Gazette contains multiple Subjects

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

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 24] नई दिल्ली, जून 17—जून 23, 2018, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 27—आषाढ़ 2, 1940

No. 24] NEW DELHI, JUNE 17—JUNE 23, 2018, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 27—ASADHA 2, 1940

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्तवित्तवित्तवित्त मंत्रालय मंत्रालय मंत्रालय मंत्रालय

((((राजस्वराजस्वराजस्वराजस्व िवभाग िवभाग िवभाग िवभाग))))

((((हिन्दीहिन्दीहिन्दीहिन्दी अनुभाग अनुभाग अनुभाग अनुभाग----2222))))

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 958958958958.—के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन के न्(cid:12)ीय कर, वस्तु एवं सेवाकर एवं कें (cid:12)ीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय, गौतम बु0 नगर, िजसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

3287 GI/2018

(4275)4276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(HINDI SECTION-2)

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2018

S.O. 958.—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 tax, Goods and Service tax and central excise Commissionerate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 959959959959....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन आयुक्त कार्यालय, सीमा शुल्क: हवाई काग: निर्यात, नई दिल्ली, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2018

S.O. 959.—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, Customs: Air Cargo Export, New Delhi, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 960960960960....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन सीमा शुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय, सीमा शुल्क गृह, को=िच-682009, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2018

S.O. 960.—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 of Customs, Custom House, Coachin-682009, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)4277 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 961961961961....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन प्रणाली एवं आंकड़ा प्रबंधन महानिदेशालय, कें (cid:12)ीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क, नई दिल्ली, िजसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 961.—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 Directorate general of Systems & data management, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 962962962962....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन के न्(cid:12)ीय वस्तु एवं सेवाकर तथा के न्(cid:12)ीय उत्पाद शुल्क, नागपुर-1 आयुक्तालय के 4 प्रभागीय कार्यालयों (प्रभाग-शहर, हिगना, भंडारा,चं(cid:12)पुर), जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 962.—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, The 4 Divisional Offices (Division-City, Hingna, Bhandara, Chandrapur) of CGST & Central Excise Nagpur-1 Commissionerate under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 963963963963....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन सीमा शुल्क आयुक्तालय पुणे एवं इसके अधीनस्थ सभी मंडल कार्यालयों, जिसमें 80 प्रितशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 963.—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 Commissionerate of Customs, Pune and its Subordinate all divisional offices, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)4278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 964964964964....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन के न्(cid:12)ीय वस्तु एवं सेवा कर तथा कें (cid:12)ीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय, मु ंबई मध्य, िजसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 964.—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 CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Mumbai Central, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 965965965965....————के न्(cid:12)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन के न्(cid:12)ीय माल एवं सेवा कर आयुक्तालय, चंडीगढ़, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक 5ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्(cid:12), संयुक्त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 965.—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, Chandigarh, under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 966.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, l= U;k;ky; tcyiqj] e/; izns'k esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir dsl la[;k vkjlh 1¼,l½@2014@,llh;w&V@,llh&II@ubZ fnYyh esa mifLFkr gksus rFkk buls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa esa vihy@iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh :Lre [kku] vf/koDrk dks mudh fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kksZa ds fy, vFkok mudks lkSais x, ekeyksa ds fuiVku rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@18@2017&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo4279 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 966.—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 Rustam Khan, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting case No. RC 1(S)/2014/SCU.V/SC-II/New Delhi instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Sessions Court at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh and appeals and revisions or other matters connected there with or incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/18/2017-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून, 2018

काकाकाका.आ. .आ. .आ. .आ. 967967967967....————के न्(cid:12) सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25) की

धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Gए त्रिपुरा राज्य सरकार, गृह िवभाग अगरतला की

अिधसूचना सं. एफ.21(2)-पीडी/12(पी)/872 दिनांक 17.03.2018 के माध्यम से प्राप्त सहमति से जिरानिया के शांतनु भौमिक, पुत्र

Mी सदन भौमिक, पNिम त्रिपुरा जिला की हत्या के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 332/333 के साथ पठित धारा

148/149/302/120(बी), 1860(1860 का अधिनियम संख्या 45), तथा लोक सम्पत्ति नुकसान निवारण अधिनियम,1984 (1984 का अधिनियम संख्या 3) की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत, मंडयी पुलिस थाना मामला संख्या 2017/एमडीआई/006, दिनांक 20.09.2017 में अन्वेषण

के लिए तथा उक्त मामले में भारतीय दंड संहिता में वSणत एक अथवा एक से अधिक अपराधों से सम्ब0 में किए गए प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणाओं

और षWंत्रों तथा उसी संXयवहार में किए गए या उन्हY तथ्यों से उत्पन्न प्रासंगिक कोई अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों की जांच करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार समस्त त्रिपुरा राज्य में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/22/2018-एवीडी-II]

एल. पी. शर्मा, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 967.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Tripura, Home Department issued vide Notification No. F.21(2)-PD/12(P)/872 dated Agartala, 17.03.2018, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Tripura for investigation in the Mandai PS Case No. 2017/MDI/006, dated 20.09.2017 U/s 148/149/302/120(B) IPC read with section 332/333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No. 45 of 1860), and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Act No. 3 of 1984) in connection with the death of Santanu Bhowmik, Son of Sri Sadhan Bhowmik of Jirania, West Tripura District and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the said facts.

[F. No. 228/22/2018-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 968.—dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, tyxkWo] egkjk"Vª fLFkr l= U;k;ky; ds le{k ekeyk la- vkjlh 02¼,l½@2007&eqEcbZ ¼oh-th- ikfVy gR;k ekeyk½ ,oa vihyh;@iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; esa rRlEcU/kh vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k muls lEc) vU; ekeyksa rFkk buds vuq"kafxd ekeyksa ds lapkyu ds fy, Jh vkRekjke txUukFk ikfVy] vf/koDrk dks ekeys ds fuLRkkj.k ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 225@23@2016&,ohMh&II]

,y- ih- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2018

S.O. 968.—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 Atmaram Jagannath Patil, Advocate, Jalgaon,4280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting trial of case RC 2(S)/2007-Mumbai (V.G. Patil Murder case) before the Court of Session at Jalgaon, Maharashtra and appeals or revisions or other matters arising out of the said case before the appellate or revisional court, till disposal of the case or until further order, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/23/2016-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

काकाकाका.आ. .आ. .आ. .आ. 969969969969....————कें (cid:12)ीय सरकार, दंड प्र^िया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अिधिनयम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Gए, Mी बी.बी. बदामी, अधिवक्ता को, विशेष न्यायाधीश, कें (cid:12)ीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो, मुम्बई के न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (के न्(cid:12)ीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संस्थित वाद सं. आरसी.6/ई/2015-बीएस एंड एफसी/सीबीआई, मुम्बई (आईडीबीआई/bकगफिशर एयरलाइन्स वाद, सीबीआई बनाम विजय माल्या और अन्य) का और अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों और उससे संबंधित और उसके आनुषंगिक अन्य मामलों का संचालन के लिए, नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वर्ष के लिए या कांउसेल को सeपे गए उक्त मामले का िनपटारा होने तक या अगले आदेश तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/09/2017-एवीडी-II]

एल. पी. शर्मा, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 969.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B.B. Badami, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case No. RC.6/E/2015-BS&FC/CBI, Mumbai (IDBI/Kingfisher Airlines case, CBI V/s Vijay Mallya and others) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the court of Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai and appeals, revisions and other matters connected there with and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the said case entrusted to the counsel or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/09/2017-AVD-II]

L. P. SHARMA, Under Secy.

कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंण मंण मंण मंत्रालयत्रालयत्रालयत्रालय

((((कृकृकृकृ िषिषिषिष,,,, सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्यासहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याण िवभागण िवभागण िवभागण िवभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

काकाकाका.आ..आ..आ..आ. 970970970970....————बG-राज्यीय सहकारी समितियां अधिनियम, 2002 (2002 का 39) के खंड 4 के उपखंड (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Gए भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम दिनांक 11 मई, 2015 के अधि^मण में के न्(cid:12) सरकार एतद्द्वारा Mी दिनेश कु मार, संयुक्त सचिव (सहकारिता) को कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंत्रालय, कृ िष, सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याण विभाग में तत्काल प्रभाव से अथवा अगले आदेशों तक सहकारी समितियों के के न्(cid:12)ीय पंजीयक के रूप में नियुक्त करती हैं ।

[सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम]

सुशील कु मार झा, अवर सिचव4281 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare)

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 970.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M dated 11th May, 2015, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dinesh Kumar, Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until further orders.

[No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]

SUSHIL KUMAR JHA, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरो))))

((((को'िच को'िच को'िच को'िच शाखा शाखा शाखा शाखा))))

को=िच, 12 जून, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 971971971971....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

01010101 जुलाई जुलाई जुलाई जुलाई 2015201520152015 से से से से 31313131 मार्च मार्च मार्च मार्च 2016201620162016 तक स्वीतक स्वीतक स्वीतक स्वीकृकृकृकृ तततत किए गए किए गए किए गए किए गए लाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसों की सूचीकी सूचीकी सूचीकी सूची

[सं. के न्(cid:12)ीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13 : 13]

के . कदिरवेल, वै5ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

(KOCHI BRANCH)

Kochi, the 12th June, 2018

S.O. 971.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Licence granted during 01.07.2015 to 31.03.2016

[No. CMD/13:13]

K. KADIRVEL, Scientist 'F' & Head4325 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 972.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 262/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.06. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/78/2016-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 262/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2018.

