4588 GI/2018

(5153)

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- 32]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 12—vxLr 18] 2018] '[email protected] 21—Jko.k 27] 1940

No. 32]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12—AUGUST 18, 2018, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 21—SRAVANA 27, 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

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय

िवीय

िवीय सेवाएं

सेवाएं

सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 1 अग त, 2018

का

का.आ.

. 1223

1223

1223.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम ेणी 3 और ेणी 4 कमचारी (सेवा के िनबंधन और शत का संशोधन)

िनयमावली, 1985 के िनयम 13 के उप-िनयम (2) ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, के !ीय सरकार, एत"ारा, यह िनधा%रत

करती है क उ उप िनयम के अ य उपबंध के अ*यधीन, ेणी 3 और ेणी 4 के +येक कमचारी को 01 अैल, 2016 से 31 माच,

2017 तक क0 अविध के िलए बोनस के बदले म2 भुगतान, उनके वेतन के 15 ितशत क0 दर से कया जाएगा।

[फा.सं. एस-11012/01/2018-बीमा-I]

भूिमका वमा, संयु िनदेशक

5154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1223.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of the Life Insurance Corporation of

India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985, the Central

Government hereby determine that, subject to the other provisions of the said sub-rule, the payment in lieu of bonus for

the period from 1^st April, 2016 and ending with 31^st day of March, 2017 to every Class III and Class IV Employee shall

be at the rate of 15 per cent of his/her salary.

[F. No. S-11012/01/2018- Ins.-I]

BHUMIKA VERMA, Jt. Director

(राज व

राज व

राज व िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 8 अग त, 2018

का

का.आ.

. 1224

1224

1224.—के !ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक0य योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-

िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म2 राज व िवभाग के अधीन राजव आसूचना िनदेशालय, मु<यालय, नई दली, िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक

कमचा%रय ने िह दी का काय साधक Aान ाB त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2012-एडी(िह दी-4)]

डॉ० सतीश चं!, संयु िनदेशक (रा०भा०)

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1224.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Headquarter, New

Delhi Under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2012-AD(HINDI-4)]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Dy. Director (OL)

नई दली, 9 अग त, 2018

का

का.आ.

. 1225

1225

1225.—के !ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासक0य योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-

िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म2 राज व िवभाग के अधीन राDीय सीमा शुक, अ+यE कर एवं नाकF%टHस अकादमी नासेन, फरीदाबाद, िजनके

80 ितशत से अिधक कमचा%रय ने िह दी का काय साधक Aान ाB त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2012-एडी(िह दी-4)]

डॉ० सतीश चं!, संयु िनदेशक (रा०भा०)

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2018

S.O. 1225.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes &

Narcotics, Nacen, Faridabad Under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2012-AD(HINDI-4)]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Dy. Director (OL)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5155

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2018

dk-vk- 1226-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] vcq /kch esa Jh jktsanj dqekj eh.kk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

27 tqykbZ] 2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2018

S.O. 1226.—In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajender Kumar Meena, Assistant Section

Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi to perform the Consular services with effect from

27th July, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2018

dk-vk- 1227-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] oSudwoj esa Jh jkgqyk c#vk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

27 tqykbZ] 2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2017º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2018

S.O. 1227.—In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rahul Barua, Assistant Section Officer as

Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Vancouver to perform the Consular services with effect from

27th July, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2017]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1228-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] VksjksaVks esa %

(d) Jh ;ksxs'k 'kekZ] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh] rFkk

([k) Jh lat;] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 2 vxLr] 2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkfj;ksa ds rkSj ij

dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2016º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

5156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2018

S.O. 1228.—In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints :

(i)

Shri Yogesh Sharma, Assistant Section Officer, and

(ii)

Shri Sanjay, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officers in the Consulate General of India,

Toronto to perform the Consular services with effect from 2nd August, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1229-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oS/kfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] c²e?ke esa Jherh Kkuoh ¯lg dlkuk] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks

fnukad 3 vxLr] 2018 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkÑr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@01@2014º

izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1229.—In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and

Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Gyaanvi Singh Kasana, Assistant Section

Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Birmingham to perform the Consular services with

effect from 3rd August, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 8 अग त, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1230

1230

1230.—क2! सरकार, द ली िव शेष पुिल स थापन अिध िन यम, 1946 (1946 का अिध िन यम सं. 25) क0 धारा 6 के

साथ प%ठ त धारा 5 क0 उप-धारा (1) ारा द शिH त य का योग करते ए महाराD राK य सरकार के द नांक 17.05.2018 क0

अिध सूचना सं< या-एमआईएससी-2017/सीआर-45/एसपीएल-3(क) ारा दी गई सहमित से एतद्ारा भारतीय दंड संिह ता 1860

(1860 क0 अिध िन यम सं. 45) क0 धारा 420 एवं 511 तथा साथ ही सूचना ौMोिग क0 अिध िन यम (आईटी अिध िन यम) 2000 क0 धारा

66ख, 66ग और 66घ के अंतगत मरीन Nाइव, मुंबई म2 दज ाथिमक0 सं<या 243/2016 के दंडनीय अपराध के िलए तथा इन तPय

के सQपादन के दौरान अ य कोई अपराध या अपराध से संबंिधत यास, दुRेरण, और आपरािधक षडयंS के िलए अ वेषण के

िलए द ली िव शेष पुिल स थापन के सद य क0 शिH त य एवं EेSािध कार का िव तार संपूण महाराD राK य पर करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/15/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. िS पाठी, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5157

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1230.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Maharashtra issued vide Notification No.MISC-2017/CR-45/SPL-3(A), Dated 17.05.2018 hereby extends

the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of

Maharashtra, for investigation of the case FIR No.243/2016 registered at , Marine Drive, Mumbai for the offence

punishable under sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) as well as under Sections

66B, 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 and any other offence, attempt, abetment and conspiracy in

relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence committed in the course of the same transaction arising out

of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/15/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

Ukkxj foekuu ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1231-—jk"Vªifr] ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ds laLFkk ds c£gfu;eksa ds [akM 98 esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx }kjk bl vf/lwpuk dks

tkjh fd, tkus dh frfFk vFkok vxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls Hkh igys gks] 3 o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, uhps mfYyf[kr nks O;fDr;ksa dks ,vj bafM;k ds

funs'kd eaMy esa xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ds in ij lg"kZ fu;qDr gS %&

(i)

Jh okbZ-lh- nsos'oj] vè;{k] vkbZ-Vh-lh-

(ii)

Jh dqekj eaxye fcM+yk] vè;{k] vkfnR; fcM+yk xzqi

¹la- ,oh&18013@007@2007&,vkbZº

pUæ fd'kksj 'kqDyk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1231.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 98 of the Articles of Association of the Air India

Limited, the President pleased to appoint the following two persons as part-time non-official Director on the Board of Air

India Limited for a period of 3 years from the date of issue of this Notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

(i)

Shri Y.C. Deveshwar, Chairman, ITC

(ii)

Shri Kumar Mangalam Birla, Chairman, Aditya Birla Group

[No. AV-18013/007/2007-AI]

CHANDRA KISHORE SHUKLA, Under Secy.

5158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

varfj{k foHkkx

csaxywj] 7 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1232-—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] ,rn~}kjk varfj{k foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj

fy;k gS] dks vfèklwfpr djrh gS %&

jk"Vªh; ok;qeaMyh; vuqla/ku iz;ksx'kkyk]

(,u-,-vkj-,y-)] xknadh] fr#ifr

ikdyk eaMy] ftyk & fpÙkwj]

vka/z izns'k&517 112

¹la- 8@1@10@2011&¯g-º

ds- oh- je.kk ckcw] voj lfpo

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 7th August, 2018

S.O. 1232.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office of the Department of Space, whereof

than

80 per cent staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

National Atomospheric Research Laboratory,

(NARL), Gadanki, Tirupati,

Pakala Mandal,

Chittor District, (Andhra Pradesh) – 517 112

[No. 8/1/10/2011-H.]

K. V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1233-—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;] xksnkofj[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

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

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.07.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5159

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

ON MONDAY, THE 19^thDAY OF MARCH, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13 OF 2013

Between:-

1. Govindula Raju, W/o. Bheemaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Household,

2. G. Thirupathi, S/o. Bheemaiah, aged about 20 years, Occ: Unemployee,

3. G. Soujanya, D/o. Bheemaiah, aged about 16 years, Occ:

4. G. Swarna, D/o. Bheemaiah, aged about 21 years, Occ : Household,

All are R/o. Achalapur, V/o.Thandur (M), Adilabad District.

… Petitioners/Employee

AND

1. The General Manager, SCCL, Srirampur Area, Srirampur Projects,

Post: Srirampur, District Adilabad.

2. Managing Director, SCCL, Administration,

Post: Kothagudem, District Khammam.

…Respondents/Employer

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

Petitioners/Employee and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Counsel for the Respondents/Employer; and having been heard and

having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

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

referred as ID Act for convenience sake with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28-12-2007 in file

No.SRP/PER/13008/6336, dt.25-12-2007 and to direct the respondents to admit the 2^nd petitioner into service by ordering

MMC to the petitioner No.1 from 14-12-2005 to the date of realization of MMC wages @ Rs.3,000/- per month from

14-12-2005 and @ Rs.6,000/- from 01-05-2008. The following is the brief case of petitioner as per their petition.

One Govindula Bheemaiah who is no more now was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Srirampur Area which is represented by respondents herein. The petitioner after working in mine missed from the mine

on 14-12-2005. The 1^st petitioner is wife, petitioner No.2 is son and other petitioners are daughters of said Bheemaiah.

He has performed the marriage of petitioner No.4 during his lifetime. The said Govindula Bheemaiah was appointed in

Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 03-01-1986 and he discharged his duties to the fullest satisfaction of the

officers till the date on which he was removed from service on 26-12-2007. The petitioner states that on 14-12-2005

Bheemaiah attended the duty and was missing from the mine. Thereby the petitioner gave information to the police but

the police did not register the case for his missing. The petitioner lodged a complaint with SHO, Srirampur and the same

was registered as a case in Cr.No.9/2006. The police conducted search and they posted a notice namely look out notice

of man missing at Srirampur and ultimately closed the file on 28-06-2009 stating that the offence is not detectable. The

petitioners have stated that late Bheemaiah was charge sheeted for his absence to the duties from 16-07-2006 to

31-12-2006. A formal enquiry was conducted against him and he was dismissed from service on 26-12-2007. There

was no charge sheet or any charge memo. So the enquiry is conducted against law and against facts. The respondents

have adopted unfair labour practice against the petitioners and victimized the petitioners herein. The enquiry was

conducted behind the back of petitioners and Bheemaiah was terminated from service. The petitioners states that

1^st petitioner is entitled for MMC from the date of 14-12-2005 till the date of death of 1^st petitioner or till the

2^nd petitioner gets employment. The petitioners Nos.1 to 3 approached the respondents and sought for employment and

also for release of MMC but the respondents did not provide employment nor they paid amount to the petitioners. The

case of petitioners is covered by statements and also decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner had got

effective remedy under section 12(3) of ID Act R/w. 11 (b) of ID Act and the petitioners are entitled to MMC @

Rs.3,000/- from 03-01-1999 and @ Rs.6,000/- from the date of 20-11-2009. The petitioner made a representation to the

company but there was no response thereby they prayed for setting aside the removal order dated 25-12-2007 and also to

pay MMC to the 1^st petitioner from 14-12-2005 @ Rs.3,000/- and @ Rs.6,000/- from 01-05-2008. Both the respondents

5160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

have appeared before the court. R-1 filed counter which was adopted by the 2^nd respondent. The following is the brief

case of respondents as per their counter.

The present Industrial Dispute filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. According to Section 2-A (2) of the

ID Act, an application referred in Sub Section (2) of 2-A shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry

of (3) years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of the workman. The husband

of the petitioner No.1 was dismissed on 25-12-2007. The petitioners kept quite for a period of (6) years and raised the

present dispute which is barred by limitation. The respondents further states that said Bheemaiah was appointed as Coal

filler in the respondent company on 03-02-1986, his last date of duty was 15-12-2005. Thereafter he never approached

the respondent company. A charge sheet dated 21-02-2009 for his absence was issued. The respondent company is not

aware of his missing case vide Cr.No.9/2006. The dependants of the employee did not inform the man missing case to

the respondent company. The respondents further stated that the petitioner approached the respondent in 2009 and

requested for settlement of terminal benefits of Bheemaiah. In fact before the petitioner approached the respondent a

charge sheet dated 21-02-2007 was issued against the said Govindula Bheemaiah. He did not attend the domestic

enquiry. A general notice in the paper was given several times. There was no response, to the said notices therefore said

Bheemaiah was dismissed from service w.e.f., 26-12-2007. The respondents company settled the terminal benefits of

Bheemaiah in favour of 1^st petitioner on 09-10-2009. While furnishing the details of the payments made to the

petitioners herein these respondents stated that said Bheemaiah being an underground employee was excepted to put

minimum 190 musters in a calendar year but he was a chronic absentee, he was continuously absent for 160 days in the

year 2006. It amounts to misconduct. A charge sheet was given against the said Bheemaiah. A copy of the charge sheet

was sent to the residential address but the same was returned as undelivered. A paper publication dated 31-07-2007 was

issued in Vartha telugu news paper but there was no response. Therefore, an exparte enquiry was conducted. The

enquiry officer submitted a report holding the ex-employee was guilty of misconduct of duties. A show cause notice was

issued to said Bheemaiah. There was no response thereby a general notice in Vartha dated 04-10-2007 was issued but

the said Bheemaiah did not respond to the show cause notice. Therefore, the respondents passed orders dismissing the

said Bheemaiah. The respondents states that the petitioners are not entitled to MMC and they are not eligible for

dependant employment since Bheemaiah was dismissed from service. The case of the petitioners was not covered by any

settlement between the management or trade unions. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the Industrial Dispute.

4. I have heard both parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to direction the respondent to appoint the

petitioner No.2 into service along with ordering MMC to the petitioner No.1 from 14-12-2005 to till up to realization

of MMC wages of Rs.3,000/- from 14-12-2005 and Rs.6,000/- from 01-05-2008, if not, to what relief?

5. This Industrial Dispute is filed by (4) petitioners who are wife and children of one Govindula Bheemaiah. As per

the admitted case of both parties the said Bheemaiah worked in Singareni Collieries Company Limited which herein after

will be referred as S.C.C.Ltd. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 2A(2) of ID Act and the following is

the prayer of petitioners in the petition.

