5310 GI/2018

(5873)

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

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 37]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 16—flrEcj 22] 2018] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 25—Hkkæ 31] 1940

No. 37] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 16—SEPTEMBER 22, 2018, SATURDAY/ BHADRA 25—BHADRA 31, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 18 िसतबर, 2018

का

का.आ.1399

.1399

.1399.—के ीय सरकार, बककारी कंपनी (उप म" का अज%न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) क. धारा

3 क. उप-धारा (2क) के दूसरे परंतुक 3ारा 4द शि6य" का 4योग करते 8ए, भारतीय 9रजव% बक के परामश% से, देना बक क. 4ािधकृत

पूंजी को तीन हजार करोड़ =पए से बढ़ाकर पांच हजार करोड़ =पए करती है।

[फा. सं. 11/4/2009-बीओए]

ए. के. घोष, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18^th September, 2018

S.O. 1399.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the

Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Central Government, after

consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby increases the authorized capital of the Dena Bank from three

thousand crore rupees to five thousand crore rupees.

[F. No. 11/4/2009-BOA]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

5874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई दली, 5 िसत बर, 2018

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 1400

1400

1400.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ और फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश। एतदारा क सरकार भारत के दूतावास, रयाद म ी राजेश कुमार,

सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी, को दनांक 5 िसत बर, 2018 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा! के

िनव"हन के िलए %ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

देबाशीस िस+हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी (क सुलर-I)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2018

S.O. 1400.—Statutory Order : In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajesh Kumar, Assistant

Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Riyadh as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular Services with effect

from

5 September, 2018

[No.T. 4330/01/2016]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Consular-I)

नई दली, 5 िसत बर, 2018

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 1401

1401

1401.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ और फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म क सरकार के ारा ी योगेश व-स, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को 5 िसत बर 2018 से

भारत के दूतावास, मनीला म सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के कत". का पालन करने के िलए %ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2018]

देबाशीस िस+हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी (क सुलर-I)

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2018

S.O. 1401.— In pursuance of the 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 Shri Yogesh Vats, Assistant Section Officer

in the Embassy of India, Manila to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 5

September, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2018]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Consular-I)

नई दली, 6 िसत बर, 2018

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 1402

1402

1402.— का. आ. राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ और फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का

41) क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म क सरकार के ारा ी राकेश कुमार दवाकर, िनजी सहायक को 6 िसत बर

2018 से भारत के दूतावास, बामाको म सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के कत". का पालन करने के िलए %ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2015]

देबाशीस िस+हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी (क सुलर-I)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5875

New Delhi, the 6th September, 2018

S.O. 1402.—In pursuance of the 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 Shri Rakesh Kumar

Diwakar, Personal Assistant in Embassy of India, Bamako to perform the Consular services as Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 6 September, 2018.

[No.T.4330/01/2015]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Consular-I)

नागर िवमानन मंालय

नई द ली, 10 िसत बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1403

1403

1403.—भारतीय िवमानप- तन %ािधकरण अिधिनयम, 1994 (1994 का सं3 या 55) क धारा 3 ारा

%द- त शि5य का %योग करते 6ए, कीय सरकार एतदारा ी अिनल कुमार पाठक, काय"कारी िनदेशक, एएआई को दनांक

21 अग7 त, 2018 से प8च वष" क अविध तक या उनक अिधवा<षता क तारीख या अगले आदेश तक, जो भी सबसे पहले हो,

?.75000-100000/- क अनुसूची ‘क’ वेतनमान म सद7 य (योजना), भारतीय िवमानप- तन %ािधकरण के Eप म िनयुF त

करती है।

[फा. सं. एवी-24011/13/2017-एएआई-एमओसीए]

पी.जे. थॉमस, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 10^th September, 2018

S. O. 1403.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994

(No.55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Anil Kumar Pathak, Executive Director, AAI as Member

(Planning), Airports Authority of India in Schedule ‘A’ scale of pay of Rs.75000-100000/- with effect from the afternoon

of 21^st August, 2018 for a period of five years or till the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is

the earliest.

