.

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH

MANDAL

VILLAGE

SURVEY No.

AREA

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mt.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

SABBAVARAM

NAARAPADU

226

00

90

45

ANAKAPALLI

TUMMAPALA

704

00

33

32

13

00

18

11

705

00

16

87

15

00

28

18

17

00

13

19

47

00

37

50

ANAKAPALLI

ANAKAPALLI

743

00

27

44

741

00

37

71

740

00

10

04

732

00

09

69

684

00

31

94

681

00

19

80

686

00

28

39

718

00

26

73

715

00

01

50

716

00

08

84

712

00

09

59

697

00

20

38

5

00

55

34

4

00

33

32

19

00

33

91

18

00

12

65

30-1

00

14

14

31

00

13

21

MUNAGAPAKA

NAGAVARAM

143

00

39

64

203

00

61

19

202

00

39

11

199

00

38

99

198

00

26

04

196

00

04

61

197

00

31

03

191

00

16

94

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1689

190

00

25

37

187

00

18

95

185

00

22

36

183

00

03

82

184

00

05

51

311

00

01

71

302

00

31

63

310

00

03

68

303

00

24

85

304

00

26

89

305

00

14

29

342

00

23

73

341

00

24

06

340

00

26

13

339

00

35

44

347

00

13

7

358

00

13

43

357

00

03

33

354

00

11

53

352

00

06

21

351

00

25

87

ACHUTAPURAM

DOPPERLA

40

00

19

46

42

00

12

14

45

00

65

18

47

00

00

10

46

00

28

96

86

00

03

14

84

00

03

22

83

00

42

10

82

00

00

20

76

00

22

92

77

00

28

55

75

00

00

37

74

00

23

06

72

00

51

72

176

00

19

67

177

00

22

04

179

00

58

17

181

00

08

24

185

00

13

32

184

00

07

05

183

00

25

27

219

00

58

32

213

00

44

62

226

00

08

18

212

00

07

22

ACHUTAPURAM

MADUTURU

477

00

13

76

469

00

00

04

468

00

61

83

1690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

460

00

15

30

462

00

14

44

463

00

13

98

464

00

24

54

456

00

01

64

457

00

29

86

424

00

26

30

293

00

12

47

294

00

01

46

296

00

14

87

288

00

18

47

303

00

62

70

305

00

04

11

306

00

00

13

308

00

38

37

309

00

00

01

310

00

23

50

103

00

13

93

104

00

41

12

105

00

08

75

106

00

00

78

102

00

01

99

96

00

07

27

100

00

25

06

62

00

01

04

66

00

24

27

75

00

16

68

74

00

13

70

76

00

08

38

77

00

20

40

78

00

47

80

377

00

21

73

RAMBILLI

DIMILI

265

00

25

84

RAMBILLI

RAJALA

28

00

31

34

RAMBILLI

VIJAYARAMPURAM

AGRAHARAM

27

00

68

21

26

00

05

28

24

00

06

48

31

00

04

43

25

00

18

14

23

00

04

34

21

00

06

87

19

00

24

39

14

00

23

42

17

00

02

74

16

00

01

13

YELAMANCHILLI

KRISHNAPURAM

200

00

16

03

YELAMANCHILLI

PADMANABHARAJUPETA

144/1E

00

31

35

144/1E-6A

00

31

35

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1691

144/1E-6B

00

31

35

S. RAYAVARAM

PETASUDIPURAM

50-4

00

00

27

322

00

07

42

338

00

26

24

NAKKAPALLI

GULLIPADU

100

00

21

25

103

00

21

59

105

00

08

66

107

00

37

34

NAKKAPALLI

UDDANDAPURAM

3

00

14

41

4

00

15

88

5

00

22

82

6

00

09

64

7

00

15

79

8

00

39

81

16

00

17

92

NAKKAPALLI

GODICHERLA

311

00

07

22

312

00

32

31

310(POND)

00

27

05

309

00

16

16

307

00

20

12

306

00

19

46

305

00

13

27

302

00

13

48

299

00

13

55

293

00

03

60

300

00

00

52

292

00

40

20

290

00

15

69

291

00

00

61

322

00

42

08

321

00

04

43

371

00

19

68

368

00

14

26

359

00

07

32

367

00

33

44

366

00

00

36

364

00

12

39

365

00

13

28

335

00

06

44

336

00

18

09

337

00

89

17

PAYAKARAOPETA

ARATLAKOTA

143

00

13

64

143/A-1

00

13

64

143/A-2

00

13

64

PAYAKARAOPETA

PALTERU

34

00

02

75

33

00

27

90

32

00

37

58

3

00

01

37

4

00

16

7

5

00

04

97

6

00

15

19

1692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7

00

27

51

[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 16 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 373

373

373

373.—क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसा 0तीत होता है क लोक िहत म( यह आवpयक है क आंq 0देश राnय म( पेfोिलयम

उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना के [या,वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड +ारा

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए यह आवpयक 0तीत होता है क ऐसी भूfम म( जो इस से

ऊपाबt अनुसूची म( व?ण;त है, और िजसम( उH पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 0Kताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार, पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए उस भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी kिH, जो उH अनुसूची म( व?ण;त भूिम म( िहतबt है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म( युH भारत के

राजप क 0ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलyध करा दी जाती हh, इz स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के

िलए उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार के संब,ध म( 2ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सRम 0ािधकारी (आंq 0देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड

(पाइपलाइ,स 0भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एनेDसी भवन, िथzना (डायमंड पाक;)

रोड़, आर. टी. सी. कॉ>पलेDस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आंq 0देश राnय को िलिखत \प से आRेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला: 2ीकाकुलम राnय: आंq 0देश

मंडल का नाम

Yाम का नाम

सव… न>बर

Rे फल

हेDटेयर

एयर

वग; मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सोमपेटा

कता;िलपालेम

63

00

02

72

62

00

22

95

61

00

21

02

60

00

25

21

39

00

26

28

38

00

05

20

36

00

20

06

33

00

25

86

31

00

27

52

27

00

26

99

28

00

08

39

22

00

42

19

23

00

00

10

19

00

37

08

10

00

26

61

143

00

08

88

141

00

00

10

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1693

142

00

49

43

148

00

17

98

149

00

31

96

152

00

20

74

मंदासा

रघुनाथापुरम्

17/6

00

07

06

17

00

32

94

18

00

13

02

21

00

27

11

27

00

25

49

29

00

09

57

30

00

32

39

32

00

00

93

49

00

07

85

50

00

29

08

52

00

29

22

55

00

20

42

45

00

34

04

43

00

06

08

42

00

34

58

34

00

02

12

39

00

36

90

38

00

06

91

पलासा

रामाकृ}णापुरम्

201

00

24

84

148

02

81

71

199

00

01

92

209

00

22

70

148

00

00

52

208

00

31

66

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2017

S.O. 373.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing

Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC

Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification

issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the

general public.

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH

Mandal

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

SOMPETA

KARTHALIPALEM

63

00

02

72

62

00

22

95

61

00

21

02

60

00

25

21

39

00

26

28

38

00

05

20

36

00

20

06

33

00

25

86

31

00

27

52

27

00

26

99

28

00

08

39

22

00

42

19

23

00

00

10

19

00

37

08

10

00

26

61

143

00

08

88

141

00

00

10

142

00

49

43

148

00

17

98

149

00

31

96

152

00

20

74

MANDASA

RAGHUNADHA PURAM

17/6

00

07

06

17

00

32

94

18

00

13

02

21

00

27

11

27

00

25

49

29

00

09

57

30

00

32

39

32

00

00

93

49

00

07

85

50

00

29

08

52

00

29

22

55

00

20

42

45

00

34

04

43

00

06

08

42

00

34

58

34

00

02

12

39

00

36

90

38

00

06

91

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1695

PALASA

RAMAKRISHNAPURAM

201

00

24

84

148

02

81

71

199

00

01

92

209

00

22

70

148

00

00

52

208

00

31

66

[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 16 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 374

374

374

374.—क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसा 0तीत होता है क लोक िहत म( यह आवpयक है क आंq 0देश राnय म( पेfोिलयम

उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना के [या,वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड +ारा

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क(-ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए यह आवpयक 0तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम म( जो इस

से ऊपाबt अनुसूची म( व?ण;त है, और िजसम( उH पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 0Kताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार,पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए उस भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी kिH, जो उH अनुसूची म( व?ण;त भूिम म( िहतबt है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म( युH भारत के

राजप क 0ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलyध करा दी जाती हh, इz स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के

िलए उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार के संब,ध म( 2ी के. ए. एस जेि]सन, सRम 0ािधकारी (आंq 0देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपsरेशन िलिमटेड

(पाइपलाइन 0भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना, {लॉट संbया 33, कनका दुगा; ऑफसस; कॉलोनी, गु|नानक नगर मेन

रोड िवजयवाड़ा-520008, आंq 0देश राnय को िलिखत \प से आRेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला:

िजला:

िजला:

िजला:- ई ट गोदावरी

ई ट गोदावरी

ई ट गोदावरी

ई ट गोदावरी

रा!य:

रा!य:

रा!य:

रा!य: आ#$

आ#$

आ#$

आ#$ देश

देश

देश

देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,े फल

,े फल

,े फल

,े फल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

सीतानगरम

रघुदेवापुरम

393/5

00

29

40

सीतानगरम

सीतानगरम

िच]ा कदेपुड़ी

नलगडा

483

241/3

00

00

01

57

58

18

को|कडा

कोटी

202/1

00

02

44

185

00

00

01

330

00

34

42

190

00

37

58

187

00

32

62

13

00

19

05

गोकावरम

गु>मलादो†ी

390/2

00

32

92

390/1

391

00

00

13

55

23

28

9/3

00

10

36

9/2

00

05

62

9/1

00

04

72

327

00

31

25

1696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

328

00

01

51

गोकावरम

ित|मल‡यपालेम्

404

00

27

63

436

00

21

80

416

00

23

42

415

00

41

05

344

00

58

19

335/2

00

05

85

259/2

00

15

18

263

00

19

95

223

00

22

21

225/1

00

08

22

207

00

09

73

जˆग>पेटा

इ‰र;पाका

223/6

00

02

34

223/5

00

04

21

223/4

00

04

32

223/3

00

05

03

223/2

00

05

00

223/1

00

08

52

जˆग>पेटा

म‰र;पाका

1/5

00

12

30

1/4

00

12

03

1/3

00

01

61

1/2

00

25

25

1/1

00

01

52

जˆग>पेटा

राजापुडी

287/8

00

01

87

102

00

72

45

101

00

01

63

160

00

13

20

308

00

21

66

318

00

40

34

320

00

21

01

312

00

25

48

जˆग>पेटा

मलीसला

192/2B

00

01

12

192/2A

00

03

74

0िXपाडु

धमा;वरम्

628

00

02

28

616

00

29

40

531

00

58

16

722

00

19

66

698

00

03

97

686

00

11

85

568

00

22

79

गोला0ोलू

चेŠोलू

340

00

06

29

365

00

13

80

668

00

16

75

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1697

512

00

29

59

513

00

31

14

539

00

28

40

गोला0ोलू

िच]ा जˆग>पेटा

14

00

66

88

गोला0ोलू

च(दुरती

546

00

56

05

तडंगी

पैिडपला अYहारम

33/1

00

18

16

तडंगी

ए कोXापली

102/2

00

09

15

69/3

00

03

61

5/4

00

04

70

365

00

21

43

114

00

00

71

तडंगी

िच]यापालेम

205

00

00

09

तडंगी

रिवक>पाडु

179

00

43

15

तुिन

चामावरम

171/2

00

05

55

171/1

00

04

73

तुिन

वलू|

222/1

00

18

87

221/2

00

25

78

तुिन

हमसावरम

33/2

00

15

93

76

00

04

31

79/10

00

02

21

79/2

00

09

62

79/9

00

04

81

79/1

00

15

14

79/4

00

17

57

79/5

00

04

17

81

00

01

58

415/1

00

02

26

415/2

00

02

27

402

00

05

50

26

00

65

16

409

00

05

41

410

00

06

20

401

00

07

68

399

00

06

09

394

00

07

65

391

00

09

74

390

00

07

53

389

00

05

50

387

00

04

10

386

00

04

70

385

00

02

69

384

00

03

88

383

00

04

11

1698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

गोला0ोलू

िवजयानगरम्

557

00

10

74

556

00

31

64

580

00

16

64

553

00

44

20

531

00

29

60

533

00

15

70

534

00

15

86

535

00

58

03

495

00

85

09

468

00

69

87

486

00

10

70

470

00

22

70

471

00

15

57

472

00

10

58

483

00

29

01

481

00

27

85

480

00

18

83

479

00

11

94

478

00

08

07

476

00

01

83

477

00

39

45

[फ़ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2017

S.O. 374.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh pipeline should be laid for implementing

Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to

Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division),

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer’s Colony, Gurunanak Nagar Main Road,

Vijayawada -520008 within twenty-one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general

public.

SCHEDULE

District : East Godavari

State : Andhra Pradesh

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Seethanagaram

Raghudevapuram

393/5

00

29

40

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1699

Seethanagaram

Chinna Kondepudi

483

00

01

58

Seethanagaram

Nallagonda

241/3

00

57

18

Korukonda

Koti

202/1

00

02

44

185

00

00

01

330

00

34

42

190

00

37

58

187

00

32

62

13

00

19

05

Gokavaram

Gummaladoddi

390/2

00

32

92

390/1

00

13

23

391

00

55

28

9/3

00

10

36

9/2

00

05

62

9/1

00

04

72

327

00

31

25

328

00

01

51

Gokavaram

Tirumalayyapalem

404

00

27

63

436

00

21

80

416

00

23

42

415

00

41

05

344

00

58

19

335/2

00

05

85

259/2

00

15

18

263

00

19

95

223

00

22

21

225/1

00

08

22

207

00

09

73

Jaggampeta

Irripaka

223/6

00

02

34

223/5

00

04

21

223/4

00

04

32

223/3

00

05

03

223/2

00

05

00

223/1

00

08

52

Jaggampeta

Marripaka

1/5

00

12

30

¼

00

12

03

1/3

00

01

61

½

00

25

25

1/1

00

01

52

Jaggampeta

Rajapudi

287/8

00

01

87

102

00

72

45

101

00

01

63

160

00

13

20

308

00

21

66

318

00

40

34

320

00

21

01

312

00

25

48

Jaggampeta

Mallisala

192/2B

00

01

12

192/2A

00

03

74

Prattipadu

Dharmavaram

628

00

02

28

616

00

29

40

1700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

531

00

58

16

722

00

19

66

698

00

03

97

686

00

11

85

568

00

22

79

Gollaprolu

Chebrolu

340

00

06

29

365

00

13

80

668

00

16

75

512

00

29

59

513

00

31

14

539

00

28

40

Gollaprolu

Chinna Jaggampeta

14

00

66

88

Gollaprolu

Chendurti

546

00

56

05

Thondangi

Paidipalla Agraharam

33/1

00

18

16

Thondangi

A Kottapalli

102/2

00

09

15

69/3

00

03

61

5/4

00

04

70

365

00

21

43

114

00

00

71

Thondangi

Chinnayapalem

205

00

00

09

Thondangi

Ravikampadu

179

00

43

15

Tuni

Chamavaram

171/2

00

05

55

171/1

00

04

73

Tuni

Valluru

222/1

00

18

87

221/2

00

25

78

Tuni

Hamsavaram

33/2

00

15

93

76

00

04

31

79/10

00

02

21

79/2

00

09

62

79/9

00

04

81

79/1

00

15

14

79/4

00

17

57

79/5

00

04

17

81

00

01

58

415/1

00

02

26

415/2

00

02

27

402

00

05

50

26

00

65

16

409

00

05

41

410

00

06

20

401

00

07

68

399

00

06

09

394

00

07

65

391

00

09

74

390

00

07

53

389

00

05

50

387

00

04

10

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1701

386

00

04

70

385

00

02

69

384

00

03

88

383

00

04

11

Gollaprolu

Vijayanagaram

557

00

10

74

556

00

31

64

580

00

16

64

553

00

44

20

531

00

29

60

533

00

15

70

534

00

15

86

535

00

58

03

495

00

85

09

468

00

69

87

486

00

10

70

470

00

22

70

471

00

15

57

472

00

10

58

483

00

29

01

481

00

27

85

480

00

18

83

479

00

11

94

478

00

08

07

476

00

01

83

477

00

39

45

[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 दस> बर, 2017

का.

का.

का.

का.आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 375

375

375

375 .—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई, भारत

सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 1686 तारीख 05.07.2017 िजसका 0काशन भारत के

राजप संbया 29, भाग II, खoड 3, उप खoड (ii) तारीख 16.07.2017 से 22.07.2017 म( कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म( संल‹

अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O तेलंगाना राnय के मंडल िचलुकू\ िजला सुया;पेट क भूिम म(, ओडीशा राnय म( पारादीप से तेलंगाना राnय म(

हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड के +ारा [याि,वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना” के संबंध म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने

आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उH राजप अिधसूचना क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.11.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थ।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी न( के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविनp चय कया है

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए एतद्+ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूिच म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया

जाए:

1702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलय और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तयः उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल: िचलुकू6

िचलुकू6

िचलुकू6

िचलुकू6

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मी

वग0 मी

वग0 मी

वग0 मीटर

टर

टर

टर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

िचलुकू\

627

00

20

51

626

00

02

28

628

00

01

05

625

00

33

15

623

00

53

05

622

00

15

42

632

00

20

89

621

00

28

73

618

00

63

39

611

00

47

32

612

00

10

44

610

00

32

88

568

00

12

42

567

00

36

39

333

00

00

93

332

00

51

77

331

00

14

93

330

00

17

17

337

00

15

23

336

00

06

06

338

00

27

62

384

00

37

33

392

00

19

17

380

00

04

04

393

00

39

38

379

00

09

83

378

00

43

20

376

00

06

44

375

00

20

49

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1703

203

00

07

99

202

00

35

88

195

00

18

80

199

00

26

64

116

00

32

09

128

00

46

18

130/1

00

21

64

129

00

00

26

35

00

17

80

125/2

00

28

19

34

00

12

33

33

00

28

69

37

00

10

40

38

00

22

01

1390

00

18

69

1387

00

18

78

1386

00

00

0.23

1388

00

36

37

1382

00

29

59

1334

00

59

03

1327

00

39

11

1326

00

18

82

1292

00

18

42

1296

00

46

56

1295

00

49

49

1239

00

43

96

1238

00

29

81

1237

00

14

37

1235

00

38

37

1310

00

21

42

1234

00

02

74

कडापुरम

179

00

13

98

180

00

30

65

182

00

37

23

185/3

00

53

68

186

00

40

12

188

00

11

04

189/3

00

23

12

189/2

00

01

13

1704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

189/1

00

00

07

160/1

00

49

89

159

00

17

36

158

00

28

18

14

00

23

98

15

00

18

48

17

00

02

91

18

00

00

02

49

00

31

84

48

00

27

16

45

00

10

79

44

00

14

67

43

00

10

56

42

00

14

77

341

00

29

38

41

00

09

73

88

00

14

85

94

00

13

83

95

00

02

11

98

00

03

22

बेतवोलु

441

00

58

08

336

00

24

91

337

00

24

68

334

00

00

00

338

00

00

00

349

00

36

57

350

00

32

81

363

00

39

98

364

00

27

92

365

00

12

66

374

00

41

36

378

00

62

58

379

00

03

38

317

00

09

81

316

00

22

26

314

00

25

36

313

00

13

58

312

00

14

05

51

00

06

67

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1705

52

00

10

42

53

00

26

29

57

00

29

39

58

00

14

65

59

00

26

76

68

00

47

71

80

00

23

95

82

00

20

92

83

00

25

27

84

00

23

79

85

00

20

82

86

00

38

00

87

00

05

35

91

00

34

78

90

00

36

17

89

00

24

31

2178

00

20

84

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/3/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21839]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2017

S.O. 375.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 29 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 vide

S.O. Number 1686 dated 05.07.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

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

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

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

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

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.11.2017.

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

his report of Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

all encumbrances.

1706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the

P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Chilkur District: Suryapet State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Chilkur

627

00

20

51

626

00

02

28

628

00

01

05

625

00

33

15

623

00

53

05

622

00

15

42

632

00

20

89

621

00

28

73

618

00

63

39

611

00

47

32

612

00

10

44

610

00

32

88

568

00

12

42

567

00

36

39

333

00

00

93

332

00

51

77

331

00

14

93

330

00

17

17

337

00

15

23

336

00

06

06

338

00

27

62

384

00

37

33

392

00

19

17

380

00

04

04

393

00

39

38

379

00

09

83

378

00

43

20

376

00

06

44

375

00

20

49

203

00

07

99

202

00

35

88

195

00

18

80

199

00

26

64

116

00

32

09

128

00

46

18

130/1

00

21

64

129

00

00

26

35

00

17

80

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1707

125/2

00

28

19

34

00

12

33

33

00

28

69

37

00

10

40

38

00

22

01

1390

00

18

69

1387

00

18

78

1386

00

00

0.23

1388

00

36

37

1382

00

29

59

1334

00

59

03

1327

00

39

11

1326

00

18

82

1292

00

18

42

1296

00

46

56

1295

00

49

49

1239

00

43

96

1238

00

29

81

1237

00

14

37

1235

00

38

37

1310

00

21

42

1234

00

02

74

Kondapuram

179

00

13

98

180

00

30

65

182

00

37

23

185/3

00

53

68

186

00

40

12

188

00

11

04

189/3

00

23

12

189/2

00

01

13

189/1

00

00

07

160/1

00

49

89

159

00

17

36

158

00

28

18

14

00

23

98

15

00

18

48

17

00

02

91

18

00

00

02

49

00

31

84

48

00

27

16

45

00

10

79

44

00

14

67

43

00

10

56

42

00

14

77

341

00

29

38

41

00

09

73

1708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

88

00

14

85

94

00

13

83

95

00

02

11

98

00

03

22

Bethavolu

441

00

58

08

336

00

24

91

337

00

24

68

349

00

36

57

350

00

32

81

363

00

39

98

364

00

27

92

365

00

12

66

374

00

41

36

378

00

62

58

379

00

03

38

317

00

09

81

316

00

22

26

314

00

25

36

313

00

13

58

312

00

14

05

51

00

06

67

52

00

10

42

53

00

26

29

57

00

29

39

58

00

14

65

59

00

26

76

68

00

47

71

80

00

23

95

82

00

20

92

83

00

25

27

84

00

23

79

85

00

20

82

86

00

38

00

87

00

05

35

91

00

34

78

90

00

36

17

89

00

24

31

2178

00

20

84

[F. No. R.-11025(11)/3/2018-OR-I/E-21839]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1709

नई दली, 21 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 376

376

376

376.—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क

गई, भारत सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 1687 तारीख 05.07.2017 िजसका

0काशन भारत के राजप संbया 29, भाग II, खoड 3, उप खoड (ii) तारीख 16.07.2017 से 22.07.2017 म( कया गया है। इस

अिधसूचना म( संल‹ अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O तेलंगाना राnय के मंडल मुनगाला िजला सुया;पेट क भूिम म(, ओडीशा राnय म( पारादीप से

तेलंगाना राnय म( हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड के +ारा [याि,वत कए जा

रहे “पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना” के संबंध म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न

करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उH राजप अिधसूचना क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.11.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थ।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी न( के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविन}चय कया है:

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए एतद्+ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूिच म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया

जाए:

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलय और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तयः उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल: मुनगाला

मुनगाला

मुनगाला

मुनगाला

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव)

सव)

सव)

सव) न*बर

न*बर

न*बर

न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

गणपवरम

160/4

00

07

09

160/3

00

08

43

160/1

00

12

21

163/2

00

01

58

163/1

00

25

00

162/2

00

23

29

166/2

00

18

76

166/1

00

10

46

173

00

02

16

172

00

25

92

171/2

00

26

12

170/2

00

00

72

1710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

170/1

00

02

08

171/1

00

05

87

नेलमरŽ

392/4

00

10

44

392/3

00

01

26

392/1

00

08

48

391/2

00

23

85

386/1

00

11

46

384/2

00

28

29

385/2

00

12

27

385/1

00

05

64

383

00

27

19

382/1

00

10

52

382/2

00

13

26

381

00

11

80

380/2

00

03

11

380/1

00

11

54

379/1

00

28

61

375

00

32

13

163/2

00

19

08

163/3

00

06

19

163/12

00

00

75

160/1

00

13

03

159

00

17

36

158

00

23

38

157

00

33

73

156

00

23

97

140/2

00

04

16

137

00

02

55

138/1

00

07

09

138/2

00

15

69

139/1

00

15

51

139/2

00

07

79

133/1

00

14

03

133/2

00

15

51

128/3

00

19

51

128/2

00

10

11

129/2

00

24

37

129/1

00

23

35

126

00

01

80

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1711

98

00

39

18

120

00

06

76

121

00

06

16

118

00

42

52

114

00

04

15

113

00

37

71

58/1

00

17

01

59

00

13

01

57/2

00

06

60

57/1

00

27

82

55/2

00

11

61

55/1

00

09

29

54

00

16

88

53

00

34

23

52

00

39

49

31

00

24

93

30

00

20

58

6/5

00

05

38

6/1

00

07

71

6/4

00

11

66

6/3

00

05

78

6/2

00

06

58

5/4

00

05

46

5/3

00

00

89

5/2

00

33

61

5/1

00

00

24

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/3/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21839]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2017

S.O. 376.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 29 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 vide

S.O. Number 1687 dated 05.07.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

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

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

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

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

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.11.2017.

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

his report of Central Government.

1712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

encumbrances.

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the

P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Munagala District: Suryapet State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Ganapavaram

160/4

00

07

09

160/3

00

08

43

160/1

00

12

21

163/2

00

01

58

163/1

00

25

00

162/2

00

23

29

166/2

00

18

76

166/1

00

10

46

173

00

02

16

172

00

25

92

171/2

00

26

12

170/2

00

00

72

170/1

00

02

08

171/1

00

05

87

Nelamarri

392/4

00

10

44

392/3

00

01

26

392/1

00

08

48

391/2

00

23

85

386/1

00

11

46

384/2

00

28

29

385/2

00

12

27

385/1

00

05

64

383

00

27

19

382/1

00

10

52

382/2

00

13

26

381

00

11

80

380/2

00

03

11

380/1

00

11

54

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1713

379/1

00

28

61

375

00

32

13

163/2

00

19

08

163/3

00

06

19

163/12

00

00

75

160/1

00

13

03

159

00

17

36

158

00

23

38

157

00

33

73

156

00

23

97

140/2

00

04

16

137

00

02

55

138/1

00

07

09

138/2

00

15

69

139/1

00

15

51

139/2

00

07

79

133/1

00

14

03

133/2

00

15

51

128/3

00

19

51

128/2

00

10

11

129/2

00

24

37

129/1

00

23

35

126

00

01

80

98

00

39

18

120

00

06

76

121

00

06

16

118

00

42

52

114

00

04

15

113

00

37

71

58/1

00

17

01

59

00

13

01

57/2

00

06

60

57/1

00

27

82

55/2

00

11

61

55/1

00

09

29

54

00

16

88

53

00

34

23

52

00

39

49

31

00

24

93

30

00

20

58

6/5

00

05

38

6/1

00

07

71

6/4

00

11

66

6/3

00

05

78

6/2

00

06

58

5/4

00

05

46

1714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5/3

00

00

89

5/2

00

33

61

5/1

00

00

24

[F. No. R-11025(11)/3/2018-OR-I/E-21839]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 377

377

377

377.—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई,

भारत सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 1685 तारीख 05.07.2017 िजसका 0काशन

भारत के राजप संbया 29, भाग II, खoड 3, उप-खoड (ii) तारीख 16.07.2017 से 22.07.2017 म( कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म(

संल‹ अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O तेलंगाना राnय के मंडल सुया;पेट िजला सुया;पेट क भूिम म(, ओडीशा राnय म( पारादीप से तेलंगाना राnय म(

हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड के +ारा [याि,वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना” के संबंध म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने

आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उH राजप अिधसूचना क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.11.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थ।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी न( के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविनश् चय कया है:

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए एतद् +ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया

जाए:

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िवलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तयः उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल: सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

इमा>पेट

225

00

62

61

223

00

04

48

247

00

19

78

222

00

25

59

249

00

40

81

250

00

35

86

251

00

33

02

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1715

257

00

54

86

260

00

25

16

259

00

06

35

264

00

28

49

270

00

44

52

275

00

26

16

276

00

35

74

277

00

01

88

278

00

40

36

283

00

34

31

284

00

07

92

285

00

25

58

286

00

00

41

तालाख>मंपाडु

58

00

46

66

61

00

39

84

62

00

25

95

66

00

09

00

कासराबाद

46

00

20

15

45

00

18

81

398

00

28

89

396

00

09

17

373

00

17

70

374

00

43

54

369

00

49

03

370

00

34

46

49

00

09

13

केसारम

239

00

17

28

242

00

59

60

243

00

43

03

255

00

08

27

256

00

25

92

257

00

71

12

259

00

15

89

262

00

00

58

263

00

05

98

266

00

02

73

265

00

13

97

270

00

04

52

269

00

25

87

1716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

272

00

07

78

सुया;पेट

480

00

13

22

481

00

40

16

482

00

34

20

710

00

54

85

711

00

29

06

के. टी. अ]ारम

180

00

41

98

181

00

19

44

187

00

45

19

189

00

18

81

190

00

18

86

191

00

16

10

193

00

45

63

202

00

05

21

200

00

19

44

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/3/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21839]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2017

S.O. 377.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 29 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 vide

S.O. Number 1685 dated 05.07.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

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

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

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

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

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.11.2017.

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

his report of Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

encumbrances.

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P

& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1717

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Suryapet District: Suryapet State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Imampet

225

00

62

61

223

00

04

48

247

00

19

78

222

00

25

59

249

00

40

81

250

00

35

86

251

00

33

02

257

00

54

86

260

00

25

16

259

00

06

35

264

00

28

49

270

00

44

52

275

00

26

16

276

00

35

74

277

00

01

88

278

00

40

36

283

00

34

31

284

00

07

92

285

00

25

58

286

00

00

41

Thallakhammampahad

58

00

46

66

61

00

39

84

62

00

25

95

66

00

09

00

Kasarabad

46

00

20

15

45

00

18

81

398

00

28

89

396

00

09

17

373

00

17

70

374

00

43

54

369

00

49

03

370

00

34

46

49

00

09

13

Kesaram

239

00

17

28

242

00

59

60

243

00

43

03

255

00

08

27

256

00

25

92

257

00

71

12

259

00

15

89

1718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

262

00

00

58

263

00

05

98

266

00

02

73

265

00

13

97

270

00

04

52

269

00

25

87

272

00

07

78

Suryapet

480

00

13

22

481

00

40

16

482

00

34

20

710

00

54

85

711

00

29

06

K T Annaram

180

00

41

98

181

00

19

44

187

00

45

19

189

00

18

81

190

00

18

86

191

00

16

10

193

00

45

63

202

00

05

21

200

00

19

44

[F. No. R-11025(11)/3/2018-OR-I/E-21839]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 378

378

378

378.—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई,

भारत सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 1684 तारीख 05.07.2017 िजसका 0काशन

भारत के राजप संbया 29, भाग II, खoड 3, उप-खoड (ii) तारीख 16.07.2017 से 22.07.2017 म( कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म(

संल‹ अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O तेलंगाना राnय के मंडल पे,पहाड़ िजला सुया;पेट क भूिम म(, ओडीशा राnय म( पारादीप से तेलंगाना राnय म(

हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड के +ारा [याि,वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना” के संबंध म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने

आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उH राजप अिधसूचना क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.11.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थ।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी न( के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविन}चय कया है:

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए एतद्+ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूिच म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया

जाए:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1719

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तयः उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल: पे#पहाड़

पे#पहाड़

पे#पहाड़

पे#पहाड़

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

सुया0पेट

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

चीदेला

433

00

13

15

432

00

38

86

431

00

32

73

430

00

34

33

429

00

13

23

452

00

53

30

453

00

64

20

406

00

10

64

460

00

32

48

461

00

18

47

377

00

08

94

375

00

06

81

372

00

00

96

373

00

15

40

371

00

14

18

357

00

10

73

358

00

12

31

353

00

10

91

347

00

10

22

348

00

23

63

340

00

01

32

341

00

06

13

343

00

01

35

342

00

07

11

328

00

07

19

329

00

10

67

323/1

00

14

14

322

00

18

26

1720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

320

00

06

58

319

00

02

33

318

00

16

74

314

00

12

78

313

00

03

72

312

00

25

03

286

00

48

74

285

00

10

24

282

00

24

45

9

00

37

11

887

00

27

61

886

00

46

01

885

00

47

79

884

00

35

71

881

00

26

78

गाजुलमकापूरम

244/1

00

46

98

241

00

51

49

242

00

20

11

239

00

02

51

माचारम

164

00

04

09

163

00

30

73

166

00

23

71

161

00

19

97

151

00

34

15

150

00

37

41

149

00

32

27

148

00

29

64

पे,पहाड़

92

00

65

38

94/1

00

11

22

94/39

00

09

69

94/43

00

06

69

94/42

00

10

48

81

00

03

53

82

00

01

91

80

00

56

46

94/23

00

06

12

94/22

00

08

28

94/25

00

06

10

94/37

00

31

40

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1721

94/17

00

21

15

74

00

19

53

73

00

02

44

मह>मदापुरम

108/4

00

01

02

108/3

00

09

83

108/2

00

00

78

109

00

46

13

130

00

01

75

115

00

03

95

129

00

14

05

128

00

28

51

143

00

24

80

146/25

00

17

13

146/1

00

21

72

~संगारेडडी पालेम

182

00

37

92

181

00

04

36

180/10

00

00

06

180/11

00

11

04

180/1

00

22

91

180/16

00

04

39

180/31

00

11

73

180/32

00

12

07

175

00

18

62

176

00

08

26

180/34

00

16

63

180/35

00

03

70

180/37

00

07

80

180/38

00

13

45

58

00

24

01

57

00

61

71

73

00

16

43

76

00

33

29

89

00

17

33

85

00

08

23

97

00

21

03

98

00

18

85

146

00

15

13

105/5

00

01

29

105/11

00

03

29

1722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

118

00

34

92

119

00

31

47

121

00

16

76

114

00

15

56

113

00

01

91

125

00

08

69

126

00

10

74

128

00

06

73

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/3/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21839]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2017

S.O. 378.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 29 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 vide

S.O. Number 1684 dated 05.07.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

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

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

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

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

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 30.11.2017.

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

his report of Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

encumbrances.

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P

& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Penpahad District: Suryapet State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Cheedella

433

00

13

15

432

00

38

86

431

00

32

73

430

00

34

33

429

00

13

23

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1723

452

00

53

30

453

00

64

20

406

00

10

64

460

00

32

48

461

00

18

47

377

00

08

94

375

00

06

81

372

00

00

96

373

00

15

40

371

00

14

18

357

00

10

73

358

00

12

31

353

00

10

91

347

00

10

22

348

00

23

63

340

00

01

32

341

00

06

13

343

00

01

35

342

00

07

11

328

00

07

19

329

00

10

67

323/1

00

14

14

322

00

18

26

320

00

06

58

319

00

02

33

318

00

16

74

314

00

12

78

313

00

03

72

312

00

25

03

286

00

48

74

285

00

10

24

282

00

24

45

9

00

37

11

887

00

27

61

886

00

46

01

885

00

47

79

884

00

35

71

881

00

26

78

Gajulamalkapuram

244/1

00

46

98

241

00

51

49

242

00

20

11

239

00

02

51

Macharam

164

00

04

09

163

00

30

73

166

00

23

71

161

00

19

97

1724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

151

00

34

15

150

00

37

41

149

00

32

27

148

00

29

64

Penpahad

92

00

65

38

94/1

00

11

22

94/39

00

09

69

94/43

00

06

69

94/42

00

10

48

81

00

03

53

82

00

01

91

80

00

56

46

94/23

00

06

12

94/22

00

08

28

94/25

00

06

10

94/37

00

31

40

94/17

00

21

15

74

00

19

53

73

00

02

44

Mohammadapur

108/4

00

01

02

108/3

00

09

83

108/2

00

00

78

109

00

46

13

130

00

01

75

115

00

03

95

129

00

14

05

128

00

28

51

143

00

24

80

146/25

00

17

13

146/1

00

21

72

Singareddy Palem

182

00

37

92

181

00

04

36

180/10

00

00

06

180/11

00

11

04

180/1

00

22

91

180/16

00

04

39

180/31

00

11

73

180/32

00

12

07

175

00

18

62

176

00

08

26

180/34

00

16

63

180/35

00

03

70

180/37

00

07

80

180/38

00

13

45

58

00

24

01

57

00

61

71

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1725

73

00

16

43

76

00

33

29

89

00

17

33

85

00

08

23

97

00

21

03

98

00

18

85

146

00

15

13

105/5

00

01

29

105/11

00

03

29

118

00

34

92

119

00

31

47

121

00

16

76

114

00

15

56

113

00

01

91

125

00

08

69

126

00

10

74

128

00

06

73

[F. No. R-11025(11)/3/2018-OR-I/E-21839]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 दस> बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 379

379

379

379.—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ,स (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई, भारत

सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना संbया का.आ. 1688 तारीख 05.07.2017 िजसका 0काशन भारत के

राजप संbया 29, भाग II, खoड 3, उप खoड (ii) तारीख 16.07.2017 से 22.07.2017 म( कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म( संल‹

अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O तेलंगाना राnय के मंडल कोदाडा िजला सुया;पेट क भूिम म(, ओडीशा राnय म( पारादीप से तेलंगाना राnय म(

हैदराबाद तक पेfोिलयम उCपाद के पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड के +ारा [याि,वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना” के संबंध म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने

आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उH राजप अिधसूचना क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 23.11.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थ।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी न( के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविन}चय कया है:

अतः अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए एतद् +ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूिच म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया

जाए:

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप…रेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तयः उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद, दावा

या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल:

मंडल: कोदाडा

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : सुया;पेट

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

रा!य : तेलंगाना

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

'ाम का नाम

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

सव) न*बर

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

कूिचपूिड

119

00

14

73

122

00

00

43

121

00

02

74

123

00

46

94

103

00

08

35

104

00

02

46

105

00

14

19

99

00

14

34

76

00

34

92

77

00

17

66

78

00

00

03

80

00

11

98

79

00

15

46

84

00

03

81

64

00

15

91

62

00

14

35

56

00

22

99

58

00

05

71

57

00

06

76

37

00

03

36

36

00

15

77

635

00

35

29

634

00

05

21

636

00

00

17

637

00

28

35

615

00

05

56

कापुगालु

441

00

00

03

523/1

00

39

82

523/2

00

12

89

524/1

00

03

81

522/1

00

56

16

561/1

00

37

83

527

00

00

96

560

00

25

87

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1727

563

00

00

06

564

00

51

11

565

00

33

13

624

00

38

09

623

00

47

76

622

00

27

17

619/1

00

07

66

621/1

00

23

92

651/1

00

35

57

653/1

00

31

76

655

00

25

98

656

00

22

59

662

00

10

21

661

00

21

26

तोगरा;ई

170

00

13

54

169

00

17

21

177

00

57

99

166

00

17

38

165

00

18

21

163

00

30

09

162

00

30

06

161

00

43

83

159

00

36

44

158

00

53

44

155

00

29

58

104

00

19

55

109

00

64

62

111

00

15

21

100

00

52

47

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/3/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21839]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2017

S.O. 379.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 29 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16.07.2017 to 22.07.2017 vide

S.O. Number 1688 dated 05.07.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central

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

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

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

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

1728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And where as the copies of the Gazette was made available to the public till 23.11.2017.

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

his report of Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

encumbrances.

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P

& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Kodad District: Suryapet State: Telangana

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kuchipudi

119

00

14

73

122

00

00

43

121

00

02

74

123

00

46

94

103

00

08

35

104

00

02

46

105

00

14

19

99

00

14

34

76

00

34

92

77

00

17

66

78

00

00

03

80

00

11

98

79

00

15

46

84

00

03

81

64

00

15

91

62

00

14

35

56

00

22

99

58

00

05

71

57

00

06

76

37

00

03

36

36

00

15

77

635

00

35

29

634

00

05

21

636

00

00

17

637

00

28

35

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1729

615

00

05

56

Kapugallu

441

00

00

03

523/1

00

39

82

523/2

00

12

89

524/1

00

03

81

522/1

00

56

16

561/1

00

37

83

527

00

00

96

560

00

25

87

563

00

00

06

564

00

51

11

565

00

33

13

624

00

38

09

623

00

47

76

622

00

27

17

619/1

00

07

66

621/1

00

23

92

651/1

00

35

57

653/1

00

31

76

655

00

25

98

656

00

22

59

662

00

10

21

661

00

21

26

Togarrai

170

00

13

54

169

00

17

21

177

00

57

99

166

00

17

38

165

00

18

21

163

00

30

09

162

00

30

06

161

00

43

83

159

00

36

44

158

00

53

44

155

00

29

58

104

00

19

55

109

00

64

62

111

00

15

21

100

00

52

47

[F. No. R-11025(11)/3/2018-OR-I/E-21839]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

1730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 7 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 380

380

380

380.—के,-ीय सरकार ने पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम( इसके पPात उH अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई, भारत

सरकार के पेfोिलयम और 0ाकृितक गैस मं ालय क अिधसूचना िजसका 0काशन भारत के राजप संbया 35 दनांक 02.09.2017

का.आ संbया 2016 दनांक 23.08.2017, भाग II, खoड 3, उप-खoड (ii) म( कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूची म(

िविनiद;O पंजाब राnय क तहसील नवांशहर, िजला शहीद भगत ~संह नगर तथा तहसील गढ़शंकर, िजला होिशयारपुर क भूिम म(,

पंजाब राnय के गाँव

: झुिगयां, िजला शहीद भगत ~संह नगर से िहमाचल 0देश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, िजला उना तक पैfोिलयम उCपाद के

पAरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कापsरेशन िलिमटेड +ारा पीएजेपीएल - उना Šांच पाइपलाइन पAरयोजना के स>बंध म( पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के 0योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उH राजप अिधसूचना: क 0ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 11.12.2017 तक उपलyध करा दी गई थी।

और उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म( सRम 0ािधकारी ने के,-ीय सरकार को अपनी Aरपोट;

दे दी है।

और के,-ीय सरकार ने उH Aरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पPात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उH भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिRत है, उसम( उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविनPय कया है।

अत: अब, के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए यह घोषणा

करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल‹ अनुसूची म( िविनiद;O भूिम म( पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ?ज;त कया जाए।

और के,-ीय सरकार उH अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) +ारा 0दX शिHय का 0योग करते Fए, यह िनद…श देती है

क उH भूिम म( उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 0काशन क तारीख से के,-ीय सरकार म( िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी िवलंगम से

मुH होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापsरेशन िलिमटेड म( िनिहत होगा।

पेfोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Rितपू?त; के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कापsरेशन िलिमटेड पूण;तया उXरदायी होगी और पाइपलाईन से स>बि,धत कसी भी मामल( पर के,-ीय सरकार के िव|t कोई वाद -

दावा या कानूनी काय;वाही नह हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

रा!य : पंजाब

रा!य : पंजाब

रा!य : पंजाब

रा!य : पंजाब

8ं.

8ं.

8ं.

8ं.

सं.

सं.

सं.

सं.

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

हदब त

हदब त

हदब त

हदब त

नंनंनंनं

खसरा सं.

खसरा सं.

खसरा सं.

खसरा सं.

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

,ेफल

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

हे/टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

वग0 मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

एस. बी. एस. नगर

नवांशहर

लंगरोआ

137

70 // 9/2/1

00

00

20

70 // 9/2/2

00

00

20

70 // 9/1

00

01

01

70 // 2/2/1

00

00

99

70 // 2/1/2

00

00

20

65 // 23/2/2

00

00

20

65 // 23/1

00

00

56

65 // 18

00

04

01

65 // 13

00

09

15

65 // 8/2

00

11

07

65 // 8/1

00

00

20

65 // 3/2

00

07

59

65 // 4/1

00

03

11

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1731

64 // 23/2/2

00

00

58

64 // 23/2/1

00

01

07

64 // 24/1

00

08

85

64 // 24/2

00

00

36

64 // 17

00

10

76

64 // 14/1

00

10

87

64 // 7/3

00

00

80

64 // 7/2

00

02

60

64 // 7/1

00

06

67

64 // 4/1

00

10

84

56 // 24/2

00

00

61

56 // 24/1

00

00

20

56 // 24/3

00

09

47

56 // 17/1

00

09

77

56 // 17/2

00

01

14

56 // 14

00

10

56

56 // 7/3

00

10

72

56 // 7/2

00

00

20

56 // 4/3

00

07

50

56 // 4/2

00

03

30

53 // 24/2

00

11

07

53 // 17/1

00

10

76

53 // 14/2

00

10

64

53 // 7/2/2

00

11

27

53 // 4/2/1

00

02

31

53 // 4/1

00

08

42

38 // 24/2

00

04

91

38 // 24/1

00

06

27

38 // 17

00

11

07

38 // 14

00

10

89

38 // 7

00

05

59

380

00

00

72

38 // 6/2

00

00

20

38 // 4/3

00

00

27

38 // 4/2

00

10

77

34 // 24/3

00

04

72

34 // 24/2

00

05

83

34 // 17/1

00

09

01

34 // 17/2

00

00

22

1732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34 // 27

00

00

20

34 // 14/3

00

09

18

34 // 14/1

00

00

20

34 // 7

00

10

39

34 // 4

00

10

53

19 // 24/2

00

10

35

19 // 17

00

09

50

19 // 14

00

10

62

19 // 7/1

00

10

02

19 // 4/1

00

11

67

16 // 24

00

04

12

2

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

िस>बली

159

84 // 15

00

03

42

84 // 6

00

09

26

84 // 5

00

01

32

85 // 10

00

01

83

85 // 1

00

10

32

77 // 21

00

11

24

77 // 20

00

11

50

77 // 19

00

00

20

77 // 11

00

05

82

77 // 12

00

06

38

77 // 9

00

11

11

77 // 2

00

11

84

70 // 22

00

04

32

70 // 26

00

01

65

70 // 23

00

02

78

70 // 18

00

11

70

70 // 19

00

00

20

70 // 13

00

10

79

70 // 7

00

00

88

70 // 3

00

01

93

70 // 4

00

10

12

52 // 24

00

11

01

52 // 17

00

12

28

52 // 16

00

00

20

52 // 15

00

04

45

52 // 26

00

00

20

47 // 20

00

10

91

47 // 11

00

12

21

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1733

47 // 12

00

00

20

47 // 10

00

03

96

47 // 9

00

07

01

47 // 2/1

00

00

20

47 // 2/2

00

10

31

26 // 22/1

00

07

33

26 // 22/2

00

04

06

26 // 19/1

00

01

29

26 // 18

00

05

28

26 // 13/2

00

04

84

26 // 13/1

00

06

90

26 // 8

00

10

62

26 // 3/2/1

00

02

56

26 // 3/1

00

02

02

26 // 4/1

00

03

86

23 // 24/1/2

00

00

61

23 // 24/1/1

00

11

06

23 // 17/2

00

04

44

23 // 17/1

00

03

30

23 // 14

00

08

48

23 // 15

00

01

38

23 // 6/2

00

02

15

23 // 6/1

00

08

58

23 // 7

00

00

58

23 // 5

00

05

25

3

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

कुकर मजारा

248

832

00

04

62

831

00

06

70

830

00

03

88

829

00

08

97

1375/840

00

01

74

827

00

06

78

1207/841

00

01

91

1205/841

00

00

20

1206/841

00

00

20

1210/842

00

01

06

1211/842

00

01

46

824

00

04

46

1203/821

00

01

17

1204/821

00

02

18

1734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

822

00

02

82

823

00

00

83

816

00

01

54

817

00

08

26

812

00

00

20

818

00

10

65

805

00

11

11

806

00

10

88

305

00

08

41

307

00

03

84

308

00

04

90

309

00

03

09

324

00

11

04

323

00

10

84

322

00

10

94

1332/325

00

11

03

1331/325

00

00

62

1333/373

00

00

60

1334/373

00

05

53

375

00

02

04

4

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

मैरा

481

30 // 2/6

00

00

64

30 // 2/5

00

00

48

30 // 2/4

00

02

02

30 // 2/3

00

01

56

21 // 19/1

00

02

60

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/1/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21789]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 380.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette No. 35 dated 02.09.2017, S.O. No. 2016 dated 23.08.2017 Part-II, section 3, sub-section

(ii) issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in

Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil – Nawanshahr of District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar and Tehsil

– Garhshankar of District Hoshiarpur in Punjab State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the

purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum product from village Jhungian, District Shahid Bhagat

Singh Nagar in the State of Punjab to village Pekhubela, District Una in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the Indian

Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "PAJPL - Una Branch pipeline project".

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 11.12.2017.

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

report to Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1735

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

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

encumbrances.

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P

& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

State : Punjab

Sr.

No.

Name of

District

Name of

Tehsil

Name of

Village

Hadbast

No.

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.

mtr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

S.B.S.

Nagar

Nawanshahr

Langroya

137

70 // 9/2/1

00

00

20

70 // 9/2/2

00

00

20

70 // 9/1

00

01

01

70 // 2/2/1

00

00

99

70 // 2/1/2

00

00

20

65 // 23/2/2

00

00

20

65 // 23/1

00

00

56

65 // 18

00

04

01

65 // 13

00

09

15

65 // 8/2

00

11

07

65 // 8/1

00

00

20

65 // 3/2

00

07

59

65 // 4/1

00

03

11

64 // 23/2/2

00

00

58

64 // 23/2/1

00

01

07

64 // 24/1

00

08

85

64 // 24/2

00

00

36

64 // 17

00

10

76

64 // 14/1

00

10

87

64 // 7/3

00

00

80

64 // 7/2

00

02

60

64 // 7/1

00

06

67

64 // 4/1

00

10

84

56 // 24/2

00

00

61

56 // 24/1

00

00

20

56 // 24/3

00

09

47

56 // 17/1

00

09

77

56 // 17/2

00

01

14

56 // 14

00

10

56

56 // 7/3

00

10

72

56 // 7/2

00

00

20

1736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

56 // 4/3

00

07

50

56 // 4/2

00

03

30

53 // 24/2

00

11

07

53 // 17/1

00

10

76

53 // 14/2

00

10

64

53 // 7/2/2

00

11

27

53 // 4/2/1

00

02

31

53 // 4/1

00

08

42

38 // 24/2

00

04

91

38 // 24/1

00

06

27

38 // 17

00

11

07

38 // 14

00

10

89

38 // 7

00

05

59

380

00

00

72

38 // 6/2

00

00

20

38 // 4/3

00

00

27

38 // 4/2

00

10

77

34 // 24/3

00

04

72

34 // 24/2

00

05

83

34 // 17/1

00

09

01

34 // 17/2

00

00

22

34 // 27

00

00

20

34 // 14/3

00

09

18

34 // 14/1

00

00

20

34 // 7

00

10

39

34 // 4

00

10

53

19 // 24/2

00

10

35

19 // 17

00

09

50

19 // 14

00

10

62

19 // 7/1

00

10

02

19 // 4/1

00

11

67

16 // 24

00

04

12

2

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Simbli

159

84 // 15

00

03

42

84 // 6

00

09

26

84 // 5

00

01

32

85 // 10

00

01

83

85 // 1

00

10

32

77 // 21

00

11

24

77 // 20

00

11

50

77 // 19

00

00

20

77 // 11

00

05

82

77 // 12

00

06

38

77 // 9

00

11

11

77 // 2

00

11

84

70 // 22

00

04

32

70 // 26

00

01

65

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1737

70 // 23

00

02

78

70 // 18

00

11

70

70 // 19

00

00

20

70 // 13

00

10

79

70 // 7

00

00

88

70 // 3

00

01

93

70 // 4

00

10

12

52 // 24

00

11

01

52 // 17

00

12

28

52 // 16

00

00

20

52 // 15

00

04

45

52 // 26

00

00

20

47 // 20

00

10

91

47 // 11

00

12

21

47 // 12

00

00

20

47 // 10

00

03

96

47 // 9

00

07

01

47 // 2/1

00

00

20

47 // 2/2

00

10

31

26 // 22/1

00

07

33

26 // 22/2

00

04

06

26 // 19/1

00

01

29

26 // 18

00

05

28

26 // 13/2

00

04

84

26 // 13/1

00

06

90

26 // 8

00

10

62

26 // 3/2/1

00

02

56

26 // 3/1

00

02

02

26 // 4/1

00

03

86

23 // 24/1/2

00

00

61

23 // 24/1/1

00

11

06

23 // 17/2

00

04

44

23 // 17/1

00

03

30

23 // 14

00

08

48

23 // 15

00

01

38

23 // 6/2

00

02

15

23 // 6/1

00

08

58

23 // 7

00

00

58

23 // 5

00

05

25

3

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Kukar Majara

248

832

00

04

62

831

00

06

70

830

00

03

88

829

00

08

97

1375/840

00

01

74

827

00

06

78

1207/841

00

01

91

1738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1205/841

00

00

20

1206/841

00

00

20

1210/842

00

01

06

1211/842

00

01

46

824

00

04

46

1203/821

00

01

17

1204/821

00

02

18

822

00

02

82

823

00

00

83

816

00

01

54

817

00

08

26

812

00

00

20

818

00

10

65

805

00

11

11

806

00

10

88

305

00

08

41

307

00

03

84

308

00

04

90

309

00

03

09

324

00

11

04

323

00

10

84

322

00

10

94

1332/325

00

11

03

1331/325

00

00

62

1333/373

00

00

60

1334/373

00

05

53

375

00

02

04

4

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Maira

481

30 // 2/6

00

00

64

30 // 2/5

00

00

48

30 // 2/4

00

02

02

30 // 2/3

00

01

56

21 // 19/1

00

02

60

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2018-OR-I/E-21789]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

9म

9म

9म

9म एवं

एवं

एवं

एवं रोजगार मंालय

रोजगार मंालय

रोजगार मंालय

रोजगार मंालय

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 381

381

381

381.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

:संगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड

:संगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड

:संगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड

:संगारेनी कोिलयरीज कंपनी िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद

म( के, -ीय सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, गोदावरखानी

गोदावरखानी

गोदावरखानी

गोदावरखानी के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–15/2011)

15/2011)

15/2011)

15/2011) को 0कािशत करती है,

जो के, -ीय सरकार को 9/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1739

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Godavarikhani, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/02/2018.

[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL. DIST. &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present:- SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

MONDAY, ON THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.15 OF 2011

Between:-

Vydya Vishnu, S/o.Late Srihari, Age 24 years, Occ:Ex.Badli Filler, E.No.2116035, R/o.Q.No.ST2-2736, 8 Incline

colony, Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar.

--- Petitioner/Workman.

AND

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampalli Division, Adilabad District.

--- Respondent/Management.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Vishveswar Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the respondent; and having been heard and having stood over for

consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

1.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/workman under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act which herein after

will be referred as ID Act for convenience sake. The petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to set aside the

order bearing No.BPA/PER/129/1633, dated 09-05-2008 of the respondent herein by which the petitioner was

dismissed from service and for direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of

service and all attendant benefits and also back wages. The following is the brief case of petitioner according to his

petition.

2.

The petitioner’s father by name Srihari worked as shaft sinking mazdoor in the respondent organization. He died

while he in service due to ill-health. The petitioner was appointed as Badli filler on compassionate grounds on 04-10-

2005. However the petitioner was dismissed from service by proceedings, dated 09-05-2008 and the grounds for

dismissal of service was the irregular attendance /musters maintained by the petitioner herein. The petitioner states that

he did not commit any irregularity he was not guilty of any severe misconduct. But he was suspended on the ground of

shortage of attendance till 2007. A charge sheet was served on him for which he has submitted his explanation and by

considering the explanation the petitioner was taken into service again in 2008 and a show cause notice was served on

the petitioner followed by the false enquiry. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry but the enquiry officer did

not consider the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner and submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty

and on the basis of the said report the petitioner was dismissed from service by the above referred proceedings. The

petitioner states that he is from a poor family he is the only bread winner of the entire family. He has no other source

of income and he could not secure any alternative employment. The mother of the petitioner by name Sarojana went in

1740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

severe shock after the death of her husband. She was bed ridden for a period of (5) years, she was unable to move

without the help of petitioner, under the said compelled circumstances he had to accompanied his mother at each and

every movement. The petitioner being the only son of his parents was under a moral and legal duty to serve his parents

there by the was compelled to be away from duties. However, he has intimated about his absence to the superiors

orally from time to time but his information was not considered. The petitioner further states that due to continues

sleepless nights and mental disturbance he became seek and undergone treatment but this was also not considered by

the management. The petitioner has produced the medical records and other relevant documents but the enquiry officer

and respondent did not give any credibility and removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner was not afforded

reasonable opportunity to prove the cause for his absence. The enquiry officer did not follow the procedure while

conducting the enquiry. The respondent did not implement its own circulars. The dismissal order attaches stigma on

the petitioner though there was no fault on his side. Thereby he sought for setting aside the order and for his

reinstatement into the service with all attendant benefits, continuity of service, back wages etc.

3.

The respondent has opposed this petition and a detailed counter has been filed by the respondent. According to the

said counter it is stated that the respondent is a Government company enlarged under the provisions of Companies Act,

1969 for carrying out of mining and selling of coal. It is a central subject and the appropriate Government for this

respondent is Central Government. According to Section 7 A (1) of ID Act the appropriate Government may by

notification in the official gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of the Industrial

Disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in schedule 2 or 3. The Central Government established an Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000 for adjudication of Industrial Disputes. The petitioner

ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But the petitioner avoided filing his

petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government for the reasons best known to him. The respondent

further stated that the petitioner who was provided with employment as Badli Filler on compassionate grounds never

maintained minimum musters as required under the provisions of Mines Act, 1952. According to Section 52 of Mines

Act an underground employee is required to put minimum musters of 190 in a calendar year. The petitioner being

underground employee is expected to put in minimum 190 musters but the petitioner being a chronic absentee had put

only 50 musters in 2007. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued under clause 25.25 of Company’s standing orders vide

order dated 05-02-2008. The respondent states that the petitioner put in 30 musters in 2007 and in 2008 up to March he

put only 18 musters. Since the petitioner could not put in the minimum required musters it amounts to misconduct

under Company’s standing orders clause No.25.25. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. He was never

regular in his service. After conducting an enquiry the respondent took a lenient view initially and suspended him for a

period of (10) days. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. A charge sheet issued on 05-02-2008

but the petitioner failed to give any explanation. A notice about the enquiry was served on the petitioner on

01-04-2008 directing him to attend the enquiry scheduled on 04-04-2008. The petitioner attended the enquiry

proceedings. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry according to the principles of natural justice by giving full

opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and admitted guilt to the charges and assured

the respondent that he will improve his attendance in future. The enquiry officer has submitted his report on 05-04-

2008 holding the charge against the petitioner was proved. A show cause notice dated 19-04-2008 with the copy of

enquiry proceedings was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation but there are no merits.

Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f., 14-05-2008.

4.

The respondent further states that the grounds set forth by the petitioner in para No.3 (a) to 3 (m) are purely

personal reasons of the petitioner and respondent is no way connected with the same. It is also stated in the counter

that there are more than 67 thousand employees in the respondent including workmen, executives, and supervisors.