“It is therefore prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to appoint the

petitioner No.2 into service along with ordering MMC to the petitioner No.1 from 14-12-2005 to till up

to realization of MMC wages of Rs.3,000/- from 14-12-2005 and Rs.6,000/- from 01-05-2008 or order or

orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper interms of settlements and Supreme Court Orders, by

set aside the removal order dt.26-12-2007 vide file No. Ref.SRP/PER/13008/6336, dt.25-12-2007 on the

file of 1^st respondent for which act of justice the petitioners shall ever pray”.

The petitioners have claimed that the said Bheemaiah attended the duty on 14-12-2005 but did not return to home

and his whereabouts not known since then. They have claimed that they searched for him and filed a complaint before

the police. The petitioners states that they waited for (7) years and as his whereabouts are not known for more than (7)

years, it is deemed that he is no more now. Therefore the petitioners prayed for appointment of 2^nd petitioner in

S.C.C.Ltd., and also for M.M.C. The basis for the said claim is settlements between the Management and workman of

S.C.C.Ltd., and also the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the petitioners did not furnish the details of alleged

settlements and orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The respondents disputes the claim, according to the respondents the said Bheemaiah failed to attend the duties

from 14-12-2005, as such he was removed from the service after following the procedure and after a detailed enquiry.

The respondents have claimed that the petition filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation and the reliefs sought for in

the petition cannot be granted under section 2A(2) of ID Act. In para No.7 of the counter the respondents have further

stated that the petitioners are entitled to gratuity, FBIS, CMPF and pension. They have already paid gratuity to the

petitioners by way of cheque and other amounts to be paid by Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Godavarikhani.

In order to prove the claim the respondents have filed Ex.M-1 to M-10 viz., enquiry proceedings etc.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5161

The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment between “Union of India and others vs

Polimetla Mary Sarojain and another reported in 2017 (3) ALD 285 (DB) and argued that the petitioners are entitled to

the reliefs prayed in the petition. Even as per the said judgment the Hon’ble High Court made the following

observations:

“When a person is not seen for qouite sometime, it may be case of ‘Man Missing’ for people at house.

But for the office where he is working, it will only be a case of unauthorized absence. The employer is

entitled to follow disciplinary action against every employer who absents himself unauthorized. At this

stage, the employer cannot be expected to anticipate that the employee will not come back for (7) years

so as to arrest the raising of the presumption under section 108. (para 23) The Hon’ble High Court was

pleased to observe that the family members of an employee whose whereabouts are not known for more

than (7) years to receive gratuity, family person etc. The right of employer to take disciplinary action

and impose a penalty of removal or dismissal is not taken away by section 108 I.E.Act. Therefore, an

order of removal or dismissal passed before the date on which the presumption under section 108 arises

cannot become a mollify post facto”

10.

In the case on hand the petitioners have claimed that Bheemaiah was not seen from 14-02-2014. However the

respondents conducted enquiry and removed the said Bheemaiah on 25-12-2007 itself. The respondents have further

stated that the petitioners have filed W.P.No.13051/2008 with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order, but got the WP

withdrawn without reserving any right to file the present ID or without obtaining the leave of the Hon’ble High Court.

The petitioners did not dispute this fact. Therefore, the record would show that respondents have removed the said

Bheemaiah on 25-12-2007. The present ID was filed in December, 2012, which is beyond the period of limitation. In

fact as seen from Section 2A(2) of the ID Act any dispute or difference between workman and his employer in

connection with the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment termination can be questioned before an Industrial Tribunal.

Therefore by virtue of Section 2(A) 2 of ID Act the employee who was dismissed, discharged etc., can file the petition.

But in the present petition the petitioners without questioning the said dismissal sought for employment of 2^nd petitioner

by way of dependent employment and for monetary benefit which in my sincere opinion cannot be ordered in the present

petition.

11.

It is a fact the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred judgment was pleased to observe that the family members

of an employee whose whereabouts are not known and who was dismissed from service are entitled to gratuity etc. As

seen from the counter the respondents have already settled the said benefits. The petitioners did not place any such

“settlement” under which they can claim dependent employment and monthly monetary compensation. The petitioner

did not explain how they can maintain the present ID even after dismissal of their WP which was filed for setting aside

the dismissal order of said Bheemaiah. It is not their case that they have obtained necessary leave from Hon’ble High

Court to file the present ID. They did not reserve any right to file the ID while withdrawing their WP. For the above

reasons it cannot be said that the said Bheemaiah was dead from the date on which he went missing. In the light of the

observation made by Hon’ble High Court in the above stated judgment the punishment imposed by respondent i.e.,

removal of service of said Bheemaiah cannot be held illegal. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19^th day of

March, 2018.

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN

FOR MANAGEMENT

-Nil-

E X H I B I T S

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

13-05-2011

Demand letter with RPAD receipts and ack.,

Ex.W-2

Dt.

25-12-2007

Dismissal order (attested copy) under RTI

Ex.W-3

Dt.

26-12-2007

Letter of name removal issued by Dy.G.M., SCCL

5162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W-4

Dt.

06-06-2011

Gram Panchayat Certificate as petitioner not appearing and complaint given

by his family members

Ex.W-5

Dt.

Look out notice (Xerox)

Ex.W-6

Dt.

12-01-2006

FIR attested copy

Ex.W-7

Dt.

12-04-2008

Letter of the Dy. GM, RK 7 Incline (Xerox)

Ex.W-8

Dt.

28-06-2009

Closure report of the police (Xerox)

Ex.W-9

Dt.

13-07-2011

Family members certificate

Ex.W-10

Dt.

30-06-2011

Affidavit of petitioner.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

21-02-2007

Office copy of charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt.

21-02-2007

Postal returned cover sent to the petitioners husband

Ex.M-3

Dt.

31-08-2007

Paper publication of charge sheet

Ex.M-4

Dt.

10-09-2007

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-5

Dt.

10-09-2007

Enquiry report

Ex.M-6

Dt.

13-09-2007

Office copy of show cause notice

Ex.M-7

Dt.

13-09-2007

Returned postal cover with RPAD

Ex.M-8

Dt.

04-10-2007

Paper publication of show cause notice

Ex.M-9

Dt.

25-12-2007

Office copy of dismissal order

Ex.M-10

Dt.

25-12-2007

Undelivered postal cover sent to petitioners husband.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1234-—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;] xksnkofj[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&2)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1234.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.07.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

ON THURSDAY, THE 8^thDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5163

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.22 OF 2012

Between:-

1. Karavula Madunamma, W/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years,

Occ: House hold, R/o: Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar.

… Petitioner/Employee

2. Karavula Indira, D/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 26 years,

Occ: House hold, R/o: Godavarikhani.

Karravula Praveen, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 20 years,

Occ: Unemployed, R/o: Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar.

(The petitioners 2 and 3 are the Legal heirs of late Rajaiah).

4. K.Sharada, D/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged: 30 years.

5. K.Mallesh, S/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged: 28 years.

6. K.Aruna, D/o. Late Rajaiah, Aged: 26 years

(The petitioners 4,5,6 are the Married persons of late Rajaiah)

… Petitioners/Employees

AND

General Manager, SC Company Limited, Ramagundam Area-1,

Godavarikhani.

Managing Director, SC Company Limited, Kothagudem

(Administration), District: Kothagudam.

…Respondents/Employer

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

Petitioners/Employees and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents/Employer; and having been heard

and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed by petitioners 1 to 6 U/sec. 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, which hereinafter will be

referred as I.D. Act with the following prayer.

2. "It is therefore prayed that the Honorable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to appoint the

petitioner No.1 to 3 into employment as afresh to any one of them or VRS GHS to the bereaved family of the deceased

husband of petitioner or orders as the Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of the Justice and fair play for

which act the petitioner's shall ever pray, for set aside dismissal order dated 18-10-2004".

3. The following is the brief case of petitioners as per their petition:

One Karravula Rajaiah was the husband of petitioner No. 1 father of the other petitioners. He was appointed in the

SCCL on 01-01-1975 he was in service till 18-10-2004 on which date he was dismissed from service on account of some

misconduct. The petitioners have claimed that the service conditions of said Rajaiah were governed by various standing

orders, schemes and settlements of the company. While he was in service the first respondent attributed the misconduct

U/sec. 25.25 of standing orders of the company. He has participated in the enquiry on 20-02-2004. It appears from the

averments of the petition that a departmental enquiry was initiated against said Rajaiah for his continuous absence for

duties. The petitioners have claimed that Rajaiah suffered Tuberculosis, he has obtained treatment for the said disease

but he became weak. However he has successfully discharged his duties up to 2005. At the time of domestic enquiry he

wanted to produce the medical record but the first respondent suppressed those material documents. He was victimized

by the respondents who have adopted unfair labour practice and issued proceedings by which he was dismissed from

service. The petitioners have claimed that the respondent did not serve the dismissal order on the said Rajaiah. However

colliery Manager and Superintendent of Mines have admitted that Rajaiah has got unblemished service and promised

him that he can opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he has accepted the said proposals. But without giving such an

opportunity the respondents have issued proceedings by which Rajaiah was dismissed from service. They have also

claimed that Rajaiah made efforts by roaming the offices of R-1 and R-2 from 2004 to 2007 he tried to secure re-

appointment through union labour but in the mean time he died without securing any employment. The petitioners did

not give the details as to how and why Rajaiah was dismissed from service and what were efforts made by him to secure

5164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employment. But in the present application they sought for a direction to the respondents to provide employment to

petitioners 1 to 3.

Both the respondents have appeared before this tribunal R-1 filed counter which was adopted by R-2. According

to the counter filed by the respondent it shows that said Rajaiah who was appointed in SCCL remind absent from duty

without sanctioned leave or without any sufficient cause. He has put in 54 musters during 2003. As such a charge sheet

dated 20-02-2004 was issued on him. The continuous absence of Rajaiah was misconduct as per Company's Standing

Orders.

5. The respondents have further averred that there was no such promise as claimed by the petitioners that the

respondent have agreed to allow the said Rajaiah to OPT for VRS and they put the petitioners to strict proof of their

averments. The respondents have claimed that Rajaiah was appointed in the respondent company on 07-03-1975 and

later he was designated as General Mazdoor. He worked at G.D.K No.5A Incline. During 2003 his attendance was 54

actual musters. A charge sheet was served on the workman on 20-02-2004 for his habitual, late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause.

6. He has submitted a written explanation on 25-02-2004 stating that he fell sick and he could not attend duty during

2003. But he could not submit any documentary prove in support of the ill health, his explanation was not satisfactory

thereby an enquiry was ordered on 05-05-2004. He has participated in the enquiry, the enquiry officer explained the

charges in telugu to the said Rajaiah. When asked by the enquiry officer whether he has got any objection to the charges

he reported no objection and he has informed the enquiry officer that he don't want any help of co-worker or any labour

to defense his case. As such he has admitted the charges and pleaded guilty of misconduct. At the time of said enquiry

he has assured the respondent that he will improve the attendance by putting a minimum required attendance. He made

such assurance in the presence of his family numbers and trade union representatives. The consequences of his regular

absenteeism were explained to him he gave an undertaking on 19-05-2004 assuring that he will put minimum 22 musters

during the observation period from 01-06-2004 to 31-08-2004 but he fail to follow the undertaking. He did not attend the

duty from June, 2004 to August, 2004 his attendance was only 1 muster. He failed to put in mandatory musters of 190

per year he did not improve the attendance. The enquiry officer found him guilty of misconduct. A show cause notice

along with copies of enquiry report was issued to him for his remarks. He made a representation on 21-07-2004 but if

was found not satisfactory. Thereby the respondent company was constrained to dismiss him from service from

18-10-2004.

7. The respondents have further claimed that in view of the said dismissal order Rajaiah filed I.D.No.19/2005 before

this court and sought for set aside the dismissal order and for a direction to the respondent company to reinstate him into

service with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including full back-wages. The respondents have

contested the said industrial dispute. They filed a detailed counter, this tribunal passed an award on 23-12-2006 and

dismissed the petition filed by the said workman. The award was published in the gazette on 25-08-2007 vide

notification No. L-22013/1/2007-IR (C-II) dated 01-08-2007 U/sec. 17 of I.D. Act. If the legal heirs of Rajaiah have got

any objection they can approach the Honorable High court and challenge the award. They have no right to have afresh

I.D. before this tribunal on the same cause of action. The respondents have pleaded that this tribunal already decided the

Industrial Dispute between management and workman namely Rajaiah vide its award in I.D.No.19/2005. Therefore

according to the respondents the present I.D is barred by the principles of Resjudicata.

8. The respondents have also claimed that the scheme of voluntary retirement was introduced in 2005, the relevant

eligibility criteria for the said scheme according to the respondents is reproduced hereunder:

Group A: An employee who has completed 10 years of service or completed 40 year of age (as on 01-08-2005) and

fulfilling the conditions laid down in Para.3 of the Circular may seek voluntary retirement, by written application.

Group B: An employee who has completed 50 years of age (as on 01-08-2005) and fulfilling the conditions laid

down in Para-3 of the Circular may seek voluntary retirement, by a written application.

3. Criteria of eligibility of an employee to opt for voluntary retirement:

3.1. Those employees, who will be retiring on superannuation on or before 31-07-2007 are not eligible for seeking

voluntary retirement under this scheme. Those employees who are facing disciplinary proceedings either for

unauthorized absenteeism or for any other misconduct during the operation period of the scheme are not entitled

for seeking voluntary retirement.

However, after the disciplinary proceedings are disposed of during the operation period of the scheme they may

seek voluntary retirement, if they are other-wise eligible.

9. Therefore according to the respondents since the said Rajaiah was dismissed from service on 18-10-2004 neither he

nor his family members are entitled to opt for VRS. The respondents have denied and disputed the other averments of

the petition. While reproducing the observations made by this tribunal in I.D.No.19/2005 in its order dated 23-11-2006,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5165

the respondents further pleaded that the petitioners have no right to maintain the present I.D and they ought to have

challenged the award before the Honorable High Court and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

10. I have heard both parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim employment in the respondent

company as prayed for?

11. The petitioners herein are wife and children of one Karravula Rajaiah who worked as General Mazdoor in SCCL.

He worked in 5A Incline. The petitioners have claimed that said Rajaiah was in service till 18-10-2004 and Respondent

company dismissed him from service on account of mis conduct, and they have pleaded that the Respondent did not

serve the dismissal order on said Rajaiah, but colliery Manager and Superintendent of mine having accepted the

unblemished service of Rajaiah Promised him that he can opt for voluntary retirement, without giving such an

opportunity dismissed him from service, as such the petitioners sought for employment of petitioners.

