4564 GI/2020

(2577)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 37]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 4—अक् तूबर 10, 2020, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 12—आज‍ वन 18, 1942

No. 37]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 4—OCTOBER 10, 2020, SATURDAY/ASVINA 12—ASVINA 18, 1942

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(व् जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 1 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 890.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, भारती ले ाृरीक्षा और ले ा जवभाग में भारत सरकार के

जनम्नजलज त का ााल , जिसके अस्ट्सी प्रजतित कमाचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का ासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को

एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज, नामि:-

प्रिान जनिेिक, ले ाृरीक्षा, िजक्षण ृजिम रेलवे, हुबली।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2014-ईिी]

ऐनी िॉिा मजथ् ू, अृर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16102020-222498

CG-DL-W-16102020-222498

2578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2020

S.O. 890.—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 office of the

Government of India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent. of the staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi, namely:-

Principal Director Audit, South Western Railway, Hubballi.

[F. No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Addl. Secy.

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 5 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 891.—केन्री सरकार, सुश्री ि श्री माट्श‍िेरी गोृी, उृ मिाजनिेिक, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग,

जवत्त मंत्राल , भारत सरकार को भारती ररिवा बैंक अजिजन म, 1934 (1934 का 2) की िारा 45-झक की उृ-

िारा (7) के उृबंिों के अंतगात गजर-बैंककंग जवत्ती कंृजन ों द्वारा की गई अृीलों ृर जनणा लेने के जलए नामोदिष्ट

करती िज। इसे आम सूचना के जलए प्रकाजित दक ा िाता िज।

[फा. सं. 1/27/2019-बीओए-II]

ज्ञानोतोष रा , अवर सजचव

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S.O. 891.—Ms. Jayasree Madassery Gopi, Deputy Director General in the Department of Financial

Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is designated by the Central Government to decide appeals

preferred by non-banking financial companies under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 45-IA of the

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). This is published for general information.

[F. No. 1/27/2019-BOA.II]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

जविेि मंत्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 892.—कानूनी आिेि रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ और फीस) के अजिजन म,

1948 की िारा 2 के ंड (क) के अनुसरण मे केंर सरकार श्री सा ाक मल्ल, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को 22

जसतम्बर, 2020 से भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, जिकागो में सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के कताव्यों का ृालन करने

के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2015]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाा, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2579

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2020

S.O. 892.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri

Sarthak Mall, Assistant Section Officer in Consulate General of India, Chicago to perform the consular services

as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 22 September, 2020.

[F. No. T-4330/1/2015]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दिल् ली, 28 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 893.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के उच्चा ोग, जनकोजस ा में श्री रवीन्र कुमार िूत, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी

को दिनांक 28 जसतम्बर 2020 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए

प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/1/2015]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाा, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2020

S.O. 893.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

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

Ravindra Kumar Doot, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of

India, Nicosia to perform the Consular services with effect from 28 September, 2020.

[F. No. T-4330/1/2015]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दिल् ली, 28 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 894.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िमबनतोता में श्री रजव कुमार, सिा क अनुभाग

अजिकारी को दिनांक 28 जसतम्बर 2020 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के

जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/05/2020]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाा, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)

2580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2020

S.O. 894.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi

Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, Hambantota

to perform the consular services with effect from 28 September, 2020.

[F. No. T-4330/05/2020]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

कार्माक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्माक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 895.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री जिव प्रकाि िुक्ला, अजिवक् ता और श्री अनुराग कुमार ससंि, अजिविा

को, इलािाबाि उच्च न् ा ाल , इलािाबाि और उसकी ल नऊ जस्ट् त न् ा ृी के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन (केन् री अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उद्भूत अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और दकसी

अन् जवष को संचाजलत करने के जलए, जन ुजि की तारी से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा अगले आिेि िोने तक,

इनमें से िो भी ृिले िो, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन् री अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) के जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ

में जन ुक् त करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/18/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S.O. 895.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shiv Prakash Shukla,

Advocate and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutors of Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) for conducting the prosecution, appeal, revision and any other

matter arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation) before the Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and its Bench at Lucknow for a

period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/18/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 896.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)

द्वारा

प्रद्त्त

िजि ों

का

प्र ोग

करते

हुए

श्री

एिाि

सलीम

ान,

अजिविा

को

आरसी

07(एस)/2011/सीबीआई/एससी-I/नई दिल्ली (भंवरी िेवी अृिरण और ित् ा मामला) जिसे दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन (सीबीआई) द्वारा जविेष न् ा ािीि, अिा/अििा(ृीओए) मामला, िोिृुर के न् ा ाल में संजस्ट् त दक ा

ग ा ा, में उस मामले से उच्च न् ा ाल , िोिृुर में उिभूत अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् का ावाजि ों में अजभ ोिन

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2581

का संचालन करने के जलए, उनकी जन ुजि की तारी से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा मामले के जनृटान तक,

इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुि दक ा िाता िज।

[फा. सं. 225/06/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S.O. 896.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri. Ejaz Salim Khan,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of RC 07(S)/2011/CBI/SC-I/New Delhi

(Bhanwri Devi Abduction and Murder Case), instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the

Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jodhpur and appeals, revisions or other proceedings arising out of

that case before the High Court, Jodhpur for a period of three years from the date of appointment or till disposal

of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/06/2020-AVD.II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

भारती अंतररक्ष अनुसंिान संग न

(अंतररक्ष जवभाग )

बैंगलूरु, 16 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 897.—सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 (2000 का 21) की िारा 70 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अंतररक्ष जवभाग इसके द्वारा मु्‍ जन ंत्रण सुजविा (एम.सी.एफ.) के सूचीबद्ध

अनुभागों/क्षेत्रों/सेवाओं के जलए स्ट् ाजृत आइ.टी. अवसंरचना को उक् त अजिजन म के प्र ोिन के जलए संरजक्षत

प्रणाली घोजषत करता िज।

इसके अंतगात िाजमल दकए गए एम.सी.एफ. के अनुभाग/क्षेत्र/सेवाएं जनम् नांदकत िैं:-

िी.इ.ओ./िी.एस.ओ./नौविन उृग्रिों के कक्षा में एवं प्रमोचन प्रचालनों के जलए अंतररक्ष ान

स्ट् वास्ट् थ् जन ंत्रण एवं मॉनीटरन प्रदि ा

ii.

उृग्रि नीतभार एवं भू-केंर प्रचालन

इस संरजक्षत प्रणाली का उृ ोग करने के जलए जनम् नजलज त व् जि ों को प्राजिकषत दक ा िाएगा:-

क.

इसरो/एम.सी.एफ. के प्रिान द्वारा प्राजिकषत इसरो/एम.सी.एफ. के ृिनाजमत कमाचारी;

अंतररक्ष जवभाग के ृिनाजमत अजिकारी एवं प्रचालन कमाचारी;

ग.

इसरो एम.सी.एफ. द्वारा प्राजिकषत संजविागत प्रबंजित सेवा प्रिाता के कमाचारीगण ा तीसरा

ृक्षकार जविेता/जविेताओं ा इसके सिभागी/सिभाजग ों; और

घ.

इसरो/एम.सी.एफ. के प्राजिकषत व् वसा सिभाजग ों।

ि अजिसूचना आजिकाररक रािृत्र में इसके प्रकािन की तारी से प्रवषत् त िोगी।

[सं. डी. एस. 5-15015/3/2020-अनु. 5-अं.जव.]

के. जव. रमण बाबु, अवर सजचव

2582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION

(Department of Space)

Bengaluru, the 16th September, 2020

S.O. 897.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), the Department of Space hereby declares the IT infrastructure installed for

listed Sections/ Areas/ services of MASTER CONTROL FACILITY (MCF), as the protected system for the

purpose of said Act.

Sections/Areas/services of MCF being covered under this are: -

Spacecraft Health control and monitoring Process for on-orbit and launch operations of

GEO/GSO/Navigation satellites

ii)

Satellite payload and Ground station operations

The following persons shall be authorised to access the protected system: -

Designated ISRO/ MCF personnel authorized by Head of ISRO/ MCF;

Designated officers and operations staff of Department of Space;

Employees of Contractual Managed Service Provider or third-party vendor(s) or its partner(s)

authorised by ISRO/ MCF; and

ISRO/ MCF authorized business partners.

This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[D.S.5-15015/3/2020-Sec-5-DOS]

K. V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 6 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 898.—केन्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिान और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957

(1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात् उि अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन

िारी भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना सं्‍ ांक का.आ. 1796, तारी 13 दिसम्बर, 2018, िो

भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3, उृ- ंड (ii), तारी 22 दिसम्बर, 2018 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, द्वारा उससे

संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में 1510.02 िेक्टे र (लगभग) अ वा 3731.26 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ

वाली भूजम में को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी ;

अत:, अब, केन्री सरकार, उि अजिजन म की िारा 7 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए 13 दिसम्बर, 2020 से प्रारंभ िोने वाली एक वषा की और अवजि को, ऐसी अवजि के प ृ में जवजनर्िाष्ट

करती िज जिसके भीतर केन्री सरकार, इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में ा जवजनर्िाष्ट उि भूजम को ा ऐसी भूजम में अ वा

उस ृर के दकसी अजिकार का अिान करने के अृने आि की सूचना िे सकेगी ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2583

अनुसूची

सिारृुर – िाम्रृानी को ला ब् लॉक

जिला िुमका, झार ंड

[रे ांक सं्‍ ांक ूृीआरवी ूएनएल/4(1)/प्लान/रेवेन् ू/1, तारी 24 जसतम्बर, 2018]

ि.

सं.

ग्राम का नाम

ृटवारी सकाल का

नाम और सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्र िेक्टे र

में (लगभग)

रटप्ृजण ां

कोरीगड

िगतृुर, 32

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

48.53

भाग

ढोलकाटा

बेनागजड ा,1

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

124.73

भाग

ृिाड़ अमचुआ

बेनागजड ा, 2

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

6.60

भाग

जसमानीिोर

िररृुर, 4

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

40.50

भाग

िलिली

िररृुर, 5

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

125.14

भाग

लागलभंगा

िररृुर, 7

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

49.28

ृूणा

ृातृिाडी

िररृुर, 6

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

47.26

ृूणा

ृो रर ा

बेनागजड ा, 4

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

16.10

भाग

मंझलाडीि

बेनागजड ा, 6

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

143.20

भाग

10.

जनझोर

बेनागजड ा, 5

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

87.76

ृूणा

11.

ृिाड़ृुर (िररृुर)

बेनागजड ा, 13

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

17.45

भाग

12.

ृोडा बसरर ा

बेनागजड ा, 14

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

16.52

भाग

13.

सरसडांगा

िररृुर, 12

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

164.44

भाग

14.

िमरुृानी

िररृुर, 11

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

179.70

भाग

15.

छोटा चाृजड ा

िररृुर, 14

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

2.50

भाग

16.

वडाचाृजड ा

िररृुर, 15

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

5.09

भाग

17.

लताकान्िर

िररृुर, 10

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

13.13

भाग

18.

मकराृिाड़ी

िररृुर, 8

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

282.93

भाग

19.

हुलासडांगा

िररृुर, 2

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

48.56

भाग

20.

महुलबना

िगतृुर, 25

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

26.05

भाग

21.

