5488 GI/2018

(5915)

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- 38]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 23—flrEcj 29] 2018] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 1—vkf'ou 7] 1940

No. 38]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 23—SEPTEMBER 29, 2018, SATURDAY/ASVINA 1— ASVINA 7, 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)

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग) ) ) )

नई दली, 13 िसतबर, 2018

का

का.आ. . . . 1427

1427

1427.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतारा, क सरकार भारत के उ! चायोग, नैरोबी म #ी िवनोद कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

13 िसतबर, 2018 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा( के िनव)हन के िलए *ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

देबाशीस िस,हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी (को,स-I)

5916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2018/ASVINA 7, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 13^th September, 2018

S.O. 1427.—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 Vinod Kumar, Assistant Section

Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Nairobi to perform Consular services with effect

from 13 September, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Cons-I)

नई दली, 14 िसतबर, 2018

का

का.आ. . . . 1428

1428

1428.—राजनियक और कसुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतारा, क सरकार भारत के दूतावास, हनोई म #ी पंकज वमा), सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

14 िसतबर, 2018 से सहायक कसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कसुलर सेवा( के िनव)हन के िलए *ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2017]

देबाशीस िस,हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी(कस-I)

New Delhi, the 14^th September, 2018

S.O. 1428.—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 Pankaj Verma, Assistant

Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Hanoi to perform the Consular services with effect

from 14 September, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2017]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Cons-I)

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk-1429-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds 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] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@09@2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@291@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar 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 11.09.2018.

[No. L-12012/291/2003– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 29] 2018@vkf'ou 7] 1940

5917

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR, COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B.C. Rath,

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

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 29/2004

Date of Passing Award – 9^th August, 2018

Between:

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, IRC Village,

Branch Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

…1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

State Bank of India Employees Union,

C/o. State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Near Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar

…2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

M/s. S.M. Dwibedi, Advocate.

…For the 1^st Party- Management.

M/s. Amar Sahoo, Advocate.

… For the 2^nd Party- Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of its authority conferred by clause (b) of sub-

section 1 and sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein-after referred to as “the Act”)

have referred the following dispute for its adjudication vide letter No. L-12012/291/2003 – IR(B-I), dated 08.04.2004 and

the term and schedule of the reference “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Nayapalli Branch,

Bhubaneswar for not regularising the services of Shri K.C. Das, messenger after completing 10 years of continuous

service in the said post is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The 2^nd party-workman has filed its statement of claim alleging that he was appointed as a “Messenger” on

casual basis in the branch of Management-Bank at IRC Village, Bhubaneswar with effect from 28.2.1993. He was

allowed to continue to work as such with an assurance of being absorbed. He worked for more than 240 days

continuously in each twelve months calendar year and inspite of passing of several years as a casual Messenger his

service was not regularized. Though he was working with all sincerity and utmost satisfaction of his superiors, his

service was retrenched with effect from 14.12.2002 without due adoption of procedures enunciated in the Act. It is his

further claim that the Management conducted interview in the year 1990 and 1993 for filling up the posts of

Messengers/Peon-cum-Attendants and he came out successful in such interview being empanelled in the list of

successful candidates. He was paid wages regularly against the vouchers signed by him till 30.1.1997 and thereafter his

wages was paid on miscellaneous head till he was refused work with effect from 14.12.2002. When he was refused

employment and his service was not regularized despite he being successful in the interview conducted by the

Management for filling up the posts of Messenger/Peons, he raised a dispute before the R.L.C.(Central), Bhubaneswar.

A conciliation proceeding was initiated and as the conciliation proceeding ended in failure, the dispute has been referred

for its adjudication as mentioned earlier.

