2154 GI/2019

(2475)

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- 17]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 21—vizSy 27] 2019] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 1—oS'kk[k 7] 1941

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 21—APRIL 27, 2019, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 1— VAISAKHA 7, 1941

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)

पेपेपेपेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 22 अ ैल, 2019

का.

का.आ. 608

608

608.—क ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज#न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क+ धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म म0य देश रा2य 3े4 के भीतर उ6 अिधिनयम के

अधीन भारत पेोिलयम काप7रेशन िलिमटेड (बीपीसीएल) क+ बीना-पनक+ पाइपलाइन प;रयोजना के स3म ािधकारी के

कृ=य> का पालन करने के िलए अित;र6 भार पर“अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी(राज@व),बीना,िजला-सागर,म॰ ॰” को भारत

पेोिलयम काप7रेशन िलिमटेड म ािधकृत करती है ।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क+ तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर–11024(14)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29468]

शाEतनु धर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2019

S.O. 608.— In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government herby authorizes “The Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Bina, Dist-Sagar M.P” on additional charge to Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. (BPCL) to perform the functions

2476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Competent Authority(s) in the State of Madhya Pradesh for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited’s Bina - Panki

pipeline project under the said Act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11024(14)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29468]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 22 अ ैल, 2019

का.आ

का.आ. 609.

. 609.

. 609.—क ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज#न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क+ धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म , कना#टक रा2य 3े4 के भीतर उ6 अिधिनयम के

अधीन, भारत पेोिलयम काप7रेशन िलिमटेड (बीपीसीएल) क+ इFगुर - देवनगुंथी पाइपलाइन प;रयोजना के स3म

ािधकारी के कृ=य> का पालन करने के िलए “िवशेष भूिम अिधIहण अिधकारी, ब गलुF” को भारत पेोिलयम काप7रेशन

िलिमटेड म ािधकृत करती है ।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क+ तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर - 11025(15)/1/2019 ओआर- I/ई-29453]

शाEतनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2019

S.O. 609.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes “The Special Land

Acquisition officer, Bangaluru” to perform the functions of Competent Authority(s) in the State of Karnataka for Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited’s Irugur Devangonthi pipeline project under the said Act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29453]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. 610.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# िनदेशक, माइKोवेव रखरखाव (ओएस सी) अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के संबM

िनयोजक> और उनके कम#कार> के बीच अनुबंध म िनNद#O औJोिगक िववाद म केEीय सरकार औJोिगक अिधकरण एवं Pम

Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 283/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को 12/03/19 को

ाR Sआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/456/1999-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 283/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Microwave Maintenance (OSC), Ahmedabad (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-40012/456/1999-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2477

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th February, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 283/2004

The Director,

Microwave Maintenance (OSC),

1^st Floor, Microwave Building, Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001

…First Party

V/s

Shri Govind Savaji Prajapati,

C/o Gujarat Pottary Labour Union,

Near Govt. D Colony,

Near Vijay Mill, Maroda Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

: Shri Hirabhai Solanki

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/456/99–

IR(DU) dated 13.03.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of Telecom,

Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Govind Savaji Prajapati, skilled labour w.e.f. 19.10.1996 is legal

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

1. The reference dates back to 13.03.2000 and received on 14.04.2000 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 06.10.2000

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 22.01.2001.

3. The second party union in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that the workman named Govind Savaji

Prajapati has been engaged by the first party as casual labour in the year 1992. He worked for more than 240

days in every calendar year till his termination on 19.10.1996 without giving notice and paying notice pay. Thus

his termination was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has prayed for

reinstatement with back wages.

4. The first party in his written statement Ex. 6 has alleged that the workman was engaged as causal labour on the

need basis as and when arise. He never worked for more than 240 days in calendar year 1992 to till date of

termination i.e. 19.10.1996. He was never removed or retrenched. He left the engagement at his own will.

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

Whether the action of the management of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of Telecom,

Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Govind Savaji Prajapati, skilled labour w.e.f. 19.10.1996

is legal and justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workmen are entitled?

6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who gave his deposition vide Ex. 21 to prove his case wherein he

has reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim but admitted in his cross-examination that he was a

casual labour on daily wage basis. But he has not given any evidence in his deposition that he worked for more

than 240 days in any calendar year till his dis-engagement.

2478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. The first party examined one Pravinkumar Ramjibhai Patel vide affidavit Ex. 28 wherein he has stated that the

workman was engaged as casual labour as a daily wager on need basis as and when need arise. He worked for

220 days, 229 days, 235 days, 145 days and 84 days in the financial years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96

and 1996-97 respectively. Nothing has been deposed by him contrary to his examination-in-chief in his cross-

examination.