12. However the respondent has claimed that there was no such promise, but in fact the said Rajaiah was continuously

absent for the duties, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The enquiry officer found Rajaiah as

guilty of misconduct. The respondents after obtaining his reply/remarks after serving a show cause notice, removed him

from service. He has filed I.D.No.19/2005 but it was dismissed on merits.

13. No where in the petition, the petitioners have stated anything about the absence of Rajaiah for the duties, about the

departmental enquiry, the findings of enquiry officer or about the I.D which Rajaiah filed after his removal from service.

The petitioners have pleaded as if the colliery Manager and Superintendent of mines made a promise to said Rajaiah as if

he can opt for voluntary retirement etc.

14. However the record produced by respondent would show that Rajaiah was dismissed from service on the ground of

continuous absenteeism and that removal order was passed after a detailed departmental enquiry. The documents filed

by respondent clearly show that a regular domestic enquiry was initiated against the said Rajaiah. The Enquiry Officer

found him guilty of misconduct namely continuous absent to the duties and found that Rajaiah was unable to maintain

minimum required musters. The findings of enquiry officer were accepted by the Respondent/SCCL and a show cause

notice was served on him. His explanation was not accepted by the respondent and ultimately the respondent has

removed Rajaiah from service. The petitioners did not dispute the I.D filed by the said Rajaiah. There is no dispute by

the petitioners about the dismissal of I.D.

15. The petitioners without disclosing all these details filed the present petition and sought for employment of

petitioners in the place of Rajaiah. It amounts to suppression of material information. When once the I.D filed by

Rajaiah was dismissed by competent court, the only remedy available to the Legal Representative of the said deceased

Employee was to file appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. There is a Judgment and decree against Rajaiah and there is

no appeal preferred against the Judgment of this tribunal.

16. The petitioners did not explain how they can file fresh I.D on the same cause of action, when the Industrial

Dispute raised by the employee/work was dismissed by competent court, more particularly when the I.D was dismissed

on merits. As rightly argued by the respondent, the petitioners in the capacity of Legal Representative of deceased

employee can prefer appeal against the Judgment and award passed in the above said I.D.

17. The record clearly shows that the respondent served a charge sheet on Rajaiah and after enquiry, he was removed

from service on the ground of continuous absence to the duty. It is also clear that the said Rajaiah was filed I.D.

No. 19/2005 and challenged the said order. But I.D was dismissed on merits.

18. Now it is very clear that the petitioners without approaching the Hon'ble High Court on the Award in

I.D.No.19/2005, filed the present I.D and wanted to get an order of employment. The award in I.D.No.19/2005 operates

at res-judicata. In fact the petitioners are not able to explain how and under what provision they can claim employment.

This was not a case of voluntary retirement. Therefore there are no merits and present I.D is liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8^th day of

February, 2018.

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN

FOR MANAGEMENT

-Nil-

5166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

E X H I B I T S

FOR WORKMAN:—

Ex.W-1

Dt.

16-02-2010

Demand letter

Ex.W-2

Dt.

12-08-2004

Charge sheet

Ex.W-3

Dt.

04-07-2004

Show cause notice

Ex.W-4

Dt.

04-09-2008

Death certificate

Ex.W-5

Dt.

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.W-6

Dt.

11-03-2011

Family members certificate

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

09-03-2005

Notice and petition in ID.No.19/2005 filed by K.Rajaiah (Petitioners

husband)

Ex.M-2

Dt.

27-06-2006

Copy of counter in ID.No.19/2005

Ex.M-3

Dt.

30-06-2005

Copy of circular No.CRP/Per/IR/V/621/967 for voluntary retirement

scheme in company

Ex.M-4

Dt.

01-08-2007

Notification with award in ID.No.19/2005

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1235-—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;] xksnkofj[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

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

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.07.2018.

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

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5167

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

ON WEDNESDAY, THE 7^thDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 74 OF 2015

Between:—

Vengala Srinivas, S/o. Late Kanakaiah, 37 years, E.C.No. 2364793,

Ex-General Mazdoor, R/o. H.No.20-4-310, Hanuman Nagar,

P.O: Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar

…Petitioner

AND

The Superintendent of Mines, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

GDK No. 11 Incline, RG-I Area, PO: Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar.

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam Area-I, PO: Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar.

The Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P.O: Kothagudem, District: Khammam (A.P).

…Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Gulla Ramesh, Advocate for the Petitioner and

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

till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:—

AWARD

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which hereinafter will be

referred as I.D Act against R-1 to R-3 with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order No.RG-I/PER/S/46/1722

dated 16/19-03-2013 by second respondent herein and also to direct the respondents’ to reinstate the petitioner into

service with all consequential attendant benefits and full back-wages. The following is the brief case of the petitioner as

per his petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Badli-Filler in the respondents’ company during 1999 under the dependent

employment scheme. He was promoted as General Mazdoor. Ever since the date of his appointment he was discharging

the duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors, without any kind of adverse remarks. The petitioner further

represented that he served the company effectively and put more than required musters. The petitioner has furnished a

tabular form of his attendance particulars from 1999-2011 and claimed that he has attended more than 100 musters. The

petitioner further stated that he suffered chronic ill-health and severe pain and injuries to his right ankle in 2010. He

underwent prolong medical treatment in the respondents’ company hospitals and other referral hospitals at regular

intervals. The petitioner claims that his health was badly affected due to underground work. According to the petitioner

due to the indifferent attitude of the respondents and because of chronic ill-health, he was forced to work in the

underground to feed his large family. He used to obtain treatment, but his health was completely deteriorated during

2011-2012. The respondents without considering these aspects have issued charge sheet dated 17-03-2012 with the

following.

“25 (25): Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

“25 (31): Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstayed beyond sanctioned

leave”.

3. The petitioner further claimed that there was no deliberate or intentional absence on his part and there was

reasonable and sufficient cause for his continuous absence for his duties and for failure to maintain minimum musters.

But the second respondent passed an illegal order on 16/19-03-2013 and dismissed the petitioner from service. The

petitioner states that an ex-parte domestic enquiry was conducted while the petitioner was undergoing treatment. There

was no opportunity for petitioner to defend his case. The enquiry officer did not appreciate the documentary and oral

evidence in a proper way. The findings of the enquiry officer are cryptic and he gave vague findings, which are biased

and perverse. Therefore the petitioner prayed to treat the domestic enquiry as invalid. He has also claimed that the

second respondent passed dismissal order without issuing prior show cause notice but imposed capital punishment of

5168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissal from service. It is mandatory for the respondent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner before imposing

capital punishment. The petitioner further averred that in view of the health condition he was unable to attend duties. He

used to maintain more than 150 musters in several years prior to 2006. Therefore according to the petitioner his absence

in 2012 cannot be treated as misconduct. The respondent adopted unfair labour practice and imposed harsh punishment

which amounts to economic death of the petitioner. He could not secure any other employment after his dismissal from

the service. He has no other source of livelihood thereby he prayed for set aside the dismissal order and to direct the

respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and back-wages.

The respondents have appeared before the court. R-2 filed a detailed counter which is adopted by R-1 and R-3.

The respondents have claimed that all the material averments of the petitioner are false and the respondents have denied

those allegations. According to these respondents it is incorrect to say that the petitioner discharged duties to the utmost

satisfaction of the superiors. The petitioner was never regular to the duties. He was a chronic absentee. In 2012 there

was a punishment imposed on the petitioner and his two increments were stopped for his continues absence from duties.

The respondents have claimed that the services of the employees of respondent company are governed by company

standing orders. According to Section 52(2) of the Mines Act, 1952 an underground employee is required to put in

minimum 190 musters and surface employees must attend 240 musters in a year. The petitioner being an underground

employee, he is expected to put in minimum 190 musters in a calendar year. But in 2011 the petitioner put only

6 musters therefore he was charge sheeted under clause 25.25 and 25.31 of companies standing orders. The respondents

have alleged that the petitioner attended 184 musters in 2009 and 62 musters in 2010 and only 6 musters in 2011. While

denying and disputing the claim of petitioner with regard to the ill-health these respondents further pleaded that there was

no such ill health and the petitioner was put to strict proof of his allegations. The respondent further pleaded that even in

2010 he has attended 62 musters there was a charge sheet against the petitioner and his two increments were with hold by

order dated 07-03-2012. Even then there was no improvement in the attendance and petitioner continued the same

attitude. The respondent denied the contention of petitioner that only an ex parte domestic enquiry was conducted and

further pleaded that the respondent company has established dispensary hospitals throughout the colliery areas as a

welfare measure to cater the needs of the employees. The respondent used to refer critical cases to Multi Specialty/Super

Specialty Hospitals at Hyderabad. If really petitioner suffered such ill-health he should have reported in the company

hospital. He never attended the hospital established by the respondent company. He used to remain absent from duty

without intimation or leave.

The respondent further pleaded that the petitioner having received charge sheet dated 17-03-2012 did not choose

to give any reply. A domestic enquiry was ordered and petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry on 30-10-2012. The

notice was served on petitioner on 11-10-2012. He did not choose to attend the enquiry, there was no information from

the petitioner as to why he was not able to attend the enquiry therefore the respondent with a view to give another

opportunity once again issued notice on 05-12-2012 adjourning the enquiry to 31-12-2012. The notice was returned

undelivered. Therefore a paper publication dated 12-01-2013 was issued directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on

19-01-2013. But there was no response therefore the enquiry officer preceded with the enquiry and on considering

documentary evidence and other evidence on record the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 20-01-2013 holding

that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. A show cause notice was issued by way of registered post with

acknowledgement due. The petitioner received the said notice but failed to make any representation. Therefore the

respondent after considering the entire material including the past record of the petitioner found no circumstances for

taking a lenient view and therefore dismissed the petitioner from service.

The respondent have denied all the averments of the petitioner vide Para No. 7,8,9 and further pleaded that they

have followed the procedure. They have issued notice of enquiry as well as a show cause notice directing the petitioner

to make any representation. The respondents also pleaded that there are 60,000 employees in the respondent company.

The figure includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon the overall

attendance and performance of each and every individual. The duties of the employees are interlinked and inseparable.

If any employee is absent without any sanction of leave or without any justified cause the work to be performed get

affected. Such unauthorized absence create sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill up, and there will be no

proper planning and the planned schedules suddenly disturbed if there is no prior notice. Therefore the respondent

company was compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. The respondents have claimed that the

petitioner was an unauthorized absentee with this 6 musters in a calendar year. He failed to improve his attendance and

performance even after punishments of with holding his increments. With advent and implementation of new Industrial

and Economic Policies by Central Government as well as Company the respondent cannot go on employing the persons

who are chronic absentees, who are burden to the company therefore the respondent was constrained to dismiss the

petitioner from service. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the present industrial dispute.

When the petition was pending for enquiry the petitioner filed a memo under section 11-A of I.D Act and reported

no objection against the domestic enquiry. Both the counsel for petitioner and respondents' gave consent for marking

Exhibits. Ex.W-1 to W-9 are marked by the petitioner and Exhibits M-1 to M-13 were marked for respondents.

Both the parties filed their respective written arguments.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5169

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitle to reinstatement into service by set aside the

dismissal order, if so whether the petitioner is entitled to attendant benefits and back-wages?

As seen from the entire records the petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler under dependent employment scheme.

It seems he joined service in 1999. The petitioner did not dispute the rule of the company by which an underground

employee is suppose to put in minimum 190 musters. The respondents have pleaded that according to Section 52(2) of

Mines Act every underground employee is required to attend 190 musters in a calendar year. The services of the

petitioner are governed by Mines Act, 1952. Even according to tabular form in Page No. 3 of the petition except in 2003,

2008, and 2009 the petitioner did not attend 190 musters in the remaining period. His attendance in 1999 was 88 musters

and in 2001 it is 140, in 2002 it was 80, in 2005 his attendance was 142 musters, in 2006 it was 108 where as in 2010 his

attendance was 62 musters thereby an enquiry was conducted and his increments were with held. The attendance of the

petitioner in 2011 was 6 only musters. The respondents have categorically stated that when the petitioner failed to attend

minimum musters he was charge sheeted in 2010 and after enquiry his two increments were with held, but there was no

change in the attitude and the attendance of petitioner in 2011 was only 6 musters. The petitioner having accepted these

figures pleaded that he was suffering from chronic ill health and was unable to attend duties. The respondent claims that

they have established company hospitals in all the colliery areas and they used to refer critical cases to the Multi

Specialty/Super Specialty Hospitals at Hyderabad. In order to substantiate the claim with regard to the ill health the

petitioner has produced some medical record but it is very clear that he never attended the hospitals established by the

respondent company. Ex.W-4 is the outpatient card from Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences

dated 09-04-2011. According to this outpatient card the complaint was pain in the right ankle. Ex.W-5 is a report from

Diagnostic Lab for MRI Scan Right Knee Joint. Ex.W-6 is the certificate obtained from Leela Ramesh Multi Specialty

and Critical Care Hospital without any date. In fact there are no details in this document. Ex.W-7 to W-9 are the OP

tickets from SCCL Hospital. The petitioner is not able to prove that he suffered such a chronic disease by which he was

unable to attend the duties. Except this certificate which at best shows that he suffered Knee pain, there is no proof that

he was undergoing treatment for any chronic disease. There is no explanation from the petitioner why he did not opt to

join in the company hospital or to visit Multi Super Specialty hospitals through the employer. The petitioner did not

choose to examine the concerned doctors from whom he said to have obtained treatment.

10.

On the other hand the respondent has produced record which shows once the petitioner faced regular enquiry for

his absence and in the year 2010 his increment was with hold as a measure of punishment. In the light of the said record

the petitioner ought to have improved his attendance but the records shows that in a long year of 365 days he attended the

work for only 6 musters. In fact there is no sufficient documentary proof that petitioner was prevented from attending

the duties. As rightly argued by the respondents if really the petitioner suffered such a severe health problem he could

have approached the hospital authorities and he must have obtained sick permission. There is a practice in the

respondent company whenever an employee is unable to attend the duties he used to be referred to the company hospital

where the authorities will declare him as unfit and render treatment. The petitioner did not explain why he was not able

to attend the hospital if really knee pain was such severe. It is a fact that the respondent company is depending on the

services of the staff including underground employees. As rightly claimed by the respondent if a particular employee

failed to attend the duties without any prior permission definitely it cause dislocation of the work. The present case is not

an expectation. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a Judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No. 1941 of 2014 between Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Broad and others Vs T.T. Murali

Babu. The Honorable Apex Court was pleased to observe in this judgment that the plea of absence of “habitual

absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are

disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason

had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we

are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had

interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely

attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate.

11.

