2744 GI/2019
(4029)
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- 24]
ubZ fnYyh] twu 9—twu 15] 2019] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 19—T;s"B 25] 1941
No. 24]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 9—JUNE 15, 2019, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 19— JYAISTHA—25, 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)
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
नई दली, 3 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 941
941
941
941.—ब ककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क धारा 53 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द
शि य का योग करते $ए, के&'ीय सरकार, भारतीय *रजव, ब क क िसफा*रश पर, एत.ारा, यह घोषणा करती है क उ
अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उप-धारा (1) के ख3ड (ग) के उप-ख3ड (i) के उपबंध भारतीय 6टेट ब क पर लागू नह9 ह गे, जहां
तक इसका संबंध भारतीय 6टेट ब क के अ;य<, =ी रजनीश कुमार को दनांक 6.10.2020 तक क अविध के िलए या अगले
आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, ईसीजीसी िलिमटेड के बोड, मD 6वतंE िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करने से है।
[फा. सं. 13/23/2016-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम=, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019
S.O. 941.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the
provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to State Bank of
4030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
India in relation to the nomination of Shri Rajnish Kumar, Chairman, State Bank of India on the Board of ECGC Limited
as an independent Director, for a period up to 6.10.2020 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 13/23/2016-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नई दली, 9 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 942
942
942
942.—स<म ािधकारी ारा GयागपE 6वीकार कए जाने के फल6वHप, डॉ. निचकेत मधुसूदन मोर ने
दनांक 13.10.2018 से भारतीय *रजव, ब क के पूवK <ेE 6थानीय बोड, से सद6य के Mप मD अपना काय,-भार Gयाग दया है।
[फा. सं. 1/4/2012-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम=, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2019
S.O. 942.—Consequent upon acceptance of resignation by the competent authority, Dr Nachiket Madhusudan
Mor has relinquished his office as a member from the Eastern Area Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India, with effect
from 13.10.2018.
[F. No. 1/4/2012-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
काम क
काम क
काम क
काम क, लोक
लोक
लोक
लोक िशका
िशका
िशका
िशकायत तथा पशन
यत तथा पशन
यत तथा पशन
यत तथा पशन मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक और
और
और
और िशण
िशण
िशण
िशण िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
नई दली, 7 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 943.—कD ' सरकार एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस 6 थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम
संO या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ प*ठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) दवारा दG त शि य का योग करते $ए केरल राR य सरकार,
गृह (एम) िवभाग क अिधसूचना जी. ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 156/2018/गृह/ितMवन& तपुरम दनांक 6 अT तूबर, 2018 के
मा; यम से ाU त स हमित से भारतपूजा नदी के तल से िमिलVी Wेड क माइन क बरामदगी के संबंध मD पुिलस थाना कुXीपुरम
मD दज, अपराध सं. 5/2018 मD शािमल अपराध तथा इससे संब मामल का अ& वेषण करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस
6 थापना के सद6 य क शि य और <ेEािधकार का िव6 तार सम6 त केरल राR य मD करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/57/2018-एवीडी-II]
एस. पी. आर. िEपाठी, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2019
S.O. 943.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State
Government of Kerala Home (M) Department issued vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 156/2018/Home dated
Thiruvananthapuram, 6th October, 2018 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment in the Whole of the State of Kerala for the Investigation of offences involved in Crime No. 5/2018
of Kuttippuram Police Station registered in connection with the recovery of military grade mines from the riverbed of
Bharathappuzha and matters related thereto.
[F. No. 228/57/2018-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4031
वािणय एवं उोग मंालय
वािणय एवं उोग मंालय
वािणय एवं उोग मंालय
वािणय एवं उोग मंालय
(वािणय िवभाग)
(वािणय िवभाग)
(वािणय िवभाग)
(वािणय िवभाग)
नई दली, 3 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 944.
4.
4.
4.—के&'ीय सरकार, िनया,त (गुणव ा िनयंEण एंव िनरी<ण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12,के उपिनयम
(2) के साथ प*ठत, िनया,त (गुणव ा िनयंEण एंव िनरी<ण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क उपधारा (1)
ारा द शि य का योग करते $ए, मैसस, थेरापीयू*टTस केिमकल *रसच, काप\रेशन, डी. नं. 25-12-39, ितीय तल,
गोदावरी 6Vीट, एस बी आई टाउन शाखा के सामने, िवशाखाप नम – 530001, िजसे एत]प^ात उ एजDसी कहा जायेगा,
को इस अिधसूचना के राजपE मD काशन क तारीख से तीन वष, क अविध के िलए भारत सरकार के वािणRय मंEालय क
शासकय राजपE भाग II, ख3ड 3, उपख3ड (ii), मD दनांक 20 दस_बर, 1965 क अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 के तहत
कािशत अिधसूचना मD उपाब` अनुसूिचय मD िविनaद,b खिनज और अय6क समूह-I, cम सं.1 एवं 2 पर िनaद,b म गनीज
अय6क, म गनीज डाइऑTसाइड को छोड़कर तथा लौह अय6क को िनया,त से पूव, िनhिलिखत शतi के अधीन िवशाखापjनम
एवं गंगावरम प न मD िनरी<ण करने के िलए िनhिलिखत शतi के अधीन एक अिभकरण के Mप मD मा&यता देती है, अथा,त् :
(i)
यह अिभकरण, खिनज और अय6क समूह-I के िनया,त (िनरी<ण) िनयम, 1965 तथा खिनज और अय6क समूह-
II के िनया,त (िनरी<ण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िनरी<ण क प`ित क जाँच करने के िलये िनया,त
िनरी<ण प*रषद् ारा िनिम नामिनaद,b अिधका*रय को पया,n सुिवधाएं देगी; और
(ii) यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने काय\ के पालन मD िनदेशक (िनरी<ण और गुणव ा िनयंEण)
िनया,त िनरी<ण प*रषद ारा समय-समय पर, िलिखत Mप मD, दए गए ऐसे िनदpश से आब` ह गी।
[फा. सं. के-16014/4/2019-िनया,त िनरी<ण]
संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु सिचव (िनया,त िनरी<ण िवभाग)
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 944.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the 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 Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, D.No. 25-12-
39, 2nd Floor, Godevari Street, Opp SBI Town Branch, Visakhapatnam – 530001, as an agency (herein after referred to as
the said agency) for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of
Manganese Ore, excluding manganese dixoide and Iron Ore specified in the Schedule under the heading Minerals and
Ores – Group I at serial numbers 1 and 2 annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce, vide number S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at
Visakhapatnam and Gangavaram ports, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(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 specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection)
Rules, 1965;
(ii)
the said agency shall, in 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-16014/4/2019-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy. (Export Inspection Division)
4032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
(उ च
(उ च
(उ च
(उ चतर िशा िवभाग)
तर िशा िवभाग)
तर िशा िवभाग)
तर िशा िवभाग)
(राजभाषा भाग)
(राजभाषा भाग)
(राजभाषा भाग)
(राजभाषा भाग)
नई द ली, 27 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 945
945
945
945.—के& 'ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के
उप-िनयम 4 के अनुसरण मD, मानव संसाधन िवकास मंEालय (उt चतर िश<ा िवभाग) के अंतग,त जवाहरलाल नेहM
िवu विवvालय, नई द ली को ऐसे काया,लय के Mप मD, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम,चारी-वृ& द ने िह& दी का काय,साधक
xान ाU त कर िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है।
[फा. सं.11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]
संजय कुमार िस& हा, संयुT त सिचव
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O.L. UNIT)
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 945.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi under the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Department of Higher Education) as an office, whose more than 80%
members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No.11011-2/2018-O.L.A.]
SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.
नई द ली, 27 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 946
946
946
946.—के& 'ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के
उप िनयम 4 के अनुसरण मD, मानव संसाधन िवकास मंEालय (6 कूल िश<ा एवं सा<रता िवभाग) के अंतग,त िन_ निलिखत
काया,लय को, ऐसे काया,लय के Mप मD, िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम,चारी-वृ& द ने िह& दी का काय,साधक xान ाU त कर
िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है:-
1.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, पXम , ितMवन& तपुरम - 695004
2.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, रेल पिहया कारखाना, यलहंका, ब गलुM - 560064
3.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, हXी, हXी गो ड माइ& स कंपनी िल., yलंगसुगुर, िजला- रायचूर, कनाट,क- 584115
4.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, टी.बी. डाम, हो6 पेट, िजला- बे लारी, कना,टक - 583225
5.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, मथाना, माफ,त सरकारी ाथिमक िवvालय, सैT टर-4, शहरी स_ पदा, िजला कुM<ेE,
ह*रयाणा-136118
6.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सुकना, पो6 ट – सुकना, िजला- दाzज,yलंग, पिu चम बंगाल -734009
7.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, तारकेu वर, _ युिनिसपैिलटी गे6 ट हाउस, तारकेu वर, $गली, पिu चम बंगाल- 712410
8.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, एनटीपीसी फरT का, पो6 ट –पुबारन, िजला-मालदा, पिu चम बंगाल- 732215
9.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नं.-1, सा ट लेक, ई बी { लॉक, लाबोनी, सैT टर-1, कोलकाता, पिu चम बंगाल- 700064
10.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, कृ} णनगर (सीमा सुर<ा बल) पो6 ट- कृ} णनगर, िजला नादया, पिu चम बंगाल-741101
11.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, आयुध िनमा,णी, दमदम, जेसोर रोड, दमदम, कोलकाता, पिu चम बंगाल-700028
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4033
12.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, कोशीपुर, 4 दमदम रोड, 7 ट क इ6 टेट, कोलकाता, पिu चम बंगाल-700002
13.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, संतरागाची, पो6 ट- जी आई पी कॉलोनी, िजला- हावड़ा, पिu चम बंगाल- 711112
14.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, अलीपुरार जंT सन, पो6 ट – अलीपुरार, िजला- अलीपुरार, पिu चम बंगाल-736123
15.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, बागडोगरा (वायुसेना), पो6 ट- बागडोगरा एयरपोट, िजला-दाzज,yलंग,
पिu चम बंगाल- 734421
16.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, पानागढ़, िजला-बद,वान, पिu चम बंगाल- 713420
17.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, कमान अ6 पताल, अलीपुर, कोलकाता, पिu चम बंगाल- 700027
18.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नं.-1 , कांचरापाड़ा, िडफD स सैT टर, पो6 ट- कांपा, िजला- उG तर 24 परगना, पिu चम
बंगाल-743193
19.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, बोलपुर, माफ,त, िबG ती सदन ांितक टाउनिशप, पो6 ट, शांित िनकतेन, िजला-बीरभूम,
पिu चम बंगाल-731235
20.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नं.-2 , कांचरापाड़ा, पो6 ट- कांचरापाड़ा, िजला- उG तर 24 परगना, पिu चम बंगाल-
743145
21.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सीयूजे, राया सुचानी, िजला-सांबा, ज_ मू व कu मीर-181143
22.