[F. No. AV-24011/13/2017-AAI-MOCA]

P. J. THOMAS, Under Secy.

इले ॉ

इले ॉिनक और सूचना ौोिगक मंालय

िनक और सूचना ौोिगक मंालय

नई द ली, 10 िसत बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1404

1404

1404.—के+ सरकार एतGारा राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय %योजनन के िलए %योग) िनयम, 1976 के

िनयम 10 के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म, इलेF Mॉिनक और सूचना %ौPोिगक मंQालय के संबR काया"लय राS Mीय सूचना

िवTान के+ के िन निलिखत अधीन7 थ काया"लय , िजनके 80 %ितशत से अिधक कम"चारय ने िह+ दी का काय"साधक Tान

%ाV त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है :

1. राS Mीय सूचना िवTान के+ , छXीसगढ़ रZ य के+ ,एडी 2/14, %शासिनक खंड, महानदी भवन, मंQालय, नया

रायपुर – 492002; और

2. राS Mीय सूचना िवTान के+ , उXराख\ ड राZ य एकक, सिचवालय परसर, सुभाष रोड, देहरादून – 248001

[सं. 7(2)/2005-िह.अ.]

राजीव कुमार, संयुF त सिचव

5876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

New Delhi, the 10^th September, 2018

S. O. 1404.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule(4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govermment hereby notifies the following subordinate offices of the National

informatics Centre, an attached office of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, whose more than 80%

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. National Informatics Centre, Chhattisgarh State Centre, AD 2/14, Administrative Block, Mahanadi Bhawan,

Ministry, New Raipur-492002 and;

2. National Informatics Centre, Uttarakhand State Unit, Secretariat Complex, Subhash Road, Dehradun- 248001.

[No. 7(2)/2005-H.S.]

RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

म और रोजगार मंालय

नई द ली, 11 िसत बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1405

1405

1405.—औPोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के+ ीय सरकार

मेसस" ई7 टन" कोलफ ड िलिमटेड के %बंधतंQ के संबR िनयोजक और उनके कम"कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दS ट औPोिगक

िववाद म के+ ीय सरकार औPोिगक अिधकरण - सह – म + यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदभ" सं3 या 02/2015)को

%कािशत करती है, जो के+ ीय सरकार को 16.08.2018 को %ाV त 6आ था।

[सं. एल-22012/27/2015-आईआर(सीएम-2)]

राजे+ _सह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O.1405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s E.C.L., and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/27/2015-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/27/2015 - IR (CM-II) dated 18.06.2015

This office Reference No. 02 of 2015 dated 01.07.2015

Management of Dubeswari Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. E.C.L.

V/s

Shri Dewnath Singh

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5877

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 02 of 2015

Dubeswari Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Dewnath Singh

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd./-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1406-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV la[;k ¼09@2017½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@17@2017-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/17/2017 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

5878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/17/2017 - IR (CM-II) dated 20.07.2017

This office Reference No. 09 of 2017 dated 01.08.2017

Management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Rambalak Kewat

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 09 of 2017

Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Rambalak Kewat

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5879

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1407-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV la[;k ¼17@2011½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012@122@2011-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/122/2011 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/122/2011 - IR (CM-II) dated 06.09.2011

This office Reference No. 17 of 2011 dated 19.09.2011 / 09.12.2011

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Arbindo Roy

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 17 of 2011

Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Arbindo Roy

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms : —

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

5880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1408-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV la[;k ¼31@2004½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@217@2003-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/217/2003 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/217/2003 - IR (CM-II) dated 07.05.2004

This office Reference No. 31 of 2004 dated 21.06.2004

Management of Kalidaspur Project under Satgram Area of M/s. ECL

V/s.

