Gazette contains multiple Subjects

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

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 35] नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 2—सितम्बर 8, 2018, शनिवार/भाद्र 11—भाद्र 17, 1940

No. 35] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 2—SEPTEMBER 8, 2018, SATURDAY/BHADRA 11—BHADRA 17, 1940

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालय

((((वित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ.... 1318131813181318....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के सूचीब2 कार्यालयों/शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, िजनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा.सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

शैलेश कु मार सिंह, संयुक्त निदेशक (राजभाषा) 5000 GI/2018

(5337)5338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अहमदाबाद मंडलभारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अहमदाबाद मंडलभारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अहमदाबाद मंडलभारतीय स्टेट बैंक, अहमदाबाद मंडल राजभाषा िनयम राजभाषा िनयम राजभाषा िनयम राजभाषा िनयम 1976 1976 1976 1976 के िनयम के िनयम के िनयम के िनयम 10 (4) 10 (4) 10 (4) 10 (4) के अंतर्गतके अंतर्गतके अंतर्गतके अंतर्गत

अधिसूचित कराने हेतु कार्यालयोंअधिसूचित कराने हेतु कार्यालयोंअधिसूचित कराने हेतु कार्यालयोंअधिसूचित कराने हेतु कार्यालयों////शाखाओं की सूचीशाखाओं की सूचीशाखाओं की सूचीशाखाओं की सूची

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1318.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices/ Branches of State Bank of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F.No. 11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Director (OL)

STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, AHMEDABAD LIST OF

OFFICES/BRANCHES TO BE NOTIFIED UNDER RULE 10(4)

OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE RULES 1976

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ.... 1319131913191319....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के सूचीब2 कार्यालयों/शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, िजनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा.सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

शैलेश कु मार सिंह, संयुक्त निदेशक (राजभाषा)

राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में

अधिसूचित करने के लिए कार्यालयों की सूचीअधिसूचित करने के लिए कार्यालयों की सूचीअधिसूचित करने के लिए कार्यालयों की सूचीअधिसूचित करने के लिए कार्यालयों की सूची

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1319.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices/Branches of State Bank of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F.No.11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Director (OL)

LIST OF OFFICES TO BE NOTIFIED IN GOVT.OF INDIA GAZETTE UNDER

RULE 10(4) OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE RULES, 1976

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ.... 1320132013201320....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के सूचीब2 कार्यालयों/शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, िजनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा.सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

शैलेश कु मार सिंह, संयुक्त निदेशक (राजभाषा) नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूचीवाले कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूचीवाले कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूचीवाले कार्यालयों/शाखाओं की सूची राजभाषाराजभाषाराजभाषाराजभाषा िनयम 1976 केिनयम 1976 केिनयम 1976 केिनयम 1976 के नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने नियम 10(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices/Branches of State Bank of India, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F.No.11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Director (OL)

List of Branches / Offices to be notified under rule 10(4) of Official Language Rules 1976

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ.... 1321132113211321....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा संशोधित) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में दि ओरिए(cid:7)टल इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के सूचीब2 कार्यालयों/शाखाओं को अधिसूचित करती है, िजनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा.सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

शैलेश कु मार सिंह, संयुक्त निदेशक (राजभाषा) राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों / शाखाओं की सूची राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों / शाखाओं की सूची राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों / शाखाओं की सूची राजभाषा नियम 1976 के नियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों / शाखाओं की सूची

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices/Branches of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F.No.11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Director (OL)

List of Offices/Branches to be notified under Rule 10 (4) of Official Language Rule 1976

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ.... 1322132213221322....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (1987 में यथा-संशोिधत) के िनयम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में दि ओरिए(cid:7)टल इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के सूचीब2 कार्यालयों को अिधसूिचत करती है, िजनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर लिया है : -

[फा.सं. 11016/2/2017-हिं.(अधि.)]

शैलेश कु मार सिंह, संयुक्त निदेशक (राजभाषा) (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों की सूचीकी सूचीकी सूचीकी सूची राजभाषा िनयम 1976 के िनयम राजभाषा िनयम 1976 के िनयम राजभाषा िनयम 1976 के िनयम राजभाषा िनयम 1976 के िनयम 10101010(4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले कार्यालयों

New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2018

S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government, hereby notifies the listed Offices of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F.No.11016/2/2017-OL(Noti.)]

SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Director (OL)

List of offices to be notified under Rule 10(4) of Official Language Rule l976

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1323132313231323....————भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अिधिनयम, 1934, (1934 का 2) की धारा 8 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, jी सतीश काशीनाथ मराठे (जन्म तिथि: 1.2.1950) को उन्हें नामित किए जाने की अधिसूचना की तारीख से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के के न्(cid:15)ीय बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 1/14/2016-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2018

S.O.1323.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Satish Kashinath Marathe (DOB: 1.2.1950) as part-time non-official Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the date of notification of his nomination, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1/14/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1324132413241324....———— भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अिधिनयम, 1934, (1934 का 2) की धारा 8 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, jी स्वामीनाथन गुxमूnर्त (जन्म तिथि: 4.3.1949) को उन्हें नामित किए जाने की अधिसूचना की तारीख से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के के न्(cid:15)ीय बोर्ड में अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है।

[फा.सं. 1/1/2018-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2018

S.O. 1324.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Swaminathan Gurumurthy (DOB: 4.3.1949) as part-time non-official Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the date of notification of his nomination, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1/1/2018-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1325132513251325....————राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 9 के उप-पैरा (2) के खंड (ख) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उप<मों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ज) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, jी गोपालरमण पzनाभन (जन्म तिथि: 29.5.1955) को दिनांक 14.8.2018 से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बैंक आफ इंडिया के निदेशक मcडल में अंशकालिक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नामित करती है और बैंक के बोर्ड के गैर-कार्यपालक अध्यक्ष के पद पर उनकी नियुक्ति को उक्त अवधि तक बढ़ाती है।

[फा.सं. 8/4/2018-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2018

S.O. 1325.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Gopalaraman Padmanabhan (DoB: 29.5.1955) as part-time non-official Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of India for a term of two years with effect from 14.8.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, and extends his appointment as non-executive Chairman of the bank's Board for the said period.

[F. No. 8/4/2018-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1326132613261326....———— राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 9 के उप-पैरा (2) के खंड (ख) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उप<मों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ज) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, jी थोथला नारायणसामी मनोहरण (जन्म तिथि: 7.4.1956) को दिनांक 14.8.2018 से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, के नरा बैंक के निदेशक मcडल में अंशकालिक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नामित करती है और बैंक के बोर्ड के गैर-कार्यपालक अध्यक्ष के पद पर उनकी नियुक्ति को उक्त अवधि तक बढ़ाती है।

[फा.सं. 8/4/2018-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2018

S.O. 1326.— In exercise of powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Thothala Narayanasamy Manoharan (DoB: 7.4.1956) as part-time non-official Director on the Board of Directors of Canara Bank for a term of two years with effect from 14.8.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, and extends his appointment as non-executive Chairman of the bank's Board for the said period.

[F. No. 8/4/2018-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1327132713271327....———— यत: सुjी ऊषा अनंतसुब्रमणियन को दिनांक 5.5.2017 की अधिसूचना के द्वारा पद के कार्यभार Lहण करने की तारीख से, दिनांक 13.8.2018 या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया था;

और यत: सुjी अनंतसुब्रमणियन को राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंधों के अनुसार दिनांक 3.7.2018 के पत्र के द्वारा कारण बताने का अवसर दिया गया था कि क्यों न उन्हें प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी के पद पर रहते sए पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के कार्यकरण पर समुचित नियंत्रण रखने में असफल रहने के लिए पद से हटा दिया जाए, जिसके कारण बैंक की ब्रैडी हाऊस शाखा, मुम्बई में एसडब्ल्यूआईएफटी (स्वि(cid:128)ट) का दुxपयोग करके धोखाधड़ी की गई, जिनका कई वष(cid:129) तक पता नहh चल सका, जिससे बड़ी राशि की धोखाधड़ी sई;

और यत: इलाहाबाद बैंक के बोर्ड से भी उक्त उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंधों के संदर्भ में परामर्श किया गया था;

और यत: कारण बताओ नोटिस के संबंध में सुjी अनंतसुब्रमणियन के उत्तर सहित मामले और इलाहाबाद बैंक के बोर्ड की टिप्पणियों को ध्यान में रखते sए इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी के पद पर सुjी अनंतसुब्रमणियन के बने रहने पर विचार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक में उनकी उक्त असफलता के संदर्भ में किए जाने की आवश्यकता है, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार इससे संतुष्ट है कि उन्हें उक्त पद से हटाना इलाहाबाद बैंक के हित में समयोचित है;

अत: अब बैंककारी कं पनी (उप<मों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार द्वारा बनाई गई राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंधों के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, इससे संतुष्ट होने पर कि सुjी अनंतसुब्रमणियन को इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंध िनदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी के पद से हटाना इलाहाबाद बैंक के हित में समयोचित है, उन्हें, एतtारा, इस पद से तत्काल हटाती है।

[फा.सं. 16/13/2018-बीओ-I]

:ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2018

S.O. 1327.— Whereas Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian was appointed as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Allahabad Bank, vide notification dated 5.5.2017, with effect from the date of her taking over charge of the post, and up to 13.8.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier:

And whereas, Ms. Ananthasubramanian, was given opportunity in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, to show cause vide letter dated 3.7.2018 why she should not be removed from office for having failed in exercising proper control over the functioning of Punjab National Bank while serving as its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, which enabled the fraud in the bank through misuse of SWIFT at the bank's Brady House, Mumbai Branch to persist undetected for several years, snowballing into a large amount:

And whereas, the Board of Allahabad Bank was also consulted in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) ibid.:

And whereas, after considering the matter, including Ms. Anathasubramanian's reply to the show-cause notice and the comments of the Board of Allahabad Bank, and considering that Ms Ananthasubramanian's continuance in office as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Allahabad Bank needs to be viewed in the context of her failure as aforesaid in Punjab National Bank, the Central Government is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of Allahabad Bank to remove her from the said office:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970, made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby removes Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian from the office of Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Allahabad Bank, with immediate effect, for the reason that it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of Allahabad Bank to so remove.

[F. No. 16/13/2018-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1328132813281328....————सरकार, एतtारा, सुjी दक्षिता दास, अपर सिचव, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग, वित्त मंत्रालय को तत्काल प्रभाव से, अगले आदेशों तक, अपने वतर्मान कार्यभार के अतिरिक्त राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) के पद का अतिरिक्त कार्यभार स(cid:132)पती है।

[फा.सं. 24/3(II)/2017-आईएफ-II]

प्रमोद कु मार सिंह, अवर सिचव5403 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1328.—Government hereby assigns the additional charge of MD & CEO of National Housing Bank to Ms. Dakshita Das, Additional Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, in addition to her present responsibilities, with immediate effect, until further orders.

[F. No. 24/3(II)/2017-IF-II] PROMODE KUMAR SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1329132913291329....———— jी jीराम कल्याणरमन द्वारा राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक (एनएचबी) के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) द्वारा 28 मई, 2018 को अपने पद से दिए गए त्यागपत्र को सरकार, एतtारा, एनएचबी अिधिनयम, 1987 की धारा 7(4) के अंतर्गत स्वीकार करती है। उन्हें तत्काल प्रभाव से पदभार मुक्त माना जाएगा। पदधारी की ओर से सांविधिक नोटिस देने की तीन महीने की अवधि से छू ट दी जाती है और शेष अवधि के बदले वेतन तथा भत्तों के भुगतान से छू ट देने को भी स्वीकृ ति दी जाती है।

[फा.सं. 24/3(I)/2017-आईएफ-II]

प्रमोद कु मार सिंह, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th August, 2018

S.O. 1329.—Resignation tendered by Shri Sriram Kalyanraman from the post of Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer (MD & CEO), National Housing Bank (NHB) dated 28th May 2018, is hereby accepted by the Government under Section 7(4) of the NHB Act, 1987. He shall stand relieved from the post with immediate effect. Statutory notice period of three months on the part of the incumbent is waived off and exemption from payment of salary and allowances in lieu thereof for the remaining period is granted.

[F. No. 24/3(I)/2017-IF-II]

PROMODE KUMAR SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1330133013301330....————भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (i) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, डॉ. अरविन्द सुब्रमणियन के स्थान पर आnर्थक कार्य िवभाग, वित्त मंत्रालय में संयुक्त सचिव (निवेश) jी के . राजारमन को तत्काल प्रभाव से अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक (एक्जिम बैंक) के निदेशक मcडल में निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है।

[फा.सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]

सौम्यजित घोष, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1330.— In pursuance of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri K. Rajaraman, Joint Secretary (Investment), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance as Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) vice Dr. Arvind Subramanian with immediate effect until further orders.