कD 'ीय िवvालय संगठन, <ेEीय काया,लय, आई आई टी क पस, अडैयार, चे& नै-600036
23.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, कोनम (पी ओ), नागरकोइल - 629004
24.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, पूवK वायु कमांड, अपर िशलांग, पो6 ट- न गिलयर, ई6 ट खासी िह स, िशलांग, मेघालय-
793009
25.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, एन आई टी अगरतला, पो6 ट- एनआईटी अगरतला, िजला- पिu चम िEपुरा, िEपुरा-
799046
26.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, िमजोरम िवu विवvालय, तंिहल, आइज़ोल, िमज़ोरम-796004
27.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, खूंटी, आई टी आई, टूट टोली, एरंडा,पो6 ट ऑफस– िबर$, खूंटी-835210
28.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, चतरा, पो6 ट –िसम*रया, िजला-चतरा, झारखंड- 825103
29.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, बरकाकाना, पो6 ट-बरकाकाना, िजला-रामगढ़- झारखंड- 829102
30.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, िग*रडीह, मॉडल िवvालय, प*रयाना, पो6 ट-रानी-खवा वाया पच_ भा, िजला-िग*रडीह-
झारखंड- 815316
31.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, दुमका, Vाइबल, यूथ सDटर, आई टी आई के पास, एस पी कॉलेज रोड, पो6 ट- दुमका, िजला-
दुमका, झारखंड- 814101
32.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, लोहरदगा, उt च मा; यिमक बािलका िवvालय, इरगांव रेलवे 6 टेशन के पास पो6 ट
लोहरदगा, झारखंड - 835302
33.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, कराईT कल, कुमरन कोइल 6 Vीट, पुदुचेरी, कराईT कल – 609604
34.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, गो डन रॉक (एस आर), ितMिचराप ली – 620004
35.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, ितMव3 णामलै, कणनथमपू3 डी, ितMव3 णामलै, तिमलनाडु- 606603
36.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, एन एल सी नेवेली, { लॉक-3, नेवेली टाउनिशप, कडलूर, तिमलनाडु-607803
37.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नेवल बेस, िवजयनारायणम, ितMनेलवेली, तिमलनाडु-627119
38.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, धम,पुरी, प लकोलै Wाम, मोरU पुर मेन रोड, से*Xकारे पो6 ट, धम,पुरी, तिमलनाडु-636704
39.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, yडंडीगुल, गांधीWाम, जी आर आई क पस, तिमलनाडु-624302
4034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
40.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, िवMदुनगर, गांधीWाम, गुणमैलनगर, वरलोXी, िवMदुनगर-626109
41.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, पेरंबलूर, मदनगोपालपुरम, पेरंबलूर-621212
42.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सीयूटीएन, ितMवाMर, तिमलनाडु िवu विवvालय प*रसर, नागाकुडी, ितMवाMर,
तिमलनाडु-610005
43.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, िशवगंगै, =ीिनवासा नगर, पणनगाडी रोड, िशवगंगा-630561
44.
कD 'ीय िवvालय नं.-1, न*रमेडु, मदुरै-625002
45.
कD 'ीय िवvालय नं.-1, कलपT कम, डीएई टाउनिशप, कलपT कम, कांचीपुरम-603102
46.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, अशोकनगर, डॉ. नाटेसन सालइ, अशोकनगर, चे& नै-600083
47.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, अ3 णानगर, सीपीड{ लयूडी T वाट,र, ितMमंगलम, चे& नै-600040
48.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, ओ सी एफ आवडी, चै& ने-600054
49.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नं.-1, आई एन एस राजाली, अरT कोणम, तिमलनाडु-631006
50.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, डीजीT यूए, पलवंतागंल, चै& ने-600114
51.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, मािह, चD~ा पी.ओ, पाराल, पुदुt चेरी – 670671
52.
कD 'ीय िवvालय नं.-2, कलपT कम, डीएई टाउनिशप, कलपT कम, कांचीपुरम-603102
53.
कD 'ीय िवvालय नं.-1, पुदुt चेरी, िजपमर प*रसर, पुदुt चेरी- 6
54.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सीएलआरआई, सरदार पटेल रोड, अडयार, चे& नै-600020
55.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, एएफएसडी, आवडी, चे& नै-600055
56.
कD 'ीय िवvालय नं.-1, पोट, { लेयर, डी ए जी मोह ला, टैगोर रोड, अबेरडीन बाजार, पोट, { लेयर, अंडमान व
िनकोबार `ीप समूह-744101
57.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, रामेu वरम, काjटूिप लयारकोइल, रामेu वरम-623526
58.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, आई आई टी, आई आई टी क पस, चै& ने-600036
59.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सी आई एस एफ, तT कोलम, आर टी सी (ए), वे लोर िजला, तिमलनाडु-631152
60.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, िगल नगर, ष3 मु€ नार, सालई, चूलैमेडू, चे& नै-600094
61.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, एच वी एफ, आवडी, भारी वाहन िनमा,णी, आवडी, चै& ने-600054
62.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, वायु सेना कD ', तंजावूर, मेलाव6 ताचावडी, पुदुकोXै रोड, तंजावूर-613005
63.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नं.-2, मदुरै, ितMपरंकु3 म, अविनयापुरम, मदुरै-625051
64.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, जामई, आदम जाित क याण िवभाग, शासकय उt चतर मा; यिमक आदश, िवvालय,
उम*रया फदाली, जु& नादेव, िजला- yछंदवाड़ा, म..- 480551
65.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, हXा, नवीन आदश, िवvालय भवन,जवाहर नवोदय िवvालय के समीप,हXा,
दमोह 470775
66.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, राजनादगांव, पD'ी, राजनादगांव-491441
67.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, नया रायपुर, रैनबसेरा, राखी थाना के पास, सैT टर-25, नया रायपुर- 492015
68.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, बीजापुर, थम तल, डी ए वी मुO यमंEी पि{ लक 6 कूल, मंिझगुडा, बीजापुर, छG तीसगढ़-
494444
69.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, सुकमा, एजुकेशनल हब, कु_ हाररास, िजला सुकमा, छG तीसगढ़- 494111
70.
कD 'ीय िवvालय, झगराखंड, एसईसीएल हसदेव <ेE, पो6 ट-नॉथ, झगराख3 ड, िजला-को*रया, छG तीसगढ़-
497446
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4035
71.
कD 'ीय िवvालय एम.सी.एफ., लालगंज, रायबरेली, शाि& त प*रसर, आधुिनक रेल िड{ बा कारखाना,
लालगंज, रायबरेली (उ..)- 229206
[फा. सं.11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]
संजय कुमार िस& हा, संयुT त सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 946.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004
2.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RWF, YELHANKA, BENGALURU- 560064
3.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, HUTTI, HUTTI GOLD MINES CO LTD, LINGASUGUR, DISTT
RAICHUR, KARNATAKA- 584115
4.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, T.B. DAM, HOSPET, DISTT- BELLARY, KARNATAKA-583225
5.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MATHANA, C/O GOVT, PRIMARY SCHOOL, SECTOR-4, URBAN
ESTATE, DISTT, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA-136118
6.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SUKNA, POST, SUKNA, DISTT- DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL- 734009
7.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, TARKESHWAR MUNICIPALITY GUEST HOUSE, TARKESHWAR,
HOOGLY, WEST BENGAL-712410
8.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NTPC FARAKKA, PO- PUBARAN, DISTT-MALDA, WEST BENGAL-
732215
9.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.-1, SALT LAKE, EB BLOCK, LABONY, SECTOR-1, KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL-700064
10.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KRISHNANAGAR (BSF), POST- KRISHNANAGAR, DISTT- NADIA,
WEST BENGAL-741101
11.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ORDNANCE FACTORY DUMDUM, JESSORE ROAD, DUMDUM,
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700028
12.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, COSSIPORE 4, DUMDUM ROAD, 7 TANK ESTATE, KOLKATA, WEST
BENGAL- 700002
13.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SANTRAGACHI, POST GIP COLONY, WEST BENGAL-711112
14.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ALIPURDWAR, JUNCTION, POST- ALIPURDWAR, DISTT-
ALIPURDWAR, WEST BENGAL-736123
15.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BAGDOGRA (AFS) P.O.- BAGDOGRA AIRPORT, DISTT- DARJEELING,
WEST BENGAL-734421
16.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PANAGARH, DISTT-BURDWAN, WEST BENGAL-713420
17.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, COMMAND HOSPITAL, ALIPUR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700027
18.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-1 , KANCHRAPADA, DEFENCE SECTOR, P.O. KAMPA, DISTT-
NORTH 24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL-743193
4036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BOLPUR, C/O BITTI SADAN PRANTIK TOWNSHIP, P.O.-
SHANTINIKETAN, DISTT-BIRBHUM, WEST BENGAL-731235
20.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-2, KANCHRAPADA, PO KANCHRAPADA, DISTT- NORTH 24
PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL-743145
21.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, C.U.J. RAHYA SUCHANI, DISTT- SAMBA, J&K-181143
22.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI, IIT CAMPUS, ADYAR-
600036
23.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KONAM (PO), NAGARCOIL-629004
24.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, EAC UPPER SHILLONG, POST- NONGLYER, EAST KHASI HILLS,
SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-793009
25.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NIT, AGARTALA, DISTT- WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA-799046
26.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MIZORAM UNIVERSITY, TANHRIL, AIZWAL, MIZORAM-796004
27.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KHUNTI, ITI TUT TOLI, ERANDA, P.O.-BIRHU, KHUNTI- 835210
28.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, CHATRA, POST-SIMARIYA, DISTT.-CHATRA, JHARKHAND-825103
29.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BARKAKANA , POST-BARKAKANA, DISTT.- RAMGARH,
JHARKHAND- 829102
30.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, GIRIDIH, MODEL VIDYALAYA, PARIYANA, POST-RANIKHAWA
VIA PACHAMBHA, DISTT.- GIRIDIH, JHARKHAND- 815316
31.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DUMKA, TRIBAL YOUTH CENTRE, NEAR ITI, SP COLLEGE ROAD,
POST-DUMKA, JHARKHAND-814101
32.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, LOHARDAGA, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR ERGOUN RAILWAY
STATION, POST-LOHARDAGA, JHARKHAND- 835302
33.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KARAIKAL, KUMARAN KOVIL STREET, KARAIKAL, DISTT.-
PUDUCHERRY, KARAIKAL - 609604
34.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, GOLDEN ROCK(SR), TIRUCHIRAPALLI - 620004
35.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, THIRUVANNAMALAI, KANANATHAMPOONDI,
THIRUVANNAMALAI, T.N.-606603
36.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NLC NEYVELI, BLOCK-3, CUDDALORE, TAMILNADU-607803
37.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NAVAL BASE, VIJAYANARAYANAM, TIRUNELVELI,
TAMILNADU - 627119
38.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DHARMAPURI, PALLAKOLLAI VILLAGE, MORAPPUR MAIN ROAD
, SETTIKARAI(P.O.), DHARMAPURI, TAMILNADU – 636704
39.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DINDIGUL, GANDHIGRAM, GRI CAMPUS, GANDHIGRAM,
TAMILNADU - 624302
40.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, VIRUDHUNAGAR, GUNAMALAINAGAR, VARALOTTI,
VIRUDHUNAGAR- 626109
41.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, PERAMBALUR, MADHANGOPALPURAM, PERAMBALUR-621212
42.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, CUTN, THIRUVARUR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TAMILNADU,
RESIDENTIAL CAMPUS, NAGAKUDI, THIRUVARUR, TAMILNADU-610005
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4037
43.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SHIVGANGAI, SRINIVASA NAGAR, PANANGARI ROAD,
SHIVGANGA-630561
44.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-1, NARIMEDU, MADURAI-625002
45.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-1, KALPAKKAM, DAE TOWNSHIP, KALPAKKAM,
KANCHIPURAM - 603102
46.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ASHOKNAGAR, DR. NATESAN SALAI, ASHOKNAGAR, CHENNAI-
600083
47.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ANNANAGAR, CPWD QUARTERS, THIRUMANGALAM, CHENNAI-
600040
48.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, OCF, AVADI, CHENNAI-600054
49.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, N0.-1, INS RAJALI, ARAKKONAM, TAMILNADU - 631006
50.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, DGQA, PALAVANTHANGAL, CHENNAI - 600114
51.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MAHE, CHEMBRA PO, PARAL, PUDUCHERRY- 670671
52.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-2 , KALPAKKAM, DAE TOWNSHIP, KALPAKKAM,
KANCHIPURAM - 603102
53.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-1, PUDUCHERRY, JIPMER CAMPUS, PUDUCHERRY - 6
54.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, CLRI, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, ADYAR, CHENNAI-600020
55.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, AFS AVADI, CHENNAI-600055
56.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-1, PORT BLAIR, DAG COLONY, TAGORE ROAD, ABERDEEN
BAZAR, PORT BLAIR, ANDEMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS-744101
57.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RAMESWARAM, KATTUPILLAYARKOIL, RAMESWARAM – 623526
58.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, IIT, IIT CAMPUS, CHENNAI-600036
59.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, CISF, THAKKOLAM, RTC(A), VELLORE DISTT., TAMILNADU-631152
60.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, GILL NAGAR, SHANMUGANAR SALAL, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI-
600094
61.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, HVF AVADI, AVADI, CHENNAI – 600054
62.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, AIR FORCE STATION THANJAVUR, MELAVASTHACHAVADY,
PUDDUKOTTAI ROAD, THANJAVUR-613005
63.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO.-2, MADURAI, TIRUPARANKUNDRAM, AVANIYAPURAM
MADURAI- 625051
64.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JAMAI, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. HIGHER
SECONDARY MODEL SCHOOL, UMARIYA FADALI, JUNARDEO DISTT. CHHINDWARA,
M.P.-480551
65.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, HATTA, NEW MODEL SCHOOL BUILDING, NEAR JNV, HATTA ,
DAMOH - 470775
66.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RAJNANDGAON, PENDRI, RAJNANDGAON – 491441
67.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NAYA RAIPUR, NIGHT SHELTER BUILDING, NEAR RAKHI P.S.,
NAYA RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH -492015
4038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
68.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BIJAPUR, FIRST FLOOR, D.A.V. MUKHYAMANTRI PUBLIC SCHOOL
MANJHIGUDA, BIJAPUR, CHHATTISGARH - 494444
69.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SUKMA, EDUCATIONAL HUB, KUMHAR RAS, DISTT.-SUKMA,
CHHATTISGARH - 494111
70.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JHAGRAKHAND, S.E.C.L., HASDEO AREA, POST-NORTH
JHAGRAKHAND, DISTT.- KOREA, CHHATTISGARH -497446
71.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA MCF, LALGANJ, RAEBARELI, PRASHANTI PARISAR, MODERN
COACH FACTORY LALGANJ, RAEBARELI (U.P.) – 229206
[F. No. 11011-2/2018-O.L.A.]
SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.
िवुत
िवुत
िवुत
िवुत मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 947
947
947
947.—कD 'ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के
उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मD िवvुत मंEालय के शासिनक िनयंEणाधीन एनटीपीसी िलिमटेड के लारा सुपर थम,ल पावर
ोजेTट, Wाम छपोरा, पो6ट पुसौर, िजला रायगढ़ (छ ीसगढ़)-496440 िजसके 80 ितशत कम,चारीवृंद ने yहंदी का
काय,साधक xान ाn कर िलया है, को एतदारा अिधसूिचत करती है।
[सं. 11011/9/2017-yहंदी]
राज पाल, आzथ,क सलाहकार
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Lara Super Thermal Power Project, Village-Chhapora,
Post-Pussore, District-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)-496440 of NTPC Ltd. under the administrative control of Ministry of
Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]
RAJ PAL, Economic Adviser
Je
Je
Je
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 948
948
948
948.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 2@1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@422@1995-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4039
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 2/1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/422/1995-IR(C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 2/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Colliery M/S BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:- None
For the workman. :- Shri S.N.Goswami , Rep
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 30/04/2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/422/1995-IR(C-I) dated 18/12/1996.— the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union for continuance of the service of Sh. Mehendra Bhuia, Miner/Loader
till 15.08.2002 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. Workman appeared for certain dates but subsequently failed
to take steps. The management has not appeared in this case. .Lastly during the hearing of the case, Ld. Vice President of
Sponsoring Union has informed that workman has not been interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman
has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.
D. K.SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 949
949
949
949.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua-.1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 34@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@318@1998-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/318/1998-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947
Ref. No. 34 of 1999
Employer in relation to the management of Dahibari Colliery of M/S BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the employers : None
For the Workman. : None
State :- Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 30/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /318 /1998/IR (C-I) dt. 22.02.1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Dahibari Colliery of M/S BCCL in dismissing Shri Badan Das,
UG Loader w.e.f. 16.04.1997 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again a notice was issued to the parties and one
of the notices returned with endorsement “Not Known”. The Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing
before the Tribunal. It appears that the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is
passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 950
950
950
950.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 63@1998) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@638@1997-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4041
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 63 of 1998) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/638/1997-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 63/1998
Employer in relation to the management of W.J. Area of M/S BCCL,
AND
Their workman
Present : Sri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers:- None
For the workman. :- Shri R.R.Ram, Rep
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated : 29/04/2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/638/1997-IR(C-I) dated 14/08/1998, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Shoft Mine of M/S BCCL in not regularizing
Sri Radha Raman Prasad as Magazine Issuing Clerk alongwith his pay protecting and other
resultant benefits from 1992 is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and during the hearing of the case, Ld. counsel of
Sponsoring Union has informed that workman has not been interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman
has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 951
951
951
951.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 105@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@71@1999-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 105/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/71/1999-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 105/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/S BCCL,
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Shri S.N.Ghosh, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 29/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/71/1999-IR(C-I) dated 04/06/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management in superannuating Sri Ramdeo Gope with effect from 09.07.1997
is justified when there is difference in the record of Jealgora Colliery and Bhulanbarari Colliery relating
to date of Birth? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. notices were issued but
even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Moreover one of the notice of the union is returned back
with an endorsement that the address is incomplete . Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing
so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दल् ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 952
952
952
952.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 107@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@497@1998-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4043
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 107/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/497/1998-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 107/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Tapin South Colliery of M/S CCL,
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 29/04/ 2019
AWARD.
By order No. L-20012/497/1998-IR(C-I) dated 04/06/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Tapin South Colliery of M/S CC Ltd. in not correcting date of
Birth /age in the service sheet of Shri Kauleshwar Bhuia is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?’ `
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter two regd. notices were issued but even then
no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before Tribunal.
so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 953
953
953
953.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 135@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@78@1999-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 135/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/78/1999-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947
Ref. No. 135 of 1999
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers:- None
For the Workman.:- None
State :- Jharkhand
Industry :- Coal
Dated 30/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/78/1999/IR(C-I) dt. 04.06.1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has,
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in denying employment under para
9.4.2 of NCWA to the dependent of Late Jano Kamin, who expired on 26.04.1992 when in service on the
ground that the said son was a minor at the time of death of the workman is justified? If not to what relief
the dependent is entitled to?”
2. .After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently left appearing before this Tribunal, The case is pending since 1999 and workman is not appearing
before this Tribunal. So it appears that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 954
954
954
954.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 159@1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@216@1996-vkbZvkj (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4045
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 159/1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/216/1996-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 159/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (N) Colliery M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Sri D.K.Sing, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers:- Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- Shri S.C.Gour , Rep.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 29/04/2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/216/1996-IR(C-I) dated 16/09/1997 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of the Union that Sh. Ramdhar Singh Cap Lamp Fitter is senior to Sh. Jogendra
Yadav Therefore, he is eligible for promotion as cap Lamp Room Incharge in T&S Grade “D” w.e.f.
10.02.93 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and during the hearing of the case, Ld. Vice President of
Sponsoring Union has informed that workman has not been interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the
workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 955
955
955
955.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 161@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@153@1999-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)]
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 161/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/153/1999-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference : No. 161/1999
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL,
AND
Their workman
Present : Sri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : Shri R.R.Ram, Rep.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 28/02/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/153/1999-IR(C-I) dated 03/08/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, 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 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in not allowing to resume his
duty to Sri Chhota Munshi S.F.Mazdoor after medical fitness from East Basuria Colliery Hospital w.e.f
19.05.97 to 17.09.1998 and sending him Apex Medical Board is legal and justified? If so to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and during the hearing of the case, Ld. President of
Sponsoring Union has informed that workman has not been interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman
has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.
D.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 956
956
956
956.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 202@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@389@1999-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4047
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 202/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/389/1999-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947
Ref. No. 202 of 1999
Employer in relation to the management of Pootki Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the employers : None
For the Workman. : None
State :- Jharkhand
Industry :- Coal
Dated 29/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /389 /1999/IR (C-I) dt. 02.12.1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to regularize S/Sri Mukut Saw, Jalil Mia, Sahebjan Mia and Jagdish
Harijan as security Guard from the management of Pootki Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified and
proper? If yes to what relief the workmen are entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed, but none of the parties appeared before this Tribunal .
Thereafter two regd. Notices issued but again no one appeared. More over one of the notices returned with
endorsement “ Not Known”. The Case is pending since long and workmen is not appearing before this Tribunal. So
it appears that the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed.
Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 957
957
957
957.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y-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@Je U;k;ky; ua--1 /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 208@1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@384@1999-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)
,l- lhs- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
4048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019
S.O. 957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 208/1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/384/1999-IR (C-I)]
S. C. RAY, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act.1947
Ref. No. 208 of 1999
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the employers:- None
For the Workman.:- None
State :- Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 30/04/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012 /384 /1999/IR (C-I) dated. 02.12.1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management to dismiss Shri Sanihar Turi from service on ground of absence
from duties is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief Shri Sanihar Turi is entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed, but after issuance of two regd. Notices, none has
appeared from either side. Case is pending since long. It appears that the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the
matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 958
958
958
958.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ e>xkao MkWd 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@Je U;k;ky; csaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 70@1997) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&45011@2@1995-vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]
Mh- ds- fgeka”kq] voj lfpo
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4049
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Mazagaon Dock Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
28.05.2019.
[No. L-45011/2/1995-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE
DATED : 17TH MAY 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 70/1997
Advocate for I Party :
Advocate for II Party:
Mr. V S Naik
Mr. P D Vishwanath
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-45011/2/95-IR(Misc) dated 08.08.1995 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act,
1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the Management of Mazagon Dock Ltd., Mangalore Yard in not categorising
Sri Arnold Frenandes and six others at par with Diploma holders in Mech. Engineering is justified? If
not, to what relief they are entitled?”
1. The case of the 1st Party is, 2nd Party is an independent entity having its head office at Bombay. It’s main
activity is fabrication of components and structures required mainly for natural oil and gas exploration in the Country.
The 1st Party workmen are B.Sc Graduates appointed in the year 1984 - 85, they were trained for a period of 6 months in
NDT (Non Destructive Testing) techniques through foreign technical experts at Mangalore Yard. They were looking
after the quality control of the work turned out at Mangalore Yard, some of the Mechanical Engineers (Diploma Holders)
working at the yard were phased out after the appointment of the 1st Party workmen, their work and responsibility was
identical with those of Diploma Mechanical Engineers working in the quality control department. The appointment
letters were given to them for the first time in 1986 and the categorization for the first time was carried out. The 1st Party
workmen were put in ‘Skilled-1’ category which was equal to ‘Class IV Workmen Grade’ whereas the Diploma
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
Mazagon Dock Limited
Employees Association ,
Panambur,
Mangalore – 575 010.
The Dy. General Manager,
Mazagon Dock Limited,
Mangalore Yard, Panambur
Mangalore – 575 010.
4050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mechanical Engineers working with them in the quality control department discharging the same functions and having
same responsibilities, though academically lesser qualified were classified in higher category of Foreman-II which is
Supervisory Grade of Class-II. The Union placed a Charter of Demand in the year 1989 calling to set right the anomalies
in the categorization, a Committee was constituted for considering the said anomalies. Though time bound process was
conducted by the Management to resolve the anomalies pertaining to the 1st Party workmen, no categorization is made till
now.
2.