8. I considered the evidence and arguments of the parties. The second party workman/union has failed to prove

that he ever worked for 240 days in any calendar or financial year. He has also failed to prove that he was

retrenched retaining the junior casual labours. Thus the second party union/workman failed to prove his case

regarding illegal retrenchment on 19.10.1996 by the first party. Both the issues are decided against the

workman/second party union.

9. The reference is dismissed for want of evidence with the observation as under: “the action of the management

of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of Telecom, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Govind Savaji Prajapati, skilled labour w.e.f. 19.10.1996 is legal and justified.”

10. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. 611.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# िनदेशक, माइKोवेव रखरखाव (गुजरात) अहमदाबाद (ओएस सी) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के संबM

Eयायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 284/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को 12/03/19 को

ाR Sआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/455/1999- आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 284/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Microwave Maintenance (OSC), Ahmedabad (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-40012/455/1999-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th February, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 284/2004

The Director,

Microwave Maintenance (OSC),

1^st Floor, Microwave Building, Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380006

...First Party

V/s

Shri Dashrath Maganbhai Prajapati,

C/o Gujarat Pottery Labour Union, Near Government D Colony,

Near Vijay Mill, Narola Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001

...Second Party

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2479

For the First Party

Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

Shri Hirabhai Solanki

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/455/99–

IR(DU) dated 13.03.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of Telecom,

Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Dashrath Magambhai Prajapati, skilled labour w.e.f. 17.12.1998

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

1. The reference dates back to 13.03.2000 and received on 14.04.2000 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 06.10.2000

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 22.01.2001.

3. The second party union in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that the workman named Dashrath

Magambhai Prajapati has been engaged by the first party as casual labour in the year 1993. He worked for more

than 240 days in every calendar year till his termination on 17.12.1998 without giving notice and paying notice

pay. Thus his termination was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has

prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

4. The first party in his written statement Ex. 6 has stated that the workman was engaged as causal labour on the

need basis as and when arise. He never worked for more than 240 days in calendar year 1993 to till 17.12.1998.

He was never removed or retrenched. He left the engagement at his own will.

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

i. Whether the action of the management of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of

Telecom, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Dashrath Magambhai Prajapati,

skilled labour w.e.f. 17.12.1998 is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workmen are entitled?

6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who gave his deposition vide Ex. 19 to prove his case wherein he

has reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim but admitted in his cross-examination that he was a

casual labour on daily wage basis. But he has not given any evidence in his deposition that he worked for more

than 240 days in any calendar year till his dis-engagement.

7. The first party examined one Pravinkumar Ramjibhai Patel vide affidavit Ex. 26 wherein he has stated that the

workman was engaged as casual labour as a daily wager on need basis as and when need arise. He worked for

156 days, 183 days, 146 days, 216 days, 110 days and 44 days in the financial years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-

96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. Nothing has been deposed by him contrary to his examination-

in-chief in his cross-examination.

8. I considered the evidence and arguments of the parties. The second party workman/union has failed to prove

that he ever worked for 240 days in any calendar or financial year. He has also failed to prove that he was

retrenched retaining the junior casual labours. Thus the second party union/workman failed to prove his case

regarding illegal retrenchment on 17.12.1998 by the first party. Both the issues are decided against the

workman/second party union.

9. The reference is dismissed for want of evidence with the observation as under: “the action of the management

of Microwave Maintenance, OSC, Department of Telecom, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri

Dashrath Magambhai Prajapati, skilled labour w.e.f. 17.12.1998 is legal and justified.”

10. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

2480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. 612.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# मैनेजर, कोलकाता मरीन एंड इंजीिनयTरंग सUव#सेज ाइवेट िलिमटेड, कोलकाता, और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के

बंधतं4 के संबM िनयोजक> और उनके कम#कार> के बीच अनुबंध म िनNद#O औJोिगक िववाद म केEीय सरकार औJोिगक

अिधकरण एवं Pम Eयायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 24/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को

12/03/19 को ाR Sआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/98/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Kolkota, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Manager, Kolkota Marine & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata & Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-42012/98/2015-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 24 of 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd

AND

Their workmen.

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

: Mr. Ranjay De, learned counsel for Indus Towers.