In its reply submitted through the written statement the Management-Bank has refuted all the allegations raised

by the disputant workman. According to the Management the statement of claim and the dispute raised therein is totally

a misleading and misconceived and the same is not maintainable on the principle of res-judicata as a similar dispute had

been heard and disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in a Writ bearing O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 preferred by

one Abhimanyu Mandal, who was standing in similar footing that of the disputant. According to the Management the

claim of the disputant that he was working as a Messenger from 28.2.1993 to 14.12.2002 continuously is not correct. The

disputant was engaged intermittently on daily wage basis when it was needed by the branch-Bank. He was never

engaged for 240 days continuously in any year or in a twelve calendar months preceding to his alleged retrenchment by

way of refusal of employment. It is the stand of the Management-Bank that when his service was no more required, he

was not engaged further. In order to give an opportunity for permanent absorption temporary employees/daily wagers in

the Bank were called to an interview pursuant to the settlements entered into between the Management and employees

Federation. Though, the 2^nd Party-workman became successful in such interview and he was empanelled against Sl. No.

140 of the list, he could not be absorbed and given appointment for the post of Messenger/Attendant since

absorption/appointment against such vacancy of Messengers/Attendants could not reach to the Sl. No. of the disputant.

The disputant had never challenged the implementation of the settlements entered between the Staff Federation and the

Management Bank. It is further submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who could not be absorbed like the

5918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2018/ASVINA 7, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

disputants in the Bank service due to expiry of the panel list on 31^st March, 1997, filed Writ petitions before the Hon’ble

High Court of Orissa. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15.5.1998 passed in O.J,.C.

2787/1997 dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the action of the Management-Bank. The order of the Hon’ble High

Court was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. CC-3082/1999. As the above matter has attained

finality, it cannot be re-agitated on the principle of resjudicata. According to the Management the disputant was engaged

on daily wage basis on account of exigencies and he was paid notice pay and rehabilitation compensation as required

under section 25-F of the Act when his engagement was not extended with effect from 14.12.2003. Thus, the present

dispute has no merit in the eye of law and the same should be rejected on the grounds mentioned above.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of

the dispute.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Management was justified in refusing regularization to Shri K.C. Das?

2. Whether the workman Shri K.C. Das has lawfully been retrenched from service with effect from 13.12.2003?

3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

To establish his claim the disputant workman has examined himself and filed documents like copy of the call

letter dated 19.3.1986 for attending interview, copy of the letter dated 19.1.1990 for recruitment of Messengers with

combined designation, copy of panel list during the year 1991, copy of the letter dated 15.12.1993 of A.G.M. (call letter

for attending interview), copy of letter dated 28.11.2002 of A.G.M., SBI regarding information of temporary workers

working, copy of letter dated 26.2.2003 of Chief Manager, SBI regarding regularization which are marked as Ext.-1 to

Ext.-6. On the other hand, the Management-Bank has preferred to examine its Chief Manager (Authorized Officer) as

M.W.-1 and relied upon documents like copy of the letter dated 13.12.2003 issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of

India, copy of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, copy of the settlement dated 16.7.1988, copy of the settlement dated

27.10.1988, copy of the settlement dated 9.1.1991, copy of settlement dated 30.7.1996, copy of the order of the Hon’ble

Orissa High Court dated 15.5.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997, copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India dated 16.7.1999 which are marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-H to refute the claim of the disputant.

6. For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken together for consideration.

From the pleadings and evidence advanced by the parties it is crystal clear that there is no serious dispute to the

fact that the disputant was employed in the Management-Bank on casual basis to work in the Bank. Taking into

consideration his employment on temporary basis, he was called to an interview conducted by the Management for his

absorption against permanent post of Messengers/Peons. Being found successful he was empanelled in the wait-listed

candidates. As vacancy could not reach to the serial number of the disputant and the period of empanelment was expired

on 31.3.1997, he could not be absorbed. It is not disputed and it is also emerging from the evidence of the parties that

despite the empanelment being expired he was engaged temporarily on daily wage basis till his engagement was not

extended after 14.2.2002. Though, as per the settled principles the disputant is required to prove that his engagement was

continuous for more than 240 days in a twelve month calendar year preceding to the alleged refusal of employment and

the disputant is require to lead credible evidence in this regard, it can be safely said that he worked for more than 240

days in the establishment of the Management-Bank in view of the pleadings and evidence advanced by the Management-

Bank that the disputant received a sum of Rs. 22,167.20 towards rehabilitation compensation and Rs. 4,030.40 from the

Management Bank in lieu of notice pay. Had the disputant not worked for more than 240 days continuously in a twelve

months calendar year preceding to his disengagement, there was no necessity for the Management to make payment to

the disputant for rehabilitation compensation and notice pay.

