4411 GI/2018

(5039)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 31]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 5—vxLr 11] 2018] '[email protected] 14—Jko.k 20] 1940

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 5—AUGUST 11, 2018, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 14—SRAVANA 20, 1940

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 8 अगत, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1167

1167

1167.—भारतीय िनयात-आयात बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (ड.) के

उपखंड (i) के अनुसरण म!, के"#ीय सरकार, एत%ारा, सु&ी रीता ए. तेवितया के थान पर वािण*य िवभाग म! सिचव, &ी अनूप वधावन

(आईएएस - यूके: 1985) को त3काल 4भाव से, अगले आदेश6 तक भारतीय िनयात-आयात बक (एि8जम बक) के िनदेशक म:डल म!

िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]

सौ=यिजत घोष, अवर सिचव

5040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1167.—In pursuance of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import

Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Sh. Anup Wadhawan (IAS – UK :

1985), Secretary, Department of Commerce as Director on the Board of Director of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM

Bank) vice Ms. Rita A. Teaotia with immediate effect until further orders.

[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]

SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

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

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tqykbZ] 2018

dk-vk- 1168.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k

25½ dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk 1 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½

foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k &8 lh-ch-vkbZ-&80&10@2018&6537@x`0vk0 la[;k fnukad 26 tqykbZ 2018 efgyk ¼eqtÝQjiqj½

Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 33@2018 fnukad 31@05@2018 /kkjk 120¼ch-½@376@34 Hkk- n- fo- ,oa 4@6@8@10@12 ikWDlks ,DV]

tks lkgq jksM] eqtÝQjiqj fLFkr ckfydk x`g esa vkokflr ckfydkvksa ds lkFk ekufld] 'kkfjfjd ,oa ;kSu 'kks"k.k ls lacaf/kr

izdj.k ,oa iz;Ru] nqLiszj.k vkSj "kM~;a= rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd;s x;s vFkok mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr fdlh vU;

vijk/k dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/kdkfjrk dk foLrkj laiw.kZ fcgkj

jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@34@2018&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2018

S.O. 1168.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department, vide Notification No. 8/C.B.I 80-10/2018-6537/HP dated 26 July,

2018 hereby extends powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of

the State of Bihar to investigate/supervise and inquire into the Mahila (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No. 33/2018 dated

31.05.2018, u/s 120(B), 376, 34 IPC and 4/6/8/10/12 POCSO Act related to mental, physical and sexual exploitation of

girl children residing at Children Home situated at Sahu Road, Muzaffarpur and any other offence/offences committed in

the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/34/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दली, 1 अग त, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1169

1169

1169.—dsUnzh; सरकार दंड 4?या संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) Fारा 4GH शिIय6

का 4योग करते Jए &ी दK य * योित दास और टूटूमिण देव गो वामी, अिधव8 ताM को आसाम बम N ला ट मामले के संबंध म! और िवशेष

" यायालय, कामQप (एम) गोवाहाटी के समR सैशन मामला, 2011 का संT यांक 59(के) Qप म! रिज Uकृत, दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन

(सीबीआई) Fारा संि थत मामला संT यांक आरसीडीएसटी2008एस2003 से 0011 म! अिभयोजन और उ8 त सैशन मामले म! उ3 प" न

अपील, पुनरीRण और कारवाइय6 का दली िवशेष पुिलस थापन (सीबीआई) क ओर से संचालन करने के िलए िनयुि8 त क तारीख से

तीन वष क अ विध या मामले के िनपटान, जो भी पहले हो, िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक6 के Qप म! िनयु8 त करती है।

[iQk- la- 225@08@2018&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5041

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1169.—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 Dibyajyoti Das and Shri Tutumoni Deva

Goswami, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of case Number RC/DST/2008/S/2003 to

0011, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI), pertaining to the Assam Bomb Blast case and

registered as session case Number 59(K) of 2011, before the Special Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, Assam, and appeals,

revisions or other proceeding arising out of the said session case, on behalf of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(CBI), for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/08/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ च

उ च

उ चतर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग

तर िशा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग)

नई द ली, 31 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1170

1170

1170.—के" #ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय 4योजन6 के िलए 4योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप िनयम

4 के अनुसरण म!, मानव संसाधन िवकास मं[ालय (स् कूल िशRा एवं साRरता िवभाग) के अंतगत िन= निलिखत कायालय6 को, ऐसे

कायालय6 के Qप म!, िजनके 80 4ितशत से अिधक कमचारी-वृ" द ने िह" दी का कायसाधक ^ान 4ा_ त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है:-

क!#ीय िव`ालय बूंदी, गेट नं. 3 नैनवा रोड, बूंदी (राज थान)

क!#ीय िव`ालय ?मांक 7 जयपुर, के.औ.सु.ब. 61, कुंडा रोड, जयपुर- 302028

क!#ीय िव`ालय हनुमानगढ़ (जं8 शन) – 335001

क!#ीय िव`ालय आई.आई.टी. जोधपुर एन.एस.- 65 नागौर रोड करवड़ आईआईटी कै= पस

जोधपुर – 342037 (राज थान)

क!#ीय िव`ालय सीयूराज, बांदर bसदरी राc Uीय राजमाग- 8

तहसील कशनगढ़, िजला अजमेर, राज थान – 305817

क!#ीय िव`ालय नागौर, Fारा - राजकय बािलका उd च 4ाथिमक िव`ालय, eाम पंचायत

भवन के पास, ताउसर रोड, नागौर – 341001 (राज थान)

क!#ीय िव`ालय जैिस" धर, गाँव - जैिस" धर टेशन,

तहसील- गडरा रोड, िजला- बाड़मेर

क!#ीय िव`ालय जालोर, िशवाजी नगर, जालोर – 343001 (राज थान)

क!#ीय िव`ालय दौसा, लालसोट रोड़, दौसा - 303303 (राज थान)

10.

क!#ीय िव`ालय संगठन, Rे[ीय कायालय, रायपुर,

(क!#ीय िव`ालय नं. 02 पfरसर, सै8 टर-IV)

पंिडत दीनदयाल उपाg याय नगर, रायपुर (छ3 तीसगढ़) - 492010

5042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

क!#ीय िव`ालय पांढुणा, = युिनिसपल बोjडग भवन, पांढुणा

िजला- bछदवाड़ा, मg य 4देश - 480334

12.

क!#ीय िव`ालय अमरकंटक, इं.गाँ.रा.ज.िव.िव. पfरसर,

लालपुर, अमरकंटक, मg य 4देश - 484886

13.

नवोदय िव`ालय सिमित, Rे[ीय कायालय, चंडीगढ़ - 160032

14.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, अलीगढ़, उ3 तर 4देश - 202141

15.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, अंबेडकर नगर, उ3 तर 4देश – 224235

16.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, बिलया, उ3 तर 4देश - 221701

17.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, बलरामपुर, उ3 तर 4देश – 271201

18.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, बांदा, उ3 तर 4देश – 210001

19.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, गािजयाबाद, उ3 तर 4देश – 245304

20.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, लखनऊ, उ3 तर 4देश – 226008

21.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, महाराजगंज, उ3 तर 4देश – 273303

22.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, िमजापुर, उ3 तर 4देश – 231309

23.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, पीलीभीत, उ3 तर 4देश – 262201

24.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, संत कबीर नगर, उ3 तर 4देश – 272164

25.

जवाहर नवोदय िव`ालय, बागेm वर, उ3 तराखंड – 263641

[फा.सं.11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

संजय कुमार िस" हा, संयु8 त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2018

S.O. 1170.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have

acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bundi, Gate No. 3 Nainva Road, Bundi (Rajasthan)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 7, CISF, 61, Kunda Road, Jaipur – 302028

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5043

Kendriya Vidyalaya Hanumangarh (JN) - 335001

Kendriya Vidyalaya IIT Jodhpur, NH-65, Nagaur Road, Karwar IIT Campus

Jodhpur – 342037 (Rajasthan)

Kendriya Vidyalaya CURAJ, Bandar Sindri, NH – 8 , Tehsil- Kishangarh

Dist. Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305817

Kendriya Vidyalaya Nagaur, C/o Govt.Girls Upper Primary School

Near Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Tausar Road, Nagaur – 341001 (Rajasthan)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Jaisindhar, Village - Jaisindhar Station,

Tehsil - Gadra Road, Distt- Barmer

Kendriya Vidyalaya Jalore, Shivaji Nagar

Jalore – 343001 (Rajasthan)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Dausa, Lalsot Road, Dausa- 303303 (Rajasthan)

10.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Raipur,

(Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Campus Sector - IV)

Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492010

11.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Pandhurna, Municipal Boarding Building,

Pandhurna, Distt.- Chhindwara Madhya Pradesh - 480334

12.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Amarkantak, IGNTU Campus Lalpur, Amarkantak,

Madhya Pradesh - 484886

13.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Chandigarh-160032

14.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202141

15.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 224235

16.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh - 221701

17.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh - 271201

18.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banda, Uttar Pradesh - 210001

19.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 245304

20.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226008

21.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh - 273303

22.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh - 231309

23.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh - 262201

24.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 272164

25.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bageshwar, Uttarakhand - 263641

[F. No. 11011-2/2018-OLA]

SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.

5044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[kku ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1171-—dsaæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] [kku ea=kky; ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr djrh gS %&

1- ¯gnqLrku dkWij fyfeVsM] rykstk dkWij izkstsDV A

¹iQk- la- bZ&16031@2@2017&¯gnhº

vkyksd paæ] vk£Fkd lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF MINES

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1171.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office, under the Ministry of Mines, whose

more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

Hindustan Copper Limited, Taloja Copper Project

[F. No. E-16031/2/2017- Hindi]

ALOK CHANDRA, Economic Advisor

कोयला मंालय

नई द ली, 6 अगत, 2018

का

का.आ. . . . 1172

1172

1172.—के" #ीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक Rे[ (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) ( िजसे

इसम! इसके पm चात् उ8 त अिधिनयम कहा गया है ) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन भारत सरकार ने कोयला मं[ालय Fारा

जारी क गई अिधसूचना संT यांक का. आ. 2899 (अ), तारीख 7 िसत= बर, 2016, जो भारत के राजप[ के भाग ।।, ख: ड 3, उपख: ड

(ii), तारीख 8 िसत= बर, 2016 म! 4कािशत क गई थी, उस अिधसूचना से उपाबo अनुसूची म! िविनpदc ट पfरRे[ क भूिम म! िजसका

माप 42.01 हे8 टर (लगभग) या 103.81 एकड़ (लगभग) है, कोयले का पूवqRण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना दी थी ;

और के" #ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है क इस अिधसूचना से संलr न अनुसूची म! िविहत उ8 त भूिम के भाग म!

कोयला अिभ4ा_य है ;

इस अिधसूचना के अधीन आने वाले Rे[ के रेखांक संT यांक सी-I(ई) ।।।/जेजेजे/940-0618, तारीख 7 जून, 2018 का

िनरीRण कल8 टर, िजला चं#पुर (महाराs) के कायालय म! या कोयला िनयं[क, 1, काउंिसल हाउस Uीट, कोलकाता- 700 001 के

कायालय म! या महा4बंधक, वे टन कोलफ uस िलिमटेड (राज व िवभाग), कोल इ टेट, िसिवल लाई" स, नागपुर - 440 001

(महाराc U) के कायालय म! कया जा सकता है ।

इस अिधसूचना से संलv अनुसूची म! वwणत भूिम म! िहतबo xिI, उस तारीख िजसको राजप[ म! 4कािशत इस अिधसूचना

क 4ितयां जनता को उपलNध करा दी जाती है, से तीस दन के भीतर, संपूण भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम म! या उस पर

क"हz अिधकार6 के संबंध म! सRम 4ािधकारी क उI अिधिनयम क धारा 8 के अधीन िलिखत म! आRेप फाइल कर सकेगा;

और के" #ीय सरकार Fारा कोयला िनयं[क, 1, काउंिसल हाउस Uीट, कोलकाता-700 001 को भारत के राजप[, भाग ।।,

खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) तारीख 11 जून, 1983 म! 4कािशत का. आ. 2519, तारीख 27 मई, 1983 Fारा उI अिधिनयम क, धारा 3 के

अधीन सRम 4ािधकारी िनयु8 त कया गया है ।

अत:, अब, के" #ीय सरकार उ8 त अिधिनयम क धारा 7 क उप-धारा (1) Fारा 4द3 त शि8 तय6 का 4योग करते Jए, इससे

संलr न अनुसूची म! वjणत 42.01 हे8 टर (लगभग) या 103.81 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म! या उस पर के सभी अिधकार का

अजन करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5045

अनु

अनुसूची

सूची

साखरी-ईरावती (पौनी - ।।।) िववृत खान भाग - ।। (शेष Rे[)

ब लारपुर Rे[

िजला चं#पुर (महाराc U)

[रेखांक संT या सी-I(ई)।।।/जेजेजे/940- 0618, तारीख 7 जून, 2018]

सभी अिधकार :

?म

सं.

eाम का नाम

पटवारी

सpकल

संT या

तहसील

िजला

Rे[फल (हे8 टर म!)

कुल

fट_पिणयां

अिभधृित

सरकारी

वन

िहरापुर

(भाग – ।)

राजुरा

चं#पुर

28.25

भाग

bचचोली (खुद)

(भाग – ।)

राजुरा

चं#पुर

9.05

1.52

10.57

भाग

bचचोली (खुद)

(भाग – ।।)

राजुरा

चं#पुर

3.19

भाग

कुल :

37.30

4.71

42.01

कुल Rे[फल : 42.01 हे8 टर (लगभग)

या 103.81 एकड़ (लगभग)

भाग

भाग - ।

eाम िहरापुर के अwजत कए जाने वाले _ लाट संT यांक :

18, 19, 20, 21, 33, 40, 41, 42, 47/1- 47/2, 48, 49.

eाम bचचोली (खुद) के अwजत कए जाने वाले _ लाट संT यांक :

248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 271, सड़क, नाला ।

भाग

भाग - ।।।।।।।।

eाम bचचोली (खुद) के अwजत कए जाने वाले _ लाट संT यांक :

225 (सरकारी) .

सीमा

सीमा- वणन :

वणन :

भाग

भाग - ।

क – ख :

रेखा, eाम साखरी और eाम िहरापुर क सि= मिलत eाम पर िबन् दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और eाम िहरापुर से

होते Jए िब" दु 'ख' पर िमलती है ।

5046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ख – ग :

रेखा, eाम िहरापुर से होकर गुजरती है, फर eाम िहरापुर और bचचोली (खुद) क सि= मिलत सीमा के साथ-साथ

गुजरती है, उसके पm चात् रेखा eाम bचचोली (खुद) से होकर गुजरती है और िब" दु 'ग' पर िमलती है।

x & ?k %

js[kk] xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj ikSuh ukys dks ikj djrh gS ckn esa ikSuh ukys ds

fdukjs ls yxdj tkrh gS fQj ikSuh ukys dks ikj djrh gS vkSj ukys ds fdukjs ij fcUnq ‘?k’ ij feyrh

gSA

?k & M- %

js[kk] xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ ,oa xzke fgjkiqj dh lEfefyr

lhek dks ikj djrh gS fQj xzke fgjkiqj ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ‘M-’ ij feyrh gS A

M- & p %

js[kk] xzke fgjkiqj ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj xzke fgjkiqj vkSj lk[kjh dh lEfefyr lhek ij fcUnq ^p* ij

feyrh gS A

p & d %

js[kk] xzke fgjkiqj ,oa lk[kjh dh lEfefyr lhek ds lkFk&lkFk xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ‘d’ ij

feyrh gS A

Hkkx & AA

lhek o.kZu

N & t %

js[kk] xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ esa ikSuh ukys ds fdukjs ls fcUnq ^N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS fQj ikSuh ukys ds

fdukjs ls tkdj ikSuh ukys ds fdukjs ij fcUnq ^t* ij feyrh gS A

t&>&N %

js[kk] xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj fcUnq ^>* ds ikl ls yxdj xqtjrh gqbZ ikSuh ukys

ij vkjafHkd fcUnq ^N* ij feyrh gS A

[Qk- la- 43015@7@2018&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f’kjksef.k ljkst] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1172.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 2899

(E), dated the 7^th September, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 8^th September, 2016, the Central Government gave notice of

its intention to prospect for coal in 42.01 hectares (approximately) or 103.81 acres (approximately) of the land in the

locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification ;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said land described in

the schedule appended thereto;

The plan bearing number C-I(E)III/JJJ/940-0618, dated the 7^th June, 2018 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or in the office of the General Manager, Western Coalfields

Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra).