Shri Ram Prasad Bouri

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5881

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 31 of 2004

Kalidaspur Project under Satgram Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Ram Prasad Bouri

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms : —

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1409-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV la[;k ¼36@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@113@2012--vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/113/2012 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

5882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/113/2012 - IR (CM-II) dated 03.10.2012

This office Reference No. 36 of 2012 dated 05.11.2012

Management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Basant Bhuian

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 36 of 2012

Jambad Colliery Under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Basant Bhuian

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms : —

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5883

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1410-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV la[;k ¼44@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@85@2007-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf?kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/85/2007 - IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/85/2007 - IR (CM-II) dated 05.07.2007

This office Reference No. 44 of 2007 dated 18.07.2007

Management of North Searsole Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Nani Gopal Rajwar

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 44 of 2007

North Searsole Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Nani Gopal Rajwar

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms : —

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

5884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1411-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@337@2004-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 51/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/337/2004-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/337/2004 - IR (CM-II) dated 27.07.2005

This office Reference No. 51 of 2005 dated 12.08.2005

Management of Chora Block Incline under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Magaram Bouri

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5885

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 51 of 2005

Chora Block Incline under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Magaram Bouri

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M. C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1412-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; esllZ bZLVuZ

dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 65@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@325@2005-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/325/2005-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/325/2005 - IR (CM-II) dated 05.09.2006

This office Reference No. 65 of 2006 dated 25.09.2006

Management of J. K. Nagar (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Tara Majhi

5886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 65 of 2006

J. K. Nagar (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Tara Majhi

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI S.K. PANDEY

Gen. Secy., C.M.C. (H.M.S.)

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1413-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@294@2005-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/294/2005- IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5887

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/294/2005 - IR (CM-II) dated 06.10.2006

This office Reference No. 72 of 2006 dated 31.10.2006

Management of Siduly Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Surendra Nayak

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 72 of 2006

Siduly Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Surendra Nayak

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI S.K. PANDEY

Gen. Secy., C.M.C. (H.M.S.)

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

5888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1414-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lUnHkZ la[;k 79@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@204@2007-vkbZ vkj (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/204/2007- IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/204/2007 - IR (CM-II) dated 26.09.2007

This office Reference No. 79 of 2007 dated 09.10.2007

Management of Bankola Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Gunamoy Bouri

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 79 of 2007

Bankola Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Gunamoy Bouri

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5889

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI S.K. PANDEY

Gen. Secy., C.M.C. (H.M.S.)

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1415-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lUnHkZ la[;k 98@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@151@2006-vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/151/2006- IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/151/2006 - IR (CM-II) dated 30.11.2006

This office Reference No. 98 of 2006 dated 26.12.2006

Management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Dhiren Bouri

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

5890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 98 of 2006

Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Dhiren Bouri

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms :

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI SAYANTAN MUKHERJEE

Learned Advocate

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1416-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k & lg & Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lUnHkZ la[;k 125@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@336@2004-vkbZvkj (lh,e--II)]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 125/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol,

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-22012/336/2004-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5891

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

Ref.: Ministry’s Order No. L-22012/336/2004 - IR (CM-II) dated 04.10.2005

This office Reference No. 125 of 2005 dated 17.10.2005

Management of Chora Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Ashok Akuria

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT

Held on 17^th July, 2018 at C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form ‘H’ containing the

terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed

accordingly.

Sd/-

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

LOK ADALAT SETTLEMENT

Place : Asansol

Date : 17.07.2018

Reference No. 125 of 2005

Chora Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. ECL

V/s

Shri Ashok Akuria

Both the parties hereby mutually and amicably settle up the dispute for the interest of both sides and to help

securing a healthy and conducive relationship for maximization of output in the industry.

Terms : —

•

It is agreed between the parties that the concerned ex-employees will be re-instated in service in the initial basic

of General Mazdoor Category – I.