Coming to the issue of regularization of service of the disputant it is seen that there is no serious dispute to the

claim of the Management-Bank that the disputant was given an opportunity of being absorbed by holding of an interview

as per the settlements arrived between the Management-Bank of SBI and its Employees Federation. There is also no

serious dispute that the disputant was empanelled in successful list but, vacancies could not reach to the serial number of

the disputant by the time of expiry of the empanelment for which he could not be absorbed. There is no settlement

between the Management-Bank and its employees federation or any rule or circular of the Management-Bank by virtue

of which the disputant being a temporary and casual employee can be regularized. Further-more, he was never engaged

against any sanctioned or permanent vacancies. His engagement was depending on exigencies arising in the

Management-Bank. Mere engagement on temporary and daily wage basis, however long such employment may be,

cannot confer any right to the disputant so as to enable him to be regularized in service. It is pertinent to mention here

that the Management-Bank being a Public Sector Unit is having its own rules and guidelines for recruitment of

permanent employees and as such the Management cannot regularize the engagement of a temporary casual worker or

labour without following the recruitment rules. Further, it is found from the oral evidence of the parties more particularly

from the copy of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa arising out of O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 that claim

similar to the present one was raised by some other disputants before the Hon’ble High Court vide different writs for

their absorption and regularization of their temporary services and such writs were dismissed on contest. There is no

evidence on behalf of the disputant workman to show that any temporary or casual Messenger like him is allowed to

continue to work on casual basis despite he being engaged earlier to him. There is also no evidence to show that service

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 29] 2018@vkf'ou 7] 1940

5919

of any temporary/casual workmen, who was junior to him, was regularized without he being successful in the interview

or without his empanelment in the merit list after such interview. There is no evidence to suggest that any temporary or

casual Messenger was ever regularized or allowed to continue in temporary service beyond the list as prepared by the

Management-Bank. Moreover, the Management-Bank is found to have complied with the provisions of Section 25-F

while not extending further employment to the disputant workman. It cannot also be over sighted that it has been claimed

by the disputant that he was in temporary service/engagement since 28.2.1993 and the term of empanelment was expired

with effect from 31.3.1997. He did not raise any dispute before any appropriate authority for regularization of his service

though he had claimed to have worked for the Management for years together. The dispute was raised in the year 2004

when the writs preferred by some other temporary workmen were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. No cogent and

plausible explanation is coming forth from the disputant to explain such delay in raising the dispute. It is seen that refusal

of employment or retrenchment was not a dispute before the conciliation officer for which the reference appears to be

silent as to the retrenchment or refusal of employment to the disputant workman. When the disputant is not in

employment the dispute of his regularization without a prayer for declaring his retrenchment as illegal and unjustified

cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the dispute raised by the workman has no merit for consideration and as such

his statement of claim stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

The reference is answered and the case is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1430-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds 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 14@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@09@2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@90@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2018

S.O. 1430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.14/2018) 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 State Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.09.2018.

[No. L-12012/90/2016– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX,

SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No.14/2018

Shri Omkar Das, S/o Shri Duryodhan Prasad,

Represented through

Indian Steel & Metal Workers Union (Regd.)

