2443 GI/2018

(3603)

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- 18]

ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 6—ebZ 12] 2018] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 16—oS'kk[k 22] 1940

No. 18]

NEW DELHI, MAY 6—MAY 12, 2018, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 16—VAISAKHA 22, 1940

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)

foÙk ea=kky;

(jktLo foHkkx)

(¯gnh vuqHkkx&2)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 718-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu iz/ku vk;qDrky;] dsUnzh; eky ,oa lsok dj] mÙkjh fnYyh dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@3@2017&fgUnh&2 Mhvksvkj Mhvksvkjº

MkW- lrh'k pUæ] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

3604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies, Principal Commissionerate, Central Goods and Service

Tax, North Delhi under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 719-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu dsaæh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj vk;qDrky;] nsgjknwu] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk

dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@3@2017&fgUnh&2 Mhvksvkj Mhvksvkjº

MkW- lrh'k pUæ] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 719.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies, Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate,

Dehradun under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 720-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)] t;iqj ,oa blds fuEufyf[kr v/huLFk

dk;kZy;ksa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS %

dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)&,] t;iqj

dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)&ch] t;iqj

dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)&lh] vtesj

dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)&Mh] vyoj

dsUnzh; oLrq ,oa lsok dj (vads{k.k)&bZ] fHkokM+h

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@3@2017&fgUnh&2 Mhvksvkj Mhvksvkjº

MkW- lrh'k pUæ] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 720.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies, Office of the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service

Tax (Audit), Jaipur and its following Subordinate offices, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% of

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit)-A, Jaipur

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3605

Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit)-B, Jaipur

Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit)-C, Ajmer

Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit)-D, Alwar

Central Goods and Service Tax (Audit)-E, Bhiwadi

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

(य िवभाग

य िवभाग

य िवभाग)

नई दली, 1 मई, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 721

721

721.—के सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम

(4) के अनुसरण म$, भारतीय लेखापरी)ा और लेखा िवभाग म$ भारत सरकार के िन, निलिखत काया-लय िजनके अ. सी ितशत

कम-चा0रय ने 1हदी का काय-साधक 4ान ा5 त कर िलया है, को एतद्6ारा अिधसूिचत करती है, अथा-त्:-

धान िनदेशक, लेखापरी)ा (केीय), अहमदाबाद, गुजरात;

धान िनदेशक, लेखापरी)ा (केीय), अहमदाबाद, शाखा काया-लय जयपुर, राज.थान।

[सं. ए-12034/02/2014-ईजी]

ऐनी जॉज- मै? यू, संयुA त सिचव

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 721.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Government of India in the

Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi, namely:-

(1)

Principal Director of Audit (Central), Ahmedabad, Gujarat;

(2) Principal Director of Audit (Central), Ahmedabad, Branch Office Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.

भारतीय

भारतीय रजव बक

रजव बक

मुंबई, 27 अैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 722

722

722.—राBीय आवास बDक अिधिनयम, 1987 क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (डी) के संशोधन के

प0रणाम.वKप, भारतीय 0रज़व- बDक के उप गवन-र Mी बी पी कानुनगो, राBीय आवास बDक (एनएचबी) के िनदेशक मंडल म$ तOकाल

भाव से नािमत िनदेशक के Kप म$ शािमल नहP रह$गे, जबक भारतीय 0रज़व- बDक के क$ीय बोड- के िनदेशक, डॉ. सRा कुमार मोहंती,

एनएचबी के बोड- म$ बDक के नािमत िनदेशक के Kप म$ बने रह$गे ।

[सं. बDिविव.िनयुिS.एनएचबी. 9712/08.21.006/2017-18]

सुदश-न सेन, काय-पालक िनदेशक

3606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Mumbai, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 722.—Consequent to the amendment of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987, Shri B.P. Kanungo, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, ceases to be the Bank’s

Nominee Director on the Board of Directors of the National Housing Bank (NHB) with immediate effect, while Dr.

Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, Director, Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India, continues as the Bank’s Nominee

Director on the Board of NHB.