Any person interested in the land described in the schedule appended to this notification may, within thirty days

from the date on which copies of this notification published in the Gazette are made available to the general public, file

objection in writing under section 8 of the said Act to the competent authority with regard to the acquisition of the whole

or any part of the land or any rights in or over such land.

And whereas the Coal Controller,1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001 has been appointed the competent

authority under section 3 of the said Act by the Central Government vide number S. O. 2519, dated the 27^th May, 1983,

published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 11^th June, 1983.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire all rights in or over the land measuring 42.01 hectares

(approximately) or 103.81 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5047

SCHEDULE

Sakhari-Irawati (Pauni – III) Opencast Mine Part – II (Balance Area)

Ballarpur Area

District Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

[Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/JJJ/940- 0618, dated the 7^th June, 2018]

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area (in hectares)

Total

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Hirapur

(Part – I)

Rajura

Chandrapur

28.25

Part

Chincholi

(Khurd)

(Part – I)

Rajura

Chandrapur

9.05

1.52

10.57

Part

Chincholi

(Khurd)

(Part – II)

Rajura

Chandrapur

3.19

Part

Total :

37.30

4.71

42.01

Total area : 42.01 hectares (approximately)

or 103.81 acres (approximately)

Part – I

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Hirapur :

18, 19, 20, 21, 33, 40, 41, 42, 47/1- 47/2, 48, 49.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chincholi (Khurd) :

248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 271, Road, Nallah.

Part - II

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chincholi (Khurd) :

225 (Government).

Boundary description:

Part – I

A – B :

Line starts from Point 'A' on the common village boundary of villages Sakhari and Hirapur, then

line passes through village Hirapur and meets at Point 'B'.

B – C :

Line passes through village Hirapur, then passes along the common village boundary of villages

Hirapur and Chincholi (Khurd). Then line passes through village Chincholi (Khurd) and meets at

Point 'C'.

C – D :

Line passes through village Chincholi (Khurd) and crosses Pauni Nallah then passes along the bank

of Pauni Nallah, again crosses Pauni Nallah and meets at Point 'D'.

5048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

D – E :

Line passes through village Chincholi (Khurd), then line crosses the common village boundary of

villages Chincholi (Khurd) and Hirapur, then line passes through village Hirapur and meets at Point

'E'.

E – F :

Line passes through village Hirapur and meets at Point ‘F’ on the common village boundary of

villages Hirapur and Sakhari.

F – A :

Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Hirapur and Sakhari and meets at

starting Point ‘A’.

Part - II

Boundary description :

G – H :

Line starts from Point ‘G’ on the bank of Pauni Nallah in village Chincholi (Khurd) and passes

along the bank of Pauni Nallah and meets at Point ‘H’.

H - I - G :

Line passes through village Chincholi (Khurd) and passes nearby Point ‘I’ and meets at starting

Point ‘G’on bank of Pauni Nallah.

[F. No. 43015/7/2018- LA&IR)

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1173-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ nSrkjh

vk;ju vksj izkstsDV vkWiQ eSllZ vks-,e-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2002) dks çdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@3@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s. O.M.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-29012/3/2002-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 66/2002

Date of Passing Award – 22^nd June, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5049

Between:

The Management of the General Manager,

Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s. OMC Ltd.,

At./Po. Talapada, dist. Keonjhar

…1^st Party-Management

(And)

Their Workman, Shri Biranchi Prasad Jena,

Mali, Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s.OMC

Limited, Keonjhar

…2^nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

M/s. B.C. Bastia, Advocate

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise its authority conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 (herein-after referred to as “The Act”) have

referred for an adjudication of a dispute under the Act vide its Leter No. L-29012/3/2002-IR(M), dated 11.07.2002 and

the schedule of reference is “Whether the action of the management of Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s. OMC Ltd., in

terminating the service of Shri Biranchi Prasad Jena justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the disputant workman is that he was engaged by the 1^st Party-

Management as a gardener on daily wage basis for the period from 28.9.1995 to 31.7.2001 to maintain the garden of the

guest house and children park at Daitari. That apart, he was to work in the residential bunglow of the General Manager.

In such process of engagement he worked continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

Though, he used to work daily through-out the month to maintain the garden he was paid wages for less number of days

in a month than the actual days of work as wages on Sundays and other public holidays were not paid to him. He was

provided with a quarters belonging to the Management. Provident fund and E.S.I. contribution was deducted from his

wages and deposited by the Management. It is his claim that having worked for more than five years on daily wage basis

when he approached the Management for regularization of his service, the Management refused employment to him with

effect from 01.08.2001. Such a refusal of employment amounts to retrenchment. He was not paid notice pay and

retrenchment compensation when engagement was refused to him. As his engagement was continuous and uninterrupted

for more than 240 days in a twelve calendar months preceding to his disengagement and there was non-compliance of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, such refusal of employment/retrenchment is illegal, unjustified and unsustainable

in the eye of law. Hence, a dispute was raised before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), which ultimately leads to

the present reference.

In its written statement the Management has refuted the allegations denying all pleadings of the disputant

workman. Per contra it is the stand of the Management that the disputant was engaged as a contingent labour on

exigencies and his such engagement was occasional and intermittent. He was never engaged for full month and his

employment was not exceeded 240 days continuously in any calendar year during the period of his engagement. Since,

his engagement was purely on temporary and on need basis and it was in nature of casual daily labour for a period of

much less than 240 days in a year, there was no statutory requirements to comply the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Act while refusing engagement to a daily labour like him. It is, further, stand of the Management that when as a matter of

principle the work of gardening in the guest house and the children park was out-sourced through contractor, there was

no necessity for the Management to engage the disputant on daily wage basis. Since, such gardening in the guest house

and the children park is being out-sourced presently, there is also no scope for reinstatement or reengagement of the

disputant workman. Hence, prayer has been made for rejection of the claim statement.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

Whether the reference is maintainable?

Whether the action of the Management of Daitari Iron Ore Project of M/s. OMC Limited in terminating the

service of Shri Biranchi Prasad Jena is justified?

If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

It is pertinent to mention here that the reference case was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its award dated

29.4.2005 whereby the claim of the disputant workman was rejected on the ground that he had not worked continuously

for 240 days preceding to his disengagement. The workman filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa

vide W.P.(C) No. 9621/2005 challenging the award. The Hon’ble High Court while disposing the writ vide its order

5050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 22.3.2017 have set aside the impugned award and remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for its fresh adjudication

giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, in the matter. The observation made by the Hon’ble

High Court in the order relevant for the purpose of fresh disposal is as follows:- “Taking into consideration the

submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned award under Annexure-4,

it appears that learned CGIT discussing the materials available on record in threadbare disbelieved the

contention of the Workman petitioner to the effect that he had complete 240 days in a calendar year preceding his

termination. Learned CGIT mainly relied upon the wage register pertaining to Workman-petition and came to

the conclusion that the Workman-petitioner had not completed 240 days. He has not referred to any document

reflecting the attendance of the Workman-Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned award under

Annexure-4 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned CGIT for fresh adjudication of the

reference, giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence in the matter”.

In order to substantiate its claim the disputant workman has examined himself as W.W.-1 and he has relied upon

documents like application dated 18.8.2001 of the workman to the G.M. Daitari Iron Ore Project for re-engagement as

Mali, copy of the letter of G.M., Daitari Iron Ore Project dated 16.10.2001 addressed to the A.L.C.(C), Bhubaneswar,

copy of the year-wise working statement of the Dy. Manager (L.W.), Daitari Iron Ore Project, copies of E.P.F. slips of

the workman for different years, copy of the office order dated 6.6.1997 issued by the G.M. (P & A) OMC Limited and

copy of the certificate issued to the workman by Shri B.C. Das, Manager (Admn.) Daitari Iron Ore Mines of M/s. OMC

Limited, dated 31.7.1998 marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-5. He has not adduced any further evidence after remand of the

matter. The Management did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal before remand of the matter by the Hon’ble

High Court. But, the Management has examined its Senior Manager, Personnel as M.W.-1 and filed copy of the claim

application of the 2^nd party dated 16.10.2001, copy of the written statement dated 16.10.2001 filed by the 1^st Party-

Management before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar, copy of the work order/letter dated

8.8.2002 of the 1^st Party and copy of the agreement between the 1^st Party and the contract agency dated 10.12.2002 which

are marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-D after the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.

All the issues are taken up jointly for the purpose of convenience.

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions including in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala

Nigam Ltd., -versus- Mohammed Rafi Civil Appeal No. 2895/2009 that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show

that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman adducing cogent

evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wage earner, there will be no letter of

appointment or termination. There will also no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases the workman can only

call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment

or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would

depend thereafter on facts of each case. Mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/workman will

not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240

days in a given year. Keeping in view the above settled position of law if the evidence adduced by the workman is

scrutinized it is found that the disputant has not only relied upon his own assertion/self serving statements but he has also

relied upon a letter issued by the Management to Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) Ext.-2, copy of year-wise

working statement prepared by the Deputy Manager (LW), Daitari marked as Ext.-2/1 and E.P.F. Accounts slips marked

Ext.-3 series. In his oral testimony the disputant has categorically asserted that he joined as a Mali on daily wage basis in

the service in Daitary Iron Ore Project of the Management on 28.9.1995 by a verbal order of the General Manager. There

is nothing unusual in such statement to disbelieve him since, usually no appointment or written order is issued any

organization for engagement of a daily labour. That apart, the Management has not denied the engagement of the

disputant on a casual and daily wage basis. It is his specific stand that the workman had not completed 240 days

continuous and uninterrupted work in a twelve calendar months preceding to his disengagement. Indisputedly, documents

relied upon by the workman were admitted without objection of the Management. Moreover, these documents are the

copies of official correspondences of the Management. On a mere reading of Ext.-2 it is found that the Management had

admitted before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) that the disputant was paid full and final payment for actual

days of his engagement i.e. for the period from 28.09.1995 to 31.07.2001. As per the wage statement prepared by Deputy

Manager (LW) Daitary Ext.-2/1 the disputant was found to have worked for 145 days in between January, 2001 to July,

2001 and in between January, 2000 to December, 2000 he worked for 240 days. It emerges from the pleadings and

evidence of W.W.-1 that the disputant was not paid wages on the days he was not engaged. As per own assertion of the

disputant he was not paid wages on Sundays and other public holidays. This assertion is not specifically denied by the

Management either in its pleadings or in its evidence. If Sundays and other public holidays in which the disputant was

not paid wages are taken into consideration along with the fact emerging from Ext.-2/1 that the workman had worked for

145 days in between 1^st January, to 31^st July 2001 and 240 days in between 1^st January, to 31^st December, 2000, it can be

safely held that the workman was in continuous and uninterrupted service of the Management as defined under section

25-B of the Act.

Further, it cannot be over-sighted that in case of a labour being engaged intermittently or occasionally on

exigencies on daily wage basis there was no need on the part of the employer to deduct or to pay employees provident

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5051

fund contribution. Ext.-3 series discloses that the Management was making payment of provident fund contribution for

the disputant during the period of his engagement. If the disputant was not engaged casually or on daily wage basis

regularly for a continuous period, the Management was not expected to make payment of E.P.F. contribution. For the

discussions made above, the evidence adduced by the disputant workman is found sufficient to discharge his burden to

prove his continuous engagement of 240 days in a year. That apart, nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross

examination to disbelieve his claim that he worked for 240 days continuously in a twelve calendar months preceding to

his disengagement. When there is overwhelming evidence to suggest the continuous engagement of the disputant for

more than 240 days, the burden shifts to the Management to establish the contrary. But, the Management appears to have

failed miserably in this regard as the oral testimony as well as documents led by the Management after remand of the

case is no way helpful for the Tribunal to discard the claim of the disputant workman. It cannot be over-sighted that

M.W.-1 has categorically admitted that he was not in the service of the Management when the disputant was engaged and

disengaged and his testimoney is based on official records. If the attendance of the workman was less than 240 days in a

year, the Management could have produced the attendance register or wage register or any other connecting paper in

regard to engagement and payment of wages to the disputant from which the actual days of engagement in a calendar

year could have been ascertained. M.W.-1 has admitted that attendance register of casual workers was maintained earlier.

Be that as it may, the Management could have produced the register to prove the disputant wrong. In the above back-

drops adverse inference can be drawn against the claim of the Management. Hence, from the discussions made above it

can be safely said that the disputant workman was engaged on daily wage basis by the Management and his such

engagement on daily wage was more than 240 days continuously in a twelve months calendar year preceding to the

refusal of employment to him on 01.8.2001.

Admittedly, there is no controversy that the disputant was not paid any notice pay and retrenchment compensation

when he was allegedly refused engagement as a daily wager on 01.08.2001. Refusal of employment to the disputant can

also be safely inferred from the pleadings of the Management that garden work in the guest house and in the children

park has been out-sourced from the year 2002. Therefore, the action of the Management not giving further employment

to the disputant after 31.7.2001 would amount to retrenchment as defined under section 2(oo). Such retrenchment was

given effective without payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation and as such, it was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25-F. Hence, the said retrenchment of the disputant is not tenable in the eye of law.

10.

Coming to the point of relief to which the disputant is entitled, it cannot be over-looked that as per settled

principles of the Hon’ble Apex Court reinstatement is not automatic in cases of all illegal retrenchment or removal.

Relief of reinstatement with back wages depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Compensation in lieu of

reinstatement can be awarded depending upon the nature and period of employment held by the workman, facts and

circumstances under which the workman was retrenched or removed and availability of the posts/vacancy and several

other factors. In the case at hand it is seen that the disputant worked only for six years as a casual daily wager. The

disputant was not engaged against any sanctioned and permanent post. He was employed as a contingent labour. In the

meanwhile sixteen/seventeen years have already been elapsed from the date of his alleged retrenchment. The gardening

work is presently out-sourced by the Management and as such there is little scope for the Management to engage the

disputant in such gardening work on daily wage basis. Taking the above factors into consideration I am of the

considered view that it is not a fit case where reinstatement with back wages is the appropriate relief. Award of

compensation seems to be just and appropriate in the case for illegal and unjustified retrenchment of the disputant

workman. Hence, having regard to the length of the period for which the disputant was engaged and other factors the 1^st

Party-Management is directed to make a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh only) as compensation to the disputant

workman for his alleged retrenchment. The amount of compensation is to be paid within two months of the publication

of the award failing which the disputant workman is entitled to receive the said compensation with a simple interest of

8% from the date of this order till payment of the compensation.