[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I] SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1331133113311331....————भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (ii) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतtारा, jी राजीव ऋषि के स्थान पर यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया में एमडी एवं सीईओ jी राजकिरन राय जी. को 01 सितम्बर, 2018 से अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक (एक्जिम बैंक) के निदेशक मcडल में निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है।

[फा.सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]

सौम्यजित घोष, अवर सिचव5404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2018

S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Sh. Rajkiran Rai G, MD & CEO, Union Bank of India as Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) vice Sh. Rajeev Rishi w.e.f. 1st September, 2018 until further orders.

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

SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

का)र्मक लोक शिकायत और पेंशनका)र्मक लोक शिकायत और पेंशनका)र्मक लोक शिकायत और पेंशनका)र्मक लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

(का)र्मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का)र्मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का)र्मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का)र्मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ. . . . 1332133213321332....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, दंड प्र<िया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते sए, माननीय बंबई उ(cid:134) न्यायालय की औरंगाबाद स्थित न्यायपीठ के समक्ष कें (cid:15)ीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो मामला सं0 आरसी2(एस)/2007-मु ंबई (वी.जी.पाटिल हत्या मामला) में और अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों के समक्ष अपीलों या पुनरीक्षणों और उनसे संबंधित या उनसे आनुषंगिक किन्ही अन्य मामलों में उपस्थित होने के लिए jी नितिन बी.सूर्यवंशी अधिवक्ता, को उनकी नियुक्ति तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या मामले के निपटारे की तारीख तक, जो भी पहले हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/04/2018-एवीडी-।।]

एस. पी. आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 29th August, 2018

S.O. 1332.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Nitin B. Suryavanshi, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing in CBI case No. RC 2(S) /2007-Mumbai (V.G. Patil murder case) before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench and in appeals or revisions before the Appellate or Revisional Courts and any other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 225/04/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्राालय

;सी.पी.वी. प्रभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.1333.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार के द्वारा सुश्री पुष्पलता सी जे, निजी सहायक 9 अगस्त, 2018 से भारत के प्रधन कोंसलावास, सैन प्रफांसिस्को में सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक ;कोंसुलरद्ध5405 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2018

S.O. 1333.—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 authorizes Ms. Puspalatha C.J., Personal Assistant in Consulate General of India, San Francisco to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 9th August, 2018.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

विद्युतविद्युतविद्युतविद्युत मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 4 सितम्बर, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ. . . . 1334133413341334....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के िलए प्रयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एनटीपीसी िलिमटेड के मौदा सुपर थर्मल पावर प्रोजेक्ट, पोस्ट- मौदा, िजला-नागपुर-441104, िजसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक :ान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को एतtारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-हिंदी]

भारती, संयुक्त सिचव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2018

S.O. 1334.—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 notify the Mouda Super Thermal Power Project, P.O. Mauda, Distt. Nagpur-441104 of NTPC Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

BHARATI, Jt. Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1335.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सध् बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायाल सं. 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 237/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/63/2011-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 237/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12012/63/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer5406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 237 of 2012

Sh. Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Tara Singh, R/o Village Kutti(Kishanpura), Tehsil and District Bathinda(Punjab).

…Workman

Versus

1. Punjab and Sindh Bank through its Zonal Manager,

Punjab and Sindh Bank Zonal Office, Bathinda(Punjab).

2. Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank Zonal Office,

Bathinda (Punjab).

3. Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Currency Chest,

Bathinda (Punjab).

…Management

AWARD

1. A reference was received from the Government of India vide Letter No.L-12012/63/2011-IR(B-II), Dated 13.03.2012 under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

"Whether the action of the Management of the Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

Bathinda/Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Currency Chest, Bathinda in terminating/dis-continuing the

services of Sh. Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Tara Singh, Ex-Driver w.e.f. 16.04.2010 is just, fair and lega? What

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

2. Both the parties were put to notice and workman Sh. Jasvir Singh upon appearance filed statement of claim with the averments that he was employed as Driver on permanent basis since January 2002. He was drawing a salary of Rs.4,375/- per month. It has also alleged that service of the workman was terminated on 16.04.2010 without any notice, enquiry and charge sheet etc. The juniors to the workman are still in service and after the termination of the workman, other persons has been employed in his place. The workman has challenged his termination to be illegal with the law and made a prayer for his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.

3. The management contested the case of the workman by filing written statement wherein certain preliminary objections were taken. In Para 3 of the preliminary objections, it is admitted that workman was engaged as casual workman as a Driver purely on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement. It is denied that he was employed as Driver on permanent basis since January 2002. There was no regular appointment of the workman nor the post of Driver was advertised. No application were invited nor any interview was conducted at the time of his engagement. It is a matter of record that Branch Manager is not even a competent authority under the Rules to make any appointment of Driver. The management has also disputed the number of working days. The management admitted that workman has served with a legal notice dated 24.04.2010 on the management vide Annexure M-1. The management had also filed reply to the said notice vide Annexure M-2. Kindly prayed has been made for disposal of the prayer.

4. The workman in support of his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with document Ex.WW1/1. There is no cross-examination of the workman as none was present on behalf of the management on 29.05.2018 when the case was listed for evidence of the workman. Resultantly, management was proceeded ex parte.

5. It is clear from the perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as of evidence of the workman that he was engaged by the management as a Driver in January, 2002. The factum of engagement of Sh. Jasvir Singh workman as a Driver has also been admitted by the management in its written statement as well as other documents. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Para 3 of the preliminary objections made in the written statement filed by the management. It is clearly admitted that Sh. Jasvir Singh workman i.e. Driver, was engaged as a casual workman purely on temporary basis. There is also documentary evidence on record which further suggest that Sh. Jasvir Singh workman was in the employment of the management as a Driver. Before filing the present case, the workman has served management with legal notice Annexure M-1, wherein all the material facts are mentioned. The management had filed the reply to the written notice vide Annexure M-2, wherein also it is clearly admitted that workman was engaged by the management-5407 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 bank on daily wager, casual basis to met the exigencies. However, no procedure was followed at the time of his engagement. In Para 3 and 4 of the reply to the legal notice, it is further admitted that no procedure was followed at the time of his engagement and it was not imperative for the management to give any notice or pay any compensation etc. to the workman before his termination. This stand has been taken by the management before conciliation officer also.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2235 while interpreting the definition of workman as contained in Section 2(S) of the Act rejected the contention of the management that a casual or daily wager or a temporary employee engaged purely on casual basis is not covered by the definition of workman. The relevant observations are in Para 13 of the judgment and the same are as under:—

"The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of

service, the quantum of wages/pay and the 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 a 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."

7. It is thus, clear from the perusal of the above Para that every type of casual or daily worker is covered by the definition of workman as contained in Section 2(S) of the Act. Since workman herein was admittedly engaged by the management as a Driver, as such, he has covered by the definition of the workman under Section 2(S) of the Act.

8. There is no merit in the stand taken by the management that no regular procedure was followed at the time of engagement of the workman nor application was invited for the post of Driver. To my mind, the workman herein is not seeking regularisation or permanent absorption with the management-bank simply because due procedure was not followed at the time of engagement of the workman herein that would not give licence to the management to terminate the service of the workman in arbitrary and illegal manner. There are several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that service of a daily wager or casual workman cannot be terminated without following the due procedure contained in Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, no show cause notice was served upon the workman before ordering his termination nor one month salary in lieu of notice was given in advance to the workman at the time of his termination. All these facts are duly admitted by the management in the written statement as well as reply to a legal notice. It has been held in several decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that termination of service of a workman, who has served for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination, will become arbitrary and illegal unless one month notice or one month salary in lieu of such notice is given to such workman at the time of his termination. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehouse Corporation 2056 Supreme Court cases and ONGC 2483 Supreme Court Mechanised Company Vs. Mechanised Union 2004 Supreme Court cases 544. Since in the present case, the management has throw all the norms of natural justice as well as provisions of ID Act to the winds. As such, the action of the management is held to be totally arbitrary and illegal under the law.

9. Now the residual question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement of service with back wages. Admittedly, the workman was not holding any regular post nor any procedure was followed by the management at the time of his engagement as a Driver. But it is also a fact that management has been engaged him as Driver in this manner, and workman has put more that 8 years of service.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:

"(i) In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court

of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants

to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads drawing prior to the

termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a

particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to

prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not

employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L & S) 716 observed as under:—

''There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Act in Incharge Officer & Anr. V. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126: 2010 LLR 1137 and after referred to the various decisions, this Court held that the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice and it reads as under:—

"2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager

has been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short "the ID

Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.

3. In Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, delivering the judgment of

this Court, one of the us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P.

State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. V. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest Development

Corpn. V. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P.

Admn. V. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5

SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4

SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows:

(Jagbir Singh case (2009) 11 SCC 327, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14)''

"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if

the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages would

ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of

cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back-wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been

held to meet the ends of justice.

14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that

an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of

reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed."

13. Yet, in another latest judgment i.e. District Development Officer Vs. Kanti Lal 2018 LLR 225 while considering the question of reinstatement along with back wages of a daily wager, who have put two and a half years of service, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement. The workman herein was not holding a regular post of Driver and he was simply engaged as daily wager. Moreover, management has already employed some other workmen in his place as such, having regard to duration of service, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play if compensation of Rs.6 lac be awarded as lump sum compensation to the workman. Accordingly, the reference is answered by holding that action of the management-bank Zonal Manager in terminating the service of workman Jasvir Singh is unjust, unfair and illegal and a amount of Rs.6 lac is ordered to be paid as lump sum compensation to the said workman by the management and in case, this amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to the said amount with 6% interest from the date of making of the reference till realisation. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under Section 17(2) of the Act.

Dated: 30.05.2018

Place: Chandigarh

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer5409 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.1336.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 192/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12013/124/1998-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 192/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12013/124/1998-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 10th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 192/2004

The Branch Manager, Bank of India, New Cloth Market Branch, New Cloth, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Hitendra Vasudev Vyas, D-40, Tulsi Kunj Society, Behind Rajbaugh Society, Ghodasar, Maninagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party No        :    Shri D.C. Gandhi
For the Second Party          :    Shri V.J. Patel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12013/124/98– IR(B-II) dated 14.05.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, New Cloth Market Branch, Ahmedabad in dismissing Shri H.V. Vyas, Sub-Staff from the services of the Bank with effect from 23.07.1996 on the alleged charges of misconduct levelled against him vide charge sheet no. ZO:PR:559 dated 16.12.1993 is legal and justified? If not, then what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 14.05.1999 and received on 28.06.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party workman H.V. Vyas submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 alleging that he has been appointed and working by/with the first party The Branch Manager, Bank of India, New Cloth Market Branch, New Cloth, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as "Bank of India" as Sub-staff Peon since the year 1973. He was put under suspension and served with a charge sheet (Ex. 19) on 16.12.1993. In the charge sheet, the following charges were levelled against him as under:

i. It is reported that a fraud of Rs.160420.00 has been perpetrated by you in collusion with other staff members of the Branch in fictitious S/B A/c No. 15352 in the name of one Shri Vinodkumar Prabhudas Gajjar and S/B A/c No. 15463 in the name of one Shri Surendra Nanji Patel, by fabricating fictitious credit vouchers and withdrawing funds thereafter and destroying/managing to destroy fictitious credit vouchers/withdrawal forms etc.

ii. You, in collusion with other staff members managed to open/got opened the above mentioned fictitious S/B A/cs with an intention to commit a fraud and misappropriate the Bank's funds.

iii. You, in collusion with other staff members of the Branch, further managed to remove temporarily the genuine P and L Credit vouchers of various heads and surreptitiously replaced these genuine vouchers with fictitious credit vouchers of the same amount made out for the credit of above mentioned fictitious S/B A/cs, alleged to have been opened by you in collusion with other staff members of the Branch thereby giving fictitious and bogus credit entries to the above mentioned S/B A/cs. You thereafter knowingly, wilfully and fraudulently managed to withdraw funds on various occasions from the above mentioned fictitious S/B A/cs. You thereafter destroyed/managed to destroy the fake and fictitious vouchers fabricated by you in collusion with other staff members and once again replaced the original P and L A/C credit vouchers stealthily in the day's bunch of vouchers. In order to suppress the fraud from coming to light, you further tempered with the Bank's documents and destroyed/managed to destroy all the withdrawal slips/forms drawn in S/B A/c No. 15352 and some of the withdrawal forms/slips drawn on/pertaining to S/B A/c No. 15463 in the name of one Shri S.N. Patel.

iv. Preliminary investigation has revealed that the following withdrawal forms available on branch record drawn on fictitious S/B A/c No. 15463 in the name of S.N. Patel are allegedly filled in/signed in the name of S.N. Patel by you.