The 2nd Party in its statement countered that, initially during 1983-874 the staff and operators were engaged on
adhoc basis and there was no recruitment rules and personnel’s were engaged as per job requirement, purely on
temporary and adhoc basis, later these recruitments were regularised. The duties of the Foreman-II (Possessing
Qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering) are quite different from the duties of the 1st Party workmen. The
Diploma Mechanical Engineers have Technical/Engineering Qualification unlike the 1st Party workmen who have
general degree qualification. The contention of the 1st Party that, their jobs are equal to those of Foreman-II with
Diploma in Engineering qualification is basically wrong, the benefits like TA/Disciplinary Authority etc., are different to
both categories. They have not violated the Principles of Equal Work and Equal Pay. Consequent upon a discussion
between the Management and the Union in the presence of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Mangalore, the
employees were issued appointment orders after categorization in different categories. Among the seven employees 4
were engaged for NDT work and remaining three were engaged for pipe coating quality control, they are categorised in
the Skilled-I Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 630-11-655-13-720-15-885 whereas the Graduate Clerks and other equivalent
traders were categorised in the Assistant-I Grade of Rs. 600-11-655-13-720-15-885 with lesser pay scale. As per Clause
3 of the Settlement dated 24.02.1987 consisting of representatives of National Productivity Council, the Management of
MDL – Mangalore Yard and the Employees Association was constituted to resolve the cases of anomalies in
categorization, if any. The Memorandum of understanding was ratified by signing a Settlement under section 12(3) of
the Act. The dispute regarding the anomaly in categorization of the 4 workmen was settled under section 12(3) of the
Act.
3.
It is further stated that, fabrication of heavy engineering structures requires technically qualified personnel to
organize
fabrication works in compliance of technical specifications especially in the areas of fabrication, quality control
comprising on job inspection, non destructive testing and such other inspection/testing of the welding jobs/joints. The 2nd
Party recommended Graduate Engineers as Officers for the said purpose. Prior to the engagement of 1st Party workmen
Sl. No. 1 to 4 in January 1985, the workmen at Sl. No. 5 to 7 were engaged for quality control jobs in the Pipe Coating
Project since January 1984. The Diploma Holders in Engineering were engaged for fabrication and inspection jobs as
they had the basics knowledge of Engineering, drawings, welding, workshop practice/ fit up, alignment etc., which form
a part of their Diploma Curriculum, the technical knowledge in the above areas is necessary for those who are required to
carry out fabrication/ inspection jobs of heavy engineering structures. The B.Sc course does not include the engineering
skills. Hence, B.Sc qualified personnel were engaged in NDT (Non Destructive Testing) jobs on quality control and the
initial training was adequate for such jobs. The works and responsibilities entrusted to the Diploma Holders, and the 1st
Party workmen were different, the 4 B.Sc personnel in Ultrasonic Testing Methods were not permitted to be used for
their own UT jobs in the yard by M/s. Engineers India Limited who were the Inspection Agency on behalf of the client
M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission. Those jobs were done through outside sub-contractors who were qualified for
such jobs by M/s EIL. Hence, 4 B.Sc graduate could not be utilised for the UT Jobs, their services was used for
coordinating the NDT/UT jobs of the UT contractors and they were re categorized as Skilled-II w.e.f 01.01.1986.
4.
The fact is this Tribunal vide its Award dated 12.02.2002 had rejected the reference. The Award was challenged
by 2 of the concerned workmen Sh. P. S Nataraj and Sh. Ramesh Kulai before the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that
their pay scale fixed is not in par with Diploma Holders in Engineering i.e. B.Sc with Technical Qualification by way of
training. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.10.2007 set aside the award and remitted back the matter with a
direction to afford opportunities to both the parties. By way of memo dated 06.12.2013 it is shown that, 2nd Party closed
its operations in Mangalore during October 2000, as on that date only 2 workmen namely Sh. P S Nataraj and Sh.
Ramesh Kulai were working in Mangalore and they were transferred to Mumbai, other workmen are not in the service of
the 2nd Party Management since long. It is further expressed in the Memo that, these 2 workmen are willing to receive
notional pay fixation benefits by granting them the pay scale applicable to the Diploma Holders in Mechanical
Engineering (I.D 10th Grade) w.e.f September 2008 and grant of increment and revised pay fixation applicable to the post
from time to time without arrears of wages/salary. It was also stated that, it is a proposal to put an end to the litigation
which is pending since almost 2 decades. However, the proposal was not accepted by the Management.
5.
Through further evidence of MW-1 it was reiterated that the 2nd Party implemented the recommendation of the
committee constituted regarding anomalies in categorization and accepted their report, he produced report based on the
Charter of Demand placed by the Union on 02.08.1993 (Ex M-14) which calumniated into settlement on 13.07.1995
incorporating all demands raised by the Union. According to him all the demands raised by the union have been fully
settled under the settlement and the terms of settlement are binding on the Association as well as the workmen.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4051
6.
Subsequent to remand WW-1 Sh. P. S. Nataraj was further examined in chief he testified to the effect that Ex M-14
was not shown to them before it was produced in the Tribunal. Subject 9(b) in Ex M-14 pertains to their demand in this
reference and the demand is not covered in the settlement and the last page of Ex M-14, he considers it not genuine. He
admits that he accepted the promotion in the month of October 2010 as Senior Quality Control Inspector.
7.
The small area of dispute between the parties is whether the anomaly of categorization is already addressed or not
under any settlement. When the above evidence was tallied with the documents it is noticed that Ex M-14 is the Report
in respect of Charter of Demand placed by the union on 29.09.1990 (Annexure-A to Ex M-14 is the report of the
Committee which was formed to look into anomaly of categorization). The Committee has opined that there was no
justification in their demand. The 2nd Party vide order dated 04.10.1993/Ex M-15 addressed to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) has stated that the matter regarding anomaly of categorization has been settled as per the terms
of memorandum of understanding dated 07.11.1987 and further ratified by a settlement dated 01.12.1987 in the office of
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). The Committee of Officers was set up with regard to the demand of the
union pertaining to B.Sc qualified persons in the Quality Control Department of the Pipe Coating Project who has been
categorized in the Skilled-I Grade of Rs. 630-12-690-14-830. The Committee held discussion with the Representatives
of the Employees Association and Committee opined that there is no justification for this demand.
8.
That being so further probe is whether the 1st Party workmen are entitled for categorization of anomaly as
Foreman-II, Diploma in Mechanical Engineers on the Principle of Equal Work for Equal Pay. There is no gain-say to the
evidence of the 2nd Party that the workmen were recruited at the time (1983-1984) when there were no recruitment rules.
Sh. P.S. Nataraj is a B.Sc graduate appointed in the year 1985 was engaged to work as Ultrasonic Testing Operator and
Sh. Ramesh Kulai was engaged to work in Pipe Coating Project. The fabrication of heavy engineering structures requires
technically qualified personnel. Therefore the 2nd Party recruited the required Graduate Engineers as Officers and also
recruited 40 Diploma Holders in Mechanical/Electrical Engineering in non-officer category to assist the said Graduate
Engineers for fabrication, maintenance and inspection jobs. The Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical Engineering were
engaged for fabrication and inspection jobs since they have the basic knowledge of Engineering drawings, welding,
workshop practice, fit-up, alignment etc which they have studied as part of their curriculums. It is consequent upon
recommendation of Tripartite Committee consisting of the representatives of National Productivity Council (Bangalore
Chapter), the Management of Mazagon Dock Ltd., and the Karnataka Dock and General Workers Union and the
committee had examined the issue of anomalies in categorization. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.11.1987
(Ex M-3) was arrived and thus Sh. P. S. Nataraj was placed at Skilled-II grade from Skilled-I grade and further as per the
Memorandum of Settlement (Ex M-4) he was re-categorized w.e.f 01.01.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 650-16-730-18-910
thus the categorization pertaining to Sh P.S. Nataraj has become conclusive. However on the union making further
demand at Ex M-6, the committee recommended the up gradation of Sh. Ramesh Kulai to Skilled-II category and has
rejected their demand for up gradation to Supervisory Cadre.
9.
In the subsequent settlement dated 13.07.1995 (Ex M-10) with regard to Charter of Demand to categorize these
workmen [as at clause 18(O)] it was specifically mentioned that the settlement is in full and final settlement of all
demands and none of them shall form a point of Industrial Dispute during the period of settlement. Therefore the cause
espoused by the union thereafter in this reference as no ground. In fact, the Diploma Holders with whom the 1st Party
workman are comparing themselves were appointed in non-officer category to assist the Graduate Engineers for
fabrication, maintenance and inspection job, they were categorised as Foreman-II. Sh. P. S. Nataraj along with 3 others
were engaged for Ultrasonic Testing jobs offshore and Sh. Ramesh Kulai has worked for Quality Control works in
Offshore and Pipe Coating Project. Since, the client M/s. ONGC objected the B.Sc graduates carrying on the ultrasonic
testing jobs, the 2nd Party instead of retrenching the B.Sc graduates, deployed them to assist Quality Control Engineers
for co-ordinating the activities of the contractors who were entrusted with the jobs of ultrasonic testing. Since there was
no specific work assigned for them in Quality Control Department their service was availed for other functions.
10.
While WW-1 was in the witness box he has not denied the statement that the Diploma Mechanical Engineers and
the workmen are not similar. In fact Sh. Ramesh Kulai is a graduate in Science and does not have any technical
qualification. WW-1 now disputes his knowledge to the Report and findings of Committee which examined the Demand
of the Union pertaining to anomaly in categorization of employees (it is part of Ex M-14). But being an interested party
with regard to the subject-matter of anomaly in categorization, his pretence of ignorance cannot be entertained. They
have not questioned neither reconstitution of the committee nor the report annexed to Ex M-14. The Apex Court while
dealing with a similar issue in (2004) 1 SCC 347, dated 18.11.2003, Government of W.B vs Tarun K Roy and others held
that, it is for the executive and not for the Courts to lay down the qualification required for holding a post. The principle
was reiterated in the matter of AIR 1992 SC 1203, dated 20.02.1992, Secretary, Finance Department and others vs West
Bengal Registration Service Association and others, it was held that equation of posts and determination of pay-scales is
the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary.
11.
Grievance that, the 1st Party workman ought to have been treated in par with Diploma Mechanical Engineers who
have been categorized as Foreman-II does not stand on a firm ground. By now the concerned 1st Party workmen who
have prosecuted this reference, further namely Sh. P. S. Nataraj and Sh. Ramesh Kulai have enjoyed their further
4052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
promotions from Quality Control Inspector grade to Senior Quality Control Inspector grade w.e.f 01.10.2010 which they
have happily accepted. Hence, the following.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 17th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk- vk
vkvk
vk- 959
959
959
959.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ eSlwj feujYl 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 98@2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@24@2007-vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]
Mh- ds- fgeka”kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 98/2007) of the contral Government Industrial tribunal/Labour Court,
Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.05.2019.
[No. L-29012/24/2007-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
DATED :
10th MAY 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 98/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. H M Giddegowda,
S/o Late Malati Gowda,
MML Worker, Halenahalli Village, Lalinakere
Post, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Tq., HASSAN
DISTRICT.
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
Appearances
I Party :
Shri K. T. Govinde Gowda, Advocate
II Party :
Sh. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/24/2007-IR(M) dated 21.08.2007 in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services of Sri H. M.
Giddegowda w.e.f. 17/6/2003 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4053
2.
The fact is, the 1st Party was working at the 2nd Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Haladahalli Chromite
Mines later he was transferred to Thagadur Chromite Mines, Bhuvanahalli Post, Bagur Hobli, ChannarayapatnaTaluk,
Hassan District, as a Mining worker. He was terminated from service w.e.f. 17.06.2003.
3.
The 1st Party in his claim contends that
‘he suffered employment injury; he was given 48 days of sick leave after the expiry of the period, his sick leave
was not extended, his medical expenses were not met. Since he could not work, his period of absence was
treated as unauthorized absence and his request for a light job was not considered. They issued termination
order vide letter No. 156 dated 17.06.2003 on the ground of unauthorized absence, his termination without
holding an enquiry on the allegation is irregular and illegal. Prior to his termination he was called to appear
before Mr. Chandrashekar at Jambur Mines for preliminary discussion about his treatment and later on, they
considered the same as enquiry. But there was no charge sheet and prior notice; the preliminary enquiry was
treated as regular enquiry; the provisions of the certified standing order and the Principles of Natural Justice was
not followed during the said preliminary enquiry also. The punishing authority mechanically accepted the
findings of the preliminary enquiry and considered him guilty of the charges. Findings of the enquiry was not
furnished to him, the penalty of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged
misconduct’.