The production results will depend upon the each and every individual. If any one remains absent without prior

sanction of leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed get affected. Such unauthorized absence

creates sudden void, which at times and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly

disturbed without prior notice. Therefore, the respondent compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized

absence. The petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee having 50 musters in 2007 and failed to perform and worked

even after in the year 2007. The respondent states that petitioner is not entitled to any such relief and thereby prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

5.

When the matter is pending before the court the petitioner disputed the validity of the domestic enquiry and after

hearing both the parties my predecessor-in-office court passed an order on 15-06-2015 holding that the enquiry is

invalid and respondent was given opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence to specify the charge leveled

against the petitioner. In view of the said order the respondent Management examined (2) witnesses i.e., MW-1 and 2

and marked Ex.M-1 to M-3. The petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.W-1 to W-4.

6.

I have heard both counsels for petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent company. The learned counsel for

the petitioner represents that the petitioner is the only son to his parents he got employment on compassionate grounds

after the death of his father. Even though the petitioner got employment, his mother got sick there was no other male

person to take care of the lady. The petitioner was forced to attend his mother and in view of his continuing service of

his mother he too became sick and not in a position to attend the duties. In those circumstances the petitioner was

removed from service it is nothing but victimizing a son who served his mother till her death and sought for setting

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1741

aside the order and also for reinstating the petitioner with all benefits and back wages. The counsel for the respondent

represents that the petitioner maintained poor attendance and he never improved the attendance beyond 50 musters.

Even after issued charge sheet the petitioner was continued this attitude. He did not cross examine the witness in the

domestic enquiry he has accepted the charges and sought for lenient view as but after thought the petitioner produced

some fake medical records only to show that he was sick for 65 days but this contention has been negatived by the

evidence of MW-1 and 2. In fact the documents marked as Ex.M-1 to M-3 proves the petitioner never obtained any

treatment nor he was hospitalized for the alleged sick. This is only a after thought to avoid his liability thereby he

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Now the point for consideration is

1.

Whether the order of dismissal order passed against the petitioner is irregular, if so liable to be set

aside?

2.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement to the service with back wages and attendant

benefits etc?

3.

To what relief?

POINTS No.1 & 2:

7.

The petitioner herein was appointed as Badli filler on compassionate grounds after the death of his father on 04-10-

2005. He was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 09-05-2008 on the grounds of unauthorized

absence/failure of the petitioner to maintain minimum musters of 190 per year. The petitioner claimed that soon after

the death of his father though he was appointed as Badli Filler his mother fell sick and he was forced to look after her

thereby he was unable to maintain the required attendance. According to the petition filed before this court he has

specifically pleaded that his mother was bed ridden for (5) years. She was a paralysis patient he is the only person to

look after his mother. Thereby he fell sick and he was unable to attend the duties. In Para No.3(e) at page No.2 of his

petition the petitioner claims that due to continues sleepless nights and mental disturbance he became sick and

undergone treatment. In order to prove the treatment he has produced medical certificate but they were not considered

by the respondent. On the other hand the respondent states that from the beginning the petitioner was unable to

maintain minimum required attendance as Badli Filler who is supposed to work underground. He has to put in

minimum 190 musters in a calendar year but during October, 2005 to December, 2005 he attended 30 musters whereas

it was (22) for entire 2006 and (50) in 2007. The respondent has furnished the details of the attendance of the petitioner

and further pleaded that in view of the continuous absence the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation and

initially a lenient view was taken by suspending him for a period of (10) days from 25-08-2007 to 03-09-2007 but after

domestic enquiry which was proved against the petitioner a show cause notice was served on the petitioner and as there

was no explanation he was removed from service.

According to the plea taken by the respondent and as per the documents produced before this court it appears

that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner has participated in the

enquiry but he did not choose to cross examine the witness and admitted his absence. However, during the cross

examination the petitioner has disputed the validity of the domestic enquiry thereby an order was passed by this court

holding that the enquiry was invalid. In view of the said order the respondent examined the Medical Officer, Area

Hospital, Ramagundam as MW-1 and one G.Tulasi Rao retired Officer of SCCL who worked as Deputy Personal

Manager who has conducted domestic enquiry against the petitioner as MW-2. Ex.M-1 to M-3 are marked on behalf of

the management. The petitioner though did not adduce any oral evidence produced Ex.W-1 to W-4. Since the domestic

enquiry was held invalid, the evidence of MW-2 assumes great importance. According to the affidavit filed by MW-2

it is stated that he worked as Deputy Personal Manager, SCCL, Bellampalli Area, he was appointed as enquiry officer

to conduct domestic enquiry against the petitioner herein since he conducted enquiry he has got acquaintance with the

facts of the case. The petitioner/workman was absent for duty in 2007 without any leave he had put in only 50 musters

during 2007. A charge sheet was served on the petitioner under clause 25.25 of Company’s standing orders for

habitual absence. MW-2 has states that he conducted enquiry duly following principles of natural justice by giving the

petitioner full and fair opportunity to defend his case. MW-2 further deposed that the petitioner submitted fit and unfit

slips in 2007 namely (i) 17-10-2007 to 30-10-2007 (14 days), (ii) 24-11-2007 to 03-12-2007 (10 days) (iii) 08-12-2007

to 10-12-2007 (3 days). They were considered at the time of enquiry. He has also deposed that during the enquiry the

petitioner admitted that he failed to attend the duties on all other days and he has submitted sick certificate for only 27

days. He has admitted that he did not report at any company hospital on other days. According to this witness the

claim of petitioner that he has submitted fit and unfit slips for 65 days is only after thought. (During the enquiry before

the court the petitioner took a plea that he was unable to attend duties due to ill-health and he has submitted fit and unfit

slips for 65 days from SCCL hospital, Ramagundam but those slips were not considered by the enquiry officer).

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined this witness and only (2) questions were put to this witness,

MW-2 stated that he retired from service on 30-06-2008 he conducted enquiry record on the unauthorized absence of

the petitioner who was working in Goleti Mine, Bellampalli. The petitioner did not submit any documents during the

enquiry for the absence of (65) days. Except this nothing could be elicit from MW-2 to show that the enquiry officer

1742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

failed to conduct proper enquiry and to show that the enquiry officer did not follow the principles of natural justice.

The above (2) questions may not prove that the petitioner was denied fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his

case.

Apart from this evidence the respondent/management has examined one Dr.E.Rajeshwar, Medical Officer,

Area Hospital, Ramagundam to show that the fit and unfit medical slips supposed to be obtained by the petitioner for

his alleged ill-health or fake and there was such record in the hospital. According to the affidavit filed by MW-1 the

copy of fit certificate with No.5569 from 15-02-2007 to 20-04-2007 has been verified with the register maintained at

the Area Hospital, Ramagundam. There is no entry pertaining to the fit certificate in the relevant register. According

to the register the serial number contains (5) digits like 46801 to 47400 whereas the copy of the fit certificate submitted

by the petitioner contains only (4) digits thereby it clearly shows that the certificate was not issued from Area Hospital,

Ramagundam and it is not a genuine one. This witness further deposed that according to the company procedure opted

by the respondent an employee will be made fit and unfit only on the respective Area Hospital where he is posted to

work. Only in case of emergency a person working in another area will be declared fit or unfit by the medical officer.

According to the certificate produced by the petitioner the alleged disease was mere fever so the question of petitioner

admission to Area Hospital, Ramagundam while he was working at Bellampalli does not arise. Therefore, according to

the evidence of this witness the fit/unfit certificates produced by the petitioner are not tallying with the relevant

registers which are maintained by the Area Hospital, Ramagundam. In support of this claim the petitioner has

produced Ex.M-1 to M-3 the registers from Area Hospital, Ramagundam. The learned counsel for the respondent

elicited from MW-1 that the doctor who signed the receipts (Ex. M-1 to M-3) retired from service. This witness is

able to identify the signature of doctor who maintained register and according to these records the petitioner was not on

sick leave from 15-02-2007 to 20-04-2007. Ex.M-1 is the register maintained by the Area Hospital, Ramagundam for

the period from 10-11-2006 to 22-11-2007. Ex.M-2 is the fit certificate from 22-03-2007 to 16-07-2007 and Ex.B-3 is

another register for the period from 01-12-2006 to 31-12-2008. According to this witness every workman who visited

the SCCL Hospital with any disease will be initially declared as unfit to attend duties and the information will be sent

to the concerned mine. During the cross examination of this witness the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman

made attempt to show that this witness is not a proper person to give evidence on behalf of the management. The

registers vide Ex.B-1 to B-3 were prepared by clerical staff and the witness is deposing falsehood even though the

petitioner was admitted at hospital maintained by SC authorities and obtained treatment for the alleged illness.

However, MW-1 denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the petitioner. A suggestion was given to the witness

that there was departmental enquiry against the doctors and clerical staff about the illegal activities, misuse of their

official power and they were placed under suspension for which witness says that he has no knowledge about the

enquiry proceedings and denied the suggestion that he is speaking falsehood. Even if there was such enquiry the

petitioner is not in a position to say as to how those enquiry proceedings will help him when his absence was due to

alleged illness. Since the petitioner took stand about his illness and since he questions the domestic enquiry the

evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 assumes importance. MW-2 categorically deposed that the petitioner at the time of

domestic enquiry did not produce any such medical certificate and it was not his case that the absence was due to

alleged ill-health. MW-2 proves the validity of domestic enquiry and proceedings placed before this court. Whereas

MW-1 proved that the hospital records vide Ex.M-1 to M-3 which were prepared during the course of day today office

work shows that the petitioner was not admitted in Area Hospital, Ramagundam. He was not declared as fit or unfit in

the above referred period. In fact the petitioner did not explain why he joined in Area Hospital, Ramagundam while he

was working in Bellampalli. MW-1 actually denied the suggestion that petitioner got treatment from Area Hospital,

Ramagundam. Therefore, from this suggestion it shows that the petitioner said to have obtained treatment at Area

Hospital, Ramagundam. It was elicited from MW-1 that the entire stationary to the Area Hospital will be supplied by

Central Office and in case of emergency they use to take from GM Office. In case of emergency they use to treat the

patient beyond the jurisdiction of the hospital. If the petitioner wanted to show that he fell sick at Bellampalli and as an

emergency case he was referred to Area Hospital, Ramagundam, it is for him to show that he was declared as unfit for

the alleged illness during the period in which he failed to attend the duties but the documents produced through MW-1

namely registers clearly indicates that these registers were maintained at Area Hospital, Ramagundam but there is no

entry about the treatment or alleged illness of the petitioner in the relevant period. If really the petitioner was admitted

in the hospital and he was declared as unfit he could have communicate the said fact at the time of domestic enquiry.

Apart from that the entries in Ex.M-1 to M-3 clearly indicates that the serial number appeared on each page contains

(5) digits whereas the petitioner produced the certificate with (4) digits for which there is no explanation. The

petitioner did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.M-1 to M-3. No where in the entire cross examination there was a

suggestion to MW-1 that Ex.M-1 to M-3 are specifically prepared for the sake of this case. Therefore, I believe entries

in Ex.M-1 to M-3 and I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner about the alleged illness is nothing but

false.

Now I will refer the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer (MW-2). According to these proceedings it

is very clear that on 05-02-2008 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner asking his explanation for his poor

attendance in the year 2007. He has attended work for only (50) musters in 2007. In fact the petitioner did not dispute

this charge. The charge sheet was duly served on the petitioner and another notice informing the petitioner about the

appointment of the enquiry officer was also served and duly acknowledged by the petitioner on 01-04-2008. The

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1743

proceedings recorded by MW-2 clearly indicate that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and when he was

specifically asked about the charge he has admitted the charges voluntarily and he signed the proceedings. The enquiry

officer has examined one A.Srinvas, Personnel Officer who deposed about the continuous absence of the petitioner to

the duties. In the entire enquiry proceedings the petitioner has accepted the evidence of this witness. The statement

recorded from the petitioner on 04-04-2008 indicates that he was absent for duty without sick leave or any information.

He has admitted the absence of his duties. He has categorically stated before the enquiry officer that he was declared

unfit on 17-10-2007 and was declared as fit after (14) days i.e., 13-10-2007. He was also declared as unfit to attend the

duties for (10) days for 24-11-2007 to 03-10-2007 again for (3) days from 08-12-2007 to 10-12-2007. The OP

certificate numbers with the serial numbers have been mentioned in the enquiry proceedings. He has also stated to the

enquiry officer that he did not give any information immediately after sick/unfit but later submitted the certificate. It

was his specific case before the enquiry officer that since his mother was sick due to paralysis he has attended his

mother thereby he failed to attend duties and he admitted before the enquiry officer that he did not report at company

hospital on other days and he has no documents as such he sought for exemption. The statement recorded by the

enquiry officer duly signed by the petitioner herein clearly indicates that he was sick or declared as unfit to attend the

duties during 2007 in (8) spells for (27) days in total. If really the petitioner was sick and was declared as unfit to

attend duties for (65) days as claimed by him before this court he could have mentioned this fact before the enquiry

officer and he could have produced OP receipts and other relevant records. The proceedings proved by the enquiry

officer clearly indicated that the period of his sick/unfit was only (27) days. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner

was unable to maintain minimum musters of 190 from 2005 to 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented

that the documents namely medical record of his mother clearly indicates that the petitioner was only person to look

after his mother thereby he could not attend the duties and if he is removed from service for his attending mother it

amounts to injustice thereby sought for reinstatement but I am unable to accept his plea. It may be true that the mother

of the petitioner was sick/suffering from paralysis but on that ground the petitioner cannot avoid his duties without

leaving any information to the employer. The enquiry proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioner did not even

choose to inform the respondent about his absence. The respondent while relying upon judgment of the apex court in

Civil Appeal No.1941/2014 argued that the unauthorized absence of a particular employee for continuous period of

more than (2) months or (3) months cannot be considered and if an employee is allowed to absent from duty it will

result irreparable loss to the organization. The petitioner who has admitted his fault at the time of domestic enquiry

took a different stand at the time of enquiry before this court and pleaded that he fell sick and he created fake

documents to show as if he was declared unfit for a period of (15) days which ultimately fault. Therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated and I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the respondent.

Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

POINT No.3:

9.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28th day of

August, 2017.

Shri SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman:-

WW-1

--

Vidya Vishnu, petitioner

For Management -

MW-1

--

Dr.E.Rajeshwar, Medical Superintendent.

MW-2

--

J.Tulsi Rao, Retired officer

EXHIBITS

For workman:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

17-09-2011

Copy of request for reappointment in company

Ex.W-2

Dt.

28-09-2008

Handicapped certificate of mother of petitioner

Ex.W-3

Dt.

--

Discharge card of mother of petitioner

Ex.W-4

Dt.

12-09-2011

Death certificate of mother of petitioner

1744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For Management:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

--

Register from 10-11-2006 to 22-11-2007

Ex.M-2

Dt.

--

Fit certificate book from 22-03-2007

Ex.M-3

Dt.

--

Fit and unfit register from 1-12-2006 to 31-12-2008

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 382

382

382

382.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

ई ट

ई ट

ई ट

ई टन0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या 26

26

26

26/20

/20

/20

/2006

06

06

06) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 16/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/162/2005-आई आर (सी एम-2)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. E. C. L.,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/02/2018.

[No. L-22012/162/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 26 Of 2006

PARTIES : The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL

v/s

Late Achla Bouri

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management:

Shri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman):

Shri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 22.01.2018

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Government. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/162/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 18.07.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication

by this Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1745

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not

providing the employment to the son of Late Achla Bouri, the workman is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to? ”

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/162/2005–IR(CM-II) dated 18.07.2006 of the above said reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 26 of

2006 was registered on 14.08.2006. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said

order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

2. The applicant Shri Sona Bouri, son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri has filed written statement through union

representative. The applicant Shri Sona Bouri has alleged in his written statement that Late Smt. Achala Bouri in

employment of the company as T/W Loader at J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited. Late Smt. Achala Bouri expired while in the service of the company on 20.12.1994 due to illness. The

dependent son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri applied for employment as per norms of the company. His file for

employment was processed by the colliery authority of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and the said

file was sent to Head Quarter of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited after completing all formalities of employment. The

area authority asked some clarification from Shri Sona Bouri, son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri vide their letter No.

152/67 dated 17.02.2000 by the Personnel Manager of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on the basis of

Letter No. ECL/CMD/C6B/Employment/2000/71 dated 21/24.01.2000 of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Head

Quarter. Shri Sona Bouri replied the letter and also submitted the required documents. But thereafter no information

was given to Shri Sona Bouri in spite of his repeated requests. Shri Sona Bouri belongs to downtrodden class of

society. He left to street for begging with his family. Action of not providing employment to the dependent of Late

Smt. Achala Bouri who expired while in service of the company is unjustified and against the guide lines of the

National Coal Wage Agreement. The applicant has prayed that the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited be directed to provide employment to the dependent son of Late Smt. Achala

Bouri ex-T/W Loader as per provision of National Coal Wage Agreement.

3.

The Agent of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his

written statement that ex-employee Late Smt. Achala Bouri since deceased died on 20.12.1994 while she was in

service. Soon after her death or within the stipulated period none of her dependents had applied for any employment for

which the management had no laches and lacuna. That one application from Shri Sona Bouri, claiming the dependent

son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri received on 28.03.1997, a long gap after 3 (three) years. The claim along with

documents submitted by the claimant in support of his claim was sent to the Head Quarter for their perusal. But file

returned back and no employment was provided for the reason that the claim was in belated stage. The concerned union

raised the dispute for the first time before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by their letter dated 04.02.2004

about a decade after the date of Late Smt. Achala Bouri without assigning any reasons whatsoever as such which ought

to be rejected. The employment on the compassionate ground cannot be reserved for an indefinite period. The union

has no ‘locus standi’ to raise the dispute. The dispute deserved to be rejected. The Agent of J. K. Nagar Colliery under

Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has prayed that the action of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Smt. Achala Bouri is justified

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.

The applicant, Shri Sona Bouri has field the following documents :-

(i) Photocopy of the Death Certificate of Late Smt. Achala Bouri, (ii) Photocopy of the Identity Card of Late Smt.

Achala Bouri, (iii) Photocopy of the Service Excerpts of Smt. Achala Bouri, ex-employee where the name of Shri Sona

Bouri, his son is mentioned, (iv) Photocopy of the Letter of Personnel Manager of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited regarding some information, (v) Photocopy of the Reply of the dependant of the Ex-employee, Late

Smt. Achala Bouri, (vi) Photocopy of the Relationship certificate from Block Development Officer of Raniganj,

(vii) Photocopy of the Affidavit by Shri Sona Bouri, son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri, (viii) Photocopy of the Voter

Identity Card of Shri Sona Bouri, the applicant.

The applicant, Shri Sona Bouri has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by Shri P. K.

Goswami, learned advocate for the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited.

The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any oral

or documentary evidence.

1746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

I have heard the arguments of Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative on behalf of Shri Sona Bouri, the

applicant and Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

6.

Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued that though there is no time limit for submitting application for

employment on compassionate ground but it ought to be filed in reasonable time. The applicant, Shri Sona Bouri has

filed application for employment on death of her mother Late Smt. Achala Bouri after a gap of long period, therefore

that application for the employment is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief. On the other hand Shri S.

K. Pandey, learned union representative on behalf of Shri Sona Bouri has argued that the applicant has applied for job

in the year 1998 because it took long time to collect the relevant papers for the employment. The applicant is illiterate.

In the year 2000 company sought some clarification from Shri Sona Bouri and directed to file Indemnity Bond and

other documents. The applicant Shri Sona Bouri submitted reasonable explanation for delay and filed Indemnity Bond

and other documents as per direction of the Personnel Manager of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

There is no delay on part of Shri Sona Bouri, the applicant. The delay has been caused the management of J. K. Nagar

Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The applicant, Shri Sona Bouri is entitled for

employment in J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

7.

It is not disputed that Late Smt. Achala Bouri ex-employee was in employment of J. K. Nagar Colliery under

Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is also undisputed that she expired on 20.12.1994 while in service

of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The copy of service excerpts

maintained by J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has been filed on record by

the applicant. In this service excerpts Shri Sona Bouri has been mentioned as the son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri the

deceased employee. Therefore it is undisputed that the applicant Shri Sona Bouri is son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri.

8.

In Chapter - IX, Social Security of National Coal Wage Agreement the relevant provision of employment of one

dependent of worker who dies while in service of the company is as follows :

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

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

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

on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.

(ii) The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and

aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit shall not apply in the case of spouse. ”

9.

The applicant, Shri Sona Bouri has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has alleged in Para - 5 of affidavit that

he is fully dependent on the income of his mother, Late Smt. Achala Bouri. Therefore as per requirements of National

Coal Wage Agreement, the applicant fulfils the condition of National Coal Wage Agreement.

10. The term ‘settlement’ has been defined under section 2 (p) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as under :

“ ‘settlement’ means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement

between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such

agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been

sent to [an officer authorized in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.”

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain and others V/s Union of India and others, 1989 (59) FLR page

626 has held that :

“ We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds,

there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is

to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be

provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there

is not suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. ”

12. The plea for not proving employment to the applicant, Shri Sona Bouri is ground of delay. The delay has been

explained by the applicant Shri Sona Bouri. The Personnel Manager of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited issued letter no. 152/67 dated 17.02.2000 to the applicant, Shri Sona Bouri and asked for the reason for gap

between the last date of working and date of death of ex-employee, Late Smt. Achala Bouri. Late Smt. Achala Bouri

expired on 20.12.1994. The Personnel Manager of Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited asked why the

applicant, Shri Sona Bouri applied for employment on 28.03.1997 after such delay, besides The Personnel Manager of

Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited directed the applicant to complete some formalities e.g. Indemnity

Bond, Witnesses declaration certificate, etc. The applicant Shri Sona Bouri replied to management on 11.03.2000

which is as follows :

“(1) That in answer about para 1 of the letter I beg to state that reason of gap in duty of my deceased mother

Smt. Achala Bouri between last date of working (02/11/94) and death of the Ex-employee Smt. Achala Bouri (20/12/94)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1747

was illness and she was under treatment of the Physician. In supporting of that there is enclosed the copy of medical

certificate from 02/11/94 to 19/12/94 and copy of prescription for your kind perusal. And my mother Smt. Achala Bouri

(Ex-Employee) died on 20/12/94 for which a copy of certificate of death is also enclosed herewith.

(2) That in answer about para 2 of the letter I beg to state that reason for delay in submitting application for

employment for myself (i.e. since 20/12/94 to 28/03/97) was my minority i.e. I was only 15 years old at the time of death

of my mother Smt. Achala Bouri (20/12/94) and it is also fact that we have collected/received the death certificate in

the month March 95 and completed and collected the necessary documents and papers regarding employment with

signing and verifying by public offices in the month of February 97. Copy of the same are available before you in the

file of my employment along with prescribed application.

Hope it will help you about query and therefore it is requested to clear the matter with taking necessary action for my

employment against the death of my mother (ex-employee) Smt. Achala Bouri without any delay. ”

13. Form perusal of the material available on the record it is apparent that the applicant Shri Sona Bouri applied for

employment in J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as per provision of

National Coal Wage Agreement. As per provision of National Coal Wage Agreement he is entitled for employment in

J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The death of Late Smt. Achala Bouri, ex-

employee occurred on 20.12.1994, while applicant applied for job on 28.03.1997 near about a delay of 2 (two) years

and 3 (three) months. The cause of delay has been reasonably explained by the applicant. The delay of little more than

2 (two) years has been caused by the applicant under compelling circumstance. As per clause of National Coal Wage

Agreement the applicant Shri Sona Bouri the son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri is entitled for employment. The agent of

J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited neither provided the employment nor

rejected the employment proposal under intimation to the applicant. If intimation of rejection of employment proposal

had been communicated to the applicant, Shri Sona Bouri the delay in raising the industiral dispute would not have

been caused. The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited cannot

take advantage of his own delay.

14. In the light of above discussion the action of management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not providing the employment to the son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri, the workman is

illegal and unjustified. Shri Sona Bouri the dependent son of Late Smt. Achala Bouri is entitled for employment in

J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly

disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 383

383

383

383.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

ई ट

ट

ट

टन0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–31/20

/20

/20

/2001

01

01

01) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 9/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/69/2001-आईआर (सी.एम.-2)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asnsol, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L., and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/02/2018.

[No. L-22012/69/2001-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

1748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 31 OF 2001

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

V/s

Sri Jageshwar Pasi

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management:

Shri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman):

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 10.01.2018

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-22012/69/2001–IR(CM-II) dated 24.12.2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Samala Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., in not providing

employment to the dependant so Sri Jageshwar Pasi, as per provision of Cl. 9.4.3 of N.C.W.A. IV is legal and justified?

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

1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/69/2001–IR(CM-II) dated 24.12.2001 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 31 of 2001 was

registered on 31.12.2001. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

2.

Case called out. Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appears on behalf of the management of Samala Colliery of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative of the union is present on behalf

of the workman, Shri Jageshwar Pasi.

3.

On perusal of the case record I found that the case was fixed for filing evidence of the workman on 09.12.2014.

Since then 11 dates have been fixed and more than 2 (Two) years have been passed but neither the workman turned up

before the tribunal nor the evidence of the workman has been filed by the union representative. Shri Rakesh Kumar,

learned union representative submits that the reference may be closed as he could not contact the workman in spite of

several efforts. It seems to me that the workman does not want to proceed with the case any further. This is one of the

oldest Reference of this Tribunal - of the year 2001. I have no option left but to close the case. As such the case is

closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1749

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 384

384

384

384.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

वे ट

वे ट

वे ट

वे टन0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववादम( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–38

38

38

38/2014

2014

2014

2014-15

15

15

15) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 9/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/65/2014-आईआर (सी.एम.-2)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Western Coalfield

Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/02/2018.

[F. No. L-22012/65/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2014-15

Date: 04.01.2018

Party No.1(a):

The Sub Area Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited, Durgapur

O/c Sub Area, Post: Durgapur,

Distt. Chandrapur-442401.

Party No.1(b):

The Director, Shankmugam Coal Carriers

Pvt. Ltd., SCC Camp, Durgapur O/c Mine,

Near DOC Weight, Chandrapur-442401(MS)

Party No.1(c):

The Director, M/s Hemkunt Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of WCL, B-10/7156, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-70.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary, BKKMS(BMS),

Vishwakarma Sadan, Mahakali Colliery,

PO: Babupeth, Chandrapur,

Distt. Chandrapur-442401.

AWARD

(Dated: 4th January, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their union, BKKMS

(BMS) for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/65/2014- (IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2014, with the following schedule:-

(i)

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Shankhmugam Coal carries Pvt. Ltd., (An Ex-Servicemen

Enterprises) Chandrapur in terminating the services of three contract workers namely 1) Sh. Sammer

Akbar Khan, Driver, 2) Papu Raghuraj Prajapati, Driver & 3) Pandit Soyam, Pay Loader Operator and the

Management of M/s Hemkunt Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd., (Ex-Servicemen Agency) Contractors of WCL in

1750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

terminating the services of three contract workers namely 1) Sh. Kailash Das, Driver, 2) Sh. Narsingh

Harkillawar, Driver & 3) Shrikant Rukhani Verma, Driver are legal, just & proper? If not, then what

relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?

(ii)

Whether the demand of the Union for revised rates of wages as Per High Power Committee’s

recommendation issued vide Office Order No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI/HPC/566 dated 18.02.2013 issued by the

General Manager, (MP & IR), Coal India Ltd. Kolkata is legal, just & proper? If so, what relief the

contract workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. On 10.02.2015, advocate for the workman was present but did not

file statement of claim. Court was vacant from March, 2015 to September, 2017. So, next notice was issued to the

parties fixing the date on 29.11.2017. On 29.11.2017, advocate for the management Mr. A.S. Mehadia was present but,

on behalf of the petitioner, nobody was present. Service of notice to the petitioner for the date of 29.11.2017 was

completed on 16.11.2017. It shows that, petitioner is not interested to continue this case.

It is well settled that whenever a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the

illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to

appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the

petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 385

385

385

385.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

वे ट

वे ट

वे ट

वे टन0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–52

52

52

52/201

/201

/201

/2014-15

15

15

15) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 9/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/77/2014-आईआर (सी.एम.-2)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren Coalfield

Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/02/2018.

[No. L-22012/77/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHYAM SUNDER GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/52/2014-15

Date: 15.01.2018

Party No.1

:

The Colliery Manager/Superintendent

Of Mines, Western Coalfields Limited,

Pipla Colliery, PO: Walni, Tehsil:

Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1751

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Working President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(INTUC), R/o 1210/B, Choudhary Layout,

Near Naroman Hall, Anant Nagar,

Nagpur – 440013.

AWARD

(Dated: 15th January, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their union, Rashtriya

Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/77/2014- IR(CM-II) dated

25.11.2014, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Pipla Colliery, Tehsil Saoner, Distt.

Nagpur in denying the claim of regularization of Sh. Abdul Khalik Sheikh Babbu in the post of Clerk, is just, fair &

legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due.

The party No.1 appeared through their advocates on 27.01.2016.

In spite of sufficient service of notice on the petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No

statement of claim was also filed on 08.12.2017even after second notice was served for the date of 08.12.2017.

Thereafter the case was adjourned for today for the same purpose but, today also, no statement of claim is filed.

Petitioner did not appear even today. So, case is closed for award.

It is well settled that whenever a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to

appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the

petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 20 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 386

386

386

386.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

मेसस0

ई ट

ई ट

ई ट

ई टन0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड

न0 कोलफ? ड िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण-सह-2म , यायालय, आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल

आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–54

54

54

54/20

/20

/20

/2000

00

00

00) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 16/02/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/517/1999-आई.आर. (सी.एम.- II)]

राजे, - ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2018

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L., and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/02/2018.

[No. L-22012/517/1999-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

1752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 54 OF 2000

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

v/s

Shri Rohan Yadav

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management :

Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the Union (Workman) :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 29.01.2018

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-

22012/517/99–IR (CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Bhanora Colliery in not correcting the year of birth of Sh. Rohan

Yadav as 1950 instead of 1940 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? ”

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/517/99–IR (CM-II) dated 13.07.2000 of the above said reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 54 of 2000 was

registered on 01.08.2000 / 17.10.2001. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said

order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal,

through their representative.

2.

Shri Rohan Yadav has filed written statement through his union representative, has alleged that his date of birth is

05.06.1950. But instead of this date of birth his date of birth is recorded in service excerpts as 1940. He raised the

matter but his case was not examined by ADC/APEX. As per I.D. No. 76 the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation

Certificate has to be admitted, but in this instant case his date of birth is not corrected by the management yet. This

issue has been discussed at various level, but his date of birth has not been corrected as per Matriculation Certificate,

which is a clear violation of the guidelines of J.B.C.C.I. The management has not following his own guideline as per

I.D. No. 76. His superannuation on the basis of date of birth of 1940 is wrong and illegal. The workman has prayed that

the date of birth of Shri Rohan Yadav should be corrected as 05.06.1950 instead of 1940 and he should be allowed to

resume his duty with all consequential benefits.

3.

The Agent of Bhanora/Girimint (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has denied the allegation of

workman. The Agent of Bhanora/Girimint (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated in his written

statement that the dispute is misconceived and is not maintainable. The concerned workman was appointed in the year

1971. His year of birth at the time of his initial appointment was recorded as 1940 in the Form ‘B’ Register i.e. the

service record which is a statuary document under the provision of Mines Act. The said entries with regard to date of

birth of the concerned workman was recorded as per the declaration given by the employee. Said entries were duly

authenticated to the employee who put his endorsement thereon in token of his acceptance by putting his L.T.I. as

required under the provision of Section - 48 of the Mines Act. It is not known to the management, whether the

concerned workman was matriculate or not, as he never produced any such Matriculation Certificate at the time of his

appointment. He never claimed his alleged date of birth as 05.06.1950 during his long period of service. There is no

provision or scope to accept the said Certificate as otherwise represented by the union. The management never acted

arbitrarily in the matter of correction of date of birth. The provision of I. I. No. 76 of J.B.C.C.I. will be referred before

Hon’ble Tribunal in its true purport at the time of hearing of this case. The claim of change of date of birth cannot be

accepted at the fag end of service of the workman. The date of birth as recorded in the service record is to be treated as

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1753

final. The employee has already been superannuated on 01.07.2000 as per contract of employment. The date of birth

recorded in Form ‘B’ Register i.e. 1940 is final. The action of management of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited is fully justified in not correcting the year of birth of the concerned workman as 1950 instead of

1940. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

4.

The workman has filed rejoinder written statement. He has alleged in the rejoinder written statement that the

statement of management is wrong and without any valid ground. The fact is that Shri Rohan Yadav was appointed in

the year 1971 before nationalization. At that time there was no system to give declaration of the service particulars of

the employee. The clerks of private owner (of coal mines) recorded the date of birth at their sweet will without any

opportunity to clarify it form workman. After nationalization (of coal mines) the unions and management of Coal India

Limited agreed to provide chance to the workers of Coal India Limited to make them aware of their service particulars

so that they can raise objection, if there any, in their service particulars. The management issued service excerpts

format in the year 1987. At that time Shri Rohan Yadav raised objection about his date of birth. This fact was admitted

by the management in conciliation proceeding. Photo copy of service excerpts format in which workman raised

objection has filed on record. The contention of management is that the workman did not raise the age dispute is

incorrect. The workman raised the dispute in 1987 but the management did not paid any heed to it. Even management

did not accept this fact before Assistant Labour Commissioner in conciliation proceeding. As per provision I. I. No. 76

if any worker possess Matriculation Certificate prior to his service his date of birth shall be accepted which is recorded

in Matriculation Certificate. Denial of correcting the date of birth of Shri Rohan Yadav is unjustified.

5.

The workman has filed the following documents :

(i) Photocopy of the Service Excerpts in which workman raised objection about his date of birth in the year 1987,

(ii) Photocopy of the Mark Sheet of Bihar School Examination Board, (iii) Photocopy of the Matriculation Certificate

of Bihar School Examination Board, (iv) Photocopy of the School Leaving Certificate, (v) Photocopy of the letter of

union addressed to G.M. (P&IR), ECL dated 08.03.2000, (vi) Photocopy of the Minutes of meeting held with CGM

(P&IR), ECL on 22.12.2001, (vii) Photocopy of the letter of Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry dated

25.04.1988, (viii) Photocopy of the Implementation Instruction No. 76.

The workman, Shri Rohan Yadav has examined himself as witness. He has been cross-examined by the learned

advocate of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

The management of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral

evidence.

6.

I have heard the arguments of Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited and Shri Rakesh Kumar, union representative on behalf of the workman, Shri Rohan Yadav.

7.

Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued that the

workman Shri Rohan Yadav did not file his Matriculation certificate at the time of his entry in the employment. He

accepted his year of birth as 1940. He cannot raise the age dispute at the fag end of his service. On the other hand

Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative of the workman has argued that it is incorrect that Shri Rohan Yadav

raised the age dispute at the fag end of his service he was appointed before nationalization of coal mine. In private coal

mines there was no due procedure for recording the correct date of birth. After nationalization the management of

Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited prepares service excerpts and tendered copy to each workman.

Shri Rohan Yadav raised the dispute in 1987 but till now his date of birth is not corrected as per Matriculation

Certificate.

8.

It is undisputed that Shri Rohan Yadav has joined the employment in coal mines in 1971, this fact is also

confirmed from service excerpts maintained by Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and copy filed by

the workman. In service excerpts the date of appointment is recorded as 1971 and date of birth record as 1940 but in

remarks column Shri Rohan Yadav has written “ My date of birth is 1950 (Nineteen Hundred Fifty). Date of joining

is 1971 (Nineteen Hundred Seventy One) please rectify my record ” Shri Rohan Yadav put his sign below it. It is

noteworthy that Shri Rohan Yadav requested for correction of his date of birth as 1950 instead of 1940 at initial stage,

in 1987, when service excerpts was prepared by Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The concerned

authority of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has put signature on 21.09.1987. The meeting

between representative of management and representative of union was held on 22.12.2001. The copy of minutes filed

by the workman at Serial No.-13. The dispute of age of Shri Rohan Yadav was raised which was under process. The

matter was again raised in the reconciliation proceeding before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). The copy

letter of Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry dated 25.04.1988 has been filed and its Para - 7 is as below :

“ It was agreed that an employee raising a dispute regarding his / her qualifications shall submit his / her certificates

relating to his / her qualifications to the management and the management after satisfying about the genuineness of the

claims would insert the said qualifications in the Service Record of the employee. Original documents furnished by the

employee would be returned to his / her after verification and photo copies retained, if required by the management. ”

1754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

The copy of Implementation Instruction No. 76 has been filed by the workman, in this document the guidelines

for determination of the age at the time of appointment is mentioned which is as below :

“ (A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment :

(i) Matriculates :

In the case of appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded

in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and same will not be altered under any

circumstances.

(B) Review / determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees :

(i) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued

by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and / or

Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct

provided they were issued by the said Universities / Boards / Institutions prior to the date of employment. ”

10.

Shri Rohan Yadav has filed copy of Mark Sheet and Certificate of Bihar School Examination Board. In his

Matriculation certificate his date of birth is recorded as 05.06.1950. He passed the Matriculation Examination in the

year 1970 in 2nd Class. It is apparent that he passed Matriculation Examination in 1970 prior to his appointment in

1971. WW - 1, Shri Rohan Yadav has stated in his oral evidence that he was appointed in 1971 in Bhanora Colliery

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as Underground Trammer. At the time of his appointment his date of birth is record

as 05.06.1950. His date was changed by the management as 1940 in the year 1975. He complained for the correction

but the management did not consider his claim. He has been illegally superannuated. In support of his claim he

submitted Matriculation Certificate before the management. He raised the dispute in the year 1987 as per his service

excerpts. But that was not considered by the management.

11.

There is ample evidence on record that concerned workman Shri Rohan Yadav raised the question of correction

of his date of birth as 05.06.1950 instead of 1940 in the year 1987. The service excerpts was prepared in 1987. At the

time of preparation of service excerpts when the fact of age came into the knowledge of workman he raised the

objection at first instance. Even workman made unsuccessful attempts to resolve this issue through union

representative. The request of Shri Rohan Yadav for correction of date of birth was not accepted by management. I am

unable to agree with the view of Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of the management that workman raised the dispute

at the fag end of his service. Even the management Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not follow

his own guidelines for recording date of birth. The concerned workman Shri Rohan Yadav passed the Matriculation

Examination before induction in employment.

12.

In view of above discussion the action of management of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in

not correcting the year of birth of Shri Rohan Yadav as 05.06.1950 instead of 1940 is unjustified. Shri Rohan Yadav is

entitled for correction of his date of birth as 05.06.1950 instead of 05.06.1940.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 387

387

387

387 .—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक,

,ेीय टे

,ेीय टे

,ेीय टे

,ेीय टेशन

शन

शन

शन, फोरेज उA पा

फोरेज उA पा

फोरेज उA पा

फोरेज उA पादन व दश0न के िलए

दन व दश0न के िलए

दन व दश0न के िलए

दन व दश0न के िलए, गांधीधाम

गांधीधाम

गांधीधाम

गांधीधाम, गुजरात एवं उनके कम0चारी

गुजरात एवं उनके कम0चारी

गुजरात एवं उनके कम0चारी

गुजरात एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण एवं 2म , यायालय, अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद के

पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–105

105

105

105/20

/20

/20

/2005

05

05

05) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 9/10/2017 को 0ा{ त Fए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/177/1996-आई आर (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22th February, 2018

S.O. 387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 105/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Director,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1755

Regional Station for Forage Production & Demonstration, Gandhidham, Gujarat and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 09/10/2017.

[No. L-42012/177/1996-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 05thSeptember, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No- 105/2005

The Director,

Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration,

CH – 128, Sector- 30,

Gandhidham(Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

All Gujarat Karmachari Union (AITUC),

Ashapuri Nagar, Bhilwada Road,

Amaiwadi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.V. Dixit

For the Second Party : Shri G.K. Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/177/96-

IR(DU) dated 07.11.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of All Gujarat Kamdar Karamchari Union, Ahmedabad for the reinstatement of Smt.

Gangaben Laxmanbhai and 6 others with full back wages and continuity of service is justified? If yes, to what

relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

1. The reference dates back to 07.11.2005. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on

27.02.2006 along with the vakalatpatra Ex. 5. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on

06.11.2008. Since then the applicant has been absent. Therefore, on 30.11.2010, a fresh notice was sent to the

second party union to appear on 07.03.2011. The said notice was not received back as unserved. Despite the

same, the second party union did not respond till date for leading evidence. Thus it appears that the second

party union has not been leading to prosecute the case.

2. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union with the

observation as under: “the demand of All Gujarat Kamdar Karamchari Union, Ahmedabad for the

reinstatement of Smt. Gangaben Laxmanbhai and 6 others with full back wages and continuity of service is

not justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

1756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 388

388

388

388.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार बंधक

बंधक

बंधक

बंधक,

मछली नेट

मछली नेट

मछली नेट

मछली नेट मेDकंग E ला

मेDकंग E ला

मेDकंग E ला

मेDकंग E लाटंटंटंटं, तुंगभFा बोड0

तुंगभFा बोड0

तुंगभFा बोड0

तुंगभFा बोड0, बे ला

बे ला

बे ला

बे लारी िजला

री िजला

री िजला

री िजला एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच,

अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–

72

72

72

72/1990

1990

1990

1990) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 20.6.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ थे ।

[ सं. एल-42012/22/90-आईआर (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 72/1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Manager,

Fish Net Making Plant, Tungabhadra Board, Bellary Distt. and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 20.06.2017.

[No. L-42012/22/90-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

DATED

:

12th JUNE 2017

PRESENT

:

Shri V S RAVI,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 72/1990

I Party

II Party

Sri. R. Venkateswara Rao,

Quarters No. 12, New Fishers Colony,

T.B. Dam,

Bellary Distt.- 533225

The Manager,

Fish Net Making Plant,

Tungabhadra Board,

T.B. Dam,

Bellary Distt.- 533225

(For I party, Mr. Suresh P, Sridhara.D. Naik

(For II party Mr. Nanda Kishore

Advocates)

Advocate)

AWARD

1.

The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012/22/90-IR(DU) dated 16.11.1990 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Fish Net Making Plant, Tungabhadra Board, T.B.

Dam, Bellary Distt. in dismissing Sri. Venkateswara Rao, Ex-Workmen from his services is

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

2. Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-

i) The I Party submits that, he is the workman under the Fish Net Making Plant, an industry engaged in the process of

manufacturing Fish Nets and Twines. The above industry is controlled by manager, who is in turn controlled by the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1757

secretary, T.B. Board. The activities of the Fish Net Making Plant is to buy raw-materials such as yarn from various

yarn manufactures and out of the raw-materials, with the labour of workmen employed in the factory, preparing nets for

catching fishes and twines and hanks and selling those manufactured goods to various consumers through open market

and co-operative societies. Thus the II Party/Management long back accepted that the factory is an Industrial Concern.

Further, the I Party has been appointed by the II Party on 06.02.1978 as a worker. The II Party also used to utilise his

service for office works going to Treasury and Banks for encashment of bills. On 31.03.1984 the cashier of the Fish

Net Making Plant, Shri. B.M. Balakrishnan sent one Laxmipathi naik, Second Division Clerk of Fish Net Making Plant

to treasury, and service of Laxmipathi naik has been borrowed from Government of Karnataka, Department of

Fisheries for the time being, in accordance with the customary practice, prevailed in T.B. Board and the services of

Government employees of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, have been borrowed.

ii) Further, the cashier of F.N.M.P sent certain bills through Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, by entering them in treasury

encashment register in his own handwriting endorsed in the name of Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik. Further, after some

time, the cashier sent 6 bills for Rs. 688.30/- endorsed in the name of Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik for encashment, through

the I Party, and the I Party has handed over those bills to Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik at treasury and returned back. After

the lapse of time, of about ½ year, the II Party sent a suspension order to the I Party on 13.09.1985. After a long time,

on 07.02.1986, the II Party issued a memorandum of charges, and after the lapse of another 6 months on 30.08.1986,

the II Party appointed an enquiry officer for enquiring the imputation of the misconduct. Further, the II Party

mischievously denied to supply the copy of the Report of the enquiry officer to the I Party. Further, the I Party learnt

that the report of the enquiry officer is negative one and II Party has failed to prove the charges made as against the I

Party. The allegation of the II Party is that the I Party/Workman in conjunction with the Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik,

prepared 2 bills for Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 72,900/- by committing forgery, and managed to encash those bills from State

Bank of Mysore, Hospet and misappropriated the said amounts. To draw a bill of F.N.M.P, there are various methods

such as preparing the bill, verification, getting them passed from T.B. Board Secretary, and also, the counter signature

of various officials are involved. The said facts have been upheld by the enquiry officer.

iii) It is very curious to note from the records that those 2 bills have been passed by sub-treasury, Hospet, without

entering them in the treasury encashment register, which is mandatory provision according to Karnataka Financial

Code. Thus, the curious and mystery of Rs. 92,900/- has been tagged on the I Party and he has been victimized on the

basis of false allegations. But the said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik being the servant of the Karnataka Government filed a

Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka and according to the final order the services of the above Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik has been reinstated, and his back wages have also been paid. In spite of failing to prove the charges

alleged in charge sheet and contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer, the dismissal of the I Party from service is

illegal, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice. The attitude of the Management, in dismissing the

services of the I Party, without sufficient proof of the case, is illegal, unfair and against the principles of the natural

justice. Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to direct, the II Party to reinstate the I Party to his service with all

consequential benefits which would meet the ends of justice.

3.

Brief details mentioned in the Objection Statement are as follows:-

The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party/Workman under Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as the

Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to Tungabhadra Board. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the

case under Industrial Dispute Act. The said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik moved to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka

against the order of suspension. The Hon’ble High Court order is binding on II Party. The facts and circumstances of

Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik’s case are quite different from Sri. R. Venkateswara Rao’s case. The suspension of Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik, has been set aside, due to absence of prior permission from his parent department of Karnataka

Government. In any event the present claim is liable to be dismissed under law, and therefore the II Party prays this

Court to reject the prayer of I Party by awarding the cost of the II Party.

4.

The pertinent points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are:-

(i) Whether the II Party proves that the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is not applicable to II Party and this Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the present case?

(ii) Whether the action of the Management of Fish Net Making Plant, Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam, Bellary District,

in dismissing the Shri. R. Venkateswara Rao, I Party/workman from his service is justified?

(iii) Whether the I Party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement in view of the reinstatement and

payment of Back wages and consequential benefits already granted to the co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik?

5.

Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point No. 1:-

The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that the I Party is a workman under the Fish Net Making Plant, an

industry engaged in the process of manufacturing Fish Nets and Twines and the activities of the Fish Net Making Plant

is to buy raw-materials and out of raw materials, with the labour of workmen employed in the industry, used to prepare

nets for catching fishes and twines and hanks and selling those manufactured goods to various consumers through open

market and co-operative societies. In the Objection Statement also, II Party has admitted that the Fish Net Making Plant

1758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has been setup for the welfare of poor fishermen community as a Socio-Economic Welfare measure to cater to the

needs of poor fishermen for their requirement of the Nylon twines and webbings and to help them in having better

catches and the products of the said plant are distributed to the said fishermen through Government Department Co-

operative Societies. The I Party in his evidence also stated that he has worked with II Party from 1978 to 13.09.1985 as

general worker. In the charge sheet also I Party has been cited as a worker of Fish Net Making Plant, Tungabhadra

Board, by II Party. In the suspension order issued by II Party to I Party, it is clearly stated that the attention of the

Manager has been invited with regard to standing orders governing the factory workers under which the subsistence

allowance payable for the I Party Grade-II Worker. In the memorandum No. FNMP/E-1/1058/E&A/85-86/580 dated

07.02.1986 also the II Party has mentioned the I Party as the worker in the Fish Net Making Plant. In the memorandum

No. 5084/M-2/Audit/85-14 dated 27.08.1986, also the I Party has been cited as 2nd Grade Worker of the Fish Net

Making Plant on behalf of II Party. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that I Party will

come under the definition of workman under sec 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the II Party has not

established that the II Party is not an industry under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and also, this Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

6.

Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point Nos. 2 and 3:-

The workman/I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that, after lapse of 6 months the II Party has issued the

suspension order to the I Party on 13.09.1985 and along with him Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik has also been suspended

and once again after a long time on 07.02.1986, the II Party has issued an memorandum of charges. However, the

Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31.01.1989 has given his findings that the allegations regarding forgery of signature

has to be dealt with only by handwriting experts and it is not possible for others to say anything definite about the

forgery and the allegations of forgery can be stated by the hand writing experts only in a more authenticative manner

and the second charge is also depend upon the encashment of forged bills. Further, as per the F.I.R the complaint has

been lodged on 11.09.1985 in the Crime No. 38/85 as against Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik and Shri. R. Venkateswara Rao

(I Party herein). Further, the I Party has produced the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in

Criminal Revision No. 140/2005 c/w Criminal Revision No. 119/2005, dated 30.05.2008, (Before Mr. Justice R.B.

Naik) in the case of R. Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Karnataka, and also Criminal Revision No. 119/2005 in the case

of H. Laxmipathi naik, R. Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Karnataka,wherein it is clearly held as follows:- “Both the

Criminal Revision Petition are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the offence

punishable under section 467 of IPC is set aside. The petitioners-accused and acquitted of the charges levelled against

them. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners-accused shall stand dissolved. The fine amount if any paid shall be

refunded to them.” Further, in the W.P. No. 61257/2009, dated 19.02.2015, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka

(Before Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna), in the case of R. Venkateswara Rao (I Party herein) Vs Tungabhadra Board and the

Manager of Fish Net Making, it is held as follows:- “The matter is remitted to the CGIT to restore C.R. No. 72/1990

(the present case) on file and consider the same in accordance with law.”

7.

Further, as per the proceedings of Director of Fisheries dated 18.11.2010, the compulsory retirement order

passed against the said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, who has been punished with reference to the proceedings of the

Directors of Fisheries by vide its members adm/(s)/39/2002-03 dated 28.11.2006 has been set aside and the said person

has been restored to the Government service as Assistant Director (Grade-I). Further, as per the order passed by the,

Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Karnataka, Bangalore, the pension claims of the said Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik, has been finalised and also pensionary benefits and other benefits have been given to the said Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik. Further, as per the letter dated 15.09.2008, written by Secretary to Government, Home Department,

Government of Karnataka, to Director of Prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that the Government have decided not to

prefer an appeal as against the said Criminal Revision No. 140/2005 and 119/2005. On that ground only I Party has

categorically stated that the co-accused namely, Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, has been reinstated and also all the benefits

have been granted. However, for the I Party, the II Party has not granted the same relief without any valid reasons.

Further on perusal of F.I.R. it is evident that, Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, has also been cited as co-accused along with the

I Party/Shri. R. Venkateswara Rao, herein. However, only for the said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, the order of

compulsory retirement has been revoked and all the pension benefits and other benefits have been granted to Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik. Further, it is pertinent to point out that as against the Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik and also the I Party,

the same allegations have been made against them by the II Party. Hence, as per the principles of natural justice also, it

is clear that the same orders of reinstatement has to be passed in favour of the I Party, as already done in the case of

co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, by the II Party.

8.

Further, the allegation of the II Party, is that, the I Party along with the said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, during

the year 1984 have committed the forgery and misappropriation of Rs. 92,900/- and based upon the said allegation the

criminal case in CC No. 1164/92 has been filed. In the said case only the I Party herein along with Shri. H. Laxmipathi

naik have been acquitted as per the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Case.

Further, the Government of Karnataka, also decided not to file any further proceedings as against the said criminal

revision orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Further, the Manager in Ex M-1, dated 07.02.1986 has stated

that, it appears that I Party has colluded with the said Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik in preparation of the forged bills with

a view to misappropriate the amount. However, in the said case only, both have been acquitted and only

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1759

Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik has been reinstated with back wages and all other benefits, and I Party/ Venkateswara Rao,

herein has not been granted the legal benefits though both have been acquitted for the allegation made against both of

them. Further, in the explanation dated 05.03.1986, itself the I Party has denied the Memorandum of Charges and also

said that on account of non furnishing of the Photostat copies of the said bills he could only say that he has never

forged the said bills and he has never encashed them. Further, the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31.01.1989, has

taken into consideration the evidence of management witnesses and also ultimately held that forgery has to be dealt

with by handwriting experts and it is not possible for others to say anything definite about the forgery alleged to have

been committed. Further, on careful consideration of materials on record it is apparent that, the II Party has given

reinstatement, back wages and other benefits to co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik and I Party has not been granted

any benefits and thus, there is victimization, unfair labour practice and malafides in the action taken by the II Party, for

the above mentioned reasons. Further, the MW-1, has admitted that, he is not having personal knowledge about the

incidents in dispute, and he does not know as to whether the bills in question contained counter signatures of the

Secretary, T.B.Board, and he has not seen the bills in question and after one and half year only the fraudulent act has

been detected. Further, the MW-2, has also admitted that, he has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the

enquiry as against the I Party, and he has not stated anything about the proving of the charges.

9.

Further, it is established that the, I Party has submitted credible and weighty materials on record to establish

that the I Party is entitled to get reinstatement/all monetary benefits, continuity of service, back wages, as already

granted to co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik, by the II Party. Further, the II Party has not established anything

worthwhile to dispute the claim of the I Party, based upon the material records filed herein. Further, it is pointed out in

the written submission filed on behalf of II Party that the standard of proof required in the Criminal Case is much

higher than the standard of proof required in Departmental Enquiry. In the present case also, in the above mentioned,

criminal revision both I Party and Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik have been acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka. Therefore, the submission of the I Party, that he is not guilt of the allegation is further strengthened by the

Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above mentioned Criminal Revision case judgment.

Further, it is pointed in the Written submissions filed on behalf of II Party dated 23.12.2002, that the Disciplinary

Authority may differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also, may pass an order based on the evidence on

record and accordingly, the I Party has been convicted for forgery and misappropriation, while in service. However, it

is found that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the said Criminal Revision case acquitted both I Party and Shri. H.

Laxmipathi naik. Further, the I Party has pointed out in the claim statement that I Party has made to suffer mental

agony, economic hardships and he has suffered a lot during all these years and therefore he is eligible for full back

wages from II Party.

10.

Further, in the evidence also, I Party has stated, all of a sudden he has been dismissed from service by II Party,

and he has not worked anywhere. In the written submission of II Party dated 23.12.2002 it has been stated that, I

Party has been employed elsewhere all these years. However, the said statement has not been established in an

acceptable manner by the II Party. Further, in the written arguments dated 14.09.2009, I Party has pointed out that, I

Party is a married man having children’s and he has faced 15 years of unemployment and he is not having any age

factor, to find employment, elsewhere. Further, it is evident that, there is illegality and irregularity in the action taken

by the II Party as against the I Party, though the co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik has been reinstated with full

back wages. Further, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy, (1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first

clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He began his discussion on this part of the case by

stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a transfer of

property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so strong in bargaining power and the other

so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak to the

wall.” Further, in the Judgment reported in ILR 1998 KAR 18 BEFORE Mr. Justice R.P. SETHI AND Mr. Justice

S.R. BANNURMATH, J in the case of The Management of the Mysore Coffee Processing co- operative Society Ltd

Vs Presiding Officer, it is particularly held that, “Where the Management discharges a workman by an Order which is

void for want of an Enquiry, the "Doctrine of Relation” back cannot be invoked and in that event the workman would

be entitled to the grant of Full back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of award of the

Labour Court.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the I Party has established that he is entitled to get full back

wages, from the II Party. For the above mentioned various reasons and grounds, it is held that the I Party is entitled to

get relief, as prayed in the claim statement.

11.

Further, it is also clear that, the allegations made as against I Party has not been established by the II Party as

per the principles of preponderance of probability and it is also apparent that the, I Party has not been terminated by the

II Party, by following the due process of law. Further, it is established that, there is discrimination and violation of

right, caused to the I Party by II Party by not providing employment to I Party and at the same time providing

employment, back wages and other benefits to co-accused Shri. H. Laxmipathi naik. Further, it is found that, the

allegations have not been proved by the II Party, after following the due procedure as laid down by law and also by

following the principles of natural justice. Thus, the points are answered, in favour of the I Party.

1760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the service of I party/R.

Venkateswara Rao, and II Party, is directed to reinstate/ to grant all monetary benefits to the I Party with continuity of

service, and other consequential benefits that he would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment of

dismissal from service, with full back wages, and the present reference is answered in favour of the I Party, without

cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 12th June, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

List of Witness on the side of I Party:(V)

WW 1

Sh. Venkateswara Rao, I Party/ workman

List of Witness on the side of II Party:(V)

MW 1

Sh. Vijay Chandapur, Engineer

MW 2

Sh. K. Lakshminarayana Rao

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:(V)

Exhibits

Date

Description of Document

Ex W-1

26.05.1989

Charges

Ex W-2

05.03.1986

Explanation to Confidential Memorandum

of Charges

Ex W-3

06.10.1986

Notice to appear before the Enquiry

Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party: (V)

Exhibits

Date

Description of Document

Ex M-1

01.10.1985

Suspension Order issued to I Party

Ex M-2

18.04.1987

Statement of Balakrishnan before Enquiry

Officer

Ex M-3

04.05.1987

Statement of Singit before Enquiry Officer

Ex M-4

17.06.1987

Statement of Badri before Enquiry Officer

Ex M-5

19.08.1987

Statement of Dixit before Enquiry Officer

Ex M-6

15.12.1987

Statement of Vijayalakshmi before Enquiry

Officer

Ex M-7

15.12.1987

Statement of Somasekara before Enquiry

Officer

Ex M-8

17.12.1987

Statement of Nagaraj before Enquiry Officer

Ex M-9

10.05.1988

Examination of Delinquent by Enquiry Officer

Ex M-10

05.07.1988

Examination by Delinquent

Ex M-11

12.07.1988

Cross Examination by Delinquent

Ex M-12

04.11.1988

Examination by Delinquent

Ex M-13

07.02.1986

Memorandum

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1761

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 389

389

389

389.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

िवK व

िवK व

िवK व

िवK विवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय, माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर, मिणपाल और

िणपाल और

िणपाल और

िणपाल और उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म(

िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या 43

43

43

43/20

/20

/20

/2011

11

11

11) को

0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 13.12.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/22/2011-आई.आर. (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 43/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Manipal University, Madhava Nagar, Manipal and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 13.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/22/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

14th NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V.S. RAVI;

Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 43/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. Y Panduranga Shettigar,

S/o. Veerappa Shettigar

R/at Yekkar, Near Perumude Church,

Perumude, Bajpe,

Mangalore – 574509

Manipal University,

Madhava Nagar,

Manipal – 576104.

Represented by its Registrar

Advocate for I Party :

Advocate for II Party :

Mr. K.B. Arasa Ms. Latha C.S. Holla

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012/22/2011-IR(DU) dated 13.10.2011 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Y. Panduranga Shettigar, ex-employee of Manipal University, is justified in

demanding payment of retrenchment compensation as provided under section 25F or 25N upon

his compulsory retirement from service by the management of Manipal University, Manipal?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

The I Party has prayed in the claim statement as follows:-

After notice to the II Party the Tribunal may be pleased to direct the II Party to compute and pay to the I Party such

terminal benefits including leave benefit and retrenchment compensation as also salary for the period the I Party has

been under suspension prior to the termination of his services, as this Tribunal may deem fit and just.

