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 िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण ि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 मंालय 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 राजपित 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: वेट
िजला: वेट
िजला: वेट
िजला: वेट 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
अयुतापुरम
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
अयुतापुरम
मड़तु|
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
उंडापुरम
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
Rेफल
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:- ईट गोदावरी
ईट गोदावरी
ईट गोदावरी
ईट 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>मलादोी
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|मलयपालेम्
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
जग>पेटा
इर;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
जग>पेटा
मर;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
जग>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
जग>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
चेोलू
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]ा जग>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 मंालय 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 मंालय 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
नेलमर
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 मंालय 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 मंालय 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 मंालय 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 मंालय 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 ांच 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
हदबत
हदबत
हदबत
हदबत
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'