4.
The 2nd Party in their counter statement contended that
‘the dispute filed after a lapse of five years is barred by time. He was given 30 days time to prefer appeal before
the Appellant Medical Board. But ‘he did not use the opportunity’, he waited for the result pertaining to a case
filed by the co-workers before the Hon’ble High Court in WP 5615/2001 and 26101/2001. Inspired by the
success of the Writ Petition he has raised this dispute. The 2nd Party arranged for medical examination of its
employees during the year 1997-1998 as required under the Mines Rules 1955. A team of qualified and senior
medical officers from Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited was entrusted to carry out the medical examination,
the 1st Party was examined by the said expert team, they found him incapacitated to work in the mine for the
reason that he was aged more than 58 years. As per the report of the expert medical officers the 2nd Party
decided to terminate the services of the workers and gave opportunity to prefer appeal before the Appellate
Medical Board, without filing the appeal and without protest he has received the monetary benefits arising out
of termination. Having amicably settled monetary benefits he has no right to raise the present dispute’.
5.
Both have adduced evidence reiterating their respective stand. On behalf of the management the Assistant
Manager of the 2nd Party adduced evidence. The 1st Party workman adduced evidence but did not produce any document,
however, during the cross-examination of MW 1 one document i.e., the extension of superannuation of the employees of
the 2nd Party from 58 years to 60 years (Ex W-1) was marked.
6.
It is the plain allegation that the workman had suffered employment injury on 22.02.2000 and did not recover
thereafter. For some time they met his medical expenses, took him to the hospital, they had given him 48 days of leave,
thereafter, did not extend sick leave and also did not provide medical expenses. The 2nd Party instead of countering the
allegation of termination on the ground unauthorized absence has taken a stand that he was terminated since he was aged
for more than 58 years. To analyze the veracity of the stand taken by either side, documentary proof was required. The
Oral Evidence of MW 1 also fails to counter the claim statement allegation, when the 1st Party contends that he was
terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence without holding enquiry as contemplated by clause 33.0 of the
Certified Standing Orders of Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct &
Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, the 2nd Parties’ reciprocation that since he was found to have crossed superannuation age
of 58 years his service was terminated with a liberty to prefer appeal before the Medical Board does not stand to reason.
7.
Going by the case of the 1st Party, it is an instance of termination of 17.06.2003 on the allegation of the
misconduct of unauthorized absence. He has raised the dispute in the year 2007. He has not produced his termination
order of 17.06.2003. He has not explained the delay in raising the dispute. He has not mentioned his age either in the
claim statement or in his affidavit statement perhaps for a hidden reason. Without producing the termination order he is
expecting an Award in his favour to set aside the said order of 17.06.2003 which is not permissible. Hence, the
AWARD
Reference is rejected.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10th May 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
4054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 960
960
960
960.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ vks,uthlh 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@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 782@2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&30012@1@2002-vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]
Mh- ds- fgeka”kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 782/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmebabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. ONGC Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.05.2019.
[No. L-30012/1/2002-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 07th May, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 782/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar,
Bharuch (Gujarat) – 393010
2.
The Location Manager (WOS),
ONGC Ltd., Work Over Serice, Ankleshwar,
Bharuch (Gujarat)
…First Parties
V/s.
Mr. Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora,
B/43, Tulsidham Society, Zadeshwar Road,
Bharuch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party
: Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/1/2002–IR(M) dated 16.07.2002 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 ONGC Ltd., through the Group General Manager (P), Ankleshwar
and its officers in terminating the services of the workman Shri Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora, Junior Technician
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4055
(Welder) w.e.f. 27.03.2000 by way of deemed resignation from service is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 16.07.2002 and received on 05.08.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 19.8.2002 and the
first party submitted the written statement Ex. 5 on 21.01.2003.
3. The second party workman Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora in his statement of claim has alleged that he was
initially appointed as Junior Technician (welder) on 16.08.1983 and since then, he continued to work
uninterruptedly till 24.03.2000 when his services were terminated by the ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar without
giving any opportunity of hearing. He completed 17 years of service at the time of termination of his service. He
worked for more than 240 days in each and every calendar year. During the period of service, he was never
issued any show-cause notice. His services were blotless. Therefore, he raised the dispute before the
Conciliation Officer where reconciliation failed; hence this reference was referred to this Tribunal by the
Ministry of Labour and Employment on 16.07.2002. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back
wages with consequential benefits of retirement.
4. The first party The Group General Manager (P), ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project, Ankleshwar, Bharuch and
The Location Manager (WOS), ONGC Ltd., Work Over Serice, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, hereinafter referred to as
‘first party’ in his written statement Ex. 5 partly denying the averments made in the statement of claim
submitted that he has been absent from duty from 15.06.1998 to 25.08.1999. He was issued number of show-
cause notices dated 08.02.2000 and 22.10.2000 to resume duty within 10 and 15 days respectively from the date
of issue of notice. The workman did not respond to the notice issued as said above, therefore, on 24.03.2000, the
workman Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora was treated/declared to have deemed resigned w.e.f. 21.10.1999 i.e.
the date from which the workman Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora absented from duty without any
authorisation in terms of the provisions of Rule 14 (5) of ONGC Leave Rules.
The provisions of Rule 14 (5) of ONGC Leave Rules are reproduced as under:
“Where an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the period of extra-ordinary leave, if the leave granted
to him is the maximum that can be granted or where an employee is granted a lesser amount of extraordinary
leave than the maximum admissible under this rule, remains absent from duty for any period which, together
with extraordinary leave so granted exceeds the limit up to which he could have been granted leave under this
rule, he shall be deemed to have resigned from his appointment and shall accordingly cease to be in the
employment of the Company, unless the Company may determine otherwise, in view of the exceptional
circumstances of the case.”
Thus the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed.
5. The workman submitted the documents of EEG Report and death certificate of his mother vide Ex. 7. He further
submitted his own medical certificate and copies of show-cause notices dated 08.02.2000 and 22.02.2000 along
with the office order of termination of his service dated 24.06.2000 vide list Ex. 8.
6. The first party vide list Ex.9 submitted following documents:
i.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Dy. Superintending Engineer P
(WOR), Ankleshwar dated 15.05.1987.
ii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Dy. Superintending Engineer P
(WOR), Ankleshwar dated 03.12.1987.
iii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Chief Engineer P, Ankleshwar dated
06.04.1992.
iv.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Dy. Director (P&A), Ankleshwar
dated 01.05.1992.
v.
Xerox copy of Note of first party ONGC issued to second party workman dated 25.06.1992.
vi.
Xerox copy of Note of first party ONGC issued to second party workman dated 09.02.1993.
vii.
Xerox copy of Note of first party ONGC dated 25.02.1993.
viii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Chief Engineer P, Ankleshwar dated
14.06.1993.
ix.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Dy. Director (P&A), Ankleshwar
dated 30.06.1993.
4056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
x.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Chief Engineer P, Ankleshwar dated
06.12.1993.
xi.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Chief Engineer P, Ankleshwar dated
06.07.1995.
xii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Incharge WOR Chief, Ankleshwar.
xiii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Incharge WOR Chief, Ankleshwar
dated 12.12.1995.
xiv.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Incharge WOR, Ankleshwar dated
09.01.1996.
xv.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Incharge WOR, Ankleshwar dated
21.11.1995.
xvi.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by Dy. Director, Ankleshwar dated
31.01.1996.
xvii.
Xerox copy of notice of the first party ONGC dated 10.09.1996.
xviii.
Xerox copy of memorandum issued to second party workman by General Manager (Ops), Ankleshwar
dated 23.10.1996.
xix.
Xerox copy of memorandum show cause notice – 1 issued to second party workman dated 03.02.1998.
xx.
Xerox copy of letter issued to second party workman by General Manager (P&A) dated 24.02.1998.
xxi.
Xerox copy of letter issued to second party workman by Dy. Manager (P&A) dated 21.12.1998.
xxii.
Xerox copy of letter issued to second party workman by Manager (P&A) dated 20.07.1999.
xxiii.
Xerox copy of letter of first party ONGC issued to second party workman.
xxiv.
Xerox copy of letter of first party ONGC issued to second party workman dated 03.02.2000.
xxv.
Xerox copy of memorandum show cause notice 1 issued to second party workman by Location
Manager dated 08.02.2000.
xxvi.
Xerox copy of memorandum (final show cause notice) issued to second party workman by Manager
(P&A) dated 22.02.2000.
xxvii.
Xerox copy of office order of the first party ONGC dated 24.03.2000.
xxviii.
Xerox copy of attendance statement of the second party workman.
7.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., through the Group General Manager (P), Ankleshwar
and its officers in terminating the services of the workman Shri Dashrathbhai Bishandayal Rajora, Junior
Technician (Welder) w.e.f. 24.03.2000 by way of deemed resignation from service is legal, proper and
justified?
ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?
8.
Issue No. i and ii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these
issues lies on the second party workman who submitted his affidavit reiterating the averments made in the
statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was issued show-cause notice dated
08.02.2000 and 22.02.2000 regarding his long absence for 14 months. He has also deemed admitted that his
services were terminated in terms of deemed resignation from service under the provisions of Rule 14 (5) of
ONGC Leave Rules, 1995. Though he has submitted the medical certificate of his mother regarding carcinoma
but he has failed to prove by way of oral as well as documentary evidence that he was ever admitted in the
cancer or other hospital for the treatment of carcinoma.
9.
The first party examined Saiyad Varas Ali Yaver Ali, Senior Executive, Human Resource, ONGC vide Ex. 20
reiterating the averments made in the written statement submitted that the workman absented from duty from
15.06.1998 to 25.08.1999, therefore, he was issued show-cause notices which the workman did not reply.
Therefore, vide order dated 24.03.2000, the services of the workman were seized treating his long absence as
deemed resignation w.e.f. 21.10.1999. The office order of deemed resignation Ex. 8/4 shows that following
advances and liabilities were due on the workman:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4057
Serial No.
Head
Amount of Rupees.
1
HBA
Rs.50050/-
2
Int. on HBA Appx.
Rs.27000/-
3
Scooter Advance
Rs.13000/-
4
CPF Advance
Rs.25800/-
5
Int. on CPF
Rs.8288/-
6
Furnishing Advance
Rs.582/-
7
Int. on Scooter Adv.
Rs.2888/-
8
Ad-hoc – 97-2000
Rs.32900/-
10.
I heard the arguments of learned counsel of the parties and considered the evidence of both the parties oral and
documentary available on the records as well as the written arguments of the second party.
11.
It is an admitted fact that while treating the workman’s long absence as deemed resignation; all the
consequences of retirement benefits shall follow. Retirement benefits can only be denied when a departmental
enquiry under Article 311 (2) read with Article 14 of Constitution of India is conducted.
12.
It is also an admitted fact that the workman absented from duty from 15.06.1998 to 25.08.1999 without proper
authorisation. The workman has failed to establish that his mother suffering with carcinoma was ever admitted
in the hospital for medical treatment. It is also admitted that the long absence of the workman was never treated
as misconduct by the first party as despite issuing 2 show-cause notices, no departmental enquiry was conducted
against the workman in to 14 months long absence from duty, rather, the first party ONGC treated the 14
months long absence as deemed resignation. Therefore, cessation of service w.e.f. 24.03.2000 cannot be treated
as a termination of service as the first party has admitted that it was a deemed resignation. It is also admitted that
the workman completed 17 years of service which might have been eligible for pension and retirement benefits
but the order of the first party ONGC dated 24.03.2000 is silent regarding the payment of pension and
retirement benefits. I cannot pass specific order in this regard because both the parties failed to show me the
pension rules of ONGC in case what will happen if the workman has completed 17 years of service and his long
absence has been treated as deemed resignation. It is also noteworthy that the workman was having some
liabilities regarding house building allowance (H.B.A.) and other loans. Therefore, the reference is disposed of
with a order that the workman will move an application for grant of pension and other benefits to the first party
ONGC within a week from the publication of the award and the first party ONGC shall sanction pension and
other retirement benefits by a reasoned order referring the various provisions of pension, gratuity and provident
fund rules in the service rules of ONGC within 30 days from the application moved by the workman. Both the
issues are decided accordingly.