[No. DBR.Appt.NHB. 9712/08.21.006/2017-18]

SUDARSHAN SEN, Executive Director

ukxj foekuu ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 723-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa] ukxj foekuu egkfuns'kky; ds varxZr lgk;d funs'kd mM+u;ksX;rk dk dk;kZy;] pdsjh] dkuiqj&208008 dks] ogka

dk;Zjr 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d dk£edksa }kjk ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy, tkus ij ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- bZ&11014@9@2015&jk-Hkk-º

,l- ds- feJk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 723.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Office under the Directorate General of Civil

Aviation i.e. Office of the Assistant Director, Airworthiness, Chakeri, Kanpur-208008, whereof, more than 80% of staff

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]

S. K. MISHRA, Jt. Secy.

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

(खान सुरा महािनदेशालय

खान सुरा महािनदेशालय

खान सुरा महािनदेशालय)

धनबाद, 27 अैल, 2018

का.आ

का.आ. 724

724

724.—मD, शा त कुमार सरकार, मुT य खान िनरी)क िजसे खान सुर)ा महािनदेशक के Kप म$ भी पदानािमत कया

गया है, खान अिधिनयम, 1952 क धारा 6 क उप-धारा 3 के तहत दO त शिSय तथा उपरोA त िवषय पर पूव- म$ िनग-त अिधसूचना

संT या का.आ. 3177, दनांक 6 नव, बर, 2009 (पृV ठ संT या 7420) म$ आंिशक संशोधन करते [ए राँची )े\ का )े\ािधकार एतद्6ारा

घोिषत करता ]ँ क खान अिधिनयम,1952 क धारा 5 क उप-धारा 1 के तहत िनयुA त िनरी)क अपने )े\ािधकार के स, ब` )े\ म$

अपनी शिSय का योग िन, निलिखत िनदaशानुसार कर$गे।

राँची े

राँची े, मु या

मु या

मु यालय

लय

लय-------- राँची

राँची

राँची, रा य

रा य

रा य –झारख! ड

झारख! ड

झारखc ड राd य: गढ़वा, पलामू, चतरा, लातेहार, लोहरदगा, गुमला, िसमडेगा, खूँटी, राँची, रामगढ़ एवं हजारीबाग िजले के सभी

खदान।

रामगढ़ उप-)े\, रामगढ़ का उप-)े\ीय काया-लय रांची )े\ीय काया-लय, रांची . थानांत0रत कया जाता है।

परंतु अ य जोन, )े\ एवं उप-)े\ का )े\ािधकार पूव-वत रहेगा ।

[िम. सं. एस-29022/08/2016-सामा य]

शा त कुमार सरकार, मुT य खान िनरी)क

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3607

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF MINES SAFETY)

Dhanbad, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 724.—I, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Chief Inspector of Mines and also designated as Director-General of

Mines Safety, under the powers conferred on me under sub-section 3 of Section 6 of the Mines Act, 1952, and in partial

modification of Gazette Notification earlier published vide No. S.O.3177, dated the 6^th November, 2009 (page No.

7424) hereby declare the area of jurisdiction of Ranchi Region with respect to which Inspectors appointed under Sub-

section 1 of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952 shall exercise their respective powers, as given below:

Ranchi Region, HQ at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand.

State of Jharkhand:-All Mines in the districts of Garhwa, Palamu, Chatra, Latehar, Lohardaga, Gumla,

Simdega, Khunti, Ranchi, Ramgarh & Hazaribag.

Office of Ramgarh Sub- Region, Ramgrah is being shifted to office of Ranchi Region, Ranchi.

However, area of jurisdiction of other Zones, Regions and Sub-Regions shall remain unchanged.

[F. No. S-29022/08/2016-Genl.]

PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR, Chief Inspector of Mines

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 725-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 4@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@181@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad 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 26.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/181/2006-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 19th day of March, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2007

Between :

The President,

(Shri Bandari Lingaiah),

Singareni Collieries Employees Union(CITU),

H.No.D-330, 1^st Zone,

Mandamarri

…Petitioner

AND

3608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur

Adilabad – 504303

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, K. Srinivas Rao, M. Govind &

Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/181/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 29.11.2006

referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their

workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in

dismissal of Shri Kunta Mallesh with effect from 20.3.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 4/2007 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for Petitioner’s evidence.

On the date of hearing of the case, the counsel for the Petitioner union as well as representative of the Petitioner

Union found absent and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union. Non appearance of the Petitioner

union on the dates of hearing of the case indicates that perhaps the matter has been settled between the parties and the

Petitioner union has no claim to raise. Hence, it is not wise to linger the case to any further date and as such the case of

the Petitioner Union is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19^th day of

March, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 726-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@102@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3609

Labour Court, Hyderabad 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 26.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/102/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 16th day of March, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 47/2012

Between :

The General Secretary (Riaz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),

Qtr.No.C-34,Sector-I,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar – 505209

… Workman

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur

Adilabad Distt. – 504303

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/ 102/2012-IR(C-II) dated 12.7.2012

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur

Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Bhuneni Posham, Ex-Badli Filler, SRP-1

Inc., Sreerampur Area with effect from 01.03.2006 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled

for ?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 47/2012 and

issued notices to both the workman and the management.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Workman, Sri Bhuneni Posham, E.No.2807327 was initially appointed as Badli Filler in the 1^st