The next contention of the petitioner is with regard to procedure lapses the petitioner claims that there was no

proper enquiry he was not served with any show cause notice and he was dismissed against the principles of natural

justice but the records produced by the respondent clearly shows that the petitioner was informed about the proposed

enquiry he has received the notice and failed to attend the enquiry. There was a paper publication in the newspaper

directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry. The respondents have issued a show cause notice but petitioner did not

choose to give any reply. The enquiry officer has examined the oral and documentary record and submitted his report

under Ex.M-11. Ex.M-12 is the copy of show cause notice which was sent to petitioner by registered post and the same

was served on the petitioner therefore the contention of the petitioner that there was no proper services of enquiry notice

and there was no show cause notice is nothing but false. The petitioner in spite of punishment of withholding increments

in 2010 again failed to put in required musters in 2011, there was no proper explanation for his absence. He could not

prove that he was suffering from such a severe health problems. Therefore the punishment of dismissal from service is

not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct as such there are no grounds to allow the petitioner or to direct the

respondent company to reinstate the petitioner into service. Therefore the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

5170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7^th day of

February, 2018.

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN

FOR MANAGEMENT

-Nil-

E X H I B I T S

FOR WORKMAN:—

Ex.W-1

Dt.

16/19-3-2015

Dismissal order

Ex.W-2

Dt.

Identity card (photocopy)

Ex.W-3

Dt.

21-08-2015

Office copy of demand letter with RP receipt and postal acknowledgement

Ex.W-4

Dt.

09-04-2011

Out patient card (photocopy)

Ex.W-5

Dt.

12-04-2011

MRI Scan report

Ex.W-6

Dt.

Post Traumatic RA report

Ex.W-7

Dt.

27-02-2011

SCCL hospital OP ticket (photocopy)

Ex.W-8

Dt.

25-03-2011 &

04-05-2011

SCCL hospital OP ticket (photocopy)

Ex.W-9

Dt.

02-06-2011

SCCL hospital OP ticket (photocopy)

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

07-03-2012

Office order

Ex.M-2

Dt.

17-03-2012

Charge sheet

Ex.M-3

Dt.

03-08-2012

Receipt

Ex.M-4

Dt.

08-10-2012

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-5

Dt.

03-11-2012

Letter addressed to the post master, Godavarikhani

Ex.M-6

Dt.

Delivery slip of registration department (Xerox)

Ex.M-7

Dt.

05-12-2012

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-8

Dt.

05-12-2012

Returned RPAD sent to the petitioner

Ex.M-9

Dt.

12-01-2013

Paper publication of Namaste Telangana

Ex.M-10

Dt.

19-01-2013

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-11

Dt.

20-01-2013

Enquiry report

Ex.M-12

Dt.

16-02-2013

Show cause notice

Ex.M-13

Dt.

16/18-03-2013

Office order, dismissing the petitioner

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5171

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1236-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w-

lh-,y- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-08-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@138@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/138/2016-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/04/2017-18

Date: 03.07.2018

Party No. 1(a)

The Sub Area Manager,

Mungoli Sub Area, Western Coalfields Limited,

Post-Sakhraa, Tal-Wani, Distt-Yavatmal,

Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445304.

Party No. 1(b)

M/s Avaneesh Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,

WCL contractor, At Shengaon,

Ghughus Road, Post-Ghughus,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.) – 442505.

Versus

Party No. 2

: Shri Uttam Laxman Dethe & 27 others,

Shrirama Ward, Ghughus,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.) – 442505.

AWARD

(Dated: 03^rd July, 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 employer, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields) Limited and the Contractor, M/s

Avaneesh Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, Shri Uttam Laxman Dethe & 27 others for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-22012/138/2016- IR(CM-II) dated 09.05.2017, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of WCL, Chandrapur was not giving regular duties of Shri

Uttam Laxman Dethe and other 27 workmen (as per Annexure) engaged through the Contractor M/s

Avaneesh Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chandrapur is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workmen are

entitled to and to what extent?”

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 31.08.2017, Shri Amoresh Bajpayee, authorized representative

of the Contractor filed authorization but no advocate filed any vakalatnama on behalf of them. On 27.10.2017, Shri R.E.

Moharair, advocate filed vakalatnama for the management. Of WCL On the first date after issuing of notice by this

Tribunal i.e. on 31.08.2017, the petitioner, Uttam Dethe was present but no statement of claim was filed on that date and

5172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from that day, nobody has been appearing from the side of the petitioners. It shows that, the petitioners are 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] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1237-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w-

lh-,y- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-08-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@29@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/29/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/20/2017-18

Date: 06.07.2018

Party No. 1(a)

The General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Majri Area, Post: Kuchna,

Tehsil : Bhadrawati, Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.).

Party No.1(b)

M/s Shri Kuldeep Singh, Contractor

At WCL, Majri, Post: Kuchna,

Tehsil : Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.).

Versus

Party No.2

: Shri Vijay Munnilal Kumhar & 2 others,

Ward No. 4, New Majri Colliery,

Post: Shivajinagar, Tehsil: Bhadrawati,

Distt. Chandrapur, Chandrapur (M.S.).

AWARD

(Dated: 06^th July, 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 employer, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited & M/s Kuldeep Singh,

Contractor and their workmen, Shri Vijay Munnilal Kumhar & 2 others for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

22012/29/2017- IR(CM-II) dated 26.09.2017, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Kuldeep Singh, a contractor of WCL, New Majri Sub

Area, Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Munnilal Kumhar and 2 others workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5173

(list of workmen enclosed) without complying the provision section 25 F of ID Act 1947 is legal &

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

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 28.11.2017, Shri R.E. Moharir, advocate filed vakalatnama on

behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Shri Aktar N. Ansari, advocate, on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. On 23.01.2018,

20.03.2018 and up to 23.04.2018, the petitioner did not engage any advocate. On 24.04.2018, petitioner’s advocate filed

vakalatnama and prayed for time to file statement of claim. Dates 09.05.2018, and 02.07.2018 were fixed for filing of

statement of claim on the request of the petitioner. Moreover, this court already closed this case on 24.04.208. Even on

02.07.2018, petitioner and his advocate were not present. It shows that, the petitioner 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] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1238-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w-

lh-,y- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-08-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@95@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/95/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/32/2017-18

Date: 23.07.2018

Party No.1

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery No. 1,

Western Coalfield Ltd., Post: Lalpeth,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S.).

Versus

Party No.2

: The General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

C/o Shri C.J. Kandre,

Near Mahakali Mandir, Bhiwapur,

Distt. Chandrapur, Chandrapur (M.S.).

AWARD

(Dated: 23^rd July, 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 employer, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their union, Koyla

5174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shramik Sabha (HMS), for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/95/2017- IR(CM-II) dated 11.12.2017, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the dispute raised by General Secretary of Koyala Shramik Sabha (HMS), Chandrapur over

the demand of pay arrears during conversion from PR to TR i.r.o. Shri Vitthal Krishna Thamke, PR

Loader, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area, WCLtd, Chandrapur is just, fair & legal? If yes, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?”

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 02.07.2018, petitioner/workman filed an application to

withdraw/close the proceedings of this case. This application was marked as I.A. No. 1. On behalf of the management,

Shri Vinod M. Shende asserted “No Objection” and also identified the workman. So, this application appears to be

bonafide. This reference is closed without recording any evidence and treated as closed with unproved. 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] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1239-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w-

lh-,y- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 85@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-08-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@218@1997&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/218/1997-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/85/2002

Date: 23.07.2018

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager,

WCL, Ballarpur Colliery,

PO: Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur,

Ballarpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

The General Secretary,

Indira Rashtriya KKK Sangh,

WCL, Near Meenakshi Mandir,

Chandrapur, Chandrapur (M.S.).

AWARD

(Dated: 23^rd July, 2018)

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their union, Indira

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5175

Rashtriya KKK Sangh, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/218/97-IR (CM-II) dated 22.07.1998, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, M/s WCL Ballarpur Area in not

regularizing all 15 workmen only on the ground that these workers are not members of recognized

union like other workers who worked for few days and were regularized by way of making settlement

with the recognized union, is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled

and from which date? What other directions are necessary in the matter?”

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

in response to which, Indira Rashtriya KKK Sangh, (“the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the

management of Western Coalfields Limited, (“Party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The union filed a statement a claim by asserting that, they registered under Trade Union Act. They also asserted

that, concerned workers involved in the present dispute along with others lodged several agitations after stoppage of their

work. A settlement was taken out between the union and management by which management agreed to prepare a

seniority list of all such workers and also agreed that, whenever any vacancy will available, preference shall be given to

the employee from the seniority list.

According to the union, this reference is concerned with about 15 workmen. Name of these 15 workers are

mentioned in para 7 of the statement of claim. According to the union, all 15 workers were employed at Ballarpur

Colliery between 1976 to 1979 as Wagon Loader and they are entitled to be reemployment as and when the vacancy will

available, but the Party No. 1 did not regularize above workers and breached the agreement dated 30.03.1980. The Party

No. 1 also did not prepare a waiting list of all terminated employees. Moreover, Party No. 1 in 1989, invited name of the

candidates from Employment Exchange, but did not follow the requisite procedure. So, they breached the provision of

Section 25 of the above Act.

According to the union, agreement dated 30.03.1980 had mentioned that, as per provisions of Section 25-H and

the provisions of Standing Orders, Party No. 1 considered 157 workers, but they present workers were not reemployed

and Party No. 1 did not take any step to treat employment of above workers. So they prayed that, above 15 Wagon

Loaders may be reemployed with retrospective effect and pay them back wages with consequential relief.

On behalf of the Party No. 1, filed written statement by taking preliminary objection that, order of reference

mentioned 11 workmen while statement of claim filed on behalf of 15 workers. Term of reference is contrary to real

dispute, so this is vague. They also asserted that, this claim did not call under section 10 of the above act, so it is illegal

and bad in law. They also asserted that, this reference was made after lapses of several years i.e. 19 years, so it is not

tenable under the eye of law.

According to the Party No. 1, this reference is totally misconceived, because the union was not in existence during

the period of claimants alleged to have worked, so union has no locus standi. According to the Party No. 1, WCL is a

statutory body, which has their own rules and regulations. There is also prescribed procedure for getting appointment.

They appoint only those eligible candidates, whose names are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is also

mandatory for Party No. 1 to comply reservation criteria, physical handicapped and ex-serviceman criteria, which are

prescribed by the Government.

According to the Party No. 1, persons who are engaged purely on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement

would not get the right to appointment permanently. Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules 1956 is applicable to the

management and under rule 6 of above rules, a register is maintained, which is preserved for a period of three years.

According to the Party No. 1, there is no employer and employee relation exists, so backdoor entry cannot be permitted

to be regularized.

Party No. 1 asserted that, this dispute was originally refereed to CGIT, Jabalpur and then it was transferred to this

Tribunal. Management also issued requisition to the local Employment Exchange for sponsoring the eligible candidate

sand on the basis of that sponsored name, candidates were selected. According to the Party No. 1, no meeting was held

on 30.03.1980. Claimants were not employed; therefore the question of reemployment does not arise. According to the

Party No. 1, there is no violation of above Act and Standing Orders. So, they prayed that, claimants through union are

not entitled to any relief and also prayed for dismissal of the reference.

10.

The union filed rejoinder by asserting all facts mentioned in the statement of claim. They also asserted that,

preliminary objection taken by the Party No. 1 to be quashed, because they are frivolous objection. They also prayed

that, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case is not applicable. They also admitted para 3 and 4 of

written statement. They also prayed that, Party No. 1 is not specifically denied to their averment, so they prayed for

reinstatement.

5176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

Points of determination

Whether the management refused to regularize the above workers on the ground that, they were not

members of recognized union?

ii.

Whether the action of the management not regularizing all 15 claimants is legal, proper and justified?

iii.

Whether the workmen are entitled to any relief?

Reasons of determination

12.

On behalf of workman Mr. K.K. Yadav relied on following case laws:- S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu Vs. Jagannath

AIR 1994 SC 853, UP State Electricity Board Vs. Pooranchand Pandey 2008 II CLR-147, MSRTC Vs. Casteribe Rajya

P. Karmachari Sangh 2009III CLR 262, Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division 2010 II CLR 1,

Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana 2009 LAB IC 631, National Engineering Industries Ltd., Vs. State of Rajasthan

AIR 2000 Supreme Court 469 and Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. UP State Electricity Board 2001 AIR SCW 2685 in which

following principles were laid down:-

If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of

playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him ……. Onus of proof does not lie on him.

Their request of regularisation ………. That ground of discrimination between two sets of employees made

out.

It is held that unrecognized union which filed complaints in Industrial Court at Bombay was not competent

to file complaints of unfair labour practice.

The employer should make tangible offer to pay amount of wages and compensation to the workman

before he is asked to go.

Preference in reappointment should have been given in such daily wager by sending intimation in writing

as and when vacancy occurred – No opportunity given to the retrenched daily wager while appointing other

person.

Writ petition assailing it on ground of absence of Industrial dispute is maintainable.

Fact showing that conciliation proceeding was not concluded on date of making reference – Thus dispute

exist on that day.

13.

On behalf of the management MR. A.K. Sashidharan relied on following case laws:- Surendra Nagar Distt.

Panchayat Vs. Dhayabai Amar Singh (2005) 8 SCC 750, Oshiar Prasad Vs. Employers,2015 I LLJ SC 513, Regional

Manager SBI Vs. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari (2006) I SCC 530, Prem Singh vs. PO Labour Court WP No. 4093/96 High

Court Delhi, Mohanlal Vs. Management of Bharat Electronic Ltd. AIR 1981 AC1253, Bhav Nagar Municipal

corporation Vs. Salim Bhai Umar Bhai Mansuri 2013 III LLJ 545, State of Rajasthan Vs. Surjeet Singh 2007 I LLJ 236

(SC), Rambabu Vs. DRM SE Railways CGIT Jabalpur R/248/97 and Post master General Kolkata Vs. Tatu Das 2007 5

SCC 317 in which following principles were laid down:-

Under Section 25-F and 25-B requirement of 240 days – held burden of proof lie on workman.

ii)

Appellant’s services discontinued or retrenched long back, question of absorption or regularisation does

not arise…….. right to claim parity with claim of others.

iii)

Respondent workmen’s appointment being totally having been made without following procedure in

law…….

iv)

Labour court could not automatically grant his reinstatement in service.

Where retrenchment has been affected without complying with the provisions section 25-F of ID Act but

would be relevant for regularisation of service……. But it cannot invoked where any illegality has been

committed or where no legal right is established.

vi)

The respondent was careful enough not to disclose his address at any stage of proceeding before labour

court….. Hence he is not entitled to any relief.

vii)

No ground has been given as to delay in taking steps to get their grievance redressed. The delay cannot be

condoned without sufficient and bonafide grounds are established by the claimant.