13.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 961
961
961
961.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ eSlwj feujYl 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 04@2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&29012@77@2007-vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]
Mh- ds- fgeka”kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
28.05.2019.
[No. L-29012/77/2007-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
4058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE - 560022
DATED : 10th MAY 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 04/2008
I Party
II Party
C S Nanjundegowda,
S/o late Shivegowda, MML Worker, Aldahalli
Village, Bageval Post, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere
Taluk,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M G Road,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
Appearances
I Party : Shri K T Govinde Gowda, Advocate
II Party : Sh. T K Veda Murthy, Advocate
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/77/2007-IR(M)dated 06.02.2008 in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of Sh. C S Nanjundegowda by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited
w.e.f. 24/5/1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. The fact is, the 1st Party C S Nanjundegowda joined the service of 2nd Party on 15.06.1986; his date of birth is
01.07.1941 as per his Horoscope, same Date of Birth is recorded in all the statutory records pertaining to him. The 2nd
Party conducted medical examination and refused employment w.e.f. 24.05.1998 on the ground that he has reached
superannuation age of 58 years as per the medical examination report.
3.
The 1st Party in his claim statement contends,
‘at that point of time there was enmass termination / premature retirements on the ground of medical unfitness
and also age certified by the medical officer. Similar termination ordered by the 2nd Party are set aside by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka with payment of Back wages and continuity of service; his termination is not
justified; they have tampered his records pertaining to date of entry, age etc. The Medical Examination was
conducted by a MBBS doctor by not a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as contemplated by Rule 29-
C of the Mines Act, 1955, hence his medical examination is illegal. His termination amounts to retrenchment
without following the mandatory provisions of the law’.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4059
4.
The 2nd Party in their counter statement contradicted the claim allegation on the following lines;
‘his date of birth is not genuine. On the recommendations of the Employees Union of the 2nd Party he was
subjected to the medical examination, he was not allowed to work w.e.f. 27.06.1998 since he had attained the
age of superannuation. They have not changed his date of birth in the records. There is inordinate delay in
raising the dispute. As per the requirement of Mines Act, 1952, the employees employed at mines are required
to undergo periodical medical examination since the 2nd Party issued circulars to its employees and subjected
them for medical examination. A team of qualified and medical officers from Hutti Gold Mines Company have
examined the employees. During the medical examination he was found to be aged more than 58 years. The
said report is not challenged before the Appellant Medical Board within 30 days as prescribed under the Mines
Rules. In view of the acceptance of the Medical Report the 2nd Party relieved him from service by settling all
his termination benefits’.
5.
Both parties have adduced their evidence by reaffirming their respective stand. During the cross-examination of
Management Witness/MW 1 three judgements of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 5615/2001(S-RES) and the WA
3460/01 c/w 3459/2001 (S) and WP No. 26101/2001 and others were confronted admitted by him and are marked as Ex
W-1 to Ex W-3.
6.
Admittedly, it is a case of oral termination probably by settling the statutory dues. The oral termination w.e.f.
24.05.1998 was based on a Medical Report which certified that the workman was medically unfit. Though the medical
report is not produced in evidence there is no dispute to the fact that the employees including the workman was subjected
to medical examination as per the consensus arrived between the 2nd Party and the Trade Union of the 2nd Party.
Similarly placed workmen Smt. K Dundamma, challenged similar Medical Certificate in WP No. 5615/2001 against the
2nd Party (Ex W-1), her Writ Petition was allowed directing the Management not to change her date of birth from the
service records. The Appeal preferred by the management went in vain. Similarly placed workmen approached the
Hon’ble High Court in WP 26101/2001 (S-Res) (Ex W-3). The Writ Petition was allowed with cost and the Medical
Reports were quashed. Ex M-1 is the Register of Employees which shows that the workman was terminated w.e.f.
24.05.1998 due to ‘medical unfit’. There is no evidence as to what was the disability which made him medically unfit to
work in the mine is not mentioned in Ex M-1. It also does not show that he was furnished with a copy of the medical
report with intimation his right to appeal within 30 days.
7.
The 1st Party contends that medical examination was an eye wash to terminate the work force since the 2nd Party
had suffered financial loss; the medical examination was not conducted according to Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1955,
by a qualified Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon. Had the 1st Party continued in service he would have
superannuated by 1999. Thus he has lost one year of service by his early retirement. The 1st Party contends that
subsequently age of superannuation is enhanced to 60 years and he would have continued in service upto 01.07.2000.
However, as on the date of his retirement the date of superannuation age was 58 years only and he has lost one year of
service, he has received all the terminal benefits. It is highly probable that inspired by the judgement of the Hon’ble
High Court he has raised this dispute after a period of 10 years. However, his termination not being the consequence of
any disciplinary action but on very unscientific medical report is illegal and the injustice caused to him needs to be set
aside by awarding lumpsum compensation,
AWARD
Reference is accepted. Termination of Sh. C S Nanjundegowda by the management of Mysore Minerals w.e.f. 24/5/1998
is not justified. The 2nd Party is directed to pay him a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 within a period of 60
days of the publication of the Award.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10thMay 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
4060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 4 जून, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 962
962
962
962.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ dsanzh; HkaMkj.k fu;e 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 69@2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@8@2015-vkbZ- vkj- (,e)]
Mh- ds- fgeka”kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 24.05.2019.
[No. L-42011/8/2015-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 08th May, 2019
Reference : (CGITA) No. 69/2015
1. The Executive Engineer,
Construction Cell,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Sector – 20, Adj. to Railway Good Yard, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai – 400703
2. The Managing Director,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Corporate Office,
4/1, Siri Institutional Area, Augustkranti Marg,
Haus Khas, New Delhi
…First Parties
V/s.
The General Secretary,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4061
Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union (Gujarat),
Mahalaxmi Cross Road,
Opposite Unnati Vidhyalaya, Paldi,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Parties : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The
Government
of
India/Ministry
of
Labour,
New
Delhi
by
reference
adjudication
Order
No. L-42011/8/2015–IR(M) dated 28.10.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand against the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi of the
General Secretary, Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union (Gujarat), Ahmedabad to fix and
disburse of pension to Shri N.N. Deshpande is justified? If yes, then what relief Shri N.N. Deshpande is entitled
to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 28.10.2015 and received on 06.11.2015 from Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
After receiving the reference from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notice Ex. 2 was
issued to all the parties on 09.02.2017 to appear on 02.05.2017. Acknowledgment slip of notice served to
the first party no. 1 was also received. But the second party workman or his union did not prefer to submit
the statement of claim.
3.
Thereafter, the second party was given dozens of opportunities on 30.05.2017, 29.06.2017, 31.08.2017,
02.11.2017, 03.01.2018, 28.02.2018, 25.04.2018, 06.06.2018, 04.07.2018, 29.08.2018, 17.10.2018,
05.12.2018, 23.01.2019, 06.03.2019 and today on 08.05.2019 to submit his statement of claim but he
refrained to submit the statement of claim.
4.
The reference relates to disbursement of pension and the second party union as said above has not been
taking interest in the disposal of the reference, therefore, it appears that the second party workman or his
union did not want to prosecute the case.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of statement of claim of the second party workman
with the observation as under: “the demand against the Managing Director, Central Warehousing
Corporation, New Delhi of the General Secretary, Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union
(Gujarat), Ahmedabad to fix and disburse of pension to Shri N.N. Deshpande is unjustified.”
6.
The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
4062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 963
963
963
963.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस ए सपोट #ेिडट गारंटी कॉप'रेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच
अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय नं०-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट
(संदभ सं9या 118/2014 & 26/2015) को ,कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 03.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/7/2015-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 118/2014 & 26/2015) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/7/2015-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.118/2014
Registered on:-17.03.2015
Sh. Anil Chauhan S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh,
R/o H.No.24, Ward No.3, Balmiki Basti,
VPO Bapoli, Distt. Panipat-132103(Haryana)
… Workman
Versus
The M.D/Chairman,
M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
H.O. Dalamal House, G. Floor, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
… Management
And
ID No.26/2015
Registered on: 16.06.2015
Sh. Anil Chauhan
S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh,
R/o H.No.24, Ward No.3,
Balmiki Basti, VPO Bapoli,
Distt. Panipat-132103(Haryana)
… Workman
Versus
The M.D/Chairman,
M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
H.O. Dalamal House, G. Floor,
Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021
… Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4063
AWARD
Passed on: 27.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-17012/7/2015-IR(M) Dated 05.06.2015, 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 M/s Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. in terminating the
services of Sh. Anil Chauhan S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh, Sweeper w.e.f. 30.04.2014 is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
ID No.118/2014 relates with the claim petition filed under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
cancellation of the termination of the claimant regarding which reference is received from the Central Government in
pursuance of the letter dated 30.12.2014 which is registered on 17.03.2015. The Tribunal by its Order dated 31.05.2016
attached/consolidate file of ID No.118/2014 with the reference file in ID No.26.2015 titled as Anil Chauhan Vs.
M/s Export Credit Guarantee and ordered for further proceeding in the case bearing ID No.26/2015 accordingly and
cases are decided by the common judgment.
1. After receiving the reference, an opportunity is given to both the parties for submission of their statements. The
workman has filed his claim petition, stating therein that he was employed by the respondent as Peon-cum-Sweeper since
01.09.2005 and rendered his services till 29.04.2014 when respondent-management orally terminated his services
assigning no reason. Management has not issued any notice, without giving him any retrenchment compensation or
holding any enquiry which is against the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant
has completed more than 240 days in each preceding year as required under Section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
hence, was entitled to the protection under Section 25-F, 25(b) and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
management has retained in service junior candidate on permanent duty of Peon-cum-Sweeper which is in violation of
Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also mentioned that management has made the recruitment of fresh
candidates but the applicant was not provided opportunity of appointment in preference to the new entrance which is a
clear violation of Section 25(H) of the Act. It is therefore prayed that claimant/workman be ordered to be reinstated with
continuity of service with full back wages as he has not been remained gainfully employed during his termination till
date.
2. Management filed its written statement, stating therein that claimant/workman was working as part time Sweeper with
the respondent at Panipat Branch Ofice. He used to do cleaning work at M/s Sterling Courier in the same building and
also used to clean common passage and stairs of the building. Claimant/workman rendering his services 29.04.2014, left
the respondent-management on his own and did not turn up again without informing the respondent. The management
has paid all the wages of the workman till 29.04.2014 and nothing is due against the answering respondent. In fact Anil
Chauhan, workman was not regularly performing his duty and sometimes his mother used to do his work in his absence
after the verbal discussion of the claimant. It is also denied that being the part time Sweeper, there was no question of
seeking relief permission from the respondent. Question of serving one month notice or paid wages in lieu of notice does
not arise as he was not the regular employee of the management. The claim made by the workman regarding the dues,
one month notice, salary, bonus, gratuity, earned leave is baseless hence, it is prayed that claim of the workman is false,
frivolous and baseless and is liable to be dismissed.
3. Claimant/workman has filed its rejoinder dated 05.05.2016, reiterating the same facts alleged in the claim petition as
such, it does not required to be repeated again.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence. In support of his case, claimant/workman has filed its
affidavit along with 36 papers and affidavit of witness Balwan Singh S/o Jeetu Ram. Learned counsel of the management
did not appear to cross-examine the witness of the workman as such, opportunity of management to cross-examine the
above mentioned witnesses is finally closed.