जचप डीि

िररृुर, 3

जिकारीृाड़ा

िुमका

64.55

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र : 1510.02 िेक्टे र (लगभग) अ वा 3731.26 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा – वणान :

(1)

रे ा 1-2: कोरीगड ग्राम ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0032) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '1' से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो ृूवी

दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम जसमानीिोर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0004) से गुिरती िज और िलिली ग्राम ( ाना

सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षण-ृजिम भाग में जबन्िु '2' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

2584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

रे ा 2-3: रे ा िलिली ग्राम ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षण-ृजिम भाग में जबन्िु '2' से प्रारंभ िोती

िज, िो उत् तरी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम जसमानीिोर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0004) और चीप डीि ( ाना सं्‍ ा

01/0003) से गुिरती िज और महुलबना ग्राम ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0025) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '3' ृर

समाप् त िोती िज।

(3)

रे ा 3-4: रे ा महुलबना ग्राम ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0025) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '3' से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो

उत् तर-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम हुलासडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0002) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '4' ृर

समाप् त िोती िज।

(4)

रे ा 4-5: रे ा ग्राम हुलासडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0002) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '4' से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो

ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम हुलासडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0002) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '5' ृर समाप् त

िोती िज।

(5)

रे ा 5-6: रे ा ग्राम हुलासडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0002) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '5' से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो

िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम मकराृिाड़ी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0008) के उत् तरी भाग में जबन्िु '6' ृर

समाप् त िोती िज।

(6)

रे ा 6-7: रे ा ग्राम मकराृिाड़ी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0008) के उत् तरी भाग में जबन्िु '6' से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

िो िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम मकराृिाड़ी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0008) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '7'

ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(7)

रे ा 7-8: रे ा ग्राम मकराृिाड़ी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0008) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '7' से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

िो िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम िमरुृानी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0011) के उत् तर-ृजिमी भाग में

जबन्िु '8' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(8)

रे ा 8-9: रे ा ग्राम िमरुृानी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0011) के उत् तर-ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु '8' से प्रारंभ िोती

िज, िो उत् तर-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम लताकान्िर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) के िजक्षण-ृजिमी भाग में

ग्राम लताकान्िर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) और ग्राम िमरुृानी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0011) की सीमा के

जनकट जबन्िु '9' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(9)

रे ा 9-10: रे ा ग्राम लताकान्िर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) की िजक्षण-ृजिमी सीमा में ग्राम लताकान्िर

( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) और ग्राम िमरुृानी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0011) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु '9' से

प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो उत् तर-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम लताकान्िर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) के मध् भाग

में जबन्िु '10' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(10)

रे ा 10-11: रे ा ग्राम लताकान्िर ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0010) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '10' से प्रारंभ िोती

िज,िो िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम वडाचाृजड ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0015) के िजक्षण-ृूवी भाग में

ग्राम वडाचाृजड ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0015) और छोटा चाृजड ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0014) की सीमा के

जनकट जबन्िु '11' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(11)

रे ा 11-12: रे ा ग्राम वडाचाृजड ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0015) के ृूवी भाग में वडाचाृजड ा ( ाना

सं्‍ ा 01/0015) और छोटा चाृजड ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0014) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु '11' से प्रारंभ

िोती िज, िो िजक्षण दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में

जबन्िु '12' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(12)

रे ा 12-13: रे ा ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में जबन्िु '12' से प्रारंभ

िोती िज, िो िजक्षण दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के िजक्षण-ृजिमी दििा में

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2585

जबन्िु '13' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(13)

रे ा 13-14: रे ाग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '13' से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

िो िजक्षण-ृजिम दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के िजक्षण-ृजिमी भाग में

जबन्िु '14' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(14)

रे ा 14-15: रे ा ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के िजक्षण-ृजिम भाग में जबन्िु '14' से प्रारंभ

िोती िज, िो िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के िजक्षण-ृूवी भाग

में जबन्िु '15' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(15)

रे ा 15-16: रे ा ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) के िजक्षण-ृूवी भाग में जबन्िु '15' से प्रारंभ

िोती िज, िो िजक्षण-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम ृोडा बसरर ा के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में ग्राम ृोडा

बसरर ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0014) और ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु

'16' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(16)

रे ा 16-17: रे ा ग्राम ृोडा बसरर ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0014) के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में ग्राम ृोडा बसरर ा

( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0014) और ग्राम सरसडांगा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0012) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु '16' से

प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम ृिाड़ृुर (िररृुर) ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0013) से गुिरते

हुए ग्राम मंझलाडीि ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0006) के ृूवी भाग में जबन्िु '17' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(17)

रे ा 17-18: रे ा ग्राम मंझलाडीि ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0006) के ृूवी भाग में जबन्िु '17' से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

िो उत् तर-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम मंझलाडीि ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0006) के ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु

'18' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(18)

रे ा 18-19: रे ा ग्राम मंझलाडीि ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0006) के ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु '18' से प्रारंभ िोती

िज, िो उत् तर-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम ृो रर ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0004) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु

'19' ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(19)

रे ा 19-20: रे ा ग्राम ृो रर ा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0004) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु '19' से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

िो उत् तर-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षण-ृूवी भाग में ग्राम

िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) और ृातृिाडी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0006) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु ‘20’

ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(20)

रे ा 20-21: रे ा ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षण-ृूवी भाग में ग्राम िलिली ( ाना

सं्‍ ा 01/0005) और ृातृिाडी ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0006) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु ‘20’ से प्रारंभ िोती

िज, िो उत् तर- ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु ‘21’

ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(21)

रे ा 21-22: रे ा ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु ‘21’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो

िजक्षणी-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षणी-ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु

‘22’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(22)

रे ा 22-23: रे ा ग्राम िलिली ( ाना सं्‍ ा 01/0005) के िजक्षणी-ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु ‘22’ से प्रारंभ

िोती िज, िो िजक्षणी-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम ढोलकाटा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0001) के ृूवी भाग में

जबन्िु ‘23’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(23)

रे ा 23-24: रे ा ग्राम ढोलकाटा ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0001) के ृूवी भाग में जबन्िु ‘23’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज,

2586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िो िजक्षणी-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम ृिाड़ अमचुआ ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0002) के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में

जबन्िु ‘24’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(24)

रे ा 24-25: रे ा ग्राम ृिाड़ आमचुआ ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0002) के उत् तर-ृूवी भाग में ग्राम ढोलकाटा

( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0001) और ग्राम ृिाड़ अमचुआ ( ाना सं्‍ ा 05/0002) की सीमा के जनकट जबन्िु ‘24’

से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो उत् तर-ृजिमी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम कोरीगड ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0032) के मध्

भाग में जबन्िु ‘25’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज।

(25)

रे ा 25-1: रे ा ग्राम कोरीगड ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0032) के मध् भाग में जबन्िु ‘25’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो

उत् तरी दििा में मुड़ते हुए ग्राम कोरीगड ( ाना सं्‍ ा 04/0032) के उत् तर-ृजिमी भाग में जबन्िु ‘1’ ृर

समाप् त िोती िज।

[फा. सं. 43015/16/2018-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2020

S.O. 898.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 1796, dated the 13^th December, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in

the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 22^nd December, 2018, the Central

Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land measuring 1510.02 hectares (approximately)

or 3731.26 acres (approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended thereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby specifies a further period of one year commencing from the 13^th December, 2020 as

the period within which the Central Government gives notice of its intention to acquire the said land or any

rights in or over the said land specified in the Schedule appended hereto.

SCHEDULE

SAHARPUR – JAMARPANI COAL BLOCK

DISTRICT DUMKA, JHARKHAND

[Plan bearing number UPRVUNL/4(1)/Plan/Revenue/1, dated the 24^th September, 2018]

Sl.

No.

Name of village

Patwari Circle

name and number

Tahesil

District

Area in hectare

(approximately)

Remarks

Kaurigarh

Jagatpur,32

Shikaripada

Dumka

48.53

Part

Dholkata

Benagadia, 1

Shikaripada

Dumka

124.73

Part

Pahar Amchua

Benagadia, 2

Shikaripada

Dumka

6.60

Part

Simanijor

Haripur, 4

Shikaripada

Dumka

40.50

Part

Daldali

Haripur, 5

Shikaripada

Dumka

125.14

Part

Langalbhanga

Haripur, 7

Shikaripada

Dumka

49.28

Full

Patpahari

Haripur, 6

Shikaripada

Dumka

47.26

Full

Pokharia

Benagadia, 4

Shikaripada

Dumka

16.10

Part

Majhiladih

Benagadia, 6

Shikaripada

Dumka

143.20

Part

10.

Nijhor

Benagadia, 5

Shikaripada

Dumka

87.76

Full

11.

Paharpur (Haripur)

Benagadia, 13

Shikaripada

Dumka

17.45

Part

12.

Porabansri

Benagadia, 14

Shikaripada

Dumka

16.52

Part

13.

Sarasdanga

Haripur, 12

Shikaripada

Dumka

164.44

Part

14.

Jamropani

Haripur, 11

Shikaripada

Dumka

179.70

Part

15.

Chhota Chapiria

Benagadia, 14

Shikaripada

Dumka

2.50

Part

16.

Bara Chapiria

Haripur, 15

Shikaripada

Dumka

5.09

Part

17.

Lata Kandar

Haripur, 10

Shikaripada

Dumka

13.13

Part

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2587

18.

Makrapahari

Haripur, 8

Shikaripada

Dumka

282.93

Part

19.

Hulasdanga

Haripur, 2

Shikaripada

Dumka

48.56

Part

20.

Mahulbana

Jagatpur, 25

Shikaripada

Dumka

26.05

Part

21.

Chirudih

Haripur, 3

Shikaripada

Dumka

64.55

Part

Total area :1510.02 hectares (approximately) or 3731.26 acres (approximately)

Boundary description:

(1)

Line 1-2: The line starts at point ‘1’ in the middle part of the Kaurigarh village (Thana Number

04/0032) trending in easterly direction passing through village Simanijor (Thana number 01/0004) and

ends at point ‘2’ in the south west part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005).

(2)

Line 2-3: The line starts at point ‘2’ in the south west part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005)

trending in northerly direction passing through village Simanijor (Thana number 01/0004) and

Chirudih (Thana number 01/0003) and ends at point ‘3’ in the middle part of Mahulbana village

(Thana Number 04/0025).

(3)

Line 3-4: The line starts at point ‘3’ in the middle part of Mahulbana village (Thana Number 04/0025)

trending in north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘4’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village

(Thana Number 01/0002).

(4)

Line 4-5: The line starts at point ‘4’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002)

trending in easterly direction and ends at point ‘5’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana

Number 01/0002).

(5)

Line 5-6: The line starts at point ‘5’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002)

trending in south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘6’ in the northern part of Makrapahari village

(Thana Number 01/0008).

(6)

Line 6-7: The line starts at point ‘6’ in the northern part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number

01/0008) trending in south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘7’ in the middle part of Makrapahari

village (Thana Number 01/0008).

(7)

Line 7-8: The line starts at point ‘7’ in the middle part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number

01/0008) trending south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘8’ in the north-west part of Jamropani

village (Thana Number 01/0011).

(8)

Line 8-9: The line starts at point ‘8’ in the north-western part of Jamropani village (Thana Number

01/0011) trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘9’ in the south western part of Lata

kandar village (Thana Number 01/0010) close to the village boundary of Lata kandar village (Thana

Number 01/0010) and Jamropani village (Thana Number 01/0011).

(9)

Line 9-10: The line starts at point ‘9’ in the south western boundary of Lata kandar village (Thana

Number 01/0010) close to the village boundary of Lata kandar village (Thana Number 01/0010) and

Jamropani village (Thana Number 01/0011) trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘10’ in

the middle part of Lata kandar village (Thana Number 01/0010).

(10)

Line 10-11: The line starts at point ‘10’ in the middle part of Lata kandar village (Thana Number

01/0010) trending south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘11’ in the south-eastern part of Bara

Chapiria (Thana Number 01/0015) close to the village boundary of Bara Chapiria (Thana Number

01/0015) and Chhota Chapiria (Thana Number 01/0014).

(11)

Line 11-12: The line starts at point ‘11’ in the eastern part of Bara Chapiria (Thana Number

01/0015)close to the village boundary of Bara Chapiria (Thana Number 01/0015) and Chota Chapiria

(Thana Number 01/0014) trending southerly direction and ends at point ‘12’ in the north-eastern part

of Sarasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0012).

(12)

Line 12-13: The line starts at point ‘12’ in the north-eastern part of Sarasdanga village (Thana Number

01/0012) trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘13’ in middle part of Sarasdanga village

(Thana Number 01/0012).

(13)

Line 13-14: The line starts at point ‘13’ in the middle part of Sarasdanga village (Thana Number

2588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

01/0012) trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘14’ in the south-western part of

Sarasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0012).