Management

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Manager for M/s. Kolkata Marin & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

On behalf of the

:None

Workmen

State: West Bengal

Dated: 6^th March, 2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-42012/98/2015-IR(DU) dated 19.05.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of management of M/s Kolkata Marine & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., contractor of

M/s Indus Towers Ltd. is justified in terminating Shri Jay Prakash Gupta at the age of 58 years instead of 65

years stipulated under Section 10(b) of the Private Security Agency (Regulation) Act, 2005 is legal and/ or

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

When the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the workman concerned though M/s. Indus Towers

Ltd. and M/s. Kolkata Marine & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. are represented by their learned counsel and authorized

representative respectively. Authorized representative of M/s. Kolkata Marine & Services Pvt. Ltd. has filed an affidavit

endorsing amicable settlement between the workman and the contractor of M/s Indus Towers Ltd., i.e., M/s. Kolkata

Marine & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., in terms whereof the workman concerned has been paid Rs.6,571/= by an

account payee cheque dated 02.06.2002. A receipt of which has also been annexed to the affidavit which shows that the

actual date of receipt of cheque is 27^th May, 2014. It appears that due to some typographical error the date in affidavit has

been mentioned as 02.06.2002. However, the receipt of cheque shows that the actual date of receipt of cheque is

27.05.2014.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2481

None responded calls for the workman concerned, but after receipt of money by the workman his attendance is

not needed. So no need to summon him as the matter is already settled between the parties.

Learned counsel for M/s Indus Towers Ltd. is present. However, terms of reference shows that it has nothing to

do with the dispute in question as Kolkata Marine & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. has been mentioned as contractor of

M/s Indus Towers Ltd.

In the circumstances, the matter is amicably settled between the parties and no dispute exists and therefore, a

“No Dispute” Award is passed.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 6th March, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. 613

613

613.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड के बंधक, पालनपुर बी के अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के

अिधकरण एवं Pम Eयायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 479/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार

को 27/03/19 को ाR Sआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/293/2001-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 479/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-1, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Palanpur (B.K.) Ahmedabad (Gujarat) & Others,

and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 27/03/19.

[No. L-40012/293/2001-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 06^th March, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 479/2004

1. The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Ganj Market,

Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telegraphs, Telecom Department,

Deesa (B.K.) – 385535

...First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007

...Second Party

For the First Parties :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel

2482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/293/2001–

IR(DU) dated 01.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom District) in terminating

the services of Shri Brijbihari Ramkailash Singh is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The reference dates back to 01.04.2002 and received on 20.04.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 22.11.2002

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 22.12.2003. Since then the second party workman

has not been leading evidence and today on 06.03.2019, Shri Chintan Gohel, the advocate for the second party

workman stated that the workman has not been in his contact since long.

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

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom District) in

terminating the services of Shri Brijbihari Ramkailash Singh is legal, proper and justified.”

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 614

614

614.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# महा बंधक भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, िहV मतनगर (एस के) (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के

संबM िनयोजक> और उनके कम#कार> के बीच अनुबंध म िनNद#O औJोिगक िववाद म केEीय सरकार औJोिगक अिधकरण

एवं Pम Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 472/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को

12/03/19 को ाR Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/287/2001- आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 472/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-1 Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The General manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigim Limited, Himmatnagar (S.K.) (Gujarat) & Others,

and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-40012/287/2001-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 06^th March, 2019

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2483

Reference: (CGITA) No. 472/2004

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Himmatnagar Telecom District, Himmatnagar Exchange,

Himmatnagar (S.K.) - 383001

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraph),

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Modasa Telephone Exchange, Near ICE Factory,

Modasa (Gujarat)

…First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007

…Second Party

For the First Parties

Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/287/2001–IR(DU)

dated 11.03.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom (New Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) is justified in

terminating the services of Smt. Nitaben Kishanlal Majirana, Water Women cum Sweeper, Modasa w.e.f.

28.06.1996? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 11.03.2002 and received on 05.04.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party work-woman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on

16.08.2002 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 29.01.2003. Since then the second

party work-woman has not been leading evidence and today on 06.03.2019, Shri Chintan Gohel, the advocate

for the second party work-woman stated that the work-woman has not been in his contact since long.

3. Thus it appears that the second party work-woman is not willing to prosecute the case.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party work-woman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of Telecom (New Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) is

justified in terminating the services of Smt. Nitaben Kishanlal Majirana, Water Women cum Sweeper, Modasa

w.e.f. 28.06.1996.”