Respondent’s company and from the date of appointment he used to work to the satisfaction of one and all. While

the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 25.7.2005 was issued to the Workman by the Respondents alleging that the

Workman absented for duty during the year 2004, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order

No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Workman was not given

any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Workman was

dismissed from service with effect from 1.3.2006 vide office order dated 23.2.2006. It is stated that during the course

of the enquiry the Workman has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year

2004 as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Workman was

dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Workman

from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. With the above averments the

3610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman has prayed this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. SRP/PER/13.008/1458 dated 23.2.2006 issued by

the Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the

concerned workman Sri Bhuneni Posham (E.No.2807327), S/o Bumaiah, into service duly granting all other

consequential benefits, such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

Respondents did not file counter statement hence, they are set ex-parte.

In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Workman conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held as legal and valid

vide order dated 15.11.2016.

The Petitioner union has advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bhuneni Posham is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman

submitted that due to ill-health, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause

the Workman has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on

account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman. When the

Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties

regularly and remained absent, in such a circumstances, the authority should have considered his case while imposing

punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has given capital

punishment to the Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

The Respondent did not submit either written arguments or oral arguments.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Workman has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

After dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 34 years, he is now aged

about 41 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Workman is a first offender and has worked

for about 8 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should

think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the

Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the

management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bhuneni Posham is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Bhuneni Posham is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Workman has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances

atleast the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’

management. But in this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the

opinion of this Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only

entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3611

Result

In the result, the reference is ordered as under:

The action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,

Sreerampur, Adilabad Dist. in terminating the services of Sri Bhuneni Posham Ex. Badli filler, SRP-1 incline,

Sreerampur Area, with effect from 23.2.2006 is not justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman

Sri Bhuneni Posham be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back

wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept

under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour

from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall

have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management

shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of

attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be

cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice

and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year successfully he will be allowed to

continue in service till the date of attaining his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism

on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other

usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to

the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16^th day of

March, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Workman

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 727-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@41@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad 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 26.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/41/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

3612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 16th day of March, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2015

Between :

Sri Pulipaka Venkaty,

H.No.252, No.2 Incl., Line Basthi,

Bellampalli – 504251

Adilabad Distt., Telengana State

…Workman

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri (P.O.) – 504231

Adilabad district

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent

M/s. Nandigam Krishana Rao, N.S. Pattabhi Rama Rao & J. Narasimhulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/41/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 29.7.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Adilabad distt., in terminating the services of Shri Pulipaka Venkaty, Ex-BF, KK-5 Inc., Mandamarri Area

with effect from 5.11.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 57/2015 and

issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their

respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Workman was appointed as a Badli Coal Filler on 16.10.1986 in the Respondent’s organization. The

Workman was regular to his duties till his dismissal from service. While the matters stood thus, one charge sheet was

issued to the Workman by the Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year 1997, which

amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and

during the time of the enquiry, the Workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his

grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the

erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 5.11.1998. It is

stated that during the course of the enquiry the Workman has categorically stated about his inability to perform his

duties regularly during the year 1997, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his

submissions, the Workman was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent management

in dismissing the Workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The

Workman has rendered 12 years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Workman approached

the Respondent to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the

Workman was constrained to approach the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Mancherial, who sent failure report to

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, and Ministry of Labour and Employment, who referred

the matter to this Tribunal. The Petitioner workman prayed this Tribunal to declare the impugned order dated

5.11.1998 issued by the Respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the

Respondent to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of

service, back wages etc..

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3613

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim statement, with the averments in

brief which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman

was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 16.10.1986 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved

charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice.

The Workman has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the

principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry

report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Workman by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to

make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is

proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has

gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take

a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact

the Workman was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him,

and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified

and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is not challenged by the Petitioner, for which it is held as

legal and valid vide order dated 12.7.2017.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Adilabad distt., in terminating the services of Shri Pulipaka Venkaty, Ex-BF, KK-5 Inc., Mandamarri

Area with effect from 5.11.1998 is justified or not?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner union

submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. On

account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman. The Workman

has worked about 12 years continuously in the management and no penalty has been imposed on the Workman

previously. But when the Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness he could not be able to attend his duties

regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing such a capital punishment.

But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has imposed capital punishment to

the Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent management submitted that

when the Workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment

imposed by the Respondent company is legal and proper. When the Workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, and remained absent in his

duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the

charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of

service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. The Workman

has served 12 years under the Respondent. There was no previous punishment imposed on the Workman. Now he has

already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 50 years, he is now aged about 53 years and

is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. In such a circumstances, atleast one

chance should be given to the Workman for his reinstatement into service in order to provide a square meal to his

family members. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. But, the

Workman has been given capital punishment. The Workman is a first offender and has worked for about 12 years

under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the

condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for

dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing

the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Pulipaka Venkaty is not legal and justified.