[No. L-12012/78/2016-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 262/2017

Shri Devi Lal Prasad S/o Shri Duryodhan Prasad,

Represented by

Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union(Regd.) 46 – Nehru Market (Patera), Badarpur, New Delhi -110044

…Workman

Versus

(i) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Opp. Tughlakabad Metro Station, Badarpur, New Delhi 110044

(ii) M/s. Federal Security Service Pvt.

522, 5th Floor, Inder Prakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-12012/78/2016-IR(B-I) dated 22.09.2017, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 referred an industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication with the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, opposite Tughlakabad Metro Station, Badarpur, New Delhi and M/s Federal Security Service Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of the workman Shri Devi Lal Meena with effect from 19.08.2014 is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled to and from which date?"4326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party 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 party/ies involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Devi Lal Meena opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant as well as the management. Neither the postal article, 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 from the proceedings and 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 management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, claimant is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. 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.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : May 17, 2018

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 973.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ंटलाइन ;एनसीआरद्ध बिजनेस सॉल्यूशंस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 67/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2018-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2018.

[No. L-12025/01/2018-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 67/2016

Date of Passing Award – 1st May, 2018

Between :

The Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., N4/186, IRC Village, Nayapalli, Near Usthi Hospital, Bhubaneswar – 751 215

…1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Kartika Chandra Pradhan, S/o. Dhruba Charan Pradhan, At. Ramvilla, PO. Borikina, Ps. Balikuda, Dist. Jagatsinghpur – 754 110 …2nd Party-Applicant

Appearances:

None                             …       For the 1st Party-Management
Shri K.C. Pradhan                …       For Himself the 2nd Party-Applicant

AWARD

This is an application under sub-section 2 & 3 of section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "The Act") preferred by the applicant, Shri Kartika Chandra Pradhan, son of Dhruba Charan Pradhan P.S. Balikuda, Jagatsinghpur for a direction to the Opp. Party-Management of M/s. Frontline (NCR) Business solutions Pvt. Ltd. to reinstate him with all back wages and other service benefits.

2. The case of the applicant, as revealed from his statement of claim, is that he was appointed as a Facility Attendant on 23.11.2013 and directed to perform his duty as a Security Guard at HDFC Bank, Vivekananda Marg, Bhubaneswar. After joining he performed all his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty to the best satisfaction of his employers. In the month of August, 2015 he was directed to work at HDFC Bank at Keonjhar. He availed leave from 01.11.2015 to 07.11.2015 for illness of his mother. On 08.11.2015 when he reported to his duty, the Operational Manger did not allow him to resume his duty and verbally informed him that his service was already terminated. As he was not served with any notice pay and retrenchment compensation prior to such refusal of employment, he raised a dispute before the A.L.C.(C) in view of he worked for more than 240 days continuously in a twelve months calendar year preceding to his refusal of employment. According to him his juniors are still continuing in service. As conciliation proceeding failed and a certificate in this regard was issued to him by the A.L.C.(C) without taking any initiation for referring the dispute to the Tribunal, he is compelled to prefer the application resorting to the provisions of sub-section 2 and 3 of Section 2-A of the Act.

3. As the Opp. Party-Management did not appear and contest the claim inspite of sufficiency of notice, he has been set exparte. The applicant-workman has examined himself as A.W.-1 and filed copy of the deployment order dated 23.11.2013, copy of the representation of the workman to the Central Labour Commissioner, copy of the letter of the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar dated 24.2.2016, copy of the certificate issued by the A.L.C.(C) on dated 27.6.2016 and copy of the I-Card issued to the workman in support of his pleadings advanced in his statement of claim.

4. As per his unchallenged and uncontroverted statement filed in form of sworn affidavit he was appointed on 23.11.2013 by the Opp. Party-Management to perform the duty of security guard at HDFC Bank, Vivekananda Marg, Bhubaneswar. According to him he continued to work as such in different branches of the HDFC Bank including the branch at Keonjhar after his appointment. He availed leave on 01.11.2015 to 07.11.2015 for illness of his mother. On 08.11.2015 when he reported to his duty he was refused employment. According to him he was engaged continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding to his alleged refusal of employment. He has asserted that he was not provided with notice pay or retrenchment compensation prior to his alleged disengagement. Such disengagement being in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, he is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. He has also stated that persons engaged subsequent to him are continuing in service. There is no reason to disbelieve his unchallenged and uncontroverted sworn statement. On the other hand, the documents filed by him more particularly the deployment order, Ext.-1 allegedly issued by the Opp. Party-Management supports his version. That apart, perusal of other documents like copy of the complaint letter issued to the labour machinery and notice issued by the labour machinery to the Opp. Party-Management, the certificate issued by the labour machinery and the copy of the I.D. card allegedly issued by the Opp. Party-Management are lending credential to his statement. In the above premises, there is no other alternative than to reaching a conclusion that the applicant workman was employed by the Opp. Party- Management with effect from 23.11.2013 to work as a Security Guard in the branches of the HDFC Bank and he was in continuous service till he was refused employment with effect from 08.11.2015 without being paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Thus, his disengagement amounts to retrenchment in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He is stated to be not in gainful employment after his retrenchment. That being the fact the Opp. Party- Management is required to reinstate him with all back wages and other service benefits.

Hence, it is ordered that, the applicant workman be reinstated with immediate effect along with all his back wages and service benefits within two months of the publication of the award failing which, the applicant is entitled to receive interest at a rate of 8% on the wages and benefits to which the applicant is entitled to receive. Copy of this award be sent for publication in the official gazette as per the rules.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding officer4328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 974.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण

एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 54/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/16/2013-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 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 14.06.2018.

[No. L-41012/16/2013-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

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 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. 27.08.2010 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. 12.8.16 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.

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 दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 975.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण

एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 132/1992द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/106/91-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/1992) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-4331 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2018.

[No. L-41012/106/91-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 132/1992

Between –

President, Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress, 2/236 Namner, Agra-282001.

And

Divisional Railway Manager (P), Central Railway, Jhansi-284001.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-41012/106/91/IRDU dated 06.11.92, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the railway administration of Mathura Junction in not regularizing the services of Sri Dhamendra Singh, alias Dharmendra Singh son of Sri Dangal Singh, Ex-MRCL and also terminating his services w.e.f. 01.08.89 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

3. The case of the worker in short is that he was in continuous employment under the management of Central Railway since 19.04.78, and during the period 28.04.87 to 30.07.89, while posted under Station Master, Farah, Mathura he worked at the post of APM (MRCL), the management discontinued the services of the worker with effect from 01.08.89, without issuing any charge sheet, without making any payment with regard to retrenchment compensation, without any notice or notice pay. He was medically fit. It is alleged that his colleague employees were made permanent in the employment of the railway and when he demanded for his regularization and bonus, the employers became annoyed and ultimately he was removed by the employers. It is also alleged that the employer had not taken back the workman in the employment in terms of letter no. P/161/O/OP/Screening/Recruitment dated 05.09.89 that was issued to T.I. Mathura.

4. It is also alleged by the worker that the management after his disengagement from the services of the railway had given regular and permanent appointment to S/Sri Phool Singh son of Nekram, Pooran Singh son of Laxman Singh, Ativeer Singh son of Sri Sarnam, Singh. Radhey Shyam son of Nathuram, on the basis of award rendered by this Tribunal in this way the management has violated the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After disengagement, the worker and his family members are at the stage of starvation mainly for the reasons that he is jobless and in this context a notice dated 21.11.89 was also sent to the railway administration but no action was taken on it by the railway administration.

5. The management has filed written statement in which the entire claim of the worker has been denied for want of proof. It is denied by the management that at any point of time he was disengaged from the railway service. The hard fact that remains is that the worker himself has left his job without any information and his claim in the manner and way as presented before this tribunal cannot be granted by this tribunal. By way of additional pleas it has been stated that the services of the worker had never been terminated with effect from 01.08.89 and it seems that the worker had taken employment on the basis of fake card and to cover the said flaw he has avoided to file any relevant documents and as such the worker is trying to seek such relief from this tribunal which under no circumstances can be granted in his favor. Since the claimant has not disclosed any particular about his employment and has himself absconded from the place of work and also not represented before the appropriate authority for granting status his claim brought before the tribunal is false bogus and fabricated hence is liable to be rejected.

6. Worker has filed rejoinder in the case but nothing new has been detailed therein except reiteration of the facts already pleaded in the claim petition.

7. It is pertinent to mention that in this case an award was passed ex-parte on 21.05.96 against the management. Thereafter the management has moved an application for recalling the order which was also rejected by my learned predecessor. Management has thereafter filed CMWP NO.8503/98 DRM versus PO, CGIT and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.02.08 set aside and quashed the ex-parte award dated 21.05.96 and the matter was remitted back to this tribunal for deciding it afresh.

8. On behalf of the worker Dharmendra Singh has been examined as w.w.1 and on behalf of the management M.W.1 Sri D.P. Meena working in personnel department has been examined.