1762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

However, a Joint memo filed by both the parties, dated 12-09-2017. It is clearly stated that both the parties

have amicably settled the above dispute and made a Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) and section 2(p)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the settlement between the parties, the I party herein does not press for

any and further reliefs in the above case. Therefore, it is prayed that, the Court may be pleased to conclude the

proceedings and dispose of the case as settled between the parties out of the Court. The said joint memo is filed and

signed by counsel and parties of both sides and the settlement is in order. Hence, the same is recorded and the joint

memo filed by the parties dated 12-09-2017 is to be treated as part and parcel of the award for better and proper

understanding of the settlement arrived at, in between the parties. Consequently the present central reference is

disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

Hence, the award is passed accordingly, for the above mentioned reasons.

AWARD

The present central reference is disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the

joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 14th November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 390.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

िवK व

िवK व

िवK व

िवK विवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय, माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर, मिण

मिण

मिण

मिणपाल और उनके कम0चारी

पाल और उनके कम0चारी

पाल और उनके कम0चारी

पाल और उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म(

िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या 17

17

17

17/20

/20

/20

/2011

11

11

11) को

0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 13.12.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/259/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 17/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Manipal University, Madhava Nagar, Manipal and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 13.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/259/2010-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

DATED

:

14th NOVEMBER, 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V.S. RAVI;

Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 17/2011

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Manipal University Mazdoor Union (R),

C/o B.M.S. Office, Felix Pai Bazaar,

Mangalore – 575001.

The Registrar,

Manipal University,

Madhav Nagar,

Manipal – 576104.

Advocate for I Party :

Advocate for II Party :

Mr. K.B. Arasa

Mr. K.S. Bhat

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1763

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012/259/2010-IR(DU) dated 11.05.2011 in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute

act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Manipal University, in dismissing Shri H.K.

Narasimha who was engaged in House Keeping work, from services w.e.f 09.02.2009 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

The I Party has prayed in the claim statement as follows:-

To set aside the dismissal order issued to Mr. Narasimha H.K. w.e.f 09.02.2009 and thereafter to reinstate him in his

original post with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits in the interest of Justice,

Equity and Fair-play.

3.

However, a Joint memo filed by both the parties, dated 12-09-2017. It is clearly stated that both the parties

have amicably settled the above dispute and made a Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) and section 2(p)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the settlement between the parties, the I party herein does not press for

any and further reliefs in the above case. Therefore, it is prayed that, the Court may be pleased to conclude the

proceedings and dispose of the case as settled between the parties out of the Court. The said joint memo is filed and

signed by counsel and parties of both sides and the settlement is in order. Hence, the same is recorded and the joint

memo filed by the parties dated 12-09-2017 is to be treated as part and parcel of the award for better and proper

understanding of the settlement arrived at, in between the parties. Consequently the present central reference is

disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

Hence, the award is passed accordingly, for the above mentioned reasons.

AWARD

The present central reference is disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the

joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 14th November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 391

391

391

391.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

मिणपाल

िवK व

िवK व

िवK व

िवK विवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय

िवGलय, माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर

माधव नगर, मिणपाल और उनके कम0

िणपाल और उनके कम0

िणपाल और उनके कम0

िणपाल और उनके कम0चारी

चारी

चारी

चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म(

िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या 07

07

07

07/20

/20

/20

/2010

10

10

10) को

0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 13.12.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/107/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 391.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 07/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Manipal University, Madhava Nagar, Manipal and their workman which was received by the Central

Government on 13.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/107/2009-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

14th NOVEMBER, 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V.S. RAVI; Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 07/2010

I Party

II Party

Sh. Ravindera Nayak,

S/o Shri Sundar Nayak,

‘Anugraha’, Moodu Sagri,

Kunjibettu, Udupi,

Dakshina Kannada Dist.

The Registrar,

Manipal University,

Madhav Nagar,

Manipal – 576104.

Represented by its Registrar

Advocate for I Party : Advocate for II Party :

Mr. K. B. Arasa : Ms. Latha C.S. Holla

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/107/2009-IR(DU) dated 28.01.2010 in exercise of the

powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute

act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Welcom Group Graduate School of Hotel Administration in

termination the services of their workman Shri Ravindera Nayak w.e.f 23.06.2006 is legal and justified?

If not, What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

The I Party has prayed in the claim statement as follows:-

a) That an Award may be passed holding the dismissal unlawful and unjustifiable.

b) That the II Party Employers may be directed to re-employ the I Party workman in the place in which he had been in

employment before dismissal and pay the wages due to him from the date of suspension to the date of re-employment

with all consequential benefits available under the rules and

c) pay the cost of conducting this case to the I Party.

3.

However, a Joint memo filed by both the parties, dated 12-09-2017. It is clearly stated that both the parties

have amicably settled the above dispute and made a Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(1) and section 2(p)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the settlement between the parties, the I party herein does not press for

any and further reliefs in the above case. Therefore, it is prayed that, the Court may be pleased to conclude the

proceedings and dispose of the case as settled between the parties out of the Court. The said joint memo is filed and

signed by counsel and parties of both sides and the settlement is in order. Hence, the same is recorded and the joint

memo filed by the parties dated 12-09-2017 is to be treated as part and parcel of the award for better and proper

understanding of the settlement arrived at, in between the parties. Consequently the present central reference is

disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

Hence, the award is passed accordingly, for the above mentioned reasons.

AWARD

The present central reference is disposed, as settled in between the parties, out of, court as per the request made in the

joint memo dated 12-09-2017.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 14th November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1765

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 392

392

392

392.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, :हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु तान एयरोनॉट/ स

न एयरोनॉट/ स

न एयरोनॉट/ स

न एयरोनॉट/ स िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर एवं

एवं

एवं

एवं उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी

उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के

बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

27

27

27

27/20

/20

/20

/2016

16

16

16) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 26/10/2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/61/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

राजेन् - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 392 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 27/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore and their workman which was received by the

Central Government on 26.10.2017.

[No. L-42012/61/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

13th OCTOBER, 2017

PRESENT

:

Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 27/2016

I Party

II Party

Sh. Karumbaiah N.S. & 63 Others,

6351 Department, Helicopter

Division, HAL,

Bangalore - 560017

The General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Helicopter Division,

Bangalore – 560017

Advocates for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

Mr. V. S. Naik & Ms. V. Malathi Mr. S. V. Shastri & Mr. Ravindranatha .K

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012/61/2016-IR(DU) dated 04.07.2016 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Shri Karumbaiah & 63 Others for granting the Special Process Allowance of

Rs. 25-00 per day to them is legal and justified? If so, what relief are they entitled to?”

2. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) Answer the point of dispute in favour of the I Party holding that, the I Party workmen are entitled for Special

Process Allowance of Rs. 25/- per day (Rupees twenty five per day) w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and with further directions to the

II Party Management to pay the arrears of Special Pay Allowance and to continue to pay the same every month and

pass such other order or orders as deemed necessary in the interest of justice and fair play.

3.

However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- “As

we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to

1766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh

adjudication on merits.”

4.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with

regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- “Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?”

5.

POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to answer the point of dispute in favour of the I Party holding

that, the I Party workmen are entitled for Special Process Allowance of Rs. 25/- per day (Rupees twenty five per day)

w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and with further directions to the II Party Management to pay the arrears of Special Pay Allowance

and to continue to pay the same every month and pass such other order or orders as deemed necessary in the interest of

justice and fair play.

6.

Further, in the Written Arguments filed on behalf of I Party, it has been pointed out that, on the issue relating to

maintainability of the dispute, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated

26.02.2016 in C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to

examine and submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining

to HAL the appropriate Government is the State Government.

7.

Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, suitable, tenable and proper objection

regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other

issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also

liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial

Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best

interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above

mentioned judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016,

in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of

jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and

appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting

the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court

has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has

been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned

facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 13th October, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 393

393

393

393.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, बंध

बंध

बंध

बंध

िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक, :हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु तान एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार

के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJबJबJबJगलोर

गलोर

गलोर

गलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0

(संदभ0

(संदभ0

(संदभ0

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या–09

09

09

09/20

/20

/20

/2013

13

13

13) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 25/10/2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/02/2010-आईआर (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 09/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore & others and their workman which was received

by the Central Government on 25/10/2017.

[No. L-42011/02/2010-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1767

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

13th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 09/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. M.N. Krishnan & 16 others,

Mechanic (E), Jaguar Final Assembly,

HAL (BC),

Aircraft Division,

Bangalore – 560017.

1. The Managing Director, HAL, HAL

Complex, Bangalore – 560017.

2. The General Manager, HAL, Overhaul

Division, HAL (BC), Bangalore – 560017.

3. The General Manager, HAL, Aircraft

Division, HAL(BC), Bangalore- 560017.

Advocates for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

Mr. V. S. Naik & Mr. Raghavendra Mr. T. Rajaram & Associates

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-42011/02/2010-IR(DU) dated 28.03.2013 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Aircraft Division, HAL(BC), Bangalore, in denying promotion

and other service benefits to Shri. M.N. Krishnan & 16 Others(list enclosed), is legal and justified? What

relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) Answer the points of dispute in favour of the workmen by holding that the Management of HAL is not justified in

denying promotion and other service benefits to the I Party workmen and with further directions to direct the II Party to

extend the benefit of promotion and all other service benefits including consequential pay fixation and arrears of salary

and pass such other order or orders as deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.

3.

However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- “As

we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to

the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh

adjudication on merits.”

4.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with

regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- “Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?”

5.

POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to answer the points of dispute in favour of the workmen by

holding that the Management of HAL is not justified in denying promotion and other service benefits to the I Party

workmen and with further directions to direct the II Party to extend the benefit of promotion and all other service

benefits including consequential pay fixation and arrears of salary and pass such other order or orders as deemed

necessary to meet the ends of justice.

6.

Further, in the Written Arguments filed on behalf of I Party, it has been pointed out that, on the issue relating to

maintainability of the dispute, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated

26.02.2016 in C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to

examine and submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining

to HAL the appropriate Government is the State Government.

1768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, tenable suitable and proper objection,

regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other

issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also

liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial

Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best

interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above

mentioned judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016,

in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of

jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and

appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting

the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court

has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has

been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned

facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 13th October, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 394

394

394

394.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, अM य

अM य

अM य

अM य,,

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु तान एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच

अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–

01/20

/20

/20

/2015) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/26/2014-आईआर (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 394.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 01/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore & others and their workman which was received by the

Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-14011/26/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

31st OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V S RAVI, Presiding Officer

C R No. 01/2015

I Party

II Party

The President,

HAL Permanent Casual Employees

Association,

HAL Vimanapura,

Bangalore – 560017.

1. The Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore - 560001

2. The Deputy General Manager (HR), Hindustan

Aeronautics Limited, ARDC Design Complex,

Vimanapura, Bangalore - 560037

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1769

Advocate for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

Mr. G.V.P. Reddy Mr. N.S. Narasimha Swamy &

Mr. Thulasiram Singh B.K.

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14011/26/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.01.2015 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the dispute raised by the workman Shri. M. Rajaiah in changing the date of birth in the service

records from 03.02.1953 to 03.02.1958 at the end of his service is valid? If not, to what relief the workmen

is entitled to?”

2. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) Direct the II Party to correct the date of birth of the claimant workman as 03.02.1958, in the service records of the II

Party and consequently,

b) Direct the II Party to reinstate the workman/claimant to the service of the II Party.

c) Direct the II Party to pay the back wages from the date of superannuation till the date of reinstatement.

d) Direct the II Party to pay the compensation in the interest of justice and equity.

3.

However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- “As

we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to

the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh

adjudication on merits.”

4.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with

regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- “Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?”

5.

POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to answer the points of dispute in favour of the workmen by

correcting the date of birth of the claimant workman as 03.02.1958, in the service records of the II Party and

consequently, to direct the II Party to reinstate with back wages and pass such other order or orders as deemed

necessary to meet the ends of justice.

6.

Further, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 26.02.2016 in

C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to examine and

submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining to HAL the

appropriate government is the State Government.

7.

Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, tenable suitable and proper objection,

regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other

issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also

liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial

Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best

interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above

mentioned judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016,

in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of

jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and

appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting

the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court

has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has

been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned

facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 31st October, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 395

395

395

395.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, (एचआरडी)

(एचआरडी)

(एचआरडी)

(एचआरडी), भारत अथ0 मूवस0

भारत अथ0 मूवस0

भारत अथ0 मूवस0

भारत अथ0 मूवस0 िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–13

13

13

13/20

/20

/20

/2014) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था

था

था

था । । । ।

[सं. एल-14011/04/2014-आईआर (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 13/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Bangalore & others and their workman which was

received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-14011/04/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

01st NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V S RAVI

Presiding Officer

C R No. 13/2014

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

BEML Contract Workers Union,

Bangalore Complex,

New Thippasandra Post,

Bangalore – 560075.

1. The General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.,

Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075.

2. The Management of M/s Bejee Contractors, C/o the BEML,

Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

3. The Management M/s. Creative Contractors, C/o the BEML,

Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

4. The Management M/s. Amps Contracts, C/o the BEML,

Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

Advocates for I Party:

Mr. Cliftion D’ Rozario &

Mr. Raghupathi.S

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No. L-14011/04/2014-IR(DU) dated 20.03.2014 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the charter of demands raised by the union and denial by the management is valid? If not,

what relief can be given to the aggrieved workmen?”

2. Perused the materials on record. It is clearly stated in the letter dated 30.10.2017 signed by S.Govinda Raju,

General Secretary as follows:- “Sub: Compliance Report of the terms and conditions of MOU dated 30.08.2017. In

view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, copy of which is annexured herewith, we confirm that, the terms

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1771

and conditions in this agreement are fully implemented. Hence, we are filing this Report of implementation stating

that, the dispute is settled and we confirm that all the points of disputes raised in the claim statement are satisfied.”

Further, the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between M/s. AMPS Facilities Management Services Pvt Ltd and

Contract Labour (TCL Workers) Represented by BEML WCL Public Sector Workers Union, Bangalore Complex

dated 30.08.2017 is enclosed as Annexure-A. Further, in the Memo of withdrawal dated 13.10.2017, it is stated as

follows:- “The I Party herein has raised the above industrial dispute making various claims against the II Party. The I

Party and II Party No. 2 to 4 had discussion and has arrived at a settlement before the conciliation officer and in the

presence of II Party No.1 under section 12(3) r/w section 18(3) of the industrial act 1947. A copy of the said settlement

is produced herewith and marked as Annexure –A. Therefore, the I Party, most respectfully prays that, this Court may

be pleased to record the settlement and to dismiss the dispute as not pressed in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.

Today, S.Govinda Raju, General Secretary with Mob. 9620159192 present and also Ms. Divya, Senior

Manager legal for II Party present and also confirmed the above mentioned details. On perusal of records it is seen

that, the dispute is settled and the CR has to be dismissed as not pressed as per the memo of withdrawal dated

13.10.2017 filed on behalf of I Party.

AWARD

The Memo of Withdrawal dated 13.10.2017 and Compliance Report dated 30.10.2017 and Memorandum of

Settlement dated 30.08.2017 are to be treated as the part of the present award for better and proper

understanding of the settlement and the dispute is dismissed as not pressed, as per the request made in the

memo of withdrawal dated 13.10.2017.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 01st November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 396

396

396

396.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

उप

उप

उप

उप-महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, :हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु तान एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स

न एयरोनाट/ स िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य

बJगलोर और अ# य एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी

एवं उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट

(संदभ0

(संदभ0

(संदभ0

(संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या–11

11

11

11/20

/20

/20

/2014) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 03.10.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/02/2014-आई.आर. (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 396.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 11/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore & others and their workman which was

received by the Central Government on 03.10.2017.

[No. L-14011/02/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

21st SEPTEMBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V S RAVI

Presiding Officer

C R No. 11/2014

1772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Hindustan Aeronautics

Employees Association,

Vimanapura Post,

Bangalore - 560017

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Engine Division, Bangalore Complex,

PB No. 9310,

Bangalore – 560093

2. The Union of India,

Represented by Ministry of Defence,

South Block, New Delhi.

Advocates for I Party: Mr. Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate for II Party Sl. No. 1,

Mr. B.D. Kuttappa & Mr. Harish Kumar Mr. S.V. Shastri

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14011/02/2014-IR(DU) dated 27.01.2015 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of HAL Bangalore is justified in not implementing the

second order of the appellate authority vide order No. E/HR/App/617/10955/2010, dated 31.08.2010

by which the management of HAL has modified the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with

cumulative effect to stoppage of 2 annual increments without cumulative effects? If not, to what relief

the said 4 workmen are entitled to?”

2. The I Party submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party workmen prays this Court to answer the points of reference in favour of the I Party and direct the II Party

management to implement the reviewing order of the Appellate Authority retrospectively and grant the I Party

workmen all the consequential monetary benefits flowing there from and pass such other order or orders as deem fit by

this Court including the costs of these proceedings, to meet the ends of justice.

3.

However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- “As

we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to

the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh

adjudication on merits.”

4.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with

regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- “Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?”

5.

POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to answer the points of reference in favour of the I Party and

direct the II Party management to implement the reviewing order of the Appellate Authority retrospectively and grant

the I Party workmen all the consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom and pass such other order or orders as

deem fit by this Court including the costs of these proceedings, to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is crystal clear

that as per the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the

present matter.

6.

Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not disputed the said details, in an appropriate, suitable and proper

manner. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both the sides, as this

Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the

dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of

receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this

point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1773

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above

mentioned judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016,

in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of

jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and

appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting

the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court

has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has

been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned

facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 21st September, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 22 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 397

397

397

397.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, सहायक

सहायक

सहायक

सहायक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, :हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु ता

:हंदु तान एयरो

न एयरो

न एयरो

न एयरोनॉ

नॉ

नॉ

नॉट/ स

ट/ स

ट/ स

ट/ स िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड, बJगलोर और उनके कम0चारी

बJगलोर और उनके कम0चारी

बJगलोर और उनके कम0चारी

बJगलोर और उनके कम0चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच

अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर

बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–

28

28

28

28/20

/20

/20

/2014) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 17.10.2017 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/16/2014-आई.आर. (डी.यू.)]

राजे, - जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2018

S.O. 397.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CR No. 28/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Assistant General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore and their workman which was received

by the Central Government on 17.10.2017.

[No. L-14012/16/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED

:

06th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT :

Shri V S RAVI

Presiding Officer

C R No. 28/2014

I Party

II Party

Sh. S. Ganpathi,

S/o late Subbaiah, GBJ,

141, 6th Cross,

Marathahalli,

Bangalore - 560037

The Assistant General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Bangalore Complex, Aircraft

Division, P B No. 1788,

Bangalore – 560017

Advocates for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

Mr. S.B Mukkannappa & Associates Mr. T. Rajaram & Associates

1774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14012/16/2014-IR(DU) dated 18.07.2014 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the order of dismissal of Sh. S. Ganapathi on the charges of Misappropriation of Rs. 3.45

Lakhs by the Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Aircraft Division Management is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) set aside the order of dismissal bearing No. A/AGEM(F)/200/3364/2009; Dated 29.09.2008 passed by the II Party

and consequently reinstate him into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including full

back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement under the facts and circumstances of the case.

b) To issue any appropriate writ, order or orders as this Hon’ble Court that deems fit to accord under the facts and

circumstances of this case.

3.

However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- “As

we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the ‘appropriate Government’ in relation to

the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh

adjudication on merits.”

4.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with

regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- “Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?”

5.

POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to set aside the order of dismissal and to issue a direction to

the II Party to reinstate the I Party back into his post, with continuity of service, all other consequential benefits and full

back wages from the date of dismissal till his actual reinstatement and to pass any other appropriate orders, or

directions as this Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of this case.

6.

Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not disputed the said details, in an appropriate, suitable and proper

manner. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both the sides, as this

Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the

dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of

receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this

point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the

above mentioned judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated

26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter

suffers for want of jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before

the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt

of the present Award, by adopting the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity,

good conscience and fair play and this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues

raised by both the parties, as the present matter has been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction

point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 06th October, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 26 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 398

398

398

398.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार, भारतीय

भारतीय

भारतीय

भारतीय

टे

टे

टे

टेट बJक

ट बJक

ट बJक

ट बJक के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरका

य सरका

य सरका

य सरकार औGोिगक

र औGोिगक

र औGोिगक

र औGोिगक

अिधकरण

अिधकरण

अिधकरण

अिधकरण, जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–24

24

24

24/20

/20

/20

/2009

09

09

09) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 26/02/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/161/2008-आई.आर. (बी–1)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1775

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2018

S.O. 398.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman received by the Central Government on 26/02/2018.

[No. L-12012/161/2008-IR (B-1)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 24/2009

Reference No. L- 12012/161/2008-IR (B-I) Dated: 28.8.2009

Sri Shyamlal Agarwal

C/o Rajasthan State Bank employees

welfare Forum, Chaturvedi Bhawan, Indira Colony,

Behind Atta Temple,

Alwar – 301001.

V/S

The Asstt. General manager

State Bank of India

Nehru Place Tonk Road,

Jaipur.

AWARD

22.12.2017

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 State Bank of India through Asstt. General Manager, Jaipur in

dismissing the services of Sri Shyamlal Agarwal, Assistant vide Order dated 11.4.2007 is fair and justified? If

not what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date?”

2.

According to statement of claim briefly fact of the case is that applicant Shyamlal was appointed as an Assistant

w.e.f. 21.3.94 & was confirmed w.e.f. 21.9.94. In the year 2003 while posted at Ratangarh branch of State Bank of

India applicant is alleged to have committed certain irregularities/ omissions relating to misappropriation of money

related to customers of the bank.

3.

On account of above allegations of irregularities he was suspended w.e.f. 27.1.2004 but later he was reinstated in

the service suo-moto by opposite party & posted at S.B.I., Rawla Mandi branch w.e.f. 31.12.2004. During conciliation

proceeding the management has stated in reply that Sh. Shyam Lal Agrawal was suspended w.e.f. 27.1.2004 &

reinstated as per bank norms & posted at S.B.I., Rawala Mandi w.e.f. 31.12.2004.

4.

The detail of legal & settled norms of the disciplinary action for S.B.I. employees are in para 521 of Sastry

Award which has been further upheld by subsequent Bi-partite Settlements. In para 521 (10) (b) it has been laid down

that pending enquiry delinquent may be suspended but on conclusion of enquiry if it is decided to take no action against

the delinquent he shall be deemed to have been on duty & shall be entitled to the full wages & allowances.

5.

It has been further alleged in para 7 of statement of claim that bank has no power of reinstatement of an employee

who has been suspended from service for the allegations of gross misconduct until and unless on the basis of

departmental enquiry it is decided to take no action against the delinquent.

1776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.

It has been further alleged in para 8 of statement of claim that an FIR was lodged against the applicant Sh. Shyam

Lal Agrawal on 21.12.2004 at P.S. Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.) by complainant Parmeshwarlal Singhania wherein

final report was submitted by S.H.O., P.S., Ratangarh.

7.

Further, it has been alleged that the management of the bank issued a charge sheet to the applicant Sh. Shyam Lal

Agrawal vide letter No. ZOJ/R-IV/Staff/P&C/227 dated 31.12.2005 & an enquiry proceeding was held on the basis of

above mentioned charge sheet. On the basis of enquiry on charge sheet applicant was dismissed from service w.e.f.

11.4.2007 vide Memo. No. R/IV/Staff/P&C/28 dated 11.4.2007 & appeal of the applicant against the order of dismissal

by disciplinary authority was dismissed by appellate authority i.e. DGM, SBI, Z.O., Jaipur vide order dated 7.12.2007

which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 23.5.2007.

8.

It has been submitted in para 13 of statement of claim that management of the bank violated the rules of natural

justice & departmental rules as laid down in Bi-Partite Settlement. The decision of the disciplinary authority is not

based on fact & is unfair, unjust, illegal & arbitrary. During course of enquiry complainant did not corroborate the

contents of their complaint before the enquiry officer & the Presenting Officer. The Presenting Officer has failed to get

the documents testified which have been filed by him before the enquiry officer hence, the documents could not be

relied upon by the disciplinary authority for awarding the punishment.

9.

Further in para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that the disciplinary authority has not considered

charge wise replies submitted during personal hearing & he has failed to apply his mind fairly & judiciously hence,

decision of the disciplinary authority on the basis of unproved charges is arbitrary & unjustified & has been reached

without application of mind. It has also been alleged that there has been gross violation of principle of natural justice &

relevant service rules hence, it has been prayed that dismissal order dated 11.4.2007 & appellate order dated 7.12.2007

may kindly be quashed & workman be reinstated in the service of the bank w.e.f. 11.4.2007 along with all

consequential benefits.

10.

Reply against the statement of claim by opposite party has been divided into two distinct parts wherein first part

contains preliminary submissions & brief facts of the case & second part contains para wise reply to statement of claim.

11.

In para wise reply to statement of claim it has been alleged that statement in para 1 needs no reply & statement in

para 2 is not disputed. About para 3 of statement of claim it has been alleged that para no.3 has not been mentioned in

statement of claim.

12.

Statements in para 4 & 5 have not been admitted & statements in para 6,7,13 & 14 have been alleged to be wrong

& denied. It has been alleged that statements in para 9,10,11 & 12 are not disputed.

13.

Para 8 of the statement of claim has been admitted to the extent that First Information Report was lodged by Sh.

Parmeshwar Lal Singhania against the applicant on 21.12.2004 & rest of the content have been denied. Further it has

been alleged that applicant had built up pressure upon the complainant Sh. Parmeshwar Lal Singhania & pressed him

hard to take back the report lodged against the applicant. The applicant had committed offence of misappropriation of

money of the bank’s customer hence, his services were terminated w.e.f. 11.4.2007. Further, it has been alleged in para

8 of the reply as under :-

“ ……. It is worthwhile to mention here that repository of Public Trust and Money can not carry on its business

with person of doubtful integrity and bonafides. In accordance with gravity of misconduct committed by Shri Shyam

Lal Agarwal, serious action was to be taken so as to provide a suitable deterrent to others, hence his services were

terminated. It is worth mentioning here that trust is the corner stone of Banking business and this view has been upheld

by the Apex Court of the Country in various judgments. The doubtful integrity of a person like Shri Shyam Lal

Agarwal can not be ignored and the applicant Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal is not entitled for any sympathy from this

Hon’ble Tribunal.”

14.

Further, It has been alleged that the correct facts are that applicant while performing his duty at Ratangarh

branch of the bank on the post of Assistant misappropriated the account holders/bank customer’s money by adopting

various illegal ways & malafide acts & consequently he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 &

after revocation of suspension he was posted at SBI, Rawala Mandi branch on 3.1.2005. It has been further alleged that

it is wrong to say that the legal & settled norms of disciplinary action for SBI employees are dully detailed in para 521

of Sastry Award which has been further upheld by Bi-partite Settlement. The respondent bank has taken action against

the applicant as per terms & conditions of service applicable to the applicant who misappropriated the funds of the

bank accounts holders i.e. Smt. Tasneem Shaukat, Shri Raj Kumar Gadgil, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma & Shri

Parmeshwar Lal etc. who made their respective complaints before the Branch Manager as & when the misappropriation

of the funds came to their notice.

15.

Against para 6 of statement of claim it has been alleged that in case of misappropriation of customer’s funds by

an employee the bank can suspend the employee & as per bank’s norm during suspension period i.e. upto one year

from the date of suspension the employee is entitled to half pay only. In the present case enquiry was pending against

the applicant & he remained suspended w.e.f. 27.1.2004 to 31.12.2004. Further it has been alleged that suspension is an

executive action which in effect results in debarring temporarily an employee from active service. It keeps the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1777

employee out of duty & away from work situation during pendency of departmental or criminal proceeding against him

for allegations usually of serious nature. The applicant is not entitled to full wages & allowances as stated by him in

para 6 of statement of claim & this is not even the issue in the terms of reference.

16.

It has been further alleged against para 7 of statement of claim that the word “reinstate” was used by the bank in

good faith & in fact suspension of the applicant Sh. Shyam Lal Agrawal was revoked by the bank & the bank has

power to do so looking into the fact & circumstances of the case. The applicant had misappropriated the money of

account holders by adopting illegal acts hence, he was suspended during pendency of enquiry. First Information Report

was also lodged by an aggrieved person on 21.12.2004 at P.S.Ratangarh, Distt: Churu whose money was also

misappropriated by the applicant & investigation was pending at that time which prime facie shows that applicant was

alleged to have committed offence of misappropriation of money.

17.

Further, against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that bank management has followed the

principle of natural justice & also the rules laid down for conduct of disciplinary proceeding as envisaged in Bipartite

Settlements. Services of the applicant was terminated by the bank on 11.4.2007 which was dully confirmed by the

appellate authority by its order dated 7.12.2007 & decision of the appellate authority was communicated to the

applicant. The presenting officer of the bank has dully testified the documents filed by the applicant. The applicant has

a malafide intention in stating in para 13 of statement of claim that documents could not be relied upon by disciplinary

authority while awarding punishment.

18.

Against para 14 it has been alleged that the disciplinary authority has thoroughly considered charge wise reply

submitted by applicant & has given thoughtful consideration by taking into account the pleas of defence representative

& deposition of witnesses during enquiry . Further, it has been alleged that opportunity of personal hearing was also

given to applicant Sh. Shyam Lal Agrawal. Charges against the applicant were proved & the enquiry was fair &

judicious & the disciplinary authority has applied his mind fairly & judiciously. Applicant had misappropriated the

customer’s funds. The disciplinary authority on perusal of record & findings of the departmental enquiry decided to

dismiss the applicant without notice. The charges levelled against the applicant were proved beyond reasonable doubt

hence, he was punished with dismissal from service without notice. There is no violation of principle of natural justice

& service conditions governing the employee in dismissing the services of the applicant from the bank. The

disciplinary proceedings were completed as per prescribed rules & procedure by bank & in spite of this the opposite

party reserves the right to prove the charges before the Hon’ble tribunal if tribunal feels that prescribed rules have not

been followed during enquiry proceedings. It has been requested that statement of claim of the applicant be dismissed

with heavy cost.

19.

In preliminary submissions two points have been presented by the opposite party. The first submission is that

dispute is not maintainable & the second submission is that there is no violation of principle of natural justice.

According to first submission it has been alleged that reference made for adjudication is not an industrial dispute within

the meaning of section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per settled judgements of Courts. It has been submitted,

“ ……..that the present reference is invalid and illegal, as there is no proper and valid espousal of dispute, as

contemplated under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Neither the alleged dispute has been espoused by the

SBI Staff Association, majority/recognized union of the workmen of the Bank nor it is supported by substantial number

of workmen employees of the Bank. Hence the alleged individual dispute cannot be termed as an ‘Industrial dispute’ in

view of the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but is an individual dispute of Shri Shyam Lal

Agarwal, the applicant. Therefore, the very reference is bad and unsustainable in law. This position is evident, inter-

alia, from the following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

20.

In the case of Central Provinces Vs Raghunath reported in 1956 SCR, the Supreme Court held :-

“…………….. The Scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to complete that the machinery provided therein

should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute

touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of any adjudication under the Act, when

the same had not been taken up by the union or a number of workmen.”

21.

On the point of violation of principle of natural justice referring to the reported cases namely Damoh Panna Vs.

Munna Lal (2005) 1 LLJ 730 & State of A.P. vs. Shri Ram Rao AIR (1963) SC 1723 it has been submitted, “……..the

applicant was involved in grave and serious charges of misappropriation of customer’s monies by illegal and unfair

means constituting ‘Gross Misconduct’ while posted as Assistant at Ratangarh Branch, Distt. Churu, (Rajasthan). All

the charges levelled against the applicant stood proved in the departmental inquiry. On the basis of documentary and

oral evidence, the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority held the charges as proved. The

competent authority imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the Applicant workman after affording full and

sufficient opportunity and even affording personal hearing to the workman. Hence, the inquiry was fair, judicious and

proper in accordance with the terms and conditions of service applicable to the applicant. There has been no violation

of any of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the present reference is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that in

institutions such as the Respondent Bank which is dealing with public money, a high degree of integrity, honesty and

credibility is warranted from its officers/employees. It is further submitted that once integrity becomes doubtful and

1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

further charges stand proved in the enquiry proceedings, the most likely punishment for such an employee/officer is

dismissal from service. It has been held in a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damoh Panna Vs. Munna

Lal reported in (2005) I LLJ 730:

“The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the

administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscious

of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.”

22.

It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Shri Ram Rao reported in AIR (1963)

SC 1723 :

“But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if

there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a

matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the

Constitution.”

That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of the facts and evidences

and where appeal is presented, the Appellate Authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the

nature of punishment. ( AIR 1963 SC 1723).”

23.

Rejoinder has not been filed by applicant side & it has been mentioned in the order sheet dated 10.5.2011 that

applicant side has alleged that rejoinder is not to be filed from applicant side.

24.

Heard the arguments of the learned representative of the applicant Sh. Surendra Singh (Nalot), Advocate for

applicant & Sh. Yashpal Garg, Advocate, learned representative of opposite party & perused the record carefully. After

close of oral arguments on 11.10.2007 written argument also has been filed by the applicant on 25.10.2007. No written

argument has been filed by opposite party.

25.

Following judicial precedents have been referred from applicant side :-

1.

(2010) 2 SCC 772, State of U.P & Ors. …..Appellant V/s Saroj Kumar Singh …..Respondent.

2.

Court No.9, Writ- A No. 20337 of 1999, Shrish Singh ……Petitioner v/s Chairman, Gorakhpur Kshetriya

Gramin Bank & others …..Respondents.

3.

2007(1) SCC 506, Jasbir Singh …..Appellant v/s Punjab & Sindh Bank & others …..Respondents.

4.

R. Balakrishnan …….Petitioner v/s Food Corporation of India through its Managing Director & ors.

….Respondents. (decided on 7.2.2011 by Hon’ble Supreme Court).

5.

(1998) III LLJ 501 M.P., State Bank of India v/s Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court &

anr.

26.

Following judicial precedents have been referred from the side of respondent :-

1.

2016 LAB I.C. 1433 (Patna High Court), Uma Shankar Jha …….Petitioner v/s The Punjab National Bank and

others….Respondent.

2.

2005 LAB I.C. 461 (Supreme Court), J.A.Naiksatam….Appellant v/s Prothonotary and Senior Master, High

Court of Bombay and others ….Respondents.

3.

2005 LAB I.C. 3682 (Supreme Court), State Bank of India and another….Appellants v/s Bela Bagchi and

others….Respondents.

4.

2016 LAB I.C. (NOC) 333 (GAU.), Dambarudhas Barman ..Appellant v/s Central Bank of India & Ors

..Respondents.

5.

2016 LAB. I.C. 533 (Supreme Court), Prem Nath Bali …Appellant v/s Registrar, High Court of Delhi and

another…..Respondents.

27.

It has been argued by the learned representative of the applicant & has also been submitted in written argument

by the applicant Sh. Shyam Lal Agrawal himself that the bank has failed to prove the charges levelled against the

applicant. Further, it shall appear from perusal of the written argument submitted by Sh. Shyamlal that he has also

raised certain issues connected with fairness of enquiry such as the forensic report submitted by bank as part of enquiry

report on 9.12.15 in the tribunal was consisting of 13 page only & on another date ( which has not been correctly

mentioned in written argument & 9.12.15 has been wrongly repeated again) forensic report submitted to the tribunal

consists of 18 page but during departmental enquiry he was not given the forensic report consisting of 18 page.

Similarly another issue relating to enquiry proceeding has been mentioned in written argument by applicant that

documents relating to enquiry were submitted by bank on 9.12.15 & 1.2.16 before tribunal as enquiry record but

majority of the submitted documents on those dates were not given to applicant during enquiry proceeding due to

which applicant could not cross examine the witnesses or could do the personal hearing due to which enquiry officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1779

could not give his finding. Further, it has been mentioned by applicant in his written argument on the point of

punishment that there should have been charge wise punishment awarded to him which has not been done & quantum

of punishment is excessive. Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned representative of opposite

party that all the charges levelled against the applicant has been fully proved by opposite party by means of sufficient

evidence & during domestic enquiry standard of proof required to be given by opposite party is not as required by

prosecution to prove the charges before the criminal court. On the point of punishment it has been argued that

punishment awarded to the applicant is proportionate to the guilt of the delinquent employee & it is no way

disproportionate to the act of wrong committed by applicant. Reliance has been placed on the various cases decided by

Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Courts. On the point of delivery of required documents & forensic reports & on the

points of cross examination of the witnesses during enquiry proceeding as raised by applicant it has been submitted that

the applicant has tried to mislead the tribunal by raising such issues at this stage because these matters have been dealt

by tribunal at length during disposal of fairness of domestic enquiry & an order relating to this has already been passed

on 23.1.2017 & requires no repetition.

28.

Based on argument of both the parties before I proceed to discuss whether the charges levelled against the

applicant has been proved by opposite party by reliable evidence I consider it necessary to mention in brief the detail of

the enquiry proceeding & conduct of the parties during the proceeding which will be helpful in assessing the objections

raised by applicant relating to enquiry proceeding although the matter has been dealt at length while disposing the point

of fairness of enquiry vide order dated 23.1.2017.

29.

The domestic enquiry against the applicant started on 30.5.2006. Sh. Dinesh Goyal, Presenting Officer (bank

representative), Sh. Bhupesh Chawla, defence representative & applicant Sh. Shyamlal were present. Sh. Bhupesh

Chawla, defence representative is the person of Sh. Shyamlal’s choice & Sh. Bhupesh Chawla has been named by Sh.

Shyamlal to be his defence representative. Charges levelled against Sh. Shyamlal has been read over & Sh. Bhupesh

Chawla has acknowledged that he has listened to the charges carefully levelled against Sh. Shyamlal & alleged them to

be baseless. Certified copy of documents (P-1 to P-24 ) relied upon for proving the charges have been given to defence

representative on the direction of the enquiry officer which have been received by the defence representative & the

receipt has been acknowledged by him. The defence representative has asked one month time to enquire & compare the

document (P-1 to P-24) with original. Next date 19.6.2006 has been fixed for further proceeding.

30.

On 19.6.06 enquiry proceeding has been postponed to 28.6.06 due to non-attendance of defence representative.

On 28.6.06 also enquiry proceeding has been postponed due to non-attendance of defence representative & Sh.

Shyamlal, applicant. On next date 8.7.06 defence representative & bank representative have been present & documents

p-25 to p-50 have been given to defence representative who has received the documents & acknowledged the receipt.

The defence representative has alleged he has not verified the documents P-1 to p-24 & he is proceeding to Ratangarh

on 8.7.06 for verification of documents. The defence representative & bank representative have consented with enquiry

officer to fix next date of hearing on 21.7.06.

31.

On 21.7.06 defence representative, bank representative & Sh. Shyamlal were present. The defence

representative has alleged that he has compared the documents p-1 to p-50 with their original & further

proceeding of producing witnesses may be taken up. Management witnesses Sh. Rajkumar, Sh. Shankar Lal & Sh.

Jaswant Singh have been examined by management & cross examined by defence representative. Sh. Rajkumar has

proved documents Ex-p-8 & Ex-p-10. He has alleged about Ex-p-10 that he has submitted Ex-p-10 to the bank & he

has signed the document Ex-p-10. He has further alleged that he had written Ex-p-8 also & had submitted it to the bank

for taking his complaint back because he had received the money back. (It is pertinent to mention that money received

by Sh. Rajkumar was the amount about which he had made complaint of misappropriation ). Witness Sh. Shankar Lal

has proved the document Ex-p-16 & alleged that he has written the letter Ex-p-16 dated 17.5.04. Sh. Jaswant Singh has

supported & proved Ex-p-31 & has alleged that Ex-p-31 bears his signature. He has also proved cheque Ex-p-24 &

alleged that cheque Ex-p-24 of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the witness by applicant/delinquent Sh. Shyamlal.

He has further alleged that on 5.2.04 Sh. Girdharilal, father of Sh. Shyamlal met him & he got the money from

Sh. Girdharilal. He has also alleged that after receipt of money he has no complaint. Management has closed its

evidence. The learned defence representative has alleged that he wants to produce witness in defence. Next date

29.7.06 was fixed for defence evidence.

32.

On 29.7.06, 5.8.06, 7.8.06, 14.8.06, 22.8.06 enquiry proceeding was adjourned due to non-attendance of learned

defence representative & on 21.8.06 enquiry proceeding was adjourned due to non-attendance of applicant Sh.

Shyamlal & the learned defence representative. On next date 29.8.06 Sh. Shyamlal applicant & Sh. Bhupesh Chawla,

learned defence representative & Sh. Dinesh Goyal, learned bank representative were present. Defence witness

Sh. Vinod Khemka was produced in evidence by defence representative & has been cross examined after

examination in chief. Sh. Vinod Khmeka is the resident of Ratangarh who is a shopkeeper & he is having a saving

account & locker in the Ratangarh branch of Punjab National Bank. The proceeding of the enquiry has ended on

29.8.06. Enquiry report dated 3.10.06 has been prepred by enquiry officer after considering the brief of applicant,

presenting officer & record of the enquiry proceeding. A tentative decision of dismissal dated 3.1.2007 has been served

upon Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal on 24.1.2007 through Zonal office memorandum dated 20.1.2007. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal

was given opportunity of personal hearing by disciplinary authority providing one week time but he did not appear. He

was given another opportunity to appear on 7.2.2007 for personal hearing which was deferred to 19.2.2007, 26.2.207 &

1780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.3.2007 on personal request of Sh. Shyamlal. Personal hearing was attended by Sh. Shyamlal on 17.3.2007 with his

defence representative Sh. V.K.Gupta, General Secretary, SBI Staff Association. Final order of the disciplinary

authority has been passed about dismissal of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal according to provision of para 6(a), Annexure II of

the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 between IBA AAND WORKMAN Union. The order of appellate

authority on appeal has been passed on 7.12.2007 confirming the order of dismissal by disciplinary authority.

33.

Following conversation at the end of enquiry on 29.8.06 are the words of satisfaction of defence representative

that during enquiry nothing has happened which indicate violation of the interest of the applicant. The defence

representative has neither asked to enquiry officer that he desires handwriting expert to be summoned as defence

witness nor he has expressed his desire to summon any other witness of management who needs to be cross examined

by him. The referred conversation on 29.8.06 reads as under :-

E.O. to B.R. & D.R. - आपको इस Enquiry के बारे म कोई ओर तो नह पूछना है? या फर इस इ  वायॅरी को समा त समझेA

B.R. & D.R. to E.O. – इसके बारे म हम और कुछ भी नह पूछना इसे समा त समझा जावA सारे Document दये $ए हैA

34.

Now, as far as the question of determination of the fact whether charges levelled against the applicant have been

proved by cogent & reliable evidence I consider it proper to mention the charges levelled against the applicant

Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & explanation offered by him against each charges which read as under:-

Sh. Shyam lal Agarwal, Asstt.

State Bank of India, Rawla Mandi.

*********************************************************************************

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, R-IV,

Jaipur.

No. ZOJ/STAFF/R-IV/P&C227

December 31, 2005

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Sir,

STAFF : AWARD

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

You, while posted at Ratangarh branch and performing the duties of Assistant, committed the following lapses/acts of

misconduct :-

1.

Smt. Tasneem shaukat deposited a sum of Rs. 6800/- on 8.9.2003 in her joint S.B.A/c No. 01190013882 on your

cash counter. You have issued the counterfoil, but did not account for the amount in the Bank’s books.

The amount has also not been credited in the depositor’ s account by you. Subsequently, you have made an entry

of Rs.6800/- in the Pass Book of the account bolder manually under your initials.

2.

You have unauthorisedly withdrawn a sum of rs.5000/- on 11.10.2003 from the savings Bank Account No.

01190010193 of Shri Raj Kumar Gadgil, by forging the signature of the account holder on the withdrawal form and

pocketed the money.

3.

You unauthorisedly withdrew a sum of Rs.3000/- and rs.5000/- on 4.9.2003 and 13.9.2003 respectively from the

S.B.A/c no. 01190007812 of Shri Mahadev Prasad by forging the signatures of the account holder on the withdrawal

forms and pocketed the money. The payment of both these withdrawals was made without Pass Book as these entries

do not appear in the Pass Book which is in contravention of the Bank’ s laid down instructions.

4.

You received a sum of Rs.7000/- for credit of S.B. A/c No. 01190012803 of Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma on

1.11.2003 on the counter and issued the counter foil, but you did not account for the amount in Bank’ s books and

pocketed the money.

5.

You credited S.B.A/c No. 01190012803 on 31.12.2003 an amount of Rs.7000/- by debiting account No.

01190010678 in your own hand writing without any authorization from the account holder.

6.

You issued a cheque bearing No. 536949 dated 1.2.2004 for rs.10,000/- without keeping sufficient balance in

your current account No. 01090094052.

7.

You received a sum of Rs. 12000/- for credit of savings Bank a/c No. 01190010807 from Shri Parmeshwar lal on

25.11.2003 on the counter and issued the counter foil, but did not account for the amount in Bank’ s books.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1781

8.

You managed to obtain a computerized Pass Book bearing No. 000745 and issued the same to Shri Mahadev

Prasad, S.B. A/c No. 01190007812 by making the entry of Rs.400/- on 8.12.2003 manually. This entry pertains to the

difference amount of maturity value of two STDRs No. 441115 and 441114 aggregating Rs. 38888/- and issue of new

STDR for Rs. 38,488/- in the name of account holder on 4.9.2003. The entries in the said Pass Book were confirmed by

you with your signatures at the place meant for chief Manager.

The aforesaid lapses on your part, if proved would tantamount to Gross Misconduct in terms of Para 5(j) of

Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 on disciplinary action Procedure for Workmen read with para 521 of

Sastry award and para 18.28 of Desai award You are, therefore, called upon to submit your reply within 15 days of

receipt of this letter, failing which it will be presume that you have nothing to submit in your defense and the Bank will

proceed against you as per award staff service Rules.

Yours faithfully,

(sd illegible)

Asstt. General Manager

Received copy

(Disciplinary Authority)

signature illegible

(Shyam Lal)

Discip/26

35.

The reply of the applicant dated 23.1.2006 reads as under :-

lgk;d egk izcU/kd]

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]

vkapfyd dk;kZy;]

5&usg: Iysl]

t;iqjA

izs"kd %& 'kke yky vxzoky

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

jkoyk e.Mh

}kjk 'kk[kk izcU/kd Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad jkoyk

vkids i= la[;k ih- ,.M lh- 227] 31&12&05 ds lUnHkZ esa

1-

ist la[;k ij yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj rklhe 'kksdr Ldwy esa ,d v/;kfidk gSA ,d ckj og esjs ikl iSlk tek djokus vkbZ rks mlus

dgk fd vki ikl&cqd esa Hkh izfr"Vh dj nsaA D;ksafd izkFkhZ udnh dkÅ.Vj ij cSBk gqvk Fkk vkSj esjh vkbZ-Mh- ls nwljk dEI;wVj ugha [kqy ldrk

Fkk vkSj esjh tkudkjh vuqlkj ikl&cqd fizUVj Hkh [kjkc py jgk Fkk rks eSuas mldks izfo"Vh djus ls euk fd;k rks eq>s mlus fQj ckj&2 dgk

fd HkkbZ lkgc vki fdlh Hkh rjg ikl&cqd esa izfo"Vh dj nsa] rks tc eSa eSU;wvy rkSj ij izfo"Vh djus yxk rks mlus dgk dh HkkbZ lkgc ,d

6800@&dh izfo"Vh vkSj Hkh cdk;k gS vkSj fiNys efgus tks fd tek djokbZ Fkh rks eSuas dgk fd jlhn gSA mlus dgk fd ?kj ij iM+h gS eSus og

izfo"Vh Hkh oSxjg jlhn ns[ks eSuq;y rkSj ij xzkgd lsok dks e/; utj j[krs gq;s dj nh fQj tSls gh ikl&cqd fizaVj lgh gqvk rks mldh

ikl&cqd esa izfo"Vh djuh pkgh rks irk pyk fd : 6800@&dh jkf'k bl [kkrs esa tek ugha gS fQj esjs }kjk mlh rkjh[k dh Ldzksy ns[kus ij

irk pyk fd ml rkjh[k esa 6800@&dh jkf'k dh dksbZ izfo"Vh fdlh Hkh [kkrs esa ugha gSA fQj mlds ifr us f'kdk;r dj nh ftl ckr dk eq>s

dksbZ irk ugha Fkk tc eq>s f'kdk;r ds fo"k; esa irk pyk rks eSa ,oe~ ,d vU; LVkWQ lnL; mlds ?kj ij x;s rks rkslhe 'kksdr ds ifr us ;g

dgk fd gekjs ikl dksbZ Hkh jlhn ugha gSA gekjs ls ,slk Hkwyo'k gks x;k bl izdkj ls rksfle 'kksdr ds ikl dksbZ Hkh 6800@&Lohdkj djus dh

jlhn ugha gSA vkSj esjs Åij yxk ;g vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA

2-

iSjk la[;k 2 esa yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj [kkrk la[;k 01190010193 esa 11-10-03 dks jkf'k ,oa jkt dqekj xkMfxy ds }kjk gh fudyokbZ

gSA ml ij eSus QthZ gLrk{kj djds fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ Hkh jkf'k ugha fudkyh gSA lEidZ djus ij ,oe jkt dqekj xkMfxy us ;g ckr

Lohdkj dh gSA vkSj eq>s fyf[kr esa fn;k gSA ftldh QksVks dkWih layXu gSA

3-

iSjk la[;k 3 esa yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj Jh egknso izlkn ds }kjk gh fnukad 4-9-03 dks ,oa 13-9-03 dks #i;s 3000@& vkSj 5000@&

dh jkf'k Lo;a fudyokbZ gSA ftlesa ls #- 5000@& dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku rks nwljs dkÅUVj ij ,oa nwljs lgk;d ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS uk fd

esjs }kjk #- 3000@& dh jkf'k esjs }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj ds QthZ gLrk{kj djus ds ckn ugha fudyokbZ xbZ gSA dS'k dkÅUVj esa fizUVj ugha Fkk

cfYd dS'k dsfcu ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k eS rks ikl&cqd ns[kdj gh Hkqxrku dj ldrk Fkk bl ckmpj ij Loa; egknso izlkn ds gh gLrk{kj gS

esjs }kjk QthZ gLrk{kj djds fdlh Hkh izdkj ls jkf'k ugha fudykbZ xbZ gSA vr% esjs mij yxk vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA

1782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4-

iSjk la[;k 4 esa yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-11-03 dks eukst dqekj 'kekZ dh cgu ljkst 'kekZ ds }kjk dksbZ Hkh :- 7000@&dh

jkf'k tek ugha djokbZ xbZ gSA ;g esjs mij fdlh ds dgus ls ljkst 'kekZ }kjk tcjnLrh tkucw>dj vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS tks fd fcydqy >wBk

gSA

5-

iSjk la[;k 5 esa yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj eukst dqekj 'kekZ ds }kjk tks dh ¼ljkst 'kekZ½ dk HkkbZ gSA ds }kjk 4-11-03 dks jkf'k tek

djokbZ xbZ Fkh ysfdu jlhn ds Åij 1-11-03 xyrh ls fy[kk gqvk FkkA eSuas jkf'k dks Lohdkj djus ds ckn tSls gh dEI;wVj esa iksLV djus yxk

rks ew>s irk pyk dh bl ckmpj ij [kkrk ua- ugha fy[kk gqvk gS dEI;wVj Ldzhu ij eukst dqekj 'kekZ ds uke ds lHkh [kkrs fudky ,oa vius

vuqeku ds vuqlkj eSus xyrh ls [kkrk la[;k 10678 esa tek dj fn;k D;ksafd fizUVj [kjkc py jgk FkkA vkSj bldh cgu ¼ljkst 'kekZ½ ikl&cqd

esa izfo"Vh djokus 31-12-03 dks vkbZ rks irk pyk dh ;g jkf'k [kkrk ua- 10678 eukst dqekj 'kekZ ds [kkrs esa tek gks xbZ gSA ckmpj fudyokus

,oa lgh tkudkjh izkIr djds eSus vius Lrj ij [kkrk ua- 10678 ¼nqljk eukst dqekj 'kekZ½ dks uke djus ds ckn okLrfod [kkrk la[;k 12803

¼lgh eukst dqekj 'kekZ ds [kkrs esa tek dj nh xbZ D;ksafd #- 1500@&rd dh gLrkUrj.k djus ikWoj ,dy f[kMdh flLVe dks Fkh blfy, eSus

vius Lrj ij ckmpj cukdj dj fn;kA vr% izkFkhZ ds mij yxk vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA

6-

iSjk la[;k 6 esa yxs vkjksi vuqlkj ;g pSd ftldh pSd la[;k 536949 gSaA ;g pSd tloUr flag uke ds vkneh dks fn;k x;k FkkA

tks fd gekjh jrux<+ 'kk[kk dk xzkgd Hkh gSA vkSj mlls igys og lsuk esa deZpkjh Fkk vkSj vDlj feyrk tqyrk jgrk Fkk ,d fnu og O;fDr

cSad esa vk;k Fkk ,oa eq>ls dgus yxk fd ;fn vkius lsuk dsUVhu ls dksbZ lkeku eaxokuk gks rks eq>s dg nsuk eSa ykdj ns nwxka D;ksafd eSa lsuk esa

fjVk;ZM deZpkjh gwW fQj ekg tuojh 2004 esa 'kk[kk esa vk;k rks eSuas mldks ,d okf'kax e'khu 6 fdyksxzke dh vkWVk eSfVd ykus dks dgk rks mlus

dgk dh gekjh dsUVhu chdkusj esa gSA ftlds fy;s esjk le; Hkh [kpZ gksxk ,oa chdkusj Hkh tkuk iMsxk vkSj blds [kpZ ds vykok dqN deh'ku

Hkh yxsxk rks esSus mldks gka dj nh vkSj vfxze jkf'k ekaxh rks mldk eSus fnukad 01-02-04 dk pSd ns fn;kA dqN le; ckn eSuas vius vki dks

fcekj eglwl fd;k vkSj esjs ftl txg ls iSls vkus Fks ogka ls iSls vk Hkh ugha ik;s Fks rks eSuas tlOkUr flag dks euk dj fn;k dh vHkh vki :d

tkuk nks rhu efgus ds ckn eaxok;sxs vkSj esjk pSd eq>s okfil dj nsuk rks og l[r ukjkt gks x;k vkSj dgus yxk fd eSus rks chdkusj tkdj

dsUVhu esa ekax Hkh dj nh gSA vc rks vkidks ysuh iMsxh eSusa dgk fd isLkksa dh cUnkscLr ugh gks jgk gSA eq>s psd okfil ns nksA rks mlus dgk

dh vkidks pSd rks okfil dj nwxak ysfdu eSus tks esgur dh gSA mldk gtkZuk nsuk iMsxk eSaus nsus ls euk dj fn;k vc bl ckr ls ukjkt

gksdj mUgksus uk dsoy pSd cSad esa yxk;k cfYd ;g f'kdk;r Hkh dj nh 'kke yky vxzoky ls 10]000@& ysus gSaA vc uk rks eSa ;g ckr lksp

ldrk Fkk fd og ,slk esjs lkFk djsxkA tc mlus ;g pSd cSasd esa yxk;k rks eSa Loa; ml le; vius xkao e.Mh Mcokyh x;k gqvk Fkk fQj eSus

mlls Qksu ij lEidZ fd;k vkSj ;g pSd mlus yksVk fn;k ftldh Nk;k dkWih layXu gSA eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha Fkh fd ;g vkWfQl dks pSd

cqd tkjh dh gqbZ gSA esjh est dh vyekjh esa ;g pSd cqd j[kh gqbZ Fkh vkSj eSus ;g viuh le>dj mlesa ls pSd dkVdj ns fn;k vr% tc

lkeku ykus dks eSus euk dj fn;k Fkk rks [kkrs esa i;kZIr 'ks"k ugha j[kk vr% esjs mij yxk vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA

7-

iSjk la[;k 7 esa yxs vkjksi ds vuqlkj ijes'oj yky fla?kkuh;ka us 25-11-03 dks dksbZ iSlk tek djok;k Fkk mlds ikl tks jlhn Fkh

ml ij esjs gLrk{kj ugha Fks mlus blds fo:) uk dsoy cSad dks cfYd iqfyl Fkkuk esa Hkh f'kdk;r ntZ djokbZ Fkh vc U;k;ky; ,oa iqfyl us

viuh rQ~rh'k djds fjiksVZ U;k;ky; dks nh rks eq>s U;k;ky; ls vkt rd dqN Hkh izkIr ugha gqvk gS fQj mlds ckn ijes'oj yky fla?kkfu;k us

Loa; ;g fy[kdj fn;k gS fd eSus 'kke yky dSf'k;j dks iSls fn;s gh ugha FksA vkSj mlus Hkwyo'k jlhn tkjh dj nh Fkh vkSj eSuas yksxksa ds cgdkos

esa vkdj 'kke yky ds fo:) xyrh ls f'kdk;r ntZ djok nh ;g ckr mlus eq>s fy[kdj nh gSA ftldh Nk;ka dkWih layXu gSA vr% esjs mij

;g vkjksi Hkh fujk/kkj gSA

8-

;g gS fd iSjk la[;k 8 esa izkFkhZ ij tks vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS mlds vuqlkj egknso izlkn ,d fjVk;MZ iqfyl deZpkjh gS mlus viuh

Vh- Mh- vkj- dh jkf'k vius cpr [kkrs esa gLrkUrfjr djok yh Fkh vkSj ;g izfof"V fdlh nwljs dkmUVj ls gqbZ FkhA tc tkus yxk rks eSuas iwNk

nknk th D;k ckr gS] vkius viuh Vh-Mh-vkj- dk iSlk D;ksa ys fy;k rc mUgksus dgk fd eSa ,d cw<+k O;fDr gwa vkSj irk ugha esjh e`R;q dc gks

tk;sA esjs dgus ij ,oa le>kus ij og rhu efgus ds fy, Vh-Mh-vkj- cukus dks rS;kj gks x;k ,oa eq>s dgk fd vki eq>s 400 :i;s udn ns nks

rc eSuas mudks mlh le; 400 :i;s udn ,oa Vh-Mh-vkj cukdj ns nhA vkSj xzkgd lsok dks e/; utj j[krs gq, ,ao ml cq<s vkneh dks ns[krs

gq, lHkh okmpj vius gkFk ls cuk fn;s ,ao iksLV dj fn;sA

egknso izlkn th ds yMds dk gekjh jrux< 'kk[kk esa edku _.k py jgk FkkA 'kk[kk izcU/kd us eq>ls dgk fd ;g vkneh iSlk ugha Hkj jgk

gSA blds ?kj tkdj vkvks vkSj edku _.k [kkrs esa #i;s Hkjus dks dgksA tc eSa blds yMds ds ikl igqpk rks eq>s irk pyk fd ;g yMdk

egknso izlkn th dk gSA tc eSuas yMds dks dgk fd vki _.k [kkrs esa #i;s D;ksa ugha Hkj jgsA mlesa #i;s Hkjks ugha rks vkids fo:) dkuwuh

dk;Zokgh gks tk;sxhA ftl ij vkus okys [kpsZ ds Hkh vki Loa; ftEesnkj gksxs ml le; egknso th ikl esa cSBs gq, FksA os esjs ls ukjkt gks x;s

fd esjs yMds dks ,slk D;ksa dgkA tks Hkh ckr djuh Fkh esjs yMds dks 'kk[kk esa cqykdj dgrsA ?kj ij fdlh ds }kjk #i;s Hkjus ds fy, dksbZ cSad

deZpkjh vkdj dgrk gS] rks esjh csbTtrh gksrh gS uk fd yMds dhA fQj mlus dgk fd eq>s tks Vh-Mh-vkj- cukdj nh gS mldk C;kt ihNs dh

rkjh[k ls feyuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd eq>s ugha feyk vkSj ;g 3&4 lkS #i;s cSBrk gS tc eSus mudks dgk fd vkius viuh Vh-Mh-vkj- cpr [kkrs esa

gh LFkkukUrfjr djok yh Fkh] rks og ihNs dh rkjh[k esa ugha cu ldrh Fkh vkSj ihNs dk C;kt ugha fey ldrk Fkk 8-12-03 dks Vh-Mh-vkj- nqckjk

ifjiDork gqbZ vkSj og mldk Hkqxrku ysus vk;k rks mlus esjs dks dgk fd ;g Vh-Mh-vkj- dqN efguksa ds fy, vkxs cuk nks ,oa tks 400 #- eSa ys

x;k Fkk mldks esjs cpr [kkrs esa tek dj nks eSusa ckmpj cukdj mlds [kkrs esa tek dj fn;s fQj og 'kk[kk izcU/kd ds ikl x;s vkSj mUgksus

vius 3&4 lkS #- C;kt ds uqdlku dh ckr fQj nksgjkbZ vkSj dgk fd vkxs ls esjs ?kj ij cSad dk dksbZ deZpkjh _.k olwyh gsrq esjs ?kj ij uk

vk vk,sa ysfdu 'kk[kk izcU/kd us mldh bl ckr dks e/; utj ugha j[kk cYdh igys fd Vh-Mh-vkj- ds ckmpj fudyokdj tks 400 #i;s og

jksdM eq>ls ys x;k Fkk mldh f'kdk;r eq>s cxSj dksbZ ckr crk;s djok nh tks fd ljklj >wBh gS d`I;k uksV djs fd f'kdk;r Hkh egknso izlkn

th ds }kjk 3 efgus O;rhr gks tkus ds ckn dh gS tks eSus mudks 400 #i;s udn fn;s Fks mlds dqN LVkQ lnL; Hkh xokg gS vFkkZr esjs mij

yxk;k x;k vkjksi fujk/kkj gSaA

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1783

vr% esjk fuosnu gS fd eSus vkt rd cSad dk dk;Z iwjh yXu ,oa fu"Bk ls fd;k gSA vkSj esjh 11 lky dh cSad lsok ,ao easjs vkSj esjs

ifjokj ds Hkfo"; dh vkSj ns[krs gq, eq>ls vutkus es tks xyrh gqbZ gS mls {kek djsa vkSj eSa vkils ok;nk djrk gWw fd Hkfo"; esa ,slh fdlh Hkh

izdkj dh xyrh dk ekSdk ugha nwaxkA

blh fo'okl ds lkFk

/kU;okn

fnukad

layXu%&

gLrk{kj viBuh;

1- dkWih uksfVl

2- pSd la[;k 536949 dh QksVks dkWih

3- jktdqekj xkMfxy dk fyf[kr c;ku

4- ijes'oj yky fl?kkfu;k dk fyf[kr c;ku

5- ijes'oj yky fla?kkfu;k ds }kjk fyf[kr

LVkEi isij

izkFkhZ

gLrk{kj viBuh;

gLrk{kj viBuh;

23@01@06

'kke yky vxzoky

lgk;d

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

Charge no.1

36.