11.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1174-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@2@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

5052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-17012/2/2007-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 18/2007

BETWEEN :

Sri Dilip Kumar Gaur

S/o Sri Prabhu Ram Gaur, Village Johardih,

Post and City, Ambedkarpur

Distt. Ambedkar Nagar (UP)

AND

The Branch Manager,

Branch Office, Ambedkar Nagar

Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)

The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Divisional Office, L.I.C. Building, Mall Road,

Kanpur (U.P.)

AWARD

By order No. L-17012/2/2007-IR(M) dated 14.05.2007 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 Dilip Kumar

Gaur S/o Sri Prabhu Ram Gaur, Ambedkarpur and the Branch Manager/Sr.Divisional Manager, LIC,

Ambedkarnagar/Kanpur for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF SH. DILIP KUMAR GAUR W.E.F. 8.02.1998 A CONTRACT

WORKMAN APPOINTED AS SUBSTAFF/PEON AT THE BRANCH OFFICE OF LIC, AKARPUR,

DISTT. AMBEDKAR NAGAR IS JUST AND LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

As per the Claim statement W-5 dated 10.08.2007, the workman while referring to the dispute sent by the

Govt. of India to this Tribunal, has stated in brief that he was appointed on the post of Peon initially vide

order dated 14.08.1991, by the Branch Manager, after an interview conducted before the Selection

Committee, for a fixed period; again after the termination of the period, he was appointed on the same

conditions vide order dated 28.09.1991, and he continued on the aforesaid post upto 04.11.1991 and payment

was made regularly. The petitioner further stated that he was allowed to continue in service with due wages,

w.e.f. 05.11.1991 but no fresh appointment order was passed and when he enquired regarding his status he

was told that since his working was good, therefore he had been allowed to continue further without giving

any appointment letter.

It has been pleaded in the claim statement that the petitioner was informed for being taken into service as per

Rules of the LIC and therefore he was treated regular on his own and no further appointment letter was

required, due wages were paid to him through the vouchers and apart from doing the duties of the Peon, the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5053

opposite party has also directed to him to do the work of Cash book, receipts and cheques in his own hand

writing in the Akbarpur Branch of the LIC, entries on the bank reconciliation statements and receipts etc.

were also made by the petitioner, on some occasions. When his wages were reduced, he moved an application

and then accordingly payment was made to him. It has been alleged by the workman that he had continuously

worked in the Akbarpur branch of LIC from 04.08.1991 to 08.02.1998, without break and he had even

worked on Sundays.

The petitioner has further stated that in July 1997 theft took place in the branch office, on being asked by the

SHO of Police Station the Branch Manager submitted the list dated 17.07.1997 of employees of the LIC

branch, wherein his name was placed at sl.no.2, which clearly indicated that he had been working there as

daily wager for the past six years continuously. Since the petitioner was apprehensive and anxious of his

status, he had regularly asked whether he would be regularized, then he was informed that his case of

regularization shall be considered by the LIC as per its Rules. On 05.02.1998 the petitioner sent

representation to the opposite party through registered post stating therein that he had regularly worked for the

past 7 years and he should be considered for regularization. But when he went to the office as usual on

08.02.1998, he was directed by the Branch Manager, to leave the premises immediately as his services were

terminated and despite his request, no written order of termination was given, he sent representation through

letter dated 02.03.1998 but did not get any response. It has been alleged by the petitioner that no prior notice

was given, neither any compensation was paid; his services were terminated in an arbitrary and unjust

manner, violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. has also been pleaded in the claim statement. The workman

has submitted that he never misbehaved, nor any notice/warning was ever issued to him throughout his entire

service at Akbarpur branch of LIC, he has also claimed that LIC is covered under the definition of “Industry”

and his case comes within the definition of “workman” as per the provisions of the I.D. Act. The petitioner

has emphasized that since his date of oral termination viz. from 08.02.1998 he is unemployed. Moreover new

incumbents were recruited by the opposite party management for the same work which was being done by

the petitioner but his case was not considered. He has filed Writ Petition 1755 (S/S) of 1998 before Hon’ble

High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which was decided on 18.04.2006 thereby giving direction to him to

move an application before the Labour Court. With the aforesaid pleadings request has made by the petitioner

seeking directions to the management to get him reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits.

Several documents have been annexed with the claim statement.

The management in its written statement M-16, while denying the allegations leveled in the claim statement

admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Substaff (Peon) on temporary basis for 40

days only vide appointment letter dated 14.08.1991, for a fixed period on contract basis and his services came

to an end automatically on the expiry of the fixed period. Opposite party has further submitted that his

appointment was extended for further period of 35 days w.e.f. 01.10.1991 and salary was paid for the specific

period to which he was appointed, and his services were not continued after 04.11.1991 and no work was

taken from him thereafter.

The opposite party has pleaded that as per Rules, appointment is made after competitive examination at State

level through the written examination and thereafter interview is also conducted of the eligible persons. No

examination was ever conducted with regard to the said branch of the LIC and as per the Stop Gap

Arrangement on temporary basis, the LIC is empowered to make temporary appointment for particular branch

after requisitioning names from the Employment Exchange and holding test of formal nature. The

management has asserted that the petitioner had worked as temporary Sub Staff (Peon) w.e.f. 12.08.1991 to

23.09.1991, and from 01.10.1991 to 04.11.1991 for a fixed period of 75 days only and thereafter he

automatically stood terminated and did not work as an employee of LIC. The facts mentioned in the claim

statement have been misconceived and false, as per the pleading of the management. The representation of the

petitioner was decided by the management and he was informed through letter dated 13.04.1998. Since on

08.02.1998 he was not working as an employee of the LIC, no question of his termination arose at all. The

opposite party has asserted that the provision of the Constitution of India prevails over the I.D. Act. It has also

been emphasized that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court did not mean that the reference is to be made, only

an option was made to the petitioner to apply under the I.D. Act. Citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court has also

been referred in the written statement.

The opposite party has further asserted that continuance in service for more than 240 days in the public

corporate body will not apply to this case, and it applies to other private industries, for which law was enacted

and since mode of recruitment and appointment is provided in the LIC Rules, the provisions of the I.D. Act.

are not attracted at all. With the above mentioned averments request has been made by the management to

adjudicate the matter against the petitioner workman. Appointment Rules etc. have been annexed with the

written statement.

5054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

With strong denial of the allegations made in the written statement, rejoinder W-17 dated 21.08.2009 has

been filed by the petitioner alongwith annexures reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

10.

The petitioner has filed his affidavit W-20, in evidence. He was thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the

management.

11.

The management filed an affidavit M-23 dated 01.06.2011 of Sri S.K. Gupta, Asstt. Administrative Officer,

LIC.

12.

During pendency of the case the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.07.2013, mentioning therein the

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court alongwith an application W-30. Another affidavit W-31 alongwith

annexures was also filed by the workman referring therein the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

13.

Vide order passed by the then Hon’ble Judge/PO dt. 13.11.2013, amendment application moved by the

workman was allowed and an opportunity was given to the management to file additional written statement

thereafter. On 28.10.2015 the management informed in writing that no additional written statement would be

filed. Thereafter the case was fixed for further orders and evidence. Several adjournment applications were

moved by the workman, seeking time to file his further evidence. But neither any evidence was filed nor

workman/AR thought it proper to appear before this Court on the date fixed. On subsequent dates, further

opportunity was provided to the workman but since he refrained himself to adduce any evidence, the

management was required to submit its evidence on affidavit. On 05.12.2017 again none appeared on behalf

of the workman, the opposite made an endorsement on the Order Sheet that no further evidence would be

adduced by the management. Thereafter the case was fixed for arguments. Following his careless and callous

attitude, again neither the workman appeared to submit arguments nor any AR on his behalf put his

appearance on the date fixed.

14.

Under the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the intellect arguments on behalf of the management/LIC

were heard at length. Record was scanned thoroughly.

15.

The workman in his cross examination dated 07.04.2011, while replying to a question put up by the

management has submitted that on 14.08.1991 he was appointed for 35 days. Further regarding subsequent

periods commencing w.e.f. 12.08.1991 and 01.10.1991 he did not answer properly, rather in evasive manner

he informed the Court that he had forgotten the relevant period. Again regarding termination of service on

04.11.1991, he has adopted the same tactics. However, he has admitted his request made in the paper no.

7/12, 7/13 and 7/15 wherein prayer was made by him for payment of wages. He has further admitted the fact

of theft at the LIC branch office.

16.

The witness adduced by the management was not cross-examined on behalf of the workman, although

sufficient opportunity was given to him. Further the reference submitted by the workman relating to certain

orders/judgments filed by Hon’ble Courts do not support the version taken by the petitioner in the present

dispute. It is quite evident from the record that the conduct of the petitioner has been very negligent and

careless. For years and months all together the workman did not care to appear before the Court or to move

adjournment application.

17.

The management has referred the case law 2011 (29) LCD, Rizwanullah Ansaari Vs State of U.P. and others,

page 1984, Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad.

18.

In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon’ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could be entitled for the protection of section 25-F of

the I.D. Act., 1947 provided he is successful in establishing the fact that he had been in employment with the

employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such

cases, the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of

termination to decide the question of the continuous service for the purpose of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“ The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of the I.D. Act. It is now

well settled that it is for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

The workman has pleaded that his services have been terminated orally w.e.f. 08.02.1998 without complying

with the provisions of 25-F of the Act. therefore, the period for scrutiny, in view of the above law, i.e. twelve

calendar months preceding the date of his alleged termination, comes out to from 08.02.1997 to 07.02.1998.

19.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality

of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the

present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the oral

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5055

termination order and to prove that the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he

had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. The claim has been denied by the management,

therefore, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the

year preceding his alleged termination. In Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed as under:

“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It

was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year

preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not

be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman

had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was

produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”

20.

Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in R.M.Yellatti &

Asstt. Executive Engineer 2006 (108) FLR 213 as follow:

“ It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under

section 10 of the I.D. Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated

judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the

workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent

evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there

will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment.

Thus, in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the empoyer to produce before the

Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the

wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend

thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however made it clear that mere affidavits or self

serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the

burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The

above judgments further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of

suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse

inference against the management.”

21.

There is no other cogent reason on record except the claim statement and evidence of the workman himself

which could show that the workman was in employment with the LIC, and he had worked continuously for

240 days in 12 calender months preceding the date 08.02.98 and his services have been terminated in utter

violation to the provision of the I.D. Act.

22.

After analyzing the record available before the court, it is inferred that the workman was temporarily in

services of the LIC for certain fixed period, and was paid for the same. On the contrary the management has

successfully proved the stand taken in the written statement. Moreover it is settled law that mere pleading are

no substitute proof. The workman has miserably failed to discharge the burden for establishing the fact of

continuous work for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his alleged termination. Hence I come to the

conclusion that the so called termination of the workman Sri Dilip Kumar Gaur w.e.f. 08.02.1998 can not be

treated as unjust or illegal. The petitioner workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference under

consideration is adjudicated accordingly.

23.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

25.06. 2018

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1175-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 208@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@115@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

5056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 208/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-17012/115/2014-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 25th day of June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 208/2014

Between :

Sri Md. Israth Ali

H.No.3-1-90,

(P.O. & M), Metpally,

Karimnagar Dist.

Karimnagar (A.P.) – 505325

…Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office,

Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

Sr. Divl. Manager,

LIC of India, Divl. Office,

Karimnagar,

Karimnagar (A.P.) – 505001.

The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Metpally Branch,

Metpally, Karimnagar Dist.

Karimnagar (A.P.)

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Party in Person

For the Respondent

Sri B.S.R. Murthy, Advocate

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/ 115/ 2014-IR(M) dated 3.9.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office,

Hyderabad/Divisional Office, Karimnagar and Branch Office, Metpally, Karimnagar Dist., in terminating the

services after crossing 240 days continuous service of Sri Md. Israt Ali, Ex. Temp. Substaff of LIC of India,

Metpally Br. w.e.f. 1.2.2013 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 208/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner

to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5057

perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has got nothing to raise any claim against

the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 25^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1176-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fodkl

dULVªD'ku ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 28@2012&13) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-

07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@34@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2012-13) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Vikas Construction and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-29012/34/2012-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/28/2012-13

Date: 12.06.2018

Party No.1(a)

M/s Vikas Construction,

Contractor, At Post Awarpur,

Tehsil: Korpana, Distt. Chandrapur

Party No.1(b)

The Plant Head,

M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.,

At Post Awarpur, Tehsil: Korpana,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Uddhav Sitaram Vaidya,

R/o Bibi, Post: Nanda,

Tehsil : Korpana, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 12th June, 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 M/s Vikas Construction and Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.

and their workman, Shri Uddhav Sitaram Vaidya, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-29012/34/2012-IR(M) dated

29.11.2012, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Awarpur Cement Works,

Distt. Chandrapur through contractor M/s Vikas Construction in terminating the services verbally of

Shri Uddhav Sitaram Vaidya w.e.f. 18.07.2011 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?”

5058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to parties to file claim and written statement and accordingly the

petitioner filed its statement of claim and affidavit and the Party No. 1, management did not file any written statement.

Today i.e. on 12.06.2018, a joint Pursis is filed, in which, they prayed to decide the said reference, as they settled

their dispute out of the Court. Party No. 1 is represented by Advocate, M.R. Pillai and Party No. 2 is represented by

Advocate, A.A. Madiwale. Party No. 2, workman and M/s Vikas Construction are identified by Advocate S.W.

Ambagade. They also filed Xerox copy of the cheque and their identity proof. This appears settlement is legal. Cheque

is already given and the consent of the workman has already taken. Parties did not want any further relief through this

Tribunal.

So, the Pursis for settlement dated 12.06.2018 is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The Pursis for settlement of the case is allowed. The case is treated as withdrawn. The reference is

answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1177-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2017&18) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@5@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2017-18) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-30011/5/2017-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2017-18

Date: 12.06.2018

Party No.1(a)

The Sr. Plant Manager,

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Dhanj Bottling Plant, Dhanaj (Khurd),

State Highway No. 199, Tehsil. Karanja (Lad),

Distt. Washim Maharashtra – 444110

Party No.1(b)

The Executive Director,

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Maharashtra State Office, Indian Oil

Bhawan, Plot No. 33, G-Block, Bandra-

Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400050

Party No.1(c)

M/s Vishal Testing & Services, Contractor,

1/623, PGN Apartments, Muttukadu Road,

Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600041

Party No.1(d)

M/s Super Handling Co. Labour & Transport

Contractor, 4-C, Gurukripa Shopping Centre,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5059

Ramkaka Road, Chhani, Vaddodara,

Gujarat – 391740

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,

Prafullaban Society,

R.K. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W),

Mumbai – 400028

AWARD

(Dated: 12th June, 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 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 2 contractors and

their union, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-30011/5/2017- (IR(M) dated 05.06.2017, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the non-employment/termination of employment of Shri Ramdas O. Yadav, Ex-Helper and 18

others (list attached) contract labourers of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Dhanaj Bottling Plant w.e.f.