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 615

615

615.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# महा बंधक, अलगW पा टेX सटाइल (कोचीन) िम स, ि4चूर कोचीन और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के संबM

Eयायालय, कोचीन के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 49/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को 22/03/19 को ाR

Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/99/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

2484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court CGIT Cochin, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the employers in relation to The General Manager, Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills, Thrissur Cochin &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22/03/19.

[No. L-42011/99/2014-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 31^st day of January, 2019)

ID No. 49/2014

Union:

The Jilla President,

Trissur Jilla Textie Mazdor Sangh,

Thiruvambadi. P.O., Shornur Road,

Patturayakkal, Thrissur-680 022.

By Adv. Binu Paul.

Management:

The General Manager,

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills,

Alagappa Nagar,

Thrissur – 680 320.

By Adv. C. Anil Kumar

This case coming up for hearing on 31.01.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court passed the following:

AWARD

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Central Government referred the following dispute before this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The dispute referred for adjudication before this Tribunal is:

‘Whether the action of the management of Alagappa Textile Mills in refusing promotion to Shri.V.D.

Francis, Token No.2244 and promoting his juniors is justified and proper? If not what relief the workman is

entitled to?

The Counsel for the Union filed a memo to the effect that the Workman is already promoted. It is also submitted

by the Counsel for the Management that the Workman has already retired and all terminal benefits are settled.

4. In view of the above the award is passed dismissing the claim as withdrawn in terms of the Memo filed by the

Union. The Memo dated 18.12.2018, filed by the Union will form part of the Award.

Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and passed by me on this the 31^st day of

January 2019.

APPENDIX

1. Memo dated 18.12.2018 filed by the Union.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ID No.49 of 2014

BETWEEN

The Jilla President, Trissur Jilla Textile Mazdor Sangh, Thiruvambady

P.O, Shornur Road, Patturayakkal, Trissur, Kerala – 680 022.

And

The Management of the Alagappa Textile (Cochin) Mills, Alagappa

Nagar, Trissur, Kerala – 680 320.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2485

MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSLE FOR THE UNION

The union/workman wishes to withdraw the above case for the reason that the workman Mr.V.D.Francis was promoted

to the post of gear leader. Therefore the case had become infructuous.

The above case may be dismissed as withdrawn.

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2018.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 616

616

616.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी, टेलीIाफ, दूरसंचार िवभाग, जूनागढ़ (गुजरात) अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के संबM

Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया 1069/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को 27/03/19 को

ाR Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/200/1996-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1069/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Telecom Department, Junagadh (Gujarat) &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 27/03/19.

[No. L-40012/200/1996-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 19^th February, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1069/2004

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telegraphs, Telecom Department,

Junagadh (Gujarat)

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telegraphs, Telecom Department,

Morvi

The Telecom District Manager,

Telecom Department, Bhuj,

Kutch (Gujarat) - 370001

…First Parties

V/s

The President,

Saurashtra Employees Union,

Umesh Commercial Complex,

Office No. 213 & 214, 2^nd Floor,

Near Chaudhary High School,

Rajkot (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Parties :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

Shri Parag Vora

2486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/200/96–

IR(DU) dated 26.09.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of the S.D.O., Telegraphs, Telecom Department, Junagadh/S.D.O.,

Telegraphs, Morvi under the Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Bhuj (Kutch) – 370001 in

terminating the services of Shri Siyaram S/o Rambaran Ram, Casual labourer is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 26.09.1997 and received on 13.10.1997 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 1 and 7 on

18.03.1998 and 03.08.1999 respectively. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 16 on 27.01.2012 along

with list of documents vide Ex. 19. Since then the second party workman has not been appearing and has also not

been leading his evidence. On 28.06.2018, Shri Parag M. Vora filed his vakalatpatra Ex. 22 on behalf of the second

party workman but the second party workman or his advocate despite filing the vakalatpatra refrained to lead the

evidence.

3. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of the S.D.O., Telegraphs, Telecom Department,

Junagadh/S.D.O., Telegraphs, Morvi under the Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Bhuj (Kutch) –

370001 in terminating the services of Shri Siyaram S/o Rambaran Ram, Casual labourer is legal and justified.”

