504 GI/2019

(759)

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- 6]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 3—iQjojh 9] 2019] 'kfuokj@ek?k 14—ek?k 20] 1940

No. 6]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 3—FEBRUARY 9, 2019, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 14— MAGHA 20, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 30 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 215

215

215.—भारतीय िनयात-आयात बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के

खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (i) ारा द शिय का योग करते $ए, के&'ीय सरकार, एत)ारा, डॉ. अनूप वधावन, वािण,य

सिचव के .थान पर वािण,य िवभाग म0 अपर सिचव 1ी िब2ुत िबहारी .वैन को त6काल भाव से, अगले आदेश तक

भारतीय िनयात-आयात बक (एि8जम बक) के िनदेशक म:डल म0 िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]

सौ>यिजत घोष, अवर सिचव

760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 30^th January, 2019

S.O. 215.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause (i) of Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6

of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates Sh. Bidyut Behari

Swain, Additional Secretary, Department of Commerce as Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of

India (EXIM Bank) vice Dr. Anup Wadhawan, Commerce Secretary with immediate effect until further orders.

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

SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.

वािणय एवं उोग मंालय

(वािणय िवभाग)

नई दली, 22 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 216

216

216.—के&'ीय सरकार, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंBण एवं िनरीCण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम

(2) के साथ पEठत, िनयात (गुणवा िनयंBण एवं िनरीCण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क उपधारा (1)

ारा द शिय का योग करते $ए, मेसस ईटालैब (गोवा) ाइवेट िलिमटेड - हाउस न. 197, रेडी सुकल भट, पो.ट

रेडी, तालूका वगLला, िजला Mसधू दुग, महाराN - 416517 को इस अिधसूचना के राजपB म0 काशन क तारीख से तीन

वष क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािण,य मंBालय क शासकय राजपB भाग II, खं: ड 3, उप खं: ड (ii), म0

दनांक 20 दस>बर, 1965 क अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 के तहत कािशतर अिधसूचना मे उपाबQ अनुसूिचय म0

िविनRदS खिनज और अय.क समूह-I, अथात, लौह अय. क और बॉ8साइट को िनयात से पूव िनVिलिखत शतW के अधीन रेडी,

करनपानी, बकोट, साखरी, केलासी एवं जयगढ़ म0 उ8 त खिनज और अय. क के िनरीCण करने के िलए एक अिभकरण के Xप

म0 मा&यता देती है, अथात् :

(i)

यह अिभकरण, खिनज और अय.क समूह-। का िनयात (िनरीCण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरीCण क

पQित क जाँच करने के िलये िनयात िनरीCण पEरषद् ारा िनिम नामिनRदS अिधकाEरय को पया[ सुिवधाएं

देगी; और

(ii) यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने काय\ के पालन म0 िनदेशक (िनरीCण और गुणवा िनयंBण) िनयात

िनरीCण पEरषद ारा समय-समय पर िलिखत Xप म0 दए गए ऐसे िनद^श से आबQ ह गी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/07/2018-िनयात िनरीCण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2019

S.O. 216.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Italab (Goa) Private Limited – House No. 197, Redi Sukal

Bhat, Post Redi, Taluka Vengurla, Jilla Sindhudurga, Maharashtra - 416517, as an agency for a period of three years with

effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores –

Group-I, namely Iron Ore and Bauxite specified in the Schedule to the notification of the Government of India in the

erstwhile Ministry of Commerce, published vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, in the Gazette of

India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at

Redi, Kiranpani, Bankot, Sakhri, Kelshi and Jaigarh, subject to the following conditions, namely: —

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

761

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this

behalf to carry out the inspection as specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii)

the said agency, in the performance of its function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/07/2018-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 217-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4/2016½ dks izdkf’kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@92@2015–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/92/2015–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2016

Between:

The President,

(Bandari Satyanarayana),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 209.

Adilabad District.(Telengana).

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri -504231.

Adilabad District.

…Respondent

762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. Sangars Bhagawanth Rao & S.V. Rama Devi, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/92/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015 referred

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

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

SCHEDULE

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

Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Badikala Narasaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-1 inc., Mandamarri Area with

effect from 13.8.1996 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

On receipt of the reference it is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 4/2016 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The case stands posted for evidence of the Petitioner Union.

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

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

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

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

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

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 18^th day of

December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 218-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44/2016½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@100@2016–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/100/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

763

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2016

Between:

Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,

Sr.Vice President & Sreerampur Divn. President,

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCM)(INTUC)

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 208.(Dist.)

Adilabad District.(Telengana).

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Divn., Sreerampur -504303.

Adilabad District.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Dasaradha Ramulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/100/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 3.11.2016 referred

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., SrirampurArea, Adilabad Distt.

in terminating the services of Shri Nikadi Madhunaiah, Ex-CF, RK-7 incline, Srirampur Area with effect from

1.4.2007 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

On receipt of the reference it is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 44/2016 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20^th day of

December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 219-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45/2016½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@101@2016–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/101/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 45/2016

Between:

Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,

Sr.Vice President & Sreerampur Divn. President,

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCM) (INTUC)

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 209.