This charge is to the effect that Smt. Tasneem Shaukat deposited a sum of Rs.6800/- on 8.9.2003 in her joint

account on the cash counter of the delinquent employee Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal issued the

counterfoil, in testimony of the deposit but the amount so received by him was not accounted for in the banker’s book,

applicant further did not credit the amount in the account of depositor & subsequently made manual entry in the

passbook of the account holder under his initial. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that opposite party

has failed to prove the charge levelled against the applicant because the account number of Smt. Tasneem Shaukat is

01190013832 jointly shared by Sh. Shaukat Ali whereas the account number mentioned in the charge is 01190013882

hence charge does not stand proved. Further, it has been alleged that the account holder has not been produced for cross

examination during enquiry proceeding which is against the principle of natural justice. Countering the above argument

it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in relation to this charge contention of the applicant is

wrong that charge has not been proved & there is only clerical error in the charge wherein in place of 01190013832

which is the correct number of account of Smt. Tasneem Shaukat 01190013882 has been mentioned & rest of the

information relating to the account is completely correct & applicant has admitted in his reply to charge memo that he

has made the entry under his initial therefore, the account holder is not required to be produced in evidence.

37.

From perusal of charge & argument of both the parties it is very clear that a clerical error has taken place in

mentioning the account number in the charge wherein in the last two digits of the charge in place of 32 in the charge,

82 has been mentioned. If we go through other details connected with the detail of account holder it is clear that name

of the account holder is Smt. Tasneem Shaukat which has been mentioned in the charge & from the perusal of the detail

of account this fact is also undisputed that she is the joint holder of the account with her husband Sh. Shaukat Ali. In

his written reply to the charge applicant has already admitted that he has made manual entry in the passbook of Smt.

Tasneem Shaukat without confirming the deposit by perusing the counterfoil. He has tried to explain the reason for

making such entry & has alleged that passbook printer was defective & looking into the spirit of customers service &

repeated persuasion by Smt. Tasneem Shaukat he made the entry of Rs.6800/- without looking into the deposit slip.

The delinquent has further alleged that he enquired about the counterfoil from Smt. Tasneem Shaukat & she replied

that counterfoil is not in her possession & she alleged that the counterfoil is at her home, yet entries was made by him

with a view of customer’s service. He has further tried to explain the situation with contention that as soon as the

printer became operational he tried to make entry in the passbook with the help of printer & came to know that

Rs.6800/- does not find place in the deposit. Thereafter, he looked into the scroll of the date of deposit & came to know

that there is no entry of Rs.6800/- in any of the account. Applicant has further as part of his explanation alleged that

after this incident a complaint was made by her husband & when he became aware about the complaint he visited the

house of Sh. Shaukat Ali along with one staff of the bank & enquired about the counterfoil of Rs.6800/- . In reply to the

query Sh. Shaukat Ali replied that he is not in possession of the counterfoil. Applicant in closing lines of the

1784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

explanation has alleged that he has committed the act of making manual entry by mistake & as there is no counterfoil

with Smt. Tasneem Shaukat hence, charge levelled against the applicant is baseless.

38.

In relation to the explanation offered by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal in reply to charge number 1, it is pertinent to

mention that if Smt. Tasneem Shaukat was present even after making manual entry in the passbook & delinquent tried

to make entry in the passbook with the help of printer because the printer had become operational then a natural

question crops-up from the situation is that if the lady was present & after checking the scrolls of the date of alleged

deposit of Rs.6800/-, no entry was found in any of the account or register, then why applicant did not struck off the

manual entry made by him in the passbook of Smt. Tasneem Shaukat. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing has

been mentioned by applicant that since when the printer was not operational & how it became operational soon after

making manual entry by the applicant.

39.

Copy of the passbook entry available on record shows that delinquent has made entry of Rs.6800/- just below the

balance Rs.10937.47 & adding the amount of Rs.6800/- he has shown the balance as Rs.17737.47in manual writing.

There is no dispute that delinquent has admitted that this entry has been made by him which is clear from his

explanation submitted by him. At the time when this entry was made by the delinquent he had completed nearly 10

years of service & was well aware that making of such entry was against the rule & instruction that making of manual

entry was prohibited in computerised passbook, yet he opted to make manual entry which is sufficient to suggest that

applicant after receiving the money did not credit it to the customer account & made the entry to satisfy the lady

account holder. It is also clear from circumstances of the fact that all the exercise taken up by the delinquent has

resulted on account of complaint made by husband of Smt. Tasneem Shaukat who is joint account holder of Smt.

Tasneem Shaukat. Had he not made the complaint the delinquent would not have made any visit to her house. 40. It has

been submitted by learned counsel for non-applicant that by paying the money back to the account holder applicant has

secured the counterfoil from the account holder. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has been

mentioned by applicant himself in his written argument also that no witness has been produced by non-applicant to

prove the charge. As the applicant has already admitted the making of entry without any authority of rule & direction of

the bank & has not assigned any valid reason for not deleting the entry which was without authority, I am of the view

that the non-applicant has been successful in proving charge no. 1 against the delinquent.

Charge No.2

41.

The charge against the applicant is that he withdrew a sum of Rs.5000/- from the account no. 01190010193 of

Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil on 11.10.2003 by forging the signature of account holder on withdrawal form & pocketed the

money.

42.

Applicant in his written reply dated 31.12.2005 against the charge memo has alleged that he has not withdrawn

the money & withdrawal has been made by Sh. Gadgil himself. He has further alleged that he contacted Sh. Rajkumar

Gadgil who has accepted that withdrawal was made by himself & this fact has been admitted by him in writing & he

has given in writing that money was withdrawn by Sh. Gadgil himself. Applicant has attached the written document

given by Sh. Gadgil with his explanation.

43.

In his final written argument filed in this tribunal by applicant on 25.10.17 & in oral argument it has been alleged

that opposite party has admitted in letter dated 19.2.2005 that signature on withdrawal form belongs to Sh. Rajkumar

Gadgil but opposite party bank has sent the withdrawal form for the opinion of handwriting expert unnecessarily. He

has further submitted that document on which enquiry officer has based his report was not filed during enquiry hence,

a disciplinary action cannot take place against the applicant. He has further submitted that during enquiry Sh. Rajkumar

Gadgil was produced in evidence & he has not denied that withdrawal form is not bearing his signature yet the enquiry

officer has held him guilty. He has further alleged that Sh. Lakhani, the manager of the bank has secured the letter

written by Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil & the witnesses Sh. Ramkishan & Sh. Shankarlal. Countering the above argument it

has been submitted by learned counsel for the non-applicant that Sh. Shyamlal delinquent has himself secured the letter

dated 26.3.2004(P-8) written by Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil which bears the signatures of two witnesses Sh. Shankarlal &

Sh. Ramkishan by approaching & influencing Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil. It has been further alleged that when Sh.

Rajkumar Gadgil has received his money back from applicant thereafter, he has withdrawn his complaint. It has been

further submitted that during enquiry Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has admitted to have made the complaint & he has also

admitted that he has received the money hence, he wants no action against the delinquent Sh. Shyamlal.

44.

From perusal of enquiry record, this fact is undisputed that a complaint (P-10) dated 25.2.2004 was made to

branch manager by Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil about withdrawal of a sum of Rs.5000/- on 11.10.2003 by Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal, the applicant. According to complaint (P-10) Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil deposited various amount of money on

different date prior to 11.10.2003 & on 11.10.2003 also he came to bank to make further deposit of a sum of Rs.1000/-

& he successfully deposited Rs.1000/- on 11.10.2003 but on that date i.e. 11.10.2003 Sh. Shyamlal secured the

signature of Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil on one form of the bank. Applicant Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil could not know that what

was that form on which signature was secured by Sh. Shyamlal. Applicant further says that when on 19.2.2004 he came

to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- he came to know that Sh. Shyamlal, cashier has cheated him by withdrawing a sum of

Rs.5000/- on 11.10.2003 from his account. Addressing the complaint to the branch manager he has requested to have

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1785

his money given back failing which he will be compelled to take legal action for which management will be

responsible. Further, a letter dated 26.3.2004 (P-8) has been written in which name or authority of the addressee has not

been mentioned & this letter has been singed by witness Sh. Shankarlal & Sh. Ramkishan & alleged to have written by

Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil & signed by him. From the content of this letter it appears that this letter has been written by Sh.

Rajkumar Gadgil favouring applicant Sh. Shyamlal which is alleged to have been attached by Sh. Shaymal along with

his reply to memo of charge. The content of this letter says that he had made the complaint against Sh. Shyamlal in

mistaken impression & he had actually withdrawn the money himself on 11.10.2003. He has further said that now he is

satisfied & complaint made by him against Sh. Shyamlal may be consigned.

45.

During enquiry in examination-in-chief on 21.7.2006 Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has admitted that complaint dated

25.2.2004 was made by him. He has also admitted that letter dated 26.3.2004 favouring Sh. Shyamlal alleged to have

been signed by witnesses Sh. Shankarlal & Sh. Ramkishan was also written by him. About withdrawing the complaint

vide letter dated 26.3.2004 he has admitted that he has got his money hence, he has written the letter dated 26.3.2004 &

letter dated 26.3.2004 be treated as correct. It is evident from above statement that Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has decided to

favour Sh. Shyamlal only after receipt of money. In light of the above statement of Sh. Gadgil there is no doubt that

letter dated 26.3.2004 has come into existence by influence of Sh. Shyamlal. This is no one’s case that money from the

account of Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil was not withdrawn & Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has admitted that letter relating to

withdrawal of complaint is written by him because he has received his money back. The letter dated 26.3.2004 is result

of active role played by applicant Sh. Shyamlal which is evident from the statement of Sh. Shankarlal who has alleged

in cross examination that letter dated 26.3.2004 was brought to him for signature by Sh. Shyamlal. Sh. Ramkishan has

not been produced in evidence who has been shown to be another witness on letter dated 26.3.2004. Sh. Ramkishan in

his letter dated 17.5.04 addressed to Branch Manager has alleged that father of Sh. Shyamlal approached him & alleged

him to become a witness for delivery of money to Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil because Sh. Gadgil is proceeding with the case

against Sh. Shyamlal & money was given to Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil before Sh. Ramkishan. P-17 is alleged to have been

written in testimony of delivery of money to Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil. Here, it is pertinent to mention that P-16 signed by

Sh. Shankar Lal & P-17 signed by Sh. Ramkishan are the documents proving the fact that money was given to Sh.

Rajkumar Gadgil. Learned defence representative has raised this point before the enquiry officer that P-16 & P-17 are

the papers created by branch manager by influencing these two witnesses because branch manager was interested in

having Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal punished due to animosity. In this context, it is important to mention that in criminal

proceeding instituted by Sh. Parmeshwar Lal, Sh. L.C.Lakhani, branch manager is co-accused before the criminal court

due to his favour for Sh. Shyam Lal hence, this contention is not tenable that P-16 & P-17 are the documents created by

branch manager with the help of these two witnesses. Nowhere these two witnesses or Sh. Shyamlal or his father have

made any complaint before the superior authority or before the police that branch manager has been instrumental in

securing the creation of P-16 & P-17 with the help of two witnesses. In fact, the true revelation appearing from the

circumstances of the fact is that these two witnesses are the creation of applicant Sh. Shyamlal to assist him to escape

from the complaint of Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil.

46.

As far as the question of issue whether withdrawal form used by Sh. Shyamlal to withdraw Rs.5000/- is one

which is said to be secured from Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil by having his signature on blank form or the one which has been

prepared by Sh. Shyamlal by forging the signature of the Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil is concerned, in this context attempt has

been made by defence representative to create a confusing position by saying that as per complaint of Sh. Rajkumar

Gadgil Sh. Shyamlal had secured his signature on a form hence, there was no need to have the opinion of handwriting

expert. In this context, it is important to mention that in FIR there has been only contention that Sh. Shyamlal had

secured the signature of the complainant Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil but there is no specific mention that it was the signature

on withdrawal form because in the complaint he has alleged that he was not aware as to what was the precise nature of

the form. Report of handwriting expert reveals that the signature on the withdrawal form is not having similarity with

admitted signature of Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil but it is a forged signature.

47.

Looking into the facts of charge no.2 evidence produced thereon & attending fact & circumstances, I am of the

view that withdrawal of the money from the account of Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil is undisputed. Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has

received the money from the applicant side is also undisputed due to which Sh. Rajkumar Gadgil has attempted to

withdraw the complaint against the applicant unsuccessfully & receipt of money by him has been the prime reason to

help the applicant to escape the charge. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the view that non-applicant has been

successful in proving the charge no.2 against the applicant.

Charge no.3

48.

Charge no. 3 is to the effect that delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal withdrew unauthorisedly a sum of Rs.3000/-

on 4.9.2003 & Rs.5000/- on 13.9.2003 respectively from the saving account no. 01190007812 of Sh. Mahadev Prasad

by forging the signature of account holder on withdrawal forms & pocketed the money. The charge further alleged that

payment of both the withdrawals was made without passbook because entries relating to withdrawal do not find place

in the passbook which is contravention of laid down instructions of the bank that pass-book must accompany the

withdrawal form at the time of withdrawal to ensure entry of the withdrawal in pass-book which also concurrently

ensures the identity of account holder .

1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

49.

The above levelled charge means that at the time of withdrawal passbook must be presented with withdrawal

forms & without presentation of passbook with withdrawal form payments are not to be made to the account holder &

making payment to the withdrawal form holder without accompanied with passbook contravenes the provision of

instructions laid down by the bank.

50.

From perusal of the enquiry record in connection with charge No.3 it appears that the account holder for account

No. 01190007812 is Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma. A complaint (P-21) signed by Sh. Virmal Sharma on behalf of Sh.

Mahadev Prasad Sharma was received by bank on 20.10.2004 wherein it was submitted to Branch Manager, Ratangarh

that a sum of Rs.5000/- has been misappropriated from the above account of the account holder & when the statement

of account was taken from the bank by account holder he noticed that on 4.9.2003 a sum of Rs.3000/- was withdrawn

& credited on 10.9.2003 without knowledge of the account holder. It was further contended that all these three

transactions must have been done by some employee of the bank only but his passbook does not contain any entry

regarding all the above mentioned three transactions & on 8.12.2003 balance of Rs.5694/- has been shown in the

statement of account. On 12.10.2004 when account holder visited the bank for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.5000/- he

was informed by the bank about insufficient balance against the demand of Rs.5000/-. Thus, the applicant became

aware of the fact that a sum of Rs.5000/- has been withdrawn by bank employee. Complainant has further mentioned

that on 8.12.2003 balance of Rs.5694/- has been shown in computerised passbook issued by the bank which was issued

by delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & computerised passbook bears his signature but on 13.9.2003 a sum of Rs.5000/-

has been withdrawn by adopting illegal means. The complainant has prayed that a sum of Rs.5000/- be restored to his

account & legal action may kindly be taken against guilty person failing which applicant will be compelled to take

recourse in the court of law.

51.

In his explanation to the charge Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has submitted that both the withdrawals dated 4.9.2003 &

13.9.2003 amounting to Rs.3000/- & Rs.5000/- respectively have been made by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma himself &

payment of Rs.5000/- have been done from another counter by another assistant & not by him. He has specifically

denied about withdrawal of Rs.3000/- by him by forging the signature of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma. He has further

alleged that withdrawal form relating to Rs.3000/- bears the signature of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma & he himself has

drawn the amount & delinquent has not withdrawn any amount by forging signature, thus, charge levelled against him

is baseless.

52.

An application dated 23.10.2004(P-35) has been written by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma addressed to Branch

Manager, Ratangarh wherein he has made reference to his complain dated 20.10.2004 (P-21) as mentioned above & has

alleged that the alleged amount was withdrawn by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal in illegal manner & the complainant Sh.

Mahadev Prasad Sharma has received the amount. He has further alleged that now he is not having complaint about the

money & his complaint may be treated as disposed.

53.

It has been submitted on behalf of presenting officer that on 4.9.2003 money was withdrawn by Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal & again deposited back after six days after utilising it for the alleged period. Again a sum of Rs.5000/- was

withdrawn on 13.9.2003 by him forging the signature of account holder on withdrawal form. On complaint (P-21)

made by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma, the delinquent paid the money back to Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma & received

the letter (P-35) from him. The presenting officer has quoted certain excerpts from the letter (P-35) which has been

relied upon along with other material by the enquiry officer for coming to the conclusion that money was withdrawn

by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & paid back to Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma as a result of complaint made by him. The letter

(P-35) reads as under :-

lsok esa]

Jheku~ eSustj lkgc]

Hkkjrh; LVSV cSad

jrux<+

fo"k;%& [kkrk la[;k 01190007812 esa ls 5000@& :Ik;s cSad deZpkjh }kjk vloS/kkfud rjhds ls pksjh dj ysus ds fuiVkjk lEcf/kr

ekU;oj]

mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd eSusa fnukad 20-10-04 dks fyf[kr f’kdk;r dh FkhA esjs [kkrk la[;k 01190007812 esa ls

vloS/kkfud rjhds ls Jh ';ke yky }kjk fudky fy;s FksA mDr :Ik;s eq>s izkIr gks x;s gSa vc eq>s dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha gSA o esjh f’kdk;r dk

fuokj.k ekuk tkosA

;g vkidks lwpuk lknj izsf"kr gSA

fnukad 23-10-2004

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1787

gLrk{kj iBuh;

Hkonh;

Ekgknso izlkn iq= jkeukjk;.k

fuoklh jrux<+

54.

Countering the above submission on behalf of non-applicant it has been submitted by learned defence

representative of the applicant before the Enquiry Officer that there is no specific mention in P-21 that money was

withdrawn by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & the only contention against the delinquent is that Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has

made manual entry/statement with his initial in the complainant passbook which was done as per instruction of Branch

Manager because electronic printer was out of order on that date. It has been further submitted that Rs.5000/- was never

withdrawn with the user ID of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & it has not been proved by presenting officer that Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal has forged the signature on withdrawal form. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence that

Rs.5000/- has been paid to the complainant by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & complainant was not produced before the

enquiry officer in evidence.

55.

It has been argued before this tribunal by learned counsel for the applicant & has been mentioned in the written

argument by applicant that withdrawal form was not presented before the Enquiry Officer yet he has been held guilty

by Enquiry Officer hence, disciplinary action cannot be taken against him. Further, it has been submitted that P-21 has

not been signed by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma & complaint of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma was prepared by a forged

person which means that there is no complaint of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma & Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma has not

been called in evidence to prove the documents. Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned

representative of non-applicant that applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has himself received the document P-35 in which

there is endorsement about withdrawal of money by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & receipt of misappropriated money by Sh.

Mahadev Prasad Sharma hence, there remains nothing to be proved against the applicant by calling Sh. Mahadev

Prasad Sharma in evidence because P-35 has been secured by applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal himself.

56.

It shall appear from the letter P-35 written by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma that Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma has

admitted that he has received the money beside mentioning the allegation that money was withdrawn by Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal from his account. This letter has been secured & taken by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal himself which clearly

appears from the submission made by presenting officer before the Enquiry Officer. This act of applicant clearly

acknowledges the creation of P-35 by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma at the initiation of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal. In this

circumstance, there remains nothing to be proved by securing attendance of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma before the

Enquiry Officer for proving the fact or for facilitating the cross examination by delinquent because delinquent has

himself taken the document P-35 from Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma.

57.

As far as the question of P-21 is concerned according to argument of applicant it is a document which has not

been signed by Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma & has been prepared by a forged person in place of Sh. Mahadev Prasad

Sharma but this argument is not tenable in view of the fact that Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma has admitted in P-35 that

he had made a complaint on 20.10.2004 which is none other than P-21 in this connection. Further, it is pertinent to

mention that disputed signature of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma has been examined by admitted signature of Sh.

Mahadev Prasad Sharma & handwriting expert has alleged in his report that disputed signatures on withdrawal forms

are forged signature, thus, this fact stands proved that complaint of withdrawal made by the complainant is correct &

alleged amount has not been withdrawn by account holder himself. As far as its withdrawal by delinquent is concerned

securing & receiving document P-35 from Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma by applicant is sufficient proof of involvement

of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal because in the alleged circumstance when P-35 has been secured & received by Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal himself there is no need of attendance of Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma as witness before the enquiry officer.

On the basis of above discussion, I am of the view that non-applicant has proved charge No.3 levelled against Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal.

Charge No.4

58.

Charge No. 4 is to the effect that on 1.11.2003 applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal received a sum of Rs.7000/- for

crediting it to the saving account No. 01190012803 of Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma on his counter & issued counterfoil in

testimony of the said deposit but he did not account for the amount in the banker’s book & pocketed the money for his

own use.

59.

In explanation against charge No. 4 it has been submitted by applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal that on 1.11.03

amount of Rs.7000/- was not deposited by Miss Saroj Sharma, sister of account holder Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma. He

has further submitted that on the instigation of someone Miss Saroj Sharma has presented the complaint against me

relating to charge number 4.

1788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Charge No.5

60.

Charge No.5 also relates to account number 01190012803 of Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma wherein it has been

alleged that delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal credited a sum of Rs.7000/- on 31.12.2003 by debiting this amount of

Rs.7000/- from the account no. 01190010678 which relates to some other Manoj Kumar Sharma & this exercise of

debiting from one account & crediting it to another account was done by delinquent without authority of the account

holders.

61.

From perusal of enquiry record it appears that Miss Saroj Sharma made a written complaint to Branch Manager,

Ratangarh on 17.5.04 that she had deposited a sum of Rs.7000/- on 1.11.03 in the account of her brother Sh. Manoj

Kumar Sharma. She had made endorsement of detail of currencies on deposit slip & counterfoil at the time of deposit

on 1.11.03. She has further alleged that the deposit slip dated 4.11.03 shown by Branch Manager to Miss Saroj Sharma

has not been filled by her & is not in her handwriting whereas deposit made on 1.11.03 was in her handwriting. She has

further said that it appears that deposit made by her on 1.11.03 was not credited to the account of her brother & after

utilising the money for a period of three days the money has been deposited by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal in the account of

another Manoj Kumar wherein deposit slip does not bear the signature of depositor. She has further alleged that

Rs.7000/- has been deposited back in the account of her brother Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma on 31.12.03 after laps of

about two months consequent upon complaint made to branch manager. She has prayed to take action against the guilty

person.

62.

In his explanation against charge no.5 Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has alleged that deposit of Rs.7000/- on 4.11.2003

was made by Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma brother of Miss Saroj Sharma but instead of 4.11.2003 he had mentioned

1.11.2003 on the counterfoil (receipt). Delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has further alleged that he accepted the

amount & when he tried to make posting of the amount in computer then he found that account number was not written

in deposit slip. Thereafter, he sought the appearance of all the accounts on the screen of computer in the name of Manoj

Kumar & according to his guess he credited the amount by mistake to account number 10678 because printer was

defective at that time. He has further alleged that on 31.12.2003 Miss Saroj Sharma came to the bank to have the entry

made in passbook then she came to know that the amount had been credited in the account no.10678 in the name of Sh.

Manoj Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, he gathered the vouchers of deposit & after securing the correct information about

account number he on his own level debited the account no.10678 & credited it to the account no.12803 of Sh. Manoj

Kumar Sharma i.e. brother of Miss Saroj Sharma. He has further alleged that single window operating system had

authority of transferring only a sum of Rs.1500/- hence, he prepared the vouchers at his level. With above explanation

he had claimed that the charge against the delinquent is baseless.

63.

From the perusal of enquiry record it appears that it has been argued by presenting officer of the bank before the

enquiry officer on behalf of bank in relation to charge No. 4 that on 1.11.2003 cash was received for deposit by Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal who has given counterfoil to the depositor but he did not credit the amount on 1.11.2003 &

destroyed the deposit voucher & utilised the money for his own purpose & on 4.11.2003 deposited the amount in

account of another Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma to conceal the fraud committed by him under the garb of mistake. It has

been further submitted that deposit slip filled on 4.11.03 is in different handwriting whereas counterfoil delivered on

1.11.2003 is in different handwriting bearing correct & clear account number, hence, charge against delinquent stands

proved. Against above submission it has been argued by defence representative that charge No.4 has not been proved

against delinquent because complainant has not appeared in evidence. It has been further submitted that no amount was

deposited on 1.11.2003 as alleged in explanation by delinquent & on 4.11.2003 Miss Saroj Sharma came to the counter

of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & as a courtesy towards a lady delinquent filled up the deposit voucher for the credit of Sh.

Manoj Kumar Sharma to account no. 01190010678 & after searching in the system promptly credited the amount in the

above said account. He has further alleged that thereafter she demanded the counterfoil which was not available with

the delinquent & thereafter she presented a dully filled up counterfoil which was issued to her but the delinquent

omitted to check the account number & date on the counterfoil hence, charge is baseless & unfounded that money was

used by delinquent for three days & deposit was intentionally made in wrong account where it remained lying for about

two month. Against charge No.5 it has been argued that debiting account of one customer & crediting that amount to

another customer’s account for rectification of wrong does not require confirmation from the account holder & passing

of transfer entry was within the power & there was no malafied intention.

64.

It has been argued before this tribunal by learned counsel for applicant that charge No.4 & 5 have not been

proved by opposite party & complainant has not been produced in evidence because there was no deposit from

complainant side on 1.11.2003 & when applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal came to know about crediting of the amount

in wrong account he has debited the amount & credited to the correct account of Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma. Countering

the above argument it has been submitted by learned counsel for non- applicant that applicant knowingly & deliberately

has committed grave misconduct by temporarily misappropriating the amount deposited by account holder on

1.11.2003 & to conceal the wrong committed by him he has wrongly taken all the step of debiting & crediting without

authority of the senior officer of the bank or the account holder & charge 4 & 5 have been proved by non-applicant

against the delinquent.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1789

65.

From perusal of enquiry record it appears that charge No.4 & 5 have been found proved by the enquiry officer

against the delinquent. The proof of charge No.4 has been based on the counterfoil P-18 filed by Miss Saroj Sharma on

which stamp of the bank is dated 1.11.03 & this amount was deposited on 4.11.03 in the account No. 10678 of another

Manoj Sharma. The stamp of 1.11.2003 on the deposit slip has been the basis of conclusion that amount was tendered

for deposit on 1.11.2003. Charge No.5 has been treated as proved on the ground that P-19 deposit slip was prepared by

delinquent employee himself on 4.11.2003 in the name of another Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma & was deposited in the

account No.10678 to cover the fraud. Further, delinquent prepared transfer voucher (P-19 A) on 31.12.2003 & P-19 B

debit voucher which was without authorisation by a Senior Officer or by account holder.

66.

From perusal of record it is evident that this fact is admitted that debiting & crediting of the amount has been

admitted to have been done by delinquent himself in his own writing & signature. P-18 is the counterfoil on record in

which Rs.7000/- has been shown to be deposited on 1.11.2003. The amount of Rs.7000/- is consisting of 7 notes of

Rs.500/- & 35 notes of Rs.100/- denomination. The stamp affixed on P-18 bears the date 1.11.2003 & the date written

by depositor on counterfoil is also 1.11.2003 hence, delinquent & his learned representative can not be permitted to say

that no deposit was made in the account no.12803 of Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma i.e. brother of Miss Saroj Sharma.

Further, it is pertinent to note that in his explanation to charge No.5 delinquent has alleged that on 4.11.2003 Sh.

Manoj Kumar Sharma had got the money deposited who did not mention the date on deposit slip whereas learned

representative of the applicant in his submission before the Enquiry Officer has submitted that Miss Saroj Sharma had

visited on 4.11.2003 to deposit the money & in courtsey towards lady vouchers were filled by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal

hence, both the contentions are contradictory. Further, it is pertinent to mention that if contention of the learned

representative of the delinquent is correct that counterfoil was prepared by Miss Saroj Sharma on 4.11.2003 then how

the counterfoil submitted by complainant bears the stamp dated 1.11.2003. From the above discussion, I am of the view

that contention of the learned representative of the applicant is not sustainable that no deposit was made on 1.11.2003.

From the circumstance, it is clear that applicant has been in the full knowledge of the fact that deposit was made on

1.11.2003 & all the explanations offered by him are baseless, fabricated & untenable. The enquiry officer has rightly

held him guilty for charge no.4 & 5 levelled against him.

Charge No.6

67.

Charge No.6 is to the effect that applicant issued cheque No. 536949 dated 1.2.2004 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

without keeping sufficient amount as balance in his current account No. 01090094052.

68.

In his explanation dated 31.12.2005 by applicant against charge No.6 he has narrated that he had issued this

cheque to one Sh. Jaswant Singh who was customer of the Ratngarh branch. He has further alleged that Sh. Jaswant

Singh was an ex-serviceman who was frequently meeting the delinquent. One day during his visit to the bank he told

the delinquent that if delinquent needs any goods from military canteen Sh. Jaswant Singh will bring it & give it to

delinquent because he is a retired military personnel. Thereafter, in January, 2004 delinquent asked him for a 6 k.g.

automatic washing machine. Sh. Jaswant Singh said that the alleged washing machine is available in his military

canteen situated at Bikaner & he will have to make visit to Bikaner which requires spending money in visiting Bikaner

beside spending of time. He further said that beside above expenditure certain amount will be required to be spent as

commission. When delinquent agreed to fulfil above conditions to get the washing machine, Sh. Jaswant Singh asked

for advance money. In return applicant issued to Sh. Jaswant Singh the above mentioned cheque dated 1.2.2004. The

applicant has further alleged that after laps of sometime from the date of issuing the cheque applicant felt himself sick

& he has further alleged that he was to receive money from someplace but the money was not received till then hence,

he asked Sh. Jaswant Singh not to proceed with the purchase of washing machine & the delinquent will ask for the

washing machine after 2-3 months & he directed him to return the cheque back to delinquent. Applicant has further

said that after receiving above information from delinquent Sh. Jaswant Singh got annoyed & said that he has already

placed the order for washing machine from the canteen & delinquent will have to take the washing machine.

Delinquent replied that he is not in position to arrange the money for washing machine & asked Sh. Jaswant Singh to

deliver the cheque back to the delinquent. On demanding the cheque back Sh. Jaswant Singh said that he will return the

cheque back but delinquent will have to compensate for the labour that has been done by Sh. Jaswant Singh till then.

The delinquent has narrated that annoyed by the denial of the delinquent Sh. Jaswant Singh placed the cheque in the

bank for payment & made a complaint in this connection to the bank that he has to get Rs.10,000/- from Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal. Applicant has further alleged that he did not think that Sh. Jaswant Singh will act in that manner with the

delinquent & when cheque was tendered to the bank for payment applicant was at his native village . From his village

he contacted Sh. Jaswant Singh on telephone & ask him to return the cheque back to the delinquent. Applicant has

annexed the copy of the cheque with his explanation. Further, applicant has alleged that he was unaware that the

cheque book from which he had issued the cheque to Sh. Jaswant Singh was issued to the branch office of the bank

which was kept in the almirah (rack) of the table of the delinquent & issued the cheque from that cheque book

thinking that cheque book was personal belonging of the delinquent. Applicant has said that when he asked Sh. Jaswant

Singh not to take the washing machine there was no need to keep sufficient balance in the account hence, charge No.6

levelled against him is baseless.

1790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

69.

It has been argued by learned representative of the applicant before the tribunal that charge has been framed

against the applicant for having insufficient money in his account & issuing a cheque of Rs.10,000/- to one Sh. Jaswant

Singh on 1.2.2004 but such charge cannot be levelled against the delinquent because this event is related to section 138

Negotiable Instrument Act & proceeding under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be initiated in absence of

a written complaint by Sh. Jaswant Singh to the concerned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint. Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned representative for the opposite party that

alleged act of the delinquent is a misconduct under the “RULES OF CONDUCT (AWARD STAFF” for employees of

the bank & disciplinary action is permissible against the delinquent applicant for the alleged misconduct. Against this,

it has been submitted by learned representative of the applicant that there is no such provision wherein it has been

provided that issuing of cheque without sufficient balance in the account is an act of misconduct.

70.

“RULES OF CONDUCT (AWARD STAFF” has been submitted by learned representative of the opposite party

which is available on page 10 of the book named ‘A BOOK ON DISCIPLINE & DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS’

( 12TH Edition). The relevant part of provided provision reads as under :-

“An employee of the Bank may not :-

(i)

Borrow money or permit any member of his family to borrow money or other wise place himself or a member of

his family under a pecuniary obligation to a broker or a money lender or a subordinate employee of the bank or any

person, association of persons, firm, company or institution, whether incorporated or not having dealings with the bank;

(ii)

…………………………………”.

71.

From the perusal of enquiry record it appears that Sh. Jaswant Singh made a complaint against Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal that on 3.12.2003 by means of withdrawal form he had drawn a sum of Rs.29,000/- from his account but

withdrawal form was filled by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & only signature on withdrawal form was made by applicant Sh.

Jaswant Singh. Sh. Jaswant Singh had desired to draw Rs.29000/- only which was given to him by delinquent but

delinquent had drawn Rs.39000/- by endorsing this amount in withdrawal form in place of Rs.29000/- & pocketed

Rs.10000/- to himself. On 1.1.2004 he came to know about wrong withdrawal of Rs.29000/- & made a written

complaint (P-31) about the matter to Assistant Manager & Manager of the branch. Sh. Jaswant Singh was asked to

identify the employee of the bank present on the premises who was responsible for the wrong committed with him.

After identification by Sh. Jaswant Singh it was found that none of the staff present in the bank was the person who

was responsible for drawing Rs.39000/-. At that point of time Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal had gone for lunch. When Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal returned from lunch applicant Sh. Jaswant Singh identified him & asked Sh. Jaswant Singh to come

tomorrow when Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal will explain as to how Rs.39000/- was withdrawn in place of Rs.29000/-. After

this Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal issued the alleged cheque as mentioned above for a sum of Rs.10000/- dated 1.2.2004 with

instruction that Sh. Jaswant Singh should tender the cheque for encashment on or after 1.2.2004 only. He further

assured that he will pay the money within 10 days. Sh. Jaswant Singh take the cheque back. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal fail

to make payment within 10 days & approached the Manager of the bank with written complaint accompanied by

alleged cheque & requested the Branch Manager to take the cheque in custody & ensure him the payment of Rs.10000/-

by 1.2.2004.

72.

It appears that subsequent to the complaint of Sh. Jaswant Singh, father of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal, Sh. Girdhari

Lal S/o Bhagumal Agrawal contacted Sh. Jaswant Singh along with witness Sh. Vinod Kumar Khemka on 5.2.2004 &

paid the amount of Rs.10000/- & received the cheque back issued by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal to Sh. Jaswant Singh. A

letter (P-33) to this effect has been written by Sh. Jaswant Singh which has been signed by witness Sh. Vinod Kumar

Khemka. In this P-33 Sh. Jaswant Singh has requested that as father of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal he has paid the money

back hence, Sh. Jaswant Singh has no complaint now against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & complainant’s complaint may

be consigned. During cross-examination Sh. Vinod Kumar Khemka has admitted his signature on P-33. Sh. Jaswant

Singh has also been cross-examined by defence representative. Sh. Jaswant Singh has admitted that he had complained

against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal to the bank & the cheque was given by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal to him & on 5.2.2004 he

has received money from Sh. Girdhari Lal, father of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & after receipt of money he has no

complaint now against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal. An unsuccessful attempt has been made by defence representative to

suggest the witness Sh. Jaswant Singh & Enquiry Officer that the person who paid Rs.10000/- was not the father of Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal & he was some unknown person interested in falsely implicating Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal but this

suggestion is completely baseless in view of the fact that Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has himself admitted in his explanation

to the charge that cheque in original was returned by Sh. Jaswant Singh whose photocopy has been attached by Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal with his explanation consisting of different story. From the comparison of the story of washing

machine placed by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & the complaint of Sh. Jaswant Singh, it is also evident that the plea of

washing machine raised by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal to cover his entire illegal act is unfounded & based on fabricated

facts. On the basis of statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar Khemka also there remains no doubt that father of Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal was the person who delivered Rs.10000/- & P-33 was executed in correct prospective. On the basis of above

discussion, I am of the view that opposite party has been successful in proving charge No.6 against the delinquent Sh.

Shyamlal & plea of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in defence of delinquent is unsustainable.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1791

Charge no.7

73.

This issue is to the effect that on 25.11.2003 delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal received a sum of Rs.12000/-

from Sh. Parmeshwarlal for crediting it to the saving account no. 01190010807 which was received by him & a

counterfoil was issued to the depositor but the amount received was not accounted to the account of bank’s book.

74.

Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal in his explanation to charge no.7 has alleged that Sh. Parmeshwarlal Singhania has made

deposit of some money on 25.11.2003 & the counterfoil relating to the deposit was in his possession but it was not

bearing the signature of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal. He has further alleged that he had made a complaint in the bank as well

as in the police station & police had submitted the investigation report in the court but Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has not

received any summon from the court till the date of his explanation on 31.12.2005. He has further submitted in his

explanation that Sh. Parmeshwarlal has himself given in writing to Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal that Sh. Parmeshwarlal had

not given any money to Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal for making deposit & the counterfoil was issued to Sh. Parmeshwarlal

by mistake & Sh. Parmeshwarlal had filed a complaint against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal by mistake on instigation of

people. He has further contended that he is endorsing the photocopy of written note given by Sh. Parmeshwarlal to him

& charge levelled against him is accordingly baseless.

75.

In final argument submitted on 25.10.2017 in writing by applicant himself & it has also been argued by learned

counsel for the applicant that the enquiry officer has based his finding on the basis of P-7 & P-6 documents but these

documents have not come during enquiry proceeding hence, no disciplinary action can be taken on the basis of these

documents. He has further submitted that neither counterfoil relating to Rs.12000/- was produced nor Sh.

Parmeshwarlal was produced for examination & cross examination to depose that counterfoil was given to him by Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal. Further, he has relied on the judgement of criminal court which has been filed by him. Countering

the above argument it has been submitted by learned counsel for non-applicant that there has been compromise

between Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & Sh. Parmeshwarlal & payment of Rs.12000/- has been made to Sh. Parmeshwarlal &

only after that Sh. Parmeshwarlal has submitted an affidavit in favour of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & this fact is clear from

the judgement of Hon’ble Criminal Court also.

76.

As far as the proceeding during enquiry is concerned it has been submitted by presenting officer before the

enquiry officer that Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal paid a sum of Rs.12000/- out of court to secure a compromise in his favour

from Sh. Parmeshwarlal & this fact is clear from the document P-6 wherein he has admitted to have received the

money & in consequence he has desired that the case before the criminal court may be dismissed.

77.

Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has himself filed the copy of judgement dated 16.2.2012 of the court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh Distt: Churu. The criminal case no.128/2005, State of Rajasthan v/s Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal u/s 409, 120 B I.P.C. was based on an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein order on 19.1.2004 was passed

for investigation of the case by Ratangarh police station. Based on order dated 19.1.2004 investigation was made by

Ratangarh police station against accused Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & the then Branch Manager, Sh. L.C.Lakhani & final

report was submitted by the police before the court. However, vide order dated 26.5.2005 both the accused were

summoned for trial. Sh. L.C.Lakhani preferred criminal revision against the order of cognizance dated 26.5.2005 by the

court of learned magistrate which was allowed by Hon’ble Court of District & Session Judge vide order dated

19.6.2009. The criminal case no. 128/2005 continued against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & he was charged on 7.3.2011 for

the offence u/s 409 I.P.C.

78.

According to complaint made before the court of Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. the brief fact of the case against

Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal is that on 25.11.2003 at about 11 a.m. complainant visited the Ratangarh branch of the bank to

make deposit of a sum of Rs.12000/- in his saving account. He filled the deposit slip & handed over the money along

with pass book to Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal for making the deposit before the witnesses Sh. Santosh Kumar & sh.

Satyanarayan. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal took the amount of Rs.12000/-, counted it & after making initial & stamping with

seal of the bank on the deposit slip handed over the same to the complainant Sh. Parmeshwarlal. Returning the

passbook to Sh. Parmeshwarlal he alleged the complainant that entry in passbook will be made latter by computer.

Branch Manager, Sh. L.C.Lakhani told the complainant that complainant need not to worry & he must become assure

that money has been deposited in the account. On 9.1.2004 complainant visited the bank & tendered the withdrawal

form with passbook for withdrawing a sum of Rs.5000/- but no payment was made & it was alleged by bank that there

is insufficient amount in his account. Thereafter, he contacted branch manager & complained against Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal. The branch manager told the complainant that payment will be made tomorrow i.e. next date & when no

payment was made on 10.1.2004 he made written complaint to the Superintendent of Police & Collector of district

Churu but no case was registered. He made repeated visit to bank & Sh. L.C.Lakhani told him that enquiry is going on

in the matter & payment will be made latter. He has further alleged that Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & Manager Sh.

L.C.Lakhani have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust with the complainant &

misappropriated a sum of Rs.12000/- dishonestly. Similar incidents have occurred with other customers of the bank

hence, accused persons be summoned & tried for offence u/s 409 & 120 B I.P.C.

1792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

79.

Complainant Sh. Parmeshwarlal turned hostile & rest of the witnesses were discharged on the application of

complainant. On the basis of complainant not supporting the case of prosecution accused Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal was

acquitted of the charge u/s 409 I.P.C. with benefit of doubt.

80.

From the perusal of the judgement it is evident that despite the fact that complainant has turned hostile he has

admitted in cross examination that he was given counterfoil about deposit of the money but alleged counterfoil was not

given by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal but it was given by some other official of the bank. This statement goes to show that he

had made the deposit in the bank & he was given a counterfoil in testimony of such deposit. Nothing has been asked

further that who was the official who had given him counterfoil & why he initiated criminal proceeding against Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal. Nothing has been alleged by the delinquent also as to why he did not initiate a case of malicious

prosecution against Sh. Parmeshwarlal.

81.

Beside turning hostile before the criminal court Sh. Parmeshwarlal complainant has written a letter (P-7) to the

Superintendent of Police, Churu on 12.4.2005 with copy to Station Officer, P.S. Ratangarh & Dy.S.P., Ratangarh

wherein he has said that he had visited the bank on 25.11.2003 to make deposit of Rs.12000/- & for this purpose he

filled the deposit slip & give to the cashier & the counterfoil was signed by cashier & given to him but he forgot to

hand over the money to cashier due to his engagement in talking to one of his known person at that moment & he

returned home without handing over money to cashier. He has further alleged that on instigation of people mistakenly

filed criminal case before the court against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & Sh. L.C.Lakhani. He has further express his desire

not to have any further action in the case & his case may be dismissed. It is evident that his contention is different about

cash before the court & in P-7. It appears that basing on P-7 final report has been submitted by police after

investigation. Another document before the enquiry officer is affidavit (P-6) which is affidavit filed by applicant before

the criminal court. This affidavit dated 12.4.2005 has been submitted in the court by Sh. Parmeshwarlal as a favour to

delinquent so that acquittal of the applicant may be secured. In this affidavit Sh. Parmeshwarlal deponent has alleged in

first paragraph of the affidavit that on 25.11.2003 he deposited a sum of Rs.12000/- in Ratangarh branch of S.B.I. in his

account no. 01190010007. He has further alleged in following paragraphs that on 9.1.2004 he visited the bank to

withdraw the money from his above mentioned account but he did not get the money & got a case( ISTAGASA)

instituted against manager Sh. L.C.Lakhani & cashier Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal of the bank about misappropriation of

money & this act of getting the case instituted was done by him hurriedly on instigation of the people. He has further

alleged that he has got the money that was deposited by him & he wants the case instituted by him dismissed against

the accused because he does not want any further action against them. The learned enquiry officer has acted on the

documents P-6 & P-7 as mentioned above. It is pertinent to mention that P-7 written to Superintendent of Police & P-6

affidavit have been prepared on the same date i.e. on 12.4.2005. Both the documents have been prepared at the

instance of delinquent who has been aware about both the documents in view of the fact that P-7 has been filed in his

favour in the criminal court where he was facing the trial. One can very safely conclude that P-6 has been prepared on

the active participation of delinquent by making payment of Rs.12000/- the money which has been the cause of the

complaint by Sh. Parmeshwarlal. Letter P-7 was written with a view to promote the filing of final report by police

where investigation was going on.

82.

A plea has been taken on behalf of delinquent before the enquiry officer as well as before this tribunal that Sh.

Parmeshwarlal was not produced in evidence for cross examination hence, disciplinary proceeding cannot take place in

above circumstance. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that in above circumstance Sh.

Parmeshwarlal was not required to be produced by bank for supporting his complaint because he had become hostile to

the interest of the prosecution & to the bank & he was a good witness for the defence to favour him & he could have

been rightly produced by delinquent by which the witness was won over. Documents P-6 & P-7 are the admitted

document of the defence & their copies were supplied to the learned representative of the defence. Evidence was

started during enquiry proceeding on 21.7.2006 & Sh. Parmeshwarlal has written both the documents P-6 & P-7 on

12.4.2005 favouring the delinquent. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal delinquent himself or his defence representative before the

enquiry officer or learned representative of applicant & applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal himself before the tribunal

have alleged nothing as to in what manner any prejudice has occurred to the delinquent during enquiry by his non-

production as witness before the enquiry officer. They have also not been able to show as to why they have not chosen

to produce him as defence witness before the enquiry officer when bank had failed to produce him as witness of the

bank. Sh. Parmeshwarlal has already given a written note in favour of Sh. Shyamlal which is in return of money to Sh.

Parmeshwarlal. In above circumstance it cannot be expected that management of the bank could produce him as

witness.

83.

On the basis of above discussion & for the reasons stated therein I am of the view that opposite party has proved

the charge no.7 levelled against the applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal.

Charge No.8

84.

Charge no.8 is to the effect that delinquent managed to obtain a computerised passbook no. 000745 & issued it to

Shri Mahadev Prasad, account holder of saving bank account no.01190007812 & made a entry manually in that saving

account for a sum of Rs.400/- on 8.12.2003. This entry was relating to the difference amount of maturity value of two

STDRs No. 441115 aggregating Rs.38888/- and issue of new STDR for Rs.38,488/- in the name of account holder on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1793

4.9.2003. The entries in the said Pass Book were confirmed by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal with his signatures at the place

meant for Chief Manager.

85.

Applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has submitted in his explanation against the above noted charge no.8 that Shri

Mahadev Prasad is a retired policeman & he had got credited the amount relating to both the TDRs in his saving

account from the another counter of the bank. When Shri Mahadev Prasad was leaving the bank Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal

insisted him to get fresh TDR prepared for the alleged amount of above TDRs. According to contention of Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal Shri Mahadev Prasad was convinced with Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & asked him to give him Rs.400/-

in cash & invest rest of amount of both the TDRs by making a fresh single TDR. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has further said

in his explanation that he acted according to the direction of Shri Mahadev Prasad & gave him Rs.400/- in cash &

invested rest of the amount in TDR but looking into the old age of Shri Mahadev Prasad he prepared all the related

vouchers & posted them in his own handwriting. Further explaining about the cause of the complaint by Shri Mahadev

Prasad he has alleged that on the direction of branch manager he visited the house of Shri Mahadev Prasad & reminded

his son about making payments relating to housing loan failing which legal action will be taken against him for which

the debtor will be responsible. The loan account was in the name of Shri Mahadev Prasad’s son. According to further

part of explanation Shri Mahadev Prasad who was sitting beside his son at the time of conversation got annoyed & said

that his son should have been called at branch of the bank to narrate him such warning because such visit to his house

by a bank employee in relation to loan lowers the dignity of Shri Mahadev Prasad. He has further alleged that Shri

Mahadev Prasad further told him that he was entitled to interest on TDR from the back date which was prepared by Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal. In rest part of the explanation Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has tried to justify his act done by him in

relation to preparation of TDR & misappropriation of Rs.400/-.

86.

From perusal of enquiry record it appears that the enquiry officer has held the delinquent guilty of charge no.8.

The learned disciplinary authority has not made any mention of charge no.8 in his order while proposing the

punishment for dismissal of the applicant from service.

87.

In his written argument before the tribunal nothing has been mentioned by applicant in relation to charge no.8. In

oral argument it has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that Shri Mahadev Prasad has not been

produced in evidence by opposite party hence, the enquiry officer has committed error in holding the charge no.8

proved against the applicant. Countering the above argument it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party

that admittedly entire documents relating to charge no.8 has been prepared by the delinquent himself & there remains

nothing to be proved in view of his own admission by the applicant. It has been further argued that in spite of the fact

that the act of the applicant Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal is self speaking yet respondent effort to bring Sh. Mahadev Prasad in

evidence before enquiry officer failed due to sickness & old age of Shri Mahadev Prasad & he could not appear for

evidence.

88.

From perusal of enquiry record it appears that a complaint dated 8.12.2003 (P-48) was made by Shri Mahadev

Prasad against Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal wherein it has been mentioned that two fixed deposits were continuing in the

Ratangarh branch of the state bank being part of complainant’s account no. 2812 & amount of money relating to both

the FDs were to be reinvested as single FD. The total amount of both the FDs paid to him was Rs.400/- less than the

required amount which must have been paid as total sum of both the FDs. Further it has been alleged that the amount

of Rs.400/- has been paid to the complainant in cash by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal on 8.12.2003 & has also been credited

in the passbook of the complainant which was less paid on the date of investment of consolidated amount of both the

FDs. Shri Mahadev Prasad has further said that Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal was strongly scolded by the officer of the bank

because of which payment of Rs.400/- was made to him. Further he has stressfully said that he was paid his money

because of scolding from the officer of the bank but delinquent may further defraud this institution again hence, it is

requested that have the guilty person be punished so that he does not repeat such mistake in future.

89.

From perusal of the record it appears that total consolidated amount of both the FDs was Rs.38888/- but

complainant was paid only a sum of Rs.38488/- by Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & remaining amount of Rs.400/- was

misappropriated by the applicant. After complain dated 8.12.2003 Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal has paid the amount in cash

& has credited the same in computerised passbook in his own handwriting. Thus, the explanation dated 31.12.2005

against the charge memo appears to be false, fabricated & baseless in background of what has happened on 8.12.2003

after complaint of Shri Mahadev Prasad. All the above act of the applicant has taken place in his own handwriting

which he has admitted in his explanation & has tried to give a fake & fabricated explanation which does not stand

correct to the scrutiny. Photocopy of computerised passbook no. 000745 is on record which bears the full signature of

delinquent in which he has made entry on 8.12.2003 for a sum of Rs.400/- which bears his initial. P-47 is the deposit

slip for Rs.400/- which has been admittedly prepare by delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal as alleged by him in his

explanation dated 31.12.2005. In above admitted position there remains nothing to be proved with the aid of Shri

Mahadev Prasad as witness because the complaint made by Shri Mahadev Prasad has also been admitted by applicant.

90.

As far as the question of producing Shri Mahadev Prasad in evidence is concerned it appears from the enquiry

proceeding dated 21.7.2006 that due to illness & old age of 85 Shri Mahadev Prasad could not appear as witness on

21.7.2006. Shri Mahadev Prasad was to appear as witness on 21.7.2006 & during enquiry massage was received from

Shri Mahadev Prasad’s home that he has become ill suddenly who is aged about 85. Thus, due to illness he could not

1794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appear in person. Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal also has himself admitted about disability of Shri Mahadev Prasad due to old

age in his explanation dated 31.12.2005 against charge no.8 that looking into customer’s service & old age of Shri

Mahadev Prasad he himself prepared all the vouchers of Shri Mahadev Prasad in his own handwriting & posted them.

It has been argued that applicant could have got opportunity to cross examine Sh. Mahadev Prasad if he would have

been produced in evidence as witness. Here, it is pertinent to mention that nothing has been mentioned in written

argument that how non-production of Sh. Mahadev Prasad has prejudiced the applicant & how his appearance in

witness box could have helped the delinquent. In background of above circumstance there remains nothing to assess

that appearance of Shri Mahadev Prasad could have made any difference because independent of his presence, facts

relating to charge no.8 are admitted facts of the delinquent & explanations offered by him stand fabricated & baseless.

91.

Based on above discussion, I am of the view that opposite party has proved charge no.8 against applicant Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal.

92.

In (1998) III LLJ 501 M.P., State Bank of India…….Petitioner v/s Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum

Labour Court & anr…..Respondents, referred from applicant side, respondent workman a cashier in the bank of

petitioner. The charge against the applicant was that he had made in his own handwriting & authenticated the spurious

entries in the passbook of account holder Sh. Dharmveer Prasad Bhatnagar (detail of various entries have been given).

The second charge against the respondent was that he had authenticated without due authority balance in the account

holder of charge no.1( detail mentioned). The act of the workman amounted to a major misconduct in the terms of para

521 of Shastri Award. In his explanation respondent workman submitted that he made the entries but entries were made

without any ulterior motive in a passbook of which he was under the belief that it is unused & belongs to a closed

amount. He further submitted about entries that he did so to demonstrate a person how entries are made in a passbook.

The entries had no relevance to the entries of account maintained in the branch. It was further submitted that by making

such entries, which, according to bank or spurious, the respondent workman had not received any financial gain as the

passbook was unused & belonged to a closed account &, therefore, there was no occasion to make the entries of the

passbook in the ledger. He further submitted that he acted in good faith with no intention to cause any loss to the bank

or to any of the account holders. Not satisfied with the explanation a departmental enquiry was held by the bank. The

enquiry officer held against charge no.1 that the bank was not put to any financial loss as a result of employee’s act &

the case of the presenting officer that entries in the passbook were made with ulterior motive was not established & the

employee was proceeded against without making this aspect as part of the charge. Against charge no.1 it was further

held that the presenting officer did not bring any material/evidence/argument to indicate that the bank was likely to

suffer any financial loss as a result of employees act. Against charge no.2 similar finding was given by enquiry officer

as charge no.1 the disciplinary authority however, did not agree with the findings of enquiry officer & recorded his own

conclusion on the basis of entries made in the passbook & attending circumstances. After reply to show cause notice

the disciplinary authority passed the order of discharge the applicant from service. Departmental appeal preferred by

applicant was also dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the dispute referred to it & held that enquiry held by

the enquiry officer was proper but punishment awarded is not commensurate with the misconduct of the respondent.

Looking into past excellent service record of the respondent punishment awarded by disciplinary authority was altered

to stoppage of two increments which cumulative effect & reinstatement in service with back wages.

93.

Aggrieved by the order of tribunal petitioner bank filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India wherein finding of the tribunal was upheld with modification that respondent was

not entitled to back wages from the date of discharge till the date of award.

94.

From the perusal of the facts & circumstances of the case of State Bank of India…….Petitioner V/s Central

Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court & anr…..Respondents, it is sufficiently clear that there is no

mitigating circumstances existing in the case of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal to derive any benefit in his favour from the cited

case.

95.

Reference has been made to the case reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, State of U.P & Ors. …..Appellant V/s Saroj

Kumar Singh …..Respondent & Court No.9, Writ- A No. 20337 of 1999, Shrish Singh ……Petitioner V/s Chairman,

Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & others …..Respondents by learned representative of the applicant on the point

that documents have been used in the enquiry case against the applicant for proving the charges but during enquiry

proceeding those documents have not been proved by the witnesses which was necessary to be proved before placing

reliance on those documents by enquiry officer. Repelling the above argument it has been argued by learned

representative of the bank that law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 2 SCC 772, State of U.P & Ors.

…..Appellant V/s Saroj Kumar Singh …..Respondent & Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Court No.9, Writ- A No.

20337 of 1999, Shrish Singh ……Petitioner V/s Chairman, Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & others

…..Respondents, does not apply to the facts of the present case. It has also been argued that in the present case three

witnesses have been produced by management to prove the charges against the applicant wherein Sh. Jaswant Singh &

Sh. Rajkumar are the complainant against Sh. Shyamlal & all the witnesses have been cross examined by the defence

representative but in case of Shirish Singh no witness has been examined & finding has been given enquiry officer

solely on the basis of report of handwriting expert. About the case of Sh. Saroj Kumar Singh it has been alleged by

learned representative of non-applicant that in that case documents demanded by the charged officer were never

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1795

supplied by the management even after direction of Hon’ble High Court due to charged officer was unable to make

reply of the charges levelled against him which resulted into failure of natural justice but in present case there is no

such situation that any demanded document by delinquent was not supplied to him.