You have in your statement dated 29.04.1993 given before the Investigating Officer, Shri D. V. Almouls, confessed having filled in 3 of the above mentioned withdrawal forms/slips i.e. dated 15.12.1992, 21.12.1992 and 12.02.1993 for Rs.6000/-,Rs.6000/- and Rs.4500/- respectively.

Therefore, he was put under suspension and subjected to departmental enquiry where he was, without giving proper opportunity of hearing and to defend himself, dismissed, therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

3. The first party Bank of India vide written statement Ex. 11 has submitted that the second party workman has been working as Sub-staff Peon in the Bank. During tenure of his duty as Sub-staff Peon at Bank's New Cloth Market Branch in the year 1992 and 1993, a fraud was perpetrated by this workman in collusion with other staff members of the branch in fictitious Saving Bank Account No. 15352 in the name of one V.P. Gajjar and Saving Bank Account No. 15463 in the name of one S.M. Patel by fabricating fictitious credit vouchers and withdrawing funds thereafter destroying fictitious credit vouchers and withdrawing funds with an intention to commit fraud and misappropriate the Bank's money. The workman further managed to remove the genuine profit and loss vouchers of various heads and surreptitiously placed the general vouchers with fictitious credit vouchers of the same amount made out for the credit of the above mentioned fictitious saving bank accounts thereby giving fictitious and bogus credit entries to the above mentioned savings bank accounts. The workman concerned thereafter knowingly, wilfully and fraudulently managed to withdraw funds on various occasions from the above mentioned fictitious saving bank accounts and thereafter managed to destroy the face and fictitious vouchers fabricated by him in collusion with other staff members and again replaced the original profit and loss account credit vouchers stealthily in the day's bunch of vouchers. In order to suppress the fraud from coming to5411 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 light, the workman concerned further tampered with the bank's documents and destroyed all the withdrawal slips/forms drawn on savings bank account no. 15352 and some withdrawal slips pertaining to saving bank account no. 15463. Therefore, the bank keeping, the charges levelled and proved against the workman, in the mind, first put him under suspension vide order dated 26.06.1993 and after Charge No. i and iii conclusively proved and Charge No. ii partly proved, issued him a show cause notice on 10.04.1996 and after providing him an opportunity of personal hearing, dismissed him from service vide order dated 23.07.1996 as per the bi-partite settlement dated 14.02.1995. The order provided the workman in option for appeal which the workman availed. The appeal was dismissed and his services were terminated. During enquiry, personal hearing was given. There was no violation of principle of natural justice. Hence the prayer sought by the second party in his statement of claim has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I. Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, New Cloth Market Branch, Ahmedabad in dismissing Shri H.V. Vyas, Sub-Staff from the services of the Bank with effect from 23.07.1996 on the alleged charges of misconduct levelled against him vide charge sheet no. ZO:PR:559 dated 16.12.1993 is legal and justified?

II. To what relief, if any, the concerned employee is entitled?

5. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workman. As the second party workman did not challenge the legality of the enquiry report and departmental proceedings, therefore, the Issue No. I stand proved.

6. The learned counsel for the workman argued on the point of punishment referring Deepali Gundu Surwase V/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak and others, 2013 (139) FLR 541 SC, wherein the apex court has held that if action taken against the employee by the employer is found to be ultra-vires, relevant statutory provisions of principle of natural justice by a competent court and the employee shall be reinstated in the same position in which he was earlier standing. He further referred Gujarat State Board Transport Corporation V/s D.V. Chauhan, 2006 (2) GLH 64 Full Bench Guj., wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal while examining the legality of orders of penalty other than discharge or dismissal, mere mentioning of Section 11 (a) would not rendered the order of the Tribunal bad. He further referred State Bank of Bikaner V/s Nemichand Nalwaya, 2011 LLR 634 SC, wherein the apex court has held that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the Court cannot act as an appellant Court to re-assess the evidence produced in the domestic enquiry. Besides, it also cannot interfere with the ground that any other view is possible on the basis of material available on record. As and when the punishment has been imposed after holding a disciplinary proceedings/enquiry, Courts have restricted powers and has a scope to interfere only when the findings were perverse or based on no evidence or in being violation of the principle of natural justice or statutory regulations. He further referred Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited) V/s Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, 2004 (4) LLN 571 SC, wherein the apex court has held that an employee who was removed from service for a proved charge of breach of trust and mis-appropriation of money, the High Court and the Labour Court was unjustified to reinstate him with 25% back wages on the ground that Court has no right or justification to say that the mis-appropriate amount was small.

7. It is also noteworthy that the apex Court has repeatedly held that if the legality of the departmental proceedings has not been challenged then the Tribunal or Court has no locus to stand as an Appellate Court for modifying the punishment awarded for a proven charge. Thus the Issue No. ii is decided accordingly. No relief can be granted.

8. Thus the prayer sought by the second party workman has no force and liable to be rejected. The reference is dismissed and disposed of with the observation that the action taken by the management of the first party, Bank of India, New Cloth Market Branch, Ahmedabad, in removing the workman H.V. Vyas from service is legal and just.

9. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1337.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 827/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/197/2003-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी5412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 827/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12011/197/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 14th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 827/2004

The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Mandvi, Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President, RashtriyaMazdoor Union, Aram Building, Poolbari Naka, Salatwada, Baroda (Gujarat) - 390001

…Second Party

For the First Party          :    Shri V.K. Mashar
For the Second Party         :    None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/197/2003– IR(B-II) dated 28.11.2003 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 ofBank of Baroda through the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Jhagadia Branch, Bharuch and others in terminating the services of Shri DineshkumarShantilalVesava is legal, proper and justified? If not, what relief the workman Shri Dineshkumar Shantilal Vasava is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 28.11.2003 and received on 22.12.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 23.03.2004 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 21.10.2004. Since then the second party has been absent and has not been leading evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities.

3. Thus it appears that the second partyis not willing to prosecute the case.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Bank of Baroda through the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Jhagadia Branch, Bharuch and others in terminating the services of Shri Dineshkumar Shantilal Vesava is legal, proper and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer5413 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1338.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कांदला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 25/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-37011/05/2015-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-37011/05/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 30th July, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 25/2015

The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Building, P.B. No. 50, Gandhidham (Gujarat) - 370201

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, 21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586, 12-C, Gandhidham (Gujarat) - 370201

…Second Party

For the First Party       :        Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party      :        Shri N.H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/05/2015– IR(B-II) dated 24.03.2015 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 Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Abhu Hasam, RP Workers 2/SM is just and fair? If not, to what relief is the employee concerned is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 24.03.2015 and received on 13.04.2015 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. In response to the notice issued to the parties by the Tribunal, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 22.08.2017 alleging that the second party workman hereinafter referred to as "workman" was working with the first party Kandla Dock Labour Board (KDLB) later notified as Kandla Port Trust since 24.01.2007 as RP Worker 2/SM.

He enquired into the office of the first party regarding his date of birth in the official record which was told to be 06.05.1958 while his actual date of birth is 26.02.1961 as per his school leaving certificate, therefore, he moved an representation in the first party Kandla Port Trust to change his date of birth as stated above which was denied to be changed by Kandla Port Trust. Therefore, he has prayed for change of date of birth to be recorded as 26.02.1961 in his service record.

3. The first party Kandla Port Trust, hereinafter referred to as "KPT" submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 14.02.2018 stating that the reference is bad in law, time barred and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, therefore, the reference is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the second party is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second party has to prove that he was working as RP Worker with the Kandla Dock Labour Board which later merged into the first party KPT on 24.01.2007. The second party has also to prove that he enquired from the official record that his date of birth was recorded as 06.05.1958. The first party vide memorandum no. ADMB/KDLB/1311/1041 dated 13.05.1985 instructed the second party to produce the documentary evidence regarding his date of birth but the second party workman categorically stated that he does not have any evidence to support his date of birth and requested to take into consideration the same age as assessed by the Medical Officer, KPT during his medical examination. Accordingly, the age of second party workman was considered as 29 years as on 06.05.1987 as per the report of the Medical Officer having Report No. MH/GN/1102/1103/3207. It is also noteworthy that the present reference has filed in the year 2015 after 28 years and has not explained as to why he has taken action after such a long delay. Thus the reference is liable to be rejected. The first party vide list Ex. 8 submitted the zerox copy of aforesaid memorandum, declaration in support of documentary evidence given by the second party dated 14.05.1987 and certificate of fitness given by the Medical officer dated 05.05.1987.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I. Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Abhu Hasam, RP Workers 2/SM is just and fair?

II. To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?

5. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The second party workman Abhu Hasam submitted the affidavit Ex. 9 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 6. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he joined the Kandla Dock Labour Board in the year 1987 which was merged in Kandla Port Trust in the year 2007 and he has submitted his proof of date of birth while joining the services. He further stated that he further asked by the Kandla Dock Labour Board on 13.05.1985 to file proof of his date of birth, the same has been filed by him. He admitted that the document filed by the first party vide list Ex. 8/2 bears his signature which is the declaration in support of documentary evidence given by the second party dated 14.05.1987. He further stated that he don't remember as to whether he was referred to Medical Authorities for ascertaining his age. Kandla Port Trust used to issue him pay slips but he does not know the pay slips issued bearing date of birth. He made representation before the authorities of Kandla Port Trust for change in his date of birth but he does not know the date of filing of representation. The second party submitted his written arguments vide list Ex. 10.

6. I heard and perused the written arguments of the second party and as well as of the first party. The second party in his written argument Ex. 10 has referred Titagarh Jute Factory Company Ltd. V/s Sriram Tiwari, 1979 ILLJ 495 Cal., wherein it has been observed as under:

"2. When the dispute in question is an Industrial Dispute, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is bared and that the Court below, therefore, has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. In support of this contention, relevance on the decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. V/s Kamalakar Shantaram has been made. In that case the following principles have been laid down for ascertaining whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred or not:

i. If the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute nor does it relate to the enforcement of any other right under the Act, remedy lies only in the Civil Court;

ii. If the dispute is an Industrial Dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy;

iii. If the Industrial Dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suit or is to get an adjudication under the Act;

iv. If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act, such as, Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33 C or the raising of an Industrial Dispute, as the case may be."

"13. The present dispute as has already been found is an Industrial Dispute. Further, having regard to the nature of the dispute it may very well be said that the dispute arises out of right or liability under the general and5415 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 common law and not under the Act. In the present case, as already stated, the contention of the plaintiff- opposite party is that he was born on 20.08.1922 and did not as such attain the age of 58 years on 01.08.1977. In other words, according to him, he would attain the age of 58 years on 20.08.1980. That precisely is the plaintiff's case even though he has challenged the applicability of the Clause 13 (c) of the standing orders of the factory. He has not made out any specific case that he was not to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Further it is his case that there is no basis for holding that he was born on 01.08.1919 and accordingly he could not be required to retire on 01.08.1977. The plaint, therefore, primarily raises the dispute as to whether the plaintiff was born on 20.08.1922 or 01.08.1919. This is a dispute which may very well be raised before the Civil Court as much as even though the dispute may be in the nature of an Industrial Dispute there is no specific provision in the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide a dispute of the kind raised in this case. In that view of the matter, it ought to be held that the present suit is maintainable in a Civil Court."

"14. Further, the following material observations of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles V/s Kamalakar Shantaram A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2283 (supra) would also show that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit like the present one is not ousted. The relevant observation is as follows:

It would thus be seen that through the intervention of the appropriate Government, of course not directly, very extensive machinery has been provided for settlement and adjudication of Industrial Disputes. But since an individual aggrieved cannot approach the Tribunal or the Labour Court-directly for the redress of his grievance without the intervention of the Government, it is legitimate to take the view that the remedy provided under the Act is not such as to completely oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for trial of Industrial Disputes. If the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) or within the meaning of Section 2 A of the Act, it is obvious that there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes under the Act. Civil Courts will be the proper forum. But where the Industrial Dispute is for the purpose of enforcing any right, obligation or liability under the general law or the common law and not a right, obligation or liability created under the Act, alternative forums are there giving an election of the suitor to choose his remedy of either moving the machinery under the Act or to approach the Civil Court. It is plain that he cannot have both. He has to choose the one or the other."