14.

Now we will see the legal position. B.C. Ramkrishna Vs. State 2003 LIC 1014 (Karnataka), Dr. Mrs. Chanchal

Goyal Vs. State of Raj 2003 LIC 1141 (SC), Ashiwani Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1997 LIC 578 (SC), M.P. State Agro Vs.

S.C. Pande 2006 SCC(L&S) 434, Delhi Development Vs. Delhi Administration 1992 SCC(L&S) 805, Secretary State of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5177

Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 SCC(L7S) 753, State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandrashekhar 2009 I SCC(L&S) 834, Vice

chancellor Lucknow Vs. Akhilesh Kumar 2016 I SCC(L&S) 186 and Talwara Cooperative Vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 2

SCC(L&S) 931, in which, following principles are laid down:-

Held, “The challenge to the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on the ground of long

continuance as ad hoc/temporary employee would not be tenable ……….mere continuance does not imply

such waiver………no waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced”.

ii.

Held, “Right to regularisation, if any, on completion of 240 days’ continuous service………..by itself

would not confer any legal right upon him to be regularized in service”.

iii.

“Absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad

hoc employees appointed/recruited dehors the constitutional scheme of public directions amount to

creating another mode of public appointment, which is not permissible”

iv.

It is also held that, in para 54 in the case of 2006 SCC(L&S) 753, it is also held that, “Those decisions

which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what

we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents”.

Ad hoc appointments continuing for a long time, reiterated, cannot be ordered to be regularized.

vi.

Daily wager, considering that, respondent was out of employment for more than 20 years and could not

seek regular appointment elsewhere due to over age, compensation of 4 lacs is directed to pay to each

respondent.

I relied all principles laid down in the above case laws. Now, I want to discuss factual argument of the workman

first.

15.

On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, Chandrapur Area was comprising Ballarpur Area, which was

separated on 01.07.1987. They also argued that, present 15 workers were employed by the Party No. 1 as Wagon Loader

from 1976 to 1979. This fact was tried to be proved by the union by examining Shri. U.P. Verma, PW-1, Shri. Yashpal

Singh, PW-2 and Shri. Rammurat Yadav, PW-3. Except Yashpal Singh, other witness of union are union members.

They worked in different mines, but on behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Pramod Jagirdar was examined, who was working

at Ballarpur Area in this duration as a Personnel Officer.

16.

PW-1, Shri U.P. Verma asserted that, he was the President of Wardha Valley Colliery Workers’ Union (HMS)

from 1976 to 1997 but Shri Yashpal Singh asserted that, he was working as Wagon Loader in Sasti Sub Area in same

duration. According to Shri Rammurat Yadav, PW-3, he worked at Sasti Colliery, but he knows Shri Suresh Sirdar, who

is his neighbour. It shows that, they were working in different mines. Now we want to see, the duration of formation of

the union.

17.

Shri Yashpal asserted that, he became a member of the union in 1980, but according to the union President, Shri

U.P. Verma, he was the President of Wardha Valley Colliery Workers’ Union up to 1997. According to Shri Rammurat

Yadav, this union (Indira Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Kamgar Sangh) came into existence in 1993-94. According to Shri

Yashpal, he was never a member of either union except the union in question, but he does not know when the union was

registered. He also asserted that, he did not file any document to show that, he became a member of the union in 1980.

Ongoing above evidence, it is doubtful when the claimant union came in existence and it is also doubtful that, all 15

workers were the members of this union. In this context, argument of Party No. 1 that, the union was not in existence in

1976 to 1979 appears to be reliable.

18.

Shri Yashpal Singh, PW-2 asserted that, all these workers werw working in Ballarpur mines in 1976 to 1979 and

Shri R.B. Mishra issued certificate for their working. Shri R.B. Mishra was posted at Ballarpur Mines in that duration

was proved by Shri U.P. Verma, PW-1 and Shri Rammurat Yadav, PW-3, but Shri Rammurat Yadav in para 55 of his

statement, denied the fact that, Shri R.B. Mishra, Personnel Officer of Sasti Colliery issued any certificate of any

workman. According to Shri U.P. Verma and Shri Yashpal Singh, they were not certain about the duration of posting of

Shri R.B. Mishra. Now we see the evidence of Party No. 1 on this point.

19.

Shri Pramod Jagirdar, MW-1 asserted that, he was the personnel Manager at Ballarpur Area in 1976 to 1979 and

he retired from the post of Chief General Manager (IR) from WCL. In para 11 of his statement, he asserted that, he had

never given such type of certificate to any casual worker, but according to him, he did not know what exact procedure

was followed at that time regarding casual worker and he does not know whether any such type of certificate was issued

to any casual worker. Statement of this witness appears to be true and evidence of Party No. 1 is more reliable than

union.

20.

On behalf of the union, it was argued that, on 30.03.1980, a settlement was taken place regarding 157 workers u/s

25-H of the above act, but according to the union, no step was taken by the Party No. 1 in regard to above 15 workers. In

this point, Shri Rammurat Yadav asserted in his court statement that, RKKKS union had raised the dispute on behalf of

5178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

all the Wagon Loaders, who were working in 1976 to 1979, but all workers, whose names are mentioned in para 35 and

36 of examination in chief were regularized by the Party No. 1 as they were working in different capacity in WCL, but

according to Shri Pramod Jagirdar, MW-1, these some rules and regulations prevail in WCL for regularizing of wagon

loaders. According to him, whose name was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and had completed 240 days

of regular work, may be regularized. Shri Yashpal (para 40 of his court statement) asserted that, his name was never

registered in any local Employment Exchange.

21.

As per as the settlement is concerned, union proved W-III to W-V as a settlement deed, but according to Shri U.P.

Verma in para 53 of his court statement admitted that, this settlement was not in regard to regularization of wagon

loaders. He also admitted that, this settlement was not with the above union. He did not sign the said settlement on

behalf of the union. According to Shri Yashpal, in para 40 in his court statement, he had no idea about the settlement

mentioned in para 15 in evidence on affidavit. He also asserted that, he did not mention in his evidence on affidavit, that

he was employed by the contractor.

On going the above discussion, in my opinion, union failed to prove that, there was any settlement on 30.03.1980

about regularization of 157 wagon loaders.

22.

On behalf of the Party No. 1 that, it was argued that, this reference was made after 19 years of delay. They also

argued that, there was no dispute between the union and Party No. 1 u/s 10 of above act. They also argued that, there is

no locus standi of above union to raise this dispute. This fact was denied by the union. After perusal of the records, it

appears that, name, address and particulars of 15 workers were not referred by the Ministry. No such letter is found in

the record. It also appears that, according to the union, workers were employed in the duration from 1976 to 1979 and

settlement was taken on 30.03.1980, but reference by the Ministry on 22.07.1998. It is quite delay and no justification

was given on behalf of the union. In my opinion, delay was too long, so it is not justified.

23.

According to the union, Party No. 1 did not produce the documents even of order of the court. On the contrary,

Party No. 1 denied the fact by asserting that, they maintained register under Payment of Wages (Mines) Rule 1956. This

fact is also supported by the Party No. 1’s witness, Shri Pramod Jagirdar in para 11 of his court statement. I want to

reproduce the concerned para, “Muster Roll is maintained for permanent employee, but in case of casual worker, Form

‘C’ register and attendance register are maintained”.

On perusal of the record, it appears that, this case was referred to this court on 22.07.1998 after 22 years of the

real dispute. This court in its order dated 16.11.2012 directed that, “Hence, the management cannot be directed to

produce the documents ……….petitioner is devoid of merit and is rejected”. So, there is no question of adverse

inference against the Party No. 1.

24.

On behalf of the Party No. 1, it was argued that, same nature of this case was decided by this Tribunal on

26.11.2012 and which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 3205/2014, Wardha Valley Colliery

Workers Union Vs. Western Coalfields Limited dated 19.08.2015. They also produced the copy of the award and

judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, no objection was raised on behalf of the union. In this case, my predecessor held

that, “The demand of WVC Workers Union for reinstatement in services of WCL in respect of 121 Wagon Loaders (List

enclosed) is illegal & unjustified. The 121 claimants are not entitled to any relief”.

The Hon’ble High Court in above Writ Petition also held that, “The learned advocate for petitioner …………..I see no

reason to interfere with the impugned award. The Writ Petition is dismissed”.

25.

On behalf of the union, it was argued that, corrigendum of the reference issued by the Ministry, in which, all 15

workers names were mentioned. They produced photocopy of the letter dated 25.04.2003, but Party No. 1 denied that

fact. The union also did not produce the list of workers, which was referred by the Ministry. After the perusal of the

record, list of 15 workers has not been enclosed in official record.

26.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of principles as mentioned above, as I observed that, the

union failed to prove that, present 15 workers were working as Wagon Loaders in Ballarpur Area from 1976 to 1979.

The union also failed to prove that, the above union was registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 at that time and

settlement was taken on 30.03.1980 between Party No. 1 and the above union. As per principle laid down in case law,

2000(1) SCC 371, the Tribunal cannot examine the validity of the reference and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the

reference. This reference delayed near about 19 years, so original records are not available. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of General Manager, M/s WCL Ballarpur Area in not regularizing all 15

workmen only on the ground that these workers are not members of recognized union like other workers who

worked for few days and were regularized by way of making settlement with the recognized union, is legal, proper

and justified, because it is not proved. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5179

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1240-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w-

lh-,y- 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 04@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-08-2018 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@101@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2018

S.O. 1240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/101/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/04/2011-12

Date: 26.07.2018

Party No.1

The Supdt. of Mines/Manager,

WCL Sillewara Mine,

Tq. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.),

Nagpur.

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Dhanraj S/o Ganpat,

Ex. Clipman Trammer,

At & Post Gondegaon,

Teh: Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.),

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 26^th July, 2018)

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workman, Shri

Dhanraj S/o Ganpat, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/101/2010-IR (CM-II) dated 25.03.2011, with the

following Schedule:-

“Whether the action of respondent management in dismissing the services of the applicant is justified

and proper? To what relief the applicant workman is entitled to”

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

in response to which, Shri Dhanraj Ganpat, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of

Western Coalfields Limited, (“Party no.1” in short) filed the written statement, but the workman did not file any

rejoinder.

The workman did not appear since 28.11.2014. Even his advocate gave no objection for engaging another

advocate on 09.08.2014. He filed his evidence on affidavit, but he did not appear in court for cross-examination. On the

contrary, management filed a pursis on 03.05.2018 to close the case. In this way, workman did not take part in the

proceedings, so this court closed his chance to produce evidence on 27.06.2018. This court also found that, no need to

pass an order on V.D.E. It also shows that, the workman is not interested to continue this reference. So, in absence of

evidence, this case is closed against the workman. 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

5180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1241-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49@2017) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@18@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 49/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Allahabad University, Allahabad & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.08.2018.

[No. L-42012/18/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 2017

Between-

Sri Anurag Mishra son of Virendra Mishra,

Vill. Pure Nanhoo Ka Purwa,

PO Pariyavan,

District Pratapgarh, U.P.

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad.

The Director of M/s Fighting Four Security Service Pvt. Ltd.

FF-59, 88, Khajana Shopping Complex,

Ashiana,

Lucknow.

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42012/18/2017-IR(DU) dated 06.07.17, has referred

the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

Whether the workman Anurag Mishra son of Virendra Mishra can be said to be the workman of Allahabad

University, 2 And if so whether the termination of services of the workman is legal and justified? 3. If not to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date.

After receipt of reference from the Ministry, notice was sent to the worker as well as to the opposite parties but

none appeared in the case. Neither any one appeared on behalf of the workman nor workman has filed is claim

petition in support of his case, despite providing of repeated opportunities to the worker by this tribunal. It thus

appears that the worker is not inclined to prosecute the reference before this tribunal; AR for the management was

heard who requested to decide the reference for want of pleadings and evidence therefore, the reference is bound

to be answered against the worker for want of pleadings and evidence.

Accordingly reference is answered against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5181

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1242-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2017) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@17@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 48/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Allahabad University, Allahabad & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.08.2018.

[No. L-42012/17/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 2017

Between-

Sri Ram Chandra Dwivedi son of Ram Shanker Dwivedi,

Resident of Vill. Uthagi, PO Balraj Nagar,

District Allahabad.

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad.

The Director of M/s Fighting Four Security Service Pvt. Ltd.

FF-59, 88, Khajana Shopping Complex,

Ashiana,

Lucknow.

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42012/17/2017-IR(DU) dated 05.07.17, has referred

the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication-

Whether the workman Ram Chandra Dwividi son of Ram Shanker Dwivedi can be said to be the workman of

Allahabad University, 2 And if so whether the termination of services of the workman is legal and justified? 3. If

not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date.

After receipt of reference from the Ministry, notice was sent to the worker as well as to the opposite parties but

none appeared in the case. Neither any one appeared on behalf of the workman nor workman has filed is claim

petition in support of his case, despite providing of repeated opportunities to the worker by this tribunal. It thus

appears that the worker is not inclined to prosecute the reference before this tribunal; AR for the management was

heard who requested to decide the reference for want of pleadings and evidence therefore, the reference is bound

to be answered against the worker for want of pleadings and evidence.

Accordingly reference is answered against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

5182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1243-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;

egkizca/d] ch,l,u,y] esjB vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@06@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 101/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief

General Manager, BSNL, Meerut & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

02.07.2018.

[No. L-40011/06/2010-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

ID No. 101/2012

District Secretary SC/ST Employees Welfare Association

Of BSNL,

Distt. Office Qtr.No249, Alliance Mahanagar Utsav Part II,

Pilibhi Bye Pass,

Bareilly 243006.

…Applicant Union

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

BSNL, Western (UP)

Telephone Exchange Building,

Shastri Nagar Meerut (UP).

The General Manager, BSNL, Bareilly 243001.