9. Worker along with rejoinder has filed letter of Station Superintendent as Annexure-1, Service card of worker Annexure-2 showing details of engagement, annexure 2-A, medical certificate, Annexure 3, order granting bonus , annexure 4, Duty Pass annexure-5A and 5-B, Calculation chart of working days of worker, annexure 6, notice sent to the management, annexure 7, claim statement filed by union against DRM in I.D. Case no. 10 of 87, annexure 8, engagement of hot weather waterman, annexure 9, letter regarding filling of vacancies in group D annexure 10.

10. Worker has also filed application for seeking information under RTI paper no. 4/5-7 and its reply paper no. 4/10 trough list 39/2.

11. Opposite party management has filed copy of live register 34/2-18 through list 34/1 and has also filed letter regarding inquiry of worker and medical record of worker through list A/10.

12. I have heard the arguments of the authorized representative for the worker and none appeared for submitting arguments on behalf of the management. I have also perused the whole record carefully.

13. The case of the worker is that for the first time he was appointed under the management on 19.04.78 and continuously worked and during the period 28.04.87 to 30.07.89 he worked under Station Master, Farah, District Mathura and acquired the status of Monthly Rated Casual Labor (in short MRCL) and his services were discontinued with effect from 01.08.89, without any charge sheet, without any show cause notice and without making payment of retrenchment compensation and in this way the railway management has violated the provisions of 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas on the other hand the case of the management is that they never terminated the services of the worker and the worker has left the job of his own on 01.08.89 without any information and therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14. The worker in support of his case has examined himself and in his examination in chief he has deposed the version made by him in his claim petition by stating that he was appointed on 19.04.78 as casual worker and attained the status of MRCL on 20.07.87. He has further stated that he continuously worked during the period 28.07.87 to 30.08.89 and his original service card is with the department and whatever documents have been filed by him, the original of the same are in the custody of the department.

15. In his cross examination the worker has expressed his ignorance about the fact that any case was filed by him before Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi and it is also not in his notice whether any decision was given by the court or not. He has further stated that the letter that was sent from the office of DRM(P) in the month of Marcy, 87 was received by him, carbon copy of which has been filed by him and the same is on record and after receipt of the said letter he deposited entire original documents in the railway department. He does not remember that the department vide paper no. 20/9 had informed that his casual labor card is fake and forged. The witness of his own stated that there is difference between name Dharmend and Dharminder therefore, he has been asked to sit. The copy of the letter in which the above suggestion was given has not been filed by him. He further stated that he had never been informed that his service card is fake and bogus thereby he will be prevented from the service. Witness has further stated that after sending the original card in March 97, he moved application and he cannot state that its copy has been filed or not. He denied the fact that after conducting inquiry, railway administration found his service card as bogus and forged and for this reason he was denied employment by the railway administration.

16. Management witness Sri D P Meena in his examination in chief has stated that as per record no person by the name of Dharmend alias Dharmender Singh was found working under the Station Master Farah either during the period 19.04.78 to 28.4.87 and on 30.07.89. He has further stated that no person by the above name was retrenched on 01.08.89. The documents that were deposited by the worker on verification were found bogus, fake and forged.

17. In his cross examination the witness has clearly stated that whatever deposition is made by him is on the basis of documents. Witness has admitted in his cross examination that the muster roll of the period during which the worker is alleged to have worked under the railway has not been filed. Witness has the fact that casual labour4333 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 card no. 11888 was issued by Sri M K Gupta working in the railway. There are several matters in which on inquiry service cards were found bogus and those have been ceased. On a specific question put before the witness that whether any record has been filed with regard to the service cards found fake witness replied that the record is on the file. Witness has also denied the fact that any card in the name of worker was ever ceased. He has also stated that records are preserved for 10 years thereafter they are destroyed. The witness has half heartedly stated that the services of the worker were not terminated rather worker had left the job of his own accord in the year 1989. The witness has admitted that a casual labor who had worked continuously for 120 days are given status of MRCL and when any worker is converted from DRCL to MRCL his medical examination is done. Witness has expressed his ignorance about the fact as to whether worker was ever medically examined or not.

18. From the pleadings of the parties, evidence oral and documentary it is clearly established that the worker was employed by the railway administration as casual labor and subsequently he attained the status of MRCL. Whereas the case of the worker is that he was illegally retrenched from the service of the railway, the case of the management is that on 01.08.89, the worker himself has absconded from the service without any information. Even this fact has also been admitted by the management witness in his cross examination.

19. It contended by the authorized representative for the worker that when the worker had attained the status of MRCL and had left the job willingly as pr management contention, it was incumbent upon the management to have conducted a detailed inquiry and ought to have issued notice to the worker asking therein that he is absconding from the service without any information and he should report for his duty by such and such time otherwise he will be subjected to disciplinary action and not taking any action would entail the action of the management as illegal and in breach of the provisions of rules of natural justice. It is also contended by the authorized representative for the worker that the railway management has not filed any documents to show that any inquiry regarding absence of the worker was conducted at any point of time.

20. The authorized representative for the worker on the above point has placed reliance of a decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (103) FLR 102 in the case of NICKS (INDIA) TOOLS AND RAM SURAT AND ANOTHER, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under-

21. "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records we notice that the

factum that the workman was in the service of the management till 22nd of April, 1993 is not disputed.

While the workman contends that his service from that day were wrongly terminated. The appellant

contends that the workman voluntarily left the service of the appellant. Since the respondent workman

was in the service of the appellant management at least up to the 2nd of the April, 1993, the burden of

proving ha he voluntarily left the service then falls on the appellant of proving that he voluntarily left the

services then falls on the appellant management."

22. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are analogous to the facts and circumstances of the case decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, the law cited by the authorized representative for the worker applies to the case in hand with full swing.

23. It is also contended by the authorized representative for the worker that the action of the management in terminating the services of the worker is punitive and he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006, Supreme Court Cases (L&S) between Hari Ram Maurya versus Union of India and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Termination of service if punitive, inquiry therefore, mandatory-held even though appellant is a temporary employee his services cannot be terminated on charge of bribery without holding an inquiry and hereafter acting in accordance with law. In the present case also worker is alleged to have absconded from service without any information with effect from 01.08.89, therefore, his termination from the service without inquiry is punitive and without conducting inquiry by the management termination of the service of the worker cannot be justified being in violation of rules of natural justice.

24. The worker has also pleaded violation of the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In his pleadings and in his evidence the worker has stated that he continuously worked during the period 24.08.87 to 30.07.89 and his services have been terminated with effect from 01.08.89 by the management without complying with the provisions of the Act. The management witness half heartedly has admitted the working of the worker by stating that the worker himself left the job on 30.07.89 and also that Sri M K Gupta an employee of the railway has issued casual labour card no. 11888 on behalf of railway. Therefore, in the light of above evidence of management witness it is established that the worker had worked continuously for more than 240 days and it is so the railway administration was highly obliged to comply with the provisions of 25F of the Act, and admittedly it has not been complied with by the railway administration by paying the worker one month's notice, notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation. Thus it is proved that the action of the railway administration in breach of provision of section 25F of the Act.

25. The worker has also stated in his pleadings and in his evidence that he attained the status of MRCL from daily rated casual labor on 28.07.87 which fact has not been denied by the management either in its pleading or evidence. Hence it is proved by the worker that he was granted temporary status by the railway administration much before his termination from the service of the railway. Even from the documents filed and proved by the worker it is proved that he was in the employment of the management as claimed by him.

26. Therefore, having concluded that the worker was in the employment of the railway, worker having attained the status of MRCL and also that the railway has badly breached the provisions of section 25F of the Act, hence the action of the railway administration of Mathura Junction in terminating the services of Sri Dhanmender Singh alias Dharmendra Singh son of Sri Dangal Singh Ex-MRCL w.e.f. 01.08.89, is neither legal nor justified.

27. So far as question of regularizing the services of the worker is concerned no observation by this tribunal can be given as it is the sole prerogative of the management to consider regularization of the worker in the service of the railway administration. However, railway administration is directed to consider the case of the worker for his regularization within six months from the date of publication of the award.

28. Accordingly it is held that the worker is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the railway administration w.e.f 01.08.89 on the same status and pay that was drawn by him but he will not be entitled for any back wages because in his pleadings though the worker has pleaded that he is out of employment but in his evidence he has failed to prove that he was never gainfully employed any where else. He shall also be deemed to be in continuous service of railway administration.

29. Reference is accordingly decided in favor of the worker and against the railway administration.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 976.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडसलैंड बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 30/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14. 06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2018-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Induslnd Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2018.

[No. L-12025/01/2018-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 30/2017

BETWEEN :

Sri Shashi Karan Nath Singh S/o Shri Shiv Karan Nath Singh R/o 227, Samar Vihar Colony, Alambagh, Lucknow-226005 (UP)

AND

1. The Managing Director,

Induslnd Bank Ltd., Corporate Office 8th Floor, 1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai-400 0134335 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 2. Head Human Resources, Human Resources Dept.