7. The second party further relied on United Bank of India V/s ram Raj Goala (dated 13.09.1979) and The workmen through The Secretary, Bihar Jasnta Khan Mazdoor Sangh V/s Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (LPA No. 249 of 2013) wherein the apex courts has held similar views as stated in Para 7.

8. The second party further relied on Shah Nawaz V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2011) 13 SCC 751, wherein the apex court has observed that medical opinion from Medical Board should be sought only when matriculation certificate or school certificate or any birth certificate issued by a corporation or by any Panchayat or Municipality is not available. He has further relied on Shicaji Malviya V/s Central Bank of India and others 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1652, wherein the apex court has held as under: "In support of his contention that the High School Certificate is the only document on which reliability is to be placed for recording the date of birth and no other document can at all be looked into. If there is any dispute or discrepancy, in that event, the benefit must go to the petitioner."

9. The second party further argued that the first party KPT has not leaded any oral evidence to prove contention raised in the written statement, further no rules or regulations regarding correction of date of birth has placed on record to prove their contention and only contenting that the employee has made request after a lapse of 28 years, does not invalidate the reference which is referred by the Government of India for adjudication. It is not fag-end of service. It is to be noted out that the concerned employee has illegally retired from service meaning thereby, the employee has made an application sufficient time prior to his so called retirement date. Therefore, the contentions raised by the first party are not proved by the first party and the same are also contrary to the records.

10. The first party has referred the Government of India Order, Department of Personnel and Training, O.M. No. 19017/2/92 Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 and dated 16.12.2014 in which the provisions regarding date of birth and its subsequent alteration which can be made in the Government of India are laid down. The aforesaid office memorandum is produced as under:

I. Declaration of Date of Birth: - Every new entrant to Government service should declare his date of birth by the Christian era at the time of initial appointment with documentary evidence, viz., Matriculation Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate.

In the absence of such proof, he may declare approximate age or year or month and year of birth; assumed date of birth will be arrived at as under:

i. If the approximate age only is declared, the number of years representing the age declared to be deducted and the assumed date arrived at.

ii. If the year of birth only is declared, assumed date will be 1st July of the year.

iii. If the month and the year are declared, assumed date will be 16th of that month of the year.

II. Entry of Date of Birth in Service Records:- The actual date or assumed date of birth determined as above will be recorded in the Service Book or other Service Records. Once entered, it cannot be altered, without prior order of Head of Department, except in the case of a clerical error.

III. Subsequent alteration of Date of Birth:- An alteration of date of birth can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry/Department or the C. & A. G. in the case of IAAD or an Administrator of a Union Territory, if –

a. An employee makes a request in this regard within 5 years of his entry into Government Service;

b. It is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred; and

c. The date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or UPSC examination in which he had appeared or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date of entry into Government service.

IV. Belated claims for alteration in Date of Birth to be rejected:- Government policy regarding rejection of belated claim for alteration in date of birth is reinforced by the Apex Court judgements in two cases. It will not be appropriate to consider any request for alteration in date of birth if the conditions stipulated in Para 3 above are not strictly fulfilled.

11. The Gujarat High Court in Sanjivani Hospital V/s Surat Labour Union, 2016 (1) CLR 1065 has held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to a reference of an Industrial Disputes but the Tribunal or Labour Court has to keep in mind that the delay in raising the dispute by the workman must be such as to appear is a live dispute. The court relied on judgements which are reproduced as under:

"5.5. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded that the delay should not be considered against the workman. The Labour Court has committed error at this stage. In this regard, reference needs to be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and Sub-Division Kota V/s Mohan Lal reported in 2013 III CLR 305 SC : (2013) 14 SCC 543. Para 19 of the said decision reads as under:

"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariable followed."

5.6. Reference can also be made to the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prabhakar V/s Joint Director Sericulture Department reported in JT 2015 (9) SC 83. Para 26 of thereof reads as under:

"26. The aforesaid case law depicts the following:

a. XXXXX

b. XXXXX

c. XXXXX

d. Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale/non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference.

5.7. In view of the above proposition of law and the facts noted above, this Court finds that the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court is unsustainable since the case of the workman himself was to the effect that he ought to have been continued in service till 05.07.2007 and he raised this dispute in the year 2011. In view of this delay on the part of the workman, the dispute ceased to be a live dispute when it was raised. No relief could have been granted to the workman. The impugned award, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside."

The court after considering the aforesaid judgements has held that the delay of 4 years on the part of the workman ceases the Industrial Disputes as live."5417 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 12. Though the second party has argued that the date of birth is also an Industrial Disputes, therefore, this tribunal has very much jurisdiction to give the award.

13. I do not agree with the arguments of the second party because he entered into the service in the year 1987 and has not explained as to when he came to know his date of birth as 06.05.1958, thus raising the dispute after a lapse of 28 years when he was going to retire and at present, he is retired, the dispute cannot be said to be live. Secondly, he has concealed the evidence of his date of birth till his retirement, therefore, for a monetary gain, his statement cannot be believed. Raising the dispute after 8 years reflects his mala-fide for a monetary gain. Thirdly, as per the Government of India Orders, he would have raised this dispute at the most in the year 2012. But he has not submitted any evidence which may prove that he moved the representation to KPT in the year 2012. Fourthly, when there is a dispute regarding date of birth, only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the changes in date of birth which have a long procedure and same has not been followed. Thus the second party has failed to prove both the issues.

14. Thus the reference has no force and decided as under: "the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Abhu Hasam, RP Workers 2/SM is just and fair."

15. No relief can be granted. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1339.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कांदला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 51/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-37011/07/2015-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-37011/07/2015-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 30th July, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 51/2015

The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Building, P.B. No. 50, Gandhidham (Gujarat) - 370201

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, F/3, Aadinath Arcade, Plot No. 586, 12-C, Gandhidham (Gujarat) - 370201

…Second Party5418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party       :        Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party      :        Shri N.H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/07/2015– IR(B-II) dated 22/28.05.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Satyanarayan, RP Workers 28/SM is justified and legal? If not so, to what relief the employee concerned is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 22/28.05.2015 and received on 15.06.2015 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. In response to the notice issued to the parties by the Tribunal, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 28.11.2016 alleging that the second party workman hereinafter referred to as "workman" was working with the first party Kandla Dock Labour Board (KDLB) later notified as Kandla Port Trust since 24.01.2007 as RP Worker 28/SM. He enquired into the office of the first party regarding his date of birth in the official record which was told to be 19.11.1957 while his actual date of birth is 05.10.1960 as per his school leaving certificate, therefore, he moved an representation in the first party Kandla Port Trust to change his date of birth as stated above which was denied to be changed by Kandla Port Trust. Therefore, he has prayed for change of date of birth to be recorded as 05.10.1960 in his service record.

3. The first party Kandla Port Trust, hereinafter referred to as "KPT" submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 21.08.2017 stating that the reference is bad in law, time barred and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, therefore, the reference is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the second party is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second party has to prove that he was working as RP Worker 28/SM with the Kandla Dock Labour Board which later merged into the first party KPT on 24.01.2007. The second party has also to prove that he enquired from the official record that his date of birth was recorded as 19.11.1957. The second party in his statement of claim Ex. 7 stated his age as 28 years on 19.11.1985, therefore, his date of birth was taken as 19.11.1957 on the basis of his age. It is also noteworthy that the present reference has filed in the year 2015 after 30 years and has not explained as to why he has taken action after such a long delay. Considering his date of birth as 19.11.1957, he was due to retire in the year 2017. Thus the reference is liable to be rejected.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I. Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Satyanarayan, RP Workers 28/SM is justified and legal?

II. To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?

5. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The second party Satyanarayan submitted his affidavit Ex. 9 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 7 along with his school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 05.10.1960 and the Identification Card of KPT showing his date of birth as 19.11.1957. Both the documents are zerox copies, though cannot be read under the Evidence Act but as both admitted, therefore, these documents can be read.

6. Later the workman submitted the additional affidavit Ex. 11 clarifying that as per his school leaving certificate, his date of birth is 05.10.1960 and not 19.11.1957 as recorded in the service record. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he joined Kandla Dock Labour Board in the year 1984. The first party has filed the documents vide list Ex. 10 showing his age in his application as 28 years on 18.11.1985 and in the service record, his date of birth is 19.11.1957.

7. I heard and perused the written arguments of the second party and as well as of the first party. The second party in his written argument has referred Titagarh Jute Factory Company Ltd. V/s Sriram Tiwari, 1979 ILLJ 495 Cal., wherein it has been observed as under:

"2. When the dispute in question is an Industrial Dispute, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is bared and that the Court below, therefore, has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. In support of this contention, relevance on the decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. V/s Kamalakar Shantaram has been made. In that case the following principles have been laid down for ascertaining whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred or not:

i. If the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute nor does it relate to the enforcement of any other right under the Act, remedy lies only in the Civil Court;

ii. If the dispute is an Industrial Dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy;

iii. If the Industrial Dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suit or is to get an adjudication under the Act;

iv. If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act, such as, Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33 C or the raising of an Industrial Dispute, as the case may be."

"13. The present dispute as has already been found is an Industrial Dispute. Further, having regard to the nature of the dispute it may very well be said that the dispute arises out of right or liability under the general and common law and not under the Act. In the present case, as already stated, the contention of the plaintiff- opposite party is that he was born on 20.08.1922 and did not as such attain the age of 58 years on 01.08.1977. In other words, according to him, he would attain the age of 58 years on 20.08.1980. That precisely is the plaintiff's case even though he has challenged the applicability of the Clause 13 (c) of the standing orders of the factory. He has not made out any specific case that he was not to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Further it is his case that there is no basis for holding that he was born on 01.08.1919 and accordingly he could not be required to retire on 01.08.1977. The plaint, therefore, primarily raises the dispute as to whether the plaintiff was born on 20.08.1922 or 01.08.1919. This is a dispute which may very well be raised before the Civil Court as much as even though the dispute may be in the nature of an Industrial Dispute there is no specific provision in the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide a dispute of the kind raised in this case. In that view of the matter, it ought to be held that the present suit is maintainable in a Civil Court."

"14. Further, the following material observations of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles V/s Kamalakar Shantaram A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2283 (supra) would also show that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit like the present one is not ousted. The relevant observation is as follows:

It would thus be seen that through the intervention of the appropriate Government, of course not directly, very extensive machinery has been provided for settlement and adjudication of Industrial Disputes. But since an individual aggrieved cannot approach the Tribunal or the Labour Court-directly for the redress of his grievance without the intervention of the Government, it is legitimate to take the view that the remedy provided under the Act is not such as to completely oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for trial of Industrial Disputes. If the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) or within the meaning of Section 2 A of the Act, it is obvious that there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes under the Act. Civil Courts will be the proper forum. But where the Industrial Dispute is for the purpose of enforcing any right, obligation or liability under the general law or the common law and not a right, obligation or liability created under the Act, alternative forums are there giving an election of the suitor to choose his remedy of either moving the machinery under the Act or to approach the Civil Court. It is plain that he cannot have both. He has to choose the one or the other."

8. The second party further relied on United Bank of India V/s Ram Raj Goala (dated 13.09.1979) and The workmen through The Secretary, Bihar Jasnta Khan Mazdoor Sangh V/s Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (LPA No. 249 of 2013) wherein the apex courts has held similar views as stated in Para 7.

9. The second party further relied on Shah Nawaz V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2011) 13 SCC 751, wherein the apex court has observed that medical opinion from Medical Board should be sought only when matriculation certificate or school certificate or any birth certificate issued by a corporation or by any Panchayat or Municipality is not available. He has further relied on Shicaji Malviya V/s Central Bank of India and others 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1652, wherein the apex court has held as under: "In support of his contention that the High School Certificate is the only document on which reliability is to be placed for recording the date of birth and no other document can at all be looked into. If there is any dispute or discrepancy, in that event, the benefit must go to the petitioner."

10. The second party further argued that the first party KPT has not leaded any oral evidence to prove contention raised in the written statement, further no rules or regulations regarding correction of date of birth has placed on record to prove their contention and only contenting that the employee has made request after a lapse of 30 years, does not invalidate the reference which is referred by the Government of India for adjudication. It is not fag-end of service. It is to be noted out that the concerned employee has illegally retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.2017 meaning thereby, the employee has made an application sufficient time prior to his so called retirement date. Therefore, the contentions raised by the first party are not proved by the first party and the same are also contrary to the records.