•

The Period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement will be treated as dies non. However the

workman will be given continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity only.

•

The dispute is settled in toto and none of the parties will raise any dispute before any forum in this Gregard.

•

The above settlement will be implemented within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the Settlement

Award.

Sd/-

(Representative of Management of M/s. E.C.L.)

Sd/-

SHRI BINOD KUMAR SINGH

Secretary, K. M.C. (H.M.S.) H.Q.

(Respresentative of the Workman)

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

5892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 14 िसत बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1417

1417

1417.—औPोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के+ ीय सरकार

भारतीय उXर रेलवे के %बंधतंQ के संबR िनयोजक और उनके कम"कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दS ट औPोिगक िववाद म

के+ ीय सरकार औPोिगक अिधकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभ" सं3 या 01/2013)को %कािशत करती है, जो के+ ीय सरकार

को 14.09.2018 %ाV त 6आ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2018-आईआर(बी-1)]

बी. एस. िबS ट, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 14^th September, 2018

S. O. 1417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14.09.2018.

[No. L-12025/01/2018-IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 01/2013

BETWEEN

Sri Raja S/o Late Sri Jaggu

283/63 Kha, Gari Kanoura, Premwati Nagar,

PO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow

AND

1. Varistha Mukhya Swasthya Nirikshak, Uttar Railway, Faizabad

2. Varishtha Mandal Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway O/O DRM, Lucknow

3. Varishtha Khand Abhiyanta (Loco) Uttar Railway, Faizabad

AWARD

1. The workman has filed the petition under Section 2A of the I.D. Act relating to an industrial dispute between

Sri Raja S/o Late Sri Jaggu and the Varishtha Mukhya Swasthya Nirikshak/Varishtha Khand Abhiyanta

(Loco)/Varistha Mandal Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway, Faizabad/Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The petitioner workman Sri Raja in his claim statement W-1 dated 24.12.2012, has stated in brief that he was

appointed on 02.01.1989 on the post of Safaiwala to perform the duties accordingly which were of regular

nature. It has further been alleged that he has been working till 30.11.2010 and has performed duty for more

than 240 days in every calander year but he was illegally retrenched on 01.12.2010, although there was

sufficient work available in the opposite party establishment, and other workmen junior to the petitioner were

already engaged there. Before his retrenchment, no prior notice, charge sheet, salary in lieu of retrenchment

compensation etc. was given to him, unfair labour practice was adopted.

3. The petitioner has further asserted that since he had refused to perform the personal work of the employer, so he

was retrenched. Despite his request, and representations, he was not reinstated till this date, neither any

opportunity of hearing was provided to him which is against the principle of natural justice. Proceeding for

conciliation have filled before RLC ( C ) Lucknow and thereafter the petition has been filed before this Tribunal

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5893

alongwith copy of notice and order sheet etc. With the aforesaid pleading, request has been made to reinstate the

petitioner from the back date viz. 01.12.2010 with all consequential benefits etc.

4. The management in its written statement M-4 dated 27.05.2013 with denial of the allegations leveled in the

claim statement, has submitted that the petitioner had never worked as an employee of the management, neither

he was duly engaged nor appointed by the opposite party. The opposite party has asserted that there was

complete ban for the engagement of any casual labour without the prior approval of the GM, NR prior to the

date of the engagement of the claimant. Since the petitioner was not engaged/recruited or appointed by any

competent authority of the management in accordance with the Railway Rules, no question ever arose for the

retrenchment of the claimant, no notice was ever required to be issued to him. The opposite party has alleged

that the claim of the petitioner is bogus, fraudulent, false and fribulous, therefore it is not legally maintainable.