96.

In (2010) 2 SCC 772, State of U.P & Ors. …..Appellant V/s Saroj Kumar Singh …..Respondent, respondent

was an executive engineer at construction division-I, PWD, Rai Barielly during the period 6.1.2001 to 12.2.2001 &

from 17.3.2001 to 28.4.2003. The appeal have been filed by appellant State of U.P. against the order passed by Hon’ble

High Court at Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ

petition of the respondent by quashing & setting aside the order of his removal dated 24.12.2004 & further directing his

reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

97.

According to the facts of the case while functioning as executive engineer at Rai Barielly respondent was served

with a charge sheet dated 24.2.2001 under rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999

making serious allegations of misconduct against him about misappropriation of public money. Rule 7 (v) of the above

mentioned U.P. Government Servant ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 mandates as under :-

“(v) The charge sheet, along with the copy of documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their

statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address

mentioned in the official records in case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner the charge-sheet shall

be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:

Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the

charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.”

98.

The above mentioned Rule clearly shows that disciplinary authority is duty bound to make available all relevant

documents which are sought to be relied upon against the government servant in proof of the charges. It is only when

the charge sheet together with documents is supplied that the government servant can be said to have had an effective

and reasonable opportunity to present his written statement of defence. In view of the above mentioned mandate

respondent made a written request dated 10.6.2001 to appellant demanding copies of documents relied in the charge

sheet. Later number of reminders & requests were submitted by respondent but he was not supplied with the desired

documents related to charge sheet. Respondent was compelled to move Hon’ble High Court for direction to supply the

copy of documents but in spite of direction the documents were not supplied. It was neither disputed before the Hon’ble

High Court nor before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that documents were not supplied to respondents on one pretext or

other. The Hon’ble Divisional Bench has recorded the following conclusion :-

“After hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties as well as the averments made in the

affidavits, we are of the view that the inquiry officer has not afforded opportunities to the petitioner insofar as he fails

to supply the documents to the petitioner which he has relied while framing the charges and further the petitioner was

not afforded opportunity to lead the evidence and also denied the opportunities to cross-examination of the person. The

inquiry officer has also failed to prove the charges during the inquiry proceedings by the recording any evidence. Thus,

the inquiry is vitiated and is violation of principle of natural justice.”

99.

With above observation the writ petition was allowed, the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent with

all consequential benefits. However, the state was granted liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law and

the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal has held in para 38 & 39 as under :

“38. In our opinion, the appellant have miserably failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the

documents have not been supplied to the respondent. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, very

appropriately set aside the order of removal.

39. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case we have no hesitation in coming to the

conclusion that the respondent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself the inquiry. We, therefore,

have no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.” With above observation the appeal was dismissed by

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

100. It shall appear from perusal of the entire case of Sh. Saroj Kumar Sinha that the case has been totally based on

non-compliance of mandated provision of rule 7(v) of U.P. Government Servant ( Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 &

documents mandated to be supplied under rule 7(v) were not given to the respondent which resulted into failure of

principles of natural justice. In the case of Sh. Shyamlal there is nothing to indicate that any demand of the document

was not met by bank or that there was any dissatisfaction in relation to non-supply of any documents, hence, no benefit

can be derived in favour of applicant from the cited case.

101. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant to the judgement of the Hon’ble Court No.9 of

High Court, Allahabad in writ petition no.- A No. 20337 of 1999, Shrish Singh ……Petitioner V/s Chairman,

Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & others …..Respondents, on the point of quantum of punishment and also on the

point that documents & the witnesses relating to charges have not been produced in evidence before the enquiry officer

including holders of the account, hence, it should be held that charges have not been proved. Opposing the above

1796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

argument it has been argued by learned representative of opposite party that nature & standard of proof required to

prove a charge depends upon contention of the charge & attending circumstances relating to the facts. The facts &

attending circumstances of the charges against the delinquent Sh. Shyamlal are distinguishable from the facts of the

case of Shirish Singh, hence, judgement in case of Shrish Singh is not applicable in the fact & circumstances of the

present case of Sh. Shyamlal. In the cited case the petitioner was an employee within the Junior Management Grade

Scale-1 with respondent Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.

He was served with a charge sheet dated 20.11.1995 which was replied by him on 15.2.96. Dissatisfied with the reply a

departmental enquiry was initiated wherein the enquiry officer submitted its enquiry report on 21.2.98. Disciplinary

authority issued the petitioner notice on receipt of enquiry report to have his say on the recommendation on the report

of enquiry officer. Petitioner replied the notice but disciplinary authority not satisfied with the explanation of the

petitioner & after recording its satisfaction on the enquiry report proceeded to impose the punishment of degradation of

six lower stages in the applicable pay permanently & also directed the recovery of a sum of Rs.17500/- from the

petitioner vide order of punishment dated 21.9.98. The appeal against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the

Board of Directors of the bank under resolution dated 7.1.99 without recording any reason with regard to challenge

made in the appeal to the order of disciplinary authority.

102. The enquiry proceeding was instituted against the petitioner on the complaint of one Ram Kewal, an account

holder in the respondent bank. According to Ram Kewal he had handed over cash of Rs.3000/-, 7000/- & 6000/-

totalling Rs.16000/- to the petitioner who was dealing officer in the matter at relevant time. The petitioner had also

issued receipts in respect of amount received by him but on verification these receipts were found to be forged & the

alleged amount of Rs.16000/- was not been deposited in account of Ram Kewal.

103. In writ petition against the order of dismissal it was contended on behalf of petitioner that the entire enquiry

proceedings against the petitioner stands vitiated on the ground that neither Ram Kewal entered into the witness box to

support the allegation of payment of Rs.16000/- nor he entered into the witness box to establish that the receipts which

were stated to have been received by him were actually handed over by the petitioner. The other contention of the

petitioner was that charge was found proved on the basis of an ex-parte report of Handwriting expert which was not

permissible in law. It was further submitted that before accepting the imposition of punishment the board was to have at

least examined as to whether in absence of complainant entering into the witness box to prove the payment of

Rs.16000/- to the petitioner, and to prove the actual issuance of receipt by the petitioner the charge could have been

brought home or not. Referring to its previous decision referred from both the side it was observed by Hon’ble High

Court in para 10 & 11 of the judgement as under:-

“10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that there has been no application of mind at the hands of the

Board, while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as the Board necessarily ought to have

examined as to whether in the absence of evidence led by the Bank to prove, the receipts to be genuine, and to

have been issued by the petitioner, the charge as levelled against the petitioner could have been brought home or

not.

11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Board of Directors dated 7.1.1999 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition)

and restore the appeal to its original number. The Board is directed to pass a fresh order in light of the

observations made above, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this order.”

104. It is evident from the case of Sh. Shirish Singh that no material before the enquiry officer was available to prove

the charge against the petitioner except the report/- of handwriting expert. The sole complainant Sh. Ram Kewal was

not produced as witness who contended that on three different occasions Rs.3000, Rs.7000/- & Rs. 6000/- totalling

Rs.16000/- were handed over to the petitioner who had issued receipts. In that circumstance, it was held that there was

no evidence to support the finding of enquiry officer except the report of handwriting expert. The case of Sh. Shyamlal

is distinguishable from the case of Sh. Shirish Singh because beside introduction of complainants as witness there has

been other supporting admitted documents by delinquent & circumstances to support the charges against the applicant

Sh. Shyamlal. In above fact & circumstances, I am of the view that no benefit can be derived in favour of Sh. Shyamlal

from the cited cases of Sh. Saroj Kumar Singh & Sh. Shirish Singh respectively. On the point of quantum of

punishment also there is no occasion to derive any mitigating situation in favour of Sh. Shyamlal because of the gravity

of the nature of charges against Sh. Shyamlal are far graver than Sh. Shirish Singh.

105. Applicant Sh. Shayamlal in written argument has made reference in his favour to the case 2007(1) SCC 506,

Jasbir Singh …..Appellant V/s Punjab & Sindh Bank & others …..Respondents. Learned counsel for the opposite

party has submitted that the findings in the case of Sh. Jasbir Singh are not attracted to the case of Sh. Shyamlal

because of difference in the fact & circumstances of both the cases. In 2007(1) SCC 506, Jasbir Singh …..Appellant

V/s Punjab & Sindh Bank & others …..Respondents, the allegation against the petitioner Sh. Jasbir Singh was that he

had forged the signature of a depositor Sh. Ratan Singh & fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 25000/- on 11.4.89. A

departmental enquiry was started against him. A criminal case beside a departmental enquiry was also initiated under

Section 409/201 IPC. He was acquitted of criminal charge. A purported confession alleged to have been made by him

was found to have been done under undue coercion. It was noticed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that even Sh.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1797

Ratan Singh did not make any complaint who was the account holder of the bank from whose account the alleged

amount was said to have withdrawn. Other officers of the bank who were said to be involved were not proceeded

against. It was held that on the alleged date of occurrence on 11.4.89 Rs.25000/- was not standing to the credit of Sh.

Ratan Singh & Ratan Singh was not examined. Appellant was found to have been threatened by officers of the bank &

his complaints soon after his release from the hands of the bank official had not been taken note of. It was also held that

an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution witness Mukhtiar Singh in regard to encashment of

withdrawal form without observing due formalities. The alleged fraudulent withdrawal was detected on 29.5.89 & the

evidence produced by the prosecution was held to be so inconsistent, incompatible & weak that no order of conviction

could be passed. There was no documentary evidence to connect the petitioner with offence, however, despite acquittal

the departmental proceeding continued & ended in holding the charges proved against the petitioner ex-parte on the

basis of intentional absence of petitioner during enquiry. The respondent bank had also filed a civil suit against the

petitioner Jasbir Which was decreed but reversed in appeal by the court of Learned Additional District Judge. It was

held by learned Additional District Judge that bank has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner had withdrawn

Rs.25,000/- or embezzled the amount. This judgement had become final because its correctness was not challenged by

the bank. Referring to it’s various pronouncements by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of effects of judgement of

civil court and judgement of acquittal in departmental proceeding when both the proceeding are based on identical

facts, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that neither the Hon’ble Court of Single Judge nor the Hon’ble Court of

Division Bench considered the question on merit at all. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that judgement of both

the civil court and criminal court established that petitioner/appellant was treated very unfairly and unreasonably.

Accordingly, writ appeal was allowed and appellant was ordered to be reinstated. The applicant has failed to explain as

to how the principles of law in Jasbir Singh’s case apply to the instant case of Shri Shyam Lal.

106. In R. Balakrishnan …….Petitioner V/s Food Corporation of India through its Managing Director & ors.

….Respondents. (decided on 7.2.2011 by Hon’ble Madras High Court), referred on behalf of applicant, six charges

were levelled against the petitioner & five witnesses were named in the memo of charge to prove the charges levelled

against the petitioner. The main charge against the accused was that he did not follow the advice of dealing assistant to

restrict to the existing rate contract of Rs.244/- per Kg for purchase of Aluminium Phosphide & ordered for purchase of

Aluminium at higher rate of Rs.305/- per kg overruling the observation of Associate Finance. This resulted into the loss

of crores of rupees to the Corporation. To prove the charges only one witness was examined who was investigating

officer of the case. No other witness was examined although five witnesses were named in the memo of charge. After

conclusion of enquiry charge no.2,4 & 6 was held proved & charge no.1,3 & 5 was held not proved by enquiry officer.

The disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer on charges 1,3 & 5 which were held to be not

proved. Petitioner Sh. R. Balakrishnan was dismissed vide order of respondent no.1 dated 24.7.2003.

107. Petitioner preferred petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian before the Hon’ble Madras High

Court on seven different grounds. The main grounds were that enquiry report of the enquiry officer was not given to the

petitioner while asking his comment against disagreement with report of enquiry officer on charges 1,3 & 5, the

enquiry officer acted as prosecutor & cross examined the witness of the management in lengthy manner which makes

the enquiry perverse, the enquiry officer was holding equal rank to that of the petitioner & the charge was amended

without giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

108. The writ of the petitioner was allowed & the order of dismissal passed by first respondent was set aside.

Petitioner had attained the age of superannuation hence, first respondent was directed to settle the pensionary benefits

within a period of one week. It was held by Hon’ble High Court in para 13 of the judgement as under:-

“13. By applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court to the contents of the report of the Enquiry Officer,

which is no doubt exhaustive in its nature, it shows that the prosecution has not proved the case cogently by producing

documents through witnesses and placing such witnesses to be cross-examined on the side of the delinquent. In the

absence of following such crucial method, which is the crux and basis of the concept of principles of natural justice,

any amount of reasoning given by the Enquiry Officer regarding each and every one of the instance in so many pages is

not going to validate the proceeding.”

109. From the above decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court it is clear that beside the fact that documents were not

made available to the petitioner on proper occasion to represent his case there was failure on the part of enquiry officer

to follow the principle of natural justice by himself cross examining the witness & basing his finding without

examining the relevant witnesses & providing opportunity to petitioner to cross examine them. In case of Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal it is evident from perusal of enquiry proceeding as mentioned above that there has been no occasion of non-

supply of any document during enquiry proceeding. Even before this tribunal nothing has been pointed out at any stage

that there has been non-supply of any document which was demanded by applicant or there has been failure of

principle of natural justice for want of document. Similarly, the finding of the enquiry officer is based on the evidence

of witnesses as well as attending circumstances. I am of the view that the case of R. Balakrishnan is distinguishable

from the case of Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & no benefit can be given to the applicant on the basis of the cited case. The

matter of supply & non-supply of document & opportunity of cross examining the witness require to be produced by

the management has been dealt at length while making disposal of issue of fairness of enquiry vide order 23.1.2017.

1798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

110. On the adequacy of quantum of punishment it has been argued by learned representative of applicant that

punishment of dismissal from the service is disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal & his

acts are innocent acts done in good faith in interest of the bank & its customers. Opposing the above contention it has

been argued by learned representative of opposite party that all the acts committed by delinquent are fraud on the face

of the record & has been done with intention of defrauding the customers of the bank in well planned manner for

personal gain & awarded punishment is suitable & proportionate. It has also been argued that tribunal is not

empowered to reduce the quantum of punishment in absence of any mitigating circumstances. Reliance has been placed

on the various cases shown in the index cited by learned counsel for opposite party as discussed below.

111. In 2016 LAB I.C. (NOC) 333 (GAU.), Dambarudhas Barman ..Appellant v/s Central Bank of India & Ors

..Respondents, appellant was charged for misappropriation of amount deposited by customers on various dates.

Evidence showed that various amounts were received from customers on various dates but they were not accounted &

credited to the account of the customers. Enquiry officer found that employee had acted in violation of established

norms & procedure of the bank. It was held by Hon’ble High Court that having regard to the nature of misconduct of

the employee punishment of dismissal of the employee from the service is not disproportionate.

112. In 2016 LAB. I.C. 533 (Supreme Court), Prem Nath Bali …Appellant V/s Registrar, High Court of Delhi and

another…..Respondents, appellant was appointed as LDC on 1.10.65 in the office of District & Session Judge, Delhi.

On 23.1.90 while working as UDC & In-charge of copying agency (criminal) at Patiala House Court submitted a

written complaint to the Officer-in-charge of copying agency, against one Window Clerk, namely Smt. Brijbala. In the

complaint he stated that she is not discharging her duty effectively & she often used to close the counter of copying

agency before the prescribed time & after lunch also she used to resume her duty after the prescribed time. Therefore,

the litigants had occasion to make a complaint to the appellant & he had to depute other official to attend the work. In

above circumstance, appellant requested for her transfer. On the same day Smt. Brijbala also made a statement to the

superior officer on 22.1.90 after closing the application register at 1.00 pm that she came to know that some

applications, which were not even entered in the register on that day, were entered in CD2/Dak register subsequently

and the certified copies were got prepared of those applications on the same date. She was also pressurized to deliver

the copies on the same date at 2.30 p.m. When she refused to deliver the copy, the appellant quarrelled with her and

used unwanted words in the office, which were uncalled for. The officer-in-charge forwarded the statement of Smt.

Brijbala to District Judge. On the basis of said complaint a preliminary enquiry was made & thereafter a departmental

enquiry was also held against the appellant. Appellant was placed under suspension on 6.2.90. A memorandum of

charge dated 18.7.90 was issued by office of District & Session Judge, Delhi that authority proposes to hold an enquiry

against the appellant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

which was accompanied with statement of article of charges & relevant documents. The disciplinary proceeding which

commenced on 18.7.90 continued for more than nine years. After conclusion of enquiry penalty of compulsory

retirement was imposed on the appellant vide order of disciplinary authority dated 28.10.99 which was challenged

before the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. the Hon’ble Administrative Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the

appellant vide order dated 21.8.2000 against order of compulsory retirement dated 28.10.99 passed by disciplinary

authority i.e. District & Session Judge, Delhi.

113. Appellant filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court against order dated 21.8.2000 which was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order of Hon’ble High Court passed in writ petition appellant preferred appeal by special leave before

Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein beside other things it was contended that punishment of compulsory retirement

imposed on appellant was not commensurate with the gravity of the charge & was wholly disproportionate to the nature

of the charge hence, Hon’ble Court interfere on the point of quantum of punishment & reduce it to make it in tune with

gravity of charge. Decision of the disciplinary authority & Hon’ble High Court was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court

about holding the appellant guilty of charges levelled against him & punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on

the appellant was held to be commensurate with gravity of charge.

114. In 2005 LAB I.C. 3682 (Supreme Court), State Bank of India and another….Appellants V/s Bela Bagchi and

others….Respondents, allegations against the respondent employee was that he had received money from an account

holder for depositing in his saving bank account but did not deposit the amount. A fictitious credit entry was made in

the pass book of account holder on 10.10.1985. Again in May, 1996 account holder handed over money which was also

not deposited & fraudulent entry was made in the pass book. On 9th April, 1985 by four withdrawal slips money was

withdrawn. Similar was the position on the another date. A hand-note was executed in favour of account-holder.

Cheques for repayment of the amounts collected were issued which were dishonoured. This happened on five

occasions. According to the bank the acts committed constitute individually & collectively gross misconduct as defined

in paragraph 521 (4)(j) of the Sastry Award as retained by the Desai Award. This also constituted moral turpitude as

laid down in paragraph 521(1) of the aforesaid Awards. In the charge-sheet it was indicated that if established

punishment as laid down in paragraph 521(5) of the aforesaid Awards i.e. dismissal without notice can be imposed.

During continuation of the proceedings on 22nd April, 1988 the Bank by its order intimated the employee that it had

been decided to grant extension of service by a period of three months w.e.f. 1st May, 1988 to 31st July, 1988 to

facilitate completion of departmental proceedings pending. Accordingly, he was granted extension of service w.e.f. 1st

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1799

May, 1988. Show-cause reply was submitted by the employee on 31.5.1988. By order dated 2.7.1988 the employee was

dismissed from Bank’s service with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred before the Deputy General Manager,

Regional Office, requesting that on humanitarian grounds the punishment inflicted may be remitted so that the

employee could get his terminal benefits. The prayer was rejected. Writ petition filed by respondent/delinquent was

allowed by Hon’ble Single Judge on the ground that order was passed after age of superannuation which was confirmed

by Hon’ble Division Bench holding that departmental proceedings cannot be continued after retirement unless there

was specific provision to that effect in service rules. Appeal against the order of Hon’ble Division Bench was allowed

& order of Hon’ble Single Judge & Division Bench was set aside. It was held that the bank had discretion to continue

the service of the employee for the purpose of continuance & conclusion of departmental proceeding. It was also held

that withdrawal of grievances by the account holders & absence of any loss to the bank is no defence which can be

pleaded by respondent/delinquent. In para 15 of the judgement it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“15. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the

depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect

the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to

do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the

functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-

cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik(1996) (9) SCC 69). It is no defence available to say that there

was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority., The very discipline of

an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating

within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct.

The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about

absence of loss is also sans substance.”

115. In 2005 LAB I.C. 461 (Supreme Court), J.A.Naiksatam….Appellant V/s Prothonotary and Senior Master, High

Court of Bombay and others ….Respondents, appellants were working as Senior Translators in the office of the Chief

Translator of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. A complaint by an advocate was filed with allegation that translators

working in the office of Chief Translator had been indulging in corrupt practices & for obtaining official translation of

the documents these translators had been demanding illegal gratification. Pursuant to the complaint an enquiry was

directed by Hon’ble High Court. The enquiry officer examined some of the witnesses & on the basis of information

collected by enquiry officer disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the two appellants. The enquiry officer

found that the appellants were not guilty of the charges framed against them. The report of the enquiry officer was

placed before the disciplinary authority who disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer & held the appellant

guilty of having demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. Show cause notice were issued to appellant by

disciplinary authority. Appellants gave detailed explanation & prayed for accepting the report of the enquiry officer

dropping the proceeding against them. Appellants did not seek for a personal hearing. After receipt of explanation

disagreeing with the report of enquiry officer an order was passed by the disciplinary authority. Copy of the order was

furnished to the appellants for their explanation on the issue as to why the penalty of dismissal be not imposed on them.

After receipt of explanation from appellants & rejecting their explanation order of punishment of removal of the

appellants from service was passed.

116. Review petition filed by appellants were dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. Aggrieved by order of review dated

28.3.2000 appellants filed writ petitions which were dismissed. Appellants filed appeals before Hon’ble Supreme Court

which were dismissed. On the point of punishment it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgement as

under:-

“8. Lastly, it was contended that the punishments imposed on the appellants are disproportionate as there was no

evidence at all to prove that these appellants received any illegal gratification. It was prayed that the appellants

are innocent and the drastic punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed on them. In view of the

present day situation of rampant corruption in public life, the High Court rightly imposed the punishment of

dismissal on erring officers. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High

Court as the High Court considered all aspects before imposing such a penalty on the appellants. The appeals are

dismissed accordingly….”

117.

In 2016 LAB I.C. 1433 (Patna High Court), Uma Shankar Jha …….Petitioner V/s The Punjab National

Bank and others….Respondent, petitioner, Sh. Uma Shankar Jha was initially appointed as clerk cum cashier at

different branches before his termination from service. At the last leg of his service in the year 1999 while serving at

Kulharia branch of the bank he was served with a letter dated 9.12.13 whereby he was placed under suspension with

direction not to enter into the premises of the bank & not to touch any official records of the bank. Thereafter, a

departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide chargesheet dated 27.12.2005 containing 12 various charges for

different irregularities like debiting customers account unauthorisedly without their confirmation on the debit vouchers,

unauthorisedly debiting/crediting accounts & releasing vouchers under his signature without consent or permission of

the O.I.C. though O.I.C. was present in the bank, closing the account without the request of the customer & paying the

1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

amount through cash order, debiting customers accounts unauthorisedly & getting the amount credited in his own

account, preparing wrong debit/credit vouchers for covering of the fraud committed in the branch, conniving with late

OIC Sh. Awadhesh Kumar in committing/concealing fraud in the branch & consequently getting benefit from the OIC

etc of grave nature. Enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report wherein all the charges except charge no.4 was found

proved. The petitioner was dismissed from the service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal petitioner preferred writ

petition before the Hon’ble High Court. It was contended on behalf of petitioner about quantum of punishment that

there was no loss to the bank & it was only an innocent negligence on the part of petitioner on account of work

pressure. On behalf of bank it was submitted that charges proved against the petitioner are very serious in nature & it

was not a mere innocent negligence. The petition of the petitioner was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. Referring to

various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court it was held by Hon’ble High Court in para 11 of the judgement as

under :-

“11. But in the present case, facts are quite different, as charge that has been proved against the petitioner cannot

be said to be of innocent mistake when he has withdrawn the money of customers without their consent and

credited to his account which cannot be said to be a mistake rather it is completely a fraud and dishonesty of

highest degree.”

118. On the basis of discussions made above in relation to cases cited on behalf of both the parties & looking into the

nature of charges levelled against delinquent Sh. Shyamlal Agrawal, it is clear that there is no scope to interfere with

the quantum of punishment awarded by disciplinary authority & I am of the view that punishment awarded is not

disproportionate to the nature & guilt of the delinquent.

119. Based on above discussion & for the reasons explained therein all the objections raised on behalf of applicant Sh.

Shyamlal Agrawal are found to be meritless & rejected accordingly. Applicant has failed to prove that action of the

management of State Bank of India through Asstt. General Manager, Jaipur in dismissing the services of Sh. Shyamlal

Agrawal, Assistant vide order dated 11.4.2007 is unfair & unjustified. Applicant is not entitled to any relief from the

opposite party bank. Statement of claim of the applicant is dismissed. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

120.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 26 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 399

399

399

399.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

उA त

उA त

उA त

उA तरी

रीरी

री रेलवे

रेलवे

रेलवे

रेलवे के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

औGोिगक अिधकरण

Gोिगक अिधकरण

Gोिगक अिधकरण

Gोिगक अिधकरण लखनऊ

लखनऊ

लखनऊ

लखनऊ, के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–54

54

54

54/20

/20

/20

/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 26/2/2018 को 0ा{ त

Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/16/2013-आई.आर. (बी-1)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2018

S.O. 399.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Rf. No. 54/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/02/2018.

[No. L-41012/16/2013-IR (B-1)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1801

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 54/2013

Ref.No. L-41012/16/2013-IR(B-I) dated 15.07.2013

BETWEEN

Sri Ram Awadh S/o Shri Merai

R/o Raipur Semraha, P.O. Naipur,

Gonda(UP)

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway,

DRM, Hazratganj,

Lucknow(UP)

AWARD

1

By order No. L-41012/16/2013-IR(B-I) dated 15.07.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri

Ram Awadh S/o Shri Merai, Gonda and the DRM, NR, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN RAILWAY,

LUCKNOW IN IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICES

UPON SRI RAM AWADH S/O SRI MERAI W.E.F. 27.08.2010 AND HIS APPEAL

DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 24.02.2011, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO WHAT

RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?”

3. The workman in his claim statement W-6 has stated in brief that he was appointed as Porter on 5.12.1980,

under the administrative control of the opposite parties, on 26.4.1999 he was transferred from Ayodhya to

Sarai Harakhoo on 26.4.99 LPC was provided to him by Station Supdt., NR Ayodhya but did not give him the

Spare Memo; and Duty Pass was also not given to him, yet the applicant reached Sarai Harakhoo to report for

duty on his own expenses but he was not permitted by the Station Supdt., because he did not have Spare

Memo. It has further been stated in the claim statement that the petitioner was compelled to run several times

between Sarai Harakho and Ayodhya, but neither he was permitted to join duty at Sarai Harkhoo nor Spare

Memo was provided to him. Therefore he was compelled to file OA no. 629/2005 before the CAT, Lucknow,

vide order dated 7.09.2006 the CAT directed the opposite party to consider his request and to resolve his

grievances.

4. The petitioner has further emphasized that opposite party no.2 DOM, NR was annoyed with him for

filling the case before the CAT and did not permit him to resume his duty, issued him a major penalty charge

sheet dated 04.05.2007 with the allegations that the workman has been abstaining himself from duty since

26.4.99, the aforesaid order in itself is not correct since the petitioner was intentionally harassed by Statio

Supdt. Ayodhya and Sarai Harakhoo. It has further been stated that D&AR enquiry was delayed and he was

kept out of job on the pretext of the pendency of enquiry, although representation dt. 24.12.2007, 20.1.2008

and 3.3.2008 were sent by him. Due to continuous alleged harassment the matter was raised before RLC( C )

Lucknow in Jan.2009 by the workman, after prolonged discussion under conciliation proceeding a settlement

was made and the opposite party thereby agreed to provide Spare Memo so as to facilitate the joining of the

workman.

5. The workman has stressed that he was asked to submit an affidavit regarding his sickness from 16.04.99 to

23.03.2008 before permitting him to join his duty. Under the compelled circumstances being faced since 1999 the

1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

petitioner submitted an affidavit drafted by the opposite party, thereafter he was permitted to join on 05.06.2008 on

the post of Porter at Sarai Harkhoo Station but the enquiry proceedings were not dropped. The workman has

alleged that the enquiry was not conducted as per rules, no prosecution witness appeared before the enquiry officer,

the workman was not given any opportunity to cross examine the material-witness, moreover he was not permitted

to submit his defence. The enquiry report has allegedly been quite perverse, it lacked fairness and the consequent

order of removal from service was patently illegal since it was passed after 2 years and 5 months from the date of

receipt of the report of the enquiry officer. The aforesaid affidavit dt. 12.03.2008 drafted by the opposite party staff

has been dealt with, it was infact fictitious and manipulated. Appeal filed by the workman was withdrawn on the

advice of the office staff and the same was rejected with a non speaking order dt. 24.02.2011. It has further been

stated in the claim statement that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellatte Authority did not consider the

material fact properly, 30 years service rendered by the workman was also ignored, and very harsh punishment of

removal from service was passed which is disproportionate, unjust and illegal.

6. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the workman to declare the termination order dt.

27.09.2001 as illegal, and prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages etc.

7. Several documents have been annexed with the claim statement.

8. With strong denial of the allegations leveled in the claim statement, management has filed written statement M-

7. It has been admitted that the workman was transferred on 26.04.99 from Ayodhya to Sarai Harkhoo but he failed

to join duty and was treated as absent from 26.04.99 to 02.03.2008, therefore major punishment penalty charge

sheet was issued under rules and an enquiry was conducted comprehensively. The opposite party has stated that

because of being found guilty for unauthorized absence, enquiry report was submitted and penalty of removal from

service was imposed. The management has admitted the proceedings before RLC ( C ) Lucknow. The enquiry was

quite fair, proper and ample opportunity was provided to workman to defend himself and he has participated in the

enquiry proceedings.

9.

The opposite party has further stated that the workman himself on his own, has submitted affidavit before

the Railway Authorities mentioning therein that he was sick from 16.04.99 to 20.03.2008 but before the

Tribunal he wrongly alleged that the affidavit was taken by manipulation by the Railway Officers. Since

the petitioner has abstained himself from the duty for about 8 years without any information of leave for

his sickness etc, the order of removal from service is fully justified and proper.

10. Thereafter, rejoinder W-8 has been filed by the workman, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim

statement, allegations made in the written statement have been denied. As per application M-12 certain

documents have been filed by the management.

11. On 14.10.2015 following preliminary issues were framed;

1. Whether the departmental enquiry is fair and proper?

2. Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse?

12. The workman has filed affidavit W-13 in evidence. He has been cross examined on behalf of the

management. Opposite party filed an affidavit M-15 of an employee of the DRM office. MW has been

cross examined on behalf of the workman. Vide order dt. 12.8.06 it has been held by this Tribunal that

the departmental enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner. Consequential findings of the

enquiry officer were treated as perverse. Both the preliminary issues were decided against the opposite

party. However although several opportunities were provided to the management to adduce his evidence.

It could not submit any evidence further the management furnished a copy of letter dt. 18.10.2016

informing thereby that the then Station Supdt. Ayodhya and Sarai Harkhoo who have retired much

earlier, have died.

13. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

14. Learned AR for the workman has submitted that illegal and harsh order of removal from service was

passed by the management and this fact was ignored that the petitioner could not attend the duty because

of his ailment, his superior authority/Station Supdt. intentionally harassed him and did not permit him to

join duty. On the contrary the management has emphasized that the workman has been quite habitual to

abstain himself from duty without any genuine reason more over no prior permission was taken by the

workman. The management has further submitted that the enquiry was conducted quite comprehensively

and as per Rules, sufficient opportunity was provided to the workman to defend himself.

15. In this regard the so called memo of settlement dt. 29.02.2008, admitted to both the parties, is also quite

relevant. The management although accepted this document, asserts that the varacity and legality can not

be inferred since it has not been signed by the competent authority. Learned AR for the workman while

taking strong objection to this submission asserts that the authority of RLC ( C ) is being challenged by

the management before this Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1803

16. It is evident from the record that the then Station Supdt. Ayodhya and Sarai Harkhoo, Sri Tilak Dhari and

Sri Govind NIgam were not produced in the enquiry on the ground that they had retired. This ground of

non producing witness does not appear satisfactory. The address of retired railway officials, who have

been taking regular pensionary benefits etc, could be easily obtained. More over no sincere effort was

made by the management to adduce those retired officer before this Tribunal as well, although the learned

AR for the management sought several adjournments on this ground, but his efforts were futile, since

superior railway officers did not make any sincere endeavour in this regard.

17. Last para of the enquiry report dated 20.3.08 is very crucial wherein it has been mentioned by the enquiry

officer that the charges can not be proved with cogent evidence, since the then Station Supdts., have

retired earlier.

18. The findings recorded by this Tribunal/Court vide order dt. 12.8.16, have not been challenged before any

other Hon’ble Competent Court. Despite being provided sufficient opportunity, no further evidence in

support of the charges framed against the workman could be adduced by the management. This fact is not

to be over looked that during the so called long absence of the petitioner, whether any memo/charge sheet

was sent by the management or any such receipt therefore was obtained. The delay of about 28 months

after the final findings of the enquiry officer having been received, has also not been genuinenly

explained by the management. No doubt an affidavit dt. 12.3.08 is on record wherein fact of w.e.f.

16.4.99 to 2.3.08 has been mentioned. But on account of this affidavit the inference drawn by the enquiry

officer and competent disciplinary authority can not be appreciated legally.

19. After having heard the intellect arguments of both the Learned Authorized Representatives, in the light of

the record available before this court, it is inferred that the order of removal from service, passed by the

management against the workman and further both the dismissal order dt. 27.08.2010 and the appellate

order dated 24.02.2011, can not be adjudged as legal and justified. The termination order and the

appellate order are set aside. The workman is entitled to reinstatement from the relevant date and he shall

get all the pecuniary benefit as well. The management is directed to ensure the payment of arrears to the

workman within 10 weeks from the date of publication of award failing which the workman shall also get

interest @ 6% per annum.

20. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

11.01.2018

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 26 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 400

400

400

400.— औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

उA त

उA त

उA त

उA तरी

रीरी

री रेलवे

रेलवे

रेलवे

रेलवे के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण, लखनऊ

लखनऊ

लखनऊ

लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–16

16

16

16/20

/20

/20

/2014

14

14

14) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 26/2/2018 को 0ा{ त

Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/08/2014-आई.आर. (बी-1)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2018

S.O. 400.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Rf. No. 16/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/02/2018.

[No. L-41011/08/2014-IR (B-1)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 16/2014

Ref.No. L-41011/08/2014-IR(B-I) dated 19.03.2014

BETWEEN

The Mandal Sanghthan Mantri

Uttar Railway Karmchari Union,

C/o Sri Parvej Alam, 283/63 Kh, Ghari Kannora

Premvati Nagar, PO, Manak Nagar

Lucknow

AND

1. Sr.Divisional Personal Officer

Northern Railway, DRM office,

Hazratganj, Lucknow

AWARD

1.

By order No. L-41011/08/2014-IR(B-I) dated 19.03.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Mandal

Sanghthan Mantri, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, Lucknow and the Sr.Divisional Personal Officer,

Northern Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABNDHAN, UTTAR RAILWAY, LUCKNOW DWARA APNE KARMKAR SRI

GANGA PRASAD S/O SRI RAM LAL, MASSON, ADHINASTH VARI KHAND ABHIYANTA

(KARYA)/LOCO(E)/UTTAR RAILWAY/ CHARBAGH/LUCKNOW KO SEVANIVRAT HIT

LABHO KI GARNA MOOL VETAN RS.12600/- KE ANUSAR NA KIYA JANA UCHIT EVAM

VADHANIK HAI? YADI NAHIN TO KARMKAR KYA ANUTOSH PANE KA ADHIKARI

HAI?”

3.

As per the claim statement W-4, the workman has stated in brief that he has retired as Masson on 28.2.2011,

while working under the subordination of Sr. Div. Engineer(Loco) Charbagh, Northern Railway, Lucknow

and at the time of his retirement his post retiral dues were paid as per the basic salary of Rs.11810/= while

other benefits till 28.02.2011 were paid as per basic salary of Rs.12600/-. It is alleged that the post retiral

dues calculation was violative of Railway Pension Rules 1993 as well as I.D. Act., 1947 and he has been

subjected to continuous loss after his retirement and more over no show-cause notice was issued to him while

reducing his salary. The workman has further asserted that till his retirement the pay fixation and payment of

dues was determined by the employer himself and the workman had no role in it, neither any charge sheet

etc. was given to him in this regard. He has submitted that the post retiral consequential benefits should not

have been calculated as per the basic salary of Rs.11810/-.

4.

With the aforesaid pleadings submissions has been made by the petitioner to ensure the payment of arrear

pertaining to his post retiral dues taking into account his salary @ Rs.12600/-, further interest @ 12% has

also been demanded.

5.

The opposite party in its written statement M-6, has accepted that the workman was posted as Masson and

got retired on 28.2.2011 and his last pay drawn was Rs.11810/- but his salary was wrongly fixed in pay band

1 Grade Pay 2800/-, resulting into over payment amount of Rs.49794/- which was recovered from DCRG of

the ex-employee according to Railway Rules, and there has been no violation of principle of natural justice

and post retiral dues were re-fixed according to Rs.11810/-, and the petitioner workman is not entitled to get

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1805

so called arrear according to the calculation of Rs.12600/- In para 6 of the written statement the management

has given the pay fixation details of the workman. The management has requested to reject the claim

statement.

6.

With strong denial of the allegation leveled in the claim statement, the workman has filed rejoinder W-8,

reiterating the pleas taken the claim statement. The workman has submitted that written statement has not

been signed by the competent authority.

7.

As per list W-9 photo copies of the certain documents have been filed by the workman.

8.

The workman filed his affidavit W-7 in his evidence. He has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of

the management.

9.

The management has filed affidavit M-9 of Sri R.K.Jain, ADEN, DRM Office, Northern Railway, Lucknow;

he has been cross-examined on behalf of the workman.

10.

Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

11.

The main contention of the petitioner workman is that on his retirement although his retiral dues ought to

have been paid as per the basic salary of Rs.12600/- but retirement benefits/dues were calculated as per

salary of Rs.11810/- which was violative of Railway Rules as well as I.D. Act. The management has

explained that the salary of the workman was wrongly fixed and consequently the over payment amount of

Rs.49794/- was recovered from the DCRG of the ex-employee according to Railway Rules and there was no

violation of principle of natural justice.

12.

During the course of argument, the Learned Authorized Representative of the workman has referred Railway

Board Circular No. 2016/F(E)/II/6/3, RBE No. 72/16 dated 22.6.2016. Learned Authorized Representative

for the management submits that the Railway Board circular is legal and is to be interpreted as per Rules

accordingly, and this does not help the case of the workman.

13.

Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following Rulings:

i.

2009(120) FLR, State of Bihar v/s Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad page 352, Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ii.

2010(127) FLR, Lalta Prasad Pandey v/s State of UP and others, page 54 Hon’ble High

Court,Allahabad.

14.

Learned AR for the management while refuting the submission of the workman, asserts that the said Rulings

do not apply to the facts of the matter in issue.

15.

I fully agree with the principle propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court in the

aforesaid two Rulings. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (Supra) has directed to

State/Department for re-fixation of retiral benefits of the employee. The matter before the Hon’ble Apex

Court was regarding “TWO DATES OF BIRTH BEING RECORDED IN THE SERVICE BOOK” And this

controversy was raised by the employer State after 31 years. In the other case of Sri Lalta Prasad Pandey

(Supra) the matter of sanctioning selection grade to the employee was found to have been wrongly calculated

and the benefits were withdrawn after 10 years. Generally the sanction of selection grade is thoroughly

scrutinized by the Competent Authority/Committee appointed by the department.

16.

In the matter in issue before this Court/Tribunal, the petitioner workman retired on 28.2.2011, his actual last

pay drawn was Rs.11810/- but it was wrongly fixed in higher scale, about 2 years back. In such

circumstances the aforesaid Rulings, cited on behalf of the workman, do not apply to the present case and do

not support the version adopted by the petitioner workman. The excess payment made to the workman, has to

be recovered from him genuinely as per Rules. Apparently no procedural irregularities or illegality on the

part of the management has neither been proved by the workman, nor it is reflected from the record available

before this court.

17.

After having heard both the parties at length, in the light of the evidence and documents available before this

court it is inferred that the calculation conducted by the management regarding post retiral dues of the

petitioner workman, ignoring his basic salary of Rs.12600/-.can not be adjudged as improper or illegal. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

18.

Award accordingly.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

07.12. 2017

1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 401

401

401

401.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैमैमैमैसस0

सस0

सस0

सस0 ई.सी.एल.

ई.सी.एल.

ई.सी.एल.

ई.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.-1 धनबाद

1 धनबाद

1 धनबाद

1 धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–44

44

44

44/1997

1997

1997

1997) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को

14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/167/1995-आई.आर. (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 401.—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. 44/1997) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/167/1995-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Ref. No. 44 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Nirsa.Area M/S ECL

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 : 12/01 /2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /167 /1995/ IR (C-I) dt. 04/02/1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union that Sri Jitan Yadav and others (as per list enclosed) are

eligible for regularisation for retrospective effect in category-I by the management to

Gopalpura Colliery of M/S ECL is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief are these workman

entitled?”

List of workmen

Sl. No . Name

Father’s Name

1. Jitan Yadav

Shri Shitoti Yadav

2. Shri Bhola Yadav

Sri Meghan Yadav

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1807

3. Sri Jadu Pandit

Sri Rasdular Pandit

4. Balesjhwar Pandit

Sri Sitaram Pandit

5. Sri Dhananjay Thakur

Sri Kusum Thakur

6. Sri Mohan Mahato

Sri Balsundar Mahato

7. Sri Motor Lal Mahato

Sri Hiru Mahato

8. Sri Baikunth Yadav

Sri Chandradeo Yadav

9. Sri Prem Yadav

Sri Rameshwar Yadav

10. Sri Guhi Roy

Sri Tulsi Roy

11. Sri Subhas Yadav

Sri Satyanarayan Yadav

12. Sri Omikant Yadav

Sri Nabratan Yadav

13. Sri Arjun Yadav

Sri Meghan Yadav

14. Sri Harinath Yadav

Sri Sitaram Yadav

15. Sri Gupteshwar Yadav

Sri Sitaram Yadav

16. Sri Harendra Yadav

Sri Shashi Yadav

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 10.02.1997. During the pendency of the

case Ld. Secretary of sponsoring Union submits that, he does not want to contest case. It is felt

that the dispute between parties is resolved in the meantime. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.

communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 402

402

402

402.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–50

50

50

50/2013

2013

2013

2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/54/2013-आई.आर. (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 402 .—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. 50 of 2013) 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/54/2013-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 50/2013

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

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated- 03/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/54/2013-IR(CM-I) dated 24/10/2013 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 Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL in not correcting the date of

birth of Md. Islam as 10/12/1970 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains

pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award

is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 403

403

403

403.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–59/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/655/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 403.—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 (Rf. No. 59 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/655/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1809

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. 59/1998

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

AND

Their workman.

Present: Shri R.K.Saran

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated- 12/01/2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/655/1997-IR(C-I) dated 14/08/1998 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 Govindpur Area No. III M/s. BCCL in not

regularizing Shri Kameshwar Singh as Loading Inspector is legal & justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates by the workman, none appears

subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 404

404

404

404.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–73

73

73

73/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/704/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 404.—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 (Rf. No. 73 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/704/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 73/1998

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda 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: 12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/704/97-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 Kusunda Area of BCCL in not regularizing S/Shri Ram Awadh Yadav and

Lchuman Singh as Dumpman/Tripman/ Munshi because they are non- Matriculate keeping in view of the Cadre

Scheme and I .I.40 of JBCCI is legal & justified? If not, to what relief are these workman entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 40

40

40

405.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–78

78

78

78/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/716/1997-आई.आर. (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 405.—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 (Rf. No. 78 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/716/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1811

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. 78/1998

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

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R.K.Saran

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated-12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/716/1997-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 South Govindpur Colliery M/s BCCL for premature

retirement of Sh. Haldhar Bouri is legal & Justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 40

40

40

406.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–79

79

79

79/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/717/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 406.—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 (Rf. No. 79 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/717/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Ref. No. 79 of 1998

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

AND

Their workmen

Present : Shri R.K.Saran

Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers : None

For the Workman. : Shri S.C.Gour, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

Dated 12/01/2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /717 /1997/ IR (C-I) dt. 10/09/1998 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Area No. III M/s BCCL for denial/regularisation of

S/Shri Mochi Ram Barhi and Dashrath Gope transporting Munshi is legal & justified? If not, to what

relief the workman are entitled?”

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 21.09.1998. During the pendency of the case Ld. Counsel of sponsoring

Union submits that, union does not want to contest case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved in the

meantime. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 40

40

40

407.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–83

83

83

83/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/732/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 407.—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 (Rf. No. 83 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/732/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1813

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. 83/1998

Employer in relation to the management of Bagdigi Colliery 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- 12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/732/1997-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 Bagdigi Colliery of M/s BCCL in not paying the wages to

Sri Saffique Khan for the period from 25.05.1995 to 23.02.1996 and other benefits as per the Golden

Hand shake scheme is legal & Justified? If not, to what relief is the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 40

40

40

408.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–83

83

83

83/1999

1999

1999

1999) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/546/1998-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 408.—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 (Rf. No. 83 of 1999) 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/546/1998-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 83/1999

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K. Saran

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated- 3/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/546/1998-IR(C-I) dated 17/05/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL in retiring Smt. Panumati Kamin without

referring her to Medical Board for deciding age is justified? if not to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing none appears on behalf of the sponsoring

Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have

been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 40

40

40

409.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–92

92

92

92/1997

1997

1997

1997) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/77/1996-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 409.—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 (Rf. No. 92 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/77/1996-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1815

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. 92/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/s BCCL,

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri R. K. Saran

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated- 8/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/77/1996-IR(C-I) dated 03/04/1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying to

provide employment to Sri Mahendra Rajwar dependent son of late Gujri Kamin Ex-Wagon Loader

of Angarpathra Colliery under para 9:4:2 of NCWA is justified? if not, ot what relief the dependent

son, Shri Mahendre Rajwar is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring Union/

workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been

resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 410.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 1, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–106

106

106

106/1998

1998

1998

1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/575/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 410.—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 (Rf. No. 106 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/575/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 106/1998

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda 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 : 12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/575/1997-IR(C-I) dated 01/12/1998 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 Kusunda Area of BCCL in demoting the workman

Sri Sudarshan Koiri from Cat. V to Cat. III from Oct, 96 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 411

11

11

11.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस; बी.सी.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण/2म , यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ; संb या–110/1998) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/340/1998-आई आर- (सी. I)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 411.—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 (Rf. No. 110 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/340/1998-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1817

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. 110/1998

Employer in relation to the management Koyla Bhawan 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 : 12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/340/1997-IR(C-I) dated 01/12/1998 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to reinstate and pay back wages to Sri G. A. Gandhi, a dismissed

workman is justified? If no, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 412

12

12

12.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस; ई.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय सरकार

औNोिगक अिधकरण/2म , यायालय नं.1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ; संb या–178/1999) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को

14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/218/1999-आई आर- (सी-I)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 412.—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 (Rf. No. 178 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/218/1999-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 178/1999

Employer in relation to the management of Hariajam Colliery of M/s. ECL,

AND

Their workman

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

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman.

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated :12/01/ 2018

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/218/1999-IR(C-I) dated 03/11/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the retrenchment of Shri Ram Naresh Singh, Foreman of Hariajam Colliery of Mugma Area

of M/s ECL W.e.f. 27/03/1996 is justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears subsequently.

Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 413

13

13

13.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस; बी.सी.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के, -ीय

सरकार औNोिगक अिधकरण/2म , यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ; संb या–230/2000) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/54/2000-आई-आर- (सी-I)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 413.—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 (Rf. No. 230 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/54/2000-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1819

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. 230/2000

Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area 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 : 12/01/2018

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/54/2000-IR(C-I) dated 24/07/2000 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 demand of union to regularize Sri Ramshankar Koiri as a pump Operator Supervisor

with Consequential benefits is proper and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and

from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending. It

is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 414

414

414

414.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 2, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–01

01

01

01/2015

2015

2015

2015) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 27/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/134/2014-आई आर- (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 2, Dhanbad (Rf. No. 01 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

27.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/134/2014-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri R. K. Saran,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 01 OF 2015.

PARTIES :

:

The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad-826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

P. B. Area of M/s BCCL,

PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828116.

Order No.L-20012/134/2014-IR(CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015

APPEARANCES

:

On behalf of the workman/Union

:

Mr. S. C. Gaur, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

:

Mr. N. M. Kumar, Ld. Advocate

State

:

Jharkhand

Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st Jan., 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/134/2014-IR(CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Simlabahal Colliery under P.B. Area of M/s BCCL in

dismissing Shri Shankar Bauri, Ex. M/Loader from the services vide letter dt.18.09.2006 is fair and justified ?

To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/134/2014-IR (CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015 mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 01 of 2015 was registered on 19.01.2015. and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Advocates respectively appeared, and contested the case to the

extent the case stands reserved for Award.

2.

This Reference case as narrated in the WS about the workman Sri Shankar Bauri, had been a permanent

M/Loader at Simlabahal Colliery under the Management of M/s BCCL, a Group of collieries under the part of the

Coal India Ltd. exclusively based at Dhanbad .He had been abruptly fallen sick early in 2006 and so he was escorted

to his native place by family members for specialized treatment at the village by the Doctor there and the matter was

kept informed to the Management about the workman’s illness from time to time .As the treatment appeared

exhaustive and prolonged in nature . keeping this fact in mind the workman concerned sought more time with request

to defer the impending enquiry but the adamant Enquiry Officer under the instruction of Disciplinary authority struck

to its instant and in a calculative move conducted the so called enquiry in July, 2006, thereby restricting the

workman to take assistance of his co-worker as the workman concerned attributed quite ignorant about the enquiry

and little knowledge especially about the proceedings .Thereafter the Management came with serving 2nd Show Cause

Notice to the workman in July,2006 without furnishing therewith the alleged Enquiry proceedings, a move depriving

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1821

of the workman concerned the opportunity to come out with reply in true letters spirit. Finally the Management

dismissed the workman in Sept., 2006 with denial of providing provide the copy of the Dismissal Letter which

amounted to violation of the principle of natural justice to finally represent Appeal .However as the workman came to

know about it the appeal was filed but till date no response came out as the Appellate Authority acted as a Punishing

Authority.

Here the workman concerned had not exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communication of

the Management about his absence, as alleged by the Management .Further Petitioner assertion here that non-supply

of the documents, as sought by the delinquent workman just to deprive the workman concerned of the opportunity to

defend himself in the enquiry proceedings as in the instant case ,and hence, the same has vitiated the order of

termination. It was found the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to

gravity of the charge the workman committed. Apart from it, the workman was thrown out of job and forced to sit idle

since issuance of the charge sheet to the workman .

In the instant case logics are not at all material in determining the proportionality of the punishment ,inflicted

upon the workman concerned as there is no vagueness in the claims of the workman as submission made in WS that

claims are bare facts and punishment of dismissal deserves to be set aside and there is not much in force in

Management contention by way of dismissal order..The petitioner as a matter of facts contends that he fairly

explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have an intention nor desire to disobey the order of

his higher authority or violate Company’s rules and regulations but the reasons was purely personal and beyond the

control of the workman

3 In contrast the Management has miserably proved failure to file WS to counter the charges brought in by the

Sponsoring Union against the OP/Management despite fresh notice and numerous adjournments availed over the issue.

The prolong silence maintained over filing WS drops sufficient hints that the Management did not have objection to

the extent the case is set to be rolling nor did anything to say .

4. Incidents like this are not exceptional and often heard of such cases as far as Group of the Collieries under the

Management of M/s BCCL, a part of the Coal India Ltd., cases like this grab headlines since past couple of years

where numerous cases on same ground might have been pouring in slowly but steadily and matter gets more

complicated when the labour forces are involved .It serves as a stark reminder of the sorry state of affairs of the

system fabricated all around the Managements of the collieries. The workmen mostly hailing to illiteracy back ground

are usually scared of stepping into the underground Mines due to safety hazards and unhealthy conditions,

surrendering in and around the site despite best of safety mechanism/technique in place. Workers of the colliery have

early adopted safety norms and other safety platforms since they are simple, clean and accurate. The prevailing culture

of apathy that gives the situation to turn into a fatal accident in the absence of stringent deterrents tells the story

something else.

There is nothing adverse report against the workman barring this one. Though alleged absentism had cost him

employment. The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman for his alleged misconduct under the name of

penalty on ground of absentism appears to be disproportionate and too harsh.

5.

As far as imposition of penalty as dismissal from service is concerned, having regards to sufferings leading to

the workman post dismissal, and taking into consideration of his apologetic stand, it is ordered that the workman

concerned who lost bread and butter in the days of hardship be provided one more last opportunity by offering him

fresh appointment in the lowest Grade with two- year probation. Therefore it is ordered that the worker concerned be

appointed as fresher in the lowest Cat-I with two-year period on probation with no question of back wages whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 415

का.आ. 415

का.आ. 415

का.आ. 415.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.-2, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–04

04

04

04/2016

2016

2016

2016) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 27/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/129/2015-आई.आर. (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 415 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 2, Dhanbad (Rf. No. 04 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

27.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/129/2015-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 04 OF 2016.

PARTIES :

:

The General Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Chhatabad No.5, PO: Katrasgarh,

Dhanbad -828113

Vs.

The General Manager,

Katras Area of M/s BCCL,

PO : Katrasgarh, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828113.

Order No.L-20012/129/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 11.12.2015

APPEARANCES

:

On behalf of the workman/Union

:

Mr.B.B.Pandey, Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management

:

Mr.D.K.Verma , Ld.Advocate

.

State

:

Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th Jan., 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/129/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 11.12.2015.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Katras Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Raju Kumar

Bhuia, M/Loader from the services vide order dated 29.08.2000 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

On receipt of the L-20012/129/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 11.12.2015 mentioned reference from the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference Case No. 04 of

2016 was registered on 04.01.2016. and, accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the

Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Posts

were sent to the parties concerned.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1823

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Advocates respectively appeared, and contested the case to the

extent the case stands reserved for Award.

2.

This Reference case as summarized in the WS by the Sponsoring Union that the workman concerned Sri

Raju Kumar Bhuia a permanent employee of Ram Kanali Colliery of the M/s BCCL bearing Personal No,02951226

had been working as M/Loader .Since the workman concerned was charge sheeted citing absence from duty as the

ground for misconduct .He submitted his explanation. The petitioner (workman) as a matter of facts contends that he

fairly explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have an intention nor desire to disobey the

order of his higher authority or violate Company’s rules and regulations but the reasons was purely personal and

beyond the control of the workman over which he had a little choice . Contrary to it, the Management went ahead by

conducting an departmental enquiry not in the line of the principle of natural justice .The said enquiry was conducted

ex-parte and its report was a farce , as alleged by the workman concerned. The Management had all along been not

certain as to the instant case of absentism was of which nature - minor or major punishment rather extracted the

conclusion the punishment that totally disproportionate to the misconduct the workman committed .As such the order

passed from 29.08.2000 based on the above proceedings and other matters is totally unfair and unjustified. With

respect of the case under Reference the workman as stated he was on unauthorized absence only due to the fact that he

had genuine constraints which prevented him from joining back to his duties .By making this written petition the

workman want to establish that he is entitled to get lesser punishment than the order of the dismissal; which has been

passed in the instant case caused tremendous sufferings. The workman has found himself on the verge of starvation

that amounted to capital punishment in service arena In the instant case logics are not at all material in determining

the proportionality of the punishment, inflicted upon the workman concerned as there is no vagueness in the claims of

the workman as submission made in WS that the claims are bare facts and punishment of dismissal deserves to be set

aside as there is not much in force in Management contention by way of dismissal order. So the alleged action of

dismissal is unlawful, unfair and unjustified and thus liable to be set aside with reinstatement in service with continuity

and back wages.

Further in its rejoinder the Sponsoring Union/petitioner categorically denied all the allegations raised by the

Management by stating it all as baseless and far from facts and unfounded.

3 Whereas in contrast, Management argued by emphatically denial to all the allegations brought by the

Sponsoring Union raised question over maintainability of the present Reference either in law or in fact with

assertion that the Industrial Dispute is stale one, as the Union do not have locus standi as of now, to raise the dispute

even after lapse fifteen years more from the date of dismissal by referring the 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act ,1947

as the dismissed employee can raise the I.D. in respect of dismissal within three years from the date of dismissal .As

such the present Industrial Dispute is time barred as without offering of any explanation about undue delay of fifteen

years so the Reference stands to be rejected summarily .

Further assertion by adding that the workman concerned was absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 19.04.1999

against which he was charge sheeted and for his past habitual absentism on 19.05.1999 , the aforesaid charge sheet

was sent to the workman’s native place at his permanent address through Registered post but surprisingly neither the

letter returned back as undelivered nor did any information the Management receive about receipt of the letter by the

workman. Going on further the Management appointed an Enquiry Officer ,who in turn, issued several notices to the

workman concerned, despite this all the workman did not turn up before Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry

restricting the Enquiry Officer with no option but to conduct the enquiry as ex-parte virtually in the absence of non-

appearance of the workman ,by holding the workman guilty of the allegations levelled against him, and finally

dismissed him from service for his proved misconduct .

Though the workman concerned filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court by challenging the said

dismissal order of the Management .The Hon’ble High Court, in turn, directed the Management to issue a Second

Show Cause Notice together with concluded Enquiry Report .The Hon’ble High Court also directed to the workman

concerned to submit his explanation to the said Show Cause Notice within fifteen days. Thereafter the Disciplinary

Authority passed the reasonable order justifying decision of the dismissal imposed upon the workman concerned

Raju Kumar Bhuia as no worthwhile explanation was forthcoming .The Management found no justification to interfere

with the Enquiry Report as the workman concerned miserably failed to point out lapse or short coming in the

Enquiry Report so as to disagree with .The representation against the dismissal is found to be devoid of any merit or

substance ,hence in acceptance of the Departmental Enquiry Report penalty of dismissal from service has been

inflicted upon the workman Shri Raju Kumar Bhuia .Thus neither there was any sort of violation of the principle of

natural justice nor did it get mired at any stage as alleged by the petitioner/Union rather the alleged action for

dismissal stands as fair, legal justified ,as claimed by the Management in its WS .

4. Incidents like this are not exceptional and often heard of such cases as far as Group of the Collieries under the

Management of M/s BCCL, a part of the Coal India Ltd., cases like this definitely grab headlines since past couple of

1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

years where numerous cases on same ground might have been pouring in slowly but steadily and matter gets more

complicated when the labour forces are involved .It serves as a stark reminder of the sorry state of affairs of the

system fabricated all around the Managements of the Collieries. The workmen mostly hailing to illiteracy back ground

are usually scared of stepping into the underground Mines due to safety hazards and unhygienic conditions, prevailing

in the vicinity of the collieries under the Management of the M/s BCCL despite best of safety mechanism/technique in

place. The prevailing culture of apathy that gives the situation to turn into a fatal accident in the absence of stringent

deterrents tells the story something else.

There is nothing adverse report against the workman barring this one. Though alleged absentism had cost him

employment. The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman for his alleged misconduct under the name of

penalty on ground of absentism appears to be disproportionate and too harsh.

5.