13.10.2016 orally during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding and without compliance of section

33, 25-F & 25-H read with section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the contract labourers are entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. On 01.09.2017, Shri Vilas D. Raut, advocate filed vakalatnama on

behalf of the management but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Fresh notice was issued on 03.11.2017 for

the date of 29.11.2017. On 07.06.2018, advocate for the management filed a pursis for closing of the reference. It shows

that, the petitioner as well as his union is not interested to continue the reference. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1178-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2017&18) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@3@2017&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2017-18) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-30011/3/2017-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/09/2017-18

Date: 12.06.2018

5060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No. 1(a)

The Sr. Plant Manager,

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Dhanj Bottling Plant, Dhanaj (Khurd),

State Highway No. 199, Tehsil. Karanja (Lad),

Distt. Washim Maharashtra – 444110

Party No. 1(b)

The Executive Director,

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Maharashtra State Office, Indian Oil

Bhawan, Plot No. 33, G-Block, Bandra-

Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400050

Party No. 1(c)

M/s Hemali Constructions, Contractor,

Dhotane (BK), Post-Nagpur, Tq. Nandgaon,

Distt. Nashik, Maharashtra – 423104

Party No. 1(d)

M/s Vishal Testing & Services, Contractor,

1/623, PGN Apartments, Muttukadu Road,

Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600041

Party No. 1(e)

M/s Akshay Agencies, Contractor,

B/21, Shrihari Complex, Sant Tukaram Chauk,

Distt. Akola, Maharashtra

Party No. 1(f)

M/s Shree Electricals, Contractor,

11/12, Shree Vastu Colony, Near Ganesh

Mandir, Vevekanand Nagar-2, Manmad,

Nandgaon, Nashik, Maharashtra – 423104

Party No. 1(g)

M/s G K Engineering, Contractor,

At/Po – Dhanaj (Khurd), Tal – Karanja (Lad),

Distt. Washsim, Maharashtra – 444110.

Party No. 1(h)

M/s Super Handling Co. Labour & Transport

Contractor, 4-C, Gurukripa Shopping Centre,

Ramkaka Road, Chhani, Vaddodara,

Gujarat – 391740.

Versus

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,

Prafullaban Society,

R.K. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W),

Mumbai – 400028.

AWARD

(Dated: 12th June, 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 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 6 contractors and

their union, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-30011/3/2017- (IR(M) dated 15.05.2017, with

the following schedule:-

“(i)

Whether Sri Nishant Kishore Tumsare and 73 other contract labourers (List enclosed) employed by

the Indian Oil corporation Limited, Dhanaj Bottling Plant are entitled to bonus in respect of their

period of employment through previous contractors? If yes, to what relief the contract labourers are

entitled including the rate for payment of bonus and compensation for the delayed payment?

(ii)

Whether the management of Indian Oil corporation Limited, Dhanaj Bottling Plant and the

contractors have committed unfair labour practice as prescribed under part-1,Item 1(a), 4(a), 4(f) &

5(b) of the Fifth Schedule, the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

(iii)

Whether the non-employment/termination of employment of Sri Nishant Kishore Tumsare,

Devanand Damodar Rout, Vinod Akaram Khandwe and Suresh Wamanrao Ghode, contract

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5061

labourers of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Dhanaj Bottling Plant w.e.f. 01.10.2016 orally during

the pendency of the conciliation proceeding and without compliance of section 33, 25-F & 25-H read

with section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

contract labourers are entitled?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. On 01.09.2017, Shri Vilas D Raut, advocate filed vakalatnama on

behalf of the management but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 03.11.2017, fresh notice was issued in

favour of the petitioner, fixing the date on 29.11.2017, but on that day also, the petitioner as well as their advocate were

absent. On 07.06.2018 also no statement of claim was filed. Advocate for the management was present and filed a

pursis for closing of the reference. It shows that, the petitioner as well as his union is not interested to continue the

reference. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1179-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bf.M;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@3@2003&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Airports Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

27.07.2018.

[No. L-11011/3/2003-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/22 of 2003

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (IAD)

TDI INTERNATIONAL INDIA LTD.

M/s. Airports Authority of India (IAD),

Mumbai Airports,

Mumbai – 400 099.

M/s. TDI International India Ltd.

Terminal A, Santacruz Airports,

Mumbai – 400 099.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

General Secretary,

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,

Shivsena Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk,

Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028

5062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

(1)

Ms. Geeta Raju, Advocate

i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini & Co.

(2)

No Appearance

FOR THE WORKMEN

Umesh Nabar

Mumbai, dated the 27^th June, 2018.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11011/3/2003 – IR (M) dated 01.05.2003. The terms of reference given in

the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the issuance of charter of demand by the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena to the Management of TDI

International is justified and legal ? If yes, to what benefits the workmen are entitled ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

As per order at Ex.30 the reference is withdrawn and is disposed off.

On going through Ex.30, it is submitted that on the date the demands have become infructuous and hence

reference is withdrawn.

In view of Ex.30 the reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn & disposed off.

Date: 27.06.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1180-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vfgY;kckbZ ljnslkbZ] fdykZikys ekbu ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 27-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29011@31@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Ahiliabai Sardesai, Kirlapale Mine and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27.07.2018.

[No. L-29011/31/2012-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/26 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESAI.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5063

The Managing Director,

M/s. Ahiliabai Sardesai,

Kirlapale Mine, SF-I, Navelkar Arcade,

Dr. Atmaram Borkar Road,

Panaji, Goa – 403 301.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Goa Mine Workers’ Union,

Dr. Mukund Building, 2^nd Floor,

Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. P. J. Kamat, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. T. P. Pereira, Advocate

CAMP – GOA - dated the 6^th June, 2018

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-29011/3/2011 – IR (M) dated 2.05.2012. The terms of reference given in

the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Ahiliabai Sardesai, Kirlapale Mine, in retrenching 32 Plant

workers of Benefication Plant w.e.f. 1/6/2011, is legal and justified ? What relief the workmen are entitled to ?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

Having gone through the Roznama, it appears that concerned workman/union is absent since 3/11/2017. The

Reference was kept for evidence of the concerned workman/union but the concerned workman/union has not filed

affidavit in evidence despite several opportunities were given to them. Union is absent and no steps taken by the Union.

In view of that the union/concerned workman has failed to substantiate the claim by adducing evidence. The Reference is

liable to be rejected and accordingly the Reference is rejected.

ORDER

Reference is rejected.

Date: 06.06.2018

[CAMP – GOA]

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1181-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@91@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2016) 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 24.07.2018.

[No. L-22012/91/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

5064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 25th day of June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2016

Between :

Sri Bandari Lingaiah,

President, Singareni Collieries Employees

Union (CITU), Qr. No.39-T, Somagudem X Roads,

Somagudem, (via Bellampalli)

Adilabad (Telengana)- 504251

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

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

Adilabad Distt. (Telengana State).

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/91/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

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

Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri T. Haribabu, Ex-Coal Filler, Kasipeta Mine Inc., SCCL,

Mandamarri Area with effect from 7.6.2002 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled

for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 2/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned to procure

their attendance.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner Union/workman did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given

to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. No claim statement is filed by the Petitioner Union/workman

inspite of taking several adjournments. Non-appearance of the Petitioner Union/workman and non-filing of claim

statement in time, clearly indicates that perhaps the parties have settled their dispute and the Petitioner union/workman

has no claim to raise. Hence, it is not desirable to linger the case to any further date. Thus, the case of the Petitioner

Union/workman is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 25^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5065

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1182-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@23@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2009) 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 24.07.2018.

[No. L-22012/23/2009-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 27th day of June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39/2009

Between :

The General Secretary

(Sri Riyaz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union(HMS),

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

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar – 505209

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Yellandu Division,

Yellandu (P.O.), Khammam (Dt.)

…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

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No.L-22012/23/2009-IR[CM-II] dated 28.7.2009 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute

i.e.,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in imposing penalty of

reducing 5 increments with cumulative effect from 01.07.2007 in respect of Sri A. Rajeswara Rao is legal and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No.39/2009 in this Tribunal and notices were

issued to both the parties and secured their presence.

5066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pursuant to the notice, the Petitioner appeared and filed claim statement.

Respondents appeared and filed their counter.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 30.6.2016.

While the case is posted for arguments, at this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman filed a

memo to withdraw the present case and accordingly, the copy of the memo was served to the Respondent.

In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner Union, the memo is accepted and the case is allowed

to be withdrawn by the Petitioner Union.

The reference is answered accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 27^th day of

June, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1183-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 128@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@80@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.07.2018.

[No. L-22012/80/2015-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 June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 128/2015

Between :

Sri Thopparthi Banaiah,

S/o Ashalu,

H.No.3-41, Kishtampet (V),

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5067

Chennur (M),

Warangal Distt. 504204

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapalli Area, Bhupalapalli -506 169.

Warangal Distt. (Telengana State)

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/80/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 26.11.2015

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

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

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Thopparthi Banaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-

2 Inc., SCCL, Bhupalapalli Area with effect from 2.1.2007 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the

applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 128/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner

to attend the court to prosecute his case. No claim statement is filed inspite of taking several adjournments. Non-

appearance of the Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement in time, clearly indicates that perhaps the parties have

settled the dispute and the Petitioner has no claim to raise. Hence, it is not desirable to linger the case to any further date.

Thus, the case of the Petitioner is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 25^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1184-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 206@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@52@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

5068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/2014) 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 24.07.2018.

[No. L-22012/52/2014-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 29th day of June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 206/2014

Between :

The President,

(Bandari Satyanarayana),

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCMS),

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 208.

Adilabad District

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur-504303.

Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/52/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 16.9.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

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

Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Md. Saheb Hussain, Ex-Coal Filler, IK-1A inc., Sreerampur

Area-with effect from 01.01.2005 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 206/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner Union.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner union did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the

Petitioner Workman/Union to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman/union failed to attend

this Tribunal which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman/union has already been settled

and the Petitioner Union has nothing to raise any claim against the Respondent. Hence, the case of the Petitioner

workman/Union is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 29^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5069

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1185-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 207@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@57@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 207/2014) 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 24.07.2018.

[No. L-22012/57/2014-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 29th day of June, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 207/2014

Between :

The President,

(Bandari Satyanarayana),

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCMS),

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 208.

Adilabad District

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri -504231

Adilabad District

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

Representative

5070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/57/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 12.9.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

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

Mandamarri Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri P. Ramulu, Ex-Coal Filler, Shantikhani,

Mandamarri Area with effect from 22.1.2003 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled

for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 207/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner Union.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner union did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the

Petitioner Workman/Union to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman/union failed to attend

this Tribunal which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman/union has already been settled

and the Petitioner Union has nothing to raise any claim against the Respondent. Hence, the case of the Petitioner

workman/Union is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 29^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1186-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2009) 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 24.07.2018.

[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 27th day of June, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5071

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 97/2009

Between :

Sri Koraveni Srinivas,

S/o Chantaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate,

Flat No. G7,Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College

for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The Director (PA & W),

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The Chief General Manager,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd,

Srirampur Area, Srirampur, Adilabad Dist.

The Superintendent of Mines,

RK-6 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur, Adhlabad Dist.

….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 Koraveni Srinivas, who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed the petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

represented by its employees seeking for declaring the proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/980 dated 10.03.2009 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.

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

The petitioner was given appointment under dependent quota on 25.03.2000 as Badli Filler and he was confirmed as Coal

Filler. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet was issued to him alleging that, he obtained employment by producing

forged documents. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the charge. While submitting reply, the

petitioner pleaded that he married the daughter of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi in the year 1997 and he was given

employment in the capacity of son-in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi. The petitioner pleaded that, in support of his

claim, he submitted the marriage certificate to the competent authority. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, wherein,

no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management, whereas, he examined himself and also examined other three

on his behalf, as Witness DW1 to DW3. But, without considering the evidence on record, the enquiry officer held the

charge as proved. Basing on such report of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 22.10.2008 was issued, to

which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.11.2008. But, without considering the same, impugned proceeding

dated 10.03.2009 was issued dismissing him from service w.e.f. 15.03.2009. The petitioner pleaded that the charge

alleged against the petitioner is wholly illegal and he was dismissed from service arbitrarily after putting nearly 9 years

of service. Though the petitioner approached the respondents to consider his case justifiably, but the Management did

not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned

proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/980 dated 10.3.2009 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.

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 as Badli Filler under Dependent Employment Scheme on 25.3.2000 as son-in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi,

Ex-Coal Filler, GDK-3 Incline, who was declared as unfit to work as Coal Filler. The Respondents also pleaded that from

the date of his appointment to the date of his dismissal, the Petitioner is regular to his duties and his attendance, conduct

5072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and work performance were quite satisfactory. The Respondents further contended that, basing on the recommendations

of the Vigilance Department holding that, the Petitioner was not the son-in-law of Late Uppuleti Mondi, Ex-Coal Filler,

GDK-3 Incline, a charge sheet dated 3.10.2005 was issued to him under Company’s Standing Order No.25.1 & 25.10, a

detailed domestic enquiry was conducted and basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, a show cause notice

dated 22.10.2008 was issued enclosing the report of the enquiry officer. On receipt of show cause notice, the Petitioner

submitted his representation dated 4.11.2008 and after considering the representation and the record of enquiry. The

Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 14.3.2009 vide letter dated 10.3.2009. The Respondents contended that, as

the petitioner obtained employment by producing false and fabricated documents, the management was constrained to

initiate the disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended that, the Vigilance Department conducted thorough enquiry

before initiating the disciplinary action. During such enquiry, it is established that Smt.U.Swapna was not the wife of the

petitioner and this factum was even accepted by her mother i.e. U.Gangamma (DW3) in her statement given to the

Vigilance Department and various documents obtained by the Vigilance Department establishes the charge against the

petitioner. The Respondents further contended that, the Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry and he was given

full and fair opportunity to defend his case. Basing on the material evidence produced by the Presenting Officer and also

oral evidence from the concerned persons before the enquiry officer, charges were established. As such, having

considered the evidence on record, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the

Petitioner.

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 3.3.2014.

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

of their claim.

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

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

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Koraveni 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: At the outset Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, while deposing during the course of regular

enquiry, the petitioner categorically pleaded that, his marriage was performed with Swapna on 09-05-1997 and the said

marriage was even registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Mancherial and he has already submitted the marriage

certificate (MD-20) to the Company. The Petitioner also deposed that, their marriage was inter caste and love marriage.

His mother-in-law i.e. DW3 applied for his appointment under the Dependent Employment Scheme and the officials of

the Company and the Committee for Dependent Employment, having verified and got satisfied with the application

submitted by his mother-in-law, he was given employment as Badli Filler. He has also deposed that, he has not

submitted any false and fabricated documents, as alleged. On conclusion of his statement, he was cross examined by the

Presenting Offier. The petitioner at Q.Nos.23 & 24 once again reiterated that, his mother-in-law i.e. DW3 applied for his

dependent employment and, while doing so, they have submitted all the documents necessary for claiming dependent

employment. At Q.No.25, the petitioner deposed that, his wife Swapna was aged about 19 years at the time of

submitting the application for dependent employment. At Q.Nos.30 & 31, the petitioner deposed that, his marriage with

Swapna was performed at Godavarikhani in presence of relatives and friends. At Q.No.33, the petitioner deposed that,

his marriage was performed in presence of his mother-in-law and his parents, in addition to others. At Q.No.37, the

petitioner deposed that, their marriage was inter-caste marriage. At Q.No.40, the petitioner deposed that, MD-15 is their

marriage photo, which shows, himself and his wife Swapna. At Q.No.45, the petitioner deposed that, his marriage was

performed with Swapna and not with Padma.

The Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that, during the regular enquiry, DW1 categorically deposed that,

Sri Uppuleti Mondi was his co-workman. He knows the family of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi and on the request of DW3

i.e. wife of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi, he signed as a witness on the application submitted by DW3 for appointment of the

petitioner, under Dependent Employment Scheme. He also deposed that, during the interview conducted by the

Dependent Employment Committee, he appeared and signed as a witness, on the papers (forms) confirming the petitioner

as the son-in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi. During the cross examination he deposed that, he and Late Sri Uppuleti

Mondi worked together for 7 years and the family members of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi came to Mine premises to apply

for dependent employment, and he met them there. DW1 also deposed that, on being introduced by DW3 and mother of

Uppuleti Mondi, in front of all the workmen and officers, he came to know that the petitioner is the son-in-law of Late

Sri Uppuleti Mondi.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5073

Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, during the regular enquiry, DW2 deposed that, Late Sri Uppuleti

Mondi, was his co-workman at GDK-3 Incline and Late Sri Mondi and he himself used to reside in Seetanagar area and

as such, they know to each other. DW2 further deposed that, DW3 and the mother of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi came to

his house and informed him that, they are applying for employment to their son-in-law i.e. the petitioner and requested

him to sign as a witness. He Stated that as Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi was his co-workman, when the family of Late

Sri Uppuleti Mondi came to the mine premises, he has signed on the application form confirming the petitioner as the son-

in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi. During the cross-examination, DW2 at Q.Nos.1, 2 & 3 categorically reaffirmed that,

Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi and he used to reside at Seetanagar area. DW2 also deposed that, marriage of the petitioner and

Swapna was performed, and also deposed that, he signed on the application for dependent employment of the petitioner.

10.

The counsel for the Petitioner also argued that, during the regular departmental enquiry, though the Presenting

Officer has not chosen to examine any witnesses, thereafter the petitioner was examined himself and on his behalf DW1

to DW3 were examined. DW3 was none other than the petitioner’s mother-in-law i.e. the wife of Uppuleti Mondi and

the mother of the petitioner’s wife Smt Swapna. DW3 has categorically deposed during the enquiry that, the petitioner is

the husband of her elder daughter Swapna. Both of them were got married in the year 1997 in Ramalayam in Seetanagar

of Godavarikhani. The Petitioner being her son-in-law, she applied for his dependent employment by submitting an

application, which was counter signed by DW1 & DW2, who were the co-workmen of her Late husband. During the

course of cross examination, the evidence of DW1 to DW3 remained unrebutted. However, such unrebutted evidence of

the petitioner & DW1 to DW3 was ignored, by relying upon the documents collected and the statements recorded during

the preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Authorities. During the enquiry, neither any Vigilance Authorities were

examined nor any documents were proved, through any competant witness.

11.

During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that,

whenever a departmental enquiry is conducted, the PO/Management representative should produce the relevant

documents, to mark and prove it, through relevant witnesses, to substantiate the charge. The Presenting Officer himself

cannot treated as lone witness, to depose the evidence. In the instant case, one Sri.A.Sampath Kumar, Dy.P.M. deposed

as the PO and produced Exs MD-1 to MD-23, but he has not chosen to examine any witnesses to prove the documents

produced by him. However, exclusively relying upon those unproved documents, charge was held proved by the enquiry

officer. Basing on such finding of the enquiry officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. While submitting the

above aspects, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a case Law reported in 2011 (3) ALD 442 – GM,

SCCL Ltd., Mandamarri Division, Kalyankhani, Adilabad Vs. Mohd. Fareed, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

held that, “In the instant case, the charge against the respondent was that, he filed a fake medical certificate pertaining to

his father. The petitioner (i.e. company) was under obligation to prove that charge by examining the persons, who came

to the conclusion, or confirmed the opinion that the certificate is fake. The case was presented before the enquiry officer

by the Presenting Officer. Not a single witness was examined. For all practical purposes, the Presenting Officer answers

the description of a Counsel, and by no stretch of imagination, he can be treated as witness, much less, he can vouch for

the correctness or otherwise of the documents, produced by him. It is only the persons who are the custodians of the

concerned records, or who are acquainted with the facts of the case, that can be examined as witnesses and who can

throw light upon a truth or otherwise of the allegation or charge. Once it has emerged that no person was examined in

support of the charge, the inescapable conclusion is that, the charge was not proved at all. The Labour Court noticed this

serious flaw, and held that the charge against the respondent was not proved. This court is not inclined to take any

different view.

12.

The counsel for the Petitioner also contended that, in the instant case also, Presenting Officer has not examined

any witness nor proved any document. Only the statement of the Presenting Officer was recorded and basing on his

statement and unproved documents produced by him, the Enquiry Officer held the charge as proved. Such conduct on

the part of the Enquiry Officer was deprecated by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the above referred case, more

interestingly, in the above cited case also, the management was Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and in the present

case also the Management is the Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

13.

The counsel for the Petitioner further urged that, when the management alleges that, the petitioner obtained

employment by producing fabricated documents, false information and witnesses, onus lies on the management to prove

the charge. Mere filing of documents is not sufficient to rely upon, but, those documents are to be marked and proved

during the enquiry through relevant witnesses. In the instant case, the management did not examine any witnesses except

recording the statement of the Presenting Officer. The sole statement of the Presenting Officer, cannot be treated as

evidence of any witness. As such, the documents relied upon by the Presenting Officer cannot be relied upon to

substantiate the charge.

14.

In support of the above contention, the Learned Counsil for the Petitioner relied on the following judgments

reported in AIR 1972 SC 1031 – Delhi Cloth & General Mills Vs. Lud Bud Singh, whereat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that, “The Enquiry Officer has also committed another mistake when he proceeded on the basis that as the workman

has not adduced any evidence in his defence, it is not open to him to contend that he was not responsible for the acts of

destruction and damages. This observation clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer has missed the elementary principle of

5074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

jurisprudence that when allegations of misconduct are levelled against a person, it is the primary duty of the person

making those allegations to establish the same and not for an accused to adduce negative evidence to the effect that he is

not guilty” In WA No.37/2013 – SPDCL Vs. Yesudas, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that,

WA No.37/2013 – SPDCL Vs. Yesudas, “The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into

consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence, i.e. the correspondence between

the Head Master, Medikondue collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against the respondent by itself,

could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding, inasmuch as no witness was examined to prove the

said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents sent by the said Head Master and did not

prove the contents thereof. Reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer on such correspondence which could not have

been treated as evidence. Therefore, the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer,

was the purported documents appended in the service register of the respondent, to which there was no direct evidence.

Even there was no indirect evidence. The Enquiry Officer, without applying his mind in proper perspective as to how the

said document was appended in the service register of the respondent had made up his mind to find him guilty, as

otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence

was left. It is to be seen, there is a distinction in proof and suspicion. In DEE (O) AP TRANSCO, Guntur & another Vs.

Labour Court, Guntur & another, reported in 2011 (3) ALD 536, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held as follows : “It is

not in dispute that no witnesses were examined by the Domestic Tribunal. It straightaway proceeded to examine the

workman and concluded the inquiry. Therefore, the TRANSCO had failed to discharge the initial burden lying on it to

bring home the guilt of the workman by leading specific evidence in respect of the charge laid against him. Until and

unless this primary onus is discharged by the employer, no obligation to prove his defence shifts on to the shoulders of

the employee. It is one thing to say about the sufficiency of the material, but it is altogether a different thing to say that

the initial burden of establishing the charge itself has been not discharged. Further, when the Headmaster of the school

has been contacted by the Divisional Engineer, he sent up a communication raising doubts about the genuineness of the

certificate produced by the workman. Unless the Headmaster has been examined and the workman has been provided

with an opportunity to cross examine him the workman could not have established his defence properly and he could not

have brought home his defence that he is not guilty of producing any false educational certificate. He would have an

opportunity to explain away the adverse material which lent support to suspect the genuineness of the certificate

produced by him. In that view of the matter, non-examination of the Headmaster of the school, certainly, amounts to

denying a fair and reasonable opportunity of enabling him establish his defence”. In 2011 (1) ALD 713 – S.L.Narsaiah

Vs. Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that, “In the disciplinary proceedings, basically

it is for the employer or the management to prove the charges framed against an employee. The mere fact that the

employee did not adduce any evidence does not become material. Further it would be mostly in the form of rebuttal

evidence. Therefore, much would depend upon the strength of the evidence which the employer maintained”.

15.

Counsel for the Petitioner further pleaded that, in catena of judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the

Hon’ble High Courts held that, the role of preliminary EO and the documents collected and statements recorded, during

the preliminary enquiry, becomes redundant, once a decision is taken to conduct the regular departmental enquiry.

During the regular departmental enquiry, if, the management wanted to rely upon the statements recorded during the

preliminary enquiry, then such of those witnesses, who were examined in the preliminary enquiry should be produced in

the regular departmental enquiry, giving an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner. Then only, the statements

recorded during the preliminary enquiry can be relied upon. The counsel for the Petitioner pleaded that, the EO relied

upon the statements allegedly recorded by the Vigilance Department from U.Gangamma (DW3), to hold the charge as

proved, without even examining the Vigilance Authorities. During the regular enquiry, DW3 categorically denied the

correctness of the statements allegedly recorded by the Vigilance Authorities and also CD relied upon by the Vigilance

Department. Despite, ignoring the evidence recorded during the regular departmental enquiry, by relying upon the

alleged statement recorded by the Vigilance Authorities during the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer held the

charge as proved. Counsel for the Petitioner pleaded that, such finding of the enquiry officer is illegal and contrary to the

dicta laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts & Hon’ble Supreme Court.The learned Counsil for the petitioner in support

of his stand relied upon the following judgments: Reported in 2001 (5) ALT 65 (DB) – K.David Wilson Vs. Secretary

to Government, Law Department (Legislative Affairs and Justice), Hyderabad and another, “It is well settled that the

disciplinary authority cannot make use of any material of evidence collected by it in the course of preliminary enquiry

against the delinquent official unless those materials and evidence are produced and proved in accordance with law in the

regular departmental enquiry and the delinquent employee is given a fair opportunity to meet those adverse materials and

evidence. In the instant case this well settled rule governing departmental enquiry is completely breached. On that count

also, the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated. A departmental enquiry conducted for the

purpose of disciplinary action against a public servant is not an empty formality. It is a serious proceeding intended to

give the delinquent a chance to meet the charges and prove his innocence. The right of the delinquent officer to cross-

examine witnesses who give evidence against him is a valuable right and in order to effectively exercise this right, it is

necessary that the examination-in-chief of the witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the party against whom the

deposition is made. An enquiry wherein examination-in-chief has been recorded in the absence of the person charged

though he is allowed to cross-examine the witness, cannot be said to have been held in accordance with the rules of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5075

natural justice. This position is well settled by the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India V. T.R.Varma,

Jagdish Prasad Saxama V. State of Madhya Bharat, State of Madhya Pradesh V. Chintaman Sadasiva and a catena of

other decisions to follow. The Calcutta High Court in Choudhury V Union of India and others, where the concerned

employee was confronted with the evidence of the witnesses examined behind his back and where some of such

witnesses were not tendered for cross-examination held that the enquiry was vitiated by violation of principle of natural

justice and the dismissal order based on such enquiry must be hold to be invalid”. The same principle was reiterated by

Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 – Nirmala Jhala Vs. State of Gujrat, wherein it was held,

“we have to consider the most relevant issue involved in this case. Admittedly, the enquiry officer, the High Court on

administrative side as well on judicial side, had placed a very heavy reliance on the statement made by Shri C.B.Gajjar,

Advocate, Mr.G.G.Jani, complainant and that of Shri P.K.Pancholi, Advocate, in the preliminary inquiry before the

Vigilance Officer. Therefore, the question does arise as to whether it was permissible for either of them to take into

consideration their statements recorded in the preliminary inquiry, which had been held behind the back of the appellant,

and for which she has no opportunity to cross-examine either of them. A Constitution Bench of this court in Amalendu

Ghosh V. North Eastern Railway, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged

misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged

misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment

can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent

is required to be held. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah V. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court

while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary

inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held

ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation

may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the

inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further

held as under (AIR p.1862, para 12),“12. .... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is

only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government

servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the

protection of that article (, nor prior to that)” In Narayana Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court

dealt with the issue and held as under : “... a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue

of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the

delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether

preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor,

remains of no consequence.” “In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot

be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons

examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice.” In

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V. State of Maharashtra this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier

judgments held that cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice, and a statement recorded

behind back of a person wherein the delinquent had no opportunity to cross-examine such persons, the same cannot be

relied upon. The preliminary enquiry may be useful only to take a prima facie view, as to whether there can be some

substance in the allegation made against an employee which may warrant a regular enquiry”.

16.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contents of the counter and argued that,

as the charge was established in the enquiry, punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and no interference is

required by this Court. The counsel for the respondents contended that, as most of the documents relied upon by the

Presenting Officer are official documents, they need not be specifically proved through any relevant witnesses. The

enquiry officer has rightly conducted a detailed and elaborate enquiry and after considering the evidence available on

record, he has rightly held the charges as proved. The counsel for the respondents further contended that, on receipt of

reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority also considered all the records in detail and found that the

findings of the enquiry officer are perfect and as such, punishment was imposed on the petitioner for obtaining

employment fraudulently. He further contented that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is held legal and valid,

So the petitioner has no locus-standi to re-agitate the same issue.

17.

On consideration of the submission made by the consels for both the sides and on a bare perusal of the evidence

adduced during the enquiry by the petitioner along with the evidence of DW1 to DW3 establishes about, the factum of

performance of marriage between the petitioner and the elder daughter of DW3 i.e. Swapna. It was also established that,

DW3 herself applied for the dependent employment of the petitioner, which was even signed by DW1 & DW2. It was

also proved during the enquiry that, the marriage of the petitioner and the elder daughter of Sri Uppuleti Mondi, was

registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Mancherial and the said certificate was produced before the authorities, while

seeking dependent employment. It was also established that, while considering the application for dependent

employment of the petitioner, the Dependent Employment Committee and the authorities of the 1st respondent company,

have thoroughly verified the credentials of the petitioner, and only after satisfying themselves, the petitioner was given

employment. Therefore, holding the charge as proved by the enquiry officer and dismissing the petitioner from service,

is wholly untenable.

5076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18. As pointed out by the counsel for the Petitioner, during the cross examination, the Presenting Officer has

categorically admitted that, basing on the application submitted by DW3 and also the statement of DW1 & DW2, the

Departmental Interview Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for dependent employment and the same was

done, as per the procedure existing in the Company. The Presenting Officer also accepted that, application submitted by

DW3 seeking employment to the petitioner, application for employment under Clause-9.4.1 of NCWA and the

statements of the witnesses i.e. DW1 & DW2 to provide employment to the petitioner, were verified by the Head of the

Department before issuing the order of appointment to the petitioner. The Presenting Officer also accepted that, the

Management never felt MD24, 25 & 26 are false documents and by treating those doucuments as valid documents, the

petitioner was given employment. However, the Presenting Officer stated that, basing on the preliminary enquiry

conducted by the Vigilance Department, the management feels that the petitioner was not a bonafide son-in-law of Late

Sri Uppuleti Mondi. However, the fact remains that, the documents collected during the preliminary enquiry were

obtained behind the back of the petitioner, which were not proved, during the enquiry, no witness including any officials

of the Vigilance Department were examined, during the course of regular departmental enquiry, to prove those

documents.

19.

As a matter of fact, the Presenting Officer accepted that, only on the recommendation of the Dependent Interview

Committee, the petitioner was given employment. The Presenting Officer accepted that, marriage certificate issued by

the Registrar of Marriage has not been declared as false, either by any competent authority or by court. However, basing

on the documents procured by the Vigilance Authority during the preliminary enquiry, it is being treated that, the

petitioner’s marriage with Swapna was not bonafide in nature. The Presenting Officer further stated that, though he was

not a management witness, his statement is sufficient to prove the charge and other witnesses need not be produced in

support of the charge alleged. Such contention of the Presenting Officer is wholly illegal and contrary to the well

established law and principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in

2011 (3) ALD 442. Relying upon the sole statement of the PO, the charge cannot be treated as proved, as held by the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in GM, SCCL Ltd, Mandamarri Division Vs. Mohd. Fareed, reported in 2011 (3) ALD 442

20.