5. The opposite party has further asserted that it has been learnt that the petitioner has been a labour working under

M/s. Lembra Traders, and contract was awarded to it for cleaning of the lobby and running room etc., and the

entire contract amount has already been paid to the said contractor and the petitioner has worked under the

direct control and supervision of the contractor and he has never performed any duty under the direct control

and supervision of any competent authority of the management. The opposite party has emphasized that the

petitioner has never been railway servant of the opposite party and the petition is beyond the jurisdiction of this

Tribunal. The claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz. M/s Lembra Traders, it has further been

alleged. With the aforesaid averments, request has been made by the opposite party to reject the claim.

6. With the strong denial of the counter allegations leveled in the written statement, rejoinder W-5 dated

20.09.2013 has been filed by the workman, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

7. As per list W-8 dated 05.11.2014, photo copies of several documents and affidavit etc. have been filed by the

workman. As per application M-9 dated 05.12.2014, the acceptance letter of the said contract, and tender etc.

has been filed on behalf of the management.

8. The petitioner Sri Raja has filed his affidavit W-10 dated 01.12.2014 in evidence. He has been cross examined

on behalf of the management. The management has filed affidavit M-13 dated 21.09.2016 of Sri P.K. Singh,

ADME (O&F). He has been cross examined on behalf of the workman.

9. Learned AR for the workman has relied on the following citations:

1. 2003 (96) FLR, Union of India vs Girja Shankar, page 1094, Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad.

2. 2008 (116) FLR, Union of India vs PO, CGIT,Kanpur, page 1046, Hon’ble High Court,

Allahabad.

10. Learned Authorized Representative for the management submits that the aforesaid Rulings do not apply to the

facts of this case.

11. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

12. The main contention of the petitioner workman, as emphasized in the claim statement and the evidence, is that

he was appointed on 02.01.1989 to perform the duties of Safaiwala and the work assigned was of regular nature,

and upto 30.11.2010 he had worked for more than 240 days in every calander year, but the opposite party

management has illegally retrenched/dis-engaged him w.e.f. 01.12.2010. While refuting the pleas taken by the

workman, the management has submitted that the petitioner was neither duly engaged, nor appointed by any

competent authority, rather he has perhaps been a labour working under the contractor M/s Lembra Traders and

the contract was for cleaning of lobby and running room etc., the petitioner was under direct control and

supervision of the above contractor and he has never performed any duty under the supervision and control of

any competent authority of the management, neither he was ever official servant of the opposite party. The

opposite party has alleged that the claim of the petitioner is false, frivolous, bogus and fraudulent and there

arose no question of issuing any notice to the petitioner, since he was not engaged or appointed by any

competent authority as per Railway Rules.

13. Documents submitted by the petitioner as per list W-8, have been denied by the Learned Authorized

Representative for the management. However the management witness Sri P.K. Singh, ADME (O&F) in his

affidavit M-13, has no where asserted that the documents enclosed with list W-8 are fabricated and forged.

Rather when confronted with letter no. 8/9 dated 09.09.2003, sent by DRM, Lucknow to GM, NR, New Delhi,

in his cross examination dt. 15.06.2017 he has shown his ignorance as to what reply was sent by the H.O (GM

Office). The aforesaid letter dt. 09.09.2003, seems to have been sent by the DRM(P), Lucknow to the GM, NR,

enclosing there with the information sought by the GM office through its earlier letter dated 29.04.2003,

regarding “ Screening and Regularization of Casual Labour/Substitute on the Div./Units”. The name of the

petitioner workman has been shown at serial number 26 in the enclosed list W-8/4. Application W-6 dt.

20.08.2013 for summoning documents from the office of the management, was moved by the workman before

the then Hon’ble Presiding Officer/Judge, my learned predecessor, on which direction was given on 16.07.2014

that it would be disposed off after filing of documents by (both the) parties. Thereafter documents mentioned in

5894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

application W-6 20.09.2013 were not produced by the management, neither any reason was given by competent

authority for not filing the same. However the management submitted certain documents as per list M-9 dt.

05.12.2014 pertaining to the contract given to M/s Limbra Traders, tender form, tender conditions etc.