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 617

617

617.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# बंधक, दूरसंचार िजला भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, पालनपुर (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4

के संबM िनयोजक> और उनके कम#कार> के बीच अनुबंध म िनNद#O औJोिगक िववाद म केEीय सरकार औJोिगक अिधकरण

एवं Pम Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 480/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को

12/03/19 को ाR Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/294/2001-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 480/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Palanpur (B.K.) (Gujarat) &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-40012/294/2001-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 06^th March, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 480/2004

1. The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Ganj Market, Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2487

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telegraphs, Telecom Department,

Deesa (B.K.) – 385535

…First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007

…Second Party

For the First Parties :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/294/2001–

IR(DU) dated 01.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom District) in terminating

the services of Shri Ramesh Singh Jagu Singh is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The reference dates back to 01.04.2002 and received on 20.04.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 22.11.2002

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 22.12.2003. Since then the second party workman

has not been leading evidence and today on 06.03.2019, Shri Chintan Gohel, the advocate for the second party

workman stated that the workman has not been in his contact since long.

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

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom District) in

terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Singh Jagu Singh is legal, proper and justified.”

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 618

618

618.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# बंधक, दूरसंचार िजला भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, पालनपुर बी.के. (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के

अिधकरण एवं Pम Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया. 481/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार

को 12/03/19 को ाR Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/292/2001-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 481/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director, Microwave Maintenance (OSC), Ahmedabad Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Palanpur (B.K.) (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 12/03/19.

[No. L-40012/292/2001-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR , Section Officer

2488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 06^th March, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 481/2004

1. The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ganj Market,

Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

2. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom Department, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

…First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007

…Second Party

For the First Parties :

Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party :

Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/292/2001–

IR(DU) dated 01.04.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom District) in terminating

the services of Shri Kishorebhai Ranchhodbhai Solanki is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The reference dates back to 01.04.2002 and received on 20.04.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party workman did not prefer to submit the statement of claim and

instead of filing statement of claim, moved an application Ex. 10 on 30.01.2009 for production of documents to

which the first party Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited submitted the reply Ex. 11 on 10.01.2017. On 10.01.2017,

Shri Chintan Gohel moved an application Ex. 12 for seeking adjournment. Since then the second party

workman has been absent and has not submitted the statement of claim. Today on 06.03.2019, Shri Chintan

Gohel, the advocate for the second party workman stated that the workman has not been in his contact since

long.

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

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party workman

with the observation as under: “the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom

District) in terminating the services of Shri Kishorebhai Ranchhodbhai Solanki is legal, proper and justified.”

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 10 अ ैल, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 619

619

619.—औJोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम,1947 (1947 का 14) क+ धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केEीय सरकार

मेसस# ि सीपल, जवाहर नवोदय िवधालय, सुरेE नगर, (गुजरात) और अEय एवं उनके कम#चारी के बंधतं4 के संबM

Eयायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ# संQया 1120/2004) को कािशत करती है जो केEीय सरकार को 27/03/19 को

ाR Sए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/22/1999-आईआर(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2489

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 619.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1120/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhayalaya, Surendranagar (Gujarat) & Others,

and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 27/03/19.

[No. L-42012/22/1999-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14^th March, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1120/2004

The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya,

At and PO Dhrangadhra,

Surendranagar (Gujarat) - 363310

…First Party

V/s

Shri Khimjibhai Govindbhai Chhasiya,

Juni Kharawad, Haripar Road,

Dhrangadhra,

Surendranagar (Gujarat)

- 363315

…Second Party

For the First Parties

Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party

Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/22/99–

IR(DU) dated 22.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Dhrangadhra in terminating the services of

Shri Khimjibhai Govindbhai Chhasiya, Part Time Driver is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 22.07.1999 and received on 16.08.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party workman Khimjibhai Govindbhai Chhasiya, hereinafter

referred to as ‘workman’ submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 18.10.1999 and the first party The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, at and P.O. Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar submitted the written statement Ex. 9

on 29.11.1999.

3. The second party workman named Khimjibhai Govindbhai Chhasiya vide statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged

that he has been serving in Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya under the first party The Principal, Jawahar

Navodaya Vidhyalaya, At and PO Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar, hereinafter referred to as ‘the first party’ since

15.02.1996 to 26.09.1997 on the monthly pay of Rs.2138/- but his services were terminated by the first party on

26.09.1997 by a oral order. He was not served any notice or given notice pay. Juniors were permitted to

continue in service and new employees were engaged to perform the duty which he used to perform. Thus his

termination of service was in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further

2490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged that he was eligible to be regularised for service as he served for 240 days in the preceding calendar

year. Thus he has prayed for declaring the termination of his service as illegal and for reinstatement on the

original post with back wages.