As far as imposition of penalty as dismissal from service is concerned, having regards to sufferings leading to

the workman post dismissal, and taking into consideration of his apologetic stand and to meet the ends of justice, the

workman concerned who lost bread and butter in the days of hardship be provided one more last opportunity by

offering him fresh appointment in the lowest Grade with two- year probation. Therefore it is ordered that the worker

concerned be appointed as fresher in the lowest Cat-I with two-year period on probation subject to proper

identification. So far back wages .it does not arise at all whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 416

416

416

416.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.-2, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–28

28

28

28/2015

2015

2015

2015) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/22/2015-आई.आर. (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 2, Dhanbad (Rf. No. 28 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/22/2015-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 28 OF 2015.

PARTIES :

:

The General Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat,

Chhatabad No. 5, PO: Katrasgarh,

Dhanbad-828113

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1825

Vs.

The General Manager,

Katras Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Sijua, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828121.

Order No.L-20012/22/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 27.04.2015

APPEARANCES

:

On behalf of the workman/Union

:

Mr.B.B.Pandey, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

:

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld .Advocate

.

State

:

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th Jan., 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No.L-20012/22/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 27.04.2015

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of West Modidih Colliery under Katras Area of M/s BCCL in

dismissing Sr Hari Lal Turi from the services vide letter dated 09.03.2006 is fair and justified? To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/22/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 27.04.2015 mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 28 of 2015 was registered on 06.05.2015. and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Advocates respectively appeared, and contested the case to the

extent the case stands reserved for Award.

2. The Reference as narrated & put forth the facts in WS by the Sponsoring Union/petitioner that workman

concerned Hari lal Turi was a permanent employee of West Modidih Colliery under Katras Area of M/s BCCL,

name of the Group of collieries exclusively based at Dhanbad. The workman concerned was charge sheeted on

21.07.2005 due to absence from duty against which the workman explained the genuine constraints which prevented

him from joining back to his duties as the situation was compelling over which the workman had little choice to do

but the Management did not consider his explanation being devoid of merits .Contrary to it, the Management went

ahead by conducting an enquiry ignoring the principle of natural justice to which the workman declared the enquiry a

farce one and its findings as perverse .Since the Management dismissed the workman from service of the Company

dt.09.03.2006 , a move which the Sponsoring Union stated that the order is disproportionate to the misconduct the

workman committed. The Petitioner contends that the workman had good reason for his absence from duty being ill

health which the Management or Enquiry Officer did not consider .So the action of the Management in dismissing his

service is quite disproportionate to the misconduct he committed rather sought reinstatement into service with back

wages. It was found the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to gravity of

the charge the workman committed. Apart from it, the workman was thrown out of job and forced to sit idle with

happening of this incident .

3.

Whereas In contrast, by emphatically denial all the allegations brought out by the Sponsoring Union the

Management argued by putting a question mark over maintainability of the Industrial Dispute either in law and facts

since the Sponsoring Union has got no locus standi ,at least, as of now, to raise the Industrial Dispute under the I.D.

Act after a gap of eight years as the workman concerned dismissed from services of the Company w.e.f. .

10.03.2006 and on that score, the Reference does not qualify to stand as ID rather liable to be rejected summarily

referring the provision of 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 .Further assertion is that that the workman Hari Lal

Turi bearing his personal no. 02989887 was an employee of West Modidih Colliery of the Katrs Area of M/s BCCL as

M/Loader .The workman started absenting from his duty without permission and information of the Management w.e.f.

05.02.2005 against which he was charge sheeted by the Management on 21.07.2005 for commission of misconduct

under clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standing Order, an bye-laws ,in force in the Group of the Collieries under the

1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management of the M/s BCCL . The workman submitted his reply which was not found up to the expectation leading

to appointment of Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry so as to go to bottom of the facts to ascertain to what extent

the workman committed misconduct apart from providing full, fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to

come out in his defence just on the line of the principle of the natural justice .The Enquiry Officer submitted his report

holding therein the workman guilty of the charge of unauthorized absentism. The said enquiry was necessarily held in

the presence of the workman concerned giving him an opportunity to rebut the allegation made against him as per the

provision of the principle of natural justice. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd Show Cause Notice

together with copy of the concluded enquiry report .Finally the Disciplinary Authority considering the Enquiry

Report and past record of the workman dismissed him from service of the Company for proved misconduct as his past

three years attendances specially from 2002 to 2004 was very dismal amounting to gross negligence on the part of

the workman that got deep rooted resulted in dismissal from service .So far the quantum of punishment by way of

dismissal as given to the workman is fair and perfectly justified .There was no any sort of violation of the natural

justice ,as claimed by the Union rather the enquiry was fair and justified .So long as fairness of the said Enquiry, if not

convinced at all, the Management stands committed to adducing evidence afresh, as reiterated its claim in the WS on

behalf of the Management.

In its rejoinder, the Management came out categorically denials of all the points of all the allegations levelled

against them by stating the facts as baseless, far from facts and unfounded reiterating its stand for justifying the

punitive action of dismissal, the workman deserved for.

4. Cases like this grab headlines since past couple of years where numerous cases on same ground might have

been pouring in slowly but steadily and matter gets more complicated when the labour forces are involved .It serves

as a stark reminder of the sorry state of affairs of the system fabricated all around the Managements of the collieries.

The workmen mostly hailing to illiteracy back ground are usually scared of stepping into the underground Mines due to

safety hazards and unhealthy conditions, surrendering in and around the site despite best of safety

mechanism/technique in place. The prevailing culture of apathy that gives the situation to turn into a fatal accident in

the absence of stringent deterrents tells the story something else.

There is nothing adverse report against the workman barring this one. Though alleged absentism had cost

him employment. The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman for his alleged misconduct under the name

of penalty on ground of absentism appears to be disproportionate and too harsh.

5.

As far as imposition of penalty as dismissal from service is concerned, having regards to sufferings leading to

the workman post dismissal, and taking into consideration of his apologetic stand, and to meet the natural justice, the

workman concerned who lost bread and butter in the days of hardship be provided one more last opportunity for his

survival by offering him fresh appointment in the lowest Grade with two- year probation. Therefore it is ordered that

the worker concerned be appointed as fresher in the lowest Cat-I with two-year period on probation with no question of

back wages whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 417

417

417

417.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस; AटK को िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 2, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–38

38

38

38/2006

2006

2006

2006) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/206/2005-आई आर (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 417.—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 (Rf. No. 38 of 2006) 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/206/2005-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1827

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 38 OF 2006

PARTIES

:

The Jt. Gen. Secretary,

Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Shastri Nagar,At/,PO: Jamadoba,

Dhanbad. (Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

M/s Tisco Ltd.,

PO: Jamadoba , Dhanbad.-826001

Order No.L-20012/206/2005-IR(CM-I) dt.12.06.2006

APPEARANCES

:

On behalf of the workman/Union

:

: Mr. Balmiki Pd., Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Management

:

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

:

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the, 1st Jan., 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-

20012/206/2005-IR(CM-I) dt.12.06.2006.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of 6/7 Pits Colliery of M/s TISCO in denying employment to

Shri Goutam Ram, the dependent son of Late Ambika Ram on compassionate ground is justified? If

not, to what relief is the said dependent entitled?”

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/206/2005-IR(CM-I) dt.12.06.2006 of the above mentioned reference

from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the

Reference Case No. 38 of 2006 was registered on 21.07.2006/08.10.2007 and accordingly an order to that effect was

passed to issue notices through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on

the date fixed, and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order,

notices by the Registered Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels respectively appeared, and contested the case to the

extent the case stands reserved.

2.

The case as raised by the Sponsoring Union, all about denial of employment in r/o the petitioner –Goutam

Ram, elder son of the deceased workman Late Ambika Ram who was Peon of 6/7 Pits Colliery under Tata Iron &

Steel Co. Ltd,(Tisco) Management , prematurely expired on 12.10.2001 putting 29-year of continuous service .So

long as his service track record, it remained intact and unblemished till his death .As per the provision in force among

collieries under the Management of M/s Tisco and other Collieries under its Management covered under NCWA

binding over the parties and also applicable in its sister collieries ,the wife of the deceased Smt. Lalmati represented

before the Management to provide employment to her son Shri Goutam Ram in view of her husband premature death

in terms of clause under National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA).Though same has been acceded but kept in

abeyance till date .So long as the question of providing employment be it in Tisco itself a or in Bhelatand Colliery or

6&7 Pit Colliery under the Management of Tisco, discriminatory tactics are more or less followed depending upon

colliery to colliery as alleged by Sponsoring Union/Petitioner. The name of the dependent of the deceased worker had

already been registered in the Employment Dependent Register (EDR) so refusal by the Management is totally illegal

and unjustified .Therefore the claim of the petitioner is just and proper and must be considered on humanitarian ground

as the alleged inaction of the Management put the family on the verge of starvation . Since Management’s inaction in

providing employment to the petitioner stands not only unjustified but arbitrary and bad in law also, seeking

employment in favour of the dependent son - Goutam Ram with all other benefits on humanitarian ground setting

aside the denial of the Management for employment . Whereas the whole object of granting dependent employment

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is to enable the dependent of the deceased family to earn bread & butter and to come out from financial crisis ,who

suffers on account of unexpected and untimely death of deceased servant .Therefore the order passed by the

Management is illegal, arbitrary and malafide to victimize the kin of the deceased worker. Therefore, the Union claim

is amply deserved. As a consequence, the Management may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner of

employment on humanitarian ground.

In its rejoinder, the Sponsoring Union categorically denied all the facts of the Management as incorrect and

unfounded by sticking to its stand of all that the points raised are true with request to reject the prayer of the

Management .

3 Whereas categorically denying all the allegations brought by the Sponsoring Union /petitioner OP/Management

argued putting question mark over maintainable of Industrial Dispute either in law and facts as the Sponsoring Union

has got no locus–standi to raise the dispute of the instant Reference of the Establishment as the Union namely - Janta

Shramik Sangh is neither recognized nor in existence in any of the Establishments under the Management .As far as

employment to the deceased worker is concerned, it is not automatic condition of the service , the Industrial Dispute

can not be raised .The dependent son against whom the Sponsoring Union has raised the Industrial Dispute for

employment has never been in employment under the Management of Tisco so question of any relationship in terms

of Employer-employee does not exist at all. Management further pleading over the issue is that a pre-requisite

condition does always exist for raising the Industrial Dispute with the Management that disputant must be an employee

of the Management and that being the position, the Instant reference is not competent for adjudication rather the issue

of the demand is a stale one as matter raised long after five years. Management pleading that Late Ambika Ram

employed on 17.03.1972 with date of his birth 09.11.1947 and expired on 12.10.2001 after having put in about 29

years of service in the Company The procedure as spelt out in the Tata Steel for employment is that an employee

desirous to get his dependents’ name enrolled he must do so by applying for it for enrollment in the Employees

Dependent Register (EDR) only after completion of 15 years of service in the Establishment and whenever vacancy

arises name of dependent, as registered is to be considered for employment in the order of seniority. As for

employment to the dependent of the deceased worker, Late Ambika Ram had never got enrolled the name of any

dependent in the Employee Dependent Register (EDR) during his service tenure. There is no provision for providing

employment in the Tata Steel after death of an employee. If go by the procedure; Late workman’s dependent is not

entitled for employment in the Company. Thereby dependent employment claim is hereby declared void and

inoperative being unsustainable.

In its rejoinder the Management came out by emphatically denial of all allegations of the Union by stating these

all as baseless ,incorrect and unfounded once again reiterating its stand that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief

as the provision under which employment has been claimed is not applicable for Tata Steel rather the employment

procedure exists in Tata Steel, is only applicable and, in wake of the said facts the disputant is not entitled for

employment.

4. The resume of the fact as emerging from the record appears that short point in the issue of the instant Reference

to be discussed is whether the applicant is entitled to get job in place of deceased father who was a workman under

Tisco management .Both parties file W.S. and counter and also adduce evidence . The applicant submits that through

he applied for job, the Management did not give him job though there is provision of law for that. On the other hand

the Management Representative submits that if any workman dies, he has to apply to the concerned area for enrolling

dependent name of the workman in the Employment Dependent Register (EDR).

5. Therefore it is ordered the petitioner /dependant son of the late workman to apply giving all details to be enrolled

in the Employment Dependent Register(EDR).The deceased workman was a Sweeper, it is seen, that the Management,

gave a reply to her that as no Sweeper post was available and regretted her claim. It is not proper. The applicant’s

dependent son be given the post of Sweeper/Peon or post of that Cadre wherever vacancy arises.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 418

418

418

418.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी

बी.सी.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल.

.सी.एल. के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय

य

य

य

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं.

यालय नं. 2, धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–82

82

82

82/2012

2012

2012

2012) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय

सरकार को 14/2/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/158/2011-आई आर (सीएम-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1829

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

No. 2, Dhanbad (Rf. No. 82 of 2012) 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

14.02.2018.

[No. L-20012/158/2011-IR (CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri R. K. Saran,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO 82 OF 2012

PARTIES :

:

The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union,

Vishwakarma Colony,Nutundih, PO: Jagjivan Nagar,Dhanbad 826003

Vs.

The General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Sijua, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828121.

Order No.L-20012/158/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 12.09.2012

APPEARANCES

:

On behalf of the workman/Union

:

Mr.P.Mandal , Union . Rep,

n behalf of the Management

:

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

:

Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th Jan, 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/158/2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 12.09.2012

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing

employment to Smt. Suga Devi, dependent wife of Late Baneshwar Manjhi under the provisions of

NCWA is legal and justified? To what relief Smt. Suga Devi, dependant wife of Late Baneshwar

Manjhi is entitled?’’

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/158/2011-IR (CM-I) dt. 12.09.2012 mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 82 of 2012 was registered on 01.10.2012. and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Representative/Ld. Advocate respectively appeared, and contested

the case to the extent it stands reserved for Award.

2.

This Reference case as explained in the WS that Late Baneshwar Manjhi was a permanent employee of Sendra

Bansjra Colliery bearing personnel No. 002306942 had died in harness on 17.10.2005 due to serious illness. Soon after

1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

death of her husband Smt. Suga Devi, wife of the deceased made an representation for grant of death benefits as per

the provisions of National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) as the deceased had been very much entitled to grant of

payments of Live Cover Scheme ,Benevolent Fund ,expenses for funeral apart from employment in lieu of her late

husband .The Management did not provide any benefits to Smt Suga Devi in according with the provisions of NCWA

rather harassed the poor lady by not providing employment despite several request made by her .So finding no

alternative way, the Sponsored Union raise an Industrial Dispute. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings

the Management by its appearance through Ld. Counsel stated in written comments that Smt Suga Devi W/o the

Deceased employee is not entitled for employment as the Late workman was dismissed from service vide order dated

19.10.2005 to which the Sponsoring Union objected questioning the circumstances under which the Management

dismissed a dead person .Note worthy to mention here that the Late Baneshwar Majhi died on 17.10.2005 whereas

the Management dismissed him from the service on 19.10.2005 .During the conciliation the Management came out

with the assurance that if the applicant submits her application in proper format , her application would be

considered in proper perspective while, the conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation between the

parties gave a failure report. On the strength of Failure of the Conciliation, the Management instructed to Smt Suga

Devi to submit application for employment in proper format. In compliance with the instructions as pointed out by the

Management the application was submitted in proper format with relevant documents. Thereafter the Management

issued another letter to Smt Suga Devi on 22.10.2012 for rectification of some omission in application .Having

rectified the omissions, as pointed out by the Management, the applicant resubmitted. Thereafter the management

referred the applicant to Medical Board for pre-medical examination and accordingly she appeared before the Medical

Board and declared medically fit but in the meanwhile Ministry refereed the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

vide notification under reference referred above. After reference from the Ministry, the Management send the Death

Certificate of the deceased employee for verification with assurance that the applicant would be provided

employment subject to verification of the Death Certificate. Not to it, the Management got verified all the

documents from the Competent Authorities of Government of Jharkhand as well the antecedent of the application

from Police. Finally the Management came out with assurance as soon as they get approval from the Competent

Authority she will be provided employment ,a move that the Management till date neither confirmed nor did deny ,

thereby forcing the applicant to run from pillar to post for her survival in a bid to avoid the starvation in the days of

hardships. Significantly the Management all along remained non-committal about providing employment to her as

alleged inaction of the Management of providing employment to the petitioner despite repeated assurance is

unjustified, illegal and sought suitable direction to provide employment to Smt. Suga Devi with full back wages from

the date of application, as stated by the petitioner . Unfazed by the said the said assurance petitioner contends that the

Management is not committed to stand by its words in terms of providing employment.

3, No compensation can be adequate nor can it be of any respite for the victim but since on account of failure of the

Management in providing employment in lieu of her late husband , the Management to some extent duty bound to

provide employment/compensation which may held in victim’s rehabilitation. So the Management’s assurance of

providing employment bears no substance.

Though the Management’s Counsel made appearances intermittently but did not file much awaited the written

statement -cum -rejoinder without specifying any reasons whatsoever as fact materials surfaced on the record.

4. The question which now survives for consideration is whether relief by way of compensation to the petitioner

in place of her Late husband who died in harness, should have been granted. Short point to be decided in this reference

is whether the applicant is entitled to be appointed in place of her husband who died while in service. The applicant

soon after his husband death applied for job, her application was scrutinized but it is seen that she is overage and she

was advised to apply for monetary compensation. But she did not accept the compensatory and raise this dispute.

During the hearings the applicant who is the wife of the deceased workman, admitted to accept for monetary

compensation in lieu of employment, and give in writing to this effect. Considering the same, it is ordered, the

applicant be given monetary compensation from the date of reference .

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 419

419

419

419.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस; एयर इंिडया िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म(

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–11

11

11

115/2006

2006

2006

2006) को 0कािशत करती है, जो

के, -ीय सरकार को 01/02/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/45/2003-आई आर (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1831

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Rf. No. 115 of 2006) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. Air India Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 01.02.2018.

[No. L-11012/45/2003-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No- 115/2006

1. The Airport Director,

Air India Limited, Premchand House,

172/1, High Court Way, Ashram Road,Ahmedabad

2. M/s. Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd.,

U 31-43, Samudra Office, C.G. Road, Sardar Patel Nagar Road,

Ellisbridge Bridge, Ahmedabad – 380006

3. M/s. Philipson Corporation,

392/2201, Shiv Shaktinagar, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad - 382424

—First Party

V/s

Shri Deepak Kumar RamlalAmbabatia,

Block No. 3 B, Sardarnagar,

Ahmedabad

—Second Party

For the First Party : Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates

For the Second Party : Shri Raghuvir Mali

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/45/2003–

IR(C-I) dated 20.04.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Kya Shri Deepak Kumar Ramlal Ambabatia, Loader and Air Port Director Air India Limited and unke

savindakaro, up-savindakaro M/s Global Air Port and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Philipson

Corporation ke beech niyojak – karamkar kes ambandh hai?”

“Kya Karmachari Shri Deepak Kumar Ramlal Ambabatiaki M/s Air India Limited ke prabandhtantra se mang

ki unhe sewa mein puneh sthapit kiya jaye and sabhi anuvarti labh diye jaye, uchit and nyaye sanghat hai?”

1.

The reference dates back to 20.04.2006. After receiving the notices, the second party Deepak Kumar Ramlal

Ambabatia submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 08.01.2007 alleging that he was appointed / engaged by The

Director Air Port, Air India Limited/ First Party, hereinafter referred to as “Air India” on 05.01.1997 on daily wage

basis. He served the aforesaid first party for a year and three months till 31.08.1998. Initially, he was given an entry

token for entering the Air Port. Later in July, 1997, he was given daily entry permit on monthly basis after getting

police verification. He used to work for all the 30 days in a month and worked for 201 days in the year 1997 and 240

days in the year 1998 till 31.08.1998. Thus he became entitled to become workman of the first party. He used to work

along with 25 other workmen as loader in the loading department of Air India. Air India was also having 20 other

regular workmen in the loading department. Whatever he and other workmen perform the loading duty, was regulated

1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by Air India under the supervision of the Airport Authority of India. He was a regular worker as work was of the nature

of continuity. He was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day which was later increased to Rs. 70/- per day. He has

further alleged that the Air India illegally entered into an agreement with M/s Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt.

Ltd., as a contractor to provide casual labours including the second party workman under a camouflage and later

entered into M/s. Philipson Corporation, a non-existing company for the said purpose. He and other workmen were

used to perform their duties under the direct control of Air India but on 31.08.1998, the Air India without serving any

notice or notice pay, removed him from service for no wrong and also retained the junior workmen. He has further

alleged that it is the general practice of the Air India that every time it removed the older workmen and re-engaged new

workmen, landing them into poverty and unemployment. Thus he has prayed in his statement of claim for reinstatement

with back wages along with Rs. 10000/- as legal expenses and any other relief as the tribunal deems fit.

2.

The first party in his written statement Ex. 9 denied all the averments made in the statement of claim submitting

that by an order dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi

approving the scheme of amalgamation between Air India Limited and Indian Air Lines Limited with the National

Aviation Company of India Limited and consequent upon the filing of the same with the registrar of company on

27.08.2007, aforesaid companies is to dissolved without being wound up with emergence of a new company National

Aviation Company of India Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Air India”. Air India in his written statement submitted

that this workman was being engaged by the aforesaid contractors namely M/s. Global Airport and Ground Services

Pvt. Ltd., and later M/s. Philipson Corporation, which were outsourcing company to provide the casual labours to Air

India. Thus the workman was not having any master servant relationship with the Air India. He never served the Air

India for 210 days in 1997 and 240 days in 1998 till the month of August. Truth is that, he was working under a

contract with the aforesaid contractors. Thus he has no right to claim his reinstatement or regularisation with back

wages.

3.

The workman submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 12 and 22 and the first party Air India submitted

number of documents vide list Ex. 13. Neither of the parties admitted the documents of their opposite party and all

these documents are zerox copy which are not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

4.

On the basis of the pleading, the following issues arise:

i.

Whether the workman Deepak Kumar Ramlal Ambabatia was having master servant relationship with the

Air India Limited and contractors M/s. Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. and later M/s.

Philipson Corporation?

ii. Whether the workman Deepak Kumar Ramlal Ambabatia was entitled to be reinstated with back wages in

the service of Air India Limited?

5.

Issue No. i & ii: Both the issues are interrelated and will be decided together. The workman submitted his

affidavit Ex. 11 as his examination-in-chief reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim but in his cross-

examination, he failed to establish that he was ever appointed by Air India as its employee in the nature of casual

labour. However, he has stated that he used to work under a camouflage contractors M/s. Global Airport and Ground

Services Pvt. Ltd. and later M/s Philipson Corporation, who used to pay him the wages. The first party has also filed 3

photographs vide list Ex. 15 showing the workman running a shop in the name of Krishna Dabeli which has not been

denied by the workman.

6.

The first party examined Bhagwandas Manglani, Deputy Manager, Air India, by way of affidavit Ex. 21 stating

that this workman was engaged by aforesaid contractors to the Air India for serving in the loading departments as a

loader. He has never been appointed by Air India. He was simply outsourced employee and all the wages were paid by

the contractors. Both the parties submitted their written arguments.

7.

From the evidence of both the parties, it is crystal clear that the workman was serving the Air India under an

outsourcing contract with the aforesaid contractors M/s. Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. and later M/s.

Philipson Corporation. He was never appointed by the Air India as its employee. The argument that he was removed by

Air India appointing the new workmen has no force because it is the discretion of the contractor whosoever enters into

a contract with the Air India to have its own set of workmen. It is also an established law that Air India is a Public

Sector Undertaking of Government of India with in the definition of State under Article 13 of the Constitution of India,

therefore, is governed by the statutory rules regarding recruitments, therefore, Air India cannot be ordered by this

tribunal to reinstate and regularised in service of the Air India.

8.

The first party has referred Surendranagar District Panchayat V/s Gangaben Laljibhai and others, 2006-III-LLJ

SC Page 48 wherein the apex court has held that it is the burden of the workman to prove that he served the employer

for a continuous period of 240 days. He has further referred Glasstech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., V/s the workman,

represented by Maharashtra General Kamdar Union, 2013 (1) LLN 119 (Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court has

held that the burden lies on the workman to prove that he was the direct employ of the alleged employer. Similar view

was expressed in Leelaben Parmar V/s Physical Research Laboratory, 2011 II CLR 39.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1833

9.

From the aforesaid discussions, the workman has failed to establish that the outsourcing contract with the

aforesaid contractors M/s. Global Airport and Ground Services Pvt. Ltd. and later M/s. Philipson Corporation was sham

and camouflage and he was regularly appointed by Air India as per its recruitment rules, therefore, both the issues are

decided in negative and against the workman and the workman cannot be given any relief in this reference.

10.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 420

420

420

420.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0

मैसस0 ओ.एन.जी.सी.

ओ.एन.जी.सी.

ओ.एन.जी.सी.

ओ.एन.जी.सी. िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड

िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म(

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # या

/9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या

(संदभ0 सं> या–123

123

123

123/200

200

200

2004) को 0कािशत करती है, जो

के, -ीय सरकार को 01/02/2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/116/1997-आई.आर. (सी-1)]

एम. के. ~संह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Rf. No. 123 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. ONGC Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 01.02.2018.

[No. L-30012/116/1997-IR (C-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 24th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 123/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd., Mehsana,

Mehsana Project,

Mehsana (Gujarat) - 384002

…First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

ONGC Labour Union,

8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, Highway Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat)– 384002

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi

1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/116/97–

IR(C-I) dated 09.11.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Jayant D. Jadhav, was a workman or a contractor with ONGC, Mehsana for the period from

11.09.1986 to 01.03.1995? If Shri Jayant D. Jadhav was a workman then whether his termination w.e.f.

01.03.1995 is legal and justified? If no, then to what relief, he is entitled?”

1.

The reference dates back to 09.11.1998.Both the parties were served vide notice Ex. 2. The second party

workman Jayant D. Jadhav submitted his statement of claim Ex. 6 alleging that the first party Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “ONGC” was established under Section 3 of ONGC Act, 1959 (Act No. 43 of

1959) within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having its headquarter at Tel Bhawan, Dehradun

which was registered as ONGC Limited. The main function of ONGC is carrying out of geological and geo-physical

service for exploration of petrol, for carrying out drilling and other prospecting operations to prove and estimate the

reserves of petroleum, to undertake, encourage and promote the production of petroleum from such reserves, for the

transport and disposal of natural gas, to undertake, encourage and promote geological, chemical and other scientific

investigations, to perform other functions which are supplemental, incidental or consequential to any of the aforesaid

functions or which may be prescribed by the Central Government and directed to them through Ministry of Petroleum

and Natural Gas from time to time. He has further alleged that ONGC is the employer within the meaning of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 and owner within the meaning of Section 2 (C & I) of the Mines Act, 1952. He was appointed by the

ONGC in his computer section on 11.09.1986 to operate, maintain and repair of the air conditioning units of ONGC for

its smooth running of the computer section which was established in the year 1986 when the computers were installed

therein. He served the ONGC continuously till 28.02.1995 and was terminated on 01.03.1995. ONGC invented a noble

method while engaging him telling that if he will continue in job with ONGC, he will have to enter into an agreement

offering bids/quotations before entering into an agreement. He entered into an agreement with the ONGC sometimes

near to 23.01.1987. He has further alleged that ONGC did not follow the proper procedure of inviting bids or

quotations while entering into an agreement. Initially, he was paid Rs. 1000/- per month for such service. He has

further alleged that he worked full time for more than 240 days in each year in the direct control and supervision of the

ONGC, therefore, his termination on 01.03.1995 was unjust and unlawful on the ground that the said work was of

perennial nature and he has been serving as a full time worker, therefore, engaging a person on a fixed amount, is

violative of Section 25 G of the Industrial Dispute Act and unfair labour practice for escaping the provisions of

Employees Provident Fund Act and also escaping the obligations of regularising a workman who served the ONGC for

more than 240 days in each year. Thus he has prayed that his termination from service be declared unlawful and also

prayed for reinstatement in service.

2.

The first party ONGC submitted the written statement Ex. 6 partly admitting the facts that the second party

workman was engaged as a contractor to perform the duty of maintenance of air conditioning unit of the computer

section of ONGC. Thus he was a contractor and cannot be said to be a workman as defined in the Section 2 S of the

Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, no industrial dispute can be raised in the matter. The ONGC has denied the facts of

engaging the second party as workman on a fix pay of Rs. 1000/- per month since his alleged appointment and

termination. All the rest of the averments made in the statement of claim are denied by the first party. The reference is

also barred by delay and latches. The real facts are that ONGC contracted M/s Jadhav Refrigeration Service, Mehsana

as per the agreement entered into the ONGC and the alleged second party workman. Said agreement was extendable on

mutual consent basis from time to time. He was never appointed as a workman by the ONGC, therefore, there exist no

relationship of master and servant between them and the reference is liable to be rejected.

3.

The second party submitted documents vide list Ex. 7 concerning certified standing orders of contingent

employees of the ONGC and various circular/office orders/letters of ONGC besides a copy of award of Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 35/1987.

4.

The ONGC has filed the copy of the alleged agreement between ONGC and M/s Jadhav Refrigeration Service,

Mehsana.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I.

Whether Shri Jayant D. Jadhav, was a workman or a contractor with ONGC, Mehsana for the period from

11.09.1986 to 01.03.1995?

II.

Whether Shri Jayant D. Jadhav was a workman and his termination w.e.f. 01.03.1995 is legal and justified?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1835

III.

If no, to what relief, if any,the second party is entitled?

6.

Issue No. I, II &III: Both these issues are interrelated and decided together. The burden of prove of these issues

was on the second party who has submitted the affidavit Ex. 17 reiterating the averments made in the statement of

claim and in his cross-examination, he has stated that no advertisement for vacancy of the post which he alleged to

have hold, was advertised by the ONGC. He has never been issued any appointment letter. He has also stated that he

himself is a contractor and entered into a contract with ONGC to maintain the refrigeration unit at Mehsana. The said

contract of maintenance of refrigeration unit of ONGC expired on 28.02.1995. He has been residing in Nehrunagar

Colony of Ahmedabad since childhood and his date of birth is 04.10.1957. Though ONGC has not examined any

witness but the second party has admitted that he was a contractor and entered into a contract with the ONGC to

maintain the refrigeration unit of computer section of ONGC, thus his admission itself is indicative and established that

he cannot be treated as a workman under Section 2 S of the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore, no dispute can be raised

under Section 2 K of the Industrial Dispute Act. Secondly, his contract expired on 28.02.1995 and raised the dispute

sometimes in 1998. Thus the dispute suffers with delay and latches. Third, the ONGC is a state being the

instrumentality of the Government of India; therefore, no appointment can be made without following the due

procedure of appointment of service and the second party himself admitted that no advertisement of vacancy was made

and due procedure was not followed. Fourth, the second party in his statement on oath has admitted that his date of

birth is 04.10.1957. Thus he has passed the superannuation age. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the

industrial dispute raised by the second party was not justified. He was a contractor and not a workman or employee.

Thus the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed against the second party.The second party is also not entitled

to get any relief.

7.

Thus the reference is disposed of with the observation as under:”Shri Jayant D. Jadhav, was not a workman. He

was a contractor with ONGC, Mehsana for the period from 11.09.1986 to 01.03.1995.As Shri Jayant D. Jadhav was not

a workman therefore, his termination w.e.f. 01.03.1995 was not made rather his services as contractor was ceased w.e.f.

28.02.1995. Thus no relief can be granted.”

8.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 421

421

421

421.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

टे

टे

टे

टेशन िनदेशक

शन िनदेशक

शन िनदेशक

शन िनदेशक, सारभारती Pॉडका: टंग कापQरेशन इंिडया

सारभारती Pॉडका: टंग कापQरेशन इंिडया

सारभारती Pॉडका: टंग कापQरेशन इंिडया

सारभारती Pॉडका: टंग कापQरेशन इंिडया (एआईआर

एआईआर

एआईआर

एआईआर), यवतमल

यवतमल

यवतमल

यवतमल (एमएस

एमएस

एमएस

एमएस) एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt

िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर, के पंचाट (CGIT/NGP/14/2013

CGIT/NGP/14/2013

CGIT/NGP/14/2013

CGIT/NGP/14/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 12.1.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/12/2013-आई.आर. (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the Station Director, Prasarbharti Broadcasting Corp. India (AIR), Yavatmal (MS) and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 12.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/12/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/14/2013

Date: 20.12.2017.

Party No.1

:

The Station Director,

Prasarbharti Broadcasting Corp. India (AIR)

Akashwani,

Yavatmal(MS)

Versus

Party No.2

:

Shri Himmat Uttamrao Kute

Chamdiya Nagar,

Yavatmal (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 20th December, 2017)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman, Shri Himmat

Kute, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40012/12/2013-IR (DU) dated 22.04.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of AIR, Yavatmal (MS) in terminating services of Shri Himmat

Uttamrao Kute and denying him to a suitable post in AIR, Yavatmal is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Himmat Kute, (‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of All India Radio, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

3.

Workman in his statement of claim stated that his initial appointment was made by party no.1 as a labourer on

vacant post and he working continuously with party no.1 without any gap in service. In 1990 he was working for

sweeping the office, attending the officers, serving the tea and water during the office hours. Initially he was paid

Rs.154/- per day towards wages. On 20.10.2011 this amount raises up to 4000/- per month. The payment of wages was

made on the basis of voucher not on muster roll. Despite working for more than 11 years management play unfair

labour practice i.e. preparing vouchers for his payment in the name of other persons and compel to party no.2 workman

signed in the name of another person with the alterim motive to avoid the benefit of permanency.

According to the workman he being a less educated person and with the fear in his mind of termination of his

services, he followed the illegal directions of party no.1. He also requested the management to make him permanent

but as a result his service came to terminated from 20.10.2011 without following the mandatory provisions of section

25-F, 25-G of I.D. Act. No notice was served to him. The retrenchment compensation was also not offered to him. So

according to the workman his termination is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provision of law and he is entitled to

be reinstated in service with full back wages in continuity.

4.

The party no.1 filed written statement by denying measure important facts. According to the management the

workman was engaged as contract labour in piecemeal basis for 11 to 12 months as Mali, Gardening and General

cleaning of office for the amount mentioned therein. It was denied that he was worked for continuously. It was

admitted that workman was performing the work of sweeping office, serving tea and water during the office hours. It is

also admitted that the work was available in all time only during the office hours. It is also admitted that initially he

was paid Rs. 154/- per day, thereafter, wages were increased from time to time on basis of list of latest rate of wages

but it was denied that on the last date of termination of his service his wages was 4000/- per month. It was also

admitted that party no. 1 pay the wages to the workman on vouchers not paying him on muster roll, despite working for

more than 11 years, which amounts to unfair labour practice on behalf of party no.1. It was also admitted that party

no.1 extracting work from the workman himself but preparing the vouchers for his payment in the name of other

person, but it was denied by party no.1 compelling the workman to sign in the name of another person other than him

with a ulterior motive to avoid him the benefit of permanency.

Party no.1 denied that the workman approached them that he was working continuously since past 11 years and

not made permanent. It is also denied that no heed was paid to request of workman. It is also denied that party no.1

got annoyed with workman and as a result his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.10.2011 without following the

mandatory provision of section 25-F and 25-G of I.D. Act. According to the management no notice or retrenchment

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1837

compensation is required to workman. It is also denied that his termination was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the

provisions of law. It is also denied that after termination of the services party no.1 has engaged another person to

perform work of the workman. The question of having preferential right of the workman over the fresh appointee to

perform the work prior to his termination does not arise. So party no.1 pray that as direction of the Hon’ble High Court

this Tribunal any order as deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in interest of justice.

5.

Workman filed rejoinder by stating that party no.1 gave the appointment of temporary status of mazdoor and

station director had strongly recommended his name for engaging by granting T.S.M. status. Workman also asserted

that he does work continuously for 11 years. According to the workman management admitted that all time work is

available. According to him management without complying the due procedure of law terminated his services on

20.11.2011. He also prayed that management to reinstate his service from date on which his service was illegally

terminated with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

6.

Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, both the parties led oral evidence to substantiate their

respective stands. The workman examined himself as a witness in support of his case. In his examination-in-chief,

which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the claim.

7.

One Shri Harish Ramakant Wasnik an officer of the party no.1 has been examined as a witness on behalf of the

party no.1. The evidence of this witness is also in the line of the stands taken in the written statement by party no.1.

8.

Both the parties filed their written notes of argument.

9.

Now I will discuss the legal facts of the case.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in

Sandhya Vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2014, III CLR-17, Rajasthan State Sahakari Vs. Atal Bihari Bharadwaj

(Rajasthan High Court 2017-IIICLR-480, Management of Dy. Director Vs. Chaitanya Sahani (Orissa High Court) and

Resident Engr., RSRDC Vs. Judge Labour Court, Jaipur

(i)

Whenever the termination of service of an employee/workman who has worked for a long period, is held to

be illegal by the competent court/tribunal, he is entitled to not only the relief of reinstatement in service but

also to regularisation in service, as per the Government Scheme or Resolution as the case may be.

(ii)

It is a case of continuous employment and not one under different contracts but when his services were

lastly dispensed with from 30.09.1995, he had admittedly worked for more than 240 days continuously in

the preceding calendar year before his services were dispensed with.

Thus the court deems it appropriate that respondent apart from relief of reinstatement, is entitled to back

wages to the extent of 25% for all these years.

While granting relief to the parties concerned the adjudicator has always consider the length of service put

in by the workman, his current age as well as the long period the litigation is pending, financial soundness

of the employer, etc.

(iii) It is settled principle that when competent judicial/quasi judicial authority, is of the opinion that termination

of service of the workman, is illegal, the employee/workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service,

or reasonable amount of compensation, considering the length of service he had put in, age of the

workman, financial condition of the employer, etc.

10.

Now I want to discuss the argument submitted by the advocate for the workman on basis of facts and evidence.

He also pointed out some admission made by the management in his written statement and evidence. Now I want to

point out these admissions:-

i)

Party no.1 in his written statement admitted that the workman was engaged as contract labour on

piecemeal basis for eleven to twelve months for the work of Mali, Gardening and General cleaning of

the office.

ii)

The workman was performing the work of serving the Tea and water to officer and staff during office

hours. This work was available for all the time with party no.1. The party no.1 use to revise the rate of

wages after every six months. The party no.1 extracted the work from the workman but prepare the

vouchers for his payment in the name of other person.

Workman in his court statement admitted in para 7 that he was initially paid Rs. 154/- per day towards his

wages. His name was not registered in the employment exchange. He had not filed any appointment letter which show

that his engagement was against any permanent post. He did not file any document to show that he was getting Rs.

4000/- per month as wages. He also admitted that he was paid his wages on voucher basis. He also admitted that he

did not file any document to show that he worked continuously for 21 years.

11.

Now coming on document part:-

1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Document W-I dated 11.10.2004, W-II dated 07.12.2004 and W-III dated 07.05.2004, these are letters written

by station officer Prasar Bharti Yavatmal to Director General All India Radio, New Delhi for workman appointment for

temporary status mazdoor at AIR Yavatmal. Document W-VIII is written by Director General of All India Radio on

17.06.2012 regarding the workman’s representation against his termination from services is intimated by this letter

workman directly.

12.

Management witness Mr. Harish Wasnik stated that the workman was working in this department from 1990

to 20.10.2011 as casual labour. He was not aware that workman did or did not work continuously for 240 days in each

calendar year and what was the mode of payment. He was also not aware of any other appointed, in the place of

workman in the department. On reading of his court statement it shows that he gave his statement on the basis of

documents i.e. he don’t have any personal knowledge.

13.

On perusal of the records in my opinion the established facts are mentioned below:-

a) Management admitted that workman worked as casual labourer from 1990 to 20.10.2011 but he does not

proved that he worked as full time worker for continuous 240 days in a calendar year.

b) Workman does not produce any document which shows his appointment and termination. In my opinion

the burden of proof on these facts lies on the workman.

c) It is also disputed that payment of wages are on voucher or on muster roll. It is also admitted by the

party no.2 that some time payment was made in the name of other person to the workman. It is also not

prove that somebody was working in his place which indicates that there is clear and permanent vacancy.

d) Workman did not prove that he worked for 20 years continuously as a temporary or permanent worker. It

is also not proved that there is a clear vacancy upon which he was appointed. It is also not proved that he

apply for this post on advertisement basis or through employment exchange. He also does not prove that

some recruitment procedure was followed or reservation quota was followed.

14.

Workman advocate admitted that on 07.12.2018 the workman’s age will be 60 years, but proof of the age is

genuine in my opinion which was submitted by him during the argument marked C-1.

In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where

principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted

even if termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu

Udhyog Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in

which it was held that:- “no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33

or on a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if

no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and

the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A

defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would

have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order

of dismissal or discharge was proper.” The employer, thus, has got a right to adduce evidence before the

Tribunal justifying its action, even where no domestic inquiry whatsoever has been held.

It will be open to the Tribunal to pay compensation even in a case where ultimately charges are

proved, despite holding that the order of termination is valid for the reason that principles of natural justice

have not complied with.

In the case law:- Management of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Kandhamal Range, Phulbani Vs. Chaitanya

Sahani 2017 II CLR 841 it was held that:- “It is settled that in case of temporary or daily wagers, the order for

reinstatement in service can only be passed in exceptional circumstances and the normal rule is to compensate the

workman by way of making payment of lump sum compensation in case of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.”

15.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that law is

well settled that where principles of natural justice were not complied with then in such cases compensation out to be

granted because termination of the services in my opinion is valid.

16.

In view of the discussion made above and the materials on record, it is found that there is no scope to interfere

with the order punishment of dismissal from services past against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of AIR, Yavatmal (MS) in terminating services of Shri Himmat

Uttamrao Kute and denying him to a suitable post in AIR, Yavatmal is legal and justified. But due to lack of

procedure in termination from services and the mode of payment adopted to the workman the workman is

entitled for Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) from party no.1 in lieu of

reinstatement which is payable within one month from the publication of this award in official gazette, failing

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1839

which, the amount due to the workman will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of due to the

workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workman. The workman is not entitled for any

other relief.

SHYAM SUNDAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 422

422

422

422.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

मु> य

मु> य

मु> य

मु> य टा

टा

टा

टाफ अिधकारी

फ अिधकारी

फ अिधकारी

फ अिधकारी, पिSमी नौसेना कमान

पिSमी नौसेना कमान

पिSमी नौसेना कमान

पिSमी नौसेना कमान, मुंबई और अ# य

मुंबई और अ# य

मुंबई और अ# य

मुंबई और अ# य के बंधन

के बंधन

के बंधन

के बंधन एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय नंनंनंनं. II, मुंबई

मुंबई

मुंबई

मुंबई, के

पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 02/2016

02/2016

02/2016

02/2016) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 13.2.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/22/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 02/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the Management of Chief Staff Officer, Western Naval Command, Mumbai & Other and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13.02.2018.

[No. L-14011/22/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

M. V. Deshpande

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/2 of 2016

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

(1) CHIEF STAFF OFFICER (P&A) WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND

(2) THE CCPO, HQ, WESTERN NAVAL COMMAND

The Chief Staff Officer (Personnel & Admn.),

Western Naval Command, Headquarters,

Shoorji Vallabhdas Road,

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai – 400 038.

The CCPO, Headquarters,

Western Naval Command, Headquarters,

Shoorji Vallabhdas Road, Ballard Estate,

Mumbai – 400 038.

1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Raksha Karamchari Sangh,

06-C, Islami Building, Dhobiwada Road,

Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi [E],

Mumbai – 400 011.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

Mr. A.K. Roy,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Mr. Ombir Yadav,

Representative

Mumbai, dated the 8th December, 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-14011/22/2015 – IR (DU) dated 29.12.2015. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether letter No. CPT (JCM)/3543/BMPS dated 08.08.2014 issued by Smt. R.A. Sehgal, PD, DCPS, Integrated

Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy), and the action of the management of HQ Western Naval Command

Mumbai in dealing with the faction of Rashtriya Raksha Karamchari Sangh led by Shri Ravindra Yadav for all official

purposes is amounting to violation of Section 25T read with Clause 2 (a) and Clause 3 of Fifth Schedule of ID Act,

1947 ? If so, what relief the Rashtriya Raksha Karamchari Sangh faction led by Shri Ombir Yadav 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.

Second party union filed statement of claim Ex.4. It is the case of the second party union that Rashtriya Raksha

Karamchari Sangh hereinafter referred as RRKS is a trade union registered under Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 with

the Registrar of Trade Union on 23.5.2000. The constitution of the said union was also approved by the Registrar. As

per the said constitution any person who is employed in the units of Headquarter of Western Naval Command, Mumbai

and who has attended the age of 18 years shall be entitled to become an ordinary member. In the said constitution there

is provision of granting the Honorary membership to the member who is not eligible to become the ordinary member

and the maximum number of Honorary member shall not exceed 4. There is provision under the said constitution that

the union shall have President, Vice President, one General Secretary, one Joint Secretary, 5 Secretaries, one Treasurer

and 12 Organising Secretaries. As per constitution, union shall have its managing committee of members upto 100

including office bearers who are elected with simple majority in the Annual General Meeting of the union for the 2

years and the entire affairs of the union will be conducted by the Managing Committee. As per the provisions, General

Body Meeting has to be called by the President or General Secretary of the union. If any office bearers or members of

the Managing Committee is to be removed, he is to be removed in general meeting by simple majority if it is found that

he has committed any fraud or acted against the interest of the union.

4.

It is also the case of the union that Ombir Yadav who is founder President of the union issued a notice calling a

special meeting of the Managing Committee on 28.3.14 and agenda of the said special meeting was to decide the

continuation of the affiliation of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh to which the RRKS union was affiliated earlier. In the said

meeting dated 28.3.14, Ravindra Yadav, A. Raturi and 5 others had entered forcefully and made lot of shouting and

behaved in indecent manner and therefore the President decided to adjourn the meeting and it was decided to hold an

annual general meeting on 15.4.14. Accordingly, notice was given on 31.3.14 along with agenda of the said meeting.

One of the agenda of the said meeting was to take action against the members against whom show cause notice was

issued asking their explanation as to why the action should not be taken against them for committing anti-union

activities in the meeting held on 28.3.14. In the meeting on 15.4.14 Resolution No.1 was passed whereby Shri

Jogendra Pratap Singh, General Secretary, Yogendra Kumar, Vice President , Jayprakash Kadian and Shiv Kumar

Singh were expelled. Thereafter RRKS union by its letter dt. 16.4.14 informed the Flag Officer Commanding – in –

chief, WNC, Mumbai about the decision in the said general meeting. The registrar of the trade union was also

informed / intimated regarding the change of office members of the union and decision taken in the annual general

meeting held on 15.4.14.

5.

It is also the case of the union that the Registrar of the trade union accepted the resolution passed on 15.4.14 by

General body meeting and accordingly amended the constitution of RRKS. However, on 29.4.14, meeting was called

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1841

by Shri Jogendra Pratap Singh and in the said meeting Shri Dyaneshwar Ragunath Shinde, Uttam Singh, Sayed Sajjad

Haider Taqvi and Sukesh Kumar Singh were removed as office bearers of the union. So according to the second party

union, Shri Jogendra Pratap Singh was already expelled from the primary membership as per Resolution in General

Body meeting dt. 14.4.14 and he has no legal right to hold or call any annual general meeting in the name of RRKS.

Even General Secretary of the RRKS wrote letter dt. 9.6.14 to the Registrar of the Trade union explaining entire

constitutional process of expulsion of Shri Jogendra Pratap Singh and others from the union and the Registrar of the

Trade union examined the issues in detail and have decided to accord requisite amendment in constitution in

accordance with the proceedings of annual general meeting of the union held on 15.4.14.

6.

It is alleged by the union that the management despite of the situation issued a letter No. CPT[JCM]/3543/BPMS

dated 8.8.14 addressed to the Flag Officer Commanding – in – chief for CSO [P&A], Head quarter, WNC, Mumbai

authorizing the removed office bearers for functioning of RRSK without having any role and jurisdiction which is also

violation of Trade Unions Act. The management thereby extended undue favour for dealing with the faction of RRKS

led by Ravindray Yadav for all official purposes vide letter dt. 25.8.14 and it amounts to unfair labour practices under

section 25 (T) read with section 2 [ra] and clause 2 and clause 3 of the Fifth Schedule of I.D. Act. The said letter is

illegal and contrary to law. Second party union therefore wrote letter dt. 22.8.14 to the management and protested the

letter issued by the management on 8.8.14. Again union has sent letter dt. 28.8.14 asking the management to withdraw

the letter written by them and again made a request to the management by letter dt. 27.11.14 to withdraw the said letter.

However, the management of the first party did not take cognizance of the request of the union. Union therefore raised

the industrial dispute before ALC who submitted the report to appropriate government for necessary action stating that

it is an industrial dispute under section 2 [k] of I.D. Act. Hence this reference.

7.

First party management resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.7. It is the contention of the

management that in 2014 dispute has emerged among the members and office bearers of the union and thereby the

second party union is bifurcated into two factions. First group seems to be represented by Shri Ombir Yadav and

others and second group seems to be represented by Shri Ravindra Yadav and others. The reference has been made at

the instance of first group led by Shri Ombir Yadav and so far first party is concerned, it is neutral party in this dispute.

8.

It is also a case of the management that it has received a letter from both the factions making various allegations

against each other. Therefore, the matter was first examined at the Mumbai head quarter and then forwarded to higher

authorities at Integrated HQ, Ministry of Defence [Navy], New Delhi with all the letters received by the management

from the factions. By its letter No. CPT[JCM]/3543/ BPMS dated 8.8.14, Integrated HQ, Ministry of Defence [Navy]

directed that in accordance with the provisions, it was decided to accord concurrence to the faction led by

Shri Ravindra Yadav as such the said faction was to be dealt with in future for all official purposes concerning the

workmen. The said decision was taken in accordance with the ‘dispute resolution guidelines’ previously adopted by 3

trade federations namely All India Defence Employees Federation, INDWF & BPNS in a joint conference with defence

authorities. All these guidelines were circulated in the letter from adjutant General’s branch, IHQ, MoD [Army]. It is

thus contention of the management that the reference is contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

civil revision application No. 69 of 2015 and therefore it is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

9.

It is also a contention of the first party that the decision of the first party management to accord concurrence to

faction led by Shri Ravindra Yadav for dealing with all purposes concerning labour issues is based on the directions of

the higher authority namely Integrated HQ, Ministry of Defence [Navy] and there is no violation of the provisions of

the trade union act or any labour law. No undue favour has been granted to the office bearers or the members of RRSK

or any faction of the union. No unfair labour practices have been knowingly adopted by the first party management.

Management has never interfered in the business of trade unions act and acted only as per the advice and guidelines of

respective competent authorities and as such the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. It has thus

sought the dismissal of the reference.

10.

Following issues are framed at Ex.13. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

1

Whether the letter No. CPT[JCM]/ 3543/BPMS dated 8th August 2014 issued

by Smt. R.A. Sehgal, PD, DCPS, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of

Defence (Navy), and the action of the management of Headquarters, Western

Naval Command, Mumbai in dealing with the faction of Rashtriya Raksha

Karamchari Sangh led by Shri Ravindra Yadav for all official purposes is

amounting to violation of Section 25 (T) read with Clauses 2 (a) and 3 of Fifth

Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

Yes

2.

Whether reference is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties?

No

3.

What relief the Rashtriya Raksha Karamchari Sangh faction led by Shri Ombir

Yadav is entitled to ?

As per final order

4.

What Order ?

As per final order

1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reasons

Issue No.1.

11.

So far contention go, it is the case of the second party union that during the Annual General Body Meeting of the

union held by them on 15.4.14, they have removed some of the office bearers of the union and changed their office

address as well as dis-affiliated from BMS Federation and communicated the same to Chief Personnel, Integrated Head

quarters of Ministry of Defence [Navy]. In view of that, it is the case of the first party that the matter was examined by

Mumbai Head quarters of Western Naval Command and forwarded to Integrated Head quarters of Ministry of Defence,

New Delhi seeking necessary directions in the matter in particular regarding recognition of one of the factions because

according to the first party due to dispute within the union there were two factions and the first party has received letter

from both the factions of union on various allegations against each other. It is thus contention of the first party i.e.

Integrated Head quarters of Ministry of Defence [Navy] vide letter No. CPT [JCM]/3543/ BPMS dated 8.8.2014 has

communicated that in accordance of extent provisions it was decided to accord concurrence to the faction led by Shri

Ravindra Yadav, RRKS which is backed by BPMS Federation who may dealt with in future for all purposes and this

communication was conveyed in consonance with dispute regulation, guidelines adopted by AIDEF, INDWF and

BPMS as brought out in IHQ of MOD[Army], AG’s branch letter.

12.

The question is whether the first party has authority / power to take such decisions authorizing one faction of the

group of union to deal with in future for all official purposes or otherwise it is a violation of section 25 (T) read with

classes 2 (a) and 3 of 5th Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947.

13.

So far legal position is concerned, Registrar under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 is the authority

charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the act. Power of the Registrar in this regard are dealt with in

section 28 of the act which relates to filing of returns. Under section 28(i), a general statement has to be submitted

annually to the Registrar duly audited for all receipts and expenditures of every registered trade union for the relevant

period. Under sub section 2 together with general statement, the Registrar has to inform through a statement of all

changes of office bearers made by the trade unions during the year to which the general statement refers. Sub section

(2) of section 28 of the act provides as follows.

“(2) Together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes of office

bearers made by the Trade Union during the year to which the general statement refers together as with a copy of the

rules of the Trade Union corrected up to the date of the dispatch thereof to the Registrar.”

Sub section (4) of section 28 of the act provides as follows.

“(4) For the purpose of examining the documents referred to in sub-section (1), (2) and (3), and Registrar, or any

officer authorized by him by general or special order, may at all reasonable times inspect the certificate of registration,

account books, registers and other documents relating to a Trade Union, at its registered office or may require their

production at such place as he may specify, in this behalf, but no such place shall be at a distance of more than ten

miles from the registered office of a Trade Union.”

14.

The provisions of section 28(2) of the act indicate that the statement showing all changes of the office bearers

made by the Trade Union during the year has to be sent to the Registrar together with general statement containing

receipts and expenditures during the year. Under sub section (4) the Registrar is empowered to inspect annually the

registers and other documents relating to the Trade Union for the purposes of examining the documents referred to sub-

section (1), (2) and (3). It appears that second party union is a recognized union registered under the Indian Trade

Union Act, 1926 with the Registrar of the Trade Union on 23.5.2000 and therefore the second party workman has

informed to the Registrar of the Trade Union regarding office members of the union and decision taken in the annual

general meeting held on 15.4.14 and the Registrar of the Trade Union accepted the resolution passed on 15.4.14 by

general body meeting.

15.

But then the fact remains that as per legal position, Registrar of the Trade Union does not possess any

adjudicatory power to resolve election disputes. Under sub section (4) of section 28, he has the power to inspect among

other things, the registers and other documents relating to the Trade Union for the purposes of examining the

documents which are referred to in sub sections (1), (2) and (3). This however, does not convert the function of

Registrar under section 28 of the act into that akin to judicial or quasi-judicial matter. These are the observations which

I borrow from the decision in case of Choudhry Rajkumar Singh & Anr. V/S. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. in case of special

appeal defective No. 264 of 2015 wherein it is held that all the disputed questions of the fact in regard to validity of the

elections can be resolved by civil suit.

16.

It is held in the decision in case of Bhokaro Steel Workers Union and Anr. V/S. State of Bihar & Ors. – 1995 O

Supreme (PAT – 91) that the Registrar of the Trade Union could hardly assume the power to advise the employer or the

officials of labour department to recognize and treat any particular person as having the right to represent the union.

Obviously, therefore the enquiry made for the purposes of section 28 (2) was administrative in character and did not

finally adjudicate the claims of the parties and in respect of the dispute between the members of the union or in respect

of election of Trade Union remedy is of civil suit.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1843

17.

In view of that it appears that the first party management has referred the matter to the office of DLW

Commissioner [C] Naval Dockyard, Mumbai for expert legal opinion since the matter pertains to the labour laws. The

DLW [C] has examined the matter and submitted the note sheet on 3.9.14 to the management having noted that such

matters are infact very complicated and cannot be decided by executive authorities. This is due to fact that Trade

Union Central Act is silent about the same. Moreover, provisions of section 28 (1)(a) of Trade Union act, 1926 may

also be referred which is inserted by Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1969.

18.

So far legal opinion is concerned, it was noted by DLW in his office note that it is only the civil court who can

decide such disputes and in the light of above facts this office i.e. the management is not in a position to express any

opinion being an advisory body. It appears that inspite of legal opinion given by DLW Commissioner [C], Naval

Dockyard, Mumbai, the first party has issued letter dated 8.8.14 and decided to accord concurrence to the faction of one

group which may be dealt with in future for all official purposes. This is in violation of legal provisions and also

amounts to violation of section 25 (T) read with clause 2 (a) and clause 3 of 5th Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947.

19.

Learned Counsel for the first party submitted that the second party union has concealed the fact in respect of civil

litigation between the two factions of union and then as per order of Hon’ble High Court in civil Revision application

No. 69 of 2015, the order of Trial Court dated 23.12.14 is quashed and set aside and the suit came to be dismissed as

not maintainable. It appears on going through the copy of the said Revision application that the said litigation was in

between the two groups of union wherein the first party was not the party and the impugned letter issued by the first

party was not an issue. On the contrary, Shri MG Nair witness of the first party has admitted in his cross examination

that the management referred the contested matter to Dy. Labour Welfare Commissioner, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai for

expert opinion who advised the first party and gave legal opinion in that respect. He also admits that even thereafter

management has received the letters from the second party union dated 27.9.14 and 5.1.15 but said letter dated 8.8.14

was not withdrawn. In view of this it can be observed that knowingly thorough well about the legal position, the first

party management issued the letter dated 8.8.14 in violation of section 25 (T) read with clause 2 (a) and 3 of 5th

Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered accordingly in the affirmative,

Issue No. 2.

20.

As per order on Ex.8, the first party No.3 held to be necessary party that order has not been challenged. Issue

No.2 is therefore answered accordingly in the negative. As such the reference is not bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties.

Issue No. 3 & 4.

21.

In view of my findings to Issue No.1, it is declared that the letter No. CPT[JCM]/ 3543/BPMS dated 8th August

2014 is without jurisdiction and is amounting to violation of existing provisions of law. In view of that, I pass the

following order.

ORDER

(i)

Reference is allowed with no order as to costs.

(ii)

It is declared that letter No. CPT[JCM]/ 3543/BPMS dated 8th August 2014 and the action of the management

of IHQ, Western Naval Command, Mumbai in dealing with the faction of RRSK led by Shri Ravindra Yadav for

official purposes is in violation of existing provisions of law.

Date: 08.12.2017

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 423

423

423

423.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

राU ी

राU ी

राU ी

राU ीय जूट मै# यु

य जूट मै# यु

य जूट मै# यु

य जूट मै# युफै/ च

फै/ च

फै/ च

फै/ चVरंग कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड का बंधन

Vरंग कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड का बंधन

Vरंग कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड का बंधन

Vरंग कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड का बंधन एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के

बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय नं

यालय नं

यालय नं

यालय नं.1 धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद

धनबाद, के पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 52/201

2/201

2/201

2/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 12.1.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/113/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 52/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Management of National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 12.01.2018.

[No. L-42011/113/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No.52/2013

Employer in relation to the management of National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Ltd.

AND.

Their workmen.

Present : Shri R.K.Saran

Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman.

: Shri K.P.Singh, Adv

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Textile

Dated- 08/01/ 2018

AWARD.