Induslnd Bank Limited 8th Floor, 1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai-400 013

3. Head Employees Relations, Human Resources Dept.

8th Floor, 1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai-400 013

4. Regional Head, Branch Banking

Induslnd Bank Ltd. Plot No.628/10A, Khasra No.594/3 Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-2260016

5. Mr. Prakash Thacker, Enquiry Officer/Zonal HR

Partner-Banking Branch 8th Floor, 1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai-400 013

AWARD

1. The workman Sri Shashi Karan Nath Singh has filed petition under Section 2A of the I.D. Act., mentioning therein that he was appointed on 27.09.2012 in the establishment of the opposite party, on the post of Dy Vice President. The applicant has asserted that although nomenclature of Dy. Vice President was given, yet he was never vested with any powers like managerial, administrative or supervisory, rather his nature of duties was purely clerical and operational. Subsequently he was promoted to the post Dy. Vice President-II and later on Regional Head, Operational. It is alleged in the claim statement W-1 that the employees working in the establishment of the opposite party are being given such nomenclature of post so that they may be ousted from the perview of the "workman" and such employees may not take the shelter of Labour Laws such as I.D. Act., etc. The employees are being intentionally deprived of the benefits provided under the Labour Laws and Gratuity laws.

2. It has further been alleged in the claim statement that charge sheet dated 23.12.2016 was issued against the petitioner which was served on him on 26.12.2016, an enquiry officer was appointed hurriedly. The workman submitted his reply and refuted all the allegations, presenting officer was appointed, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer and requested to provide relevant documents and the Defence Representative. It was communicated to the workman there is heavy pressure from the side of the management to conclude the enquiry on the same day and formalities were observed by the Enquiry Officer, and Enquiry Officer persuaded that he would only get minor punishment viz. warning or censure. In such circumstances the petitioner did not cross examine the management witness, after conclusion of the enquiry show cause notice dated 09.01.2017 was issued, the reply was submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner emphasized that he had never accepted the charges leveled against him. Separation and exit Interview Information was given through E-Mail etc. An order of punishment dated 24.3.2017 was passed and opposite party imposed the punishment of dismissal from the service of the bank without any notice. No independent witness was produced before the eenquiry officer. Hence principle of natural justice was not followed. The concerned workman was not provided opportunity to cross examine the material witness.

3. The petitioner has alleged that the law laid down by the Hon Supreme Court in several cases has not been followed by the management, under compelling circumstances the workman approached to RLC ( C ) Lucknow through an application under Section 2A of the I.D. Act., cognizance was taken by him notice was issued to the employer. The management did not attend the proceedings before the RLC ( C ), Lucknow, in the mean while an E-Mail was sent to the workman regarding pending dues etc. Having no other alternative the workman sought permission to file the case before this Tribunal. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made to set aside the order of punishment dated 24.3.2017, reinstating him with all consequential benefits including full back wages etc.

4. The management has filed written statement M-4, with denial of the allegation leveled in the claim statement. The opposite party has asserted that the petitioner was employed in the managerial and supervisory capacity and he is not covered under the definition of the "workman". The opposite party has requested that applicant is not entitled to any relief.

5. During the proceeding before this Court the workman has moved an application W-5 dated 29.11.2017 expressing his wish to withdraw the case from CGIT, Lucknow. The management has endorsed his no objection on this application. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length and record has been scanned thoroughly.

6. The workman mentioning his designation as Dy. Vice President/Regional Head, has claimed that managerial, administrative or supervisory powers were not vested on him. Dismissal order dated 24.3.17 has been challenged. The management has asserted that the petitioner is not covered under the definition of "workman". However, since the petitioner himself has expressed his desire to withdraw the case, no relief can be granted to him. Accordingly the petition W-1 as being not pressed, is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

7. Award as above.

LUCKNOW 30.01.2018

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2018

का.आ. 977.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 50/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.06. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/30/2013-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2018

S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.06.2018.

[No. L-41011/30/2013-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

I.D. 50/2013

Reference No. L-41011/30/2013-IR (B-I) Dated: 4.10.2013

The President Ajmer Jila Asangathit Shramik Sangh 306/34, Gurjar Tilla, Nagara, Ajmer.

V/S

The Divisional Personnal Officer North western Railway Divisional Office Ajmer.

For the applicant : Sh. R.C.Jain, Representative.

For the non-applicant : Shri L.P.Singhal, Advocate.

AWARD

17.4.2018

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 North west Railway, Ajmer in not providing free pass,

P.T.O. facility, re-payment of tution fees to the family of workman Shri Rajesh Bhart is legal and

justified? To what relief she is entitled?"

2. The case was called for several times. None responds for the applicant side. Advocate for opposite party is present.

3. The schedule which has been referred by Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya dated 4.10.2013 indicates that the facilities demanding free pass, P.T.O. facility, repayment of tuition fees to the family of workman Rajesh Bharti does not come within the jurisdiction of this tribunal because the statement of claim has been submitted by the wife of the workman Rajesh Bharti who has been shown working as Station Master, Railway Singawal, Distt: Ajmer. The so called workman Rajesh Bharti is still working as Station Master & he has deserted his wife alongwith her/his children & has not been maintaining his wife & children but Rajesh Bharti has not raised the aforesaid dispute regarding aforesaid reliefs.

4. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the 'workman' as under:-

"(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person----

(i) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) , or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employees of a prison, or

(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ( ten thousand rupees) per mensem oir exercises, wither by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."

5. The statement of claim submitted by wife of Rajesh Bharti indicates that Rajesh Bharti is a Station Master who cannot be a workman u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act because first he has been holding a managerial/supervisory post & has also been drawing more than Rs.10,000/- as per the pay commission with a grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Wife of Rajesh Bharti who is claiming her rights through his husband cannot come to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court because first her husband must be the workman as per the definition of the section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Secondly she has a matrimonial dispute with her husband before the whole dispute come to the jurisdiction of the Family Court or if the management of the Indian Railway does not provides such facilities to the applicant wife of Rajesh Bharti than she may straight way go to the Central Administrative Tribunal as her husband's service matter can only be adjudicated in Central Administrative Tribunal.

6. Reference is not maintainable in this tribunal & liable to be disposed off as not maintainable.

7. Award as above.

PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 978.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 20/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/05/2013-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी4338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2018.

[No. L-12012/05/2013-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/20/2013

Date: 10.05.2018

Party No.1 : The Asstt. General Manager

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region-III, S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway, Nagpur- 440 001.

V/s.

Party No.2 : Sh. Dnyandeo Nivrutti Patil,

R/o. 40, Bigha Deshmukh Nagar, Malkapur, Distt. Buldhana (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 10th May, 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 State Bank of India and their workman, Shri Dyandeo Nivrutti Patil, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/05/2013-IR (B-I) dated 21.05.2013, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India to discharge Shri Dnyandeo Niwrutti

Patil from the service is legal and justified? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to? And

whether the quantum of punishment imposed upon him is proportionate to the misconduct so alleged?

If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Dyandeo Nivrutti Patil, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of State Bank of India ("party no.1" in short) filed the written statement.

3. Workman filed a statement of claim by asserting that he was appointed as a clerk and transferred at Malkapur Branch in 07.09.1994. He also mentioned that his appointment was on compassionate ground because his father was died in service of SBI.

Management decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him and charge sheet was issued on 09.10.2003. According to the workman enquiry was conducted by bank, enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority punished him on 14.01.2008 as discharged from the service and applicant was removed from the service on 28.01.2008. He files an appeal on 01.03.2008 which was dismissed.

According to the workman the departmental enquiry was conducted against him was not legal, fair and proper, because enquiry officer and branch manager are friends to each other and enquiry officer was biased and prejudice to him so the enquiry officer has not considered the evidence produced on his behalf as his defence. He also asserted that judgment of enquiry officer is full of bias and entire report is perverse. He also prayed that the order of termination will be set aside and he prayed for the reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

4. Management filed the written statement on 12.02.2014 and denied all material facts by asserting that charge was fully proved and full opportunity was granted in conduction of departmental enquiry. Bank was also asserted that4339 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 charge sheet, report, show cause notice and punishment was given properly. Workman appeared before the disciplinary authority to present his case through his defence representative. Disciplinary authority heard the workman and his defence representative at length on the point of punishment. According to the management appellate authority passed a proper judgment. According to the management his termination is just and proper so he is not entitled to any relief.

5. Both parties admitted that workman was appointed as clerk and posted at Malkapur Branch, District Buldhana. It is also admitted that charge was framed on 09.10.2003 and workman was terminated from services on 14.01.2008. It is also admitted that workman was governed by Shastri and Desai award and bipartite settlement.

6. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 23.03.2018, the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

7. On behalf of workman it was argued that the punishment was disproportionate. It was also argued on behalf of the workman that, branch manager falsely called complaint from Mr. Laxminarayan Sharma by falsely promising loan or cash credit. He also argued that, charge levelled against the workman is vague and the workman was pressurized and dishonestly pursued it not to make complaint against the workman. According to the workman, complaint was made by deceipt and falsehood but document Exhibit W-VIII and IX show a different defence as stated in the statement of claim. So, this argument is not sustainable in my view.