11. The first party has referred the Government of India Order, Department of Personnel and Training, O.M. No. 19017/2/92 Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 and dated 16.12.2014 in which the provisions regarding date of birth and its subsequent alteration which can be made in the Government of India are laid down. The aforesaid office memorandum is produced as under:

I. Declaration of Date of Birth: - Every new entrant to Government service should declare his date of birth by the Christian era at the time of initial appointment with documentary evidence, viz., Matriculation Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate.

In the absence of such proof, he may declare approximate age or year or month and year of birth; assumed date of birth will be arrived at as under:

i. If the approximate age only is declared, the number of years representing the age declared to be deducted and the assumed date arrived at.

ii. If the year of birth only is declared, assumed date will be 1st July of the year.

iii. If the month and the year are declared, assumed date will be 16th of that month of the year.

II. Entry of Date of Birth in Service Records:- The actual date or assumed date of birth determined as above will be recorded in the Service Book or other Service Records. Once entered, it cannot be altered, without prior order of Head of Department, except in the case of a clerical error.

III. Subsequent alteration of Date of Birth:- An alteration of date of birth can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry/Department or the C. & A. G. in the case of IAAD or an Administrator of a Union Territory, if –

a. An employee makes a request in this regard within 5 years of his entry into Government Service;

b. It is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred; and

c. The date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or UPSC examination in which he had appeared or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date of entry into Government service.

IV. Belated claims for alteration in Date of Birth to be rejected:- Government policy regarding rejection of belated claim for alteration in date of birth is reinforced by the Apex Court judgements in two cases. It will not be appropriate to consider any request for alteration in date of birth if the conditions stipulated in Para 3 above are not strictly fulfilled.

12. The Gujarat High Court in Sanjivani Hospital V/s Surat Labour Union, 2016 (1) CLR 1065 has held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to a reference of an Industrial Disputes but the Tribunal or Labour Court has to keep in mind that the delay in raising the dispute by the workman must be such as to appear is a live dispute. The court relied on judgements which are reproduced as under:

"5.5. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded that the delay should not be considered against the workman. The Labour Court has committed error at this stage. In this regard, reference needs to be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and Sub-Division Kota V/s Mohan Lal reported in 2013 III CLR 305 SC : (2013) 14 SCC 543. Para 19 of the said decision reads as under:

"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariable followed."

5.6. Reference can also be made to the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prabhakar V/s Joint Director Sericulture Department reported in JT 2015 (9) SC 83. Para 26 of thereof reads as under:

"26. The aforesaid case law depicts the following:

a. XXXXX

b. XXXXX

c. XXXXX5421 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 d. Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale/non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference.

5.7. In view of the above proposition of law and the facts noted above, this Court finds that the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court is unsustainable since the case of the workman himself was to the effect that he ought to have been continued in service till 05.07.2007 and he raised this dispute in the year 2011. In view of this delay on the part of the workman, the dispute ceased to be a live dispute when it was raised. No relief could have been granted to the workman. The impugned award, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside."

The court after considering the aforesaid judgements has held that the delay of 4 years on the part of the workman ceases the Industrial Disputes as live."

13. Though the second party has argued that the date of birth is also an Industrial Disputes, therefore, this tribunal has very much jurisdiction to give the award.

14. I do not agree with the arguments of the second party because he entered into the service in the year 1985 and has not explained as to when he came to know his date of birth as 19.11.1957, thus raising the dispute after a lapse of 30 years when he was going to retire and at present, he is retired, the dispute cannot be said to be live. Secondly, he has concealed the evidence of his date of birth till his retirement, therefore, for a monetary gain, his statement cannot be believed. Thirdly, he has filed the Identification Card of KPT which shows his date of birth as 19.11.1957 but he has not revealed when this Identification Card was issued. I can presume that the Identification Card would have been issued when the Kandla Dock Labour Board was merged into Kandla Port Trust on 24.01.2007. Raising the dispute after 8 years reflects his mala-fide for a monetary gain. Fourthly, as per the Government of India Orders, he would have raised this dispute at the most in the year 2012. But he has not submitted any evidence which may prove that he moved the representation to KPT in the year 2012. Fifthly, when there is a dispute regarding date of birth, only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the changes in date of birth which have a long procedure and same has not been followed. Thus the second party has failed to prove both the issues.

15. Thus the reference has no force and decided as under: "the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not removing the discrepancy in the matter of date of birth of Shri Satyanarayan, RP Workers 28/SM is justified and legal."

16. No relief can be granted. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1340.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कांदला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 78/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-37011/1/2004-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-37011/1/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,5422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ahmedabad, Dated 13th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 78/2005

The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Office, P.B. No. 50, Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat) - 370201 …First Party

V/s

The General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, Room No. 21, Yogesh Building, Ward No. 12-C, Plot No. 586, Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat) - 370201 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Shri N.H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/1/2004– IR(B-II) dated 21.06.2004 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 Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in not regularising the services of Shri Khetsi Ratila, Daily Rated Plumber is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 21.06.2004 and received on 22.09.2005 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 17.04.2009 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 02.11.2015.

3. The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 6 has alleged that KhetsiRatila was appointed as appointed as Daily Rated Plumber by the first party Kandla Port Trust on 05.06.1995 in its Civil Engineering Department where he worked on the said assignment till 09.10.2005. The workman made number of requests to the first party for regularising his service as he has been working since last several years continuously on a vacant permanent post but the said request was not considered by the first party favourably despite the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in number of preceding calendar years. Therefore, the second party union The General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union, Room No. 21, Yogesh Building, Ward 12 C, Plot No. 586, Gandhidham, Kutch, raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer but the matter could not been resolved. Due of failure of the conciliation, the Conciliation Officer referred the matter to Government of India. The Government of India send the present reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman on the basis of the averments made in the statement of claim prayed for regularisation of service with Rs.10000/- as legal expenses.

4. The first party Kandla Port Trust vide his written statement Ex. 13 denying the claim of the workman as stated in the statement of claim submitted that the workman was not appointed as per the recruitment rules of the Kandla Port Trust. The reference is time barred, bad in law and prayer made in the statement of claim is beyond the terms of reference. Therefore, the reference is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the apex court has held that no workman can be regularised without following the procedure laid down under Article 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the reference is liable to be decided against the workman being the prayer beyond the scope of reference.

5. During the course of proceedings, the workman died on 09.10.2005, therefore, on moving application Ex. 12 by the legal heirs of the deceased workman, the legal heirs the wife of the deceased workman namely Bhavnaben Khetsi Ratila, son Deepak Khetsi Ratila and daughter Bhumika Khetsi Ratila were substituted in place of the deceased workman.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I. Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in not regularising the services of Shri Khetsi Ratila, Daily Rated Plumber is legal and justified?

II. To what relief, if any, the concerned employee is entitled?

7. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workman. The wife of the deceased workman Bhavnaben Khetsi Ratila submitted her affidavit Ex. 14 to prove the case reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. The first party did not lead any evidence. During the course of argument, Advocate Shri M.K. Patel/ M/s K.V. Gadhia Associates, for the first party orally stated that all the dues to the tune of Rs.23015/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Fifteen) admissible to the second party workman at the time of his death shall be paid by the first party. As the second party workman has died, therefore, no question of regularisation arises. The advocate for the second party Shri Nirdosh H. Rathod, has agreed for the proposal of the advocate of the first party Shri M.K. Patel paying of Rs.23015/- to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. Therefore, no finding is required on both the issues. The reference is disposed of accordingly. 8. The first party Kandla Port Trust shall pay the aforesaid amount as early as possible to the legal heirs of the deceased workman Khetsi Ratila from the date of publication of the award.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1341.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पारादीप पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट मिसलेनियस केस ;संदर्भ सं. 25/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-39025/01/2017-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. Misc. Case No. 25/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Paradip Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-39025/01/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE MISC. CASE NO. 25/2017

(Filed under Section 33 (1)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act)

Date of Passing Order – 18th April, 2018

Between:

The General Secretary, Paradip Port Workers' Union, At./Po. Paradip, Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Odisha – 754 142.

…Applicant-Union5424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(And)

The Chairman, Paradeep Port Trust, At./Po. Paradeep, Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Odisha – 754 142

…Opp. Party

Appearances:

M/s. Sanjat Das, Advocate         …        For the Applicant-Union
M/s. G. Pujari, Advocate          ...      For the Opp. Party

AWARD

This award is directed against an application under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "The Act") preferred by the General Secretary, Paradip Port Trust Workers Union.

2. The case of the applicant-Union, in short, is that the appropriate government has referred a dispute between the parties for its adjudication vide notification dated 18.4.2016 which is pending for disposal in this Tribunal vide I.D. Case No. 25/2016. The schedule of the reference is 1. "Whether the demand of the Union to fill up of 5% direct recruitment including accumulated backlog vacancies amongst the compassionate aspirants since 2001 in the cadre of Class-II & IV employees by the management of Paradip Port Trust is legal and/or justified. If not so, what relief the workmen are entitled to? 2. Whether the demand of the Union to regularize the services of all compassionate appointees/aspirants of the deceased employees engaged through different contractors of the management is tenable and justified? If not so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?" When such a dispute is pending for adjudication, the Opp. Party-Management made newspaper advertisements inviting applications from willing candidates to fill-up certain vacancies in different categories in its establishment. It is the claim of the applicant-Union that such action of the Management during pendency of the dispute vide I.D. Case No. 25/2016 amounts to an unfair labour practice as enumerated in Chapter VB of the Act and the same contravenes the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act. The initiation of the recruitment process would change the condition of service of the workmen, who are the aspirants for an appointment under compassionate scheme. Any attempt on the part of the Opp. Party-Management in filling up the vacancies would deprive the legitimate claim of the legal heirs of the deceased workmen to be appointed on compassionate ground and as such the Opp. Party- Management shall be restrained from going ahead with the recruitment process till disposal/adjudication of the dispute raised vide I.D. Case No. 25/2016.

3. The Opp. Party-Management has resisted the application on a contention that the same is not maintainable as it is not filed by the aggrieved workman or espoused by the Union-applicant being authorized by such aggrieved workman. An application under section 33-A can only be filed in case of violation of condition of service of such employee during the pendency of an industrial dispute in which the applicant is the concerned employee and the violation must have some relevancy to the dispute pending for adjudication. It is the stand of the Opp. Party-Management that the applicant on whose behalf the petition under section 33-A has been moved by the Union is not the workman of the Opp. Party- Management, as they are aspirant for a job under the Opp. Party-Management under a compassionate scheme and as such, question does not arise violation of service condition of such person. The alleged action of the Management does not also constitute any contravention as contemplated under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. Thus, the Opp. Party-Management has forcefully submitted for dismissal of the application on account of the same being devoid of any merit as well as not maintainable in the eye of law.

4. The parties have not adduced any sort of evidence and advanced their arguments in support of their pleadings made in their statements.

5. Keeping in view the pleadings and submissions advanced by the parties the points for consideration are (i) whether the present application espoused through the 2nd party-Union is maintainable in the eye of law; (ii) whether the action of the Management in taking recruitment process to fill-up the different categories of vacancies during the pendency of the reference No. I.D. 25/2016 is a violation of condition of service as enumerated in Section 33 of the Act and (iii) to what relief the applicant is entitled to, if there was a contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.

6. It is not disputed that in the event of a reference made by the Central Government by exercising its authority under sub section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a dispute with the schedule mentioned earlier is pending for adjudication in the Tribunal. Admittedly, the Opp. Party has issued an advertisement annexed to the application under section 33-A of the Act during pendency of such dispute. Further-more, the present application is espoused through the Union and there is no authorization on behalf of any aspirant appointees to present the application under section 33-A of the Act. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 33-A clearly reveals that the Section is attracted when the following condition precedents are satisfied. (i) There should have been a contravention by the management, of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, (ii) The aforesaid contravention should have been during the pendency of the proceedings before labour court, industrial tribunal etc. as the case may be; (iii) the complainant should5425 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 have been aggrieved by the contravention; and (iv) the application should have been made to the authority before whom the case is pending. Further, the Section provides – "where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 33 during pendency of the proceedings (before a Conciliation Officer, Board, and Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing (in the prescribed manner....." Hence, the right to complain against the contravention of Section 33 has been conferred on the employee aggrieved by such contravention. As per the settled principle enunciated in the case of National Power Supply Corporation Limited –versus – State of Assam (1963) II LLJ 10 such aggrieved employee has only the right to make an application under section 33-A of the Act. A registered trade Union, of which such aggrieved employee is a member, has no right to make such an application unless it has been authorized to do so by the aggrieved person. Coming to the case at hand no authorization from the persons aggrieved by the action of the Management is filed and as such doubt can be entertained towards maintainability of the application on account of the same not being preferred by the aggrieved employee or on his authorization.