4. The first party vide written statement Ex. 9 submitted that the workman had been working as a part time worker

purely on daily rated basis, therefore, was not entitled for regularisation and employment in the first party

Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya. It is true that he had been working as driver from 15.02.1996 to 26.09.1997 but

the allegation that his termination by way of oral order is false, baseless, illegal and misconceived. It is also

false and misconceived that he served for more than 240 days and the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya

is not willing to reinstate his services. He was purely a part time and daily rated employee on stop-gap

arrangement; therefore, he has no right to be reinstated in service. It is noteworthy that the workman moved the

High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8259/1997 wherein the Hon’ble High Court issued

direction to appoint him after a due procedure of recruitment. Therefore, he was called for interview and was

not selected. As the workman was appointed on stop-gap arrangement till the regular employees joined,

therefore, he has no right to be reinstated with back wages.

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

i. Whether the action of the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Dhrangadhra in terminating the

services of Shri Khimjibhai Govindbhai Chhasiya, Part Time Driver is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who was examined vide affidavit Ex. 15 wherein he reiterated the

averments made in the statement of claim and in his cross-examination, he has not said anything contrary to his

examination-in-chief. But he has not submitted the copy of appointment letter which may show that he was

appointed as driver on regular basis against a sanctioned post.

7. The first party examined Chitturi Sekhar Babu, the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya vide affidavit

Ex. 20 who denied that the workman was appointed as driver on regular basis. He has stated that the workman

was appointed as a driver on daily rated basis under a stop-gap arrangement and he was relieved on 26.09.1997.

8. The first party submitted the documents vide list Ex. 22 regarding the payment of wages by vouchers and the

minutes of the appointment committed of drivers vide Ex. 22/2 which does not reveal that this driver was

appointed as a regular employee against a sanctioned post. The first party also submitted the copy of the

judgement of Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 8259/1997 wherein the High Court issued directions but has not

ordered the appointment of this driver on regular basis.

9. Both the parties submitted the written arguments. I considered the arguments and evidence available on record.

It is a settled law that a daily wager has no right for reinstatement and regularisation in service, though might

have served for one and half year without due process of recruitment. It is noteworthy that the vehicle for which

he was engaged has been declared condemn vide letter no. F-3-123/NVS(PR)(SA)2012-13/219 dated

13.07.2012 of The Assistant Commissioner (School Admn.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Sector 62,

Institutional Area, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It is also noteworthy that the first party has submitted the vouchers of

the payment of wages to the workman from 15.02.1996 to 26.09.1997 which makes out a case that the workman

worked for more than 240 days but it is very unfortunate that the vehicle has been condemned by the letter as

stated above, therefore, though the post of driver is sanctioned as appears vide letter F. No. 2-18 Staff

Selection/2018-19 of The Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Pune. Thus as

there is no requirement of driver in the absence of vehicle, therefore, relief of reinstatement cannot be ordered.

However, as and when the vehicle is sanctioned and made available to the Jawahar Navodaya Vidhayalaya,

Surendranagar by the head quarter of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidhayalaya, the Principal of Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhayalaya, Surendranagar shall reengaged and reemploy the second party workman named Khimjibhai

Govindbhai Chhasiya on preference basis as driver if he is eligible and found suitable for the post. Both the

issues are decided accordingly.

10. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2491

ubZ fnYyh] 10 viSzy] 2019

dk-vk- 620-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947] ¼a1947 dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

Cyw 'khYM izksVsD'ku usVodZ] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 41@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@03@-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA

[la- ,y&42012@156@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2019

S.O. 620.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The

Blue Shield Protection Network, New Delhi & others and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18/.03/.2019.

[No. L-42012/156/2015-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No.41/2015

Registered on 16.10.2015

Sh. Rahul, S/o Sh. Ram Kalan, R/o M.C. Colony near Sugar Mill, Karnal

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network, B4/45 Safdar Jung Enclave, New Delhi, 110029, now at L-11 Green Park

Extension, New Delhi.

Soma Esolex Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Off. Model Town,

Ambala Cantt. Ambala near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala

…Respondents

AWARD

Passed on: 06.03.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/156/2015-IR(DU) Dated 30.09.2015, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of No. 1 M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., in terminating

the services of the workman Sh. Rahul S/o Ram Kalan is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Rahul was appointed as Security Guard at toll plaza Nilokheri by respondent

no. 1 on 11.02.2012 and worked continuously up to 14.02.2015 as Gunman at fixed pay of Rs.9,300/- per month

including Sunday and his service was dispensed with when he raised the demand for overtime without giving any notice

and retrenchment compensation and without following the procedure of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is also alleged that the work against which the workman had been working still exists and the

juniors to the workman were retained in service as well as new persons has also been appointed by the respondents

which is a punishable offence under Section 32 and 34 of the Industrial disputes Act. It is also alleged that the

applicant/workman had filed a demand notice in this respect before ALC Karnal, but of no use.