The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL,

Group Exchange Faridpur,

Bareilly (UP)

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-40011/6/2010-IR(DU) dated 04.09.2012

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the

Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the demand of the union that Smt. Ashok Lata, Part Time Sweeper working at Fairdpur Telephone

Exchange of BSNL, Distt. Bareilly be given benefit as per circular dated 20/11/2000 issued by the DGM

(Admn.) BSNL Dehradun is just and legal ? If yest, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The applicant Union filed statement of claim on behalf of the

workman Smt. Ashok Lata. As per the averments made in the claim petition, Smt. Ashok Lata w/o.Shri Mahesh Chandra,

Moh. Uncha P.O. Faridpur, Distt. Bareilly (UP) has been working as part time sweeper w.e.f. 1/10/1992 at Faridpur

Telephone Exchange of Management and is called as Pitamberpur Telephone Exchange. Smt. Ashok Lata has been

rendering her services continuously and regularly and has been working for more than 240 days in every completed year

of service since her appointment w.e.f. 1/10/1992. A circular No.UPT/W.CL./Ruling/96=-Estt. Dated 20-11-2000 was

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5183

issued by the DGM (Admn.) UP West Telephone circle Dehradun from the office of Chief General Manager, BSNL,

Dehradun, whereby directions were issued to all SSA in UP(W) to convert and regularize part time casual workers

working more than or less than 4 hours and fulfilling conditions of having worked for more than 240 days in a year

preceding 1/8/1998 but adopting unfair labour practice, the Management did not give benefit of the said circular to

Smt. Ashok Lata. The workman Smt.Ashok Lata also made representation dated 19/8/2005 before the Management for

regularization and full wages but in vain. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P.No.67555 of 2005 filed by the

workman for regularization of her services land payment of wages, vide order dated 19/8/2005 directed the Management

to decide her representation dated 19/8/2005 within stipulated period of 6 weeks. Thereafter the management disposed of

the said representation and directed the concerned authorities to make full payment considering her to be part time

sweeper but her case for regularization was not considered, on the plea that she was not covered by the guidelines dated

20/11/2000. Though the area involved for cleaning has increased but the workman is being treated as part time sweeper

and she was being paid a meager consolidated sum of Rs.2317/- per month which is illegal ad unjustified. Hence, the

prayer has been made for regularization of services of the workman as full time casual sweeper and she be paid

wages/salary as is being paid to Group “D” employees and difference/arrears of salary be paid to her in view of

circular/guidelines dated 20/11/2000.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that the claim is absolutely false and vexatious. There exists no cause of action in favour of the workman, as

representation dated 19/9/2005 of the claimant was disposed by the Management, by rejecting her case of regularization.

It has been denied the workman has been working continuously and regularly as part time Safai Karamchari (sweeper) in

the supervision and control of the Management sicne her engagement w.e.f. 1/10/1992. It has also been denied that the

Smt. Ashok Lata is a workman within Section 2(S) of the Act. It has been alleged that she is working as part time

sweeper and perform work on part time basis at any time in the day as per her own choice ad normally she completes the

cleaning work of that area in a very short period and goes back as no working hours are fixed and as such, she is not a

workman. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.

During pendency of the claim petition, the workman./claimant Ashok Lata expired on 27/1/2015 and her legal

heirs namely Anil Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Govind and Goipal Babu – her four sons were brought on record vide order

dated 30/7/2015.

In order to prove the case of the claimant, Shri Mahesh Chandra Jayant who happened to be Assistant General

Secretary of the wormkman Union and also worked in Telephone Department at Bareilly Office as TT Assistant

appeared in the witness box as WW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents

Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/14.

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Anoop Bajpai,

Assistant General Manager as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents

Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.

Ld. A/R appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that claimant Smt. Ashok Lata had not

completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and she was just working as part time sweeper and her working hours

were not fixed. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that she was in the employment of the

Management and has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the claimant was under the

employment of Management since 1/10/1992 and she had been regularly and continuously working for more than

240 days in each and every year.

This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide as to

whether the claimant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In this respect, it is appropriate to refer to

the affidavit ExWW1/A of Shri Mahesh Chandra Jayant. It is clear from the perusal of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A that it

is in consonance with the pleadings i.e. statement of claim filed by the claimant. The witness of the claimant has been

cross examined and in his cross examination also he has clearly stated that late Smt. Ashok Lata worked with the

Management for about 25 years and that she had joined the Management in the year 1991. He has also clarified that there

was no appointment letter issued to Smt.Ashok Lata. He also categorically denied the suggestion that Ms.Ashok Lata

had not worked for 240 days in a clandar year prior to 1/8/1009. He admitted that the after decision of the Hon’ble High

Court, the representation of the claimant Ashok Lata was considered by the Committee constituted by the Management

and had decided that case of Ms.Ashok Lata did not fall within the criteria of regularization. He also admitted that

claimant Ashok Lata had not challenged the disposal of her representation dated 4/1/2006 vide order dated 4/1/2006

(Ex.WW1/5).

10.

The Management has examined Shri Anoop Bajpai, Asstt.General Manager working in the office of General

Manager, BSNL, Bareilly as MW1. He has clearly stated in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A that claimant was never a workman

under Section 2(S) of the Act, and that she never completed working for more than 240- days in a year of service since

her engagement w.e.f. 1/10/1992 and as such she was not entitled to the benefits of confirmation or regularization as

5184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

envisaged in the notification/guidelines dated 20/11/2000 issued by the Management. In cross examination this witness

admitted that the claimant was engaged as part time sweeper and her salary was revised from time to time. He also

admitted that in the letters Ex.MW1./W-3 & W-4 issued by the Management, basic pay of the claimant Ashok Lata was

fixed at Rs.2550/- as on 1.6.1996. This witness could not say whether the claimant was working for half day, though

working hours of regular employees fixed at 8 hours . He could not admit or deny that the claimant was working for

more than four hours and as such, she was being paid half of the basic wages + DA etc. However, to his mind, there was

no break in service of the claimant. He admitted that arrears from 1/1/1006 to 31/12/1999 was paid to the claimant for

entire period. He also admitted that salary of the claimant was enhanced after 2001. As per site plan Ex.WW1/14, the

area of the telephone exchange stood increased manifold that that work of the claimant also increased.

11.

From the evidence adduced on record by the parties it is manifest that the claimant was admittedly engaged by the

Management as sweeper though o part time basis and that her salary/wages used to be revised from time to time and that

is why arrears from 1/1/1996 to 31/12/1999 were paid to her by the Management. There is no dispute about preposition

of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of Management is always on the workman/claimant and it

is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of her employment with the Management Bank. Such evidence

may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to

show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may

be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director

Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.

12.

There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the factual

scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the admittedly the Management had engaged the claimant for the

post of sweeper on 1-10-1992 though no letter of appointment was issued to her and her salary/wages used to revised

from time to time and even arrears have been paid to her for the period from 1/1/1996 to 31/12/1999, meaning thereby

that she was continuously in the employment of the Management. This proves the relationship of employee and

employer between the claimant and the Management. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of

employer-employee stands proved between the parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that

the claimant has not worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year. Since in the case in hand, it stands clearly proved

from the pleadings and evidence on record, especially the admission made by MW1 Anoop Bajpai in his cross

examination that to his mind, there was no break in service of the claimant. In such circumstances, the plea of the

Management that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act or

that claimant had not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, can not be accepted. In this regard,

reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme

Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals

with the definition of “workman” has observed as under :—

“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on

temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed

hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or

contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a

person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

13.

As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as part time for doing intermittent nature of

work and/or for cleaning the BSNL premises is duly admitted by the Management in its written statement as well as

evidence. The Management has not filed any document in the form of abstract of attendance of claimant or other such

workers so as to show that claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. In such circumstances, statement of

the witness of the claimant who appeared as WW1 can not be brushed aside, more so for the reason that work of cleaning

of the bank premises is of regular and perennial in nature and further that the claimant was in the employment of the

Management since 1/10/1992.

14.

Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is relationship of Employer-employee between the Management

and that the claimant had worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year.

15.

Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether the demand of workman/claimant Smt. Ashok Lata, part

time sweeper, made through the applicant Union that she be given benefit of circular dated 20/11/2000 (Ex.WW1/6)

issued by the Management is just and fair. The Management had not confirmed the claimant as Full Time casual labour

as per notification dated 20/11/2000, The claimant had in fact filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court and after

decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the representation of the claimant Ashok Lata was considered by the Committee

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5185

constituted by the Management, which decided that case of Ms.Ashok Lata did not fall within the criteria of

regularization. No doubt, the claimant Ashok Lata had not challenged the disposal of her representation dated 4/1/2006

vide order dated 4/1/2006 (Ex.WW1/5), but the fact remains that the cause of action accrued in her favour continued to

survive as she continued working as Part Time Sweeper with the Management even when the present claim petition was

filed. Perusal of the record shows that in relation to the conversion of Part Time Casual Labourers working for less than

4 hours per day into full time casual labourer, order dated 25/8/2000 (Ex.MW1/W-6) was issued by the Govt.of India to

all concerned of Telecom Circles/Districts and other Administrative Units with the direction that as one time relaxation,

Part Time casual labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day, who have worked for 240 days in the preceding

12 months may be converted into full time casual labourers and that they should be engaged as casual labourers subject

to suitability and qualifications. Another order/ guidelines dated 29/9/2000 (Ex.MW1/W-7) were issued by the Govt. of

India for regularization of Casual Labourers which inter alia provided that all part time casual labouers who were

working for less than four hours per day and were converted into full time casual labouers may be regularized. To the

same effect is the circular/guidelines dated 20-11-2000 (Ex.WW1/1) issued by the Office of Chief General Manager,

Telecommunication UP (West), Dehradun. Even if the contention of the Management that the claimant was working as

part time sweeper and her working hours were not fixed, is accepted, then also action of the Management in not

considering the claimant for conversion into casual labourers under the guidelines dated 25/8/2000 (Ex.MW1/W-6) can

not be said to be just and proper, inasmuch the case of the claimant did fall in the category of the all part time casual

labouers who were working with the Management for less than four hours per day. It is worthwhile to mention

here that MW1 Anoop Bajpai, Asstt. General Manager (Admn.) working with the Management has conceded in his cross

examination that in the letter Ex.MW1/W-3 and Ex.MW1/W-4 the basic pay of the claimant was shown as Rs.2550/- as

on 1.6.1996 and further that half of the basic was fixed as salary alongwith DA etc., meaning thereby that the claimant

was being paid half of the basic salary of the regular/permanent employee who were performing duty for 8 hours. This

would show that the claimant was working for about 4 hours in a day and that is why her basic wage/salary was fixed

half of the basic of regular/permanent employee. As mentioned above, guidelines/order dated 25/8/2000 (Ex.MW1/

W-6) and order dated 29/9/2000 (Ex.MW1/W-7) issued by the Govt. of India clearly stipulated that all part time casual

labourers who were working even for less than four hours per day be converted into full time casual labourers.

Thus, it was incumbent upon the Management to comply with the directions of Govt. of India issued vide aforesaid

orders/guidelines, on the basis of which order dated 20/11/2000 (Ex.WW1/1) was issued by the office of DGM

(Admn.),BSNL, Telecom Circle, Dehradun and to give benefits of the same to all concerned including the claimant

Smt.Ashok Lata who had been admittedly working with them since 1/10/1992 and was being paid half of the basic wage

payable to the full time regular employees. Resultantly, it is held that action of the Management in not giving benefits to

the claimant Smt.Ashok Lata (now deceased) as per circular dated 20/11/2000 was unjust and illegal. Consequently, the

demand made in this respect by the Applicant Union is held to be just, fair and legal.

19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, Management is directed to regularize the

services of the workman/claimant Ashok Lata as full time casual labourer /sweeper in view of circular dated 20.11.2000

and all consequential monetary benefits viz. payment of difference in wages be made to her legal heirs, within three

months of the publication of this Award. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 25.06.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1244-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjr ds

iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] vkxjk ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@70@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 30/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Archeological

Survey of India, Agra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.08.2018.

[No. L-42011/70/2006-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

5186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 30/2007

Between:

Shri Keshpal Singh, President,

All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union,

43/305/18, Nai Awadi, Near Mishan Charch,

Sikandra,

Agra(U.P.)-282001

AND

Archeological Survey of India,

Agra Division, 22, Mall Road,

AGRA (U.P)-282001

AWARD

Central Government, MOL, vide notification no. L-42011/70/2006-IR(DU) dated 06.06.2007 has referred the

following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the demand of All India Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union for appointment of Shri Birendra Singh

S/o Shri Jeewan Lal Ex Monument Attendant who retired on medical grounds on compassionate grounds, is

legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The case of the worker as set up by union is that one Jeewan Lal was working as Monument Attendant under the

management at Agra who was relieved from his services on 11.01.2000 on the ground of serious illness.

Shri Jeevan lal requested the management that his son Birendra Kumar be appointed at his place to as to maintain

the family members. After retirement of Sri Jeewan Lal on medical ground, Shri Asharfi Lal who was also

working as Monument Attendant was retired on medical grounds from the service of management and after his

retirement his son was given compassionate appointment by the management. It is also alleged that Shri Jeevan

Lal since 2000 till now is raising his demand for the appointment of his son on compassionate ground but his son

was not given appointment on compassionate grounds by the management as result of which he was not able to

meet the medical expenses. Union has thus prayed that Shri Birendra Singh S/o Shri Jeewan Lal be appointed on

compassionate ground considering his educational qualification and he be also allowed arrear of wages w.e.f

11.02.2000.

Along with the claim petition the Union has filed a no. of representations paper no. 2/5-13 written by Jeewan Lal

to the department. And also medical certificate issued by CMO, Agra in the name of Jeewan Lal.

Management filed its reply alleging that the opposite party is not an industry as it discharges the sovereign

functions of Government of India. The employees working under the management are governed by CSS (Conduct

Rules 1965). It is further alleged that the compassionate appointment is a matter of giving financial assistance to

an economically distressed person and it is not a fundamental right of an employee as such compassionate

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. And to consider the appointment on compassionate ground a

committee is constituted as per guidelines of the Government which considers each case on its merit considering

the Financial resources, liabilities / assets etc of the family of the claimants and recommends if the clamant is

entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds or not.

On merit it is stated by the management that Shri Jeevan Lal was retired from the service of the department on

medical grounds w.e.f 11.01.2001 and the case of Birendra Singh son of Jeewan lal was forwarded to the Director

General of the Department for consideration of compassionate appointment and the application of Shri Jeewan lal

for providing his son appointment on compassionate ground was referred to the committee constituted to consider

the appointment as per guidelines of Department of Personal and Training. The application of the applicant was

examined by the said committee in detail taking into consideration committee recommended that it is not FIT case

for appointment on compassionate grounds.

It is further alleged that the case of son of Shri Asharfi lal was also sent to the committee and the committee after

considering his circumstances, financial position, economic resources, liabilities / assets etc. recommended his

case as fit case for compassionate appointment and he was accordingly appointed on compassionate grounds and

the facts and the circumstances of both the cases are different therefore cannot be compared to each other.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5187

Therefore the present reference is baseless, misconceived and improper, as such is liable to be dismissed.

Management along with their written statement has filed a photocopy of award rendered by CGIT, Jaipur.

10.

Union has examined Shri Birendra Singh as WW1 in support of their case whereas Management has examined

Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma as MW1.