8. On the contrary, on behalf of the management it was argued that all charges against the workman was duly proved and bank imposed punishment of dismissal without notice as per service condition applicable to the workman. He also argued that judicial review had limited scope for the Tribunal and Tribunal did not act as appellate court. He relied on the following case laws:-

Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda 1989 SCC (L&S) 303, Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan 1998 (4) SCC 310 1998 LIC 2514, SBI Vs. Bela Bagchi 2005 SCC (L&S) 940 and Syed T.A. Vs. Naqshbandi Vs. State of JK 2003 SCC(L&S) 1151= (2003) 9 SCC 592, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemichand, Civil Appeal No. 5861 of 2007, SC dated 01.03.2011, Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Hotilal, HP RTC Vs. Hukumchand 2009 2 SCC (L&S) 615, Mihir Kumar Hazara Vs. LIC (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 875, Deputy Commissioner Vs. J. Hussain (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833 and SBI Vs. Samarendra Kishore 1994 SCC (S&S) 687, in which following legal principles are laid down:-

i. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.

ii. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquires, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a Tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations.

iii. When a court is considering whether punishment of 'termination from service' imposed upon a bank employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor.

iv. That having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment.

v. Legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.

vi The position in our country, in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the courts/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority.

vii. Court interfered with the punishment only after coming to the conclusion that the punishment was in outrageous defiance of logic and was shocking.

viii. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.

ix. Misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud, and further held fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in lending a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood.

x. If the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same.

xi. "Having regard to the seriousness of the charges coupled with virtually…………………………

punishment of dismissal was proportionate to misconduct warranting no leniency"

xii. "Merely because in opinion of Court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with discretion of departmental authorities".

xiii. "Supply of copy to the charges employee-Cases where punishment was imposed ……………….. Non- supply of the copy to the respondent held on facts, did not invalidate the enquiry".

9. Now I will discuss the evidence with reference to the argument of the workman. Workman in para no. 16 and 18 of his statement, admitted that, charge sheet was received on 09.10.2003 and he filed reply on 13.12.2003 by letter Exhibit W-7, in which, he admitted that, he know Mr. L.S. Sharma and he had given money for depositing in RD account and furnished the entry on pass book and by mistaken, he had forgotten to deposit the money in RD account at the same day. He has also accepted that, Mr. Sharma gave him Rs. 4000/- due to relationship.

10. The workman in para 21 also admitted that, he received second show cause notice alongwith the copy of the departmental enquiry report but he did not submit any reply to that show cause notice. He was also given an opportunity for personal hearing. He also filed an appeal against the punishment, which was dismissed.

11. On this admission management counsel relied on the following case law:- Chairman & Managing Director V.S.P. Vs. Gopal Raju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 311 and Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Vs. Hukumchand (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 615 in which it was held that (1) "Held, detailed enquiry need not be held- Penalty based on respondent's admission that he unauthorisedly absented, was valid in view of the Evidence Act, 1872, S.58". (2) "Employee's own admission of misconduct- Enquiry in such an eventuality, held not necessary- Administrative Law – Natural justice".

12. On the perusal of the record it appears that the departmental enquiry was conducted properly and sufficient opportunity was given to the workman on behalf of the management. In my opinion there was no legal defect in the departmental enquiry.

13. As far as quantum of punishment is concerned it is well settled that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority being the fact finding authority. So this Tribunal is not an appellate authority i.e. Tribunal will only play secondary roll while the primary judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority. It is also clear from the above case law that jurisdiction of the Tribunal is very limited and its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is also limited. It is also laid down in the case law that Tribunal cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. It is also laid down that the superior court only in some cases invoke doctrine of proportionality if decision of an employer is found within the legal parameter, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when misconduct stand proved.

14. 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 of the punishment of dismissal passed against the workman from services with superannuation benefits i.e. (P.F/Gratuity as would be due otherwise under Rules and Regulations prevailing at the relevant time without disqualification for future employment as per Para 6 (d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 for Workmen staff as per document Exhibit W-III). Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of State Bank of India to discharge Shri Dnyandeo Niwrutti Patil from

the service is legal and justified. The quantum of punishment imposed upon him is proportionate to the

misconduct so alleged. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer4341 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 979.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रेयस ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 80/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20. 06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/48/2012-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Shreyas Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2018.

[No. L-12011/48/2012-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

ID No. 80 of 2013

Shri R P Singh Member WC, UP Bank Workers' Organization, 3/13, Mathura Nagar.

VS

The Chairman, Shreyas Gramin Bank, Head Office, Diggi Road, ALIGARH(U.P)-202001

AWARD

1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-12011/48/2012-IR (B-1) dated 20.06.13, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the management of Shreyas Gramin Bank, Aligarh has discriminated the provisions of Regional Rural Bank (Officers & Staff Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 2010 by recruiting and promoting the officers/staff in the Bank in accordance with old Rules, 1998 even after existence of the New Rules? And if so, what action would be proposed against the management to provide relief to affected candidates."

3. In short the case set up by the union is that the management in supersession of earlier rules regarding Appointment and Promotion of officers and employees, Rules, 1998, has framed (Appointment and Promotion of officers and employees) Rules, 2000 which was duly notified by the Government of India in its official gazette dated 13.07.2010. The Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting dated 29.09.2010 has adopted these rules. It is also alleged that the Chairman, Shreyas Gramin Bank in its circular dated 25.09.2010 has clearly mentioned that these rules have come into force from the date of their publication and it is therefore, clarified that any further recruitment and promotion shall be conducted as per these rules. It is also alleged that in the existence of Rules 2010, Rules framed in the year 1998 has lost its significance. The Chairman of the bank to fulfill his personal interest by invoking the rules framed in the year 1998 which is said to be not in existence in an illegal manner, has taken an illegal decision and issued a circular dated 10.02.11 which has adversely affected the interest of employees and officers of Shreyas Gramin Bank. Union has also cited certain provision of Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees Rules, 1998 and 2010. It is also stated that the management before Hon'ble High Court has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated as to how recruitment and promotions of the officers and employees is to be done on the basis of post assessed by the management which smacks with biasness and malafide intention of the management. Management has appointed and promoted the4342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] officers and employees in the bank on whimsical grounds according to Rules 1998, which is illegal and non-est in the eye of law, therefore, and on the basis of above it has been prayed that the officers and employees those have been promoted in accordance with Appointment & Promotion of officers and employees, Rules, 1998 instead of Appointment & Promotion of officers and employees, Rules, 2010, being illegal is liable to turned down.

4. Manageme has filed their reply in which it is alleged that Shreyas Gramin Bank is sponsored bank of Bank of India and Canara Bank and now is known as Gramin Bank Aryavart. Central Government is the appropriate authority to frame the rules regarding appointment and promotion in Regional Gramin Banks in consultation with the sponsor bank and NABARD and according the Government of India in exercise of powers under section 29 of RRB Act, framed appointment and promotion rules 2010 by superseding earlier rules framed in the year 1998 and the same were published by the Government in the Gazette of India dated 13.07.10. The management has categorically denied the averments made by the union in paragraph no.1 to 7. As per guide line issued by the Government, bank made manpower assessment for creation of vacancies as on 31.03.10 and submitting the same for vetting by the sponsor bank which was approved by the sponsor bank vide letter dated 08.12.2010. On the basis of communication issued by the Government of India, it was clarified that the vacancies which existed prior to the publication of new rules would be filled as per rules which existed at the relevant time, the sponsor bank advised to fill up the vacancies as per promotion rules 1998 and the matter was put up before he Board which permitted to fill up the vacancies as pr Promotion Rules 1998, as the vacancies existed on 31.03.2010. It is also stated that the Board ma in consultation with its sponsor bank determine the number of vacancies in each category of posts to be filled up. After clearance by Board, the management started appointment and promotions of officers and employees category wise to fill up the vacant post and after holding written test and interview for promotion to Officer Grade I list of successful candidates were communicated by circular no.39/11. The selection of candidates was made strictly as per provisions of appointment and promotion rules 1998.

5. Lastly it is alleged that the action of the management is in accordance with the provisions of appointment and promotions of officers and employees rules 1998, and no illegality has been committed by the management, therefore, it is prayed that the claim of the union being devoid of merit is liable to be rejected.

6. Union has not filed rejoinder.

7. Management has filed photocopies of 8 documents per list dated 20.02.18, whereas no document has been filed by the union in support of its case.

8. None appeared on behalf of worker to submit arguments; I have heard the AR for the worker & perused the record.

9. It is pertinent to mention that by a bare perusal of the entire record it is evident that as no evidence in support of the claim petition has been adduced by the union, management also preferred not to lead any evidence as it is the claimant union who is highly burdened to prove its case by adducing material and relevant evidence as is required under law and since the union has completely failed to discharge their obligation to prove their claim, the reference is bound to be answered against the Union holding that the union is not entitled for any relief for want of evidence and proof.

10. There is yet another aspect of the matter to be considered by the tribunal. From the pleadings of the union it is amply clear that on the basis of assertion made by it, the union is seeking the relief for cancelation of their promotions and appointment against those selected and promoted employees of the bank who were promoted by invoking the Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees, Rules 1998, but the union has not made them a party to the present dispute. It is settled legal position that courts are not empowered to grant any relief to a party against a person who had not been made a party to the dispute. Therefore, from this angle also the reference is liable to be answered against the Union holding that the union is not entitled for the relief which has been claimed by it.

11. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the above terms against the Union and it is held that the union is not entitled for any relief.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 980.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक4343 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 100/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/26/2012-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.06.2018.