46, Nehru Market (Patera), Badarpur,

New Delhi – 110 044

…Workman

Versus

1. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Opposite Tuglakabad Metro Station

Badarpur,

New Delhi – 110044

2. M/s Federal Security Service Pvt. Ltd.

522, 5^th Floor, Inder Prakash Building,

21, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Managements

5920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2018/ASVINA 7, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-12012/90/2016-IR(B-I) dated 05.01.2018 under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for

adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief Manager, State Bank of India, opposite Tuglakabad Metro

Station, New Delhi in terminating the service of Shri Omkar Dass, Security Guard, with effect from 08.08.2014

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? “

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Omkar Das, the workman, opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management.

Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it

will not debar the claimant from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on merits. An award is,

accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : July 19, 2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1431-&dsUæh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk

ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, esllZ d`’kd Hkkjrh dksvkWijsfVo fyfeVsM ¼d`Hkdks½ ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] vf/klwpuk tkjh

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o’kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

उ0 छूट िन4िलिखत शत6 के अधीन है; अथा)त्:-

(1)

पूव:0 ;थापना िजसम कम)चारी िनयोिजत ह<, एक रिज;टर रखेगी, िजसम छूट *ा> कम)चा?रय के नाम और

पदनाम दखाये जायगे;

(2)

इस छूट के होते Bए भी, कम)चारी उ0 अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी *सुिवधाएं *ा> करते रहगे िजनको पाने के

िलए वे इस अिधसूचना Eारा दी गई छूट के *वृF होने क तारीख से पूव) संदF अंशदान के आधार पर हकदार

हो जाते ह<;

(3)

छूट *ा> अविध के िलए, यद कोई अिभदाय पहले ही कए जा चुके ह, तो वे वापस नहG कए जाएंगे;

(4)

उ0 कारखाने/;थापना का िनयोजक उस अविध क बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/;थापना पर उ0

अिधिनयम (िजसे इसम इसके पIात् उ0 अविध कहा गया है) *वत)मान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे *ाLप म

और ऐसी िविशिMय सिहत देगा जो कम)चारी राNय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उ0

अविध क बाबत देनी अपेिOत होती थG;

(5)

िनगम Eारा उ0 कम)चारी राNय बीमा अिधिनयम क धारा 45 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन िनयु0 कया गया

कोई िनरीOक या िनगम का इस िनिमF *ािधकृत कोई अ,य पदधारी;

(i) धारा 44 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उ0 अविध क बाबत दी गई कसी िववरण क िविशMय को सPयािपत

करने के *योजनाथ); अथवा

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 29] 2018@vkf'ou 7] 1940

5921

(ii) यह अिभिनिIत करने के *योजनाथ) क कम)चारी राNय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 Eारा यथाअपेिOत

रिज;टर और अिभलेख उ0 अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नहG; या

(iii) यह अिभिनिIत करने के *योजनाथ) क कम)चारी, िनयोजक Eारा दये गए उन फायद को, िजसके फल;वLप

इस अिधसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद म और व;तु Lप म पाने का हकदार बना Bआ है या नहG; या

(iv) यह अिभिनिIत करने के *योजनाथ) क उस अविध के दौरान, जब उ0 कारखाने के संबंध म अिधिनयम के

उपबंध *वृF थे, ऐसे क,हG उपबंध का अनुपालन कया गया था या नहG, िन4िलिखत काय) करने के िलए

सश0 होगा:-

(क) *धान या आसQ िनयोजक से अपेOा करना क वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरो0 िनरीOक या अ,य

पदधारी आवRयक समझता है ; अथवा

(ख) ऐसे *धान या आसQ िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, कसी कारखाने, ;थापना, काया)लय या अ,य प?रसर म

कसी भी उिचत समय पर *वेश करना और उसके *भारी से यह अपेOा करना क वह Tि0य के िनयोजन

और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अ,य द;तावेज, ऐसे िनरीOक या अ,य पदधारी के

समO *;तुत कर और उनक परीOा करने द या ऐसी जानकारी द िजसे वे आवRयक समझते ह<; या

(ग) *धान या आसQ िनयोजक क, उसके अिभकता) या सेवक क, या ऐसे कसी Tि0 को, जो ऐसे कारखाने,