5. Management has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the facts alleged in its written statement.
6. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel of the workman in the absence of the learned counsel of the
management and perused the oral and documentary evidence filed by the workman.
7. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of management is
always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with
the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her
appointment or engagement for that year to show that he worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a calendar
year. In this regard reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Mehgajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC
47.
8. There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the factual
scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the management in its written statement has clearly admitted the
4064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
factum of employment of the claimant/workman inasmuch as it has been stated that the workman was engaged in the
office the management as a part time Sweeper and he worked upto 29.04.2014 when he left the office on his own without
informing to the respondent-management as such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer and employee between
the management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:—
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.
There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person
employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one
employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty
for fixed hours is not a workman.”
It is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time
or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a
person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances,
it stands proved that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties.
9. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer and employee stands proved between the
parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant/workman has not worked for 240
days or more in a calendar year or the services of the claimant/workman was terminated in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. It is a specific case of the workman that he was engaged as a full time Sweeper on 01.09.2005 and
he worked as such till 29.04.2014 when his services were orally terminated. Thus, he in fact had completed more than
240 days of service in each calendar year as is stated by the workman himself through his affidavit and the witness
Balwan by his affidavit which is unrebutted and uncontroverted by virtue of non-cross examination of these witnesses by
the management-counsel.
10. Management has stated in his written statement that workman was part time Sweeper with the respondent at Panipat
Branch Office and was being paid from time to time as part time/daily wage Sweeper. Learned counsel of the workman
has drawn my attention towards the information received through Right to Information Act, 2005, vide paper no.36 in
which it is specifically mentioned that there was no post of part time Sweeper in the corporation. Thus, by virtue of
information given by the respondent under RTI Act, 2005, the facts alleged in the written statement about the workman
being part time Sweeper is negated by his own documents. Workman has stated in his affidavit that he was drawing
salary at the rate of 6,000/- per month and rendered his services for a period of 8 years 7 months in spite of that, his
services were illegally terminated by the management. It is unfortunate that management has not taken part in the
complete proceeding of the case but it has been mentioned in the written statement that workman has voluntarily left the
job as such, he was not terminated by the management. This fact is contradicted by the workman through his affidavit
and affidavit of witness Balwan alleging therein that his services are terminated by the management without giving any
notice or wages in lieu of one month notice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nicks(India) Tools Vs. Ram
Sunder etc. 2004(8) SCC page 222 has held that where the management takes a plea that workman abandoned the job at
his/her own then onus of the matter is upon the management. There is nothing on record to prove that workman has left
the job of Sweeper on 29.04.2014 at his own will. The contention of the learned counsel of the workman also fortifies the
fact that if workman has left his job on his own even then there is nothing on record to show that management has made
any correspondent with the workman for reason of leaving the job. To my mind, contention of the learned counsel of the
claimant/workman is in tune of the legal proposition and fortifies the fact that it was the management who terminated the
services of the workman without any cogent grounds.
11. Now the vital question arises for consideration is whether the termination of the claimant by the management w.e.f.
29.04.2014 is in accordance with the law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. According to the
testimony of the workman/claimant, the work of Sweeper on which he was working was of perennial nature and his
services were terminated by the violation in Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Undoubtedly, after termination, workman has also approached to the conciliation officer through demand notice but
conciliation proceeding is also failed. It is neither the case of the management that any notice or compensation in lieu of
notice was given to the claimant prior to the termination of his services w.e.f. 29.04.2014 nor any such evidence is
produced by the management. It is reiterated that the management has not examined any witness to rebut the case of the
claimant. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the services of the workman was terminated
by the management w.e.f. 29.04.2014 in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
12. There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section
25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the management to be illegal and void under the law. Since there is no
evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the workman at the time of termination or in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4065
lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him as such, action of the management in terminating the services of
the workman is held to be illegal and void.
13. So far as breach of Section 25(F) and 25(G) is concerned workman has not mentioned the name of the person who
was engaged through fresh recruitment by the management after his termination. Similarly, he has not mentioned the
name of person who was retained in the job even was junior to him. Thus, there is bald statement of the workman
regarding the breach of Section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Act without any cogent evidence. As such, there is no evidence to
prove that management has violated the section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Act.
14. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the
employment of the management from 01.09.2005 to 29.04.2014 though on daily wage basis. Admittedly, claimant was
not holding the regular post against a regular vacancy. There are number of factors which are to be considered while
considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. Since claimant was a casual worker and duration of his
engagement is also not very long, as such it would be difficult to given the relief or reinstatement to the claimant. It has
been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as
under:—
“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily
wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded.
The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent
employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that
when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him
the retrenchment compensation.”
15. In the recent decision reported as 2018 LLR 225 titled as District Development Officer & another vs. Satish
Katilal Amrelia, Hon’ble Apex Court while aptly applying the law laid down in earlier case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, had awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the workman and in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), it was observed as under:-
“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgements that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in
all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated
illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour wages is not automatic and instead
the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for
shifting in this direction is obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatory required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always
open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has
no right to seek regularisation (see State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) 17). Thus, when he cannot claim for
regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be
served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in
the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay, in such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.
35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of
principle of last come first go, vis. While retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained.
There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the
workman concerned terminated, in such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied
reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation
instead of reinstatement in such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the
reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied.”
4066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.4.50
lakh appears to be just and reasonable.
17. As a result, it is held that the action of the management in terminating the services of claimant Shri Anil Chauhan is
illegal and unjustified under the law. The claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.4.50 lakh payable by the
management with 6% interest from the date of the publication of the Award. This award is accordingly passed.
18. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as
required under Section 17 of the Act.
A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 964
964
964
964.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस Aरलायंस जनरल इंBयोरस कंपनी िलिमटेड एवं अ य के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच
अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय नं०-2, द ली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं9या 124/2013) को ,कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 20.05.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/LabourCourt No. 2, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 20.05.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
PRESENT: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labou Court-II,
New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 124/2013
Date of Passing Award- 29th April, 2019.
Between:
Shri Ashok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Laxmi Ram,
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Regd.- Aitak,
Address-170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalakaji, New Delhi-19.
… Workman
Add. Of workman-M/n No. I 46/6, Harkesh Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-20.
Versus
1. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Add. 60 Okhla Infront State Bank of India,
Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-20
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4067
2. Contract M/s World Class Services,
Add. 2 Floor-237, Indraprastha Tower,
6 MG Road, Indore-452001.
…Managements
APPEARANCES:
Shri Anil Rajput, (Advocate)
For the Workman
Shri S.B.S. Chauhan, (Advocate)
For the Management
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman u/s 2 A of the ID Act praying the relief in the nature of a direction to the
management for his reinstatement to the service with full back wages and other service benefits.
Being noticed management No.1 appeared and filed their written statement. Management No.2 though made his
appearance did not file written statement despite several opportunities given. Thus, by order dated 15.10.14 the right of
the respondent No.2 to file written statement was closed and issues were framed on 11.11.2014.
Claim of the workman bereft of unnecessary detail is that in June 2009 he started working for management No.1 General
Insurance Company through the contractor management No.2 as a sweeper and continued to work till his service was
illegally terminated by the management on 01.06.2012. His last drawn salary per month was 7020/-. When the
management terminated his service his duty pay for the month of May 2012 was withheld. Not only that no termination
notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation, was paid to him in gross violation of the provisions of section 25-F of
the ID Act. The workman through its Union made a claim and issued a demand notice to the management. But no action
was taken. Finding no other way he made a written complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Despite the
intervention of the commissioner no redress to the grievance of the workman could be achieved. Hence, by filing the
present claim application invoking the jurisdiction of this tribunal u/s 2A of the ID Act he has prayed for the relief as
stated above.
Management No.1 filed its written statement disputing the claim and stand taken by the workman. The specific stand of
the workman is that the later was never an employee of management No.1 and there exists no employer employee
relationship between them. As per his own admission the workman was engaged to work by a contractor i.e.
Management No.2 and working under his control and supervision. Thereby the management No.1 has denied its liability
for the claim advanced by the workman.
On the rival pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1.
Whether claim of workman is maintainable? If so its effect?
2.
Whether relation of employer and employee exist between respondent No.1 and workman? If so its effect?
3.
Whether termination of services of workman on 01.06.2012 is just, proper and legal? If so its effect?
4.
Whether workman is entitled for relief as claimed by him in his claim statement dated 27.07.2012?
During course of hearing the workman testified as WW1 and filed certain documents which were marked in a series of
WW1/1 to WW1/5. These documents include the copy of his letter containing grievance and demand made to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner through the Union the contract termination letter and ID card issued by the management
No. 2, the Salary Slip issued by the management No.2 etc. The witness was cross-examined at length by the management
No.1. On behalf of management No.1 one witness Associate Administration Manager was examined as MW1. He proved
the documents marked as MW1 to MW1/1. These documents include the termination letter issued to the workman, the
apology letter tendered by the workman to management No.2 and the written reply submitted by management No.2
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner when the demand was raised. This witness was also cross-examined by the
workman.
4068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1 and 2
While filing written statement the management No.1 raised dispute regarding the maintainability of the proceeding
against the management No.1 by taking a plea that there exists no relationship as employer and employee between them.
During the examination the workman as well as the management has relied upon the termination letter dated 18th May,
2012 issued by the management No.2 to the workman. In his pleading the workman has categorically stated that in the
month of May 2009 he was inducted to the work of management No.1 through the contractor management No.2. This
pleading of the workman finds support from the documents filed by him. These documents include the salary slip, Id
card, etc issued by the management No.2. The witness examined on behalf of the Management No.1 also produced one
document in the nature of an apology letter submitted by the workman to management No.2. Not only that in the
complaint made before the Assistant Labour Commissioner the workman has categorically stated that his service was
termination by the management No.2 i.e. World Class Service the contractor providing manpower to different
establishments. Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the witness it is proved that the claim of the
workman against the management No.1 is not maintainable, though the same is held maintainable against management
No.2. With regard to the relationship between the management no.1 and the workman, the document and oral evidence
leads to the irresistible conclusion that there exist no employer and employee relationship between the workman and
management No.1. These 2 issues are accordingly answered.
Issue No. 3 and 4
These two issues being interdependent have been taken up for consideration together. The workman in his pleading as
well as in the oral statement has alleged about the violation of the mandatory provision laid u/s 25-F of the ID Act. Under
this provision conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman has been laid down. Under the provision no workman
employed in an industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by the employer until the workman has been given one month notice in writing indicating the reason of
retrenchment or the workman is paid one month salary in lieu of the notice and the workman is paid retrenchment
compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay or any part thereof in excess of 6 months.
The workman of this proceeding has all along pleaded that without giving any notice or notice pay, his service was
brought to an end by the management No.2. As indicated above the management No.2 did not file a written statement in
this proceeding to rebut the stand of the workman. On the contrary the workman in his oral testimony has deposed in the
line of the pleading made in the claim statement. From oral evidence of the workman supported by the order of
termination and the pay slip for the month of January 2011 it is clear that the workman was neither given notice nor
notice pay before termination. He was not even paid retrenchment compensation.
For consideration of the prayer for reinstatement with back wages as made by the workman it is incumbent upon him to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year of the retrenchment and there is a vacancy for the post he
was working. But in this proceeding the workman has neither taken the plea that he had worked for 240 days or more for
the management in the preceding year. In the case of Delhi Cantonment Board vs. CGIT and others reported in 129
(2006) DLT 610 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi have held that “there is not distinction between permanent employee
and a temporary employee. Termination of service without complying the provisions of section 25-F is illegal. As long as
a person is employed to do any skilled, unskilled operational or clerical work for hire or reward he is a workman under
the ID Act and will get the benefit of that act. In the said judgment it has further been held that if it is proved that he had
put in 240days of service in the year prior to the date of termination, he is entitled to reinstatement for non compliance of
provision of 25-F of the Act. But here is a case where there is no evidenc regarding the tenure of work for 240 days or
more.