(14)

Line 14-15: The line starts at point ‘14’ in the south-western part of Sarasdanga village (Thana

Number 01/0012) trending south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘15’ in the south-eastern part of

Sarasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0012).

(15)

Line 15-16: The line starts at point ‘15’ in the south-eastern part of Sarasdanga village (Thana Number

01/0012) trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘16’ in the north-eastern part of

Porabansri village close to the village boundary of Porabansri village (Thana Number 05/0014) and

Sarasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0012).

(16)

Line 16-17: The line starts at point ‘16’ in the north-eastern part of Porabansri village (Thana Number

05/0014) close to the village boundary of Porabansri village (Thana Number 05/0014) and Sarasdanga

village (Thana Number 01/0012) trending westerly direction passing through Paharpur (Haripur)

village (Thana number 05/0013) and ends at point ‘17’ in the eastern part of Majhiladih village (Thana

Number 05/0006).

(17)

Line 17-18: The line starts at point ‘17’ in the eastern part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number

05/0006) trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘18’ in the western part of Majhiladih

village (Thana Number 05/0006).

(18)

Line 18-19: The line starts at point ‘18’ in the western part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number

05/0006) trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘19’ in the middle part of Pokharia village

(Thana Number 05/0004).

(19)

Line 19-20: The line starts at point ‘19’ in the middle part of the Pokharia village (Thana Number

05/0004) trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘20’ in the south-eastern part of Daldali

village (Thana Number 01/0005) close to the village boundary of Daldali village (Thana Number

01/0005) and Patpahari village (Thana Number 01/0006).

(20)

Line 20-21: The line starts at point ‘20’ in the south-eastern part of Daldali village (Thana Number

01/0005) close to the village boundary of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) and Patpahari

village (Thana Number 01/0006) trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘21’ in the middle

part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005).

(21)

Line 21-22: The line starts at point ‘21’ in the middle part of Daldalivillage (Thana Number 01/0005)

trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘22’ in the south-western part of Daldali village

(Thana Number 01/0005).

(22)

Line 22-23: The line starts at point ‘22’ in the south-western part of Daldali village (Thana Number

01/0005) trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘23’ in the eastern part of Dholkata

village (Thana Number 05/0001).

(23)

Line 23-24: The line starts at point ‘23’ in the eastern part of Dholkata village (Thana Number

05/0001) trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘24’ in the north-eastern part of Pahar

Amchua village (Thana Number 05/0002).

(24)

Line 24-25: The line starts at point ‘24’ in the north-eastern part of Pahar Amchua village (Thana

Number 05/0002) close to village boundary of Dholkata village (Thana Number 05/0001) and Pahar

Amchua village (Thana Number 05/0002) trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘25’ in

the middle part of Kaurigarh village (Thana Number 04/0032).

(25)

Line 25-1: The line starts at point ‘25’ in the middle part of Kaurigarh village (Thana Number

04/0032) trending northerly direction and ends at point ‘1’ in the north-western part of Kaurigarh

village (Thana Number 04/0032).

[F. No. 43015/16/2018-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2589

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 899.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससा जनिेिक, सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध् म उद्यम, बैंगलोर, और अन् एवं उनके कमाचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमाकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , बैंगलोर के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 36/2013) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

31.08.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2020

S. O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2013) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The Director, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Bangalore & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 31.08.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 18^TH AUGUST, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ID 36/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. Prabhu,

S/o Shivappa Kubasad,

R/o Maruti Circle,

5^th Cross, Nekar Nagar,

Old Hubli,

Hubli - 580024.

The Management Micro, Small

& Medium Enterprises,

Ministry of Micro, Small

& Medium Enterprises,

Government of India,

Rept by its Joint Development Commissioner,

Nirmanbhavan, 7^th Floor, Maulana Azad Road,

New Delhi - 110108.

2. The Management Micro, Small

& Medium Enterprises,

Rept by its Assistant Director,

M S M E Development Institute,

Industrial Estate, Gokul Road,

Hubli - 580030.

3. The Management Micro, Small

& Medium Enterprises,

Rept by its Deputy Director (Met)/Adm,

M S M E Development Institute,

Industrial Estate, Gokul Road,

Hubli - 580030.

2590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Anant P. Savadi

Advocate for II Party : Mr. A. F. Rayappanavar

AWARD

It is a petition filed by an individual workman (1^st Party) under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against his erstwhile employer (2^nd Party).

The case of the 1^st Party is,

He was appointed as Electrical Operator in the year 1996 as a daily wager and worked continuously and

uninterruptedly, till he was illegally terminated on 31.03.2013; before termination he was not issued any notice /

charge sheet and no enquiry was conducted against him. On 31.03.2013 when he attended the duty he was

orally told not to attend the duties from then onwards, without assigning any reasons he was terminated which

amounts to illegal retrenchment. Now he is brought to streets with his family members and is jobless; he is age

barred and there is no chance of getting any job.

The claim is contested by the 2^nd Party on the following grounds:

they have not appointed the 1^st Party as Electric Operator, the Electrical maintenance of their office is

maintained by Executive Engineer (Electrical) Central Public Works Department, Bangalore; the entire claim

statement allegations are rejected as false. Since, he was not engaged by the 2^nd Party question of termination

does not arise.

On the above pleading following issues are framed :

Whether applicant proves that in the year 1996 he was engaged as a daily wager by the

respondents and since then uninterruptly he worked till 31.03.2013 as claimed by him?

Whether applicant proves that on 31.03.2013 his services was orally terminated abruptly as

claimed by him?

If so whether respondent justifies such termination w.e.f. 31.03.2013?

Both parties adduced evidence. The 1^st Party workman examined himself as WW-1 and marked

documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-7.

Rebuttal evidence is adduced by MW-1 / Assistant Director of the 2^nd Party and documents Ex M-1 to

Ex M-16 are marked.

Both have submitted their written argument.

To demonstrate his employment with the 2^nd Party the 1^st Party workman has produced Photostat copy

of the Certificate of Verification issued by Junior Engineer (Electrical) of the 2^nd Party Ex W-1; Ex W-2

Photostat copy of the Attendance Verification Register verified by Assistant Director for the period October

2008 to 01.03.2013; Ex W-3 to Ex W-5 are the photos taken in the premises of the 2^nd Party; Ex W-6 is his

Certificate of Training issued by the Small Industries Development Organisation; Ex W-7 is the Certificate of

Participation issued for his participation on behalf of 2^nd Party by Rotary Club of Bijapur in the Krishimela held

during January 2010.

During his cross examination it surfaced that he was not issued Appointment Order and he had not

applied for the job also – the employees in the office of the 2^nd Party would put their signature in a common

Attendance Register, separate Attendance Register was maintained for the 4 casuals, these casuals were not

signing in the Attendance Register but were given attendance in the Register. They were paid wages in cash

without taking vouchers.

Rebuttal evidence is adduced by MW-1 reiterating counter statement averments. The documents

produced by them pertains to sanction of office building and quarters for 2^nd Party, including Electrical and

Civil Works - the Sanction to incur the expenditures in respect of those works - Delegation of financial powers

to field offices of DC (MSME) for outsourcing of certain services (Ex M-14) - Calling for tenders from the

Service Agency for Watch and Ward and Housekeeping (Ex M-15) - Duty hours and the Wage details

pertaining to Watch and Ward Personnel and Housekeeping Personnel (Ex M-16).

During the cross examination of MW-1 he admits that, 1^st Party was working in their office as Office

Boy and was hired through Contractor. However, the witness expressed ignorance about his continuous service

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2591

between 1996 to 2013 as a Generator Maintenance Boy, and also to attend the regular works of the office. He

did not admit the genuineness of the Attendance Register / Ex W-2; he identified the 1^st Party workman in the

Digital Photo Ex W-3 to Ex W-5.

The burden is on the workman to prove his appointment, service and illegal retrenchment. From the

cross-examination evidence of MW-1 it can be inferred that he was not a stranger to the 2^nd Party though they

are disputing his identity. The problem here to accept the claim of the 1^st Party workman in it’s entirety is, he

has not applied for a job, he is not given appointment order and he has not passed on voucher while receiving

wages by way of cash. He had called upon the 2^nd Party to produce original NMR, Wage Register and

Correspondence papers. The 2^nd Party submitted that at no point of time they maintained such documents. The

so called Photostat Copy of the Attendance Register produced by him as Ex W-2 does not bear his signature; his

own document Ex W-1 which is a Certificate of Verification issued by Junior Engineer would read that he

carried out the work of maintenance of Internal Electrical Installation at Small Industries Service Institute

Building at Gokul Road, Hubli (2^nd Party) through contract vide 9 work orders detailed therein. This document

is dated 28.12.1998 and does not detail the specific dates on which he attended the works. However, as per this

certificate he has worked for a period ranging 3-5 months in respect of each work order. That destroys his own

case that also answers his presence in the premises of the 2^nd Party as reflected in the photographs Ex W-3 to Ex

W-5. The work orders issued to him is in consonance with the sanction approved by the Ministry of Micro,

Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India for executions of the works in the 2^nd Party Institute (as

per Ex M-1). The 1^st Party failed to prove the employee employer relationship with the 2^nd Party and thus there

is no question of addressing his illegal retrenchment. Hence, answer to the above issues 1 to 3 goes against

him. The authorities relied by him would have come to his aid had if his relationship with the 2^nd Party and his

continuous service therein was established.

AWARD

The petition is dismissed.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 18^th August, 2020)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 900.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससा जनिेिक, जिमाल न बा ोरसोसा प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, चंडीगढ़ और अन् एवं उनके कमाचारी के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमाकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , चंडीगढ़ के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 101/2015) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 15.07-2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2020

S. O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/2015) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-

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

relation to The Director, Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Chandigarh & Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.07.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No.101/2015

Registered On:-27.02.2015

Parveen Kumar S/o Dev Raj, through R.K. Singh Parmar, General Secretary,

Punjab INTUC L-211, Brari, P.O. Partap Nagar, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal,

Distt. Rupnagar (Punjab).

…Workman

Versus

Director Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology,

(CSIR Complex) Palampur, Distt. Kangra (Himachal Pradesh).

Rajiv Sood (Govt. Contractor), S/o Sh. Jyoti Ram, R/o VPO Paprola,

Tehsil Baijnath, Distt. Kangra (Himachal Pradesh).

…Respondents

ORDER

Passed on:-11.06.2020

The workman has directly moved this application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, alleging therein that he was employed with the defendant-management since long and in violation of the

provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 he has been terminated from service by the

defendants/respondents vide oral order dated 28.11.2014 during the pendency of the file bearing ID

No.255/2013. Hence, it is prayed by the claimant/workman that this Tribunal may be pleased to decide the

complaint set out above and pass suitable orders as it deems fit and proper.

Respondent No.1 i.e. Director Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, (CSIR Complex)

Palampur, Distt. Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) has not filed its reply/written statement and was proceeded ex

parte on 28.07.2016.

Respondent No.2 i.e. Rajiv Sood (Govt. Contractor) has filed its reply/written statement, alleging

therein that the answering respondent is a registered contractor and is working with respondent no.1 since 1986

on the basis of agreement/contract for the specific period and the workman has never worked with the

answering respondent and has not violated Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, workman did not turn up at the stage of

evidence, compelling the learned AR of the claimant Sh. R.K. Parmar to averred that the workman has not

turning for submitting the evidence in spite of the information and order be passed accordingly.

Perusal of the file reveals that application is pending at the stage of the evidence of the workman for

a long time but he is not turning for submitting the evidence in spite of the information, resulting the request

made by the AR that it may be dismissed.

In view of the statement made by the learned AR of the workman, the application is dismissed as

withdrawn. Since there is no adjudication of the case on merits as such, it would not preclude the workman

from filing fresh case in accordance with Law. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

Let hard and soft copy of the order be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action as

required under Section 33(C)(4) of the Act.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 901.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससा ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर िनरल, ृुणे और अन् एवं उनके कमाचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके

कमाकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में श्रम न् ा ाल -3, कोलाकाता के ृंचाट

(संिभा सं्‍ ा 99/2005) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 16.09.20 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-40012/134/2004-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2593

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2020

S. O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2005) of the Labour Court No-3 Pune as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Post Master General, Pune, &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 16.09.20.