11.

The Union filed photocopy of documents 42/2-12.

12.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides at length and perused the record.

13.

Authorized representative for the worker has contended that the management has refused to employ Birendra

Singh on compassionate ground without any sufficient reason and appointed others whose cases were on the same

footings as of Birendra Singh and the management has not acted judiciously in his case. Authorized

representative for the management controverted the contention of representative for the union and argued that the

case of Birendra Singh was considered by the Director (Admin) and his case was not found fit on the report of

committee taking into account the financial resources of the families of the deceased.

14.

On behalf of the union Sri Birendra Singh has been examined as w.w.1 who has deposed that his father late Sri

Jeevan Lal opted for retirement on medical grounds. Thereafter one other person Asharfi Lal also opted for

retirement and his son Devendra was appointed on compassionate ground. He has further deposed that his father

died on 07.11.11. Department has not conducted any inquiry regarding financial status of the family of his father.

They are three brothers who are in private jobs. He has denied this fact that he was not given appointment due to

his better financial status. He received a letter from the department that he was not found fit for appointment. He

was asked the question that son of Asharfi Lal was given appointment on compassionate ground as his financial

status was not good. On this witness replied that he does not know about the financial status of Asharfi Lal but he

has stated about himself that his financial status is also pitiable.

15.

Management has examined M.W.1 Sri Kamal Kishore Sharma who stated that in his department compassionate

appointment are made by Director General. Birendra Singh also applied for the same and his application was

referred to Director General and from there his application was rejected as his case was not found fit as per his

order paper no.5/16 wherein financial condition of Birendra Singh is found good.

16.

In his cross examination he has stated that deceased Jeewan Lal has taken VRS on medical ground with the

request that his son Birendra Singh be given appointment on compassionate ground. He has further stated that

Birendra Singh was not given appointment considering the financial status of his father Jeevan Lal but he has

stated in clear words that he does not know which officer has conducted inquiry regarding financial status of the

family of Jeevan Lal.

17.

From the above evidence it appears clear that the only hindrance found by Director (Admin) for appointment of

Birendra Singh son of Jeewan Lal on compassionate ground is that the financial status of the family of Jeewan Lal

was found good by the report of committee which makes it clear that if above report was not there Sri Birendra

Singh would have been given appointment of compassionate ground. As admitted by M.W.1 he does not know

which of the officer conducted inquiry regarding financial status of Jeewan Lal and secondly no such report of the

committee has been filed by the management on the basis of which the compassionate appointment to

Sri Birendra Singh was refused and also this tribunal would have expressed its opinion regarding authenticity of

the report of committee if the same was filed by the management. Besides this in paragraph 4 of the order of

Director (Admin) dated 07.10.03 paper no. 5/16 reveals that there is no finding of the report of the committee that

financial resources of Sri Birendra Singh are such that he may not be given appointment on compassionate

ground.

18.

Thus the management has deliberately concealed the most important and relevant document which is the report of

Committee on the basis of which the appointment of Birendra Singh on compassionate ground was refused.

19.

Therefore, for the reasons given above the action of the management for not giving appointment on

compassionate ground to Sri Birendra Singh is neither legal nor justified. Management is therefore, directed to

appoint Sri Birendra Singh against the post of Group “D” within two months from receiving the award after being

notified by Mol & Employment, New Delhi.

20.

Reference is therefore answered accordingly in above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1245-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] egkfuns'kd]

dsUnzh; ljdkj LokLF; ;kstuk] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

5188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2018)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@195@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 42/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director

General, Central Government Health Scheme, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 13.08.2018.

[No. L-42011/195/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 42/2018

Between—

The General Secretary,

All India CGHS Employees Association,

Plot No. 8-11, Ratan Lal Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.) -208022.

AND

The Director General,

Central Government health Scheme,

Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi-110011.

The Additional Director

Central Government health Scheme

Plot No. 8-11, Ratan Lal Nagar,

Kanpur (U.P.)-208022.

AWARD

Central Government, MOL, vide notification No. L-42011/195/2017-IR(DU) dated 01/05/2018 has referred this

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of Management of Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Kanpur in

transferring the workman Sh. Devraj Singh, from Ratanlal Nagar, Wellness Centre to Saket Nagar, Kanpur vide

office order dated 30.09.2016, is fair, just & legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to & what

directions are necessary in this respect?”

The case of the union on the behalf of the workman Devraj Singh is that the applicant was posted as Pharmacist in

CMSD, CGHS, Ratan Lal nagar, Kanpur i.e. administrative office before his transfer order dated 30.09.2016; That

the applicant was elected for the post of General Secretary of AICGHS Employees Association, Kanpur

(Recognized) elections held on May 2015 for the tenure of two years. (Annexure-1); That further the applicant

was elected as General Secretary of AICGHSEA, Kanpur in the elections held on April 2017 for next tenure of

two years and hold the post till date (Annexure-2); That being the General Secretary of AICGHSEA, Kanpur

applicant is Chief Executive of the Association. OM No. 27/3/69-Estt. (B) dated 8^th April 1969 states that the

Chief Executive i.e. General Secretary of the Union be granted the facility of seeking transfer to the headquarters

of the appropriate head of the administration (Annexure-3); That the applicant is a Union Functionary the OM No.

27/7/88/CS (IV) dated 19^thAugust 1988 Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India clearly

states that Union Functionaries should not be shifted from main administrative office to subordinate office.

(Annexure-4); That the applicant was illegally transferred from CMSD, Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur (Additional

director office i.e. Administrative office) to CGHS Wellness Centre, Saket Nagar, Kanpur (Subordinate office

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5189

away from Administrative office). (Annexure-5); that the General Secretary, AICGHSEA, Kanpur is a protected/

privileged workman under the Trade Union policies. Therefore Transferring the General Secretary from the main

administrative office to subordinate office is against the policies of Government of India and is not fair, just and

legal; That the application has exhausted all the channels of higher authorities for the grant of relief but all has

gone in vein. (Annexure-6,7 and 8)

On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed by the union that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to

quash the transfer order dated 30.09.2016 and pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

In the reply of the claim management has admitted that the worker was posted as pharmacist in CMSD, CGHS

Ratan Lal Nagar Kanpur i.e. Administrative Office before his transfer order dated 30.09.2016. It is further

admitted that the worker was elected for the post of General Secretary of AICGHS Employees Association

Kanpur (recognized) on the basis of election held in May 2015 for the tenure of 2 years and it is also admitted that

the worker was elected as General Secretary of AICGHS employees Association Kanpur in the election held on

April 2017 for the next tenure of 2 years. Regarding OM number 27/7/88/CS (IV) dated 19.08.88, DOPT

Government of India, it is pleaded that this rule is meant for parent association and not for branch association. The

transfer of the worker was made on administrative ground in public interest. The dispensaries / hospitals are

excluded from the definition of Industry. It is also alleged that at present worker I posted at CSD/CGHS Ratanlal

Nagar Kanpur, vide office order dated 16.03.18 as demanded by worker.

Worker has not filed any rejoinder.

Both parties have filed documents along with pleadings which shall be discussed at appropriate stage.

Worker Dev Raj Singh General Secretary of AICGHSEA Kanpur has filed his evidence on affidavit.

Additional Director Dr. Majul Kumari CGHS, Kanpur has filed her evidence on affidavit.

10.

I have heard both parties at length and have perused the records of the case.

11.

Worker Dev Raj Singh. General Secretary, AICGHS Employees Association Kanpur, has filed his affidavit in

evidence and supported his version as is pleaded in the claim petition. He also stated that being General Secretary

of the aforementioned Association he is chief executive as per OM No.27/3/69 dated 08.04.69 and it provides that

Chief Executive i.e. General Secretary of the Association is granted facility of transfer to the Head quarter of the

appropriate head of the Association and the OM is filed by the worker as Annexure-3 to the claim petition. By a

bare perusal of section 3 of the OM it is clear that Chief Executive as defined in the constitution of the

Association or the General Secretary may be brought on transfer to the head quarter or any other office under his

control at the head quarter. It is also alleged in the affidavit that worker Dev Raj Singh being General Secretary of

the Association I a protected / privileged worker under the Trade Union Act, therefore his transfer order dated

30.09.16 from the main administrative office to subordinate office is against the policy of the Government. This

witness has not been cross examined by the management representative Dr. S M Shukla. It appears that no cross

examination was done by the worker believing his evidence on affidavit is correct.

12.

Further on behalf of the management Dr. Manjul Kumari Additional Director, CGHS, Kanpur has filed her

evidence on affidavit in which she has not refuted any facts alleged by the worker but it is alleged that the transfer

was made on administrative ground in public intrest. As the worker who is General Secretary of the Association

has been transferred to Wellness Center Saket Nagar Kanpur, which is CGHS dispensary it cannot be treated as

administrative office or any other office. The worker being General Secretary will be under direct control of the

in-charge of the Wellness Center which reveals that the transfer order of the worker to wellness center Saket

Nagar, Kanpur on 30.09.16 is against the provisio of OM dated 08.04.69.

13.

M.W.1 Dr. Manjul Kumari, has also stated tht at present worker is posted at CMSD, “CGHS, Ratanlal Nagar by

the office order dated 16.03.18 as demanded by the applicant. The witness has admitted in her cross examination

that transfer order of worker Dev Raj Singh dated 16.03.18 is passed because Dev Raj Singh is the General

“Secretary and on the basis of seniority.

14.

Thus it is evident that Sri Dev Raj Singh, General Secretary of AICGHSEA has been transferred by the order

30.09.16 from CMSD Store Ratan Lal Nagar to Wellness Center Saket Nagar, and on the request of Dev Raj

Singh being General Secretary he was again transferred back to CMSD Store In-charge by the office order dated

16.03.18, considering the provision laid down in the OM dated 08.04.69.

15.

M.W.1 Dr. Manjul Kumari, has stated in her affidavit that dispensaries / hospitals are excluded from the

applicability of the term of Industry but in her cross examination she has deposed that as per her knowledge she

has stated that the jurisdiction of this tribunal is barred for CGHS and hospital but she has not given any basis as

to how tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present reference. Beside this she has never challenged the

reference issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labor & Employment, New Delhi.

5190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Therefore, from the above discussions the tribunal is of the view that the action of management of Additional

Director, CGHS, Kanpur in transferring the workman Sri Dev Raj Singh General Secretary AICGHS Employees

Association from Ratan Lal Nagar Wellness Center to Saket Nagar dated 30.09.16 is neither fair nor just and is in

violation of OM dated 08.04.69.

17.

As far as relief is concerned as the worker Dev Raj Singh on his representation has been transferred back to

CMSD In-charge Ratan Lal Nagar, the place where he had already been posted, therefore, he will not be entitled

for any relief.

18.

Reference is answered accordingly in the above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1246-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] mi

v/h{kd ckxokuh] Hkkjr ds iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] vkxjk ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 09@2009)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@65@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 09/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archeological Survey of India, Agra and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 13.08.2018.

[No. L-42012/65/2008-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

COURT, KANPUR

Present : SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS

Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2009

Between-

Heera Lal son of Sri Chhotey Lal,

Dandiyapura, Narain Bagh Road,

Near Sadar Shamshan Ghat,

Jhansi.

And

Deputy Superintending Horticulturist,

Archeological Survey of India,

Horticulture Division No. 1, Taj Mahal

AGRA(U.P.)-282001.

AWARD

Central Government, MOL, vide notification No. L-42012/65/2008-IR (DU) dated 17.02.2009 has referred the

following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological, Survey of India, in terminating the service of Shri Hira

Lal w.e.f 01/12/2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The case of the worker Heera lal is that for the first time he was engaged at the post of Mali under sub-division

Jhansi Quila Garden on 01.07.2000 and worked as such continuously till 30.11.07 and also worked more than 240

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5191

days in each calendar year, and thus has attained a right to get service under the management. Opposite party

without any reason has suddenly dispenses with the service of the worker on 01.12.07 in breach of the provisions

of section 25F of the Act. Opposite party has also breached the provisions of section 25G and 25H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Several junior persons are still working in the management and after terminating the services

of the worker management appointed fresh hands viz., Kailash, Suresh and Pradip who are working with the

management. Opposite party is in the habit of appointing directly persons in Group ‘D’ category ignoring the

legitimate claim of the worker and the worker made repeated requests before the management but all in vain.

Under the facts and circumstances, worker has prayed that he be reinstated in the service of the opposite party

with full back wages, continuity of service and with all consequential benefits.

Along-with the claim petition the worker has also filed a list of workers who are alleged to have been appointed

by the management with effect from 1986 till date.

Management filed written statement denying the entire claim of the worker stating that the claim of the worker is

not covered under section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act; management had never terminated the services of the

worker; opposite party is not an industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act; provision of section 2-A of

the A are not attracted in this case as the casual job of applicant were never terminated by the management;

worker has no right to claim reinstatement; worker had never worked at the post of Mali; opposite party engages

daily paid casual workers from open market for shorter period; worker had never worked continuously with the

opposite party and the worker had never worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year.

On the basis of above, it has been prayed that the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being devoid of

merit.

Worker has also filed rejoinder statement wherein nothing new has been pleaded except reiterating the facts

already pleaded in the claim petition.

I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have also perused the record of the case

10.

Worker Heera lal has examined himself as w.w.1 in support of his claim whereas management has examined Sri

Pradip Kumar Singh as M.W. 1 in support of its case.

11.

It is pertinent to mention here that worker application for summoning documents from the management was

allowed by order dated 02.06.10 and in case of non-availability of the documents affidavit of some senior officer

of the management should be filed, but the management neither filed any documents nor any affidavit was filed

by it, therefore, taking adverse inference it is held that the management deliberately has not filed the documents

with a view to frustrate the claim of the worker.

12.

Worker in his cross examination has clearly deposed that he worked with the management from 01.07.2000 to

30.11.07 and also he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year. He has

further deposed that after termination of his services management engaged fresh hands like Kailash, Neeraj and

Manik. In the year 2004 management has notified the vacancies and he also applied and he was interviewed but he

was not given appointment. He has also deposed that he was engaged as daily wager in Jhansi Fort Garden and it

is wrong to suggest that as per requirement he was engaged by the management and lastly he has deposed that he

had not worked under the management after 1.12.07.

13.

M.W.1 Sri Pradip Kumar Singh, in his examination in chief has stated that the worker Sri Heera Lal was working

as daily rated worker on temporary basis and the worker had not been issued any appointment letter. The work of

Jhansi Fort Garden is of temporary nature and casual workers are engaged from open market on need basis.

Worker had never worked continuously.

14.