7. Coming to the issue whether the action of the Management in taking recruitment process amounts to any contravention as contemplated under section 33 of the Act. A mere reading of Section 33 clearly indicates that the contravention must be related to change of service condition. The alleged action of the Management is not covered by the conditions of service enlisted in the fourth schedule for which notice is to be given under section 9-A of the Act. Similarly the action cannot be termed as unfair labour practice in view of the description of the actions enlisted in the fifth schedule termed as unfair labour practice. As per the requirements of Section 33-A the basic question that falls to be considered by this Tribunal whether there has been a contravention by the Opp. Party-Management of the provisions of Section 33 and it is only in case it is found that there has been a contravention then the Tribunal has the authority to adjudicate the dispute raised in the complaint preferred under Section 33-A of the Act. Before giving any relief to an aggrieved employee under this provision it has to be determined whether the Opp. Party-Management's action fell within one of the blanket prohibition of Section 33. If the dispute pending adjudication has nothing to do with the alteration in condition of service complained off and if the alternation is not to the prejudice of the workman, the application under Section 33-A is wholly incompetent. In the case at hand there is no serious dispute that the persons alleged to have been aggrieved by the action of the Management are aspirants for appointment under compassionate scheme and as such they cannot be termed as employee of the Management. When their claim for compassionate appointment is yet to be acceded to, question does not arise to treat them as aggrieved employee. Their claims to be appointed on compassionate ground are yet to be decided. Hence, at this stage they cannot be said workmen/employee of the Opp. Party-Management and as such no scope is available to hold them aggrieved employee. In the above facts and circumstances, the alleged action of the Management cannot be counted a contravention as contemplated under section 33 of the Act. That apart, law is also well settled that every contravention of Section 33 does not fall within the scope of Section 33-A and the mere fact that a reference is pending, does not by itself entitle an employee to invoke Section 33-A of the Act.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the Misc. Case under section 33-A is devoid of any merit and accordingly the application is rejected. The award is to be notified as per the provisions of the Act.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1342.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एम/एस हिमाचल ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 977/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/7/95-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 977/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Himachal Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12011/7/95-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer5426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

ID No. 977/2005

Himchal Gramin Bank Karamchari Sangh, 47/9, Bangla Mohalla, Mandi (HP) Through its General Secretary …Workmen/Claimants

Versus

M/s Himachal Gramin Bank, H.O. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh vide letter No.L- 12011/7/95/IR(B) dated 19.08.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:—

'Whether the action of management of Himachal Gramin Bank, Head Office,Mandi ( (HP) in not regularizing the services of 108 messenger for the period of their continuous employment in the Bank and not paying them salary of a regular messenger for the period of their service prior to regularization is legal and justified. If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date ?

2. Both parties were put to notice and 108 Workmen namely Devi Saran and others filed statement of claim through General Secretary of the Himachal Gramin Bank Karamchari Sangh. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the workmen were appointed as Messengers during the period from 19-11-87 to 12/6/1996 as detailed in Annexure-A of the claim petition, at different places at Himachal Pradesh and were required to work for full day as regular employees but were paid a fix amount of Rs.50 to Rs.500/- from time to time. They were treated as daily rated workman and their duties were to open the bank one hour before its start and to remain in the bank till its closing; carrying of ledger/dak etc.from one table to another, to clean the bank counters, chairs,tables etc. assisting the customers in filling the vouchers, stitching of vouchers and maintain old records. The workmen through their union served upon the Management a demand notice dated 17./10/94 in respect of their demands for removal of pay anomalies; regularization and uniform transfer policy. Due to regular demand of the employees of the bank situated all over India, the Govt. of India vide its letter dated 8/10/94 issued instructions to RBI to create posts of Messengers on regular basis and pursuant thereto, the Chairman of the Management Bank issued a circular dated 19/10/1994 to regularize the services of the Messengers working in different places in Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged that the Management with malafide intention did not regularize the services of the Messengers/workmen in the year 1994 rather their services were regularized in the year 1987, whereas in other Banks in the country the Messengers were regularized with effect from the date of their actual appointment with the concerned bank. The workmen filed a writ petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16/9/82, 1985 and 1989 regarding equal pay and service conditions of Messengers and the Apex Court directed the Govt. to constitute a Tribunal & referred the case of the applicants regarding equal pay with their counterpart working with other nationalized bank and service conditions of Messengers. The Govt. of India constituted a National Industrial Tribunal having its Headquarter at Hyderabad. The said Tribunal gave an Award dated 30/4/1990 that the services of all the so called Messengers be regularized with effect from the date of their actual appointment and they be also entitled to regular pay scale, allowances and other benefits. Since then the workmen through their Union are regularly demanding the implementation of the Award but no action has been taken by the Management, whereas Jaipur Nagaur, Anchalink Bank have regularized the services of the messengers from the date of their actual appointment. Hence, the prayer has been made for declaring the action of the Management to be illegal, wrongful and unfair labour practice and that the workmen whose details are given in Annexur-A be ordered to be regularized from the date of their appointment, with continuity of service and that the workmen be awarded regular pay sale w.e.f. 1/9/1987 as per NIT Award.

3. Management has resisted the claim of the Workman and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that the present claim is barred under law of limitation as the NIT Award was passed on 30/4/1990 and that the workmen were paid wages according to their terms and conditions of engagement. The workmen can not claim regularization and pay scale at par with Himachal Govt.employees. On merits it is stated that just and genuine demands of the workmen were accepted . Since the Management has not framed any policy regarding regularization of the workmen, they are not entitled to the relief claimed by them. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.

4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workmen/claimants, whereby the case as set up in the claim petition has been reiterated and allegations made in the written statement have been denied.

5. The Claimants in support of their case examined Shri Dharam Chand as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 and relied on the documents filed alongwith his affidavit Ex.WW1/2. He testified that the persons whose names find mentioned in the List Mark-A are the employees f the Management working in different places and they are performing full time job for the Management. The workmen had made representations about the duties performed by them, to the Management and copy of the same has been filed on record as Annexure P-11 In cross examination while denying the suggestion that all the 108 workmen in reference had been employed as part time sweepers, the witness volunteered that the workmen had been employed as messengers but he failed to show any appointment letter. He denied the suggestion that workmen used to work only for 2 hours a day as per requirement. He clarified that the workmen were being paid wages as per circular Ex.P-21 of his affidavit. He showed his ignorance that wages of workmen were revised vide circular Ex.M-3 and re-revised as per circular Ex.M-4 and Ex.M-5. He denied the suggestion that the workmen did not make any representation to the Management about their wages before 1987 and that is why no such representation has been filed on record. The witness was cross examined at length regarding constitution of the Union and about membership of the workmen as also the authority of the witness to depose in the case but nothing incriminating was brought on the record.

6. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri Girija Shankar Gaur (MW1), who retired as Chief Manager from the Head Office of the Management Bank on 30/9/2013. He filed his affidavit Ex.M-3 whereby he stated that the casual/part time workers working in the Bank before the year 1990 used to perform misc. work like fetching water, cleaning and dusting branch premises, fixture, furniture etc during the limited period for which they were engaged as per direction of Head Office of the Bank as circulated from time to time. According to him, such casual/part time workers were being paid wages according to the circulars viz. circular dated 4/6/1983, 15/9/83, 15/7/86 and 8/4/87. He never came across any case in the Bank where casual/ part time worker was working for whole day. In cross examination, he deposed that he joined at Mandi and thereafter was transferred to branch office Gaggal, where Chottu Ram was working as Safai Karamchari at that time Bank had issued circular P-21 and it was not the duty of Safai Karamchari to open the bank, to supply drinking water to the staff and to carry the dak. He stated that the circulars which finds mentioned in his affidavit were brought to the notice of the employees but he did not produce any record relating to those circulars. He did not remember whether bank had provided bicycle to the said Safai Karamchari. He admitted that no timing hours were given to the workmen and no notice was served on the workmen for changing the service conditions. He denied the suggestion that work was taken from Chhotu Ram for 7 hours (per day) but admitted that the bank did not employee any other Peon except the said Peon.

7. From the pleadings and evidence adduced on record by the parties, it is manifest that 108 Nos. of workmen (whose particulars are detailed in the list Mark-A) were engaged by the Management as Messengers at different bank branches at Himachal Pradesh and they were performing misc. duties as per requirement. According to the Management, they were working just as casual//part time workers. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. 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.

8. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimants as part time for doing intermittent nature of work and/or for cleaning the bank premises is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. The workmen have been serving the Management Bank since long. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there exists relationship of Employer-employee between the Management and the claimants herein.

9. It is worthwhile to mention here that after verification of bank records, certificate Ex.P-19 (colly.) were issued by the Management Bank, showing that workmen like Chaman Lal, Amar Singh, Prem Singh, Balbir Chand, Umesh Kumar and Dharam Singh were found to be working for the jobs assigned to them vis-à-vis maintenance of voucher register, dak register, voucher stitching cover leaves, current-cum-old records register, security forms and cheques issues register, cheques returned register, cash receipt & withdrawal voucher, D/L and Term Loan balance confirmation and documents register, account opening forms of deposit accounts, office order register besides ledger sheet, mini deposit5428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] collections . In the face of certificate Ex.P-19 (colly.) and descriptions of job done by the workmen as shown therein, the stand of the Management that the workmen were not working throughout the day, is belied inasmuch type and nature of work required for maintenance and keeping of aforesaid records/registers is of regular & perennial one and the same is done especially during working hours of the bank. The version of WW1 Dharamchand that the workmen perform duties right from 9.30 a.m. in the morning and to the job of clearning, sweeping and other allied jobs before opening the bank and further that, the workmen also perform regular duties during the course of day, such as assisting the customers to fill up voucher of withdrawal and deposit etc., has gone unrebutted. Thus, the claim of the Management Bank that workmen are just casual/part-time workers engaged by it, is untenable, inasmuch as the nomenclature of the workmen though used as part time workers but they had been working for full time for discharging their duties with regards to description of jobs assigned to them.

10. Now the crucial question arises for consideration is whether the action of management in not regularizing the services of 108 messenger for the period of their continuous employment in the Bank is legal and justified.

11. It is undisputed fact that pursuant to the directions dated 1/9/1987 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Gramin Bank Workers Organization &another Vs,. UOI and others (Writ Petition Nos7149-50./82 and 132/84), the Central Govt. vide notification dated 26/11/1987 constituted a National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute relating to parity of pay, salary, allowances and other benefits with the employees of Nationalized Banks in corresponding or comparable posts. The National Industrial Tribunal (in short "NIT") after having gone through the records as well as evidence adduced before it, gave its Award dated 30/4/1990 (Ex.A-5). Relating to dispute as to whether the part-time Sweepers-cum-Messengers are justified in demanding salary on par with the permanent Messengers, NIT in para 4.410 of the Award held as under :—

"In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the part-time sweepers- cum-messengers who were employed on daily wages or on half of the salary or on some other proportion of the salary of a regular messenger, will be entitled to their various claims such as equal pay and all other attendant benefits as are admissible to regularly appointed full time messengers in the respective RRBs. That there was/is no sanctioned post of a regular messenger in a branch or the Head office is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial in view of the proved facts that the so called part time messengers, whether on daily wages or on some other basis, were made to work full time by their respective managements. The Managements can not extract full time work and even beyond the working hours from the so called part time messengers by merely showing them in the acquittance rolls as part time employees paid on either daily wages, or some other basis, or o some proportionate basis. Their service shall be regularized with effect from the date of their continuous engagement. If deemed necessary, it will be open to the Government or the RRBs as the case may be, to sanction the required number of posts to accommodate the writ petitioners and all those belonging to their class."

12. Perusal of the record shows that a demand notice dated 17-10-1994 (Ex.P-11) was served by the workmen Union to the Chairman, Himachal Gramin Bank for removal of pay anomalies as well as regularization of messengers in terms of the Award passed by NIT. As per document Ex.P11 talks were held between the Management and Workmen's Union on 21/11/1994 and after deliberations number of demands of the Officers and other employees like conveyance allowance of Officers, reimbursement of actual hospitalization charges, promotion from scale I to Scale II, provision of Wall Clock and calculators in the branches were accepted. However, as regards demand of regularization of the messengers from the date of their engagement in the bank, it was decided that necessary information will be collected from the concerned branches. What it emerges is that even after the Award of NIT dated 30.4.1990, the Management had not taken effective steps even for four years or so, for regularization of the workmen herein viz. messengers working in different branches under their control and supervision. The list of those workmen/ messengers is Ex.P-1 wherein date of their respective appointment, date of regularization and place of posting has been elaborated and the said list shall form part of this Award. No explanation has come forward from the side of the Management as to why it did not take steps for regularization of the workmen in terms of the Award of the NIT dated 10/4/1990. In terms of the Award, the services of the workmen are bound to be regularized with effect from the date of their continuous officiations with the Management Thus, the action of the Management Bank in not regularizing the services of 108 messenger for the period of their continuous employment in the Bank is held to be illegal and unjustified. The Management Bank is under legal obligation to regularize the services of the workmen from the date of their continuous officiations with the Management.

13. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management strenuously argued that in fact the workmen were regularized in 1987 by the Management as per direction of Govt. of India and NABARD, i.e. much before NIT Award passed in 1990. He submitted that the Management Bank had started process of regularization of part time/daily wage messengers under the provisions of letter dated 18/12/1984 and 15 persons were found eligible as on 31/12/1984 as per criteria laid down by the Govt. of India and in the year 1987 when relaxation of age & qualification was given, 59 more workmen were regularized and in subsequent years 1980- to 1991, 45 more workmen were regularized and thus, in fact 104 messengers were regularized till 1991, whereas 4 messengers who were appointed on compassionate grounds after death of their spouse/dependent were regularized from 1993 to 1996. It will be suffice to say that the Management5429 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 has not adduced on record any such evidence that the workmen (108 Nos.) have since been regularized, even prior or after passing of NIT Award on 10/4/1990 in terms of the Award itself. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the workmen herein have since been regularized by the Management Bank, the question arises for consideration is as to whether they have been regularized with effect from the date of their continuous officiation. The Management has not filed on record any document to show that the workmen have been regularized from the respective date of their continuous officiation, in terms of the Award of NIT passed on 10/4/1990, which is per-se binding on the Management Bank. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management Bank in not regularizing the services of the workmen/messengers from the respective date of their officiation in the Management Bank is illegal and unjustified, inasmuch as in terms of the NIT Award, the services of the workmen are required to be regularized with effect from the date of their continuous officiation.

14. Now the residual question arises for consideration is as to what relief the workmen are entitled to. It is worthwhile to mention here that the relief granted by the NIT Award are unequivocally contained in para 4.425 and 4.427 which for ready reference are reproduced hereunder :—

"4.425 : What flows from my findings is that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with the Officers and other employees of the Sponsor Banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. What stems from this finding is the date from which effect should be given to the Award. I have given my anxious consideration as to the date from which the Award should be given effect. The writ petitions No.7149-50/82 and 132/84 were not filed at one and the same time. They were filed on different dates. Petitioners in W.P. Nos.7149-50/82 claimed reliefs from the date of establishment of RRBs. Petitioners in W.P. No.132/84 did not specify any date but in their claim statement filed before me, they have asked for effect being given from the date of writ petition i.e. 16-9-1984. I think it would be proper, just and reasonable if I direct that the Award shall be given effect from 1st day of September, 1987 the date on which the Supreme Court passed the order directing the Central Government to constitute the Tribunal.

4.427. .Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, therefore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc., till 31st day of August, 1987 .

The aforesaid two paragraphs cover the relief relating to pay parity for the entire period with effect from the date of regularization as envisaged under para 4.410. Both these paragraphs if read together makes it amply clear that the pay parity of the workmen is to be regularized in terms of para 4.410 with effect from the date of their continuous officiation with corresponding pay and emoluments paid to the such other employees of the Management Bank with effect from 1st day of September, 1987 and prior to that, the pay parity with the employees of RRBs is to be maintained with the allowances, benefits which the State Govt. of comparable level and status are entitled to. To this view, I am fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan (at Jodhpur) in the case of Harudhar Kshetriya Gram Bank Vs. Mahavir Singh and another (Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 70./2002 – decided on 21/4/2003.

15. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of "equal pay for equal work" even for temporary employees observed as under :—

"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."

16. It is pertinent to mention here that the reference to National Industrial Tribunal had been made in regard to all the employees of Gramin Bank throughout the country and therefore, all the Banks including the Management-Bank were./are bound to implement the award in regard to their respective employees. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the workmen are also entitled to the relief which the NIT has awarded to the category of employees in para 4.410 re-produced above. However, in terms of para 4.428, the NIT award has been given effect to from the 1st day of September, 1987. As per list Ex.P-1, all the workmen/claimants herein joined service with the Management Bank after 1/9/1987, to be more precise during the period between 19-11-87 to 12/6/1996. Therefore, the5430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Management Bank is directed to implement the Award and give all the necessary & consequential reliefs to the claimants/workmen (including the legal heirs of deceased workmen in case of demise of any of the workmen, during the proceedings) with effect from the date they joined service. The award is passed accordingly.

Date : 23.07.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1343.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 144/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/29/2013-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-41011/29/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 09th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 144/2013

The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Western Railway, Asarwa, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382470

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.M. Solanki

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodiya (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/29/2013– IR(B-I) dated 24.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Vice President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad against the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Western Railway, Ahmedabad:

i. To take back order of freeze of one year increment and to take wage order of downgrade of one stage for two months against Shri Badiwel Kuppan, Jamadar;

ii. To take back the punishment imposed against Shri Ram Naresh, Gangman;

iii. To take posted Shri Sanjay Thakur and Shri Rajesh Kushwaha as Khalasi;

Are legal, fair and justified? If so, then to what relief the above workmen are entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 24.07.2013 and received on 06.08.2013 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. Both the parties issued notice Ex. 2 to appear on 27.12.2013. In response to the notice, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 27.12.2013. Shri Mangal Solanki submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 3 on behalf of the first party.

3. The case was fixed for filing of written statement for the first party but today on 09.08.2018, Shri R.S. Sisodiya, The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1344.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिमी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 05/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/17/2016-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-41011/17/2016-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 10th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 05/2017

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa, Near Chamunda Bridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)5432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The President,

RMCC, Pratapnagar, Baroda (Gujarat)

…First Parties

V/s

The President, Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382470 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.M. Makhija

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodiya (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/17/2016–IR(B-I) dated 08.02.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the President, Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh, Ahmedabad against the President, RMCC, Baroda to disburse the amount without any deduction to Shri Jitendra Labhshankar, Benjamin and Manharbhai is legal, fair and justified? If so, then what relief the workmen, Shri Jitendra Labhshankar, Benjamin and Manharbhai are entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 08.02.2017 and received on 13.02.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. All the parties issued notice Ex. 2 on 03.01.2018 to appear on 05.03.2018. In response to the notice, Shri M. M. Makhija, submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 5 on behalf of the first party no. 1.

3. The case was fixed for filing of statement of claim for the second party but today on 10.08.2018, Shri R.S. Sisodiya, The President, Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.1345.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिमी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 09/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/13/2016-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-41011/13/2016-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer5433 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 10th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 09/2017

The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Pratapnagar, Baroda (Gujarat) - 390004

…First Party

V/s

The Dy. General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382470

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.M. Makhija

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodiya (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/13/2016– IR(B-I) dated 08.02.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Dy. General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad against the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda to give/allow family pension to Shri Budha Mohan, Ex-Gangman is legal, fair and justified? If so, then what relief Shri Budha Mohan, Ex-Gangman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 08.02.2017 and received on 08.03.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. All the parties issued notice Ex. 2 on 03.01.2018 to appear on 05.03.2018. In response to the notice, Shri M. M. Makhija, submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 5 on behalf of the first party.

3. The case was fixed for filing of statement of claim for the second party but today on 10.08.2018, Shri R.S. Sisodiya, The Dy. General Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 28-B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case on the ground that the Case No. 08/2013 having the same matter is pending before this Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1346.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 454/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/314/2001-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी5434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 454/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12012/314/2001-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 07th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 454/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001 …First Parties

V/s

The Secretary, Gujarat Rajya Ardgsarjaru Audhyogik Karmachar Sangh, 4, Deelex Apartments, 1st Floor, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007

…Second Party

For the First Party       :        Shri B.K. Oza
For the Second Party      :        Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/314/2001– IR(B-I) dated 27.12.2001 referred the disute 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 State Bank of India in not regularising the services of Shri Sureshbhai B. Vaghela is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 27.12.2001 and received on 04.01.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 09.09.2003 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 24.12.2003. Thereafter, the second party union moved an application Ex. 10 on 27.09.2017 for production of documents. The first party also filed the reply Ex. 11 with respect to the application for production of documents Ex. 10 filed by the second party.

3. It is noteworthy that this reference was moved for regularising the services of the second party workman while the second party workman has already been dismissed from service. Concerning the dismissal, he raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad regarding the dismissal which was not referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal. Thus a dismissed employee cannot claim his regularisation unless he adopts a step to get the dismissal set aside. Same has not been done. Thus this reference has become in-fructuous.

4. Today on 07.08.2018, the advocate for the second party workman Shri R.C. Pathak requested for withdrawal of the reference.

5. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1347.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिमी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 31/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/13/2016-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-41012/13/2016-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 07th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 31/2017

1. The Sr. Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Divisional Office, Asarwa, Chamunda Bridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Manager,

Bank of India, Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380005 …First Party

V/s

The President, Akhil Gujarat Karmachari Mahasangh, 28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382470

…Second Party

For the First Party : None

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodiya (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/13/2016– IR(B-I) dated 26.04.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad to refix the family pension as per old PPO to Smt. Reshma W/o Late Anil Dutt Mishra and illegal recovery of arrears from her family pension is legal, fair and justified? If so, then what relief Smt. Reshma is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 26.04.2017 and received on 04.05.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. All the parties issued notice Ex. 2 to appear on 06.03.2018 but none responded from any of the parties.

3. Shri R.S. Sisodiya, the President, Akhil Gujarat Karmachari Mahasangh,28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, today on 07.08.2018 requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1348.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 327/99द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/283/99-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 327/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12012/283/99-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/327/99

Shri Suresh, S/o Chottelal Yadav, 18/3, Moti Tabela, Indore (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hamidia Road, Bhopal (MP)

…Management

ORDER

Passed on this 24th day of April 2018

1. As per letter dated 15-11-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/283/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Indore, Indore in not regularizing and terminating the services of Shri Suresh S/o Shri Chhotelal Yadav, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 30-10-97 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"5437 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940 2. On perusal of record, it is seen that Ist party is not taking any steps from the year 2005 after filing of claim statement. 2nd party management has already filed its Written Statement. The case is found lingering awaiting appearance of the workman to file documents if any for hearing and on settlement of issues. The case cannot be allowed to linger for an indefinite period. Hence it is just and proper to return the reference without any answer as Ist party workman fails to present the dispute and it is difficult on part of the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute without evidence of the Ist party. Accordingly the dispute is disposed off.

3. Let the copies of the order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1349.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 132/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/44/98-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2018

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.08.2018.

[No. L-12012/44/98-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 13th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 132/2004

The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001

…First Party

V/s

Mr. P.C. Rajput, P. No. 224/12, Pyarchand Punjabi Laxmishankar Bhavan, Khokhra Road, Opp. Old Municipal Quarters, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001

…Second Party

For the First Party          :     Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party         :     Shri B.B. Thesia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/44/98– IR(B-I) dated 28.08.1998 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 State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Pyarchand C. Rajput w.e.f. 31.01.1997 and not considering for regular employment is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 28.08.1998 and received on 30.09.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 09.10.1998 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 23.09.1999. Since then the second party has been absent and has not been leading evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities.

3. Today on 13.08.2018, the advocate for the second party, Shri B.B. Thesia states that the second party workman/his client has not been in his contact since long.

4. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.

5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Pyarchand C. Rajput w.e.f. 31.01.1997 and not considering for regular employment is justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1350.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 flrEcj] 2018 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78]79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa ¼igys ls vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ds vykok½ esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~~ %&

[la- ,l&38013@04@2018&,l-,l-I]

larksष्k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2018

S.O. 1350.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st September, 2018 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu, in whole, in addition to the already implemented areas in the district namely:-

[No. S-38013/04/2018-S.S.I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ.1351.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ एन जी सी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 161/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/60/1998-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2018

S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 161/2004) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27.08.2018.

[No. L-30012/60/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 06th August, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 161/2004

1. The Group General Manager (P), ONGC Ltd., Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005

2. Shri Y.K. Patil, Hotel Sugand, Nr. Jognima Temple, Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary, Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, 434/46, Gandhi Vas, Gujarat Stadium Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Kum. Santoshben

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/60/98– IR(C-I) dated 10.02.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the canteen situated in the premises of Sabarmati Establishment of ONGC was statutory canteen and the persons detailed in the list annexed with the reference, were working therein?"

and5440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union that the persons working in the said canteen ought to be treated as direct employees of ONGC is legal, just and proper? If so, then what relief, if any, the employees concerned are entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 10.02.1999 and received on 18.02.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.