[No. L-40012/134/2004-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. 3 AT : PUNE

Presided Over by - SMT. MADHURA A. MULIK

Ref. (IDA) No. 99/2005

Exh. No. 144

First Party

: The Post Master General,

Pune Region, C/o. PMG, Pune

AND

Second Party

: Smt. Anusaya R. Dalvi,

Survey No.59-A/1,

Ushakal Housing Society, Tavade Vasti

Mohamadwadi Road, Hadapsar,

Pune 411 028.

Claim:- Reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages alongwith other benefits from first party.

Smt. Brahme, Advocate for first party.

Shri. R. P. Shaligram, Advocate for second party.

AWARD

[Delivered on :- 20/08/2020]

This Reference is sent by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, to this Court for adjudicating the

points that,

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office City (West Divn) Pune in

terminating the service of Smt. Anusaya R. Dalvi by way of removal vide Order dated 8/11/2000 and

then modifying the said punishment as compulsory retirement vide order dated 28-29/10/2002 is

illegal, proper and justified ?" If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from

which date and what other direction are necessary in the matter?’’

In pursuance of Reference Order notices issued to the parties. Accordingly, the second party appeared

and filed her statement of claim at Exh. 5.

Brief facts of the case :-

The second party pleaded that she worked as 'Post Woman' with First Party. The second party was

transferred to Guruwar Peth, Post Office and she resumed duty in year 1984 as 'Stamp Vendor'. The duties of

Stamp Vendor are only sell stamp/stationery and grant certificates of posting. The stamp vendor is supposed to

sell the stamps upto Rs.30/- to any individual and the sell of more than Rs. 30/- which is treated as Bulk Sale is

to be done only by said post master of the said post office. It is submitted that, the as per routine procedure,

everyday morning the stamp vendor has to take the stamps and other stationery worth Rs. 2,000/- of different

denominations from the post master, at the time the stamp vendor also takes the money order forms, worth

Rs.10/-. If any members of public desires to purchase stamp more than Rs.30/-, has to inform the same to the

post master. Post master gives the required quantity of postal stamps to the stamp vendor and the stamp vendor

hands over the stamps to the customers after accepting the money from the customer.

The second party has made certain allegations against Mr. Raskar, Postal Assistant was officiating post

master. It is further contended that Advocate Shinde used to purchase stamp from post office in bulk purchase

and there used to be credit transactions with consent of postmaster of Guruvar Peth Post Office. The second

2594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

party had no reason to interfere. It is submitted that, on 22/05/1998 the second party attended to her duty. At that

time Senior Superintendent of post office visited the post office and immediately took the charge of stamp box

and carried inspection. After inspection the first party issued the charge-sheet to the second party. The charges

levelled against the second party are such that there was a short cash of Rs.2919.85 out of sale of postage stamp

of Rs. 5860/-. Likewise, it is alleged that there was utter negligence and carelessness in her duty with lack of

sense of integrity. It is alleged that she failed to maintain the register of stamp of her Branch and did not put

before the Superintendent of post master. Thereafter, immediately on 12:00 with immediate effect the second

party was suspended. After 1 month the said suspension order was revoked and the second party was allowed to

resume duty. The second party joined the office w.e.f. 25/06/1991.

The second party by submitted reply to charge-sheet & denied all the allegations levelled against her.

Thereafter first party initiated departmental enquiry against her. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report

dtd.22/03/2000. The enqiury officer held second party responsible only for the amount of Rs.268.85/- in respect

of charged article 1. Thereafter, by letter dtd.27/03/2000 the first party has informed that the disciplinary

authority dis-agrees with the enquiry officer and have asked the second party to submit her representation on the

findings of the enquiry officer. Thereafter authority letter dtd.13/07/2000 the enquiry officer has informed the

second party to remain present for denovo trial on 27/07/2000. As per directions of enquiry officer the second

party attended the denovo enquiry wherein the enquiry officer had ask some questions to the second party. The

enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 03/10/2000. The enquiry officer has not followed proper

procedure of the enquiry. Thereafter, she was removed from service vide letter dtd.08/11/2000. The first party

vide letter dtd.28/-29/10/2002 had modified the order dtd. 08/10/2000 and 12/10/2001. The punishment of

compulsory retirement is imposed on the second party. The past record of the second party was totally

unblemished. Lastly, the second party prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

The first party appeared in present matter and filed its written at Exh.12, wherein all contentions of

second party are totally denied. It is submitted that, issuance of certificate of posting is wested with the clerk of

said department. It is denied that, the stamp vendor is supposed to say the stamp up to Rs.30/- and the sale of

more than Rs.30/- is treated as bulk sale and is to be done by sub post master of said post office. It is submitted

that, during the day whenever stock of stamps of specific denomination is exhausted then sale amount of

required stamp is to be deposited by vendor with post master or treasurer. As per the rules any stamp vendor has

to maintain the register.

It is submitted that, during surprise visit of SSPO Pune City, the cash and stamp balance with second

party was checked and found short by Rs.2919.85/-. The said amount was immediately shown in the account of

UPC. The second party failed to give satisfactory reason for the said shortage. The shortage was admitted by the

second party in writing voluntarily and she thereafter credited amount voluntarily. The disciplinary action under

Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 initiated against the second party vide order dtd.16/06/1998. The enquiry

was conducted against the second party as per existing Rules and Regulations and by observing the principles of

natural justice. The full opportunity of being heard was given to second party. During the enquiry proceeding the

charges were proved against her and thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record

the second party removed from service vide order dtd. 08/11/2000. Thereafter, the second party has preferred

appeal against the punishment inflicted against her. Which was rejected by Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the

second party has preferred petition to the Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai and from the

humanity point of view the punishment was modified to compulsory retirement by order dtd. 29/10/2002.

It is submitted that, since punishment was modified by the Competent Authority from removal from

Government service to compulsory retirement from Government Service and thereby second party should not

deprive of other benefits. The punishment awarded to second party is legal and proper. Therefore, it is prayed to

reject the reference.

On rival pleadings of the parties my Ld. Predecessor has framed issues at Exh.16. In which issue No. 1

& 2 in respect of maintainability of reference are already decided as a preliminary issues and also issue No. 3 &

4 regarding enquiry and perversity of findings of enquiry officer have decided on 17/08/2018. Now remaining

issues are for my consideration, those are reproduced below. I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons

thereof as below.

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the Reference is maintainable?

… In the affirmative

by P.P. order on 02/02/2011.

Whether the first party is an ‘Industry’ within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

… In the affirmative

by P.P. order on 02/02/2011.

Whether the enquiry conducted by the first party is

...In the negative

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2595

legal, fair and proper?

by P.P. order on 17/08/2018.

Whether the evidence before the enquiry officer

was insufficient to prove the misconduct and

whether the findings of the enquiry officer are

perverse?

...In the negative.

by P.P. order on 17/08/2018.

Whether the evidence before the court is sufficient

to prove the misconduct?

… In the Affirmative

Whether the termination of the second party is

illegal/unjustified?

… In the negative

Whether the second party is entitled to the reliefs

claimed for?

… In the negative

What Award?

… Reference is answered in the negative

REASONS

The first party to prove the charges levelled against the second party before the Court examined its

witnesses namely Shri. S.B. Kulkarni at Exh. 116, Shri. S.K. Raskar at Exh. 124 and Shri. S.K. Jadhav at Exh.

131. The first party relied upon following documents -

Sr. No.

Particular of Documents

Exhibits

Attested xerox copy of first party and second page of service book of Smt. A.R.

Dalvi

Attested xerox copy of appointment of Smt. A.R. Dalvi as a Stamp Vendor, Guruwar

Peth P.O. w.e.f. 03/02/1986

Attested xerox copy of visit remarks of Guruwar Peth P.O. dated 22/05/1998 by Sr.

Supdt. Of Post Offices, Pune City West Dn. Pune 411 030.

Attested xerox copy of Hand-to-Hand book of stamp vendor of Guruwar Peth P.O.

dated 22/05/1998.

Attested xerox copy of postal stamp and stationary book of Guruwar Peth P.O. dated

12 to 22/05/1998

Attested xerox copy of Error Book Entry dated 22/05/1998 of Guruwar Peth P.O.

Attested xerox copy ACG-67 (Un-classified Receipt) No. 03037/85 Dtd. 22/05/1998

of Guruwar Peth P.O.

Attested xerox copy of Sub Office Daily Account of Guruwar Peth P.O. for month of

May 1998.

Attested xerox copy of statement of Smt. A.R. Dalvi Stamp Vendor, Guruwar Peth

P.O. dated 22/05/1998 conducted by Visiting Officer/SSPOs, PNC(W) Dn. Pune.

10.

Attested

Xerox

copy

the

Suspension

Order

Memo

No.

ASP/TSO(I)/PF/ARD/Suspension/98 dtd. 22/05/1998.

11.

Attested xerox copy of the relieving charge report dtd. 22/05/1998 of departmental

stamp vendor of Guruwar Peth P.O.

12.

Attested xerox copy of the report addressed to SSPOs. From ASP TSO(I), Pune City

West Dn.

13.

Attested Xerox copy the charge sheet dtd. 16/06/1998 issued vide Memo No.

ASP/TSO(I)PF/ARD/98.

13.

Attested Xerox copy the Rule 45 of Postal Manual Vol. VI, Part I page 52 to 55.

14.

Attested Xerox copy of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)&(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct)

Rules, 1964.

15.

Attested Xerox copy of order of Suspension Revoke vide memo No. ASP/TSO(I)PF

/ARD/Suspension/98 dtd. 22/06/98.

2596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Attested xerox copy of sanction of suspension allowance vide memo

ASP/TSO(I)PF/ARD/ Suspension/98 dtd. 22/06/98.

17.

Attested xerox copy of joining charge report dtd. 25/06/98 for postman, Navsahyadri

P.O., Pune.

18.

Attested xerox copy of letter No. F2/ARD/Susp./VR/98 Dtd. 19/08/98 for Permission

to appoint IO & PO.

19.

Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 02/09/1998 for appointment of enquiry officer.

20.

Attested xerox copy of letter dated 02/09/1998 for appointment of Presenting Officer. 53

21.

Attested xerox copy of set of enquiry report case in respect Smt. A.R. Dalvi.

22.

Attested xerox copy of the letter dated 09/10/2000 to Smt. A.R. Dalvi from No.

ASP/TSO-I, Pune City West Dn. Pune.

23.

Attested Xerox copy of the representation received from Smt. A.R. Dalvi in response

to letter Dtd. 09/10/2000.

24.

Attested xerox copy of the punishment order issued vide memo No.

F2/ARD/Susp/VR/98, Dtd. 08/11/2000.

25.

Attested xerox copy of the charge report dtd. 14/11/2000 and letter of sub-postmaster,

Navsahyadri P.O. Pune 411052 to Smt. A.R. Dalvi.

26.

Attested xerox copy of the letter dated 22/12/2000 from Smt. A.R. Dalvi to SSPOs.,

PNC (W) Dn. Pune 30

27.

Attested xerox copies of Appeal preferred by Smt. A.R. Dalvi.

28.

Attested Xerox copy of order of Appellate Authority vide No. PR/Staff-I/20/05/2001

Dtd. 12/10/2001.

29.

Attested xerox copy of Petition/Review Appeal Dtd. 03/11/2001 preferred by Smt.

A.R. Dalvi.

30.

Attested xerox copy of Order No. STA/44-2(06/69)01/01/02 Dtd. 28/29-10-02 for

Modification of Punishment from removal to compulsory retirement.

31.

Attested xerox copy of the letter dated 21/11/2002 from Smt. A.R. Dalvi to SSPOs,

PNC(W) Dn., Pune 30.

32.

Attested Xerox copies of the Pension Payment Order and DCRG Payment received

from Director of Accounts (Postal) Maharashtra Circle, Nagpur.

33.

Attested Xerox copies of the revised pension payment statement issued y Sr. Post

Master, Pune City H.O. Pune being a Disbursing Officer.

10)

On the contrary the second party examined herself at Exh. 135. She has not produced any documentary

evidence in support of her contentions.