;थापना, काया)लय या अ,य प?रसर म पाया जाए, यह िवUास करने का युि0यु0 कारण है क वह कम)चारी

है, परीOा करना; या

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, ;थापना, काया)लय या अ,य प?रसर म रखे गए कसी रिज;टर, लेखा, बही या अ,य

द;तावेज क नकल तैयार करना या उVरण लेना;

(ङ) यथािनधा)?रत अ,य शि0य का *योग करना ।

िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले म, *दF छूट ;वत: रX हो जाएगी और तब नए *ितYान को छूट हेतु समुिचत सरकार

क अनुमित लेनी होगी।

[la- ,l&38014@03@2014&,l,l&1]

larks"k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1431.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments of

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a

period of one year from the date of issue of notification.

The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name

and designations of the exempted employees’;

(2)

Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to

which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption

granted by this notification operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

5922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2018/ASVINA 7, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory

was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and

containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI

Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for

the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in

cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied

by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person

found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to

examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and

payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, accountbook or other document

maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity

will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/03/2014-SS-I]

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1432-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ cSad ds 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] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 25@09@2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 29] 2018@vkf'ou 7] 1940

5923

New Delhi, the 25^th September, 2018

S.O. 1432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyerabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.09.2018.

[No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan Presiding Officer

Dated the 27^th day of August, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.6/2012

Between:

Sri Damodara Pagadala

S/o Adi Seshaiah,

R/o D.No.301, Subhadra Nilayam,

Dubai Gate, Old Bowenpally,

Secunderabad.

…Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI Bank Tower,

Regional Office: Plot No.12,

Gachi Bowli,

Ranga Reddy District – 500 032.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri M. Kiran Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

None

AWARD

Sri Damodara Pagadala who worked as an Asst. Manager (Band-II) (who will be referred to as the workman)

has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent M/s. ICICI Bank,

seeking for declaring the termination order dated 28.11.2011 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set

aside the same consequently directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the

consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other

reliefs as this court may deems fit.

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

The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager with the Respondent bank and was dismissed from service on

28.11.2011. He was drawing a salary of Rs.39000/-p.m., at the time of dismissal of service. The Petitioner stated that

on 24.12.2011 he served a legal notice through his advocate to the Respondent requesting to consider his termination

order with a request to take him back into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The

Respondent received notice but neither made any reply nor reinstated the Petitioner into service. The Petitioner also

stated that he joined with the Respondent on 12.7.2006 at Retail Asset Products Group Collections (EMCT) at Nellore

and subsequently he was transferred to Hyderabad in the month of February, 2010 and since then he was working in

Auto Loans Department, obediently and discharging his duty upto the satisfaction of his superiors. He has an

unblemished service record till the date of his dismissal. It is further stated that while the matter stood thus on 2.12.2011

the Respondent issued termination order dated 28.11.2011 to the Petitioner stating that his services are no more required

by the Respondent bank. Therefore, his services are terminated with immediate effect in terms of the contract of

employment as the Respondent has lost confidence on the Petitioner. it is also submitted that as per the terms of the

employment on 19.6.2006 with Ref.No.COLL/FY07/N/S/466 any breach of the conditions mentioned in it or if any

incorrect information furnished and suppression of any material information, the employee is required to be terminated.

In view of the above terms and contract of employment the Petitioner has neither communicated nor committed any

breach of condition of the employment contract. Nor he has furnished any incorrect information nor suppressed any

material information. Therefore, the above said termination order issued by the Respondent is not only in violation of the

contract and bad in law. The above said action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner without

5924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 29, 2018/ASVINA 7, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

assigning any reasons and without following due procedure laid down under law is arbitrary, unjustified and also in

violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the Respondent did not follow the procedure laid down

under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating the services of the Petitioner and this violated

Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the above action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner

from service is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified, in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and

High Courts. Thereafter, without finding any alternative, the Petitioner served legal notice to the Respondent on

24.12.2011 through his advocate. But the Respondent did not make any reply nor considered the request of the

Petitioner. It is also stated that though he was designated as an Assistant Manager–II he has discharged clerical work.