2. It is noteworthy that the present Reference (CGITA) No. 161/2004 was earlier registered as Reference (ITC) No. 47/1999 while pending the case in the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad. Later it was transferred to this Tribunal where new number Reference (CGITA) No. 161/2004 was allotted.

3. In response the notices issued to the parties, J.S. Parasar, General Secretary, Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union, 434/46, Gandhi Vas, Gujarat Stadium Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 23.07.1999 alleging that the similar dispute was also raised in respect to the same canteen in a reference registered at Reference (ITC) No. 10/1998 by the workmen. The present reference has been moved in respect of 9 employees detailed as under:

Thus it appears that the earlier Reference (ITC) No. 10/1998 relates to 16 employees and the present reference relates to aforesaid 9 employees. These employees alleged to have been engaged in a canteen running at Sabarmati Premises of ONGC Ltd. where more than 1000 employees of ONGC were working and this canteen was running and created for the employees exclusively working in the ONGC and it was statutory canteen under the Mines Act.

4. It is further alleged that the said canteen was earlier run by ONGC Consumer Co-operative Society and since the said society went into liquidation, therefore, the said canteen was handed over to a contractor named M/s. Y.K. Patil. It is further alleged that the workmen who raised the dispute vide Reference (ITC) No. 10/1998 moved the High Court of Gujarat vide SCA No. 127/1996. It is noteworthy that the workmen who moved the Gujarat High Court were inclusive of the workmen in another Reference (ITC) No. 47/1999 (in present Reference (CGITA) No. 161/2004). The High Court in the aforesaid SCA No. 127/1996 directed the Central Labour Commissioner to investigate and find out the names of the workmen who had been working in the said canteen for more than 3 years. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) investigated and submitted a report before the High Court of Gujarat, wherein the names of the workmen detailed in the Reference (ITC) No. 47/1999 (present reference), were not included in the report but they were present at the time of enquiry. It is further alleged that the services of all the employees mentioned in the present reference were terminated on 30.05.1996 without paying the retrenchment compensation or serving the notice by the ONGC or the contractor as the case may be. It has been further alleged that the said canteen was part and parcel of the efficient working of the employees of ONGC, the first party and the contract was for name sake. It has been further alleged that the workmen were working under the direct control and supervision of the first party ONGC and they have been working for a long time, therefore, the ONGC constituted a committee to supervise the work of the canteens for maintaining the quality of the food items prepared in the canteen. The ONGC has also provided the facility of premises, furniture, water cooler and refrigerator - de-freezer etc. besides cooking utensils, crockeries and all the instruments of cooking facilities for the smooth running of the canteen. It has been also alleged that the canteen facility was obligatory even if the ONGC has not explicitly undertaking to provide the canteen facility to its employees. Thus the second party union has prayed for reinstatement of all the workmen concerning this reference with back wages with a continuity of service and other benefits admissible to the regular employees of ONGC.

5. The first party The Group General Manager (P),ONGC Ltd., Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as "ONGC" submitted the written statement Ex. 11 denying all the averments made in the statement of claim submitted that the concerned workmen under the reference were not the workmen as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no master servant relationship between the ONGC and the alleged workmen under this reference. There does not exist any industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second party union was not having any locus-standii to represent the alleged workmen under the reference as per the provisions of Section 6 (e) of the Trade Union Act as the second party union by virtue of its constitution, was not authorised to represent persons employed in Hotels, Restaurants, Industries etc. It has also been submitted that these persons were not engaged by the ONGC and at present, have not been working in the canteen. Therefore, they cannot be said to be entitled for benefits of regular employees of ONGC. It has been further submitted that under the Factories Act as well as under the Mines Act, the ONGC is not under obligation to maintain or run the canteen. The rule 72 of the Mines (Central) Rules provides that the Chief Inspector of Mines is only authorised and also notified for establishment of a canteen in any establishment related to the Mines. Therefore, unless such notification is not issued by the Chief Inspector of Mines, it cannot be said or construed that ONGC was in the obligation to establish and run the canteen. Therefore, the reference has no force and the concerned persons are not entitled for any relief.

6. The second party union moved an application Ex. 14 to implead Shri Y.K. Patil, contractor of the canteen as first party No. 2. The said application after hearing was allowed by the then Presiding Officer and Shri Y.K. Patil was impleaded as first party No. 2. Thereafter, the second party union as directed by the Tribunal amended the statement of claim accordingly. The copy of the statement of claim was also sent to the aforesaid contractor but despite receiving the copy of statement of claim by registered post, the acknowledgement of post Ex. 21 is on record, the contractor/first party No. 2 did not submit the written statement.

7. The second party union moved an application Ex. 12 for production of documents detailed in the application. Instead of pressing the said application, the second party union lead the oral evidence by way of submitting affidavits Ex. 22 and 25 of Shaileshkaushalbhai K. Parmar and Arvindkumar A. Vaghela respectively. Later, the union did not press the aforesaid application Ex. 12.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

I. Whether the canteen situated in the premises of Sabarmati Establishment of ONGC was statutory canteen and the persons detailed in the list annexed with the reference, were working therein?

II. Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union that the persons working in the said canteen ought to be treated as direct employees of ONGC is legal, just and proper?

III. To what relief, if any, the employees concerned are entitled?

9. Issue Nos. I, II and III: All the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party union. The witnesses examined Shaileshkaushalbhai K. Parmar and Arvindkumar A. Vaghela in their affidavits Ex. 22 and 25 have reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim reiterating that they were helping the Chef/Cook in the canteen and their last monthly wages were Rs.725/- per month. They were terminated on 30.05.1996 without serving notice or paying notice pay or compensation. They tried to search alternative job after termination but did not succeed. In their cross-examination, they have stated that they do not know the contractor Y.K. Patil which was impleaded as party. They have also admitted that the ONGC did not give them any appointment letter. They have also admitted that the contract of the contractor Y.K. Patil came to end on 30.05.1996 but denied in their cross-examination that Y.K. Patil was having supervision control of the canteen and used to pay wages to them. One of the witnesses Shaileshkaushalbhai K. Parmar admitted that the expenditures of his family have been managed by him and his brother after termination. The witness Arvindkumar A. Vaghela in his cross-examination admitted that Y.K. Patil was running the canteen. He used to pay the wages to all the canteen employees but he does not know when the contract of the canteen was terminated.

10. It is noteworthy that the list annexed with the reference has the details of 9 workmen but only 2 aforesaid witnesses were examined. The second party union has also submitted a pursis that the persons at Serial Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have not been approaching the union since long and their addresses are not available with the union, therefore, they are not pressing the reference on behalf of the aforesaid persons except Shaileshkaushalbhai K. Parmar and Arvindkumar A. Vaghela.

11. What can be inferred from the terms of the reference is that this Tribunal first has to decide the issue that whether the Sabarmati Canteen was a statutory canteen under the Mines Act. The second party union in its statement of claim has stated that the canteen was a statutory canteen under the Mines Act, situated and running in the premises belonging to ONGC with the help and facility of its furniture, fixtures, utensils, kerosene burners, water containers, crockeries, cutleries, refrigerators, water coolers and de-freezers etc. but the second party union has not submitted any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that the canteen in question was a statutory canteen in the Mines Act. The second party union has also not submitted the notification or instruction issued by any competent authority directing the5442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 8, 2018/BHADRA 17, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ONGC to run a canteen so may that it may be called as statutory canteen. It is also noteworthy that the ONGC was governed by Mines Act and was not governed by the Factories Act. ONGC in his written statement and argument has denied that the canteen in question was a statutory canteen and has also stated that the Chief Inspector of Mines never issued instructions or notification to maintain the canteen in question for its employees. The Central Government under Section 58 of the Mines Act has powers to frame rules. The rule 64 of the Mines Rules 1995 provides for issuing notification by Chief Inspector of Mines directing the concerned establishment to maintain canteen for its employees. In the present case, there is no such evidence, therefore, the Issue No. I is decided in the negative with a finding that the canteen in question was not a statutory canteen.

12. Since the issue No. I is answered in negative against the second party union, therefore, the tribunal did not go into the second and third issues as the same come into play only if the first issue is answered in affirmative.

13. However as stated above, out of 9 persons, only 2 persons entered into witness box and reference qua 7 persons, vide Ex. 27, the union has not led any evidence as they are not in contact of the union since long and not interested to proceed the matter. Regarding remaining 2 persons who have deposed before the tribunal, they are not entitled to get any relief against the first party ONGC as they have admitted in their cross-examination that they were paid the wages by the contractor Y.K. Patil and the contract of contractor Y.K. Patil ended w.e.f. 31.05.1996. Secondly, they have admitted in their cross-examination that the ONGC has not given them any appointment letter; therefore, employer-employee relationship does not exist between the ONGC and the remaining 2 persons. Also the ONGC has not appointed them and the second party union failed to prove that the services of remaining 2 workmen have been terminated by the ONGC. From the record, it is established that more than 20 years have passed from the date of alleged termination of the workmen. Therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief against the ONGC including reinstatement and back wages. From the pleadings, it is transpired that in SCA No. 127/1998 filed by the second party union, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Central Labour Commissioner to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) has conducted the enquiry and filed the report before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the names of the concerned employees were not mentioned. The same also proves that they are not deployed by the ONGC nor they were in job at the time of the visit of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). Therefore, the concerned 2 workmen are not entitled to be reinstatement. Thus as stated above, the concerned 2 workmen failed to prove that the Sabarmati canteen is a statutory canteen and they were deployed by ONGC and paid salary by the ONGC. They are not entitled to get relief of reinstatement and to be treated as direct employees of the ONGC. Moreover as per the settled law, when the concerned workmen are not in job, they are not entitled to get status of direct employee of ONGC. The first party has relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (2) CLR 241 and 2007 (3) CLR 690, wherein the apex court has held that the workers working in the canteen which is not a statutory canteen, are not employees of the Principal Employer. Moreover, the first party has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (3) CLR 751, wherein the apex court has held that although there exists some degree of control and supervision on workers of statutory canteen, the said workers are not entitled for regularisation. Thus considering the facts of the present case and the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I come to the conclusion that the remaining 2 workmen are not entitled to get the status of direct employees of ONGC.

14. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as dismissed and no relief is granted.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2018

का.आ. 1352.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 02/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27.08.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/55/2011-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]

एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2018

S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No, 2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 02 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27.08.2018.

[No. L-20012/55/2011-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer5443 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : सितम्बर 8, 2018/भाद्र 17, 1940

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri P.K.Mishra, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO 02 OF 2012

PARTIES

: The Vice President,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress At: Vinod Nagar, Chiragora, Distt: Dhanbad Dhanbad. (Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

E, J. Area of M/s. BCCL PO: Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

Order No. -20012/55/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.12.2011

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union   :       Mr.S.C.Gaur,  Ld.  Union Rep.
On behalf of the Management      :       Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.  Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 9th Aug., 2018

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 20012/55/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.12.2011.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sh.Sakindra

Bhuia from the services of the Company vide order dated 28/31.07.2006 is justified? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. The instant case put up on date. Junior to Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Counsel for the Management appeared .So long the Union concerned, its Representative Mr. S C. Gaur too, made his appearance before the Court moving with a petition dt.07.06.2018 of the workman concerned citing his unwillingness to contest the case on merit. More so, it prima facie reflects workman unwillingness to go in for final adjudication. These sumps up the stand, the Tribunal has been looking on such cases over years. The status of case was fixed around filing documents resting an onus on the part of the O, P. /Management since long back from 02.4.2014 .Ironically , there have been subsequently sufficient adjournments availed of by both of the parties on different pretexts with no signs of action seems visible. The case deals with dismissal of the workman under the Management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL seeking relief there under by challenging the alleged action.

From perusal of the case record and materials of the facts , it stands clear that the workman/petitioner concerned is no longer interested to get to the finality of the case through adjudication as reflected in his petition moved before the Court by Union Representative on workman's behalf. However proceedings have been abruptly come to a grinding halt over filing of documents on the part of the Management since long back . `When move for passing a No Dispute Award from the side of the workman himself, the Industrial Dispute under Reference has been no longer in existence. As usual the Tribunal would not have been left with no choice but to close the case dropping the proceedings in the line of the natural justice and sheer disinterestedness on the part of the workman as well. So the case is wrapped up as no Industrial Dispute. Accordingly an Award of 'No Dispute' is passed.

P. K. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.