Adilabad District. (Telengana).

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Divn., Sreerampur -504303.

Adilabad District.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Dasaradha Ramulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/101/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 2/3.11.2016 referred

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., SrirampurArea, Adilabad Distt.

in terminating the services of Sri Asampally Venkateshwarlu, Ex-BCF, RK-7 incline, Srirampur Area with

effect from 14.8.2006 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

On receipt of the reference it is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 45/2016 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

765

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

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

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

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

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

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20^th day of

December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 220-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46/2016½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@102@2016–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/102/2016–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46/2016

Between :

Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,

Sr.Vice President & Sreerampur Divn. President,

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCM) (INTUC)

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 208. (Dist.)

Adilabad District. (Telengana).

… Petitioner

766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Divn., Sreerampur -504303.

Adilabad District.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Dasaradha Ramulu, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/102/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 3.11.2016

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., SrirampurArea, Adilabad Distt.

in terminating the services of Shri Iyla Rajaiah, Ex-CF, RK-7 incline, Srirampur Area with effect from

19.7.2004 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

On receipt of the reference it is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 46/2016 and notices were issued to the

parties concerned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20^th day of

December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 221-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 131/2015½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@83@2015–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

767

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 131/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/83/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 19^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 131/2015

Between:

Sri M. Bhumaiah,

H.No.T2-544, Power House Colony,

Godavarikhani-505209.

Karimnagar Distt., Telengana

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam-I Area,

Godavarikhani –505209.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman : Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : Legal representative

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No.

L-22012/83/2015-IR(C.II) dated 27.11.2015 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

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

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt. in terminating the services of Sri M. Bhumaiah, Ex-Badli Filler, GDK-5

Inc., SCCL, Ramagundam-1 Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 12.4.2000 is justified or not? If not, to

what relief the applicant is entitled for?’’

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.131/2015 and

issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their

respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The workman Sri M. Bhumaiah, worked as a Badli Filler at GDK-5 incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RG-I Area, Godavarikhani and was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 7.6.1994. He was regular to his duties and

performing his duties upto the satisfaction of all his superiors. While so, he fell sick from 7.11.1997 onwards and

could not be regular to his duties. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 18.12.1998 was issued to him by the

Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year 1997, which amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Unfortunately, the workman could not submit any explanation to the charge sheet

and also could not participate in the enquiry. Subsequently, one ex-parte inquiry was conducted and the Workman was

not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved, and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Workman

was dismissed from service w.e.f. 12.4.2000. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Workman has

categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 1997, was only on account of his

ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Workman was dismissed from

service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent’s management in dismissing the Workman from service is

wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Workman has rendered 6 years of continuous

service in the Respondent’s management. The Workman approached the Respondent to consider his case

sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Workman was constrained to approach

this Tribunal to declare the impugned order issued by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same

768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other attendant

benefits such as continuity of service, and back wages etc..

Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 7.6.1994 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges

of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Workman did not attend the enquiry, which was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated

that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the

charges levelled against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to

the Workman by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the

enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment

warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past

record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was

constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Workman was irregular to his duties and he

did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is

further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable

to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Workman conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide

order dated 27.12.2017.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service to Sri M. Bhumaiah is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No. I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman argued

that due to his ill-health as well as other family problems, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Workman has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman.

When the Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness and other family problems he could not be able to attend his

duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment.

The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has given capital punishment to the

Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that when the

Workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Workman has remained

absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the

enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed on the

workman. After dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his

family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 53 years, he is now

aged about 56 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Workman being an able bodied and energetic man and has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondent, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service at the end of his service

period. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. Though the Workman

is a first offender and has worked for about 6 years under the Respondent, while imposing capital punishment to his

employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case,

the punishment imposed by the Respondent management for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely

be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri M.

Bhumaiah is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri M. Bhumaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Workman has already

realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance

to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless and he being the sole bread

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

769

earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the

Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s management. But in

this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. Therefore, in the opinion of this

Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be

given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

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

RESULT:

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

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt. in terminating the services of Sri M. Bhumaiah, Ex-Badli Filler, GDK-5 Inc., SCCL,

Ramagundam-1 Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 12.4.2000 is not justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered

that the workman be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back

wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept

under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour

from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman cannot claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to

maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have

the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during

the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve

his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of

service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of

completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining

superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural

disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment

will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for his appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 19^th day of

December, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Workman

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 222-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 132/2015½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@84@2015–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22012/84/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 28^th day of November, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 132/2015

Between :

Sri Ch. Paideshwar Rao,

S/o Komuraiah,

H.No.15-3-162, LB Nagar,

24^th Division,

Godavarikhani-505209.

Karimnagar District.

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam-I Area,

Godavarikhani –505209.

Karimnagar Distt.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

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

No. L-22012/84/2015-IR(C.II) dated 27.11.2015 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

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

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao, Ex-Badli

Filler, GDK-5A Inc., SCCL, Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 17.2.1998 is justified or

not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?’’