Therefore, he is a workman under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Respondent bank is an industry

as defined under Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the date of termination the Petitioner remained

unemployed and is facing lot of financial problem. Therefore, the Petitioner was compelled to file this petition claiming

the relief mentioned above.

The Respondent bank is set ex-parte vide office order dated 22.10.2014. During the course of hearing of the

case the workman is examined himself as WW1 and also proved 4 documents as Exhibits W1 to W4.

I have already heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also perused the evidence adduced from the

side of the Petitioner.

The Points that arise for determination:-

Whether the action of the management of ICICI Bank Limited, in terminating the Petitioner workman

Sri Damodara Pagadala, from service w.e.f. 28.11.2011 is legal and justified?

II. If not, to what relief he is entitled for?

The evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner workman fully corroborates the facts averred in his claim

statement. The Respondent has not come forward to challenge it, the unchallenged testimony of the Petitioner workman

coupled with Exs.W1 to W4 well prove the case of the Petitioner workman. Thus, it can safely be stated that the

workman is entitled to get the relief as prayed for in his claim petition.

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

ORDER

In the result, the petition is allowed. The action of the ICICI Bank Limited, in terminating the Petitioner

workman Sri Damodar Pagadala from service is illegal and not justified. The termination order dated 28.11.2011 issued

by the Respondent is hereby set aside. The Respondent Bank is directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with

continuity of service and all other attendant benefits without back wages, within three months from the date of receipt of

this order. Hence, the order.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 27^th day of

August, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Damodara Pagadala

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of WW1 dt.19.6.2006

Ex.W2:

Termination letter of WW1 dt.28.11.2011

Ex.W3:

Copy of legal notice by WW1 to Respondent dt.24.12.2011

Ex.W4:

Postal acknowledgement to Ex.W3

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1433-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

nf{k.k iwoZ e/; jsyos ds 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] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2017&18½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25@09@2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@01@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc’V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 29] 2018@vkf'ou 7] 1940

5925

New Delhi, 25^th September, 2018

S.O. 1433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2017-18) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.09.2018.

[No. L-41011/01/2016– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/02/2017-18

Date: 06.08.2018.

Party No.1(a)

The General Manager,

South East Central Railway,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) – 495001.

Party No.1(b)

The Sr. divisional Personnel Officer,

South East Central Railway,

Kingsway, Station Road,

Nagpur – 440001.

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Parcel Porter Sangathana,

New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,

Near Mhada Colony,

Nagpur – 440030.

AWARD

(Dated: 06^th August 2018)

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

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

dispute between the employer, in relation to the management of South East central Railway and their union, Parcel Porter

Sangathana for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/01/2016-(IR(B-I) dated 10.04.2017, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway in terminating the service of Shri

Dinesh Amritlal Shribas, Parcel Porter w.e.f. January, 2005, is just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief

Shri Dinesh Amritlal Shribas is entitled to?”

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

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. On 31.08.2017, Advocate D.N. Karkare filed vakalatnama for the

Party No. 1, but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 12.01.2018, order to issue fresh notice to the workman

was passed; fixing the date on 15.02.2018, but nobody appeared on that day on behalf of the petitioner. Again on

22.06.2018, Party No. 1 was directed to serve notice on the petitioner and acknowledgement of the same be submitted to

this court and next date was fixed on 27.07.2018.

On 27.07.2018, advocate for the Party No. 1 filed track report of the notice sent to the petitioner, which shows

that the notice sent to him, has been served, but petitioner did not file any statement of claim or rejoinder. Nobody filed

any evidence on affidavit or documents. It shows that, the petitioner is not interested to continue the reference. Hence, it

is ordered:

ORDER

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

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

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.

SARVESH

KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA

Digitally signed by

SARVESH KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA

Date: 2018.10.15 15:05:31

+05'30'