As per the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner, the PO cannot be treated as a witness and his

sole statement cannot be relied on to substantiate the charge as was laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the

reported judgment in 2011 (3) ALD 442. In the instant case, except recording the statement of the Presenting Officer, no

other witness was examined on behalf of the management. The counsel for the Petitioner also rightly pointed out that,

mere filing of documents is not sufficient. The documents should be proved through relevant witnesses during the

regular departmental enquiry and onus to prove the charge is on the person, who alleges. As submitted supra, the above

proposition of law was time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. in AIR 1972 SC 1031, WA No.37/2013, 2011 (3) ALD 536 & 2011 (1) ALD 713.

21.

The statements recorded and the documents obtained by the vigilance authorities are basically amounts to

preliminary enquiry. Basing on those statements and documents, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Once a

decision is taken to conduct a regular departmental enquiry, the statements recorded and the documents obtained during

the preliminary enquiry become redundant unless, the persons, whose statements were obtained during the preliminary

enquiry are examined during the regular departmental enquiry duly providing the opportunity of cross examination and

prove the documents through relevant witnesses during the regular departmental enquiry. In the instant case, no witness

was examined and none of the documents i.e. MD1 to ME23 were proved during the regular departmental enquiry. In

view of the judgments referred supra, i.e. 2001 (5) ALT 65 (DB) & (2013) 4 SCC 301 and for violation of principles of

natural justice, the findings of the Enquiry Officer amounts to perverse findings and the impugned order of dismissal,

which was issued basing on such perverse findings of the EO, is liable to be set aside.

22.

The conclusion arrived at by the EO that, the petitioner has not married to Swapna, D/o Late Uppuleti Mondi is an

absolute perverse finding, as, the evidence recorded during the course of regular departmental enquiry, not only from the

petitioner but also from DW1 to DW3, more specifically, the assertion of DW3 clearly establishes that, the petitioner got

married to Swapna. Further, it is also an established fact that, their marriage was registered with the Registrar of

Marriages, Mancherial and the said document is subsisting even as on today, which was even admitted by the PO during

the course of cross examination. Ignoring all the valid evidence, only by relying upon the statements recorded by the

Vigilance Department during the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have arrived at such arbitrary

and presumptive conclusion, holding the charge as proved. The Enquiry Officer has to consider the evidence recorded

during the course of regular departmental enquiry, but not the statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry. But,

in the instant case, conclusion of guilt on the part of the petitioner, was arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, exclusively

basing on the material collected during the preliminary enquiry, thereby making his findings as perverse in nature.

23.

The Enquiry Officer should act like a judge and should not be biased. Further, basing on the evidence recorded

during the course of enquiry only, the Enquiry Officer has to submit his report. Admittedly, documents considered and

relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to hold the charge as proved, have not been proved during the regular enquiry,

through any relevant witnesses. Therefore, reliance placed by the Enquiry Officer on such of those unproved documents

is wholly unjustifiable. On a bare perusal of the appreciation of the evidence by the Enquiry Officer in his report clearly

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5077

establishes that, basing on the documents, which have not been proved during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

disregarded or disbelieved the evidence adduced during the course of regular departmental enquiry.

24.

In this regard, the counsel for the Petitioner relied on a case law reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, in State of U.P.

Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, while asserting the necessity of EO to act unbiasedly like a judge, while conducting &

submitting his report held that, “It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to

appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the

inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is

absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the

charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid

the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-

judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be 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 to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the

charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure 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. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution

of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic

requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any

proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee”.

25.

In view of the above discussion, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is wholly

illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Koraveni Srinivas is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

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

Sri Koraveni Srinivas is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, the Petitioner has come to the

court with a prayer for his reinstatement into service. As the Petitioner was dismissed from service arbitrarily, he is

entitled to be re-instated in service as Coal Filler with continutiy of service. But the petitioner was terminated from

service and has not done any work, so he is only entitled to get 50% of back Wages.

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

ORDER

The impugned proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/980 dated 10.3.2009 issued by the 2^nd Respondent is illegal and

arbitrary and is hereby set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of

service. Since the Petitioner has not worked for the period from the date of dismissal till date he is only entitled to get

50% of back wages.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 27^th day of June,

2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

5078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1187-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dsUæh;

Hk.Mkj ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-07-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@155@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Kendriya Bhandar

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.07.2018.

[No. L-42012/155/2004-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 26/2005

Ref. No. L-42012/155/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 24.06.2005

BETWEEN

Sri Avinash Nigam S/o Sh.Suresh Chandra,

R/o 566/28, G, Jaiprakash Nagar,

Lucknow (U.P.)

AND

The General Manager,

Kendriya Bhandar,

Pushpa Bhawan,

New Delhi

2. The Regional Manager,

Kendriya Bhandar,

HAL Shopping Complex,

Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/155/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 24.06.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Avinash Nigam S/o

Sh. Suresh Chandra and the General Manager/Regional Manager, Kendriya Bhandar, New Delhi/Lucknow

adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABANDHAK, KENDRIYA BHANDAR, LUCKNOW DWARA SRI AVINASH NIGAM S/O SRI

SURESH CHANDRA, DAINIK VETAN ME KARYARAT CLERK-CUM-TYPIST KO DINANK

12.06.2002 SE NAUKARI SE NIKALA JAANA NYAYOCHIT TATHA NYAYSANGAT HAI? YADI

NAHIN, TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH KA HAQDAR HAI?”

As per claim statement W-3 dated 28.10.2005, the petitioner has stated in brief that he was appointed as Clerk-

cum-Typist on daily wages by opposite party no.3/Regional Manager, Kendriya Bhandar on 15.06.1997 with the

consent of opposite party nos.1 & 2. He has further asserted that he has been working continuously at Regional

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5079

Manager’s office, Lucknow as per directions of opposite party with full satisfaction, and no complaint was ever

lodged against him, the vacancy was clear and permanent in nature, and for regularization on daily wage workers

of Lucknow region, through letter dated 4.11.1998, opposite party no.3 recommended for regularization, and the

petitioner was senior to Sri Jyoti Pravartak.

The petitioner has pleaded that opposite party no.2 issued a letter dated 4.11.1998 for regularization of few daily

wage worker upto sl.no.6 only, therefore opposite party no.3 again sent letter dated 28.8.2000 with the request to

regularize the remaining two persons and it was assured to the management committee that the names mentioned

at sl.no.7 and 8 have completed 3 years of service in the organization, and their work and conduct was found to be

satisfactory during the last 3 years. It has been alleged by the workman that opposite party no.3 allotted sl.no.7 to

Sri Jyoti Pravartak and sl.no.8 to the petitioner, although the petitioner was senior to him, objection was raised

against this anomaly and discrimination. Sri Jyoti Pravartak was regularized by opposite party no.1 & 2 and did

not consider the legal claim of the applicant. Several oral and written requests were made by the petitioner and in

compliance of the formalities required by the management he had also deposited Rs.5000/- towards security

through FDR in favour of Kendriya Bhandar, even then his claim was not considered and grievances were not

redressed.

It has further been stressed by the petitioner that on his frequent request for the regularization , opposite party no.3

stopped the payment of salary for the month of May 2002 and w.e.f. 12.06.2002 attendance register was also not

provided when he approached the office to perform his duties in the usual course. Mandatory provisions of law

for retrenchment were not followed and he was debarred to work w.e.f. 12.06.2002. Violation of Section 25 etc. of

the I.D. Act has also been alleged.

With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made to set aside the oral termination/’debar from work’ order dt.

12.06.2002, and to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages alongwith consequential benefits etc.

Several documents have been annexed with the claim statement.

The management has filed written statement M-24 dated 22.12.2005 with denial of the allegations leveled in the

claim statement. The management has submitted that although several names of daily wage earners alongwith the

applicant were sent for consideration for regularization of service but thereafter the petitioner changed his attitude

towards his duties and therefore he could not get the benefit of the same. The opposite party has alleged that the

conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and to continue him in the department had become a source of

indiscipline, fraud, impertinence, cheating etc., thereafter his engagement came to an end.

The opposite party has further asserted that engagement of the petitioner on daily wage basis was wholly and

solely on the basis of availability of the work. Initially his work and conduct was found satisfactory and

recommended for regularization alongwith other employees and the petitioner was junior amongst the candidates

recommended for consideration for regularization of service.

It has further been stated by the management that the petitioner workman started losing interest in his official

duties allocated to him, moreover he mis-used the management’s money, and often he misused the name of ARM

and was caught on several occasions introducing himself as Asstt. Regional Manager. It has also been alleged that

the petitioner took money in the form of loan from the suppliers for his personal use, which caused disrepute to

the department. He was caught, quite often dozing and napping while on duty, several blank signed bills were

handed over to the suppliers by him which caused loss to the management, amounting to Rs.2 lakhs. Misuse of

official telephone and mobile phone has also been alleged by the management. Fraudulent purchase of cash card

for his personal use and attempt to cheat the management has also been pleaded in the written statement.

10.

The opposite party has contended that although being warned on several occasions by the competent authority, the

conduct of the petitioner did not improve. An opportunity was provided to him to amend himself and he was

transferred from the Regional Office, Lucknow to Mankapur Store but even then he did not improve his work and

conduct, instead of joining at the new place he with the help of his father-in-law, and wife and other relatives

started threatening the management authorities. Regreting his misconduct and misbehaviour etc. letter dated

27.05.2002 was sent by him to the Regional Manager, Kendriya Bhandar, Lucknow. The opposite party has

further stated that the petitioner had lost his good sense, physical health and mental balance due to some internal

family matters etc. The work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory up to the mark, compelling

thereby to the management to refrain from taking any work from him. Since he was engaged on daily wage basis

therefore no appointment letter was ever issued to him hence there was no requirement to provide any termination

letter as well.

11.

The opposite party has emphasized that the provisions of I.D. Act. are not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

Prouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court have also been mentioned in the written statement. With the aforesaid

pleadings request has been made to declare the action of the management as legal and justified. Several

documents have been annexed as per list M-25.

5080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

With strong denial of the allegations leveled in the written statement, rejoinder W-22 dated 9/03/2006, alongwith

an affidavit has been filed by the workman reiterating the pleas taken earlier in the claim statement.

13.

It may be quite pertinent to mention here that the referred dispute, has been adjudicated ex-parte against the

petitioner workman, by the then Hon’ble Judge/Presiding Officer, vide award dated 14.11.2008 and notified on

25.11.2008. Later on the aforesaid award was set aside and restored to its original stage vide order dated

20.10.2010 passed by the then Hon’ble Judge/PO.

14.

The petitioner workman filed his affidavit W-40, in evidence, he was thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the

management.

15.

Before ex-parte adjudication, the management has filed affidavit M-38 dated 20.10.2008 of Sri Manoj Kumar

Gupta, Regional Manager, Kendriya Bhandar, Lucknow, alongwith annexures. It is evident from the record that

after conclusion of the workman-evidence, the opposite party/management was required to adduce its evidence.

Several dates were fixed for this purpose from 09.09.2013 to 11.05.2015 but neither any evidence was adduced

nor earlier witness Sri M.K. Gupta, was produced in the Court for his cross examination. Under these

circumstances, opportunity of further management evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final

arguments. Again 30 dates were given for the purpose, but the opposite party refrained itself from submitting

arguments before the Court. Neither any official of the management nor any Authorized Representative appeared

in the Court to advance arguments. The case can not be endlessly lingered on without any legitimate genuine

reason.

16.

Arguments of learned AR for the workman have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

17.

It has been submitted on behalf of the workman that he was engaged as Clerk-cum-Typist on daily wage basis by

the opposite party w.e.f. 15.06.1997 and had worked continuously as such till 12.06.2002 without any show-cause

notice or notice-pay in lieu thereof, his services were terminated, in violation of the provisions of the I.D. Act. and

against the principle of natural justice. It has further been alleged that several other employees junior to him have

been regularized by the management, but the petitioner was dis-engaged without any formal departmental enquiry

or genuine justification, although he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceeding 12 calander months on

the date of the aforesaid termination.

18.

Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following citations:

2018, LLR, Kurushetra University vs Prithvi Singh page 371, Hon’ble SC.

2018, LLR, Vinod Singh Yadav vs M/s. Securitans India Pvt. Ltd. page 375, Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

19.

The Written Statement submitted by the management, has not been duly corroborate by any cogent evidence. The

affidavit filed by the management in support of its Written Statement, can not be legally and legitimately relied

upon by this Court since the workman could not get any opportunity to cross-examine the management witness,

who was never again produced in the Court by the management. Moreover, no other evidence was adduced by the

management, although sufficient opportunity was provided.

20.

For the so called mis-behaviour of the workman or the alleged mis-representation made by him, whether any

formal enquiry was conducted by the management, has not been brought on record, neither any FIR was lodged

by the management for the alleged cheating. Mere averments in the written statement can not be treated as

conclusive proof.

21.

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2006) 3 SCC 278 State of U.P. Vs Sheo

Shanker Lal Srivastava & others; the statement of the witness, having not been controverted would be deemed to

be admitted, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of workman.

22.

After having heard the intellect arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman, on perusal of the record

in the light of the prouncements of Hon’ble Courts referred here in above, it is inferred that the action of the

management for disengagement of the petitioner workman w.e.f. 12.06.2002, can not be treated as legal and

justified. The petitioner workman is entitled for reinstatement and regularization, as per Rules. The management is

directed to ensure payment of 50% of the back wages with con- sequential benefits to the petitioner workman

within 10 weeks from the date of notification of the award.

23.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

14.06.2018

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5081

नई दली, 2 अगत, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1188

1188

1188.—राsपित, &ी अवतार च"द डोगरा पीठासीन अिधकारी, के"# सरकार औ`ोिगक अिधकरण -सह -&म "यायालय

सं. 1, दली को दनांक 07.08.2018 से छ: माह क आगे क अविध तक अथवा िनयिमत आधार पर पद भरे जाने तक अथवा अगले

आदेश6 तक, जो भी पहले हो, पीठासीन अिधकारी, क!# सरकार औ`ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- &म "यायालय सं. 1 एवं 2, चंडीगढ़ के पद

का अितfरI 4भार स|पते ह ।

[सं. ए -11016/04/2017-सीएलएस-II]

अजय मिलक, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1188.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts No. 1 & 2, Chandigarh entrusted to Shri Avtar Chand

Dogra, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi for a further period of

06 months with effect from 07.08.2018, or till the posts are filled up on regular basis, or until further orders, whichever is

the earliest.

[No. A-11016/04/2017-CLS-II]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1189-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@74@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-30012/74/2008-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 2^ndJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 24/2010

The General Manager/Surface Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,

KDM Bhavan, Palavasna,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

General Mazdoor Sangh,

5082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

B/331, Punitnagar,

Nr. Cadila Railway Crossing, Ghodasar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party No

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

Shri Yogesh M. Dave

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/74/2008–

IR(M) dated 17.04.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC, Mehsana in terminating the services of Shri B.B. Patel, Ex. TA

Gr. II (Chem.) is just and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 17.04.2009. After issuing notice Ex. 3 to all the parties, the first party submitted the

vakalatpatra Ex. 5 of Shri K.V. Gadhia on 19.03.2012 and the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on

19.12.2016 along with vakalatpatra of Shri Yogesh M. Dave. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on

20.11.2017 and the case was fixed for evidence of second party. But since then the second party has not been leading

evidence and the second party workman has alleged in his statement of claim that he was working as TA Grade II

(Chem.) as a permanent employee and he was charge sheeted for unauthorised long absence. The written statement Ex. 8

indicates that he was absent from duty for more than 851 days. Thus in the light of the aforesaid observations, the

workman has simply dragging the reference as a waste of time of the tribunal.