Respondent No.1 filed written statement, alleging therein that being agency of the contractor for supplying

security personnel and other staff as per requirement of the principal employer is not an industry as per Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the claimant/workman has no locus standi to file claim statement because he has

2492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

transferred from Bastara Toll Plaza Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal to site of answering respondent at Knight Frank Property

Services Pvt. Ltd., Salcon Aurum Jasola, New Delhi as per terms and conditions of employment. It is not open for the

workman to decide the place where he was worked and choose the time he wants to join and this Court has no

jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer or the workman. It is admitted to the extent that he was employed on

11.02.2012 as Security Guard and later on he was promoted as Security Supervisor. He was never employed as Gunman

as stated in his claim statement. His service was not terminated and he was transferred to Bastara Toll Plaza Gharaunda,

Distt. Karnal to site of answering respondent at Knight Frank Property Services Pvt. Ltd., Salcon Aurum Jasola, New

Delhi on 14.02.2015 and offered a salary of Rs11,412/- at new place of posting enhancing the salary amounting to

Rs.2,112/-. The claimant/workman refused to take letter for transfer and consequently, transfer letter was sent to his

residential address through registered post but he did not care to join duty till today and filed demand notice before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Karnal, just to harass the respondent-company. The workman did not join his

new place at Gurgaon and was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 10.10.2015 on account of perusal of transfer

order. The regular domestic enquiry was conducted through independent agency and all the charges were proved. Show

cause notice dated 15.03.2016 was also issued to him but he did not replied. Hence, his services were dismissed vide

letter dated 11.04.2016 and intimation to this effect was also issued to him through registered post.

Claimant/workman is gainfully employed to transfer and it is prayed that the claim statement filed by the

claimant/workman may be rejected as he is not entitled to any relief including reinstatement in service and back wages

as prayed.

Respondent no.2 filed separate written statement, alleging therein that there was no relationship of master and

servant between the workman and answering respondent, being licenced contractor under Conract Labour(Regulation

and Abolition Act, 1970) has given sub-contract to M/s Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., Delhi for providing

security personnel for the smooth running of construction work. It is further alleged that workman was working with

respondent no.1 at Gharaunda Toll Plaza being sub-contractor of answering respondent. His salary was paid by

respondent no.1. The work and conduct of the workman was not satisfactory during his service. Workman had never

served under responding-management. Hence, it cannot be said that the claimant/workman worked more than 240 days

or his services were terminated by respondent no.2. The claim statement of the workman is not tenable in law against the

answering respondent and he is not entitled for any relief.

Perusal of the file reveals that due to regular absence of the workman and his counsel, case was ordered

to be proceeded ex parte on 24.11.2016, since then none has turned up on behalf of the workman till today. Thus, there is

only claim petition as well as written statement on behalf of both the respondents and nothing is brought on record in

support of the claim petition by the workman.

Resultantly, no claim award/no dispute award is passed against the workman. It is also clarified that passing of

the no claim award would not bar the workman from approaching the Appropriate government/this Tribunal for

adjudication of this case on merits or filing any fresh claim. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate

Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 viSzy] 2019

dk-vk- 621-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947] ¼a1947 dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

Cyw 'khYM izksVsD'ku usVodZ] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 48@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@157@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th April, 2019

S.O. 621.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Blue

Shield Protection Network, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government

on 18.03.2019.

[No. L-42012/157/2015-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2493

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present : Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 48/2015

Registered on 16.10.2015

Sh. Bhagirath Singh, S/o Sh. Jai Singh,

R/o Village Bhutana, P.O. Nilokheri, Karnal

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network, B4/45 Safdar Jung Enclave, New Delhi, 110029, now at L-11 Green Park

Extension, New Delhi.

Soma Esolex Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Off. Model Town,

Ambala Cantt. Ambala near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala

…Respondents

AWARD

Passed on: 06.03.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/157/2015-IR(DU) Dated 30.09.2015, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of No. 1 M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., in terminating

the services of the workman Sh. Bhagirath S/o Jai Chand is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Bhagirath Singh was appointed as Security Guard at toll plaza Nilokheri by

respondent no.1 on 01.04.2010 and worked continuously up to 14.02.2015 as Gunman at fixed pay of Rs. 9,300/- per

month including Sunday and his service was dispensed with when he raised the demand for overtime without giving any

notice and retrenchment compensation and without following the procedure of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also alleged that the work against which the workman had been working still exists

and the juniors to the workman were retained in service as well as new persons has also been appointed by the

respondents which is a punishable offence under Section 32 and 34 of the Industrial disputes Act. It is also alleged that

the applicant/workman had filed a demand notice in this respect before ALC Karnal, but of no use.