[No. L-12012/26/2012-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI

ID No. 100/2013

Shri Jagdish P Kanojia, K.G. I/535, Vikaspuri, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager(Operation), Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for adjudication vide letter No.L-12012/26/2012-IR(B-I) dated 21.06.2012 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the following terms:

'Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, New Delhi in imposing the penalty of removal from service upon Shri Jagdish Prasad Kanojia vide their order dated 17.08.2004 instead of accepting his resignation dated 13.11.2002 and in not paying terminal benefits to him is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled ?

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant reference are that Shri Jagdish Prasad Kanojia (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) joined services with State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the management ) on 22.07.1980 from Sports Quota as he was a national level football player. Claimant later on suffered injuries and was under treatment during the period 2001-02. Surprisingly, without considering anything in empathy, treated the claimant on unauthorized absence from duties and was ordered to join duties immediately. Claimant was under depression and he was serve with charge sheet dated 06.07.2002. Due to his ill health the claimant was not in a position to get assistance from his union or any other official of the bank. Verbal assurance was given by the Disciplinary Authority through officials of the union to take a lenient view of the matter in case his resignation is submitted by the claimant to the management. He was also assured that terminal benefits after acceptance of his resignation. Resultantly, his resignation was submitted by the claimant and the same was not later on accepted and it was stated that enquiry proceedings are pending against the claimant on account of his unauthorized absence. Thereafter, the claimant again made a request for reconsideration of his resignation retrospectively but it was of no use. However, claimant was not in a position to either to attend the enquiry or to attend his duties. His request remained unattended. Finally, the claimant received order dated 17.08.2004 removing him from service with effect from 03.05.2001. Pension of the claimant was not settled. Finally, a prayer ha been made by the claimant to set aside the departmental proceedings as well as his order of removal.

3. Management has contested the case by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections have been taken that the reference is hopelessly time barred as the claimant was removed from serviced on 03.05.2001 and reference was raised belatedly in 2013. On merits, the management has denied most of the averments and it has been alleged that charge sheet dated 06.07.2002 for his unauthorized absence was issued to the claimant . No assurance was given by the4344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Assistant General Manager regarding acceptance of resignation or for payment of terminal benefits to the claimant. Commensurating with the gravity of misconduct, claimant was imposed punishment of 'removal without notice' in terms of Bipartite Settlement vide orders dated 17.08.2004. Claimant has not made any reference against the enquiry report or orders of the Disciplinary Authority and he tendered his resignation on 13.11.2002 when the departmental enquiry was pending against him. His resignation was not accepted by the competent authority Finally, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the reference.

4. Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether enquiry conducted against the claimant was just, fair and proper?

(ii) Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

(iii) As in terms of reference.

5. Issue No.(i) was treated as preliminary issue as it elated to the departmental enquiry. Both parties were granted opportunity to adduce evidence. However, only the claimant has filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and affidavit of Ms.Radha Kanojia, Ex.WW2/A and Shri Kanojia, WW1 also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4. I shall be referring to these document during the course of my discussion. Management has not adduced any evidence in support of the allegations contained in charge sheet dated 16.07.2002. Record of the case shows that the management was accorded several opportunities to adduce evidence but management failed to put in its appearance and hence management was proceeded ex-parte on 07.03.2017. Thereafter, the said order was set aside by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2017. Despite setting aside of the previous order, more than six opportunities were granted to the management to bring evidence on the domestic enquiry and finally Shri Inderjit Singh, vide his statement dated 17.01.2018 stated that the management does not want to adduce evidence on the preliminary issue and would like to straightaway advance arguments on the preliminary issue. It is pertinent to note here that during pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, the claimant Shri J.P. Kanojia expired and application was made before this Tribunal for bring on record legal heirs of Shri Kanojia, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.2018. Before his death, Shri J.P. Kanojia , the claimant herein, entered the witness box and was examined as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also relied on certain documents.

6. The main question before this Tribunal is whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the claimant herein which finally resulted in his removal vide order dated 17.08.2004 is fair and has been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice or not. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that copy of charge sheet has not been filed by the management, much less the proceedings of the enquiry.

7. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed any reply to the charge sheet and claimant has categorically stated that an assurance was given to him by the senior officials of the bank that in case he tenders his resignation, he would be paid all his terminal benefits, including his pensionary benefits. It was also urged that the management has backed out of its promise and taking undue advantage of the position of the claimant has passed order of 'removal from service' against him.

8. Shri Inderjit Singh, A/R for the management urged that since the claimant has not participated in the enquiry proceedings nor filed any reply or tendered any evidence during the course of domestic enquiry, as such allegations made in the charge sheet stands proved. It has been fairly conceded by the learned A/R for the management that proceedings of enquiry has not been filed on court record, however, report of the Enquiry Officer has been filed on record. It was further submitted that resignation was submitted on 13.11.2002 by the claimant. However, the same was not accepted by the competent authority in view of the pendency of the domestic enquiry against the workman. Finally, order of 'removal from service' was passed against the claimant on 13.08.2004. Learned A/R for the management has conceded in all fairness that no show cause was served on the claimant.

9. Now, the main question which arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner and the same is in consonance with principles of natural justice. Apparently, the claimant has not participated in the departmental enquiry and everything has been done by the management at behind the back of the claimant. However, law is clear that even if a delinquent official has been proceeded ex-parte by the management in the departmental proceedings, still it is incumbent upon the management to prove the charges leveled against the delinquent official as required under the law. Even if an employee refuses to participate in the enquiry, the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him but he must hold an ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led. I find support to this view of mine in the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein it is held as under:

"An inquiry Officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to ne a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to4345 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case, the aforesaid has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined, the documents have not been proved and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.'

10. To buttress his submissions, the A/R for the management relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs S.M.I. Kazim (2001) LLR 825 and J.P. Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank (1996) LLR 92. I have carefully gone through both the judgements relied upon by the management. Ratio of the above rulings is not applicable to the controversy on hand merely because the claimant has not participated in the enquiry or the proceedings were held ex-parte in the domestic enquiry would not mean that the charge sheet served on the claimant stands ipso facto proved. As discussed above, management is required to adduce evidence in view of the ratio in Saroj Kumar Sinha case (supra).

11. In the case on hand, management has not examined the Enquiry Officer or any other official so as to prove the domestic enquiry. To my mind, merely because the claimant herein has not joined the domestic proceedings, that would not mean that allegations against the claimant stands proved. Claimant had given his resignation vide letter dated 15.06.2004 Ex.WW1/3. Thereafter, as is clear from letter Ex.WW1/4, the Assistant General Manager recommended that resignation of the claimant be accepted in terms of para 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Proceedings dated 10.04.2002. Ex.WW1/2 is the letter of the Enquiry Officer wherein copy of enquiry report was forwarded to the claimant for making his representation/submission, if any on the same. It is clear from perusal of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer that the claimant was not present during the course of enquiry though registered letter was sent to the claimant after launching of the proceedings against him. However, the enquiry report is silent as to who were the witnesses who were examined so as to prove the allegations made in the charge sheet served on the claimant. Enquiry Officer has blindly accepted the allegations made in the charge sheet for the simple reason that the claimant has not participated in the departmental proceedings. As discussed above, it was incumbent upon the management to have prima facie to have proved the allegations contained in the charge sheet, as required under the law. Further, it was also imperative to have examined management witness so as to prove unauthorized absence of the claimant during the relevant period.

12. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored. Management has admittedly not filed record of proceedings of enquiry before this Court. Management has also not examined any witness before this Tribunal though several opportunities were given to the management. Resultantly, evidence adduced by the claimant remains un- rebutted. There is considerable force in the submissions raised on behalf of the claimant that due to submission of his resignation, he was given an impression that the same would be accepted by the competent authority and terminal benefits would be paid to him. It is not out of place to mention here that the claimant has now expired on 17.03.2018 and is survived by his wife Ms.Radha Kanojia, and daughters Ms.Varsha Kumar & Ms.Ritu Kumar.

13. It has been held in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs. Priti Singh (2018) Lab.IC 1437 and Kanga Co- operative Bank vs Seema Sharma (2018) LLR 231 that examination of the Enquiry Officer or any other employee who is familiar with the enquiry proceedings is essential so as to prove the allegations of misconduct against the employee. If the Enquiry Officer or any other employee has not been examined as a witness to prove the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry proceedings in that eventuality are liable to be set aside. In the above case, management has in fact examined the Presenting Officer who was not considered to be an independent witness and his evidence was held to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Situation in the case in hand is even worse. Management has not examined any independent official or the Enquiry Officer or any other witness so as to prove the domestic enquiry conducted against the claimant. In such a situation, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to set aside the domestic enquiry conducted against the claimant. Net result of the above discussion is that the management has failed to prove the misconduct contained in the charge sheet served on the claimant. It is held that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner and the same is held to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

14. I have also gone through the written statement filed by the management in the above case. Management has not reserved any right to adduce evidence on merits in case findings on the domestic enquiry goes against the management. Admittedly, in the present case the claimant has expired on 17.03.2018 and no useful purpose would be served even if permission is granted to the management to adduce evidence on the misconduct/charge sheet framed against the claimant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Vs. Lakshmidevamma & Another (2001) 5 SCC 433 that when domestic enquiry has been conducted by the management and the management relies upon the same, it is open to the Tribunal to treat validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue. Management is also entitled to adduce evidence before this Tribunal in case findings on the preliminary enquiry ultimately goes against the management. However, such a right is to be reserved by the management in its reply/pleadings and in case right has not been reserved in the reply filed by the management, in that eventuality, request is to be made at the earliest possible opportunity to the Tribunal before conclusion of the proceedings qua the domestic enquiry. Since in the present case when arguments were heard, neither any official of the4346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management nor A/R for the management has appeared, which clearly shows the lackadaisical interest of the management in conduct of the case. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the view that the management cannot be given the right to adduce evidence on merits. As discussed above, no application has been moved on behalf of the management to adduce evidence and neither the authorized representative nor any official of the management has made such a request till date. In the case on hand Issue No.2 pertains to the fact as to whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct. To my mind, this issue now pales into insignificance inasmuch as this Tribunal has held the enquiry to be unfair and against the principles of natural justice. Since the management has not reserved its right to adduce its evidence on merits in case findings on preliminary goes against the management, in such a situation, even otherwise, there is no question of granting opportunity to the management to further adduce evidence on issue No.(2), which has become virtually redundant.