3614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Pulipaka Venkaty is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Workman has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances

atleast the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s

management. But in this case the workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. Thus, in the

opinion of this Tribunal, the workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only

entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

RESULT

In the result, the reference is answered as follows:

The action of the management of M/s. SCCL in dismissing the services of Sri Pulipaka Venkaty w.e.f. 5.11.1998

is neither legal nor justified. Proceeding dated 5.11.1998 issued by the Respondent is declared as illegal and is hereby

set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Pulipaka Venkaty be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli

Filler on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company

Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to

take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall

have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters during the year and the

management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short

fall of attendance during the period of three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be

cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any short fall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman he will be terminated from service without any further notice

and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year successfully he will be allowed to

continue in service till the date of attaining his superannuation. The management shall consider the forced

absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance.

All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays

etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16^th day of

March, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Workman

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2018

dk-vk- 728-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@31@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3615

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad 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 26.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/31/2013-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 16th day of March, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2013

Between :

The General Secretary (Riaz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),

Qtr.No.C-34,Sector-I,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar – 505209

…Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad Distt.– 504303

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/ 31/2013-IR(C-II) dated 1.5.2013

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Samuel David, Ex-Coal Filler, MK-4

Inc., SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 26.11.2003 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is

entitled for ?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 60/2013 and

issued notices to both the Petitioner union and the management.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Workman, Sri Sameul David, was initially appointed as badli filler on compassionate grounds and later he

was confirmed as coal filler in the year 2000. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 18.11.2003 was issued

to the Workman by the Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year 2001, which amounts

to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25 and it is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the

Workman’s house which was returned undelivered, as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Workman to

attend for enquiry and as the Workman did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an exparte enquiry was

conducted and he was dismissed from service. The Workman was undergoing treatment in his native village and he

was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or publication of notice made by the Respondent in the newspapers.

The Workman could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice

of paper publication. It is stated that the Workman was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 2001

3616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 12, 2018/ VAISAKHA 22, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but without

considering any of his submissions, the Workman was dismissed from service vide office order dated 18.11.2003. It is

also stated that the action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Workman from service is wholly illegal,

arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Workman has rendered about 7 years of continuous service

in the Respondent management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his sickness which ought not to

have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Workman made the above stated submissions, but without considering

any of his submissions, the Workman was dismissed from service vide office order dated 18.11.2003. The Workman

approached the Respondent to consider his case sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it.

Therefore, the Workman was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No.

MMR/PER/D/072/5404 dated 18.11.2003 issued by the Respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same

and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other attendant

benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman

was appointed in the Respondent company on 17.1.1996 as a Badli Filler under dependent employment scheme of the

company and subsequently he was regularized as Coalfiller. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient cause on a number of days and attended

four days for duty during the calendar year 2001. A charge sheet was sent to his last known home address as per the

procedure, as he was not attending for duty, which was received by him but he did not submit his explanation. An

enquiry notice was sent to his residential address through Registered Post which was returned undelivered with an

endorsement “absent 7 days”. Subsequently, the same was published in Vartha daily newspaper dated 27.7.2002

advising the Workman to attend an enquiry fixed on 1.7.2001. The Workman neither submitted any explanation to the

charge sheet nor attended the enquiry, as such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 23.9.1998 wherein the charges

levelled against the Workman were proved. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural

justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report holding the charges levelled against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry

proceeding was sent to the Workman by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation

against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is proved and it was serious

in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry

proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly,

the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Workman was

irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the

show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified and legal and as such

the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is not challenged by the Petitioner union, for which it is held

as legal and valid vide order dated 7.6.2016.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support

of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in dismissing the

services of Sri Samuel David w.e.f. 18.11.2003 is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman

submitted that due to ill-health, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause

the Workman has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on

account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman. When the

Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties

regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. The

authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has given capital punishment to the

Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 12] 2018@oS'kk[k 22] 1940

3617

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondent’s management is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Workman has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

After dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 38 years. He is now aged

about 42 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondent, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Workman is a first offender and has worked

for about 17 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management

should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the

management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sameul David is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Sameul David is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Workman has already

realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance

to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless and he being the sole

bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast

the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s management.

But in this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this

Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be

given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

RESULT

In the result, the reference is ordered as under:

The action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Dist. in terminating the services of Sri Sameul David Ex. Badli filler, SRP-1 incline,

Mandamarri Area, with effect from 18.11.2003 is not justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman

Sri Sameul David be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back