14. The petitioner workman has filed his affidavit W-10 dated 01.12.2014, in support of the claim statement. He has

been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management. Documents W-8/8 and W-8/9 have been

specifically confronted by the LAR for the management in the cross examination. The workman has asserted

that these documents have been signed by Sri V.K. Sinha, Sri R.P. Singh Loco Foreman (employee of the

Management). Document W-8/8 dt. 01.01.2008 has given the monthwise data w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009,

showing that the petitioner has worked under the office of SSE/Loco, NR Faizabad for 731 days. Similarly the

other document W-8/9 dated 01.01.2010 certified that the petitioner has worked under the aforesaid office for

333 days w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 30.11.2010. The management ought to have specifically confronted these facts

with cogent reliable evidence before this Court. The said Loco Foreman ought to have been produced in

evidence by the opposite party or any elaborate submission should have been made whether the aforesaid

railway authorities were in fact posted there as alleged by the petitioner or the ground taken in the claim

statement and further mentioned in the affidavit, are fake or forged. It was not incumbent on the petitioner to

adduce any other supportive evidence in the Court.

15. After having heard the intellect arguments advanced by both the parties, perusal of the record with prudent

analysis of the facts and evidence available before the Court, in the light of the prouncement of Hon’ble

Supreme and Hon’ble High Courts, it is inferred that the said disengagement/retrenchment w.e.f. 01.12.2010,

can not adjudged as legal and justified. The petitioner workman is entitled for his reinstatement as per Rules.

The opposite party is directed to ensure the payment of 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits to

the petitioner workman within 10 weeks from the date of notification of award.

16. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

20.08.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1418-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] ¼1947 1947 dk½ 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

QsMjy cSad fyfeVsM izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 208@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@77@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14^th September, 2018

S.O. .1418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 208/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.09.2018.

[No. L-12012/77/2015–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI

ID No. 208/2015

Shri Amit Pal

S/o. Shri Ramnarayan,

R/o. C-1/03, Gali No.4 Madhu Vihar,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

…Workman

Versus

Addl. Deputy General Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd.,

1/7, East Patel Nagar,

Near Metro Pillar No.177

New Delhi 110008.

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5895

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-12012/77/2015-IR(B-1) dated

10.09.2015 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 the management of Federal Bank Ltd. in granting appointment to fresh workmen juniors to Shri

Amrit Pal on regular post of Bankman while shunting out the workman Shri Amrit Pal is illegal and/or unjustified ? If

so,what relief the workman is entitled ?

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The workman/ Amrit Pal filed statement of claim. As per the

averments made in the claim petition, the workman had been in the employment of the management bank in Delhi as

Bankman at different intervals from 10/2/2009 to 24/7/2009 in Dwarka branch of the Bank. He worked diligently and

gave no chance of complaint to his superiors and his service record was unblemished. It is also alleged that vide letter

dated 14/11/2012, he was called for an interview for the post of Bankman on 29/11/2012 which employment was meant

for the persons who had worked as temporary bankman and thereby the persons who had worked for the longer period

were supposed to be selected for the regular employment. But to the utter shock of the workman, he was not selected

rather the persons who never worked for the bank in the past were given regular employment. Without mentioning as to

when the workman was terminated, it has been alleged that termination of services of the workman is absolutely illegal

and unjustified. Demand notice dated 11/6/2014 was sent to the Management but to no avail. Prayer has been made for

reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and continuity of services.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that the claimant was never employed in the Bank on a regular post and had never been terminated and as

such he is not a workman. The workman last worked in September, 2008 and present dispute has been raised by him in

2015 which is barred on the ground of delay and latches. On merits, it is stated that the claimant had been engaged as a

temporary hand at Dwarka Branch for short stints and such temporary engagements were purely provisional and does not

entitle him for any kind of right for a regular appointment. It is also stated that the selection process to the regular post

of Bankman was open to all persons who satisfied the eligibility criteria as to age, qualification etc. and not only for

those who had worked on temporary basis. He was called for interview and cycling test vide letter dated 14/11/2012

which was only pursuant to his application . The appointment for the regular post/s of bankman was done after

conducting selection process irrespective of the fact whether the candidate was engaged earlier as temporary hand or not.