Thus the reference, in the absence of the evidence of the second party union or its workman, is disposed of with

the observation as under:”the action of the management of ONGC, Mehsana in terminating the services of Shri B.B.

Patel, Ex. TA Gr. II (Chem.) can be said to be just and legal.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1190-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- tsM&16025@4@2018&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

01.08.2018.

[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 9^thJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 01/2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5083

Brijeshkumar Hariprakash Shukla,

At & Post Block No. 398/2233,

Shivshakti Nagar, G.H.B., Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Complainant/Applicant

V/s

The Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,

Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The General Manager,

ONGC Ltd. (W.S.S.),

Village Saij, Ta. Kalol,

Gandhinagar (Gujarat)

The Manager,

M/s Vijay Security Services,

33, Patel Chambers, 1^st Floor,

Highway Road, Bapunagar,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Respondents/Opposite Party

For the Complainant

: Shri K.K.Rathod

For the Respondent

: Shri K.V. Gadhia

ORDER

This is a complaint Ex. 1 moved by the complainant Brijeshkumar Hariprakash Shukla under Section 33 A of

Industrial Disputes Act for reinstatement with back wages from the date of termination with all benefits as per Central

Labour Rules and Regulations alleging that he has been working as W.S.S. in ONGC Ltd. (W.S.S.), Village Saij, Ta.

Kalol, Gandhinagar, since 1994 as Accounts Clerk and his salary was as per ONGC rules. He served his duties honestly

and regularly. ONGC Officers used to take his attendance. Despite no notice or departmental enquiry, ONGC and

contractor terminated his service on 26.07.2005, therefore, he has prayed for aforesaid reliefs.

The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 The Manager, ONGC Ltd., Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),

The General Manager, ONGC Ltd. (W.S.S.),Village Saij, Ta. Kalol, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) and The Manager, M/s Vijay

Security Services,33, Patel Chambers, 1^st Floor, Highway Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) respectively, were

issued notice. In response to the notice, the respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted the written statement Ex. 8 alleging that

the workman/applicant was a contractual employee under the opposite party/respondent no. 3 M/s Vijay Security

Services. There was no master servant relationship with the ONGC. The workman/applicant himself has admitted that he

was employed by the contractor; therefore, he cannot be reinstated by ONGC.

The opposite party no. 3 The Manager, M/s Vijay Security Services, 33, Patel Chambers, 1^st Floor, Highway

Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) has not filed the reply as the notices served to him were received as unserved.

Therefore, in the absence of the reply and evidence of the opposite party no. 3 M/s Vijay Security Services as the

applicant has reiterated the averments made in the application in his affidavit Ex. 11, the complaint may be disposed of as

ex-parte against the opposite party no. 3 ordering the reinstatement of the applicant/complainant Brijeshkumar

Hariprakash Shukla in the service of the opposite party no. 3 M/s Vijay Security Services from the date he report for

duty.

In the absence of the master servant relationship, no relief can be granted against the opposite party no. 1 and 2.

The order is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1191-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dk.Myk MkWd yscj cksMZ ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@1@2002&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

5084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Kandla Doc Labour Board and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-37011/1/2002-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^thJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 38/2006

The Vice President,

Kandla Stevedores Association Limited,

10, Seva Sadan-I, New Kandla,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370210

The Deputy Chairman,

Kandla Dock Labour Board,

Shram Deep, Kandla Port,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370210

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Kandla Port & Dock SC/ST Employees’ Union,

S.G.X. 36-37, Adipur,

Kutch (Gujarat) –370205

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/1/2002–

IR(M) dated 24.03.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand made by Kandla Port & Dock SC/ST Employees’ Union for employment of 328 NOC

workers by the Kandla Stevedores Association Limited in the Kandla Dock Labour Board at par with the 240

NOC workers already engaged is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 24.03.2006 and received on 01.04.2006 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 15 alleging that the first party

employer has been engaging workers for loading and unloading on the Ships/Steamers which are permanently coming

and going to various countries. The Kandla Stevedores Association Limited, has employed 328 NOC workers in the

employment for taking work from them in Kandla Port. Since long, more than 240 NOC workers were already engaged

through legal process by Kandla Port and it has to allow further 328 NOC worker to continue to work on Kandla Dock

Labour Board. These 328 NOC workers worked for more than 340/240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, it has been

prayed that all the workers be considered at par with the 240 NOC workers already engaged and they also be paid wages.

The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 21 alleging that the reference is time barred and bad in law.

There was no master servant relationship between the workmen and the first party management, therefore, no relief can

be granted. The reference is too old as referred to the Tribunal on 24.03.2006 but since the filing of written statement on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5085

10.12.2015, the second party has not led evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities. It is also noteworthy that the

Tribunal passed an order on 05.01.2017 that no further opportunity shall be granted but even then after giving dates on

16.02.2017, 17.04.2017, 01.08.2017, 12.09.2017, 14.11.2017, 12.12.2017, 13.02.2018, 10.04.2018 and today on

17.07.2018, the second party union did not come forward to lead evidence.

Thus it appears that the second party union or its workmen are not willing to prosecute the reference.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union or its workmen with the

observation as under: “the demand made by Kandla Port & Dock SC/ST Employees’ Union for employment of 328 NOC

workers by the Kandla Stevedores Association Limited in the Kandla Dock Labour Board at par with the 240 NOC

workers already engaged is illegal and unjustified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1192-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 147@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@54@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-30011/54/2005-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 19^thJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 147/2006

The Chairman,

ONGC Ltd., Tel Bhavan,

Dehradun (Uttrakhand)

The Asset Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,

5^th Floor, AvaniBhawan, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Shri Naresh I. Parmar and 11 others,

Through

The General Secretary,

Kamdar Utkarsh Parishad, Ratilal-ni-Chali, Behind Kalyan,

Mahavir Nagar, Naroda Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia

5086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Second Party

Shri A.N. Patel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/54/2005–

IR(M) dated 12.07.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the contract awarded by the management of ONGC Ltd., in the name of M/s Modern Multi Purpose

Co-operative Society Ltd., was sham and bogus contract and whether the Industrial Dispute raised by the

workmen vide their representation dated 04.08.2005 against the management of ONGC justified? If so, to

what relief the workmen are entitled?”

The reference dates back to 12.07.2006 and received on 07.08.2006 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of

claim Ex. 6. Initially the dispute was raised by Kamdar Utkarsh Parishad but the workers were represented by Gujarat

Mazdoor Sabha, hereinafter referred to as “union”. The statement of claim reveals that the workers were appointed by the

first party The Chairman, ONGC Ltd., Tel Bhavan, Dehradun (Uttrakhand) and The Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd., 5^th

Floor, AvaniBhawan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), hereinafter referred to as “ONGC” in its reservoir sub-division

of Exploration Business Group. Their services were terminated orally on 05.09.1988 by ONGC on the ground of contract

being expired on 15.08.1988. The second party further alleged that the workmen were appointed by the first party as

contingent labour on permanent basis in pursuance of a personal interview being taken by the officers of ONGC.

Thereafter, they were asked to work in Exploration Business Group. They have further alleged that the work which they

used to perform was of permanent nature and they were performing the said work continuously from the date of their

appointment. It is further alleged that one of the workmen Y.A. Kadri was working as Winch Operator and others as

helpers and these workmen used to perform their duties on Winch machine under the senior officers of ONGC. They

have further alleged that they have continuously worked till 05.09.1988. Thereafter, the first party ONGC refused to

continue their services. It is further alleged that in view of the illegal action of the first party, the second party workmen

filed a Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 5893/1988 in the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat wherein the Hon’ble High

Court granted interim relief and directed on 05.09.1988 to the contractor Bansidhar Majoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandli

Limited to maintain status quo. But the contractor did not obey the order of the Hon’ble High Court and demanded Rs.

500/- as donation from each petitioner. They have further alleged that on demand of Rs. 500/- by the contractor, they

again filed a fresh SCA No. 7200/1988 in the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat wherein the Hon’ble High Court stopped

the contractor Bansidhar Majoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Limited not to demand Rs. 500/- as donation. The Hon’ble

High Court further directed not to enter into any contract on the expiry of contract on 15.11.1988 with any other

contractor unless the new contractor agrees to give the workmen to be engaged. The said order was challenged by the

first party ONGC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S&P No. 16576/1988 which ended into dismissal by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further alleged that despite the High Court’s aforesaid orders, the contractors and ONGC

did not prefer to engage the workmen despite continuity of the work. The first party ONGC created a camouflage with a

view to deny the employment by creating fresh paper arrangement. It is further alleged that that the union raised the

dispute of regularisation which was numbered as Reference (ITC) No. 101/1999 which was dismissed by the State

Tribunal on the ground that the services of the workmen were terminated on 05.09.1988, therefore, the order of

regularisation cannot be passed as per the settled law. Against the said action, the second party union approached the

Hon’ble High Court vide SCA No. 9334/2004 but the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court keeping the right

of the second party to challenge the termination order open. The second party union has further alleged that the workmen

worked for more than 240 days; hence, they were entitled for the protection given under the Industrial Disputes Act. The

second party union further alleged that it was the case of the union before the State Tribunal that the second party

workmen were employees of Modern Multipurpose Labour Co-operative Society since February, 1988; therefore, the

action of ONGC was contrary to the provisions of Section 25 F, G, H and N of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further

alleged that the workmen initially were working under ONGC and subsequently, their engagement were transferred to

the contractor, thus the said action of ONGC was violative of Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have

further alleged that the services of the second party workmen were terminated with a view to deprive their right of

regularisation. It is noteworthy that the Government of India has prohibited the contract system for the post of Operator

and Helper in the year 1994, thus the action of the ONGC amounted to be unfair labour practice. In the light of the

aforesaid averments, the second party has prayed for their reinstatement on their original post with continuity of their

service with full benefits treating them as regular employees of ONGC.

The first party ONGC submitted joint written statement Ex. 8 denying the averments made in the statement of

claim submitting that the reference is vague, barred by delay and latches and also barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder

of the necessary parties. The ONGC also submitted that the reference has been moved for the first time in the year 2006

into the matter while the termination of workmen was done in the year 1988, hence after expiry of 18 years and as per the

settled law, the workmen cannot prayed for reinstatement. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, the workmen

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5087

were working with the contractor and were also terminated by the contractor; therefore, the question does not arise to call

them as workers of ONGC. It is further submitted that the workers were not engaged, deployed or supervised by ONGC;

therefore, master servant relationship does not exist between them. It is further submitted that ONGC has its rules and

procedures regarding the recruitment of the employees which is not proved to be followed, therefore, reinstatement, if

ordered, would amount to back door entry and also against the settled principle of law. It is further submitted that the

workmen were not working under prohibit category and there was a contract between ONGC and contractor registered

under Section 7 of CLRA Act, 1970 for which the contractor obtained the licence under Section 12 of the aforesaid act.

Thus the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed and no relief can be granted.

The second party union submitted the documentary evidences vide Ex. 9 and 12 and examined workmen vide

Ex. 10, 13 to 23 and the first party submitted documents vide Ex. 25 and also examined the witness vide Ex. 28.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are to be decided:

Whether the contract awarded by the management of ONGC Ltd., in the name of M/s Modern Multi-

Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd., was sham and bogus contract?

II.

Whether the industrial dispute raised by the workmen vides their representation dated 04.08.2005 against

the management of ONGC justified?

III.

To what relief, if any, the workmen are entitled?

Issue No. I, II & III: All the issues are interrelated, therefore, decided together. The burden of prove of these

issues was lying on the second party union. The second party union examined their witness vide affidavit Ex. 10 and

Ex. 13 to 23. All the witnesses reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim Ex.6. They were cross-examined

by the first party and they reiterated that they were not appointed and supervised by the contractor and they have also

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. What also appears from the cross-examination is that all the

workmen were having different educational qualifications and were not issued any appointment letter by ONGC. After

termination, they are doing some remunerative work and also they have crossed the superannuation age. They do not

have any proof with them regarding their employment directly under the supervision of ONGC with a master servant

relationship. They have also admitted that they have been paid wages on the daily wage basis. From the pleadings and

evidences, undisputed facts emerged out that all the workmen were terminated in 1988 and cause of action arose

immediate thereafter but the present dispute was raised in the year 2004 and 2005 before the Labour Enforcement. It is

true that there were litigation pending between them before various forums like High Court but the dispute regarding the

termination was never referred or adjudicated while it is the duty of the second party to remain cautious and vigilant

regarding their case. The second party union earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court who diverted the matter to seek

relief from the Industrial Tribunal. Thus delay has been caused due to the mistake of the second party union.

Secondly, as per the documents relating to Reference (ITC) No. 101/1999 produced by the second party, it

appears that all the workmen joined the employment in 1986 and 1987 with a tenure of only 15 months and after

reference of this dispute, the statement of claim was filed in the year in 2008 that too after delay of 2 years when the

matter is referred to this tribunal in the year 2006. Thirdly, the case of the second party union is that the workmen were

terminated after completion of contract but the Hon’ble High Court directed the contractor to maintain status quo and

after grant of status quo, contractor did not prefer to reinstate them and tried to exhort Rs.500/- per person for moving

SCA in High Court for seeking relief against ONGC. It appears that the contractor and workmen’s union were in

collision. It is also noteworthy that the second party workmen were terminated by the contractor but they preferred to

seek relief declaring termination illegal and to treat them as employees of ONGC. In terms of the reference, the Tribunal

has to decide as to whether the contract was sham or bogus or not, for that, contractor ought to be necessary and proper

party.

As discussed above, the second party union is praying for reinstatement with regularisation on the ground that

they were doing work of permanent nature and were supervised by ONGC and it was their case that the contractor was a

formality. It is noteworthy that the workmen were terminated in the year 1988 against which they approached the

Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court granted status quo till the disposal of the petition but it is surprising that the

contractor instead of reinstating them, tried to exhort Rs.500/- as donation. The union again approached the Hon’ble High

Court against the said contractor’s conduct and the Hon’ble High Court restrained the contractor to do so. Thus it clearly

establishes that the workmen were the employees of the contractor.

The second party workers in their evidence stated that personal interview/personality test were conducted by

ONGC prior to their appointment but no such interview call letters or appointment letters are submitted by the second

party union. No evidence regarding advertisement of vacancies, non-employee I-Card, temporary pass, office order of

collecting the keys is filed. Thus the workmen’s union has failed to establish that the work was of permanent nature and

the workmen were supervised and controlled by ONGC.

All the workmen examined vide affidavits Ex. 10 and Ex. 13 to 23 and they admitted that they were not given any

appointment letter by ONGC. They were paid by the contractor on daily wage basis. They were gainfully employed to

5088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sustain their families and also worked under the contractor named Modern Multipurpose Society and Bansidhar Majoor

Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Limited. All the witnesses have also admitted regarding the Hon’ble High Court proceedings as

discussed earlier but the second party union did not prefer to submit those orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. All

these witnesses have not submitted their passbooks of the banks regarding their crediting of wages despite promising to

submit. They have also different age and qualification and all have passed the superannuation age as admitted by the

advocate of the second party while submitting his arguments. They have also admitted that they were engaged and also

terminated by the contractor. They have also not submitted any proof which may establish to work for more than

240 days in any calendar year.

10.

The first party ONGC vide list Ex. 25 submitted the copies of the licences of the contractors, agreement,

registration of the contractor to establish the worthiness of the contractor between the ONGC and the concerned

contractor.

11.