11)

The Ld. Adv. for Second Party argued matter in length and the first party submitted its written notes of

argument. Thereafter matter is kept for further argument on citation. Thereafter on 07/08/2020 both the parties

have produced pursis at Exh. 142 and 143 stating that they have argued the matter at length, the first party has

submitted written notes of argument at Exh. 138. Both the parties have closed their argument by submitting

above mentioned pursis.

12)

Perused written notes of argument produced by the first party.

AS TO ISSUE NO. 5, 6, 7 & 8 :-

13)

All these issues are interlinked with each other hence, they are discussed altogether. These issues are

regarding whether the first party prove misconduct of the second party before the Court, about alleged illegal

termination of the second party and regarding the relief claimed by the second party.

14)

Admittedly second party was working with first party as a post woman and thereafter as stamp vendor.

She was served with charge sheet dated 16.06.1998 for the alleged misconduct of utter negligence and

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2597

carelessness in duty with lack of sense of integrity and devotion to Govt. duty and acted as un-becoming of

Govt. servant and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 45 (5) of Postal Manual Volume VI part I and

Rule 3 1(i), (ii), and (iii) of the CCSC (conduct) Rules, 1964. The second party by raising present dispute

challenged action of the management i.e. first party in terminating her services by way of removal vide order

dated 08/11/2000 and then modifying the same punishment as compulsory retirement vide order dated

28/29-10-2002.

15)

On the rival pleadings of the parties issues have been framed at Exh. 16, amongst them issue No. 1

and 2 regarding maintainability of present reference have been decided affirmatively vide order dated

02/02/2011, wherein it is held and declared that the reference is maintinable and the first party is an industry

within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The issue No. 3 and 4 regarding legality fairness and

propriety of the enquiry and regarding perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer have been decided by

order dated 17/08/2018, wherein it is held and declared that the enquiry conducted against the second party is

not legal, fair and proper and not in accordance with the principal of natural justice, findings are perverse, hence

said enquiry stands vitiated.

16)

In all cases where the domestic enquiry conducted is defective or the findings rendered at the domestic

enquiry are perverse, the employer is entitled to adduce additional evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the order

of discharge or dismissal is justified. The first party in its written statement made specific prayer to that effect.

Having consideration of prayer of first party and as per settled position of Law when this Court come to the

conclusion and vitiated the enquiry conducted against the second party, opportunity has been offered to the first

party to prove the charges of misconduct levelled agianst the Second party before the Court. Accordingly the

first party adduced its evidence.

17)

Before going through the oral evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is required to go

through the actual charges of misconduct levelled against the second party. On perusal of charge-sheet dated

16/06/1998 which is at Exh. 45, it has been observed that on 22/05/1998 on surprise visit of Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices the sum of Rs. 2919.85 found short out of postage stamp advance balance of Rs.

5860/-, possessed by the second party in her official capacity. Further the second party failed to count the

balance of postage stamp advance, possessed by her in her official capacity on 20/05/1998 and 21/05/1998 at the

close of counter hours and also failed to maintain the register of balances of postage stamp advance of her

branch and accordingly not put forth before the S.P.M., Guruwar Peth, Pune for verifying the balances of

postage stamp advance possessed by her at the close of counter hours. Thus, she contravented the provisions of

Rule No. 45(3) & (5) of the Postal Manual Volume VI Part I and Rule No. 3.1(i), (ii) & (iii) of the

C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964. The first party conducted departmental enquriy into said charges and after

considering the report/finding of the Enquiring Authority, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices by the virtue of

powers conferred by the Rule 12 of C.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 ordered that the services of the second party be

removed with immediate effect.

18)

The copy of termination order dated 08/11/2000 is at Exh. 57. Record also shows that being aggrieved

with said decision, the second party preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The copy of appeal is at

Exh. 60. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 12/10/2001 which is produced at Exh. 61 confirmed the

termination order and the said Appeal was rejected. Further being aggrieved with the decision of the Appellate

Authority, the second party preferred Petition/Review appeal dated 03/11/2001, copy of petition is produced at

Exh. 62 and the Reviewing Authority came to the conclusion and has taken following decision-

The charge involves integrity and public trust and it is difficult to entrust the person with work,

involving public confidence such as vending stamps or delivering of mail. The punishment is in

order, but taking a lenient view in the light of petition preferred, it is modified as compulsory

retirement.

Thus, punishment of dismissal modified as compulsory retired. As mentioned earlier by raising present

dispute the second party challenged her termination order dated 08/11/2000 and final order of compulsory order

dated 28/29-10-2002.

19)

As enquiry conducted against the second party stands vitiated, the first party to prove the charges of

misconduct levelled against the second party examined its first witness Shri. S.B. Kulkarni at Exh.116. Witness

Kulkarni deposed that he worked as Senior Superintendent of Post Office of Pune City West Division since

06/11/1997 to 04/10/1998. Being senior superintendent it was his part of duty to visit various post offices under

his administrative jurisdiction and submit visit report thereof. Further he deposed that on 22/05/1998 he paid

surprise visit to Guruwar Peth Post Office, Pune. He verified cash and balances of stamps of said post office and

found Rs. 2919.85 short with the stamp vendor i.e. second party. The amount found short was shown to

unclassified payment on same day. The remark regarding short amount was passed in the Sub-office account of

2598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Guruwar Peth Post Office duly signed by him. He further deposed that he found that stamp and stationary of Rs.

3850/- were given to said stamp vendor by Sub-post Master as per request. The S.P.M. had made a note in his

rough book having giving the stamps and stationary of Rs. 3850/- to the second party which was also agreed by

her. However, she did not give said stamps to S.P.M.. Hence the amount of shortage found with her was credited

by her voluntarily to Government Account under head Unclassified Receipt. This witness has recorded

statement of the second party on same day. As per this witness she has given voluntary statement. The said

statement is at Exh. 41. Further the second party asked the permission to deposit amount which was found in

short in cash balance. After granting permission she credited the said amount and accordingly the receipt is also

issued to her. Further this witness reported the incidence to Higher Authorities. His report is at Exh. 35. It has

come on record from the cross-examination of this witness that whatever short amount found with the second

party, this witness permitted her to deposit the same as per her written request.

20)

The second witness of the first party Shri. S.K. Raskar examined at Exh. 124. He deposed that on

22/05/1998 he was holding the charge of Sub-post Master at Guruwar Peth Post office Pune. Further he has

narrated the incidence same as deposed by witness No. 1 of the first party Shri. Kulkarni. Further he added that

the amount of misappropriation found with the second party was got credited by her voluntarily. He further

deposed that the second party has shown utter negligence and carelessness in her official duty with lack of sense

of integrity and devotion to duty, she misappropriated the amount and acted unbecoming of Government

Servant, but in cross-examination he stated that he has no idea about the charge of misappropriation levelled

against the second party.

21)

The witness No. 3 of the first party Shri. Jadhav examined at Exh. 131. He has deposed that he is in

service of postal department since 1982. He further deposed that his office calculate the pension and other

retirement benefit likes P.F., Gratuity etc from past record of the employee. He further deposed that the second

party after her compulsory retirement wrote a letter dated 21/11/2002 to S.S.P.Os.P.N.C.(West) Dn., Pune-30 and

requested to sent her pension form. The said letter is at Exh. 64. Thereafter she has voluntarily submitted

pension forms and fulfilled other required documents for the retiral benefits. Thereafter her pension payment

order dated 07/04/2003 and DCRG Payment has been received from Director of Accounts(Postal) Maharashtra

Circule, Nagpur to Pune Office. The said order is at Exh. 65. He further deposed that the second party from

14/11/2000 was receiving pension of Rs. 1275 + Dearness relief. She has also received Rs. 44,109/- towards

gratuity and Rs. 10854/- towards CGEGIS and received P.F. also. Time to time her pension was revised and as

on today she is getting pension of Rs. 9000/- + D.R..

22)

As against, the second party examined herself at Exh. 135. Her affidavit in chief is nothing but replica

of facts and circumstances mentioned in her statement of claim. It is strongly argued by the Learned Advocate

for the second party that the charges of utter negligence and carelessness in duty are levelled against the second

party, but the evidence produced by the first party management before this Court crossed its limit and the first

party tried to put up on record that the second party indulged in act of misappropriation. It is further argued that

whatever the first party tried to prove are not the charges levelled against the second party. The amount found in

short with the second party. It may be negligence on her part but cannot be termed as act of misappropriation. It

is further argued that nothing is on record to show that it was fraud. As against, it is argued for the first party that

the evidence produced by the first party before the Court is sufficient to prove that the conduct of second party

was nothing but utter negligence and carelessness of her office duty with lack of sense of integrity and devotion

to duty and acted unbecoming of Government Servant.

23)

The written synopsis of the argument filed by the first party shows that it places emphasis on Rule 3(1)

and Rule 3-C(23) of C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules. On this point the Learned Advocate for the second party pays my

attention towards Rule 3 – C(23) of the C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and argued that this Rule provides for acts

and conducts which amounts to misconduct, but the charge-sheet was not issued to the second party for any of

the conduct as mentioned in this Rule 3 – C(23) of the C.C.S.(conduct) Rules, 1964, but it was issued under

Rule 3.1. It is further argued for the second party that it was only utter negligence on the part of the second party

which is not covered in Rule 3.1(i)(ii)&(iii) of C.C.S.(Conduct) Rule, 1964. It appears that it is only counter

argument of the second party and she has no grievance about issuance of charge-sheet under this Rule. I have

carefully gone through all these provisions. Rule 3 provides -

3. General (1) Every Government servant shall at all times -

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2599

Rule 45(3) and (5) of Postal Manual Volume IV Part I are regarding sale of stamps and reply-coupons

and memo of stamp advances. Rule 23 provides for Acts and conducts which amounts to misconduct. It is seen

from Rule 24 regarding cases of trivial nature that Rule 3(1) of the C.C.S.(Conduct) Rules 1964 serves the

specific purpose of covering acts of misconduct not covered by other specific provisions of the Rules.

24)

It has been observed that the second party raised certain allegations against Mr. S.K. Raskar, Postal

Assistant. She has deposed that the behaviour of Mr. Raskar was not good with the second party. Further one

Advocate Shinde’s Office was situated near to the Post Office and it was routine, though illegal to give stamps

and other stationary on credit to Advocate Shinde or person sent by him. Mr. Raskar was following this illegal

procedure for years together. The second party was helping Mr. Raskar in addition to her work and hence she

could not write/maintain the balance register on 20/05/1998 and 21/05/1998. Further she deposed that on

22/05/1998 Shri. Dhumal a clerk of Adv. Shinde come for bulk purchase and he had purchased the stamps and

other stationary in bulk quantity directly from Mr. Raskar, who was then the officiating Post Master at that time.

She further deposed that stamp and stationary of Rs. 2919.85 were solely given by Shri. Raskar to Shri. Dhumal.

She further deposed that as per Rules of Postal Department itself the stamp vendor does not have the authority to

make any bulk sale beyond Rs. 30/-. It has been observed that the second party tried to bring on record that for

incidence dated 22/05/1998 Mr. Raskar was responsible and the first party illegally taken action against the

second party. It is pertinent note here that Shri. Raskar stepped into witness box and deposed regarding

incidence dated 22/05/1998. Though the second party has made various allegations against Shri. Raskar and

tried to show involvement of Shri. Raskar in incidence dated 22/05/1998, surprisingly this witness is not cross-

examined by the second party on said allegations. If there was involvement of Shri. Raskar in issuing advance

stamp or stationary to Shri. Dhumal then the second party would have cross-examine the witness on that point.

Further she deposed that the said Shri. Dhumal had come to deposit amount of Rs. 2919.85 and said amount was

received by Shri. Raskar himself. It is seen that though this stand is taken by the second party she has neither

adduced any supporting evidence to that effect nor by cross-examining Shri. Raskar she brought on record this

fact.

25)

It has been observed that on the day of incidence the second party submitted her explanation wherein

she has specifically admitted that the amount of Rs. 2919.85 found short with her. Further she has submitted that

she has given 127 registered tickets/stamp and inland letters of Rs. 1,000/- to one Shri. Dhumal, Advocate

known to her without receiving any amount for that. Further she has submitted that due to crowd she never

made entries to the register. Further mentioned that she is giving explanation voluntarily and without any force /

pressure on her. It is seen that in this explanation she admitted her guilt and begs pardon, further she prayed that

one opportunity be given to her.