The workman never raised the issue of alleged termination for such a long period. Since the claimant was not an

employee of the Management and was engaged only on temporary basis, no relief is admissible to him. Prayer has been

made for rejection of the claim petition.

The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication wherein he denied all the allegations made by the

Management and reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 28/9/2016 :-

(1) Whether there does not exist relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the

Management Ban k as alleged and as such the reference is not legally tenable ? and the claimant ?

(2) In terms of reference.

(3) Relief.

The Claimant in support of his case examined herself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A

alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/6.

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Ms. Geeta Kanwar,

Deputy Vice President as MW1 and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents

Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.

Issue No. 1 :

Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the Management & claimant, nor the claimant has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year,

preceeding to his alleged termination. As such, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not applicable to the case in

hand. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that he was in the employment of the

Management Bank and has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the workman was admittedly

engaged by the Management on temporary basis as bankman and he worked for a considerable long time from February,

2009 to July, 2009 and he was paid wages by the Management for the services rendered by him. Therefore, it was urged

that contention of the Management that claimant was not employee of the Bank can not be entertained in the face of

admission in the written statement.

5896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the Management Bank. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or

record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days

or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran

Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.

11.

This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the

question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimant herein. In this respect, it

is appropriate to refer to the affidavit ExWW1/A of the claimant. The claimant has filed on record document Ex.WW3

(colly.) viz. temporary appointment orders issued by the Management Bank to the workman Amit Pal, showing that he

was engaged by the Management Bank at different intervals from 10/2/2009 to 24/7/2009. On the other hand, MW1 Ms.

Geeta Kanwar in her affidavit Ex.MW1/A has deposed that the claimant had been engaged as temporary hand at Dwarka

Branch for short stints and his engagement was purely provisional which does not entitle him for any right of a regular

appointment. In cross examination she admitted that the workman has worked as Bankman temporarily with the

Management and she has no personal knowledge regarding the work performance of the claimant. Thus, it stands clearly

proved from the pleadings and evidence on record that the claimant was duly engaged by the Management Bank on

temporary basis, 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. Consequently, it is held that

there existed relationship of employee –employer between the workman/claimant and the Management. This issue is

decided accordingly in favour of the workman.

Issue No. 2 :-

12.

Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether the action of the management in granting appointment

to the fresh workmen juniors to Shri Prem Singh on regular post of Bankman, while shunting out the workman is illegal

and unjustified.

13.

It is matter of record that neither in the statement of claim, nor in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the

workman/claimant has specifically stated as to when he was shunted out/terminated illegally by the Management. Even

in the demand/legal notice Ex.WW1/4 (dated 11-6-2014), it has not been stated as to when the claimant./workman was

shunted out/retrenched by the Management. Same is true in respect of document Ex.WW1/5 viz. request letter given by

the claimant for post of bankman with the Management Bank. Even as per the contents of para 1 of claim petition as

well as para 2 of his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant had worked with the Management Bank only for 105 days at

different intervals from 10^th February, 2009 to 24^th July, 2009.

14.

In view of the above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude that the claimant did not work with the

Management bank for a period of 240 days or more in a calendar year. In view of this and the provisions of Section

25-B, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the provisions of Section 25-F are not attracted in this case.

15.