Furthermore the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghaji
Bhai Chavda reported in (2010) ILLJ 3 SC have held that non compliance of the provision of section 25-F of the ID
act entitles the workman to back wages and reinstatement provided it is proved that he had put to work for 240 days in a
calendar year preceding to his termination.
In this case there being no evidence regarding 240 days of work put by the workman, it is held that he is not entitled to
the relief of the reinstatement with back wages. However he is entitled to mandatory benefits of section 25-F of the ID
Act and the management No.2 is liable to pay him one month salary as notice pay and retrenchment compensation as per
law. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is allowed in part. The workman is held entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice u/s
25-F and retrenchment compensation as per law to be paid by the management No.2. The management No.2 world Class
service the contractor is directed to make the payment to the workman within 3 months from the date when the award
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4069
would become executable together with interest @ 12% from the date when it was legally due to the workman and till the
final payment is made, failing which the amount so accrued shall carry interest @ 18% from the date when it falls due,
till the payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 4 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 965
965
965
965.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस िबड़ला सीमट कॉप'रेशन िलिमटेडके ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6
औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 37/2012) को
,कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 04.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/11/2011-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2019
S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/LabourCourt,
Lucknownow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limitedand their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
04.06.2019.
[No. L-29012/11/2011-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT: RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 37/2012
Ref. No. L-29012/11/2011-IR( M) dated: 14.02.2012
BETWEEN:
Shri Satish Tiwari, S/o Sri J.P Tiwari
C/o Krishan Gopal, Lohia Pawan Trunk Centre
Kaperganj, Rai Bareli.
AND
1.
The General Manager
Birla Cement Corporation Limited
Cement Division, Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli
2.
The Manager, HR Connector
Birla Corporation Limited
Cement Division, Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli
3.
The Side In-charge, HT Contractor, Birla Corporation Ltd.
Cement Division, Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli
4070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1. By order No. L-29012/11/2011-IR( M) dated: 14.02.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute Shri Satish Tiwari, S/o J.P Tiwari, C/o Krishan Gopal,
Lohia Pawan Trunk Centre, Kaperganj, Rai Bareli and the General Manager, Birla Cement Corporation Limited, Cement
Division, Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli & the Manager, HR Connector, Birla Corporation Limited, Cement Division,
Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli & the Side In-charge, HT Contractor, Amava Road, Janpad, Rai Bareli for
adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE WORKMEN OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED RAI
BARELI IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SHRI SATISH TIWARI, DRIVER W.E.F. 21/10/2008
IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”
3. The case of the workman, Satish Tiwari, in brief is that he was engaged on the post of driver with the opposite party
w.e.f. 21.07.2003 and worked as such continuously upto 21.10.2008, when his services have been terminated illegally,
without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Accordingly, he
had prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. The management of opposite parties have disputed the claim of the workman and has submitted that he had been
engaged through contractor and he was never appointed at any point of time by the opposite party No. 1 & 2, and his
services have never been terminated by the management of OP No. 1 & 2. On the contrary the OP No. 3 & 4 submitted
that the workman had been engaged by the management of OP No. 1 & 2 directly. The opposite parties have prayed that
the workman’s claim be rejected being devoid of any merit.
5. The workman has filed its rejoinder reiterating averments already made in the statement of claim and parties filed
documentary evidence in support of their respective case and the case was fixed for filing of workman’s evidence on
affidavit, when the parties turned up and filed a settlement, W-24; whereby the workman agreed to withdraw the case on
payment of compensation for Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,20,000/- through DD) in lieu of gratuity,
retrenchment compensation and one month’s notice pay. The workman stated that he had been paid Rs. 30,000/- in cash
and a DD No. 516029 dated 12.03.2019 for Rs. 2,20,000/- had been given to the workman before this Tribunal. The
workman prayed to withdraw the case accordingly.
6. Therefore, in view of the settlement between the parties and prayer for withdrawal of the case, it appears there remains
nothing to adjudicate upon in the case as no grievance is left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be
given to the workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
7. Award as above.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 966
966
966
966.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 92/2014) को ,कािशत
करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/12/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी.के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 966.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/12/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4071
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 92/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri N. Nani Babu
S/o Chantabbai,
H.No.: 10-35,
Sidharatha Nagar, Gopalapuram(P.O.),
Ravulapalem (M), E.G. Dist..
… Petitioner
AND
1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Ravulapalem Branch,
Ravulapalem, East Godavari Distt.
2. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry
… Respondents
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent : Sri K. Ramalingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/12/2014-IR(M) dated 12.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri N.Nani Babu, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Ravulapalem
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 92/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3. Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 1st day of May,
2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
4072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 967
967
967
967.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 99/2014) को ,कािशत
करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/19/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/19/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 99/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri N. Prem Kumar,
S/o Late Ganganna,
H.No.3-109, Babanagar,
Ethakota Post, Ravulapalem (M),
E.G. District – 533 238.
… Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Ravulapalem branch,
Ravulapalem, E.G. District.
2.
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi, Rajahmundry.
… Respondents
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4073
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
: Sri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondent
: Sri K. Rama Lingeswara Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 17012/19/2014-IR(M) dated 16.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri N. Prem Kumar, Ex-Temp. Class.IV, LIC of India, Ravulapalem
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 99/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3. In spite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 24th day of April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 968
968
968
968.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 119/2014) को
,कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/40/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
4074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 119/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/40/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 119/2014
Between:
Sri M.G. Krishna Mohan,
S/o Late M.A.V. Rangacharyu,
D.No.240331, Employees Colony,
Nuzvidu, Krishna District.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Gudivada,
Krishna District.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : Sri B.S.R.Murthy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 17012/40/2014-IR(M) dated 8.7.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri M.G. Krishna Mohan, Ex.Temp.Class-IV LIC of India, Nuzvidu
Branch w.e.f. 23.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 119/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4075
3.
In spite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 23rd day of April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 969
969
969
969.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मैसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 89/2014) को ,कािशत
करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/5/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/5/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 89/2014
Between:
Sri K. Manoj Kumar,
H.No.1-6-48, Ambedkar Colony,
Metpally (M),
4076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Karimnagar Distt.
Karimnagar (A.P.)-505325
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India, Zonal Office,
Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
2. The Sr. Divl. Manager,
LIC of India, Divl. Office,
Karimnagar, Karimangar(A.P.)-505001
3. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Metpally Branch, Metpally.
Karimangar Dist. (A.P.) -505325
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Sri K. Ramalingeswra Sarma, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 17012/5/2014-IR(M) dated 12.5.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, zonal Office, Hyderabad /
Divisional Office, Karimnagar and Branch Office, Metpally, Karimnagar Dist., in terminating the services after
crossing 240 days continuous service of Sri K. Manoj Kumar, Ex-Temp. Substaff of LIC of India, Metpally
Br., w.e.f. 1.2.2013 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 89/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
In spite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the
Petitioner Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal
which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 1st day of May, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@T;s"B 25] 1941
4077
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 970
970
970
970.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मैसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के ,बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द 6 औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 120/2014) को
,कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ,ा< =आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/41/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/41/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of May, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 120/2014
Between:
Sri I. Ravi Kumar,
S/o I. Venkateswara Rao,
H.No.20B-6-107/1, Ganugutapeta,
Kankanatavari Street,
42nd Div., Eluru -2.
West Godavari Dist.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry.
4078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Eluru Branch,
Eluru, West Godavari Distt.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-17012/41/2014-IR(M) dated 7.7.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri I. Ravi Kumar, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Eluru-II Branch
w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 120/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
In spite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the
Petitioner Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal
which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 1st day of May, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4079
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 971
971
971
971.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 161/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/107/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/107/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 161/2014
Between:
Sri Kanchipati Prakash,
D.No.18-73-56, LIG-251,
APHB Colony, Pedagantyada (P.O.)
Visakhapatnam – 530 044.
…Petitioner
AND
The Manager (E & OS),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional office, PB No.411,
Jeevan Bima Road, Jeevan Prakash,
Visakhapatnam – 53 00 44.
...Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Sri Nukala Venkateswra Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/107/2014-IR(M) dated 8.8.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
4080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri K. Prakash, Ex-Temp. Substaff, w.e.f. 24.1.2013 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 99/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondent. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 24th day of
April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 972
972
972
972.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 166/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/53/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/53/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4081
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 166/2014
Between:
Sri S. Subramanyam,
S/o Dasu,
D.No.74-14-8, Sri Chaitanya Techno
School Back Side, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Vijayawada-520 007.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Vijayawada City Branch-1,
Vijayawada.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/53/2014-IR(M) dated 5.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri S. Subramanyam, Ex.Temp.Class-IV LIC of India, Vijayawada CB-1
Branch w.e.f. 22.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 166/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 24th day of
April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
4082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 973
973
973
973.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 168/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/55/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 168/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/55/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 24th day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 168/2014
Between:
Sri V. Venugopal,
S/o V. Rambabu,
D.No.1210-1, Yanamalkudhuru,
Donka Road, Siddarthnagar,
2nd Lane, Vijayawada-520 007.
… Petitioner
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4083
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Vijayawada City Branch-1,
Vijayawada.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/55/2014-IR(M) dated 4.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri V. Venugopal, Ex-Temp.Class-IV LIC of India, Vijayawada CB-1
Branch w.e.f. 22.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 168/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 24th day of April, 2019.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
4084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 974
974
974
974.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 169/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/56/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 169/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/56/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 169/2014
Between:
Sri N.J.A. Kiran,
C/o M.P. Sudhakar,
D.No.34-3-6, Library Street,
Kasturbaipeta,Vijayawada-520 010.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Vijayawada City Branch-1,
Vijayawada.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4085
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/56/2014-IR(M) dated 4.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri N.J.A. Kiran, Ex-Temp.Class-IV LIC of India, Vijayawada CB-1
Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 169/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 23rd day of April, 2019
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 975
975
975
975.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 170/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/57/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
4086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 170/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/57/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 170/2014
Between:
Sri D. Sivaramakrishna,
S/o D. Koteswara Rao,
D.No.14-11/2, Near Post Office Bazar,
Inur (P.O), Amarthuluru (M)
Guntur Dist.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Tenali Branch,
Tenali, Guntur Distt.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/57/2014-IR(M) dated 4.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri D. Sivaramakrishna, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Tenali Branch
w.e.f. 24.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 170/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4087
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 23rd day of April, 2019
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 976
976
976
976.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 175/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/51/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 175/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/51/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
4088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 175/2014
Between:
Sri P. Krishna
S/o China Venkataswamy,
Ambedkar Colony,
Sompalli,
E.G. District – 533 242.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Razole Branch,
Razole, E.G.Distt.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in person
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/51/2014-IR(M) dated 5.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri P. Krishna, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Razole Branch w.e.f.
28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 175/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 23rd day of April, 2019
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 15] 2019@ T;s"B 25] 1941
4089
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दली, 6 जून, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 977
977
977
977.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कम कार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द * औ ोिगक
िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 176/2014) को
कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.06.2019 को ा2 3आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/52/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2019
S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 176/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.06.2019.
[No. L-17012/52/2014-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2019
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 176/2014
Between:
Sri M. Kiran Kumar,
S/o Appa Rao,
Beside Andhra Bank Street,
Gandhinagar,
Razole
E.G. District – 533 242.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,
Rajahmundry.
4090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2019/JYAISTHA 25, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Razole Branch,
Razole, E.G.Distt.
…Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/52/2014-IR(M) dated 1.8.2014 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri m. Kiran Kumar, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Razole Branch
w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 176/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.
3.
Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner
Workman to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner workman failed to attend this Tribunal which
clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman has already been settled and the Petitioner has
nothing to raise any claim against the Respondents. Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman 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 23rd day of April, 2019
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
MANOJ
KUMAR VERMA
Digitally signed by
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2019.06.22
17:21:10 +05'30'