26)

The witness No. 1 for the first party Shri. Kulkarni is eye-witness of the incidence. He deposed

specifically about the incidence before the Court. It is revealed that nothing is extracted from the cross-

examination of this witness to disbelieve his contention. Further evidence of witness No. 2 for the first party

Shri. Raskar corroborates the evidence of Shri. Kulkarni. Nothing is also extracted from the cross-examination

of Shri. Raskar also to support the case of the second party. As mentioned earlier the second party admitted for

guilt in explanation, but in her cross-examination she submitted that the underlined contents marked as ‘A’ in

Exh. 41 obtained from her forcefully. Further during cross-examination she submitted that she never filed any

written complaint to Police or to her Senior in respect of that. The second party not produced any documentary

evidence in support of her contentions. From oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record it has

been observed that she has given stamp in advance to customer without receiving amount for that, this act is out

of ambit of her duty. Further the amount of Rs. 2919.85 found less with her. Admittedly, thereafter she deposited

said amount with department. The second party no where brought on record that she acted as per Rules provided

for stamp sale. Is there any provision to give stamp on credit to purchaser/customer? She allowed said

transaction at her own accord. The duty of the second party was of more responsibility where money transaction

was involved. Though there are no direct changes of misappropriation, but doing such kind of transaction is not

permitted. It is a case of gross negligence if she did not collect any amount of stamp sale. Regarding second

charge levelled against the second party she admitted that on 20/05/1998 and 21/05/1998 entries on register not

made by her. All these are seems to be irregular practice of an employee. Further the said misconduct related

with the property of the first party and ultimately amounts financial misconduct which is illegal. It would be a

failure to maintain absolute integrity in the first place. Secondly, it would expose an employee as a person

behaving in a manner unbecoming of such an employee of the Government. It cannot be termed as minor

misconduct. Above mentioned oral as well as documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that the second party

committed serious misconduct. Thus, it is clear that the first party succeeded to establish the charges of

misconduct levelled against the second party by adducing cogent evidence before the Court.

27)

The first party in support of its contentions relied on M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.,

2600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reported in 2018 ALL SCR 1943, wherein it is held that-

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, S.11A- Dismissal from service-Legality- Appellant cashier in respondent

bank charged for consuming liquor while on duty and also for shortage of Rs. 35,000/- found on same

day- Full opportunity given to appellant at every stage of proceedings- Appellant never raised any

objection complaining causing of any prejudice to him before enquiry officer – He also received all the

documents relied upon by bank in support of charge-sheet – Appellant also availed opportunity of

examination and cross-examination of witnesses – Reasoned report submitted by enquiry officer

holding appellant guilty of both charges – No illegality to conduct of domestic enquiry – Looking to

gravity of charges, order of dismissal, held proper.

I have gone through this citation. The issue involved in this case is of legality of domestic enquiry but

in case in hand already this issue has been decided. Therefore,with due respect to the ratio laid down in above

cited case it is my humble submission that the facts of this cited case are different than the facts of present

case,hence, it is not helpful to the present case. The first party further relied on Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by

L.Rs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors., reported in 1987 O AIR (SC) 1242, wherein it is held that-

It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any produced by the parties cannot be

considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and

that all necessary sand material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of case set up by it. The

object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order

to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other

party may not be taken by surprise . The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no

pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities.

The learned advocate for the first party placed reliance on above mentioned case law and submitted

that during re-examination the second party stated that if decision of this Court goes in her favour she will ready

to deposit all the pension amount received by her. This stand of the second party is without pleading and it

cannot be considered.

28)

It is argued for the second party that it is not a case of misappropriation but mere case of negligence

and charges of misappropriation are not levelled against the second party, hence, it is required to take lenient

view and minor punishment be imposed on the second party. The punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh

and disproportionate punishment.

29)

As per Section 11-A of the I.D.Act this Court, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of

discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and

direct reinstatement of workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to

the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances

of the case may require. It is settled that unless the gravity of the misconduct first be analysed, it is not proper to

hold that punishment is disproportionate. As discussed earlier charges of utter negligence and carelessness in

duty with lack of sense of integrity and devotion to Govt. duty and acted as unbecoming of Govt. servant are

levelled and further those charges are categorically proved against the second party.

30)

I have gone through termination order dated 08/11/2000 Exh. 57 and final order of compulsory

retirement dated 28-29/10/2002 Exh. 63 which are challenged by the second party. After taking lenient view the

punishment of termination converted into compulsory retirement. It is pertinent to note here that the second

party preferred Appeal challenging her termination order and again preferred Petition/Review Application. The

department has taken lenient view and converted her termination into compulsory retirement. It has been also

observed from evidence of witness Shri. Jadhav for the first party at Exh. 131 that the second party has availed

all retirement benefits such as P.F., Gratuity & DCRG Payment. Today, she is getting regular pension. The

second party admitted this fact during cross-examination. After considering all these aspects I do not find any

illegality in both above mentioned decisions taken by the first party. As mentioned earlier proved misconduct of

the second party is major one and the first party already taken lenient view and modified the punishment, hence,

it cannot be held that punishment of termination or compulsory retirement is disproportionate one. In my view

it is not required to interfere in the decision of employer in present matter. Thus, it is clear that the second party

failed to prove her alleged illegal termination in the hands of the first party. The second party further seeking

relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. In view of above mentioned discussion

the second party is not entitled for any relief claimed by her. Hence, I answer issue No. 5 in the affirmative, 6

and 7 in the negative and in answer to issue No. 8, I proceed to pass following award.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2601

AWARD

(1) The reference is answered in negative.

(2) No order as to costs.

(3) Inform the Government for publication of this award.

Date : 20.08.2020

Pune.

MADHURA A. MULIK, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 902.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससा अृर मिाप्रबंिक, भेल, रानीृेट चेन्नई और अन् एवं उनके कमाचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और उनके कमाकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न् ा ाल , चेन्नई के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 100/2015) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 14.08.2020

को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/61/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2020

S. O. 902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2015) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal -

cum Labour Court CGIT Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The Additional General Manager, BHEL, Ranipet, Chennai & Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 14.08.2020.

[No. L-42011/61/2015-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 100/2015

17.07.2020

The General Secretary

BAP Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)

Regn. No. 580/NAT

BHEL/Ranipet

Pin Code-632406

…1^st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The Additional General Manager

BHEL

Ranipet-632406

Tamil Nadu

…2^nd Party/1^st Respondent

The Corporate Office

BHEL House, Siri Fort

New Delhi-110049

…2^nd Party/2^nd Respondent

2602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: Advocates, Sri B. Rajagopal, K. Sathiyamurthi

For the 2^nd Party/1^st & 2^nd Respondent

: Advocates, M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/61/2015-

IR(DU) dtd. 22.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of BHEL Ranipet regarding refusal for wage revision talks

with representative of the Petitioner Union is justified or not? If not, what relief the Petitioner Union is

entitled to?”

For a just adjudication a little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that on receipt of the

above reference from the appropriate Government, the same is registered as ID No. 100/2015. The First Party,

BAP Mazdoor Sangam is one of the affiliated Union to the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangam (BMS) while files its

Claim Statement both the Respondents entered appearance filing their Counter Statements separately.

The brief facts of the Petitioner’s case is that the Office Memorandum (OM) of the Department of

Public Enterprises (DPE), Ministry of Industry dtd. 14.01.1999 was issued regarding “Policy for the 6^th Round

of Wage Negotiation in Public Sector Enterprises”. By virtue of this OM, a Joint Committee Meeting was held

in New Delhi on 12.09.2000 and an Agreement to the effect was executed for Wage Revision once in 10 years

i.e. from 01.01.1997 till 31.12.2006. On expiry of the aforesaid period (30.12.2006), the First Party submitted a

Charter of Demands for the next Wage Revision for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Besides, the DPE

Guideline vide OM dtd. 01.05.2008 imparted instruction to fix-up the periodicity of Wage Revision for a period

less than 10 years but not less than 5 years. It is averred in the Claim Statement that the Respondents did not pay

heed to the claim of the Petitioner Union for fixation of the periodicity of Wage Revision once in 5 years w.e.f.

01.01.2007 nor considered the Charter of Demands to fix up the next Wage Revision to commence on

01.01.2012, on the ground of the settlement arrived at by the parties dtd. 31.12.2009 at New Delhi.

Subsequently, a circular was issued on 06.02.2010 for implementing the Wage Revision for the workers w.e.f.

01.01.2007. There was no mention of fixation of periodicity of Wage Revision but reflected therein the

periodicity of the Agreement will be same as that of Executives and Non-Unionized Supervisors. The further

circulars implementing the Wage Revision for Executives and Non-Unionized Supervisors were silent about the

periodicity of the Wage Revision. The Charter of Demands on this issue was never been attended by the

Respondents. The First Party Petitioner Union accordingly approached this Forum seeking relief stating the

aforesaid Agreement as not unanimous and not in consonance to the guideline of DPE dtd. 01.05.2008. Hence

seeks order of direction to the Respondents to set up Wage Revision on 01.01.2012, 5 years after expiry

previous Wage Revision.

The Respondents entered appearance and filed their respective Counter Statements. Initially the

Executive Director, BHEL, Ranipet while was impleaded as sole Respondent, the First Party Union during the

course of hearing impleaded the Corporate Office, BHEL, New Delhi as Second Party vide Order dtd.

07.02.2017 (arising out of the instant ID 100/2015). The pleadings of both the Respondents are almost same and

common. It is pleaded that as the Petitioner Union since agreed upon to the terms of the settlement in their

Memorandum of Agreement dtd. 30.12.2009 (Ext.W5), the validity period for Wage Revision is fixed to 10

years. It is further pleaded the Charter of Demands to reduce the periodicity from 10 years to 5 years has got no

force. It is accordingly pleaded that the Petitioner’s Union commands no merit to raise the issue.

Both parties in addition to their pleadings adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. One D.

Venkatachalam, the General Secretary of the BAP Mazdoor Sangam, Ranipet testified as WW1 and Exhibited

10 documents as Ext.W1 to Ext.W10. Both the Respondents similarly adduced oral evidence through their

respective witnesses viz. Joy Alexander, the Additional General Manager/HR, BHEL/BAP, Ranipet and Samir

Mukherjee, the Additional General Manager, HR-IR and Policy Matters, Chennai as MW1 and MW2. A bunch

of documents are marked through the above witnesses as Ext.M1 to Ext.M13.

In view of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced by the witnesses and the materials borne

out from the documents relied on so also the argument and counter argument advanced by the respective

parties, the following issues are found to be emerged in :

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2603

Issues

(i)

Whether the action of the Management by not allowing a discussion with the Petitioner Union for

fixation of Wage Revision once in 5 years - is justified?

(ii)

Whether the First Party Petitioner Union is entitled to the relief as sought for?

Since the issues are interlinked, inter-alia taken up together for a convenient discussion.

Undoubtedly, the Second Respondent is a Government Undertaking Sector and a manufacturer of

major integrated power plant equipment having 17 manufacturing units across the country. The Ranipet unit is

one among it. It is also an undisputed admitted fact that in order to settle the wage revision or any policy

decision with regard to the benefits of the employees, the matters in issue are taken up to the Forum of “Joint

Committee of BHEL” wherein the Authorized Representatives of the Unions of all units and the responsible

Competent Officers of Director and Functional Directors on behalf of the Respondent are the members of the

Joint Committee. Any consensus arises out of it is sent to the Appropriate Authority for approval and the

circular is issued following the approval. The relevant averments of the Counter Statements of Respondents are

referred.

Admittedly, the reference dtd. 22.06.2014 to adjudicate the Industrial Dispute raised by the First Party

Petitioner’s Union was received by this Tribunal during the month of July, 2015. The First Party Union through

their General Secretary filed their Claim Statement seeking specific relief to pass necessarily order directing the

Respondent Management to implement the revised wages from 01.01.2012 with further consequential relief as

deems fit.