It is undisputed fact that the Management Bank had advertised for filling up the posts of bankman on the basis

of eligibility criteria Ex.MW1/1 which inter-alia provided that the preference will be given to candidates who have been

temporarily engaged as Bankman in any of the branches/offices of the Bank. MW1 Ms. Geeta Kanwar, Deputy Vice

President of the Management Bank has testified that the process of selection was completed on the basis of selection

norms of the bank Nothing material came out during her cross examination to shake out her testimony. The

claimant/workman has admitted in his cross examination that during the period from 2009 to 2015 he sometimes used to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 22] 2018@Hkkæ 31] 1940

5897

do work and get Rs.100 to 150 ( per day), In the cross examination he clarified that though he was called for the

interview and his interview as conducted but he was not selected. Neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence adduced

before this Court, the claimant has elucidated the names of the persons who were juniors to him, have been granted

appointments against regular post by the Management Bank without adhering to the selection norms. It is reiterated that

the claimant worked with the Management Bank lastly in the year 2009 just for 105 days, whereas selection process for

filling up the posts of Bankman was done by the Management in the year 2011-12. Demand/legal notice was got issued

by the claimant on 11/6/2014. Just because the workman/claimant has not been found suitable by the Selection

Committee of the Management Bank in the selection process initiated for appointment to the post of Bankman, the plea

of the claimant that there was unjustifiable action of the Management Bank in granting appointments to fresh workmen

juniors to him on regular post of Bankman, is untenable, particularly when it is apparent from the eligibility criteria

Ex.MW1/1 publicised by the Management Bank that preference will be given to the persons who were earlier

temporarily. In the face of eligibility criteria Ex.MW1/1, it would be improper to conclude that the posts were only for

those who had worked temporarily with the Management Bank earlier.

16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the

claimant has miserably failed to prove that action of the Management Bank in granting appointments to fresh workmen

juniors to him on regular post of Bankman, is illegal and unjustified. Resultantly, this Tribunal is constrained to hold

that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 10.9.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1419&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

QsMjy cSad fyfeVsM izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 203@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14-09-2018 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@80@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

ch- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14^th September, 2018

S.O. 1419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 205/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.09.2018.

[No. L-12012/80/2015–IR(B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI

ID No. 205/2015

Shri Prem Singh

S/o. late Shri Surya Pal Singh,

R/o. RZ B-15, Jeewan Park,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

Addl. Deputy General Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd.,

1/7, East Patel Nagar,

Near Metro Pillar No.177

New Delhi 110008.

… Management

5898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2018/BHADRA 31, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-12012/80/2015-IR(B-1) dated

10.09.2015 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 the management of Federal Bank Ltd. in granting appointment to fresh workmen juniors

to Shri Prem Singh on regular post of Bankman while shunting out the workman Shri Prem Singh is illegal

and/or unjustified ? If so,what relief the workman is entitled ?

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The workman/ Prem Singh filed statement of claim. As per

the averments made in the claim petition, the workman had been in the employment of the management bank in Delhi as

Bankman from 11/9/2006 to 31/12/2010 in different branches. It is alleged that from 11/9/2006 to 16/9/2006 he worked

in Rohini Branch, from 9/3/2007 to 28/12/2006 and again from 1/1/2008 to 31/12/2010 he worked in Dwarka Branch of

the Management Bank. He worked diligently and gave no chance of complaint to his superiors and his service record

was unblemished. It is also alleged that vide letter dated 14/11/2012, he was called for an interview for the post of

Bankman on 29/11/2012 which employment was meant for the persons who had worked as temporary bankman and

thereby the persons who had worked for the longer period were supposed to be selected for the regular employment. But

to the utter shock of the workman, he was not selected rather the persons who never worked for the bank in the past were

given regular employment. Without mentioning as to when the workman was terminated, it has been alleged that

termination of services of the workman is absolutely illegal and unjustified. Demand notice dated 11/6/2014 was set to

the Management but to no avail. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and

continuity of services.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that the claimant was never employed in the Bank in a regular post and had never been terminated and as such

he is not a workman. The workman last worked in September, 2008 and present dispute has been raised by him in 2015

which is barred on the ground of delay and latches. On merits, it is stated that the claimant had been engaged as a