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.132/2015 and issued

notices to both the parties i.e., the workman and the management. Pursuant to the notice both the parties appeared

before the court and engaged their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The workman Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao, Ex-Badli Filler at GDK-5A Incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., RG-I Area, Godavarikhani was appointed as Badli Filler on 3.7.1995 . He was regular to his duties and

performing his duties upto the satisfaction of all his superiors. While so, during the year 1996, the workman suffered

from ill-health and other family problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 14.2.1997 was issued to him

by the Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year, which amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of enquiry, the

Workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided

enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved, and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the

Workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.2.1998. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Workman

has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 1996, which was only on

account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Workman was

dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent’s management in dismissing the Workman

from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Workman has rendered three

years of continuous service in the Respondent’s management. The Workman approached the Respondent to consider his

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

771

case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Workman was constrained to

approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order issued by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside

the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other

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

Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 3.7.1995 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges

of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Workman had participated in the enquiry which was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is

stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding

the charges levelled against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was

sent to the Workman by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the

findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is proved and it was serious in nature,

punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding

and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the

Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Workman was irregular to

his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show

cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified and legal and as such the

claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Workman conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held as legal and valid vide

order dated 27.12.2017.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service to Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman argued

that due to his ill-health as well as other family problems, the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Workman has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman.

When the Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness and other family problems he could not be able to attend his

duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment.

But, the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and has given capital punishment to the

Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that when the

Workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service and the punishment imposed on the workman

need no interference.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to regular in his duty, the Workman has remained

absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the

enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After

dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. As

per the submission of the Learned Counsel of the workman he has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in

the court at the age of 45 years, he is now aged about 48 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and

butter to his family members. When the Workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his

mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for his

reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders.

Though the Workman is a first offender and has worked for about three years under the Respondent, while imposing

capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family

members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it

can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to

Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the

Workman has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for his reinstatement into service he

should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless

and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a

circumstances atleast the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the

Respondent’s management. But in this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service.

Therefore, in the opinion of this Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition.

But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

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

RESULT:

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

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Chilumula Paideshwar Rao, Ex-Badli Filler, GDK-

5A Inc., SCCL, Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 17.2.1998 is not justified and is hereby set aside.

It is ordered that the workman be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay

without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the

workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of

good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman cannot claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to

maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall have

the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during

the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve

his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of

service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of

completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining

superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural

disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment

will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 28^th day of

November, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Workman

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

UkbZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 223-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh 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 – सह - Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ,y lh 24/2008½ dks

izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22013@01@2019–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

773

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 24/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

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

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.01.2019.

[No. L-22013/01/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 28^th day of December, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 24/2008

Between:

Sri Pullakola Shanker,

S/o Mallaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur (Projects) Area, Srirampur, Adilabad District.

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

SRP-3 & 3 A Inclines, Srirampur,

Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Pullakola Shanker who worked as Electrician (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under

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

seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP(P)/P(IR)/35.A/98/996 dated 4.5.1998 issued by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service

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

and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

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

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 1.3.1988 and later he was confirmed as Coal Filler. He was

regular to his duties till the year 1995. But during the year 1996, the Petitioner suffered ill-health and other family

problems and remained absent from duty for getting medical treatment. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated

17.3.1997 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year

1996, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was

conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to

put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on

the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No.

SRP(P)/P(IR)/35.A/98/996 dated 4.5.1998. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has

774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 9, 2019/MAGHA 20, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 1996, as it was only on account of

his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also

stated that the action of the Respondents’ management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal,

arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 10 years of continuous service in the

Respondents’ management till the date of his dismissal. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case

sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach

this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. SRP(P)/P(IR)/35.A/98/996 dated 4.5.1998 issued by the Respondents is

illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into

service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was

appointed in the Respondents’ company on 1.3.1988 as Badli Filler and regularized as Coal Filler with effect from

1.1.1995. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic

enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and

had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the

enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the

evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled

against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner

by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry

report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was

dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and

found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to

dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not

improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further

stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid

vide order dated 5.8.2010.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their

claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service to Sri Pullakola Shanker is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No. I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner.

When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his

duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment.

But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the

Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill

health and other family problems of the Petitioner, he could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In

the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After

dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He

has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 40 years, he is now aged about 50 years

and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. In such a circumstances, atleast one

chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service in order to save his family members and to get all his

terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. But the

management without considering the genuine grievance of the Petitioner decided to impose capital punishment. The

Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about ten years under the Respondents. While imposing capital

punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as the difficulties of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 9] 2019@ek?k 20] 1940

775

his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh.

Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

service to Sri Pullakola Shanker is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Pullakola Shanker is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances the

Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’ management.

therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement into service. Since the Petitioner has not filed this case soon after

the dismissal of his service, he is not entitled to get any other relief except the relief of reinstatement into service.

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

ORDER

Proceeding No. SRP(P)/P(ir)/35.A/98/996 dated 4.5.1998 issued by the 1^st Respondent is declared as illegal and is

hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Pullakola Shanker be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,

Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the

company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also

directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.