It is contended in the Claim Statement that by virtue of the order dtd. 14.01.1999 of the DPE, Ministry

of Industry the Office memorandum (in brief OM) was issued for the 6^th Round Wage Negotiation in Public

Sector Enterprises. The DPE imparted instruction in the said OM to have the Wage Revision once in every 10

years w.e.f. 01.01.1997. WW1, D. Venkatachalam on behalf of the First Party (BMS) produced relevant

documents. In that respect the Memorandum of Understanding under Ext.W1 and the circular thereon dtd.

15.11.2000 were produced and marked as Ext.W1 and Ext.W2. The copy of aforesaid DPE guideline though

filed was not marked as Exhibit. The First Party Petitioner (BMS) found not to have disputed the aforesaid OM.

On the other hand, the First Party on expiry of the periodicity of Wage Revision of 10 years (from 01.01.1997

to 31.12.2006) on dtd. 01.01.2007 moved the Management by furnishing their Charter of Demands dtd.

30.12.2006 which was marked as Ext.W3 through WW1. In support of the contentions of Ext.W3 this witness in

Para-3 categorically states that the Office Memorandum vide DPE OM No. 2(7)/06-DPE(WC)-GL VI dtd.

01.05.2008 (Ext.W4) was issued for revision of wages for PSU Workers. It is emphatically stated that the said

OM reads that “the government has decided that the validity of Wage Settlement can be for a period less than

10 years but not less than 5 years”. It is contended by the First Petitioner through its Authorized Representative

that the Government of India vide the aforesaid OM imparted the guideline to the Competent Authority to

consider the periodicity for Wage Revision not beyond 10 years but less than 10 years and above 5 years. On

perusal of the documents on records it appears that the Charter of Demands (Ext.W3) was submitted by the First

Party basing on the guideline of Ext.W4.

After conducting series of meetings of Joint Committee commencing from 21.01.2009, set at rest on

30.12.2009 vide Memorandum of Agreement (Ext.W5). The specific pleadings of the Claim Statement as well

as the evidence adduced by WW1 that such an Agreement under Ext.W5 is not binding on the First Party BMS

on the ground the Agreement was not in full form nor signed by all the participants except a few. The

Appropriate Authority issued three Corporate Human Resource circulars on a single day i.e. 02.06.2010 vide

no. (i) 004/IRS/2010 (ii) 006/IRS/2010 and (iii) 005/IRX/2010 marked as Ext.W6, Ext.W7 and Ext.W8 for

revision of pay and allowances in respect of the workmen for non-unionized Supervisors including JEs and for

Executives respectively. The witness in support of the contentions of the Claim Statement categorically states

that the MoA (Ext.W5) is not a valid Agreement in want of specification of periodicity / duration for Wage

Revision. The Agreement was not in accordance to the guideline of the DPE (Ext.W4). The omission of the

periodicity in the aforesaid circulars is also highlighted.

10.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent advanced his argument justifying the action of

the Management that there was no specification of the periodicity for Wage Revision in the MoA agreed upon

by the BMS. The MW1, Joy Alexander, the Additional General Manager (HR), BHEL/BAP Ranipet

categorically states evidence in Para-7 that a Joint Committee Meeting was held on 30.12.2009 at New Delhi for

implementation of the Wage Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The extract of Memorandum of Agreement

was produced and marked as Ext.M1 (an incomplete document). It is further stated by him that the said

Agreement (Ext.M1) not only covers the Petitioner’s Union but to all other similar workmen. Such contention

2604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cannot be taken into account as claimed based on the facts contended in Ext.M1 (an incomplete document). The

periodicity of Agreement dtd. 30.12.2009 (Ext.W5) says at Para-2.2 that it will be that of Executives and Non-

Unionized Supervisors. Basing on the recommendations of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice S.

Mohan, Retd. Judge, Supreme Court the Government has decided that the scale of pay attached to Board Level

Posts and Board Level Posts would stand revised from 01.01.1997 and the next pay revision will lie after 10

years. The said DPE guideline OM No. 2/49/98-DPE WC dtd. 25.06.1999 may be marked as Ext.M2. So far the

contentions in Ext.M2 is concerned since no dispute arose needs no discussion.

11.

MW1 adds that the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise vide OM

dtd. 26.11.2008 (Ext.M3) advised the CPSEs to accept the recommendation of Second Pay Revision Committee

held under the Chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannatha Rao, Retd. Judge of Supreme Court of India regarding

the revision of pay and allowances for below Board Level and Board Level Executive and Non-Unionized

Supervisors.

12.

It is further stated by this Witness that the Workers Union of Trichy Unit raised an identical dispute

before the Conciliation Officer, the ALC (Central) demanding termination of current Wage Settlement vide

MoA dtd. 30.12.2009 under Section 19(2) of the ID Act. The Respondent’s Company made necessary reply vide

its correspondence under Ext.M4 and Ext.M5 that such demand is not tenable as the said Agreement dtd.

30.12.2009 (marked in the instant case as Ext.W4) was executed by the Representatives of the elected Unions

and the Management during the course of Joint Committee Meeting. Some more documents relating to the

conciliation proceeding have been produced and marked as Ext.M6, Ext.M7 and Ext.M8. MW1 states since the

Wage Agreement is still in force, the provision under Section-19(2) of the ID Act cannot be invoked to

terminate the same. This witness emphasized that the Petitioner’s Union has no right to demand the termination

of the Agreement as much as the Section-19(2) can only be applicable in respect of a settlement under Section-

12(3) or an Agreement under Section-18(1) of the ID Act, entered between the Employer and the Employee.

It is stated that the Agreement dtd. 30.12.2009 (Ext.W4) is an independent Agreement between the

Representatives of the elected Union from all the Units and the Management. Hence binding upon all such Units

including the Petitioner’s Unit at Ranipet.

13.

One Sri Samir Mukherjee who was working as Additional General Manager (also holds affairs relating

to HR and IR Policy Matters) adduced evidence as MW2 almost corroborating the facts stated by MW1. He

produced some more documents on behalf of the Respondent. Some of those are the same copies of those

documents already relied by the Petitioner. Ext.M10 is the copy of Memorandum of Agreement (Ext.W5).

Ext.M11 is the same copy of Ext.W6. This Witness categorically states that the MoA dtd. 30.12.2009 (Ext.W5)

was signed by INTUC, AITUC and HMS and most of the independent Unions of the Joint Committee. It is

contended that even though BMS Union participated in the discussion refused to sign on MoA but the benefits

are enjoyed by the members of BMS. It is also claimed that the BMS Union participated in the Sub-Committee

of the Joint Committee constituted for framing of pay-scales of the workmen. The participant Unions of the

Joint Committee and the signatories of the MoA have never raised any dispute. Only the non-participant Unions

have submitted the Charter of Demands for Wage Revision. Pending disposal of the case, the Counsel for the

Petitioner filed memo with an Affidavit of MW2 alongwith MoU (Ext.M15) regarding the pay revision held by

both the parties for the period commencing from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2026 and prays to adjudicate the reference

in terms of it. It is contended that the periodicity for Wage Revision was for 10 years in view Ext.M15. The First

Party vehemently raises objection. Taking into consideration the fact of submission and the MoU under

Ext.M15.

14.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs with regard to the evidence adduced by the

Witnesses of both parties and the argument advanced by the Learned Counsels occasioned this Tribunal to have

a careful and meticulous perusal on all relating documents. The admitted undisputed facts remains that by

virtue of the OM dtd. 14.01.1999 regarding policy for the Sixth Round Wage Negotiation in Public Enterprise,

the Wage Revision was given effect for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 01.01.1997 which expired on 31.12.1996.

Pursuant to the OM dtd. 01.05.2008 under Ext.W4 (DPE Guidelines), the First Party submitted their

Charter of Demands especially claiming for the periodicity of Wage Revision. It is clearly mentioned in Ext.W4

“Considering the demands of various Unions / Associations of CPSEs, the Government has decided that the

validity of Wage Settlement can be for a period of less than 10 years but not less than 5 years”. Since the

Government of India imparted necessary guideline vide the aforesaid OM, the Respondent Management to

consider if they can reduce the periodicity of Wage Revision less than 10 years but not less than 5 years which

implies that the Respondent Management had a lot of scope to fix up the periodicity of such Wage Revision in

between 5 years to 10 years.

15.

At the outset, the most vital document, the Charter of Demands (Ext.W3), the DPE Guideline

(Ext.W4), MoA (Ext.W5) and all the circulars dtd. 06.02.2010 under Ext.W6, Ext.W7 and Ext.W8 are taken

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2605

into consideration. Admittedly, the Charter of Demands under Ext.W3 dtd. 31.12.2006 claims for a Wage

Revision once in 5 years w.e.f. 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and onwards. Ext.W4, the DPE Guideline vide OM

dtd. 01.05.2008 was issued by the Government of India. Thereafter, the MoA dtd. 31.12.2009 vide Ext.W5 was

exhibited. The Clause 2.1 of the Agreement stands for duration of the Agreement. It reads “Agreement will be

effective from 01.01.2007”. It is silent as to what period the Agreement will be in force. The Clause 2.2 reads

that “The periodicity of Agreement will be same as that of Executives and Non-Unionized Supervisors”.

Attention was drawn on the Circular under Ext.W6 which is for revision of Pay and Allowances in respect of the

workmen. It reveals from Clause 2.2 of the Agreement it is dependent on Circular under Ext.W7 and Ext.W8

which stands for revision of Pay and Allowances in respect of Non-Unionized Supervisors and JEs and Circular

under Ext.W7 for revision of Pay and Allowances in respect of Executives. Both the Circulars viz. Ext.W7 and

Ext.W8 bear almost 33 clauses respectively regarding revision of different perks, emoluments, allowances,

wages, salaries, etc. w.e.f. 01.01.2007. But nowhere those circulars whisper regarding the periodicity. At the

outset, the attention is also drawn on Ext.W9 which is found to be an Inter-Office Memorandum issued by

MW2, Samir Mukherjee, the then Senior Deputy General Manager (HR). It reveals from Ext.W9 that a meeting

was held at Bangalore on 29.07.2011. The copy of Record Notes of the meeting was sent to the Representative

of Executives of different Union who participated in the meeting. The First Party, Ranipet Union since a

participant, was issued with the Notes of Record vide. Ext.W9. Attention was drawn on the Record of Notes

consists of FOBEA points in Annexure-2. It seems different issues including the matter of Wage Revision was

taken up as against S.No. 5.14. The S.No. 5.14 of Ext.W9 says “Wage Revision to start from 2012”. Against

the S.No. it is noted “The Management stated no periodicity is mentioned in DPE Guideline”. On going through

Ext.W9 and the very specific clause under S.No. 5.14 it seems the Management in a very mechanical manner

taken up the issue. It is held that several meetings have been held in between the parties to resolve several issues

including the Wage Revision. Pending disposal of the issue to fix up the period of periodicity of 5 years w.e.f.

01.01.2007, the Wage Revision was held on expiry of 10 years i.e. 31.12.2016. While sitting to adjudicate the

instant ID, this Tribunal hardly finds any scope to consider the contentions of the Respondent regarding the

execution of the Agreement, if any held in between the parties vide MoU dtd. 01.01.2019. The fixation of the

periodicity for Wage Revision for a period of 10 years from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2026 is in no way would be the

matter of discussion. Besides, in order to avoid confusion it needs mention that the connected IA 35/2019 was

rejected not being the subject matter of reference, hence cannot be taken into account. In the prevailing situation

it seems the matter has progressed in this dimension in fixing the periodicity for 10 years.

16.

At the outset it would not be out of place to mention that this Tribunal has hardly any jurisdiction to go

beyond the reference. The issue was accordingly settled to see if the action of the Management is justified in

refusing to discuss about the pay revision as per the Charter of Demands. Admittedly, the DPE (Ext.W4) does

not fix up the periodicity for wage revision but imparted instruction to the Appropriate / Competent Authority to

fix up the period of periodicity.