Respondent No.1 filed written statement, alleging therein that being agency of the contractor for supplying

security personnel and other staff as per requirement of the principal employer is not an industry as per Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the claimant/workman has no locus standi to file claim statement because he has

transferred from Bastara Toll Plaza Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal to site of answering respondent at Orris Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd., Oris Carnation, Gurgaon as per terms and conditions of employment. It is not open for the workman to decide the

place where he was worked and choose the time he wants to join and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the

transfer or the workman. It is admitted to the extent that he was employed on 01.04.2010 as Security Guard and later on

he was promoted as Security Supervisor. He was never employed as Gunman as stated in his claim statement. His

services was not terminated and he was transferred to Bastara Toll Plaza Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal to site of answering

respondent at Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Oris Carnation, Gurgaon on 14.02.2015 and offered a salary of Rs11,500/- at

new place of posting enhancing the salary amounting to Rs.2,200/-. The claimant/workman refused to take letter for

transfer and consequently, transfer letter was sent to his residential address through registered post but he did not care to

join duty till today and filed demand notice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Karnal, just to harass the

respondent-company. The workman did not join his new place at Gurgaon and was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet

dated 10.10.2015 on account of perusal of transfer order. The regular domestic enquiry was conducted through

independent agency and all the charges were proved. Show cause notice dated 15.03.2016 was also issued to him but he

did not replied. Hence, his services were dismissed vide letter dated 11.04.2016 and intimation to this effect was also

issued to him through registered post.

Claimant/workman is gainfully employed to transfer and it is prayed that the claim statement filed by the

claimant/workman may be rejected as he is not entitled to any relief including reinstatement in service and back wages

as prayed.

Respondent no.2 filed separate written statement, alleging therein that there was no relationship of master and

servant between the workman and answering respondent, being licenced contractor under Conract Labour(Regulation

and Abolition Act, 1970) has given sub-contract to M/s Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., Delhi for providing

security personnel for the smooth running of construction work. It is further alleged that workman was working with

respondent no.1 at Gharaunda Toll Plaza being sub-contractor of answering respondent. His salary was paid by

respondent no.1. The work and conduct of the workman was not satisfactory during his service. Workman had never

2494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2019/VAISAKHA 7, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

served under responding-management. Hence, it cannot be said that the claimant/workman worked more than 240 days

or his services were terminated by respondent no.2. The claim statement of the workman is not tenable in law against the

answering respondent and he is not entitled for any relief.

Perusal of the file reveals that due to regular absence of the workman and his counsel, case was ordered to be

proceeded ex parte on 24.11.2016, since then none has turned up on behalf of the workman till today. Thus, there is only

claim petition as well as written statement on behalf of both the respondents and nothing is brought on record in support

of the claim petition by the workman.

Resultantly, no claim award/no dispute award is passed against the workman. It is also clarified that passing of

the no claim award would not bar the workman from approaching the Appropriate government/this Tribunal for

adjudication of this case on merits or filing any fresh claim. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate

Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 viSzy] 2019

dk-vk- 622-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947] ¼a1947 dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

Cyw 'khYM izksVsD'ku usVodZ] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 49@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@158@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

oh- ds- Bkdqj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10^th April, 2019

S.O. 622.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Blue

Shield Protection Network, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government

on 18.03.2019.

[No. L-42012/158/2015-IR(DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 49/2015

Registered on 16.10.2015

Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, R/o V.P.O. Padhana, Karnal

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network, B4/45 Safdar Jung Enclave, New Delhi, 110029, now at L-11 Green Park

Extension, New Delhi.

Soma Esolex Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Off. Model Town,

Ambala Cantt. Ambala near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala

…Respondents

AWARD

Passed on : 06.03.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/158/2015-IR(DU) Dated 30.09.2015, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of No.1 M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., in terminating

the services of the workman Sh. Lakhvinder Singh S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan is justified or not? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 27] 2019@oS'kk[k 7] 1941

2495

The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Lakhvinder Singh was appointed as Security Guard at toll plaza Nilokheri by

respondent no.1 on 02.08.2010 and worked continuously up to 14.02.2015 as Gunman at fixed pay of Rs.9,300/- per