By order No. L-42011/113/2013-IR (DU) dated 28/10/2013, 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 National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Limited is

erroneous in denying any wage- structure to its mill workmen /employees for such a long period and

why should it not do the same within a fixed time period?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 20.12.2013. After receipt of reference, both Parties are noticed,

The workman files their demand on 23.01.2014 which is accepted by workman as written statement After long delay

the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 27.02.2015. thereafter rejoinder and document filed by

the parties. No witness examined on behalf of the management but four witnesses produced by the workmen, but none

is present to cross examined the withness by the management. Case is proceed ex-parte. But document of both side is

marked as W-1 to W-03.

3. The group of workmen files an application for giving them adquate wage as that of other workmen of but inspite of

due notice the representative of the management appears, but subsequently did not attend the court. The workmen files

their claim and documents and examined four witnessess alongwith union representatives as witnessess. The

documents clearly show that they were working under the Mill management .The PF. Slip , ESI paper, and election

duty paper of workmen also filed.

4. On the other hand the case of the management is that the only dispute is adjudication of the justification of denial of

wage structure for a long period and if not justified then a direction to the NMJC for providing a wage structure within

a fixed time period . It is well settled that the authority has to confine only to the term of reference while adjudicating

the dispute . No other dispute/demand is a subject matter of this reference case.

5. It is furether submitted by the management that the R. B.H.M was a private limited company initially. The Central

Govt. in the year 1978 took over this mill along with few other under the provision of Indstries Act 1951. Thie mills

were closed at the time of take over. After consideration of investigation reports feasibility reports etc, if was found

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1845

viable in public interst to nationalise this mill olong with four other jute mill. The mills were nationalised under the

provision of the jute companies ( Nationalisation) Act 1980. There after the company namely jute Manufacturers

Corporation Limited was also registered under the companies Act 1956. The Central Govt. under section 6 of the jute

companies Act directed vesting of RBHM and other four companies in NJMC Limited.

6. At present NJMC has under control six units including RBHM . However presently only 3 mills are operative 2 in

Kolkata and 1 in Katihar RBHM.The RBHM was referred to BIFR on 11.08.92 under Section 15 (1) of SICA 1985 to

declare it for sick unit and necessary revical package was sent for the Board BIFR on 07.06.1993 declared the RBHM

as sick unit under section 3(1)(o) of SICA Act and appointed IDBI as operating agency under section 17 (3) of the Act

and directed to formulate scheme for revival of same.

7. On 24.03.2004 the mill was completely closed due to continued heavy losses, disconnection of power , heavy

wastage of manpower etc. The BIFR passed order for winding up of RBHM which is set-aside and passed direction for

revival. Keeping in view a scheme for voluntary retirement of the employees RBHM was announced, since production

was totally stopped for 2004 . The voluntary retirement scheme dues will be cleared to workmen in 2007 . Staff and

supervisors in 2009 and officers etc in 2011.

8. It is furether submitted by the management that ultimately a decision was taken by Ministry of Textile to run the mill

by outscoucing and giving the entire operation of the mill to contractor . In view of that contractor by virtue of an

agreement it was given the responsibility to supply staff and security personnel etc. to run the factory and the

salary/wages ect of such employee were to be paid by the contractor. This contractor was duly licensed under contract

Labour Act. Hence the contactor is responsible for the service condition of such employees and it was the pay master

for them. For all purpose the contractor was the employer and RBHM/NJMC were not directly responsible.

9. It is further submitted by the management that in other jute mill of NJMC or even under private sector the salary

wages paid to the employees are consolidated whenever there is any increase is their some amount is added into the

consolidated wage. There is no wage scale in any jute factory in the reason nor it is of any benefit to the employeees

concerned. As such employees of RBHM are neither entitled for any increase of wage nor any direction was required to

frame any wage scale.

10. On perusal of all the documents as it appears, the documents are unchallenged, photocopies of the documents of the

jute mill and insureance papers , PF papers and identity cards. The workmen witnesses have clearly stated that they are

the contract workers. There is no doubt to disbelieve those documents. Hence it is ordered that the concerned workmen

be immediately taken in job, as contract labourer and pay them wages as prescirbed rate of Government within one

month from the publication of the award in the gazette.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 424

424

424

424.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, आयुध कारखाने सं था

आयुध कारखाने सं था

आयुध कारखाने सं था

आयुध कारखाने सं थान िश,ण का था

न िश,ण का था

न िश,ण का था

न िश,ण का थान, अ* बा

अ* बा

अ* बा

अ* बाझरी

झरी

झरी

झरी, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और

उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर के

पंचाट (CGIT/NGP/67/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 08.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/09/2013-आई.आर. (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/67/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the General Manager, Ordnance Factories Institute of Learning, Ambajhari, Nagpur and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on 08.02.2018.

[No. L-14011/09/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/67/2013

Date: 09.01.2018.

Party No.1

:

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factories Institute of

Learning, Ambajhari,

Nagpur-440021.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Contractors’ Employees

Union, 39-C, Sadachar Griha Nirman

Society, Duttawadi, Wade,

Nagpur-440023.

AWARD

(Dated: 09th January, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory Ambajhari Nagpur and their union

“Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union,” for adjudication, as per letter No.L-14011/09/2013-IR (DU)

dated 30.08.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance factories Institute of Learning, Ambajhari,

Nagpur in depriving the contract labours employed through various contractors from the payment of

house rent allowance in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House

Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is fair and legal? To what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union, (‘the Union” in short), filed

the statement of claim and the management of Ordnance Factories Institute of Learning, Ambajhari, Nagpur (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

According to the union claimants were contract labours working in Ordnance Factory as well as Ordnance

Factories Institute of Learning. That Institute was imparting and vocational training to the officers/supervisors/

employees of Ordnance Factory and was an integral part of Ordnance Factory. Their union duly registered under the

Trade Union Act and Party no.1 was factory registered under the Factories Act and it was an industry within the

meaning of I.D. Act 1947. They were governed by Central Civil Service Rules. It is also mentioned that OFIL and

Ordnance Factory are situated at same premises. According to the union, it is one unit for the purpose of Factory Act

as well as Industrial Dispute Act. In OFIL, around 33 contract labours were employed.

3. Contractor engaged by OFIL was required to obtain license and each contractor was also registered under Bombay

Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. According to the union, contract labours were employed in core as well as non-

core activities, which are perennial in nature. The contractors were merely commission agents. The workers were

direct employees of the OFIL because entire arrangement of contract labours instead of regular labour amount to shame

and bogus contract.

4. According to the union workers were paid wages and also deduct EPF and ESIC. According to the union primary

responsibility of payment of wages to the contract labours was on contractor and same will be paid by the management

but wages payable to the workmen, shall not be less than minimum wages prescribed by the Government. According

to the union Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 was applicable to the workers

engaged by Party no.1 because factory management did not provide housing accommodation.

5. According to the union, several times they prayed to the management but management did not agree, so by filing

statement of claim, they prayed that, their worker were entitled to House Rent allowance from the date of their

respective appointment and they also pray that answer of reference in favour of union and also pray for other relief.

6. On the contrary, management by filing the written statement denied that contract labours were entitled for House

Rent Allowance from the date of their respective appointment. They also denied that workers did indulge in trade

union activities. According to them they were not employed by OFIL. OFIL is imparting training to the officers as

well as other employees of Ordnance Factory. It is also denied that, it was an integral part of Ordnance Factory.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1847

7. According to the management, no HRA was paid to the contract labours because RLC Nagpur was also not

mentioning in the notification regarding the wages. Contract labours were doing a work of sweeping, cleaning and

gardening. It is also denied that contract employees were direct employee of OFIL.

8. According to the management, OFIL is neither an industry nor comes in preview of factory, so Maharashtra

Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is not applicable. Party No. 1 also prayed that, this reference is liable to be

dismissed.

9. Union also filed rejoinder by asserting this fact that, Maharashtra Act of Minimum House Rent Allowance was

applicable to their workers. They also asserted that allegation in the Written statement was denied. So they prayed that

in the interest of justice this Tribunal is awarded House Rent Allowance.

10. Both parties lead evidence. On behalf of the union, Shri P.K. Mohanan was examined as union witness. By

supporting his statement of claim as a General Secretary of Union, asserted that no resolution was passed by the union

to expose the dispute on behalf of the workmen. He also admitted that, claimants were contract labours. He also

admitted that, he has not filed any document to show that, their union is recognized by the employer. It was also

admitted that OFIL is Training Institute and separate from Ordnance Factory. After perusal of the statement of the

witness, it appears to me that, claimants were contract labours and not employed by the Party No. 1.

11. On behalf of the management, Mr. V. Maruti was examined as management witness. He holds the post of Dy.

Director of OFIL. He asserted that, HRA is not a part of minimum wages. According to the witness, contract labours

are not being paid the HRA. The OFIL is not dealing with the contract labours but contractors used to pay the wages,

which were checked by OFIL.

After reading the statement, my opinion is that, he asserted correct facts, which are based on records. I feel, he

is giving correct and genuine statement. Nothing is shown that, he prejudices any claimant of Party no.2. Now we come

to the legal position.

12. The Section 13 of The Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 provides the power of

State Government to exempt in special cases. In exercise of these powers Maharashtra Government issued notification

in official gazette dated 26.12.1990 which runs as follows:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-

rent Allowance Act, 1983 (Mah XXIII of 1988), the Government of Maharashtra, being satisfied that it is just and

proper so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that, with effect from 1st January, 1991, the provisions of the said

Act shall not apply to the factories and establishment in the industries:-

(a)

Carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Government of India; and

(b)

The management of which has been taken over by the Government of India under any law for the time

being in force.

13. Case laws:- Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence vs. M.M. Rangari, Ordnance Factory

Chandrapur and others, 2011 III CLR-800(Bombay High Court) and Dr. Ajay Choudhary Vs. Government of NCT

Delhi, 2001 LIC 3847 in which following principles were laid down :-

(i) In Nagpur city without obtaining “No Accommodation Certificate” from the authority concerned, any

government servant including defence employees, is not entitled to HRA; (ii) Unless a binding law or specific

Regulation governing is pointed out for payment of HRA , respondents are not entitled to claim the same, (iii)

Impugned order is unsustainable and hence quashed and set aside.

There is a Government Circular that no Government servant availing Government accommodation is entitled

to claim House Rent Allowance. In view of the same, the junior and senior resident Doctors who are availing

Government accommodation are not entitled to benefit of House Rent Allowance.

14. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that, law is

well settled that, Section 4 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-rent Allowance Act, 1983, is not

applicable to party no.1 in regards to contract labours working in factory because Maharashtra Govt. notification dated

26.12.1990 in which Central Government Industries were exempted from HRA provisions of this Act. So the reference

is answered in negative. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Ordnance factories Institute of Learning, Ambajhari, Nagpur in

depriving the contract labours employed through various contractors from the payment of house rent allowance

in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is

fair and legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 425

425

425

425.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, आयुध िनमा0णी

आयुध िनमा0णी

आयुध िनमा0णी

आयुध िनमा0णी, अ* बा

अ* बा

अ* बा

अ* बाझा

झा

झा

झारी

रीरी

री, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच,

अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर, के पंचाट

(CGIT/NGP/49/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 08.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/07/2013-आई आर (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/49/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the General Manager, Ordnance Factories Ambajhari, Nagpur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.02.2018.

[No. L-14011/07/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/49/2013

Date: 09.01.2018.

Party No.1

:

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory Ambajhari,

Nagpur-440021.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees

Unit, Sirsat Niwas, Plot no. 67,

Navneet Nagar, Wadi, Nagpur-440023.

AWARD

(Dated: 09th January, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory Ambajhari Nagpur and their union

“Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union,” for adjudication, as per letter No.L-14011/07/2013-IR (DU)

dated 02.09.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur in depriving the

contract labours employed through various contractors from the payment of house rent allowance in

accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act,

1983 is fair and legal? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union, (‘the Union” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Ordnance Factory Ambajhari Nagpur (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their

written statement.

According to the union claimants were contract labours working in Ordnance Factory. Their union duly

registered under the Trade Union Act and Party no.1 was factory registered under the Factories Act and it was an

industry within the meaning of I.D. Act 1947. In this industry workers were categorized as Industrial and non-

industrial employees. They were governed by Central Civil Service Rules. Party no.1 had been manufacturing various

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1849

defence components as well as equipments and in factory around 1000 contract labours were employed. The work

being done by contract labours was of regular nature.

3. Contractor engaged by Ordnance Factory was required to obtain licence and each contractor was also registered

under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. According to the union contract labours were employed in core as

well as non-core activities which are perennial in nature. The contractors were merely commission agents. The

workers were direct employees of the Ordnance Factory.

4.

According to the union workers were paid wages and also deduct EPF and ESIC. According to the union

primary responsibility of payment of wages to the contract labours was on contractor and same will be paid by the

management but wages payable to the workmen shall not be less than minimum wages prescribed by Government.

According to the union Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 was applicable to the

workers engaged in Party no.1 because factory management did not provide housing accommodation.

5.

According to the union several times they pared to the management but management did not agree, so by

filing statement of claim they prayed that their worker are entitled to House Rent allowance from their dates of

respective appointment and they also pray that answer of reference in favour of union and also pray for other relief.

6.

On the contrary management by filing the written statement denied that contract labours were entitled for

House Rent Allowance from their dates of respective appointment. They also denied that workers did indulge in trade

union activities. According to them they were not employed by Ordnance Factory. Contract Labours are also debarred

from entering OFAJ estate and factory. It is also denied that 1150 labours were deputed during current period through

contract labours for a period varies from 4 months to 1year. According to the management after expiry of period of

contract, fresh contract will be issued by following due process.

7.

According to the management no HRA is paid to the contract labours because RLC Nagpur is also no

mentioning in the notification regarding the wages. Contract labours were doing a work of sweeping of shop floor,

loading and unloading materials. It is also denied that contract employees were direct employee of Ordnance factory.

According to the management a claimant had made this false statement to gain certain benefit.

8.

According to the Management OFAJ was not reimbursing any HRA to contractors so employees of the union

were not entitled for HRA. They also pray that there was no merit in this case and hence the same may request to be

dismissed.

9.

Union also filed rejoinder by asserting this fact that Maharashtra Act of Minimum House Rent Allowance was

applicable to their workers. They also asserted that allegation in the Written statement was denied. So they pray that in

interest of justice this Tribunal is awarded House Rent Allowance.

10.

Both parties lead evidence. On behalf of the union Shri P.K. Mohanan was examined as union witness. By

supporting his statement of claim as a General Secretary of Union asserted that no resolution was passed by the union

to expose the dispute on behalf of the workman. He also admitted that claimants were contract labours. He also

admitted that contractors had not being made party in this case. He also admitted that workmen were not the

employees of Ordnance factory. He also admitted that payment of HRA to the contract labours was the primary

responsibility of the contractor. The contractors were used to be change. After perusal of the statement it appears that

the claimants were contract labours and not employees of the party no.1 of the management.

11.

On behalf of the management Mr. Sanjay Roy Choudhary was examined as management witness. He holds

the post of junior work manager at party no.1 since June 2010. He also admitted that in factory both permanent and

non-permanent employees are engaged in production activities. All these employees are paid their wages on monthly

basis. He also admitted that after expiry of contract they issue fresh advertisement in newspaper for contractor for

specific work. The successful bidder was given the contract for employees. Labour payment was given as per the

prescribed rate mentioned by RLC. Witness also said that in their factory productive link bonus was applicable.

After reading the statement my opinion is that he asserted correct facts which are based on documents. I feel

he is giving correct and genuine statement. Nothing is show that he prejudices any party no.2. Now we come to the

legal position.

12. The Section 13 of The Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 provides the power of

State Government to exempt in special cases. In excersie of these powers Maharashtra Government issued notification

in official gazette dated 26.12.1990 which runs as follows:-

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-

rent Allowance Act, 1983 (Mah XXIII of 1988), the Government of Maharashtra, being satisfied that it is just and

proper so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that, with effect from 1st January, 1991, the provisions of the said

Act shall not apply to the factories and establishment in the industries:-

(a) Carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Government of India; and

1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b) The management of which has been taken over by the Government of India under any law for the time

being in force.

13.

Case laws:- Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence vs. M.M. Rangari, Ordnance Factory

Chandrapur and others, 2011 III CLR-800(Bombay High Court) and Dr. Ajay Choudhary Vs. Government of NCT

Delhi, 2001 LIC 3847 in which following principles were laid down :-

(i) In Nagpur city without obtaining “No Accommodation Certificate” from the authority concerned, any

government servant including defence employees, is not entitled to HRA; (ii) Unless a binding law or specific

Regulation governing is pointed out for payment of HRA , respondents are not entitled to claim the same, (iii)

Impugned order is unsustainable and hence quashed and set aside.

There is a Government Circular that no Government servant availing Government accommodation is entitled

to claim House Rent Allowance. In view of the same, the junior and senior resident Doctors who are availing

Government accommodation are not entitled to benefit of House Rent Allowance.

14.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that law

is well settled that Section 4 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-rent Allowance Act, 1983, is not

applicable to party no.1 in regards to contract labours working in factory because Maharashtra Govt. notification dated

26.12.1990 in which Central Government Industry were exempted from HRA provisions of this Act. So the reference

is answered in negative. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur in depriving the contract labours

employed through various contractors from the payment of house rent allowance in accordance with the provisions of

the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is fair and legal. The workmen are not entitled

for any relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 426

426

426

426.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक

महाबंधक, राU ी

राU ी

राU ी

राU ीय एकेडमी ऑफ िडफX स

य एकेडमी ऑफ िडफX स

य एकेडमी ऑफ िडफX स

य एकेडमी ऑफ िडफX स, नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर

नागपुर एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच,

अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर

यालय नागपुर, के पंचाट

(CGIT/NGP/65/2013) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 08.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/08/2013-आई आर (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/65/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the General Manager, National Academy of Defence,, Nagpur and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.02.2018.

[No. L-14011/08/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/65/2013

Date: 09.01.2018.

Party No.1

:

The General Manager,

National Academy of Defence

Production, Ambajhari,

Nagpur-440021.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1851

Versus

Party No. 2

:

The General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Contractors’ Employees

Union, 39-C, Sadachar Griha Nirman

Society, Duttawadi Wade,

Nagpur-440023.

AWARD

(Dated: 09th January, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory Ambajhari Nagpur and their union

“Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union,” for adjudication, as per letter No.L-14011/08/2013-IR (DU)

dated 30.08.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari,

Nagpur in depriving the contract labours employed through various contractors from the payment of

house rent allowance in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House

Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is fair and legal? To what relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, Ordnance Factory Contractor’s Employees Union, (‘the Union” in short), filed

the statement of claim and the management of National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari, Nagpur (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

According to the union claimants were contract labours working in Ordnance Factory as well as National

Academy of Defence Production. Their union duly registered under the Trade Union Act and Party no.1 was factory

registered under the Factories Act and it was an industry within the meaning of I.D. Act 1947. In this industry workers

were categorized as Industrial and non-industrial employees. They were governed by Central Civil Service Rules. It is

also mentioned that NADP and Ordnance Factory are situated at same premise. According to the union, it is one unit

for the purpose of Factory Act as well as Industrial Dispute Act. In NADP, around 125 contract labours were

employed. The work being done by contract labours was of regular nature.

3. Contractor engaged by NADP was required to obtain license and each contractor was also registered under Bombay

Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. According to the union, contract labours were employed in core as well as non-

core activities, which are perennial in nature. The contractors were merely commission agents. The workers were

direct employees of the Ordnance Factory.

4.

According to the union workers were paid wages and also deduct EPF and ESIC. According to the union

primary responsibility of payment of wages to the contract labours was on contractor and same will be paid by the

management but wages payable to the workmen shall not be less than minimum wages prescribed by Government.

According to the union Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 was applicable to the

workers engaged by Party no.1 because factory management did not provide housing accommodation.

5.

According to the union, several times they prayed to the management but management did not agree, so by

filing statement of claim they prayed that, their worker are entitled to House Rent allowance from their date of

respective appointment and they also pray that, answer of reference in favour of union and also pray for other relief.

6.

On the contrary, management by filing the written statement denied that contract labours were entitled for

House Rent Allowance from the date of their respective appointment. They also denied that workers did indulge in

trade union activities. According to them they were not employed by NADP. NADP is imparting technical and

vocational training to the officers of Ordnance Factory. It is also denied that, it was an integral part of Ordnance Facto.

According to the management after expiry of period of contract, fresh contract would be issued by following due

process.

7.

According to the management no HRA is paid to the contract labours because RLC Nagpur is also not

mentioning in the notification regarding the wages. Contract labours were doing a work of sweeping of shop floor,

loading and unloading materials. It is also denied that contract employees were direct employee of NADP. According

to the management a claimant had made this false statement to gain certain benefit.

8.

According to the management, NADP was not reimbursing any HRA to contractors, so employees of the

union were not entitled for HRA. In a specific pleading, management has also submitted that, Section 10 of the

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the Government was empowered to prohibit employment of

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contract labours in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. They also mentioned that, Industrial

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute relating the contract labour. According to the management,

claimant is not entitled HRA. They also pray that there was no merit in this case and hence the same may request to be

dismissed.

9.

Union also filed rejoinder by asserting this fact that, Maharashtra Act of Minimum House Rent Allowance

was applicable to their workers. They also asserted that allegation in the Written statement was denied. So they pray

that in interest of justice this Tribunal is awarded House Rent Allowance.

10.

Both parties lead evidence. On behalf of the union, Shri P.K. Mohanan was examined as union witness. By

supporting his statement of claim as a General Secretary of Union, asserted that no resolution was passed by the union

to expose the dispute on behalf of the workmen. He also admitted that claimants were contract labours. He also

admitted that, he has not filed any document to show that, their union is recognized by the employer. It was also

admitted that NADP is Training Institute and separate from Ordnance Factory. After perusal of the statement of the

witness, it appears to me that, claimants were contract labours and not employed by the Party No. 1.

11.

On behalf of the management, Mr. Prem Prakash was examined as management witness. He holds the post of

Director of NADP. He was working in Nagpur office from January, 2017. Wages were being paid on monthly basis on

the basis of statutory laws. According to the witness, contract labours do the peripheral job of housekeeping, gardening

and repairing etc. He also admitted that, contractors got valid registration and license.

After reading the statement, my opinion is that, he asserted correct facts, which are based on records. I feel he

is giving correct and genuine statement. Nothing is show that he prejudices any claimant of Party no.2. Now we come

to the legal position.

12. The Section 13 of The Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 provides the power of

State Government to exempt in special cases. In excersie of these powers Maharashtra Government issued notification

in official gazette dated 26.12.1990 which runs as follows:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-

rent Allowance Act, 1983 (Mah XXIII of 1988), the Government of Maharashtra, being satisfied that it is just and

proper so to do in the public interest, hereby directs that, with effect from 1st January, 1991, the provisions of the said

Act shall not apply to the factories and establishment in the industries:-

(a) Carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Government of India; and

(b) The management of which has been taken over by the Government of India under any law for the time

being in force.

13.

Case laws:- Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence vs. M.M. Rangari, Ordnance Factory

Chandrapur and others, 2011 III CLR-800(Bombay High Court) and Dr. Ajay Choudhary Vs. Government of NCT

Delhi, 2001 LIC 3847 in which following principles were laid down :-

(i) In Nagpur city without obtaining “No Accommodation Certificate” from the authority concerned, any

government servant including defence employees, is not entitled to HRA; (ii) Unless a binding law or specific

Regulation governing is pointed out for payment of HRA , respondents are not entitled to claim the same, (iii)

Impugned order is unsustainable and hence quashed and set aside.

There is a Government Circular that no Government servant availing Government accommodation is entitled

to claim House Rent Allowance. In view of the same, the junior and senior resident Doctors who are availing

Government accommodation are not entitled to benefit of House Rent Allowance.

14.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that,

law is well settled that, Section 4 of the Maharashtra Workmen’s Minimum House-rent Allowance Act, 1983, is not

applicable to party no.1 in regards to contract labours working in factory because Maharashtra Govt. notification dated

26.12.1990 in which Central Government Industries were exempted from HRA provisions of this Act. So the reference

is answered in negative. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of National Academy of Defence Production, Ambajhari, Nagpur in depriving

the contract labours employed through various contractors from the payment of house rent allowance in accordance

with the provisions of the Maharashtra Worker’s Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 is fair . The workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1853

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 427

427

427

427.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक

िनदेशक,परमाणु खिनज िनदेशक

परमाणु खिनज िनदेशक

परमाणु खिनज िनदेशक

परमाणु खिनज िनदेशक,अ# वे

अ# वे

अ# वे

अ# वेषण और अनुसंधान

षण और अनुसंधान

षण और अनुसंधान

षण और अनुसंधान, परमाणु ऊजा0 िवभाग

परमाणु ऊजा0 िवभाग

परमाणु ऊजा0 िवभाग

परमाणु ऊजा0 िवभाग, जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर और उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt

िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायाल

याल

याल

याल

जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर

जयपुर, के पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 24/2011

24/2011

24/2011

24/2011, 25/2011

25/2011

25/2011

25/2011, 26/2011

26/2011

26/2011

26/2011, 27/2011

27/2011

27/2011

27/2011, 28/2011

28/2011

28/2011

28/2011) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को

20.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/4/2009-आई.आर. (डीयू),

सं. एल-14012/3/2009-आई.आर. (डीयू),

सं. एल-14012/5/2009-आई.आर. (डीयू),

सं. एल-14012/2/2009-आई.आर. (डीयू),

सं. एल-14012/1/2009-आई.आर. (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 24/2011, 25/2011, 26/2011, 27/2011, 28/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the Director, Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research,

Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

20.02.2018.

[No. L-14012/4/2009-IR (DU),

No. L-14012/3/2009-IR (DU),

No. L-14012/5/2009-IR (DU),

No. L-14012/2/2009-IR (DU),

No. L-14012/1/2009-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer

(1) I.D.24/2011

Reference No.L-14012/4/2009(IR(DU)) dated: NIL

Shri Ram Sharma

S/o Shri lallulal Sharma

R/o Plot No. 13/14,

Punchwati Colony, Tonk Road,

Sanganer, Jaipur.

1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

The Director

Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

D/o Atomic Energy, AMD Complex,

Sector-5 Extn. Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur – 302011.

(2) I.D.25/2011

Reference No.L-14012/3/2009(IR(DU)) dated: 13.7.2011

Shri Danna Lal

S/o Shri Jagdish Bairwa

R/o 34/22,

Sector-3, Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur - 302011.

V/s

The Director

Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

D/o Atomic Energy, AMD Complex,

Sector-5 Extn. Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur – 302011.

(3) I.D.26/2011

Reference No.L-14012/5/2009(IR(DU)) dated: 13.7.2011

Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay

S/o Shri Harikishan Sharma

R/o Sector- 82/271

Chetak Marg, Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur - 302011.

V/s

The Director

Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

D/o Atomic Energy, AMD Complex,

Sector-5 Extn. Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur – 302011.

(4) I.D.27/2011

Reference No.L-14012/2/2009(IR(DU)) dated: 13.7.2011

Shri Chhagan Lal Dhanka

S/o Shri Gulab Chand Dhanka

R/o Village Shopur

Dhankaon Ka Mohalla

Pratap Nagar,Sanganer,

Jaipur - 302011.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1855

V/s

The Director

Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

D/o Atomic Energy, AMD Complex,

Sector-5 Extn. Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur – 302011.

(5) I.D.28/2011

Reference No.L-14012/1/2009(IR(DU)) dated: 13.7.2011

Shri Manoj Kumar Pipliwal

S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal

R/o Plot No. 23, Moji Nagar Colony

Pratap Nagar,Sanganer,

Jaipur - 302011.

V/s

The Director

Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

D/o Atomic Energy, AMD Complex,

Sector-5 Extn. Pratap Nagar,

Sanganer, Jaipur – 302011.

Present

For the Applicant

:

Sh. Kunal Rawat, Advocate.

For the Non-applicant

:

Sh. T.P.Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

Dated:. 22.12.2017

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:-

CGIT 24/2011

“Whether the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and

Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ram Sharma

S/o Shri Lallulal Sharma w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

CGIT 25/2011

“Whether the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and

Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Danna Lal

S/o Shri Jagdish Bairwa w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

CGIT 26/2011

“Whether the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and

Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh

Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Harikishan Sharma w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

CGIT 27/2011

“Whether the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and

Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Chhagan Lal

Dhanka S/o Shri Gulab Chand Dhanka w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CGIT 28/2011

“Whether the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and

Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Manoj Kumar

Peepliwal S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

2.

All the five cases mentioned above are similar & based on same cause of action. All the applicants related to the

cases have been terminated on same date & all of them are said to have been working on same post of Helper,

Technical Assistant. Their cases are also based on similar evidence hence, all the cases are taken together for disposal.

CGIT case no. 24/2011, Shri Ram Sharma V/s The Director, Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research

will be leading case.

3.

According to statement of claims submitted by applicants briefly facts of the case are that applicant Shri Ram

Sharma was appointed as class IV employee ( Helper, Technical Assistant) on 6.7.2006, Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay

& Shri Chhagan Lal on 5.7.2005, Shri Manoj Kumar Peepliwal on 10.1.2006 & Shri Danna Lal in the month of July,

2006 on unknown date. Applicants are a ‘ workman’ within the meaning of section 2(S) of I.D.Act, 1947. They were

doing the work of crushing the samples of stones, filtering the crushed samples and putting the filtered power into

boxes and putting label on the boxes. They were also performing the job of stone rubbing and pasting the proceeds on

glass-slide and polishing etc. Beside above mentioned work applicants were further performing the work of waterman,

preparation of tea, table cleaning, telephone attending, mail distribution & photocopy preparation. All the above

mentioned work were carried out by them on the direction of officers and scientist of the opposite party. Analysis and

identification of uranium was made on the basis of all the abovementioned work carried out by applicants and on that

basis government of India was carrying out the production of uranium. The abovementioned process is covered within

the meaning of ‘ Industry’ as defined under section 2(j) of I.D.Act, 1947.

4.

Applicants have further alleged in para 7 of statement of claim that their removal from service by non-applicant

on 30.4.2008 is illegal and void on the following grounds:-

i.

Applicant was working in complete supervision, control and direction of the officers of opposite party, employer

which proves employer-employee relationship between non-applicant and applicant. Applicant was working for more

than eight hours daily and paid on monthly basis. He was appointed against regular work and he was carrying out the

work of continuing nature.

ii.

Applicant has worked continuously for more than 240- days & has been removed from service in violation of

section 25-F, 25-G 25-H & 25-N of I.D.Act, 1947 and rule 77 & 78 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

iii.

Applicant has been removed from service without any domestic enquiry conducted against him and non-applicant

has adopted unfair labour practice in removal of applicant from service. Non-applicant has victimized the applicant by

removing him from service and removal has been done to escape from regularization of the applicant in service.

iv.

It has been further alleged that applicant was also working on Saturday and Sunday of the week but opposite

party was deliberately not showing the attendance of the applicant in attendance register and attendance on these two

days were made only in the register kept at the gate which is indicative of planned unfair labour practice of the non-

applicant. Applicant has alleged himself to be jobless since his removal from service and has prayed to declare his

removal from service on 30.4.2008 as illegal and void with reinstatement in service with continuity and all

consequential benefits.

5.

Replies filed by opposite party against statement of claim of applicants consists two parts. Part one describe

preliminary objection and part two describes parawise reply.

6.

In preliminary objection it has been alleged that applicants were not appointed on any post and they were

engaged as part time casual workers on contract basis according to availability of budget and necessity of work. Further

it has been alleged that when applicants were not appointed on any specific post according to rules of recruitment, the

question of their removal from service or absence from place of duty does not arise.

7.

Further it has been alleged that any direct or indirect work of the Atomic Mineral Directorate for exploration and

Research, Western Zone, Department of Atomic Energy is not covered within the definition of ‘Industry’ as per section

2(j) of I.D.Act,1947 hence, applicants are not entitled to any relief under the act. Applicants were engaged under the

contract on availability of work to complete definite work in definite time based on availability of budget. Such

engagements are covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D.Act, 1947 hence, applicants are not entitled to the benefit of

section 25-F of I.D.Act.

8.

It has been further alleged that earlier reference in the present cases were denied by Ministry of Labour on the

ground that applicants had failed to show on the basis of evidence that they had worked for 240 days continuously

during calendar year, hence, claim of applicants is not maintainable. Applicants have not worked for 240 days in any

calendar year because they were called for work as a casual worker based only on need of the work and their services

were automatically coming to end with end of the work. Information about end of work was posted in writing on the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1857

notice board beside informing the applicant orally. Applicants were not entitled to any notice under section 25-F of

I.D.Act.

9.

In parawise reply issue of appointment letter or appointment of the applicants in IVth class on any post has been

specifically denied, thus, statement in para 1 & 2 have been denied.

10.

Statement in para 3 to 7 have been denied. Repeating the contentions of preliminary objection, 240 days work by

applicants in any calendar year has been denied with contention of their engagement on contract based on availability

of work. It has been alleged that their engagement was ending with end of work hence, notice to remove them from

work was not required.

11.

It has been alleged against statement of para 4 to 5 of claim that work done by applicants were not existing all the

time with non-applicant and because of this applicants were engaged on contract on part time basis for the period of

existence of work only and at the time of engagement applicants were specifically and clearly told orally that their

engagement is purely casual & they are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of I.D.Act.

12.

Non-applicant has specifically denied that removal of the applicants are based on animosity. It has been alleged

that services were automatically coming to end at the end of the work. No assurance was ever given by non-applicant

about regularization of the applicants.

13.

Denying contention in para 7 of the claim it has been alleged that when no appointment was given to the

applicants the question of termination of their services in illegal manner does not arise. Applicants were not appointed

on any post. All contention in para 7(a) to 7(q) have been specifically denied and further alleged that there is no

employer-employee relationship between opposite party and applicants. Applicants were engaged as part time casual

labourer on contract based on availability of work and corresponding budget and after completion of work they were

leaving on their own accord.

14.

Further, against reply to para 7(D) it has been alleged that no notice was required to be given to applicants

because notice is necessary only in relation to permanent employee or an employee who has completed 240 days and

department is not satisfied with performance of the employee then in such case of unsatisfaction employee may be

removed after one month’s notice.

15.

It has been further alleged that neither any person has been engaged since the applicants left the place after

finishing the work nor any person junior to them has been retained for work. Applicants have not worked for 240 days

in any calendar year.

16.

It has been alleged against para 7(m) that applicants have neither been appointed nor removed from service by

opposite party. It has been alleged against para 7(n) to 7(q) that because of the temporary nature of the work the

applicants were himself leaving the place of work on non availability of work and they were engaged only on

availability of work.

17.

In rejoinder, preliminary objections have been repelled by denying the contentions of objection and against

parawise reply to statements of claim, applicants have reiterated the contention of their statement of claims.

18.

Applicants have filed their affidavit in evidence and have been cross-examined by opposite party. Opposite party

has filed affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar C.K. S/o shri A.P.K. Nambiar, Assistant Personnel Officer, who has been cross

examined by applicants side.

19.

Applicant Shri Ram Sharma has filed documentary evidence Ex-w1 to Ex-w-16 which are photocopies of

attendance record, payment record, sanction of service contract etc. Similarly other applicants have filed similar

documents. Opposite party has filed documentary evidence Annexure R/1 to R/5 relating to detail of period of work

done by applicant in various calendar year, quotation for work and request and sanction order relating to work to be

carried out on contract. Document filed by opposite party management are in response to the demand of documents

made by applicants vide their application dated 27.11.2012. There is no other documentary or oral evidence on record

filed by parties.

20.

Heard the argument of learned representative of the applicant and opposite party management and perused the

record carefully.

21.

It has been argued by learned representative of the applicants that they were appointed on the post of Helper,

Technical Assistant by opposite party and their services were terminated by opposite party on 30.4.2008 in violation of

the provision of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the I.D.Act, 1947 & rule 77 & 78 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules,

1957. It has been further argued that applicants had worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of

termination without notice or pay in lieu of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. Countering the above

argument it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that applicants were not appointed by opposite

party on any post and because they were not appointed by opposite party hence, question of termination of services of

the applicants by opposite party does not arise and provisions of I.D.Act, 1947 do not apply in the case of the

applicants. Further, it has been argued that on the basis of availability of the budget engagement of the applicants were

1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made on contract on the basis of tenders issued by department for definite work to be completed in fixed time and case

of the applicants are covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D.Act, 1947. It has also been argued that there is no

employer-employee relationship between opposite party & applicants. Further, it has been submitted that opposite party

is not an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of section 2(j) of I.D.Act, 1947 hence, provision of I.D.Act, 1947 are not

attracted against opposite party & thus statement of claim of the applicants are liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel

for applicants has repelled the argument that opposite party is not an “Industry” & has alleged that activities in the

premises of opposite party is within the definition of “Industry”.

22.

No case has been cited by opposite party. Following cases have been referred by learned counsel for the

applicants:-

1.

AIR

2006

Supreme

Court

355(1),

R.M.Yellatti………Appellant

V/s

Assistant

Executive

Engineer……..Respondent.

2.

2011 (128) FLR 121 (Supreme Court), Kuldeep singh………Appellant v/s G.M., Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre……..Respondent.

3.

2010 Supreme Court 1236, Director Fisheries Terminal Division ………Appellant v/s Bhikubhai Meghajibhai

Chavda ……..Respondent.

4.

2011 (130) FLR 337, Devedra Singh ………Appellant v/s Municipal Council, Sanaur ……..Respondent.

5.

Civil appeal no. 4980 of 2014, Supreme Court, Tapash Kumar paul…..petitioner v/s BSNL & Anr…

……..Respondents.

6.

2010 LAB.I.C. 1723 (Supreme Court), Krishan Singh…. ………Appellant v/s Executive Engineer Haryana

State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak ……..Respondent.

7.

2010 LAB. I.C. 3926 (Orissa High Court), Divisional Manager, Boudh Commercial Division, Orissa Forest

Development Corporation Ltd. ………Appellant v/s Godabarish Badajena & anr. ……..Respondents.

8.

2008 (118) FLR 460 (Himachal Pradesh High Court), Block Development Officer, Pragpur ………petitioner v/s

Yoginder Kumar & others ……..Respondents.

9.

RLR 1987 (1) (Rajasthan High Court), Bhanwar lal & Ors ………petitioner v/s Municipal board, Nagaur & Ors.

……..Respondents.

10.

2010 LAB I.C. 1433 (Supreme Court), Harjinder Singh ………Appellant v/s Punjab State Warehousing

Corporation ……..Respondent.

23.

Looking into argument of both the parties I proceed to determine first whether opposite party is an ‘Industry’

within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D.Act, 1947. In their statement of claim & in affidavit applicants have

alleged that they were doing the work of crushing the samples of stones, filtering the crushed samples and putting the

filtered power into boxes and putting label on the boxes. They were also performing the job of stone rubbing and

pasting the proceeds on glass-slide and polishing etc. Beside above mentioned work applicants were further performing

the work of waterman, preparation of tea, table cleaning, telephone attending, mail distribution & photocopy

preparation. In cross examination also applicants have alleged that they were doing the work of crushing the samples &

remaining five workers were also performing the same work.

24.

Annexure-R/1 filed by opposite party is a letter dated 29.10.99 which has not been disputed or challenged by

applicants. This letter has been written to by Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi to

Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, wherein it has been mentioned that it

has been decided that ‘ Atomic Mineral Division’ will not be considered as an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of

section 2(J) of the I.D.Act, 1947. As this fact has not been disputed that ‘ Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration

& Research’ situated at Jaipur is within the ambit of “Atomic Mineral Division” of Atomic Energy Commission,

Department of Atomic Energy, hence, I am of the view that opposite party is covered within the definition of ‘Industry’

as provided u/s 2(J) of I,.D.Act, 1947.

25.

Now, as far as the question of appointment of the applicants in the organization on the post of Helper, Technical

Assistant and their dismissal on 30.4.2008 is concerned, these facts have been specifically denied by opposite party.

Applicants have stated in cross examination that they were not issued with any appointment letter by opposite party.

They have also not given any reason in their claim or affidavit in evidence that why they were removed from service. It

is not the case of the applicants that they had oral appointment and removal. From perusal of entire cross-examination

of the witness for non-applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar C.K., Assistant Personnel Officer, there appears nothing to say that

applicants were appointed by non-applicant.

26.

On the basis of above discussion I am of the view that applicants have failed to prove that they were appointed by

non-applicant to the post of Helper, Technical Assistant on their respective date of appointment as alleged by them.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1859

27.

As far as the determination of the question about nature of engagement of applicant with non-applicant is

concerned in opening part of cross examination applicant Shri Ram Sharma has alleged that he was not engaged on

contract but on page two of cross examination he has admitted that identity card (w-3) belongs to him which contains

the detail of the person to work on contract. He has also admitted that he had applied to work on contract & in the year

2007 also he had applied to work on contract. W-3 identity card is in nature of pass for the period of 1.7.2006 to

31.10.2006 which serves as gate pass against security staff to permit the holder for making entry to the establishment

for executing the work for which he has been engaged. W-3 does not indicate that holder is an employee of the non-

applicant. Applicant has further admitted that person coming to work on contract were required to make signature for

their attendance. The case of other applicants are similar to Shri Ram Sharma and identity cards and other documents

filed by them are also similar to that of Shri Ram Sharma.

28.

From perusal of document R/2, R/3 & R/5 status of Sh. Manoj Kumar Peepliwal emerges out to be a contractor

and not a workman and status of Shri Ram Sharma as a contract worker for Shri Manoj Kumar Peepliwal. Same

documents are appearing in CGIT case no. 28/2011 relating to Shri Manoj Kumar Peepliwal to contend that he is a

workman of opposite party which is neither tenable nor acceptable.

29.

Documents W/8, W/10 & w/11 filed by Sh. Chhagan lal in case no. 27/2011 relating to him are disclosing his

status as contractor and not a workman. W/8 shows that he has received payment as contractor and not as a workman.

All these documents and their content have been accepted by Sh. Chhagan lal in his cross examination. Sh. Chhagan lal

has accepted that he has not filed document to support the requirement of section 25-F.

30. Documents w-1/1/2, W/4 & w/5 on record of case no. 26/2011 relating to Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay show

that he has taken work as contractor to carry out the work with help of two workers for the period 1.5.2006 to

31.10.2006 and these documents are admitted to have been filed by applicant in his cross examination. There is no

evidence on record to draw a conclusion in favour of applicant Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay about section 25-F. In

CGIT case no. 25/2011 relating to Sh. Danna lal he has admitted that he was getting work on the basis of quotation

along with other persons relating to remaining four cases. He is standard VIIIth pass. He has also admitted that

documents relating to Sh. Manoj Kumar regarding award of work on contract. There is no document on record to prove

his case for extending benefit of section 25-F to him or to show that he was appointed by opposite party. Cross

examination of witness of non-applicant does not provide any aid in favour of applicants that they are workmen

appointed by non-applicant. Based on above discussion I am of the view that there is no employer-employee

relationship between the parties on any ground e.g. mode of engagement, payment, attendance on work, leave,

deduction of contributing provident fund etc.

31.

Shri Ram Sharma has further alleged that he is not aware that work carried out by him were done on the basis of

sanctioned budget but he is aware that he was allotted work on the basis of annexure of R/5. R-5 is a work order which

has been issued to another applicant of Case no. 28/2011 Sh. Manoj Kumar to complete the work of four hundred

samples within the period of two month at the cost of Rs.6000/-. Applicant has admitted that work was allotted to him

on the basis of R-5. R-4 is the document which is sanction order for spending Rs.6000/- & R-3 is the quotation

submitted by Sh. Majoj Kumar to complete the work of grinding & crushing the four hundred samples with help of one

person along with him. R-2 is the order which shows that quotation of Sh. Manoj Kumar has been accepted which is

lowest in rate out of three quotations. From perusal of document R-2 to R-5 & from admission by Shri Ram Sharma in

cross examination that work was allotted to him through R-5 it appears that his engagement is purely on contract based

on quotation for a period of two month against fix amount of Rs. 6000/- to be shared by Sh. Manoj Kumar with him.

Engagements of other applicants are also on quotation made by them to complete a given work on contract.

32.

W-14 is another document of sanction of Rs.9000/- which shows that Sh. Ram Sharma applicant has been given

work contract for a period of six months from 1.5.2007 to 31.10.2007 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month for doing

various miscellaneous work such as cleaning of tables, dusting of rooms, filling water in cooler on third floor of Block

A. Applicant has alleged in cross examination that he was performing the work of grinding and crushing the samples

and remaining five persons also were doing the same thing.

33.

From above discussion it is clear that nature of engagement of the applicants has been for different periods on

contract for various types of work as indicated in the tenders and corresponding work order according to availability of

sanctioned funds. These engagement do not prove that applicants have been in employment of the opposite party on the

basis of appointment. Due to submission of tenders by them to secure work on contract there was no reason for issue of

appointment letters to them.

34.

As far as the continuity of services of the applicant Shri Ram Sharma immediately preceding the alleged date of

termination for a period of 240 days is concerned annexure-3 is the record of attendance which has been admitted to be

true according to statement of the applicant in his cross examination. Detail of working days in annexure-3 does not

support the contention in statement of claim that applicant has completed 240 days immediately preceding to the date

of termination or in any calendar year. Thus, I am of the view that applicant has failed to prove violation of provisions

of section 25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947. Other applicants also have not completed the condition of section 25-F.

1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

35.

On the basis of above discussion and for the reasons stated therein I am of the view that provision of section

25-F of the I.D.At, 1947 is not attracted in the case of the applicants and their case falls within the ambit of section

2(oo)(bb) of the I.D.Act, 1947.

36.

Section 25-G & section 25-H are also not attracted because applicant Sri Ram Sharma has alleged that all persons

working with him on contract have been removed and none of them has been taken for work again. He has also alleged

that after 2008 since the time of disengagement on contract none has been taken on work again. In above fact &

circumstances ingredients of section 25-G & 25-H have neither been proved not attracted. Similarly rule 77 & 78 of

I.D.(Central) Rules are also not attracted due to non application of provision of section 25-G & 25-H of the I.D.Act,

1947.

37.

In support of case of the applicants reference has been made by learned counsel for the applicants to the case

reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 355(1) on the point that on demand made by applicant if documents are not

produced by non-applicant for the period of work done by applicant presumption should be made in favour of

applicants that they have worked for 240 day. Countering the argument it has been argued by learned counsel for

opposite party that cited case does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants & burden of

proof is always with the applicants to support their case with their own evidence & no such presumption can be drawn

in favour of applicants unless there exists proof of existence of documents with opposite party. In the cited case of

R.M.Yellatti, success of the appellant was not based on presumption. Reliance was placed by Hon’ble Supreme Court

on the certificate issued by Assistant Executive Engineer as referred in para 18 of the judgement & accordingly appeal

was allowed. Thus, I am of the view that case of R.M.Yellatti provides no benefit in favour of applicant.

38.

In 2011 (128) FLR 121 (Supreme Court), Kuldeep Singh………Appellant v/s G.M., Instrument Design

Development and Facilities Centre……..Respondent, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme court that no limitation has

been prescribed for making reference under section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947. It is found that industrial dispute exists it is

incumbent on the part of the government to make reference.

39. In 2010 Supreme Court 1236, Director Fisheries Terminal Division ………Appellant v/s Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Chavda ……..Respondent, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the appellant was

a seasonal Industry with reference to section 25-A of I.D.Act. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 of

the judgement that appellant is not a seasonal industry. The finding of the learned Labour Court has been upheld on this

point.

40.

In 2011 (130) FLR 337, Devedra Singh ………Appellant v/s Municipal Council, Sanaur ……..Respondent,it

has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that termination of services of an employer in violation of provision of

section 25-F & 25-G is legally untenable. In this case order of termination of services of appellant was set aside by

Labour Court with award of reinstatement of appellant without back wages. Award was set aside by Hon’ble Division

Bench on the ground that appointment was contrary to recruitment rules and Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution and it

would not be in public interest to sustain the award of reinstatement after long lapse of time. Appellant was

simultaneously held entitled to wages in terms of section 17-B of the I.D.Act, 1947. The appeal against the order of

Hon’ble Division Bench was allowed ad order of learned Labour Court was restored.

41. In Civil appeal no. 4980 of 2014, Supreme Court, Tapash Kumar paul…..petitioner v/s BSNL & Anr…

……..Respondents, award of reinstatement without back wages with Rs.20000/- as compensation toward back wages

was passed by learned tribunal because management had failed to produce relevant documents to disclose the actual

number of days for which appellant had worked hence termination was held to be violative of section 25-F of the I.D.

Act, 1947. This award was affirmed by Hon’ble Single Judge. However, award of Hon’ble single Judge was set aside

by Hon’ble division Bench restricting the award only to the extent of Rs.20000/- and setting aside the reinstatement of

the appellant. Appeal against the judgement of hon’ble Division Bench was allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and

award of Labour Court & Hon’ble single Judge was restored. In the present case before this tribunal Sh. Ram Sharma

has alleged in his cross-examination that detail of working days produced by opposite party is correct and he has

received the payment for all the days he has worked. Detail produced by opposite party does not constitute 240 days

immediately prior to date of reference. Rest of the applicants also have admitted to have received all the payments for

the days they have worked. They have not placed any specific contention that detail of working days filed by non-

applicant is incorrect or he has withheld part of them to defeat their case on the basis of section 25-F. Thus, I am of the

view that no benefit occurs in favour of applicants in matter of section 25-F from the cited case.

42.

Facts & circumstances of the present case of five applicants are completely distinguishable from the facts &

circumstances of the cases reported in 2010 LAB I.C. 1433 (Supreme Court), Harjinder Singh ………Appellant v/s

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ……..Respondent, RLR 1987 (1) Bhanwar lal & Ors ………petitioner v/s

Municipal board, Nagaur & Ors. ……..Respondents 2010 LAB. I.C. 3926, Divisional Manager, Boudh Commercial

Division, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ………Appellant v/s Godabarish Badajena & anr.

……..Respondents & 2010 LAB.I.C. 1723 (Supreme Court), Krishan Singh…. ………Appellant v/s Executive

Engineer Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak ……..Respondent & I am of the view that observations

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1861

made by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court & Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the above mentioned

cases are not applicable.

43.

In 2008 (118) FLR 460 (Himachal Pradesh High Court), Block Development Officer, Pragpur ………petitioner

v/s Yoginder Kumar & others ……..Respondents, respondents were retrenched in violation of mandatory provision of

section 25-F. Their claim before the labour court was resisted by petitioner that workmen were engaged on project

work & the project name was “Integrated Waste Land Development Project for Kangra District” hence, notice was not

required to issued to them at the end of project. Learned labour court answered the award in affirmative in favour of

respondents. Writ petition against the award of labour court was dismissed & award was upheld on the ground that

there was no evidence on record that workmen were engaged in a project as recorded by labour court. In the present

case of applicant Shri Ram Sharma & others non-applicant has not based his claim that engagement of applicants are

connected with any project. Accordingly, no benefit can be derived in favour of applicants. It is pertinent to mention

that in none of the cited cases the issue of section 2(J) of the I.D.Act is in question.

44.

On the basis of above discussion & for the reasons stated therein I am of the view that applicants Shri Ram

Sharma, Shri Danna Lal, Shri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, Shri Chhagan Lal Dhanka & Shri Manoj kumar Peepliwal

have failed to prove that the action of the management of Atomic Mineral Directorate for Exploration and Research,

Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur in terminating their services w.e.f. 30.4.2008 is illegal & unjustified. Applicants

are not entitled to any relief. Their statement of claims are dismissed accordingly.

45.

Award as above.

46.

Copy of the award be placed on I.D.25/2011, I.D.26/2011, I.D.27/2011 & I.D.28/2011.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 428

428

428

428.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

आयु/ त

आयु/ त

आयु/ त

आयु/ त, एनडीएमसी

एनडीएमसी

एनडीएमसी

एनडीएमसी, नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट

औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय

यालय

यालय

यालय Zद ली

Zद ली

Zद ली

Zद ली सं

सं

सं

सं. 1 के पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 236/2015

236/2015

236/2015

236/2015) को

0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 20.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/138/2015-आई आर (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 236/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the Commissioner, NDMC, New Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

20.02.2018.

[No. L-42011/138/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1, ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No.236/2015

Shri Raj Singh S/o Shri Bhan Singh, represented by

MCD General Mazdoor Union,

C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Workman

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi – 110 002

…Management

AWARD

This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.

L-42011/138/2015-IR(DU) dated 02.11.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:

‘Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation in not granting promotion as

Garden Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with effect from 01.01.1997 to

Shri Raj Singh, S/o Shri Bhan Singh, is fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?’

2.

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Raj Singh filed his statement of claim, wherein it is

alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1997 by the competent officers of

Horticulture Department and was posted under West Zone. No qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post of

Garden Chaudhary. However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The workman

has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2610-4000 revised from time to time and has been

denied the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. for his performing the duty of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1997.

Management has fixed different pay scales of mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance with their job and non-grant of pay

scale to the claimant herein amounts to forced labour and unfair labour practice. Duties of mali is presently of an

unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging to Group C category of employees.

Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice.

3.

It is also averred in para 8 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai

Chand vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis

who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the

Hon’ble

Court,

Municipal

Corporation

of

Delhi

(Horticulture

Department)

has

also

issued

order

No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005. It is also averred that similar situated workmen who were

performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform

duty on the higher post and management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter

of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal

No.S20069/2011 and the plea by MCD has been dismissed by both, before the High Court as well as the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. Workman, herein, is also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and as such, entitled to same

benefits.

4.

Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute

has not been espoused by the union, is not an industrial dispute as no notice has been served upon the management,

delay and laches etc. The claimant cannot be designated as Garden Chaudhary as he has never worked on the said post.

There is prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post

of Garden Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department.

Claimant has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. No such office order has

been issued by the competent authority for assigning duties of garden chaudhary. On merits, management has

admitted the factum of regularization of the claimant as mali on 15.01.2000 and 01.04.1989. As per the existing rules

for the post of Garden Chaudhary, malis having eight years of regular service in the grade and possessing qualification

of 10th pass with Agriculture are eligible for promotion to the next post. Management has denied the other material

averments contained in the statement of claim. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to

be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

5.

From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 07.10.2016, following issues were framed:

(i)

Whether the reference is not maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections?

(ii)

As in terms of reference

6.

Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad

as WW2 whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. They have also tendered in evidence

documents Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2 and Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4 and I would be referring to the same during the

course of my discussions in the subsequent paras. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined

Shri Harbir Singh, Assistant Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he has relied on documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/24.

7.

I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1863

Findings on Issue No. (i)

8.

It was strongly urged on behalf of the management by Shri Anand Sagar that the claimants had not sent

demand notice to the management regarding grant of status of Garden Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590

with effect from 01.01.1997 with all consequential benefits and that there was no proper espousal by the union nor

there is acceptable evidence on record to prove the same. It is also clear from the preliminary objections taken in the

written statement by the management that the management has raised objections that no demand notice has been served

upon the management nor the MCD General Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the

union is not a recognized union of the management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be

raised only by a recognized union. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken

on behalf of the management that the union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the

settlement and said plea was rejected by observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be

parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d)

of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some

of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation

Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the

establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any

contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part

of the conciliation officer; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in

Section 20(2) of the Act.

9.

Courts have gone to the extent of observing that issuance of demand notice is not essential for raising an

industrial dispute and said notice can even be given orally to the management. This view has been taken in Workmen

of MCD vs. MCD in WP(C) 13023/2005 decided on 06.08.2007 wherein above view was taken after putting reliance

upon the case of Shambunath Goyal vs Bank of Baroda (1978 (2) SCR 793), wherein it was observed as under:

“A bare perusal of the definition would show that where there is a dispute or difference between the

parties contemplated by the definition and the disputes or difference is connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or, with the conditions of labour of any person there comes into

existence an industrial dispute. The Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute Would come into existence in

any particular, specific or prescribed manner. For coming into existence of an industrial dispute a written

demand is not a sine ,qua non, unless of course in the case of public utility service, because s. 22 forbids going

on strike without giving a strike notice. The key words in the definition of industrial dispute are 'dispute' or

'difference'. What is the connotation of these two words. In Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Ltd.(1). Lord

Denning while examining the definition of expression 'Trade dispute' in s. 2(1) of Trade Disputes (Arbitration

and Inquiry) Ordinance of Trinidad observed:

"by definition a 'trade dispute' exists whenever a 'difference" exists and a difference can exist long

before the parties become locked in a combat. It is not necessary that they should have come to

blows. It is sufficient that they should be sparring for an opening".

Thus the term 'industrial dispute' connotes a real and Substantial difference having some element of

persistency and continuity till resolved and likely if not adjusted to endanger the industrial peace of the

Undertaking or the community. When parties are at variance and the dispute or difference is connected with

the employment, or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour there

comes into existence an industrial dispute. To read into definition the requirement of written demand for

bringing into existence an industrial dispute would tantamount to re-writing the section.”

10.

In fact, there is no precise definition of espousal under the law and it simply means that the dispute of an

individual workman is adopted by the union as its own dispute or majority of workmen present has given support to the

cause of the individual workman. It was held in the case of Workmen Union vs Industrial Tribunal (1994 (68) FLR 710

Calcutta) that once a dispute is referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption of it being an

industrial dispute is there and court can draw inference and legitimately hold that there has been proper espousal of the

case through the union.

11.

It is also clear from espousal certificate Ex.WW2/3 that a meeting of MCD General Mazdoor Union was

held on 09.07.2013 wherein issue of grant of pay scale of Chaudhary to the claimant herein, Shri Raj Singh was

adopted. In view of this, it is held that there was espousal of the case of the claimant. Hence, issue No.(i) is decided

accordingly.

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Findings on Issue No.(ii)

12.

During the course of arguments it was not denied that the claimant was appointed as regular mali with effect

from 01.04.1989. Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 01.01.1997 on the

directions of officials of Horticulture Department. During the course of arguments, it was not denied that the claimant

was appointed as regular mali with effect from 01.04.1989. The case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of

Garden Chaudhary on the directions of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that in

view of decision given by Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs Mahipal Singh

there is hardly any scope for the plea being raised by the management that the claimant was not having requisite

qualification so as to promote him to the post of Garden Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 which is the

list of malis looking after the work of Garden Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Civil Lines Zone,

that they are regular Garden Chaudhary who were performing duties as regular/officiating Chaudhary. In the said list,

name of the claimant appears at serial No.43. There is also a column ‘Working Since and in the same is mentioned as

‘1997’.

13.

The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification, as such,

there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to the claimant from 1997. There is no merit in the

stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman herein is not entitled for promotion to the post of

Chaudhary inasmuch as he neither has the requisite qualification nor has he appeared in the trade test conducted by the

department. To my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were

performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after

judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD

vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division

Bench is as under:

“28.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as

they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they

worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not

competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed

to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents

are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis

on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications

are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to

make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no

illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

14.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special

leave S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon’ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by

the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was

clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, a such, workmen were

entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact

that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman

herein could not qualify the test conducted by Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit and has no

relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.

15.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are

required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is

no question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The

Hon’ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting

Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher

post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or

regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port

Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1865

benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal

and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had

attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the

judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be

applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to

time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would

be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be

treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit

thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision

touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union

of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the

said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the

judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get

the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from

either laches and delays or acquiescence.”

16.

Similarly, contention of the management that the claimant is not having requisite qualification, including

passing of trade test was raised in the case of MCD Vs. Rajbir Singh. The workman, in the contention of the

management, was not entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary from the date from which he was officiating as

Garden Chaudhary. The above contention of the management was out-rightly rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi by upholding the decision of the learned Tribunal by putting reliance on the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh

which was decided on 27.07.2011.

17.

Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since 01.01.1997, as such, he is entitled to

the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1997. As a corollary, management is liable pay the

difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties

and functions of Garden Chaudhary. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 8, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 429

429

429

429.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

अिखल भारतीय िचZकA सा

अिखल भारतीय िचZकA सा

अिखल भारतीय िचZकA सा

अिखल भारतीय िचZकA सा िव[ान सं था

िव[ान सं था

िव[ान सं था

िव[ान सं थान, नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली

नई Zद ली और अ# य

और अ# य

और अ# य

और अ# य एवं उनके कम;चारी के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण

य सरकार औGोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # या

एवं 9म # यायालय Zद ली

यालय Zद ली

यालय Zद ली

यालय Zद ली सं

सं

सं

सं. 1

1

1

1 के

पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 135

135

135

135/201

/201

/201

/2017) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 09.02.2018 को 0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/154/2016-आई.आर. (डीयू)]

राज(- जोशी, उप िनदेशक

1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2018

S.O. 429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 135/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 09.02.2018.

[No. L-42011/154/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, ROOM NO. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX,

SECTOR-10 DWARKA, DELHI-110075

ID. NO. 135/2017

Shri Ajay Kumar Mahlik Through,

Jagriti Labour Union,T- 42/1,

Malviya Nagar Corner, Opposite Post Officer,

New Delhi-110017.

—Claimant.

Versus

1.All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

Ansari Nagar,

New Delhi.

2.M/s HSCC (India) Ltd.

E-6 (A) Sec-1, Noida,

Uttar Pradesh.

3.M/s RDB Reality & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Bikaner Building , Ist Floor, Room No. 10,

8/1 Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata,-700071 (WB)

—Managements.

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-142011/154/2016-IR(DU) dated 12.05.2017 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 workman Shri Amar Mohanty is entitled to receive Rs. 120000/- on account of pending legal

dues from Shri Ajay Kumar Mahlik who had employed the workman for M/s RDB reality & Infrastructure

Ltd., for executing the contract awarded by M/s Rites Ltd. to construct a building for AIIMS? If yes, what

directions are necessary in this respect?”

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1867

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 his 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 his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the managements, 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: 06 February, 2018 .

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 1 माच;, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 430

430

430

430.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

भारतीय टे

भारतीय टे

भारतीय टे

भारतीय टेट बJक

ट बJक

ट बJक

ट बJक के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण नं.

नं.

नं.

नं. 2, मु* ब

मु* ब

मु* ब

मु* बई

ई ई

ई के पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 68

68

68

68/20

/20

/20

/2008

08

08

08) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 01/03/2018 को

0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/73/2008-आई.आर. (बी-1)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2018

S.O. 430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01/03/2018.

[No. L-12012/73/2008-IR (B-1)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

M. V. Deshpande

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/68 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF INDIA

The Dy. General Manager [Personnel) & HRD,

State Bank of India,

Mumbai Branch,

Mumbai Samachar Marg, P.B. No. 13,

Mumbai – 400 023.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Prashant Deshpande,

53/106, Sagar Housing Society,

Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Complex,

1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Opp. Ekta Nagar, Malad [East],

Mumbai – 400 067.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

Mr. M.G. Nadkarni,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Mr. M.B. Anchan,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 23rd January, 2018.

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-12012/73/2008 – IR (B-1) dated 18.12.2008. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Mumbai in imposing the penalty

of dismissal of Sri Prashant Deshpande vide order No. MMB/DGMS/538 dated 4.1.2007, is justified ? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?“

2.

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

3.

Second party workmen filed statement of claim Ex.5. According to the second party workmen, he was

working as Assistant in Mumbai Main branch of S.B.I. He was telephonically informed by the Personnel officer that

his departmental enquiry will be held on 12.9.2006. Till that time he was not served with the charge sheet. On

12.9.2006 he was served with the charge sheet for the alleged misconduct of fraud of Rs.32558.64 in A/c. of Shri N.

Narayan Pai’s A/c. No. 913599.

(i)

allegations are that the application for duplicate passbook was undated.

(ii)

address thereon was at variance with one recorded on ledger folio.

(iii)

style of a/c. given in the letter was different than one on record and the signature of the applicant was

also at variance with one on record.

4.

In this respect according to the concerned workman though the application was undated he had put the rubber

stamp of the bank of having received the said application and registered the same in Inward Register on 29.10.03 and

sent the application to the Manager Mr. Chhabria. Mr. Chhabria forwarded those desks to the concerned Desk Officer

Mr. Kishore Vavia and Mr. Kishore Vavia signed the application of Shri N. Narayan Pai having received the same and

other entries are signed by Mr. Ajit Sakhardande in the Inward Dak Register having received the said documents. This

application was sent to Mr. Chhabria’s cabin after 2.00 p.m. at the close of bank hours. When he sent the application

Form – H to Mr. Chhabria with Inward Dak Register, Mr. Chhabria sent the register with application Form – H to the

concerned Desk Officer Mr. Kishore Vavia. The application was for urgent duplicate passbook. The duplicate

passbook of Mr. Pai was prepared on the same day i.e. on 29.10.03 and the same was given to the representative of Mr.

Pai on 31.10.03 by the Desk Officer Mr. Kishore Vavia. The cheque was prepared by Mr. Jaishree Vedak and

delivered by Mr. Ajay Pawar to the representative of Mr. Pai, verifying the signature of the concerned parties and

address of the parties letter of the Desk Officer Mr. Kishore Vavia. Therefore he is not involved in fraud of Mr. Pai’s

A/c. As such the charge is baseless.

5.

It is also a case of the workman that in Form – C for closing the a/c. he has given the date 4.11.03. However,

the cheque was prepared on 3.11.03 and delivered on the same day without his knowledge. In Form – C, closure form

the signature of the account-holder was verified by the Desk Officer Mr. Kishore Vavia. In the form there is no column

for address. He sent that form to the concerned officer who was duty-bound to verify the signature of the account-

holder and address of the account-holder. As such the allegations are baseless.

6.

According to the concerned workman, with regard to charge of fraud in PPF A/c. No. 913964 of Shri C.H.

Pardiwala for Rs.3491000/-, allegations are that he had received the letter of authority to collect the cheque on 19.2.04

and not referred the letter to the concerned officer nor he did establish the identity of the person Shri Tiwari who had

brought the letter of authority and handed over the cheque to him. In this respect it is the case of the concerned

workman that he had not received the letter of authority from Mr. Tiwari nor he handed over the cheque to Mr. Tiwari

since the cheque was not ready on 19.2.04 when Mr. Tiwari came to the bank to collect the cheque. The withdrawal

form and extention form were received by him on 13.2.04. He registered the form in Inward Dak Register and

forwarded the same to Mr. Chhabria, the Manager. On the same day Mr. Chhabria acknowledged the same by signing

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1869

the Dak Register. Thereafter Mr. Chhabria sent the same to the concerned Desk Officer Mr. Kumaran. Mr. Kumaran

sent the Form – C to concerned clerk Mrs. Surekha Niman without verifying the signature of the customer

Mr. Pardiwala. Mrs. Niman prepared the cheque for Rs.3533000/- vide cheque No. 922739. Subsequently, that cheque

was acknowledged and another cheque was prepared for Rs.3491000/- vide cheque No. 982743 on instructions of

Mr. Kumaran, the clerk Mrs. Niman handed over the cheque to Mr. Tiwari. Mr. Kumaran without verifying the

signature of the customer instructed his clerk Mrs. Niman to prepare the cheque of Mr. Pardiwala and after obtaining

two signatures one of Mr. Kumaran, Desk Officer and another Mr. Ansari Officer, handed over the cheque to Mr.

Tiwari. As such he had no role in handing over the cheque to Mr. Tiwari. Hence the charge is baseless.

7.

According to the concerned workman, the departmental enquiry held against him is against the principles of

natural justice. On 12.9.06, he attended the enquiry and requested the Enquiry Officer to grant him time to arrange his

defence counsel. Since the charges were of serious nature, he told to the E.O. on that day that he will engage the

service of advocate Mr. Ashfaq. However, on 15.9.06 he was not permitted by the E.O. to defendant his case with the

help of advocate and adjourned the enquiry on 19.9.06. He was not handed over the copies of the preliminary enquiry

proceedings. Before proceeding with the enquiry, the E.O. did not ask him to submit his reply to the charge sheet.

Before examining the management witnesses the E.O. allowed the Presenting Officer to thoroughly cross examine him

and after his cross examination the P.O. examined 3 management witnesses. After completing the evidence of

management witnesses the E.O. did not record his statement. The E.O. did not consider the documents submitted by

him i.e. the statement of Mr. Vavia recorded in preliminary enquiry by MRA Marg Police Station stating that it is not

relevant. The E.O. has not properly recorded the enquiry proceedings. Those who involved in preparation of cheques

and delivered the cheques were not examined in enquiry proceedings and as such he was denied an opportunity to

defendant properly in enquiry. Findings of the E.O. are perverse.

8.

According to the concerned workman, on receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority vide his letter

dt. 13.1.06 given only 3 days time to submit his comments on E.O.’s findings. He submitted his comments challenging

the enquiry proceedings and further findings of the E.O. He was served with show cause notice dt. 4.11.06. He

submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 10.1.07. After giving him personal hearing the departmental authority

vide order dt. 13.2.07 confirmed the punishment of dismissal from services. He preferred an appeal dt. 8.3.07 to the

General Manager. His appeal has been rejected vide order dt. 6.8.07. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate

authority he raised the dispute before ALC [C], Mumbai. Since the conciliation failed, the conciliation officer

submitted his failure report to the Central Govt. and hence present reference.

9.

The concerned workman is therefore asking for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of

service.

10.

The first party No.1 resisted the statement of claim by filing written statement Ex.7 stating therein that the

bank lodged FIR with MRA Marg Police station on the basis of which the concerned workman was arrested on 11.6.04.

He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.6.04. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against him and a charge

sheet dt. 29.3.06 was issued to him by disciplinary authority and enquiry into the charges framed against the workman

was held by Mr. M.Y. Desai who was appointed as E.O. The said enquiry was held strictly in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the workman was afforded full opportunity to defendant himself.

11.

It is also a case of the management that the E.O. submitted his report on 7.10.06 in which he held that the

allegations leveled against the workman relating to fraud in PPF A/c. of Shri N. Narayan Pai and Shri C.H. Pardiwala

stood proved on the basis of oral & documentary evidence led at the enquiry. E.O.’s report was forwarded vide letter

dt. 13.11.06 to the workman and he was advised to submit comments. The workman made his submissions on E.O.’s

report. After duly considering entire material on record, the E.O.’s report CSE’s submissions thereon, the departmental

authority recorded his observations on 4.1.07. Considering the gravity of the charges proved against the workman, the

departmental authority felt that one of the major penalty was warranted and accordingly departmental authority

proposed imposition of penalty of dismissal without notice from bank service on the workman in terms of clause 6 (a)

of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.02. The workman was called upon to show cause as to why the penalty

should not be imposed upon him. The workman sought the personal hearing in the matter which was granted. After

carefully examining the proceedings of the enquiry related papers, the report of E.O., submissions made by the

workman during the course of personal hearing given to him the departmental authority did not find any tenable ground

for reducing the punishment. Therefore the departmental authority passed his final order on 13.2.07 confirming the

penalty of dismissal on the workman.

12.

It is also a case of the management that the delay in serving the charge sheet was mainly attributable to the

workman as he was not available on the last recorded address with the bank at which all the communications for

effecting service of the charge sheet were sent but were returned ‘undelivered’. The E.O. during enquiry had advised

the workman that since the matter did not have legal intricacies and as the matter was not complicated, he may choose

to be represented by member of registered union of the employees of which he was the member or any other member of

the registered union of the bank to which the workman replied that he would depose on his behalf. As such the

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman was provided an opportunity to engage a defence representative to defendant his case. But the workman

himself chose to defendant his case in person.

13.

It is also a case of the management that the workman has signed the proceedings of the enquiry without any

demur. Since the statement of Mr. Vavia, officer of the bank recorded by the MRA Marg Police station was not

relevant to the departmental enquiry, it was so clarified by the E.O. to the concerned workman and therefore the E.O.

was justified in rejecting the request of the concerned workman to bring the said statement on record. The workman

himself has not objected to his examination before bank’s witness being examined. He has made use of his evidence in

the written submission filed by him and therefore no prejudice has been caused to the workman on account of his

examination before examination of other witnesses of the bank.

14.

It is then contention of the management that it was not necessary to record workman’s statement after

completing the recording of the evidence and no prejudice has been caused to the workman on this count. Even it was

not necessary for the E.O. to ask the concerned workman to file his reply and produce defence witness since he was

specifically advised in the charge sheet itself that he may submit his written statement and list of witnesses. Hence no

prejudice is caused to the workman on this count. Since the workman has submitted his written submission on 4.10.16

which contained all the statements which the workman wanted to make in his defence, it was not necessary for the E.O.

to record the statement of concerned workman after completing the evidence.

15.

It is the case of the management that the workman was manning the counter and was thus the first point of

control for the customers. His duties include handling of the documents received at the counter before forwarding the

same to higher authorities. He has miserably failed to discharge his duties of processing and scrutinizing the

documents received at the counter. The voucher Rs.100/- towards commission recovered from the account holder for

issue of duplicate pass book was admittedly prepared by the concerned workman on 31.10.2003. The application

submitted by the account holder for closure of the account was received by the workman on 31.10.2003 and the same

was not scrutinized by him. He had recorded ‘4/11’ at the top of the said application which specified that the workman

himself had called the person, tendering the said application on 4.11.03 for receiving the bankers’ cheque. He thus

failed to discharge his duty of subjecting the said document to proper scrutiny. The said bankers’ cheque was ready on

3.11.2003 and it was part of his duty to deliver the bankers’ cheque if it was ready. He therefore handed over the said

cheque to the holder of authority letter without obtaining his acknowledgement for having received the bankers’

cheque.

16.

It is thus case of the management that the findings of the E.O. are not perverse. He has reached the conclusion

on the basis of evidence led at the enquiry. Since the charges proved against the workman were of grave nature, there

cannot be any punishment other than dismissal. So according to the management the punishment imposed on the

workman was quiet proportionate to the charges proved against him. On the premise the management has sought

rejection of reference.

17.

The concerned workmen reiterated by filing rejoinder Ex.8 that the charge is baseless. He has only received

the application for duplicate pass book. That application was undated. He does not know whether that application was

brought by Mr. Pai or his representative. After entering it in the Inward Dak Register he forwarded it to Mr. Chhabria.

Since it was not his duty to identify the person who has brought the application for duplicate pass book as he was not

having computer and ledger to verify their identity, he forwarded it to the officer concerned. Commission voucher was

prepared by him since he was told by Mr. Vavia to prepare it and hand over it to him. Mr. Vavia after singing the

commission voucher had told the customer to make the payment at cash counter and after the receipt of the cash

payment of the commission the customer handed over that receipt to Mr. Vavia and after verifying the receipt, Mr.

Vavia handed over the pass book to customer. He also reiterated that after receiving the application for closure of PPF

A/c. of Mr. Pai on 31.10.03, he made the entry in Inward Dak Register and forwarded the same to Mr. Chhabria.

Thereafter, he does not know what had happened to the closure application form. The bank prepared cheque on

3.11.03 and Mr. Vavia handed over the same to the customer on the same day and this has admitted by Mr. Vavia in his

statement before police Ex. D-5. He was not involved in the said fraud as alleged and the charge that he collected for

bankers’ cheque dt. 3.1.03 for Rs.3273558/- is not correct. Shri Vavia had admitted in his statement before police that

he and Mr. Shirodkar, second officer had signed the cheque and the same was given to Mr. Ajay Pawar, counter clerk

to hand over the cheque to customer. Since he had not handed over the cheque, question of obtaining of

acknowledgement letter does not arise.

18.

It is also reiterated by the concerned workmen that Mrs. Niman handed over the cheque to the customer. This

has been admitted by Mr. Kumaran in his statement before police. He has tried to produce that document in the

enquiry. The E.O. refused to take it on record. His duties are only to receive the documents and enter them in the

Inward Dak Register and forward it to the Manager. With this it is reiterated that the charges are not proved and the

findings are perverse.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1871

19.

Following issue No.1 & 2 are framed at Ex.9. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the

reasons to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

1

Is inquiry fair and proper ?

No

2.

Is findings perverse ?

Yes

Reasons

Issue No.1 & 2.

20.

So far contention go, it is the contention of the concerned workman that he attended the enquiry on 12.9.06

and informed the E.O. and the P.O. that he wanted time to engage the service of the defence counsel. On going through

the enquiry proceedings, it appears that preliminary hearing in the case was held on 15.9.06 on which the workman was

present and that day the E.O. when asked to the CSE i.e. concerned workman whether he wanted to defendant his case

on his own or through a representative. That time the concerned workman [CSE] specifically told to the E.O. that he

would like to be defended by an advocate to which the E.O. had told him that he did not permit so since the matter does

not have any legal overtones or legal intricacies and the matter is of not complicated nature. The fact remains that the

concerned workman specifically told to the E.O. that he wanted to be defended by an advocate and his request was

turned down on the ground that matter is not complicated in nature.

21.

As a matter of fact, on going through the charges leveled against the concerned workman, it appears that

charges are of serious nature since he came to be dismissed on the basis of charges alleged to have been proved. It

cannot be said therefore that the charges were of simple allegations and therefore it was necessary for the concerned

workman to have been represented by the advocate. On the contrary on going through the enquiry proceedings, it

appears that the concerned workman wanted to be defended by advocate Shri Ashfaq but then he was advised to get

himself defended by defence representative and then it appears that the concerned workman deposed for himself.

There is nothing on the record to show as to why the request of the concerned workman to have a lawyer as his defence

representative was rejected. Even the management bank has not examined the E.O. who rejected the request of the

concerned workman to satisfy in what circumstances the request of the concerned workman to have a lawyer as defence

representative was rejected. In my considered view since the charges leveled against the concerned workman were of

serious nature, a police complaint was filed against him, he was arrested and prosecuted and criminal proceedings were

initiated against him then in that circumstances even in departmental enquiry he should have been given an opportunity

to have lawyer as his defence representative and it appears that for no good reason his request was turned down.

22.

In this respect if we see the cross examination of the management’s witness who was P.O. during the course of

enquiry. In his cross examination he has specifically admitted that there is provision in Bipartite Settlement to engage

an advocate but then the permission of bank is essential for the same. He even admits that on 15.9.06 the workman had

brought his advocate but then his advocate was not allowed as his defence representative in enquiry proceedings. He

even admits that the workman wanted advocate as his defence representative because the bank employees were not

ready to defendant him. When there is provision in the Bipartite Settlement that in such circumstances the CSE could

be permitted to be represented by an advocate then there was no reason for the E.O. to turn down the request of the

employee especially when he had made it clear that the bank employees were not ready to defendant him and therefore

he had brought the advocate before the E.O. on 15.6.06.

23.

Learned Counsel for the management bank submitted that paragraph 12.A of the Memorandum of Settlement

dt. 10.4.02 stipulates that the CSE can avail the services of lawyer as defence representative only with the bank’s

permission and such permission can be refused if the allegations are very simple and they are not complicated. He

seeks to rely on the decision in case of Hari Narayan Srivastava V/s. United Commercial Bank & Anr. – 1997 (4) SSC

384 to submit that there is no violation of natural justice by the respondent bank in not permitting the petitioner to be

represented by the advocate in departmental enquiry. In para 5 of the judgment, it has been observed that on going

through the charge sheet in the enquiry the allegations were very simple and they are not complicated. Under such

circumstances it was considered that the failure to permit the petitioner to engage the advocate is not violative of

principles of nature justice.

24.

In the instant case on going through the allegations in the charge sheet it appears that allegations are pertaining

to misappropriate huge amount of the bank respect of which police complaint was filed and the delinquent employee

came to be arrested by the police and even during enquiry the employee came to be suspended. The allegations cannot

be said to be very simple and not complicated. So the facts in the present case are quiet distinct and distinguishable.

Even otherwise nothing has come on record as to why the E.O. has turned down the request of the concerned workman

to have an advocate as his defence representative. It cannot be said that the workman on his own showed to defendant

his case in person when infact he was entitled to be defended by lawyer as per the provisions of Bipartite settlement.

1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.

The next contention of the concerned workman in respect of fairness of the enquiry is concerned is in respect

of production of copy of statement of Mr. Vavia, an officer of the bank recorded by MRA Marg police station which

was refused by the E.O. to take on record on the ground that the said statement was not relevant to the departmental

enquiry. Learned Counsel for the management bank submitted that the statement of Mr. Vavia recorded by the police

was quiet distinct and separate from the departmental proceedings and therefore the E.O. was justified in rejecting the

request of the workman to bring the said statement of Mr. Vavia on record of the enquiry proceedings.

26.

At the first brush I would observe that the statement recorded by police u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course

of investigation and enquiry though cannot be used at an enquiry or trial in respect of offence under investigation at the

time when said statement was made but as per the proviso to section 162 of Cr.P.C. it can be used to contradict such

witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Evidence Act when any part of such statement so used. In view

of that such statement can be part of the enquiry proceedings if it is relevant.

27.

The statement was recorded by the police during the course of investigation in respect of facts known to Mr.

Vavia who shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to said case and in respect of facts which were also

relevant in the enquiry proceedings and therefore there is no reason for the E.O. to reject the production of copy of said

statement of Mr. Vavia on the ground that it was not relevant to the departmental enquiry especially when it was case

of the concerned workman by way of defence in the enquiry proceedings that the statement of Mr. Vavia is the

important document who was working in GAD during the material time and the concerned workman after registering

the application which was undated on which he put the rubber stamp of the bank of having received said application,

send it to Manager Mr. Chhabria and Mr. Chhabria forwarded those desks to the concerned Desk Officer Mr. Vavia

who signed the application of Mr. Narayan Pai having received the same and that the signatures of the concerned

parties and address of the parties are to be verified by the Desk Officer Mr. Vavia and that the Desk Officer Mr. Vavia

instructed Mr. Ajay Pawar to prepare the duplicate pass book and then the duplicate pass book was given to the

representative of Mr. Pai by Desk Officer Mr. Vavia. In respect of these facts the statement of Mr. Vavia recorded by

police during investigation can be said to be relevant and then in the absence of evidence of E.O. it cannot be said that

he was justified in rejecting the request of the workman to bring the statement of Mr. Vavia on record of the enquiry

proceedings as defence exhibit.

28.

On going through the enquiry proceedings even it appears that the statement of Mr. Vavia has not be recorded

during the enquiry proceedings. It appears that during enquiry, statement of Mr. M.A. Khatib was recorded who stated

in the enquiry that the CSE had told him that the representative of the party has approached for taking delivery of B/C

and also the letter of authority but then the document in respect of PPF A/c. of Mr. C.H. Pardiwala and the application

about the closure of PPF A/c. of N. Narayan Pai were not found. But then it appears that during his cross examination

when he was asked by CSE that when the application of Mr. Pai was received on 29.10.03 how it was that the duplicate

pass book was also issued on the same day on which this witness Mr. Khatib could not comment. Similarly, he could

not comment on the question when it was asked to him during the enquiry by CSE as to how the B/C by Smt. M.N.

Irani was issued on the same day i.e. on 23.9.03 on which the application of withdrawal was received. The second

witness has been examined during the enquiry was Mr. Chhabria who appears to have stated in respect of Dak Register

sent to him who used to put his initials whenever he had received it and in his cross examination by the concerned

workman he could not say who was the Desk officer who initiated on the PPF Inward Dak Register on 29.10.03.

29.

Third witness examined during the enquiry was Ms. Jayshree Vedak who appears to have stated during the

enquiry that updation of pass book is handed by EMO and in case of discrepancy as to non-credit to cheque tendered by

the customer, EMO would direct to the Assistant at the PPF Desk Officer. On the basis of this evidence the E.O.

appears to have come to the conclusion that the charge No.1 as against the concerned workman is proved that since the

application was received for duplicate pass book was received by the CSE and the commission voucher was prepared

by him he considered the allegations as regards the fraud of Rs.3273558.64 as proved.

30.

In respect of the allegations of charge of fraud in PPF A/c. No. 913964 of Mr. C.H. Pardiwala of Rs.3491000/-

it was alleged that letter of authority was not intentionally referred to the Desk officer by the concerned workman and

the identity was not established of the person who had brought the letter of authority and bankers cheque was handed

over to him. On the basis of this evidence the E.O. found the charge to be proved on the ground that the concerned

workman was handling the desk during the material period and since the withdrawal form – C does not bear the initials

of Desk officer it indicates that it was not referred to the Desk officer intentionally and the bankers’ cheque was

delivered to the person without establishing his identity. The reasoning is based on the findings that since the

concerned workman has not given any direct reply to the charge of the prosecution nor he has given any material

argument against the charges of the prosecution he considered the charge as proved. This is one line reasoning of the

E.O. in respect of this charge.

31.

On going through the enquiry report, it appears that charge No.3 is not proved. It appears therefore that the

E.O. without examining the material witnesses such as Mr. Vavia Desk officer etc. and without considering the

documents in proper perspective has considered that the charges leveled against the concerned workman are proved.

As such findings of the E.O. are perverse.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1873

32.

I say so because as a matter of fact it has come on record that the bank has filed proceedings for recovery of

sum of Rs.4365442.66 with interest against defendant No.1 to 10. In that proceedings defendant 10 is NN Pai who is

an account holder and who maintained the PPF A/c. No. 913599. In the said case it is contended that defendant No.1 in

collusion with defendant No.2, 8, 9 defrauded the applicant bank and fraudulently obtained an amount of

Rs.3273558.64 belonging to defendant No.10. In that proceedings concerned workman is defendant No.2. As per the

judgment & order in that case the application as against the defendant No.2 & 9 stood dismissed and defendant No.1 &

3 to 8 are held liable to pay the amount. So far as contention of concerned workman in that case it was considered that

he was only a counter clerk who has no authority to act upon the withdrawal form as well as the authority letter and it

was finding of the fact that the bank could not establish by evidence that defendant No.2 who is a concerned workman

has received the letter of authority and acted upon at the counter. The fact remains that the E.O. on the basis of same

facts held the concerned workman guilty on the basis which Debts Recovery Tribunal held him not liable to pay the

amount or to fasten any liability to claim the amount from him. This would also show that the findings of the E.O. are

perverse.

33.

As a matter of fact, it has also come on record that in criminal case which was initiated on the basis of same

facts, ended in acquittal of the concerned workman. From the copy of judgment of the Session Court at Bombay in

Criminal Appeal No. 110/2008 the judgment & the order of the conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate

convicting the concerned workman was set aside and the concerned workman is acquitted of the charges leveled

against him.

34.

In view of that the Learned Counsel for the management bank submitted that the acquittal in the criminal case

is not determinative of the commission of the misconduct and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the

departmental proceedings. It would per-se not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. In the

context he seeks to rely on the decision in case of Chairman & M.D., UCO Bank V/s. P.C. Kakkar – 2003 (4) SSC 364.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Sr. Suptdt. of Post Offices Pathamthitta & Ors. V/S. A. Gopalan – 1997

(II) SSC 239 to submit that the nature & scope of proof in criminal case is very different from that of departmental

disciplinary proceedings and order of acquittal in the former cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. In

criminal case charge has to be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt where as in the departmental proceedings the

standard of proof for proving the charge is mere preponderance of probability and therefore the order of removal from

service emanating from departmental proceedings can very well be passed even after the acquittal in of the delinquent

employee in criminal case.

35.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle [Dead] through LR V/S. Union of

India – 2012 (13) SSC 142 to submit that the finding of the E.O. cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant

evidence in support of the consequence recorded by the E.O.

36.

There can be no dispute about these legal propositions but then the fact remains that the E.O. has considered

the charge as proved on the basis of same facts which were considered by the court and then acquitted the concerned

workman.

37.

So far as findings of the E.O. are concerned, it can be said that the findings are not based on the evidence. The

question of fairness of enquiry and perversity are to be scrutinized on the basis of material on record of the enquiry

proceedings and on going through the enquiry proceedings and the report of the E.O. it can be said that these findings

are not based on evidence. The evidence as discussed above during the course of enquiry would show that the findings

are perverse and without any reasons. It can also be said that the opportunities were not given to the concerned

workman to have an advocate as his defence representative especially when the charges are serious in nature. The

material witnesses such as Mr. Vavia and others have not examined to have some evidence on record to establish the

alleged fraud, when infact it was contended by the concerned workman that he is only a counter clerk who has no

authority to act upon withdrawal form as well as the authority letter which is subject matter of the enquiry. Even in the

civil proceedings before Debts tribunal the bank did not controvert the said averment of the defendant No.2 who is the

concerned workman.

38.

Considering all the facts I find that the enquiry is not fair & proper and the findings of the E.O. are perverse

hence I answer above issues accordingly as indicated against each of them and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Enquiry is not fair & proper.

2. Findings of the E.O. are perverse.

3. Party No.1 to justify its action in the next stage of reference.

Date: 23.01.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 1 माच;, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 431

431

431

431.—औNौिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म( के, -ीय सरकार,

टJ

टJ

टJ

टJडड0

डड0

डड0

डड0 चाट0ड0

चाट0ड0

चाट0ड0

चाट0ड0 बJक

बJक

बJक

बJक के 0बंधतं के संबt िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच, अनुबंध म( िनiद;} ट औNोिगक िववाद म( के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fी

के# Fीय सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

य सरकार

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण

औGोिगक अिधकरण संसंसंसं. 2 मु* ब

मु* ब

मु* ब

मु* बई

ई ई

ई के पंचाट (संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0

संदभ0 सं> या

सं> या

सं> या

सं> या 62

62

62

62/20

/20

/20

/2008

08

08

08) को 0कािशत करती है, जो के, -ीय सरकार को 01/03/2018 को

0ा{ त Fआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/152/2008-आई आर (बी-1)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2018

S.O. 431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Stabdard Chartered Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01/03/2018.

[No. L-12012/152/2008-IR (B-1)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

M. V. Deshpande

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/62 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

The Head Employees Relations – India,

Standard Chartered Bank,

Human Resources Divn.,

23-25, M.G. Road, Fort,

Mumbai – 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Jeroo Dastur & 12 Ors.,

92-B, 1st Floor,

Bhiwandi House,

Cumballa Hill,

Mumbai – 400 036.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

Mr. Ashok D. Shetty &

Smt. P.S. Shetty

Advocates

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Mr. R. D. Bhat,

Advocate

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1875

Mumbai, dated the 4th January, 2018

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-12012/152/2008 – IR (B-I) dated 18.11.2008. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether THE Petitioners viz., S/Shri Dastur & 12 others are workmen ? If these petitioners are workmen,

whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai by retiring them by force, is

justified ? If not, what relief these petitioners are entitled ?’’

List of Workman.

1.

Jeroo J. Dastur.

2.

Vasantha Dorairajan

3.

Ingrid Pereira

4.

Prafulla Sanjeev

5.

Dilip Pathare

6.

Anandkumar Y. Limaye

7.

Shrikant G. Chodankar

8.

Nandkumar M. Kelkar

9.

Nitant D. Bandekar

10.

Rita Talwar

11.

Mariya Sylvia Aranjo

12.

Kersi Ichhaporia

13.

Sukrita Y. Nakray

2.

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

3.

Second party workmen filed statement of claim Ex.7. Ms. Jeroo J. Dastur joined the bank on 10.9.73 as a

Typist at the 19, N.S. Road, Kolkata office of the bank and moved to Mumbai thereafter. She was required to take

calls, do filing work and assist her superior with all secretarial jobs. Sometime in the middle of June 2001 she was

suddenly summoned without prior notice and told to meet her superior Mr. Abhay Pandey who along with one officer

of HR Dept. handed over resignation letter to her and called upon her to sign the same. She was also handed over the

work sheet of her settlement details; however she resisted signing the letter. But thereafter she was inundated with calls

from HR Dept. reminding her to sign and return the retirement papers. On 29.6.2001 she received a warning e-mail

from Mr. Adrian Andrade of HR Dept. which stated that she will have to send the request for early retirement and sign

the papers within a day. On 30.6.2001, HR Dept. warned her against coming to work after that day. Humiliated and

traumatized her asking her to hand over the papers as directed, submitting her resignation letter dated 29.6.2001 which

was accepted vide letter dated 30.6.2001 and was thus out of service w.e.f. 1.7.2001. That time she was serving as

Secretary as Finance Information Systems office of the bank at 270, D.N. Road, Mumbai.

4.

Mrs. Vasantha Dorairajan joined the bank on 2.5.74 as a Steno-cum-typist. Her job entailed compiling

expense vouchers and capital exp. from all over the country and posting into proper account, balance the ledger,

preparing tax returns, TDS returns and other supplementary returns. On 27.10.2001 she was called by HR Manager

and told that they did not have any job for her in the new set up and hence she should not come to the office from

1.11.2001. Consequently, she submitted her resignation letter on 30.10.2001 which was accepted vide letter of even

date i.e. on the same day and ceased to be in service w.e.f. 1.11.2001.

5.

Ms. Ingrid Pereira joined the bank on 7.4.84 as Telephone Operator. The nature of work assigned to her was

non-supervisory and totally routine in nature. The job entailed accepting the telex messages and sorting them out

1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alphabetically and numbering them for the officers to test and authenticate them and to see that they are being

transmitted. In the end of May 2001 she was summoned by the Head of Zonal Processing Unit Mr. Abhijat Thakar and

told to resign. But then she continued working as usual. After a month one Mr. Venkatesh of HR Dept. sent his

Secretary Ms. Jenny Menezes to the workman to convey her that she has to resign. She resisted and asked for reason

for the same to which she was informed that entire department was being outsourced and hence there was no position

available for her. Thereupon she handed over the typed letter of resignation and told to sign the same. Her I-card was

snatched from her. She then requested Mr. Mervin D’Silva to absorb her in the new set up or atleast employ her on

contract basis but he flatly refused. Under the circumstances she submitted her resignation dated 27.7.2001 which was

accepted on 1.3.2002.

6.

Ms. Prafulla Sanjeev joined the bank on 25.9.74 as a Typist-cum-clerk. She was made an officer in 1983 and

continued to do routine work throughout her tenure with the bank. She was working in Service Delivery Section of the

bank. She served in several departments such as bills, share issue, clearing, documentation etc. In June 2001 her

superior Ms. Manisha Agaskar was after her to submit her resignation but she did not submit her resignation.

Thereafter Mr. Adrian Andrade from HR Dept. personally met her and told her if she would not do as told she would be

sacked with inevitable disgrace and stigma. Upon being given an ultimatum to resign she made an appeal to the

management vide letter dt. 15.6.2001. Lastly, she left with no option but to act at the biding of her superiors and finally

submitted her resignation dt. 25.6.2001. Management accepted the resignation vide letter dt. 25.6.2001 relieving her of

her services w.e.f. 1.7.2001.

7.

Mr. Dilip S. Pathare joined the bank on 29.5.74. as typist-cum-clerk. He was made an officer on 1.12.87 and

continued to do routine work throughout his tenure in the bank. He was working with domestic bills, back office

section of the trade finance dept. of the bank. His job entailed receiving documents from the front office which were

then scrutinized by the special assistant pointing out the discrepancy if any. Documents were then forwarded by the

workman to the A/cs. Manager for his approval who then decide whether the documents were to be negotiated against

customer limits or sent on collection basis through the correspondent bank. On 13.3.2001 Manager of the Dept. Mr.

Vilas Risbud informed him that he was required to present in the conference room of the bank to meet the segment

head. He entered the conference room. He found 3 officials present there who told him that due to restructuring within

the bank there was no suitable position available for him and that he would have to quit. He was again called to the

office conference room and told to submit retirement application immediately failing which he would be dismissed.

Mr. Gulati informed him that he had no choice in the matter. He was held out a threat that he would be thrown out of

premises with the help of security guards and would be forced to led a life of ignominy. Despite his request the

management relieved him of services on 14.6.2001.

8.

Mr. A.Y. Limaye joined the bank on 26.10.70 as Typist-cum-clerk. He was subsequently designated as officer

on 10.4.1982 but continued to do routine work throughout his tenure in the bank. He was working with the finance

dept. as Insurance Officer. In April 2001 he was summoned by his superior Mr. Mobedji and given ultimatum that he

would have to submit his resignation since there was no job available for him in the new set up of the bank. He was

forced to give resignation on 1.5.2001.

9.

Mr. Shrikant Chodankar joined the bank on 1.4.72 as Typist-cum-clerk. He was subsequently designated as

officer in 1991 but continued to do routine work throughout his tenure with the bank. His job entailed mechanically

inputting data provided to him by his superiors. Till his promotion as officer, he worked as a Typist in Bills Dept,

Securities Dept and later on as a Clerk in All depts. such as Savings, Current, Fixed Deposit, Remittance, Accounts,

Clearing etc. He did the job under the supervision of his superiors. In July 2002 he was informed by his immediate

superior Mr. Kishore Lad that he has to meet the panel of senior management. Management informed him that there

was no job available for him anywhere that he would have to be out of the service of the bank by 30.9.2002. On

16.9.2002 his immediate superior received mail from Mr. Sachin of HR Dept. enquiring about the status of his

resignation. He was threatened saying that if he would found on bank premises on 1.10.2002 he would be physically

thrown out with the help of security guards. In the circumstances he submitted resignation letter dt. 20.9.2002.

10.

Mr. Nandkumar Kelkar joined the bank on 16.1.92 as Systems Officer and was assigned technical and clerical

work. He was working with Information & Technology Dept. of the bank. The job entailed taking print outs of the

report and providing application and hardware support to the user departments. In January 2003 he received calls from

the superiors demanding his resignation. In January 2003 he was called by his superiors – Kishore Lad, Vijay Reddy,

Love Tandon and officer from Hongkong who communicated to him that his services were no longer required by the

bank and that he should submit his resignation to the bank else he would be issued a letter of termination and public

notice would be issued against him. Under these circumstances he submitted his resignation on 28.1.2003 which was

accepted on 31.10.2003 effective on the same day. However, thereafter he received the letter from the Trustees of the

bank on the preceding date i.e. 20.1.2003 advising him that his pension benefits have been finalized.

11.

Mr. Nitant Bandekar joined the bank on 31.10.86 as Clerk-cum-typist and was assigned technical and clerical

work during his tenure with the bank. He was promoted as System Operator on 17.11.88. The job entailed giving

application and hardware support to the user departments and to upkeep the data centre and keeps the systems ready as

per SLA. In January 2003, he was called by his superiors – Kishore Lad, Vijay Reddy, Love Tandon and officer from

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1877

Hongkong who communicated to him that his services were no longer required by the bank and that he should submit

his resignation to the bank else he would be issued a letter of termination and public notice would be issued against

him. Under these circumstances he submitted his resignation on 28.1.2003 which was accepted on 31.1.2003 effective

on the same day. However, thereafter he received the letter from the Trustees of the bank on the preceding date i.e.

20.1.2003 advising him that his pension benefits have been finalized.

12.

Ms. Rita Talwar joined the bank on 15.2.98 as Typist-cum-Cashier. Subsequently, she was given designation

of officer on 21.6.91 but continued to do the routine work throughout her tenure with the bank. She was working with

the bank office operations of the bank under the name of SCOPE International P. Ltd. She worked in diverse depts.

such as Cards Division, retail lending & clearing. She was handling stop payment, attached accounts, deceased

accounts and unclaimed accounts. The job entailed calculation of charges for stop payments, receipt of attachment

orders, notices from statutory authorities, tagging the accounts processing the payments. She was required to manually

input thousands of accounts details on the computer. On 3.9.2001 she was issued a letter deputing her to SCOPE

International P. Ltd. In April 2002 she was summoned by her superiors Mr. Abhijat Thakar and Mr. Arun Ganpathy

who informed him that she should stop coming to the office from 1.5.2002 and that she should submit her resignation.

She was told that in case she did not resign, she should not be allowed to enter the premises after 30.4.2002. Under

these circumstances she handed over the resignation letter to Mr. Ganpathy which was accepted vide letter dt.

26.8.2002.

13.

Ms. Maria S. Aranjo joined the bank on 1.4.74 in the non-management cadre of the bank. She worked in the

depts. of Finance, Accounting Control and General Administration. The nature of work assigned to her was non-

supervisory and totally routine in nature. Duties entrusted to her were primarily the processing of expense vouchers,

various claims of medical, water, light and fuel, car expenses vouchers, preparation and updation of data base of the

employees of the bank and helping the general administration. On 17.10.2001 she was told that there was no job

available for her. She was handed over sheet giving details of settlement dues. Under these circumstances she handed

over the letter on 31.10.2001 and left the premises. Bank accepted the resignation on 31.10.2001.

14.

Mr. Kersi Ichhaporia joined the bank as clerk on 19.5.69 and promoted as officer on 3.1.88. He was assigned

various duties which were routine and clerical in nature. He was required to make entries in the pass book which were

then authenticated by his superiors. He was given task of posting vouchers on machines etc. In November 2002 he

was summoned by his superiors and told not to come to the office from 1.12.2002. He sent legal notice to the bank on

27.9.2003 which was replied by the bank on 24.10.2003. No resignation letter was sought from him.

15.

Ms. Sukrita Y. Nakray joined the bank on 11.2.1971 as a Clerk-cum-Typist. She was promoted as an officer

on 16.12.1988. She worked in the Funds Transport, bank office operations, output control and Consumer banking

Services of the bank. In March 2001 she was called by her superiors Mr. Inder Camotra, Mr. Shantanu Shyam and Mr.

Radhakrisnan and told that her services were no longer required by the bank and she should submit her resignation.

She was told that in case she refused for the same she would be issued termination letter and the bank will also come

out with public notice to that effect which would jeopardize the chances of seeking another employment. Under duress

she submitted her resignation letter on 22.6.2001 along with covering letter that speaks for itself. Resignation was

accepted vide letter dt. 25.6.2001.

16.

It is the case of the concerned workmen that they have not tendered the resignation on their own volition.

Entire exercise of tendering resignations and their acceptance was colourable exercise of the powers by employer upon

the employees. They were coerced into tendering their resignations for paltry amount and their statutory rights were

muzzled as such the first party employer arbitrarily terminated their services under the garb of resignation without

following the due process of law. The terminations are malafide, vindictive, illegal and stigmatic.

17.

It is also a case of the concerned workmen that the action on the part of first party employer was on account of

restructuring the functioning of the bank and a permanent reduction in number of employees. The first party was

therefore required to give notice as per the provisions of section 9A read with item 11 of Fourth Schedule and Rule 34

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is breach of section 25 (F) and Section 25 (G) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. Therefore they made an application before RLC under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

for conciliation on 29.9.2003. Vide order dated 6.1.2004 / 11.2.2004, ALC [C] – III dismissed their applications.

Aggrieved by the said order the workmen preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court being WP No.

2882/2005. Vide order dt. 10.11.2007. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition of the workmen. Pursuant

thereto ALC sent a failure report to the Central Govt. whereupon the instant reference has been made. They are

therefore asking to hold & declare that their services have been terminated by the first party and that the resignations

procured by the first party are void and illegal. They are also asking to direct the employer to treat them as in

continued employment of the first party or in the alternative direct reinstatement of the workmen and to pay full back

wages to them with continuity of service and benefits.

18.

First party management resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.9. It is the contention of the first

party that the concerned workmen are not workmen as defined by section 2 (s) of I.D. Act, 1947 and as per the records

of job description of the 13 persons they were to perform duties of the management staff of the bank and by no stretch

1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of imagination the said duties would be called as clerical duties. They were drawing salaries in the pay scale of

management staff of the bank and also availed of loans and pre-requisites from the bank as per the terms applicable to

management staff.

19.

It is then contended by the management that the concerned workmen accepted all financial benefits. They

chose to raise this matter of alleged illegal termination only after accepting all the financial benefits. The bank infact

did not seek their resignation but the employees themselves obtained for early retirement on their own volition. They

are receiving their pension in terms of their service conditions from the bank and hence the question of reinstatement

with full back wages as claimed by them does not arise.

20.

It is also a case of the management that Standard bank acquired ANZ Grindlays Bank in the year 2000 and as

part of the integration processes, some of ANZ Grindlays Bank officers opted for early retirement. As per normal

process of retirement the bank accepted the applications of the employees of the early retirement and gave them

financial benefits as per the policy prevailing at that time which was accepted by them. Final settlements were made to

their salary accounts after all the formalities were completed including deduction of tax at source. They have been paid

PF dues, gratuity dues and additional amount of ex-gracia. They are now pensioners and the pension amount is being

credited to their S.B. A/c. in the bank for every month. They have not resigned from the bank by giving letters

expressing their desire to retire from the services. They were not even entitled to ex-gracia which the bank paid out of

goodwill. The letters dated 14.1.2002 by them by way of appeal, were afterthought to create the record for the purpose

of litigation as is evident from the fact that the signatories to the letter had already submitted letter of resignation which

was duly accepted by the management of first party. Their PF, ex-gracia, gratuity were already settled and signatories

to the letters are already receiving pension.

21.

It is then case of the management that Ms. Jeroo J. Dastur submitted her resignation letter on 29.6.2001 out of

her own freewill without any coercion from the superior officers of the first party and it was accepted by the bank on

30.6.2001. Ms. Vasantha Dorairajan was relieved of her services on 1.11.2001 after she submitted letter of resignation

dt. 30.10.2001 which was accepted. Ms. Ingrid Periera also submitted the resignation dt. 27.7.2001 to the management

which was accepted vide letter dt. 1.3.2002. Ms. Prafulla Sanjeev submitted her resignation dt. 25.6.2001 to the first

party on her own volition which was accepted on the same day and she was relieved w.e.f. 1.7.2001. Mr. Dilip s.

Pathare submitted his resignation which was accepted by the bank only after receipt of his letter requesting the bank to

consider his resignation and accordingly he was relieved from services w.e.f. 14.6.2001. Mr. Shrikant Chondankar

submitted his resignation on 20.9.2002 which was accepted by the management. Mr. Nandkumar Kelkar submitted his

resignation on 28.1.2003 which was accepted by the bank on 31.10.2003. Mr. Nitant Bandekar also submitted his

resignation by letter dt. 28.1.2003 which was accepted on 31.1.2003. Ms. Rita Talwar submitted her resignation out of

her own freewill without any force which was accepted by the management and she was relieved from her services.

Ms. Maria S. Aranjo also submitted her resignation dt. 31.10.2001 by her own freewill without any force which was

accepted on the same date. Ms. Sukrita Y. Nakray submitted resignation dt. 22.6.2001 willingly without any force and

on her own volition.

22.

It is precisely the case of the management that there was no any breach of section 25 [F] and 25 [G] of I.D.

Act. There was no retrenchment of any staff in case of these workmen and therefore the question of paying

compensation to them does not arise. The concerned workmen had willingly submitted their resignations which were

accepted by the management. On these premises, the first party management has sought rejection of the reference.

23.

Following issues are framed at Ex.13. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

1

Whether employees involved in the reference are ‘Workmen’ ?

Yes

2.

Whether first party proves that, these employees tendered resignation and

it acted upon it ?

Yes

3.

Do the employees prove that the resignations were obtained from them

under coercion and under influence of management ?

No

4.

Are the employees entitled for any relief ?

No

5.

What Order ?

As per final order

Reasons

Issue No.1.

24.

So far contention go, the averments contained in the affidavits of the concerned workmen and in the statement

of claim, is to the effect that none of them has any authority to take any decision on his / her own and that all the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1879

actions were taken by them as per the instructions of the management of the dept. There is no cross examination in this

respect. Even though it was tried to believe that they were promoted in the course of their service and that they were

drawing salaries in the pay scale of the management staff of the bank and also availed of loans and pre-requisites of the

bank as per the terms applicable to management staff.

25.

In this respect it will have to be said that the designation of the employee is not relevant. What is required to

be ascertained is the dominant nature of the work. The word ‘supervise’ and its derivatives are not words of process

import and must often be construed in the light of context for unless controlled them cover and easily simple oversight

and discretion as manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendent of the manual work of others.

In the context the hand can be laid on the decision in case of Sharad Kumar V/S. Govt. of NCT of Delhi – 2002 (93)

FLR 826.

26.

From the evidence of the concerned workmen it has come on record that Ms. Jeroo J. Dastur the concerned

workman was working as a Secretary in the Finance Information Systems and the nature of work assigned to her was

non-supervisory and totally routine in nature. She was required to take calls, do filing work and assist her superior with

all secretarial jobs. So far evidence of Ms. Vasantha Dorairajan is concerned, he claims that he was promoted as staff

on special rates of pay and his designation was below that of officer. The nature of his work consists compiling express

vouchers and posting into designated accounts, balancing the ledger, filing of returns, TDS returns and other

supplementary returns. Similarly the job entailed to Ingrid Periera was accepting of telex messages, sorting them out

alphabetically and numbering them and putting them upto officers to test of messages and then see that they are being

transmitted. The work assigned to Prafulla Sanjeev was of checking the telex received and tallying the amount given in

the telex with cheque and was initial check and putting it up to his superior before dispatch. The work assigned to

Dilip Pathare was automation work of various branches and doing the balancing and reconciliation of savings bank,

current a/c. fixed deposits etc. Similarly the work assigned to Anandkumar Y. Limaye was also in respect of issuing

pay orders based on telexes received. According to him he had no powers whatsoever to make any change in the

mandate given in telex messages. Shrikant G. Chodankar was assigned the duties in various depts. as Typist in bills

inland trade securities, current accounts, fixed deposits, remittances, clearing etc. Nandkumar M. Kelkar was also

assigned duties pertaining to data centre operations. Nitant D. Bandekar was assigned duties of processing the deposits

of all the cluster branches of Bombay including statutory deductions of taxes and pertaining all international external

returns as per laid down audit norms. Maria S. Aranjo was assigned duties of clerical and secretarial work as of

routine. Kersi Ichhaporia was assigned routine duties which were clerical in nature. Sukrita Y. Nakray was assigned

duties of processing of all inward authenticated messages received from corresponding bank.

27.

Considering the nature of duties assigned to the concerned workmen it can be said that though they are said to

be promoted as officers, nature of their work which they were doing while service was not supervisory.

28.

In case of all India RBI employees & Anr. V/S. RBI & Anr. – AIR 1966 – SC 305, it is held that the work of

the bank involved layer upon layer of checking and checking is hardly supervision but where there is power of

assigning duties and distribution of work there is supervision.

29.

It can be said therefore that to have supervisory work the employee must occupy the position of command and

direction and should be authorized to act without sanction of the Manager or Supervisors. The name or the designation

of the employee is not determining test. Mere checking work of others is also not enough because checking is a part of

accounting and not of supervision. The work done in the audit dept. of the bank was not supervision. In view of this

legal position if we see the work assigned to the concerned workmen it can be said that the work which they were doing

while in service was not supervisory. Therefore their designation is not relevant. Merely saying that they were

promoted as officers does not mean to say that they were not the workmen within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the

act.

30.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the first party submitted that Dilip Pathare in his cross examination has

accepted that his work was of supervisory in nature. He submits that the concerned workmen were drawing the salaries

in the pay scale of the management staff of the bank. The submission is also to the effect that the concerned workmen

have not produced any documents to show that they were performing the duties of the workmen when infact it was

burden on the workmen to clear and prove the duties performed by them. Since they were promoted to the cadre of

officers and drawing salary in the pay scale of management staff. They were not the workmen within the meaning of

section 2 (s) of the act.

31.

Learned Counsel for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of Standard Chartered Bank V/S.

Vandana Joshi – 2010 II LLJ 409 to submit that in order that a person can be designated as workman u/s. 2 (s), he must

be employed to do the work which falls within the stipulated categories i.e. manual, un-skilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory.

32.

To be precise the submission is that the 13 concerned workmen can no stretch of imagination be deemed to be

of clerical nature and routine work. It is not possible to countenance the view propounded by the Learned Counsel for

the management in this respect because as per the contention of the management the concerned workmen are relieved

from their services. Obviously, they were not in a position to procure the documents maintained by the bank. On the

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 3, 2018/PHALGUNA 12, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contrary the management witness No.2 has merely identified Ex.42 to 55. He clearly admits that he has not filed the

documents to show that the concerned workmen were doing any important work. He admits that his involvement was

restricted to calculation of dues of the employees. He then admits that employees covered by Bipartite settlement are

getting Rs.9000/- p.m. but the concerned workmen with the reference are getting Rs.2000/- p.m. by way of pension. As

per his own admission he does not know whether any of the employees concerned in the reference is given power of

attorney of the bank. Under these circumstances there is no evidence on the part of bank to prove that the concerned

workmen in this reference are not the workmen under the law. It appears that in the present case, employees concerned

with the reference have been doing routine clerical work. They were not doing pre-dominantly any managerial or

administrative work. They did not have authority to take any independent decision.

33.

Considering the evidence that has come on record and the legal position that stands, I have come to the

conclusion that the concerned workmen are workmen within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the act. Issue No.1 is

therefore answered accordingly in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2 & 3.

34.

So far contentions go, it is again the contention of the concerned workmen that the resignations were obtained

from them under coercion and under influence of management. In the cross examination the workmen concerned have

admitted that they submitted resignations which were accepted by the management and their retirement benefits were

credited in their saving accounts. Vasantha Dorairajan has admitted in cross examination that he received the amount

of gratuity and PF. Amounts were credited in his account. Even he has withdrawn the money from his account. Even

Prafula Sanjeev has admitted in her cross examination that she is getting some amount by way of pension. She

received gratuity, PF, other statutory benefits which were credited in his account till the date of her service and she had

withdrawn the same and also utilized the same. Similarly, the other workmen namely Dilip Pathare, Anandkumar Y.

Limaye, Shrikant G. Chodankar, Nandkumar M. Kelkar, Nitant D. Bandekar have admitted that they received the

pensionery benefits and also utilized the same. It appears therefore that on one hand these workmen have accepted the

pensionery benefits and also utilized the same, they even did not make any complaint to the authorities concerned

mentioning therein that they were forced to resign. But then after submitting the resignations they have accepted the

benefits without any protest.

35.

Therefore the question creeps in, in what manner they were forced to give resignations ? In this respect if we

see the evidence of Jeroo J. Dastur, she states that she received warning email from Mr. Adrial Andrade of HR Dept

who warned him on telephone that she should ask for early retirement and if she would not do so then she would be

denied statutory terminal benefits. So far evidence of Sukrita Y. Nakray is concerned, she claimed that she has written

a letter dt. 15.6.2001 wherein she had given the details mentioning that Mr. Inder Camotra, Mr. Shantanu Shyam and

Mr. Radhakrisnan told her that there was no position available to her in the bank and therefore she handed over the

letter for early retirement. In her evidence Manisha Agaskar stated to the effect that she received message from Mr.

Inder Camotra mentioning therein that Mr. Camotra wanted to wish her the very best ahead who gave his personal

regret to the effect that he could not do much. As seen earlier, Ms. Sukrita Y. Nakray refers to the letter dt. 14.1.2002

addressed to Patrik Gillam, Chairman of the bank wherein she wrote as under.

“During January 2001 to October 2001, all of us were asked to resign under duress though healthy,

capable and giving best in the bank, we were forced to resign by calling each one of us individually and

asking us to submit resignation or else face the consequences for non-compliance.”

36.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workmen submitted that the letter dt. 14.1.2002 has been replied by Shri

Jaywant Nair which is at Ex.39 and then there are letters independently written by the workmen which are pertaining to

pressure brought on them to resign from the services of the bank. He also refers to the evidence of Smt. Prafula

Sanjeev, Dilip Pathare, S.V. Chondankar, N.D. Bandekar, Smt. Jeroo J. Dastur to submit that in their evidence they

have categorically stated about the pressure brought on them to resign from services of the bank. In this view the

submission is that the evidence of these witnesses would show that they were forced to resign.

37.

It is not possible to accept this sort of evidence and the submission of the Learned Counsel for the concerned

workmen. It is because on going through the resignation letters it clearly appears that these letters simply mention

about the wish of the concerned workmen to have retired early from the services of the bank. The letters simply

mention as follows.

“I wish to retire early from the services of the bank. Would appreciate if you could kindly relieve me

at the earliest.”

38.

The resignation letter of Ingrid Periera is dt. 27.7.2001. Thereafter the resignation was accepted and she was

relieved from the services of the bank w.e.f. 1.9.2001 and by this letter dt. 2.8.2001 she was informed that the payments

after adjusting the dues if any will be processed only after the receipt of completed forms. Similarly, the resignation

letter of Ms. Maria S. Aranjo dt. 31.10.2001 simply mentions that she wishes to apply for early retirement from the

services of the bank and her request may be considered. It appears that the letters to which the reference is made by the

Learned Counsel for the concerned workmen are dt. 14.1.2002, 30.5.2001. But there is obviously no evidence to show

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 3] 2018@iQkYxqu 12] 1939

1881

that the concerned workmen before submitting resignations or subsequent to resignations had given complaint to the

police station mentioning therein that they were pressurized for signing the resignation letters. On the contrary it is

admitted by them in their cross examination that no such complaint was given by them.

39.

If really it could have been a fact that the concerned officers of the bank threatened them saying that they

should give resignations otherwise they would not be given pensionery benefits then in that circumstances it was

expected of them to lodge such complaint or to protest against the concerned officers at the earliest before submitting

the resignation and then not to accept the pensionery benefits in pursuant to the resignations which were given under

duress as is alleged by them. On one hand the concerned workmen are accepting the pensionery benefits by giving

resignations and thereafter six months they are saying that they were forced to give resignation. This conduct on their

part would suggest that they have raised after thought contentions to get more benefits. In my considered view the

concerned employees have not brought any evidence to prove that the resignations were obtained from them under

coercion and under the influence of management.

40.

In the context, the Learned Counsel for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of Bank of India

& Ors. V/S. O.P. Swarankar & Ors. – (2003) 2 SCC 721 wherein it has been held in para 114 of the judgment that a

group of employees who accepted the ex-gracia payment or any other benefits under the scheme could not have resiled

therefrom. Similar is the situation herein the instant case where the employees are accepting the pensionery benefits,

gratuity etc. and even getting the pension and then coming out with the case that they were forced to give resignation

and rather resiling themselves from giving such resignation saying that the resignations were obtained under duress

forcibly and under pressure. This is not permitted since they are not permitted to resile from their earlier act of giving

resignations and even accepting the benefits and getting pension on the basis of such resignations. In view of this I find

that the concerned workmen have failed to establish that the resignations were obtained from them under coercion and

under the influence of management. On the contrary it can be said that these employees tendered the resignations on

their own volition. The resignations were accepted by the management and upon acceptance of the same they are given

benefits including gratuity and pension. Hence I answer the above issues accordingly as indicated each of them.

Issue No. 4.

41.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workmen submitted that all the workmen concerned were confirmed

employees of the bank. They were entitled to continue in their services in the bank till retirement or death which is

earlier and therefore in view of item – 10 of Fourth Schedule of I.D. Act, notice of change was required to be given

under the provisions of section 9A. In view of this the submission is that the action on the part of bank amounts to

illegal termination of the services and they are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and attendant benefits.

Submission is that in respect of workmen who have expired or have retired, they are entitled to monetary benefits till

the date of retirement.

42.

It is not possible to accept this submission. As a matter of fact, it has come on record that the employees

concerned have submitted their resignations on their own volition. The resignations were accepted and they received

the benefits. There is absolutely no evidence that they were pressurized for resigning from the services of the bank. It

is in that circumstances it cannot be said that they were retrenched or otherwise terminated from the services and in

view of that they are not entitled to reliefs claimed. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly. Hence, I pass the following

order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 04.01.2018

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: 2018.04.10

10:25:07 +05'30'