15. As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing penalty of 'removal from service' vide order dated 17.08.2004 upon the claimant herein is held to be illegal and against the provisions of the Act. As such, the said order of 'Removal from Service' is hereby set aside. It is held that the claimant is entitled for all terminal benefits which would have accrued to him had he been alive and in service. 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 : May 24, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 981.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या शु(िपत्रा एलसी 94/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. Corrigendum LC 94/2009) 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 19.06.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 26th day of April, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 94/2009

Between :

Sri Ramchetti Srinivas, S/o Rajamouli, R/o 17-3-261/1, Dwarakanagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,4347 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 Goleti-I incline, Bellampally, Adilabad

…Respondent Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :     M/s. P. Sudha & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates
For the Respondent     :     Sri S.M. Subhani,  Advocate

CORRIGENDUM

The award was passed on 14.12.2017 and was published in the official gazette vide notification File No. L-22013/01/2018-IR(C-II)) dated 18.1.2018.

Due to oversight, the name of the Petitioner was wrongly typed as "Sri K. Narsinga Rao"

Instead of,

"Sri Ramchetti Srinivas" five times

at 2nd page-1st Para-1st Line; at 5th page-6.I para-3rd line;

at 8th page-9th para-4th line; at 8th page 10th para-2nd line and

at 9th page-1st para of the "ORDER"-3rd line

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 982.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 95/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 95/2008) 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 19.06.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 25th day of April, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 95/2008

Between :

Sri Chilukala Rajendra Prasad, S/o Rayamallu, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner4348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District

2. The Dy. General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., MK-4 Incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District …Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner    :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent    :     M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Chilukala Rajendra Prasad who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/857 dated 7.2.2008 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler on 25.9.1990 and he was confirmed as Coal Filler in the year 1996. He was regular to his duties till the year 2004. But during the year 2005 Petitioner met with a road accident, due to which his collar bone and fingers fractured, and as such he could not able to work for 44 days during the year 2005. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 13.5.2006 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2005, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/857 dated 7.2.2008. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2005, was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 18 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management till his dismissal. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. MMR/PER/D/072/857 dated 7.2.2008 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 25.9.1990 as a Badli Filler and subsequently he was regularized as Coal filler with effect from 1.9.1995. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry4349 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. Order passed holding the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents as legal and valid, on dated 15.3.2011.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their claim.

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

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Chilukala Rajendra Prasad is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill health because of accident and other family problems of the Petitioner, he could not be able to regular in his duty, remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 42 years, he is now aged about 52 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to the court at the age of 50 years to work under the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service in order to save his family members. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked about 18 years under the Respondents. 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 of the Petitioner 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 Chilukala Rajendra Prasad 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 Chilukala Rajendra Prasad is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

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

ORDER

Proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/857 dated 7.2.2008 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Chilukala Rajendra Prasad be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman 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 the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining 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 25th day of April, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 983.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 85/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 85/2008) 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 19.06.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer4351 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 25th day of April, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 85/2008

Between :

Sri Mukkera Gangaish, S/o Laxmaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District

2. The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kalyanakhani No. 2 Incline, Kalyanakhani, Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner    :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent    :     M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Mukkera Gangaiah who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. MMR/KK2/G-035/525 dated 20.2.2003 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler in the year 1981 and he was promoted as Coal Filler in the year 1982. He was regular to his duties till the year 1999. But during the year 2000, the Petitioner suffered with ill health, as his son was kidnapped by unidentified persons, due to which the Petitioner scared and went on roaming in search of his son. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 5.8.2001 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2000, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/KK2/G-035/525 dated 20.2.2003 . It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2000, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 21 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management till his dismissal. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any4352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. MMR/KK2/G-035/525 dated 20.2.2003 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 22.3.1981 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 23.7.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their claim.

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

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Mukkera Gangaiah is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill health and other family problems of the Petitioner, he could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 40 years, he is now aged about 50 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to the court to work in the mines at the age of 50 years. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement4353 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 into service in order to save his family members. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked 21 years under the Respondents. 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 Mukkera Gangaiah 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 Mukkera Gangaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

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

ORDER

Proceeding No. MMR/KK2/G-035/525 dated 20.2.2003 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Mukkera Gangaiah 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 the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining 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 25th day of April, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL4354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 984.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 59/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 59/2007) 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 19.06.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 26th day of April, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 59/2007

Between :

Sri Md. Abdul Kareem, S/o Md. Ismail, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RG-I Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GDK-5A Incline, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner    :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent    :     M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Md. Abdul Kareem who worked Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking to declare proceeding dated 16.1.1995 issued by the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential4355 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940 benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially joined the services of the Respondents' company on 28/29.9.1994 under compassionate grounds by the 1st Respondent and was instructed to report before the 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, the Petitioner reported before the 2nd Respondent and performed his duties to the best of his ability. However, all on a sudden, without issuing any notice or without affording any opportunity of being heard the Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd Respondent vide order dated 16.1.1995. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the managements did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order dated 16.1.1995 issued by the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 28/29.9.1994 as a dependant of his father Sri Md. Ismail, Ex-M & R mazdoor, Auto workshop, Bellampalli Area who retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on health grounds. Accordingly, the Petitioner reported on 3.10.1994 with the relevant terms and conditions of appointment order which runs as follows:

"Accordingly, you are hereby appointed as Badli Filler on piece rated wages against absenteeism

vacancies of Fillers at Gdk No.5A Incline with immediate effect. You will be shown work as and when available

at Gdk No.5A Incline. This does not confer any right on job in the company. You have to attend to Gdk No.5A

Incline daily to find out work in place of permanent fillers who are temporarily absent.

In case your work, attendance and conduct are found to be unsatisfactory, your services are liable for

termination."

The Petitioner had reported for duty on 3.10.1994 and worked only nine days during the period 3.10.1994 to 31.12.1994. His work and attendance were very poor. Hence, as per terms and conditions of the appointment order he was terminated from the services of the Respondents' company vide order No.Gdk/5A/95/2R/133 dated 16.1.1995. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. Either the Petitioner or the Respondent have not adduced evidence.

5. I have already heard from the parties in this matter.

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

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md. Abdul Kareem is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: The Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was initially joined in the service of the Respondent company on 28/29.9.1994 under compassionate grounds by 1st Respondent and was instructed to report before the 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, the Petitioner reported before the 2nd Respondent and performed his duties there. He also submitted that the Petitioner performed his duties to the best of his ability. But, all on a sudden, without issuing any notice or without affording any opportunity of being heard the Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd Respondent vide order dated 16.1.1995. He also contended that the dismissal of the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically but the Respondents' management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order dated 16.1.1995 issued by the Respondents is as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same.

8. On the other hand, the advocate for the Respondent while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter argued that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 28/29.9.1994 as a dependant employee of his father Sri Md. Ismail, Ex-M & R mazdoor, Auto workshop, Bellampalli Area who retired under Voluntary Retirement4356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Scheme on health grounds. Accordingly, the Petitioner reported on 3.10.1994 with the following relevant terms and conditions of appointment order, "you are hereby appointed as Badli Filler on piece rated wages against absenteeism vacancies of Fillers at Gdk No.5A Incline with immediate effect. You will be shown work as and when available at Gdk No.5A Incline. This does not confer any right on job in the company. You have to attend to Gdk No.5A Incline daily to find out work in place of permanent fillers who are temporarily absent. In case your work, attendance and conduct are found to be unsatisfactory, your services are liable for termination." He further argued that in view of the above conditional order of appointment, the Petitioner had reported for duty on 3.10.1994 and worked only nine days during the period from 3.10.1994 to 31.12.1994. The work and attendance of the Petitioner were very poor. Hence, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order the Petitioner was terminated from services of the Respondents' company vide order No.Gdk/5A/95/2R/133 dated 16.1.1995. He also contended that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and needs no interference.