The first party has relied upon the depositions of the workmen examined in Reference (ITC) No. 101/1999

wherein it is stated that there are rules and regulations for appointment in ONGC and appointment are always made as

per the rules. Names of probable candidates are called from Employment Exchange and then after checking the details,

call letters are issued, test is taken and interviews are conducted, thereafter the merit list is prepared for issuing

appointment letters to the successful candidates. The medical examination was also done and after passing the medical

examination, they were permitted to join and proper identity cards are issued. But no such appointment letter was issued

to any of these workmen. It was also deposed that all the persons were appointed by ONGC and were terminated by one

Mr. Gupta. It was also denied that the workers have been working as per the instructions of ONGC. But the workmen did

not tried to rebut the entire procedure as explained above.

12.

At the time of the argument, the second party advocate submitted that the concerned workmen were appointed and

terminated by ONGC but looking to the affidavits filed by the workmen, it has not been explained by them in their

deposition. It is also noteworthy that the concerned workmen approached the Tribunal vide Reference (ITC)

No. 101/1999 and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal deciding the reference on merits, rejecting the relief sought

by the workmen and also dismissed the reference. The second party union approached the Hon’ble High Court against

the said order and the matter was relegated to this Tribunal for adjudication.

13.

As per the submissions of the second party workmen, they have worked for a short spam of period in the year

1987 and 1988 as daily rated workmen and they all have crossed the superannuation age. It is also not under dispute that

their services were terminated by the contractor and the contractor has not been impleaded as the necessary party.

14.

The second party union’s advocate Shri Amrish Patel stated that the Evidence Act is not applicable in the cases

under Industrial Disputes Act belying the fact that the zerox copies of the documents produced by the second party union

are very much admissible in evidence. He has also submitted that the workmen were earlier engaged by ONGC and later

their services were transferred to the contractor which is a change in service condition, hence the action of ONGC was

violative of provisions of Section 9 A of Industrial Disputes Act and ONGC did not issue any notice under aforesaid

section before transferring the workmen from ONGC to contractor. But no such evidence has been produced as when

these workmen were recruited by the ONGC as per the procedure discussed earlier.

15.

The first party the ONGC has relied upon several judgments in support of its submissions which are as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow V/s Akhilesh

Kumar Khare & others, 2015 III CLR 464, held that the Courts cannot issue any direction for absorption /

regularization of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees.

II.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Account Officer (A&I) APSRTC & Ors. V/s K.V. Ramana & Ors.,

2007 LLR 338, held that contractual workers who have completed 240 days without any break cannot be

regularized dehors the rules of selection as they had not undergone the departmental selection process.

III.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment of Dena Nath and Ors., 1992 (64) FLR 39, held that

the CLRA Act merely regulates the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and provides

for its abolition in certain circumstances. Non compliance of the provisions only exposes to prosecution but

the contract labour employee does not become direct employees of principal employer.

IV.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., 2001 (2) SCSLJ=2001 LLR

961 also laid down a ratio which is reproduced as under:

“Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by

necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by

Appropriate Government under sub section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour,

in any process, or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be

required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5089

In case of Union of India & Anr. V/s Ramsingh Thakor & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 3806, the Apex Court held

that regularization of services is an executive function and such direction cannot be given by the Judiciary.

VI.

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balvant Rai Saluja & Anr. V/s Air India Ltd. & Ors., 2014 III CLR 751,

held that contractual workers working in statutory canteen as per the Factories Act who are under certain

degree of control of the Principal Employer also cannot claim regularization as there is no parity in the

nature of work, mode of appointment, qualification etc. between regular employees of the partly employer

and concerned persons.

VII.

The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 530 in case of Jhon Peter Farnandiz also

held that as per the position of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments contractual

workers have not undergone the selection process and therefore they cannot claim regularization.

VIII. The Hon’ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Hadvad Nagar Palika held that compliance of

Section 25 F is also not required in case of daily wages.

IX.

The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 2038/2004 in case of Shukla M.P. V/s Municipal

Commissioner, held that once the concerned person has not followed the selection process, he cannot be

entitled for regularization.

In case of latest judgment of Gujarat high court in case of ONGC itself of Shri Chetan Kumar Patel and

Others, 2016 III CLR Page 106, had prayed for regularization with ONGC. The Hon’ble High Court has

after considering the judgment of Constitution Bench of Umadevi, 2006 II CLR 261, Indian Drugs

Pharmaceuticals, Kendriya Vidya Sangathan, U.P. State Electricity Board, Official Liquidator V/s

Dayanand etc. held that

•

If it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an

end when it is discontinued.

•

Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time being

beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or

made permanent, merely on the strength on such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

•

Regularisation is not a mode of appointment.

•

The Government or the instrumentality of the State cannot regularize the appointment made

contrary to the course of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules governing the posts.

•

The High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not issue directions for

regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in

terms of the constitutional scheme.

•

There should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularization or

making permanent those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. [vide Shilpa Jinda

(supra)]

XI.

The Hon'ble Apex Court after the constitution bench judgment in Umadevi held in 2010 in case of State of

Karnataka & Ors. V/s Gadilingappa and Ors. that any judgment / direction contrary to the directions given

in Umadevi’s case [2006(4) SCC 1] shall not have a precedent status.

XII.

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of M/s. NTPC Ltd., 2015 (144) FLR 248, held that Contractor

is a necessary party and any reference cannot stand unless the contractor is impleaded.

XIII. In case of latest judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Upendra Singh V/s State of

Bihar & Ors., 2018 I CLR 1043, considering the landmark judgment of Umadevi, held that unless the entry

is made duly accepted procedure of public advertisement, selection of employees as per norms fixed and

against the sanctioned posts etc one is not entitled to get the relief of regularization in service.

16.

The second party advocate relied on ONGC V/s Petroleum Coal Labour Union, 2015 (6)SC C 494, wherein the

apex court held that the workmen cannot be denied their legitimate, statutory and fundamental right to be regularised on

the basis that ONGC did not follow the due procedure as provided under the Clause 2 (2) of the ONGC Certified

Standing Orders appointing them as temporary workmen and continuing them as such for a number of periods though

they were entitled for regularisation under aforesaid order would amounts to unfair labour practice. He has further relied

upon workmen of FCI V/s FCI, AIR 1985 SC 670, wherein it has been held that FCI applied different procedures for

engagement at different establishment and abolition of contract system without issuing notice with a cancellation of

direct payment system and re-introducing contract system is punishable under Section 31 (2) of Industrial Disputes Act.

He has further relief on State of Uttar Pradesh V/s Om Pal Singh, 2006 SLP (C) 5189, wherein the apex court has held as

5090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under: “The engagement of the first respondent was for only a particular project cannot be appreciated at all. We

therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and as

endorsed by the High Court. However, we do not find it proper in the facts of the case to sustain the award of back wages

in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the award is modified only to the extent that the first respondent shall not be

entitled for back wages for the period he was not actually in service and for all other purposes his services shall be treated

as continuous.”

17.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is an admitted fact that all the workmen were engaged by the contractor

and have also passed the superannuation age and the dispute has been raised after 18 years, therefore, it is not equitable

to reinstate them with back wages and other benefits, however, it would be appropriate to pay Rs. 150000/- (Rupees One

Lac Fifty Thousand) as lump-sum to each workman.

18.

Thus the reference is decided accordingly. The first party ONGC is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to all the

workmen concerning this reference within 60 days from the publication of the award.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1193-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-

08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@39@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-30011/39/2015-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^thJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 09/2016

The Executive Director – Asset Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,AvaniBhavan, 5^th Floor, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The Incharge (HR - IR),

ONGC Ltd.,AvaniBhavan, 5^th Floor, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The Dy. General Manager (P) ST,

ONGC Ltd.,AvaniBhavan, 5^th Floor, Chandkheda,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

M/s D.B. Enterprises,

G-8, Sukan Mall, Behind Vishat Petrol Pump,

Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5091

The President,

Glorious Petroleum MazdoorSangh,

A/3, PriyaDarshini Society,Near New Railway Colony,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380019

…Second Party

For the First Party

None

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/39/2015–

IR(M) dated 15.01.2016 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad through its contractor M/s D.B.

Enterprises, Ahmedabad in discontinuing/terminating the services of two workmen Shri Mangaji J. Yadav

w.e.f. 28.04.2015 without following the procedure prescribed under Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 during

the pendency of his claim for regularization in services of ONGC Ltd., before CGIT, Ahmedabad and Shri

Pradipkumar S. Nai without following the procedure prescribed under ‘Fair Wage Settlement’ is legal, proper

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen S/Shri Mangaji J. Yadav and Pradipkumar S. Nai

are entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 15.01.2016 and received on 23.01.2016 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication. The first party ONGC has submitted a copy of the award Ex. 6 passed in Reference

(CGITA) No. 11/2016 which was disposed of on 21.11.2017 directing the contractor M/s D.B. Enterprise to

engage/employ the workman namely Mangaji J. Yadav and Pradipkumar S. Nai immediately as and when they report for

duty.

The schedule of the reference in the present reference is completely same and details of the letter of the reference

are also same.

Thus this reference amounts to be duplicity of the dispute. Thus this reference is not maintainable being repetition

of the earlier reference.

Thus no final award is required and the reference is disposed of accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1194-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 242@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@36@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 242/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-30011/36/1999-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

5092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 3^rdJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 242/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Ahmedabad Project, Avani Bhawan,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

General Mazdoor Sabha,

Divetia Blocks, Raikhad,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party No

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

Shri Raghuvir Mali

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/36/99–

IR(M) dated 17.11.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of General Mazdoor Sabha that the so called contract under which the employees Shri

Zala Govindbhai Mangalsinh and 21 others in the various department of ONGC Ahmedabad Project ‘sham’

and ‘bogus’ arrangement and the concerned employees be treated in direct employment in ONGC Ahmedabad

Project from their date of engagement with all consequential benefits through the so called contractors is legal

and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date?”

The reference dates back to 17.11.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 15.03.2000

alleging that the second party union The General Secretary, General Mazdoor Sabha, Divetia Blocks, Raikhad,

Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as “union”, has right to raise the dispute concerning the workmen who are members

of the union. The union is active in trade union activities with the first party The Group General Manager (P), ONGC

Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Avani Bhawan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”. The second

party union sent a notice dated 12.12.1998 to the first party regarding making the workmen as permanent employees

along with other benefits like basic salary, dearness allowance and annual increment etc. The second party union

submitted a representation before the Conciliation Officer where ONGC filed the reply but ONGC did not accept the

demands of the union, consequently reconciliation ended in failure. It has been further alleged by the second party that

the workmen detailed in the annexure were employed by ONGC. The workmen were performing the duties with the

establishment of ONGC permanently and regularly as being of permanent nature. The work performed by the workmen

was of a permanent nature therefore, the workmen were entitled for regularisation/permanent. The workmen were never

stopped to work or terminated. The workmen were allotted the work by the officers of ONGC under their direct

supervision and control. Attendance register of the workmen were also maintained by ONGC. Wages were also paid by

ONGC. Their working hours and shifts of work were also regulated by ONGC. The workmen were carried over to the

workplace by the ONGC transport. Tools were provided by the ONGC to the workmen. No middle agency was involved

between the workmen and ONGC regarding their duties. The contract reached between the ONGC and the contractor, if

any, was not existing, therefore, sham and bogus. There was no difference between the work performed by the workmen

concerning the reference and the regular employees of ONGC but there was a vast difference between the salaries

between the workmen and regular employees of ONGC. The workmen were not provided any presence card, identity

card etc. which were always provided to employees. These workmen have been working under the notification dated

08.09.1994. The contract between the ONGC and the contractor was against the CLRA Act. The defence taken by the

ONGC during conciliation was untenable. Thus the union has prayed for regularisation of the workmen as a regular

employee of ONGC from the initial date of joining with a legal cost of reference.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 11] [email protected] 20] 1940

5093

The second party union also moved an interim relief application Ex. 2 along with the statement of claim on the

same ground but no order was passed on the said application.

The first party ONGC submitted the written statement Ex. 18 denying the averments made in the statement of

claim but admitted that the workmen were working under a contract and submitted that the reference is incompetent and

void in law and also not maintainable. The reference suffers with delay and latches and the terms of the reference are

vague. ONGC used to award various jobs of casual and seasonal nature on contract basis to the contractors so as to get

the job done awarded to the contractors within the time frame provided in the contract through engagement of labourers.

The ONGC had a recruitment rules, promotion and regularisation policy to be strictly followed by it in the light of the

instructions and circulars of the Union of India regarding rosters, reservations policy etc. These second party workmen

were never appointed by ONGC as per the procedure provided under the ONGC recruitment rules, therefore, they are not

entitled to get any relief and the reference is liable to be dismissed.

On the basis of the averments made in the statement of claim and written statements, the following issues arise:

Whether the demand of General Mazdoor Sabha that the so called contract under which the employees Shri

Zala Govindbhai Mangalsinh and 21 others in the various department of ONGC Ahmedabad Project

‘sham’ and ‘bogus’ arrangement and the concerned employees be treated in direct employment in ONGC

Ahmedabad Project from their date of engagement with all consequential benefits through the so called

contractors is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workmen are entitled?

Issue No. I & II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these

issues was lying on the second party union but the second party union despite giving dozens of opportunities, did not

prefer to lead evidence and also submitted the closing purses vide Ex. 61 on 12.02.2018. Thus it is a case of no evidence.

The ONGC in his written statement has alleged that the workmen were the contractual employees; therefore, there

was no master servant relationship between the ONGC and the workmen. The second party has vaguely alleged that they

were not contractual employees but somehow admitted that they were engaged by the contractor but the contractor has

not been made the party, therefore, the reference suffers with the non-joinder of contractor in the reference. The second

party union has alleged that the workmen have been working under the prohibit category but no such notification as well

as the details of the work done by the workmen as alleged to be in the prohibit category, has not been submitted.

Secondly, the alleged notification dated 08.09.1994 was stayed by the Hon’ble Andhra Predesh High Court which has

been submitted by the first party.

Thus the reference in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in re NTPC, 2015 (144)

FLR 248 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Mahajan v/s Professor R. C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of

Medical Science, 2018 (157) FLR 287 SC, has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Thus the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the demand of General Mazdoor Sabha that the

so called contract under which the employees Shri Zala Govindbhai Mangalsinh and 21 others in the various department

of ONGC Ahmedabad Project ‘sham’ and ‘bogus’ arrangement and the concerned employees be treated in direct

employment in ONGC Ahmedabad Project from their date of engagement with all consequential benefits through the so

called contractors is illegal and unjustified.”

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1195-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 256@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@51@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2018

S.O. 1195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 256/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

5094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11, 2018/SRAVANA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01.08.2018.

[No. L-30011/51/1999-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 3^rdJuly, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 256/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Ahmedabad Project,

Avani Bhawan, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

General Mazdoor Sabha,

Divetia Blocks, Raikhad,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party No

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

Shri Raghuvir Mali

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/51/99–

IR(M) dated 15.12.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of General Mazdoor Sabha that the contract under which the employees Shri Rabari

Jayrambhai Cheharbhai and 31 others were engaged in the various department of ONGC be treated as ‘sham

and bogus’ and the concerned employees be treated in direct employment in ONGC Ahmedabad Project from

their date of engagement with consequential benefits through the so called contractors is justified? If so, to

what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

The reference dates back to 15.12.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 15.03.2000

alleging that the second party union The General Secretary, General Mazdoor Sabha, Divetia Blocks, Raikhad,

Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as “union”, has right to raise the dispute concerning the workmen who are members

of the union. The union is active in trade union activities with the first party The Group General Manager (P), ONGC

Ltd., Ahmedabad Project, Avani Bhawan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”. The second

party union sent a notice dated 02.02.1999 to the first party regarding making the workmen as permanent employees