In his cross examination the witness has stated that he personally knows the worker Heera Lal. He expressed his

ignorance about the fact that for which period the worker had worked at Jhasni Fort Garden. He further stated that

worker used to work as mali and also used to look after the garden. He does not remember as to when Kailash,

Suresh and Pradip were engaged on work. Witness has clearly admitted that in the year 2004 for the post of Mali

applications were invited and annexure 8 is the order of interview with regard to the worker. Worker was being

paid wages through muster roll and he has no knowledge whether for the period 2000 to 2007 muster rolls are

available or not and he has no knowledge and as to why muster rolls have not been filed.

15.

Worker Heeralal w.w.1 has stated on oath in his evidence that he was working as casual labor continuously from

01.07.2000 to 30.11.07 and he has worked for more than 240 days every year till his termination. This fact has not

been denied by M.W.1 Sri Pradip Kumar Singh as he has deposed that he does not remember that the period of

working of Sri Heera Lal, therefore, the statement of worker has not been denied by the witness of the

management that the worker worked continuously for 240 days every year during the period 01.07.2000 to

30.11.07. The only proof of working of Heera Lal worker is the muster roll through which Heera Lal was paid

wages. As it is admitted by M.W.1 in clear words that payment of wages to the worker was done through muster

5192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

roll and the muster rolls for the relevant period were summoned by this tribunal on the application of worker by

order dated 02.06.10, but these muster rolls being most relevant documents were not filed by the management nor

management has given any satisfactory reason for not filing of muster rolls. M.W.1 Pradip Kumar Singh in his

cross examination has again shown his ignorance regarding availability of muster rolls from 2000 to 2007 and

further he has deposed that he does not know as to why these muster rolls were not filed, therefore, under these

circumstances this tribunal is of the firm view that the management has deliberately with held the most important

documents i.e. muster rolls for the period 2000-2007. As no proper justification is given for not filing it and

contrary to it management witness has shown his complete ignorance regarding availability and reason for not

filing he muster rolls before this tribunal, therefore, there is no hesitation rather the tribunal is bound to take

adverse inference against the management and believing the statement of worker Hera Lal that he has worked

continuously for 240 days every year during the period 2000-2007 as casual labor and his services were

terminated under oral orders dated 01.12.2007, without making payment of retrenchment compensation, therefore,

provisions of section 25F have been breached by the management in the case of the worker.

16.

Authorized representative for the management has contended that the management used to employ / engage daily

wager casual labors from open market according to need and till completion of work for which they are engaged

are retained in the service of the management but the management failed to prove its case by adducing any cogent

evidence and contrary to it the case of the worker is not denied by the management witness and he has sown his

ignorance and lack of knowledge in replying relevant questions during his cross examination.

17.

Worker has alleged that junior to him were engaged by the management but no evidence has been given by the

worker on the point and the authorized representation has not made any submission on the point hence it is held

that the case of the worker that juniors to him were retained in the service is not proved.

18.

Accordingly on the basis of above, it is held that the action of the management of ASI, Agra in terminating the

services of the worker with effect from 01.12.2007 is neither just, legal and proper being in breach of section 25F

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1047, therefore, worker is entitled to be reinstated in service but without any back

wages.

19.

Award is made accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1247-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2017) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@21@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 52/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Allahabad University, Allahabad & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.08.2018.

[No. L-42012/21/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 2017

Between-

Sri Arbind Kumar Dwivedi,

Son of Ganesh Prasad Dwivedi,

Village, Anapur,

Post-Anapur Nawabganj

Allahabad.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5193

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad.

The Director of M/s Fighting Four Security Service Pvt. Ltd.

FF-59, 88, Khajana Shopping Complex,

Ashiana,

Lucknow.

AWARD

Central Government Mol, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42012/21/2017-IR(DU) dated 06.07.17, has referred

the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication-

Whether the worker Arbind Kumar Dwivedi son of Sri Ganesh Prasad Dwivedi can be said to be the workman of

Allahabad University, 2. And if so whether the termination of services of the workman is legal and justified? 3. If

not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date.

After receipt of reference from the Ministry, notice was sent to the worker as well as to the opposite parties but

none appeared in the case. Neither any one appeared on behalf of the workman nor workman has filed is claim

petition in support of his case, despite providing of repeated opportunities to the worker by this tribunal. It thus

appears that the worker is not inclined to prosecute the reference before this tribunal; AR for the management was

heard who requested to decide the reference for want of pleadings and evidence therefore, the reference is bound

to be answered against the worker for want of pleadings and evidence.

Accordingly reference is answered against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1248-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] egkizca/d]

Hkkjh ty la;a=k] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] oMksnjk (xqtjkr) ,oa muds deZpkjh 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

95@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@90@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 95/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, Vadodara (Gujarat) and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 26.07.2018.

[No. L-42011/90/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 11^th July, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 95/2014

5194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

Heavy Water Plant,

Department of Atomic Energy,

P.O. Fertilizer Nagar, NH 8,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 391750

…First Party

V/s

The President,

Bhari Pani Kamdar Sangh,

Administration Building, Heavy Water Plant,

P.O. Fertilizer Nagar, NH 8,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 391750

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri Bhagyodaya Mishra

For the Second Party

Shri Vinod J. Patel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/90/2014–

IR(DU) dated 28.10.2014 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 Heavy Water Plant, Baroda in not paying the House Rent

Allowance to their newly appointed employees and the employees, who have vacated the Government quarters

is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief, the concerned employees are entitled to?”

The reference was received on 28.10.2014 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for

adjudication. The second party union The President, Bhari Pani Kamdar Sangh, Administration Building, Heavy Water

Plant, P.O. Fertilizer Nagar, NH 8, Vadodara, hereinafter referred to as “union” submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on

10.01.2017 alleging that the union is the recognized representative of the employees of Heavy Water Plant, Baroda,

Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India and the first party is the General Manager of the aforesaid

establishment Heavy Water Plant. Both the parties reached to a settlement on 09.07.2010 for payment of House Rent

Allowances to 17 employees who purchased own Houses and vacated the departmental flats. The said settlement was

binding on the employees union and the respondent/first party employers in accordance with the provisions of Section 19

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that these employee are similarly placed as the employees who

are being paid House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) in accordance with the settlement dated 09.07.2010 reached between the

union and the first party. Thus the denial of the H.R.A. to these employees is discriminatory and violative of the

provisions of the settlement. Thus the second party union has prayed for payment of H.R.A. to the employees on whose

behalf the union has raised the dispute and who have been denied the H.R.A. on the ground that they have shifted in their

constructed houses after vacating the official residence.

The first party despite giving number of opportunities did not submit the written statement despite filing

vakalatpatra Ex. 8 of his advocate Shri Bhagyodaya Mishra, therefore, on 08.03.2018, the reference was ordered to

proceed ex-parte against the first party.

The second party union on 09.07.2018 submitted the affidavit Ex. 9 of one Girishkumar Hariprasad Pandya,

President, Bhari Pani Kamdar Sangh reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim submitting that the second

party union raised the dispute of the demand of H.R.A. of their employees who have vacated the quarters or not allotted

the quarters. In the matter, an amicable settlement was reached before the Regional Labour Commissioner where it was

decided that the first party will pay the H.R.A. to the employees who have not allotted the quarters and are not residing in

the official quarter’s w.e.f. 01.07.2010 as per settlement. Further the employees who have joined service on or after

01.07.2010 or attended the job by transfer order and being not paid H.R.A. though they have not been allotted quarters as

per the settlement arise between the parties on 09.07.2010. It is further submitted that the first party has been paying

H.R.A. to its 32 employees mentioned in the enclosed list annexure A as per the settlement and arbitrarily the employees

who raised this dispute have been denied the H.R.A.

Though the first party did not file the written statement but his advocate Shri Mishra was heard at the time of

hearing the second party advocate. It is a case of the second party union that they were allotted official residences but

later vacated it and they have been claiming H.R.A. on the ground that similarly situated employees have been granted

H.R.A. on the basis of the settlement reached between the union and the first party.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5195

The rules regarding grant of H.R.A. in the Government of India are as under:

“THOSE OCCUPYING OR REFUSING GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HOUSE

RENT ALLOWANCE

4. The grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:-

(a) (i) To those Government servants who are eligible for Government accommodation, the allowances will be

admissible only if they have applied for such accommodation in accordance with the prescribed procedure, if any,

but have not been provided with it, in places where due to availability of surplus Government accommodation,

special orders are issued by the Ministry of Urban Development from time to time making it obligatory for

employees concerned to obtain and furnish ‘no accommodation’ certificate in respect of Government residential

accommodation at their place of posting. In all other places, no such certificate is necessary.

(ii) Government servants posted in localities where there is at present no residential accommodation in the

General Pool owned or requisitioned by the Central Government for allotment to them, need not apply for

Government residential accommodation in order to become eligible for House Rent Allowance. But where

Government quarters are available for the staff of specified Departments or for specified categories of staff of

specified, the procedure of applying for the accommodation will be regulated under the rules of allotment of the

Department concerned or of the local office of the Central Public Works Department, as the case may be.”

In the light of the aforesaid rules regarding the grant of H.R.A. in the Government of India, the employees who

have been provided houses or where there is surplus Government residences and the employees either vacated the house

to shift in his own residence or have not preferred to reside in the official accommodation despite allotment letter, in such

case, the H.R.A. shall not be admissible but the case of the second party is that similarly situated employees have been

granted H.R.A. as per the settlement as discussed above reached between the employees union and the first party,

therefore, it would be a appropriate order that if the similarly situated employees have been granted H.R.A., the first

party will also consider the case of the employees concerning this reference for grant of H.R.A. sympathetically.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1249-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] egkizca/d]

ch,l,u,y] nwjlapkj foHkkx] [skM+k (xqtjkr) ,oa muds deZpkjh 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 15@2010) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-07-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@03@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 15/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, BSNL, Department of Telecom, Kheda (Gujarat) and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.07.2018.

[No. L-40011/03/2010-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 16^th July, 2018

5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 15/2010

The General Manager,

Telecom Department,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Door Sanchar Bhawan, Pij Road, Nadiad,

Kheda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh,

2^nd Floor, Arab Chambers,

Opp. Patharkuva Petrol Pump, Relief Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri B.D. Thakkar

For the Second Party

Shri M.H. Sangrayat

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/3/2010–

IR(DU) dated 10.05.2010 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 General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited, in imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two

years on their workman Shri Bhalabhai Valabhai Vankar vide order dated 01.11.2006 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 10.05.2010 and received on 20.05.2010 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication. Both the parties submitted the statement of claim and written statement as the case may be.

But in the reference, as old as the year 2010, the second party has not been leading evidence. On 12.02.2018, advocate

for the second party, Shri M.H. Sangrayat moved an application Ex. 14 stating that the second party workman has been

absent since last several dates and he has not been in his contact, therefore, he sought a last opportunity for leading

evidence. Despite giving two opportunities on 09.04.2018 and 16.07.2018, Shri M. H. Sangrayat states that he is helpless

in contacting the workman for leading his evidence.

Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as

under:”the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, in imposing

a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years on their workman Shri

Bhalabhai Valabhai Vankar vide order dated 01.11.2006 can be said to be legal and justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1250-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

mi&v/h{kd ckxokuh] Hkkjr ds iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] vkxjk ,oa muds deZpkjh 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 106@1999)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@55@1998&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 106/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy

Superintending Horticulturist, Archeological Survey of India, Agra and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 10.08.2018.

[No. L-42011/55/1998-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 18] [email protected] 27] 1940

5197

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 106/99

Between :

President, A.S.I, Karamchari Parishad(INTUC)

68, Sector 16,

Sikandara,

AGRA(U.P.)-282001

AND

The Dy.Superintending Horticulturist, Archeological,

Survey of India, Horticulture Divn.No.1,

East Gate, Tajmahal,

AGRA (U.P) 282001.

AWARD

Central Government, MOL, vide notification no. L-42011/55/98/IR (DU) dated 06.05.1999 has referred this

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the demand of union for payment of bonus accounting year 1995-96 and 96-97 by the management of

Archaeological Survey of India to 55 persons (as per annexure) is legal & justified? If so, to what relief the

workmen are entitled?”

The Case of Union on behalf of 55 workers is that these workers were working in garden branch of the opposite

party and are working continuously. The workers have not been paid bonus for the year 1995-96 and 96-97 by the

employer where as rest of the workers working in different department of the employer have been paid there

bonus regularly. It is further alleged that workers from serial no. 1 to 26 are employees of the department where as

rest 27 workers are those workers whose service were dispensed with and they were re-employed under an

agreement but they were not paid bonus as such all workers mentioned in the list appended to the reference order

are entitled for bonus which may be allowed in their favor.

Management has filed a very lengthy written statement comprising of 39 pages but only such plea will be

recorded as are necessary to decide the controversy involved in the terms of reference order.

It is alleged that reference is not an Industrial Dispute therefore does not fall within jurisdiction of this Tribunal;

Reference suffer from mis-joinder and non- joinder and suffers from serious latches therefore bad in law; that the

reference has been refereed by Central Government is without jurisdiction ;that workers involved in the present

case are not workmen as defined under the act; that the workers had no lien or right on any regular and permanent

post under the management; that management is not an employer; that it is not an industrial dispute.

On merit it has been pleaded that the claim of the union is highly misleading and misconceived hence not

admitted. Workers are daily paid casual majdoors. It is also denied that management had ever paid ad-hoc bonus

for the years 1995-96 and 96-97 to the workers. As the workers had never worked continuously for 240 days in

any calendar year, therefore there does not arise any question of giving any ad-hoc bonus to the alleged applicants.

As far as plea raised by the union in para 2 of their claim petition have been denied on the ground that

management had never discharged the casual majdoors from their services. The claim of the union is after

thought, concocted, incorrect hence is liable to be rejected. The action of the management is fully, proper,

justified, and legal and no rules of natural justice have been violated in the present case.

On the basis of above it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected

being devoid of merit.

Union has also filed rejoinder in the case but nothing new has been pleaded there in.

Management has filed photocopy of 3 documents per list dated 8.01.2001.

10.

Management has filed affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma in his evidence. On 11.08.2016 when the case was

taken up for the cross-examination of management witness none was present from the side of worker therefore in

cross-examination of management witness was treated nil. Union has also not filed any documentary or oral

evidence in support of his case.

5198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 18, 2018/SRAVANA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

Therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case it is a case of no evidence hence union cannot held liable

for any relief as claimed by him for want of evidence.

12.

It is also held that union has failed to prove their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence in support of

their case.

13.

Hence in view of findings recorded above the reference is bound to be answered against the union for wants of

evidence.

14.

Reference is answered accordingly against the union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed by

ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2018.09.08

10:33:50 +05'30'