9. On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides it is noticed that the Petitioner has no where stated how many days he worked in the office of the Respondents' management. He has only mentioned that he performed his duties to the best of his ability. It is not known how he justified his work that he performed his duty to the best of his ability. When the Respondents' have clearly stated that during the period from 3.10.1994 to 31.12.1994, the Petitioner has only worked for 9 days it means in between 3 months, the Petitioner has only worked for 9 days. Further no where the Petitioner has stated that during the above period, he was not assigned any duty to perform. If the Petitioner has worked for only 9 days within a period of three months how he justified himself that he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of his authority. In fact another aspect needs to be noted. The Petitioner was a young man and a new entry to the Respondents' organization. Regard being heard to his age and experience in the work place, it was expected of him to maintain discipline act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct can not be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. The Petitioner has been given appointment with a conditional order i.e., in case his work, attendance and conduct are found to be unsatisfactory, his services are liable for termination. In the instant case when the Petitioner has worked only for 9 days within a period of three months, it is obvious to say that the work of the Petitioner was not satisfactory and he has been rightly terminated from services. If such type of workmen will be allowed to work in an organization, it management can not be flourished. In such a circumstances, it can safely be held that the management has rightly passed the order for the termination of the Petitioner. Thus, the action of the management is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md. Abdul Kareem.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I it has already been stated that the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md. Abdul Kareem is legal and justified. In view of the above findings, the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement into service and also not entitled for any other relief.

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

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md. Abdul Kareem is legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL4357 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 23, 2018/आषाढ़ 2, 1940

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 985.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 45/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 45/2008) 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 19.06.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 25th day of April, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 45/2008

Between :

Sri Parvatha Srinivas, S/o Parvatha Lingaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Area, Bellampally, Adilabad District

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Goleti No.1 Incline, Bellampally Area, Bellampally, Adilabad District …Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner    :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent    :     Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao,  Advocate

AWARD

Sri Parvatha Srinivas who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/3585 dated 25.12.2007 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler in the year 2005. During the year 2006 the Petitioner and his family members fell sick due to Chiken Guniya, Knee Pains and other family problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 12.1.2007 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2006, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. BPA/PER/129/3585 dated 25.12.2007. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2006, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 1½ years continuous service in the Respondents' management till the date of his dismissal. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. BPA/PER/129/3585 dated 25.12.2007 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 18.10.2005 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 8.9.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their claim.

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

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Parvatha Srinivas is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill health and other family problems of the Petitioner, he could not be able to regular in his duty, remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed on the Petitioner. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 25 years, he is now aged about 35 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to the court at the age of 25 years to work under the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in order to save his family members. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked under the Respondents. 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 Parvatha Srinivas is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Parvatha Srinivas is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

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

ORDER

Proceeding No. BPA/PER/129/3585 dated 25.12.2007 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Parvatha Srinivas be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman 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 the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining 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 25th day of April, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer4360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2018/ASADHA 2, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2018

का.आ. 986.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 18/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.06.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/255/2007-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum Award (Ref. No. 18/2008) 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 19.06.2018.

[No. L-22012/255/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL

PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 2008

PARTIES :

The management of Dabour Colliery of M/s. ECL

v/s

Shri Naresh Tiwary

REPRESENTATIVES :

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

For the Union (Workmen) : Shri Gaya Prasad Mal, Learned Union Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

DATED : 04.06.2018

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/ 255/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 12.05.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol for rectification of date of birth of Sri Naresh

Tiwari, Clerk is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled? "

1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/255/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 12.05.2008 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 18 of 2008 was registered on 22.05.2008. 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 representatives.

2. The workman has alleged in his written statement that he joined Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on 29.01.1973. His age was recorded as 24 (Twenty Four) years in 1973. Though his appointment was made on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate in which his date of birth was recorded as 05.08.1950. The workman Shri Naresh Tiwary inadvertently signed the B-Form of the colliery without pursuing the wrong entry regarding his date of birth. The workman raised his objection before the management as soon as he came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth as recorded in C.M.P.F. records. The management accepted the claim of the workman and constituted a committee to examine the case of the workman, Shri Naresh Tiwary. The said committee submitted its report in favour of the workman, Shri Naresh Tiwary. A Note Sheet No. C-6/120/P-480 dated 01.03.2006 was initiated by the colliery management for taking necessary approval to correct the date of birth of the workman as per Matriculation Certificate. But the matter was kept pending for a long period and the workman was forced to superannuate prematurely. The workman has prayed that the Tribunal may kindly direct the management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to rectify the workman's date of birth in company's record and to pay his wages and other consequential benefits for the period arising out of his premature superannuation.

3. The Agent of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his written statement that demand of the union for rectification of date of birth of the workman Shri Naresh Tiwary is not justified. It appears form record that Shri Naresh Tiwary joined the service on 29.1.1973. In statutory Form 'B' of the colliery his age is recorded as 24 (Twenty Four) years as on 1973. Shri Naresh Tiwary after perusing the entry affixed his signature. In the year 1987 a service excerpt was issued to him quoting almost all the dates including the age entered in the records, seeking comments. But Shri Naresh Tiwary did not make any objection in respect of his age. The workman Shri Naresh Tiwary got ample opportunity during his long span of service to get correction of age. But he remained silent for period of over 3 (Three) decades. The dispute is of Civil nature and not an Industrial Dispute. The demand of the union - Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol for rectification of age of Shri Naresh Tiwary cannot be considered.

4. The workman has filed the following documentary evidence :-

(i) Photocopy of the Matriculation Certificate, (ii) Photocopy of the Mark Sheet of Matriculation Examination, (iii) Photocopy of the Admission Card for the Matriculation Examination, Photocopy of Identity Card of the workman issued by the Colliery, (iv) Photocopy of the document from CMPF dated 05.01.1993, (v) Photocopy of the Character Certificate from High School, (vi) Photocopy of the observation report of the committee member, (vii) Photocopy of the I. I. No. 76 of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry.

The workman Shri Naresh Tiwary has filed affidavit in his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned advocate of the management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

The management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any documentary or oral evidence.

5. I have heard the arguments of Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate on behalf of the Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Shri Gaya Prasad Mal, learned advocate on behalf the workman Shri Naresh Tiwary.

6. Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate on behalf of the Dabor (R) Colliery has argued that at the time of entry the age of workman is recorded as 24 years as on 1973 in Form 'B' Register and other records. After long period of service at the time of retirement he cannot raise the dispute for correction of his age. He is not entitled to any relief. On the other hand Shri Gaya Prasad Mal, learned advocate of the workman Shri Naresh Tiwary has argued that at the time of entry in service he has already passed Matriculation Examination. As per Matriculation Certificate his date of birth is 05.08.1950 but management wrongly recorded his date of birth. On his representation a committee was constituted by the management. The committee recommended the correction of age as per Matriculation Certificate but the management did not accept the recommendation of his own committee. His date of birth ought to have been corrected, he has been prematurely retired which is illegal.

7. The guide line regarding determination of the age at the time of appointment has been laid down in The Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry No. CIL/WCWA-III/I.I.No.76/88/185 dated 25.04.199 which is as follows :-

" Matriculates: In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date

of birth recorded in the said certificates shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered

under any circumstances.

Review / determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees : (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 the 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. "

8. The workman has filed copy of his Matriculation Certificate. As per Matriculation Certificate his date of birth is 05.08.1950. He has passed the high school in the year 1967. He has joined the service in the year 1973. Therefore it is manifest that at the time of joining the service the concerned workman had already passed the Matriculation Examination. Therefore ignoring the Matriculation Certificate and recording wrong date of birth is unjustified. The committee constituted by the management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has recommended that :-

"As per 'B' Form Sl. No. 26 his age / dated of birth is 24 years as on 1973. The candidate produced original

Madhyamik Certificate certifying age / Date of Birth is 05.08.1950 issued by Bihar Bidyalaya Pariksha Samiti.

As per I. I. 76 the age recorded in S. R. Certificates is to be accepted so in this case his Date of Birth as per

School Certificates i.e. 05 August Nineteen Hundred Fifty may be accepted."

9. The workman has alleged in his oral evidence that he passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1967. He joined the Coal Company on 29.01.1973. He got recorded his date of birth in the original and statutory Form and Register which is Exhibit- 2. His date of birth was correctly recorded as 05.08.1950 in the records of C.M.P.F. which is Exhibit- 3. In the year 1987 the copy of service record was served on him. Entry of his date of birth was wrong. He raised the objection regarding his incorrect date of birth. The management constituted the committee who submitted the report in favour of the workman. The management initiated a Note Sheet being No.- C-6/RO/P480 dated 10.03.2006 for taking necessary approval for correction of date of birth.

10. Form perusal of evidence of the workman it is apparent that he raised the dispute regarding incorrect date of birth in the year 1987. But management did not pay any heed to the objection of the concerned workman. It is surprising that in Identity Card issued by the management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited which is Annexure- B the date of birth of the workman Shri Naresh Tiwary is recorded as 05.08.1950.

11. The management Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited cannot deny the rightful claim of the workman Shri Naresh Tiwary. The management has erroneously recorded wrong date of birth. The management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not followed its own circular letter which laid down the parameter for determining the age at the time of appointment. Even management of Dabor (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not implemented the report of committee which has been constituted by the management itself.

12. In view of above discussion the demand of Koyala Mazdoor Congress for rectification of date of birth of Shri Naresh Tiwary, Clerk is legal and justified. The workman Shri Naresh Tiwary is entitled for correction of date of birth in company's record as per his Matriculation Certificate i.e. 05.08.1950. The workman has been wrongly superannuated. He is entitled for his wages and other consequential benefits arising out of his premature superannuation.

O R D E R

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

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.