17.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs with regard to the evidence of the Witnesses as

well as the documents it is held that the Respondent Management cannot take the advantage of the omission if

any crept in the DPE Guideline, but to move in the right perspective defining the spirit of the Guideline. The

DPE OM is issued by none else other than the Govt of India. The Respondents found to have ignored the

importance of the Guideline. The Guideline though not mandatory, but obligatory to follow the instructions

imparted therein. It reveals even though the Respondents held several meetings and executed settlements on

different occasions and circulars were issued under Ext.W6, Ext.W7 and Ext.W8, found to have seriously failed

to discuss the most vital issues of the Charter of Demands i.e. to fix up the periodicity for Wage Revision with

the stake holders, the Unions affiliated to BMS. In this context, the Respondents should have taken all care to

ascertain if all the Unions (including the Petitioner’s Union) to participate in the discussion individually or

through BMS to which they are affiliated.

At the cost of repetition, it needs mention that the DPE Guideline is very much clear that “the demands

of various Unions and Associations were taken into consideration and the Government has decided that the

validity of the Wage Settlement can be for a period less than 10 years but not less than 5 years”. It reveals that

the Government of India imparted necessary instructions to the Appropriate and Competent Authority to fix up

the periodicity in this regard vide DPE Guideline (Ext.W4). As such, before proceeding with any Wage

Revision the Management Company has got ample scope to discuss the matter in issue with all the Unions

through BMS to which they are affiliated with regard to prevailing circumstance, every pros and cons of the

socio-economic status of the employees and the price hike of the essential commodities. If any consensus arose

out of such reasonable discussion, the Respondent Management could have fixed up the periodicity of Wage

Revision not in strict sense at 10 years but less than 10 years but not less than 5 years i.e. within 5 to 10 years in

consonance to Ext.W4. The Guideline implies a discretionary jurisdiction lies with the Respondents in this

regard. But the Respondents thoroughly failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by not allowing the

2606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Petitioner Union to discuss on the very issue of fixation of periodicity once in 5 years w.e.f. 01.01.2012 i.e.

after expiry of the previous Wage Revision (i.e. from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006).

18.

In the result, the action of the Respondents by not allowing the discussion on fixation of the periodicity

of Wage Revision (as per the Charter of Demand dtd. 31.12.2006) with the Petitioner Union, is found not

justified and proper. Accordingly the Petitioner Union is at liberty to approach the Respondents afresh in this

regard.

The Respondents are directed to consider the Charter of Demand dtd. 31.12.2006 regarding the fixation

of periodicity of Wage Revision in consonance to the DPE Guideline dtd. 01.05.2008, within a period of 6

months from the date of Gazette Notification of the Award, if approached by the Petitioner Union through BMS.

The reference is answered in favour of the Petitioner Union.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 17^th July, 2020)

Witnesses Examined

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri D. Venkatachalam

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri Joy Alexander

MW2, Sri Samir Mukherjee

Documents Marked:

On the petitioners side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

12.09.2000

Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding

Ex.W2

02.07.2012

Wage Termination Note.

Ex.W3

30.12.2006

Copy of the Charter of Demands submitted by

BAP Mazdoor Sangam

Ex.W4

01.05.2008

Copy of the DPE Guideline

Ex.W5

30.12.2009

Copy of the Memorandum Agreement

Ex.W6

06.02.2010

Copy of the Circular No.AA/HR/IR/523-Revision

of Wages for Workers in BHEL

Ex.W7

06.02.2010

Copy of the Circular No.AA/HR/IR/522-Revision

of Wages for Supervisor in BHEL

Ex.W8

06.02.2010

Copy of the Circular No.AA/HR/IR/521-Revision

of Wages for Executives in BHEL

Ex.W9

29.07.2011

Copy of the Record Notes of Meeting with the

Representatives of Executives at Bangalore

Ex.W10

15.11.2010

Corporate Personnel Circular No. 094/IRX/206

Wage Revision for AB1 to AB6.

Documents Marked:-

On the Respondent side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

01.01.2007

Joint Committee for BHEL Memorandum of

Agreement for Wage Settlement

Ex.M2

DPE Guidelines (O.M.No .2(49)/98-DPE (WC ) dated 25.06.99

Ex.M3

26.11.2008

Office Memorandum No. 2(70)/08-DPE (WC)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2607

Ex.M4

27.09.2013

Letter from BHEL to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ex.M5

14.12.2013

Letter from BHEL to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ex.M6

26.03.2014

Claim Statement of Petitioner

Ex.M7

02.07.2014

Proceedings F.No.L-42011/45/2014-IR(DU) of

Ministry of Labour & Employment

Ex.M8

15.12.2014

Letter by BHEL to Asst. Labour Commissioner

Ex.M9

21.09.2013

Letter from BAP Mazdoor Sangam (BMS)

(Affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh)

Reg.No.580/NAT, Ranipet 632 406

to Additional General Manager-HR, BAP BHEL, Ranipet.

Ex.M10

30.12.2009

BHEL-New Delhi-Jt. Committee for BHEL-M.O.

Agreement in 13^th meeting of Jt. Committee held

on 30.12.2009-after last wage Agreement

w.e.f.01.01.1997 expired on 31.12.2006

Ex.M11

06.02.2010

Corporate Human Recourse Circular

No.007/IRX/2010-Revision of Pay & Allowances

in respect of workmen – M.O. Agreement

reached in Joint Committee Meeting on

30.12.2009-Pay & Allowances-A1/B1 to A6/B6,

A10/B10 to A12/B12 grades effective from

01.01.2007

Ex.M12

01.01.2010

Constitution of sub-Committee of the Joint

Committee-Circular-Ref. No. AA/HR/523 (SC)

Ex.M13

18.01.2010

Minutes of Sub-Committee of the Joint

Committee Meeting held on 18.01.2010

Ex.M14

18.01.2010

Minutes of the 14^th Meeting of Joint Committee

for BHEL held on 18.01.2010 at New Delhi.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 903.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससा िेसेल इंिीजन ररंग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ृलारीवट्टोम, कोजच्च-, और अन् एवं उनके कमाचारी के प्रबंितंत्र

के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमाकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , एनााकुलम के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 09/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को 02.09.20 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2020

S. O. 903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The Hesel Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Palarivattom, Kochi. & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 02.09.20.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

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

(Monday the 16^th day of December 2019, 25Agrahayana1941)

ID No.9/2018

Workman

Shri.Shinoj A.S.

Allunkal House

Kenichira

Athirattukunnu P.O.

Wayanad - 673596

By Adv. Jolly John K.

Management

Hesel Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

35/333B, 2^ndFloor

Vilangadan Estate

Mamangalam

Pottakuzhy Road

Palarivattom

Kochi - 682025

By Adv. Paulson C. Varghese

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.11.2019 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

on16.12.2019 passed the following:

AWARD

The Workman filed the present industrial dispute U/s 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The workman was appointed as a technician in the management company from 01.01.2008 onwards.

The management company is doing the work of operation and maintenance of Indus mobile towers. The

management is insisting the workers to work beyond hours of statutory limit. The attitude of the management is

unfair towards labours. When the Memorandum of settlement was signed on 17.10.2014 before the Asst. Labour

Commissioner (Central), he added two special clauses in the Memorandum of settlement. Clause 7 regarding

one day weekly leave and Clause 10 regarding 9 hours working hour for the technicians. The management is

insisting for work beyond 9 hours is violation of terms of settlement. On 02.08.2016 the workman applied for 2

days leave for personal reasons. The leave was sanctioned by the competent authority. On 04.08.2016 the

workman was directed to report at Ernakulam office on 05.08.2016. Since the workman was travelling from

Kottayam to Kozhikode on 04.08.2016 he met the Senior Manager (HR) on the way and he was issued a show

cause notice alleging that the workman had been handling contracts of RCPH and have provided vehicles on

rent. The workman denied the above allegations. On 12.08.2016 the workman was directed to return the official

sim. He received a communication regarding appointment of an Enquiry Officer but no specific charge sheet

was issued to him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a partisan manner. He also amended the show

cause notice issued to the workman. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dt.26.09.2016 finding the charges

against the workman proved. Management issued a 2^nd show cause notice dt.07.10.2016. The workman gave a

reply on 02.11.2016. Without considering the contentions the management proposed a punishment of dismissal

from service. The workman submitted a detailed reply. Without considering the reply the workman was

dismissed from service. The enquiry was conducted in complete violation of natural justice. The above order of

dismissal was challenged by the workman before the District Labour Officer, Wayanad. The management filed

an objection disputing the jurisdiction of District Labour Officer vide their letter dt.07.06.2017. On the basis of

above letter the District Labour Officer, Wayanad directed the workman to approach the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central). Hence the workman field another complaint before the Dy.Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) on 18.07.2017. Since the management was adamant in their approach the conciliation

process failed.

The management entered appearance in the proceedings and filed a preliminary objection regarding the

maintainability of this industrial dispute. Hence the following issue is framed for preliminary decision;

Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable before this Tribunal?

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2609

According to the Counsel for the management, the petitioner/management is absolutely a private

limited company which has absolutely no control or supervision by the Central Govt. The management is

owned, managed, operated and financed by private individual which has no govt. control. The management

establishment is a service provider of various infrastructure service providers in the field of network. The

management provides uninterrupted power supply to various infrastructure service providers by providing

technicians, supervisors etc. Neither the management establishment nor the service utilizer who receives service

of this management establishment has any Government supervision, participation or control. Considering the

nature of management establishment Central Govt. is not the appropriate government in relation to the industrial

dispute.

The workman filed his objection stating that he approach the District Labour Officer, Wayanad in the

first instance. The management took a plea that the State Government is not the appropriate Govt. and District

Labour Officer, Wayanad has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Accordingly the matter was referred to the

Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) for adjudication. The conciliation process initiated by the Dy. Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central) failed because of the adamant stand taken by the management. The Counsel for

the workman also pleaded that if the Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the matter the workman

may be allowed to file fresh petition before District Labour Officer, Wayanad.

As per Sec. 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, “Appropriate Govt” means in relation to any industrial

dispute concerning an industry carried on by or under the authority of Central Govt. or ……… and as per

proviso to Sec. 2(a) “in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the

contractor in any of the industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Govt. shall be the

Central Govt. or the State Govt. as the case may be which has control over such industrial establishment”. In the

present case,there is no pleading that the workman is working in an industry carried on by or under the

authority of Central Govt. or with a contractor over whom the Central Govt. has any control. In the absence of

any evidence to that effect it is not possible to assume jurisdiction over the industrial dispute.

Hence the issue of maintainability is decided against the workman and in favour of the management.

Hence a preliminary order is passed holding that this application U/s 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

not maintainable and the workman may approach the appropriate authority for his relief.

Since the preliminary issue of maintainability is decided against the workman, an award is passed

holding that the present industrial dispute U/s 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable

and the workman may approach the appropriate authority for his relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 16^th day of December,

2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

Nil

Witness for the Management

Nil

Exhibits for the workman

Nil

Exhibits for the Management

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ओ एन िी सी जलजमटेड 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; गुवािाटी ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2017½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20040@77@1995-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

2610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 904.—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,

Guwahati (Ref. No. 10 of 2017) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. ONGC Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20040/77/1995-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B.Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 10 of 2017

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Sh. Debkanta Das & Ors

…Claimants/ Workmen

-Vrs-

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Sivsagar & Ors.

…O.Ps/Management

APPEARANCES

For the Workmen. : Mr. A.Kundu, Ld. Advocate.

For the Management.

: Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, Ld. Sr. Advocate.

Mr. B.K.Das, Ld. Advocate.

Date of Award:13.05.2020

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute was originally referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati constituted

by the Government of Assam. The reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of labour vide

Notification dated 21.11.1996 with the following Schedule.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand for regularization by management of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Nazira and

equal wages at par with their direct counterparts by S/Shri Jatin Kr. Nath, Md. Safiratddin Ahmed, Sri

Deba Kanta Das, Sk. Nurmahamad Ali, Sriprasad Das, Sk. Basiratdin Ahmed, Anil Ch.Das, Dijen

Kakaty, Pranab Borah, Parag Phukan, Prafulla Das, Bhadra Kanta Das, Rupam Kr. Das, Bipul Borah,

Sunil Dey, Atul Ch.Das, Md. Rafiqul Hussain and Bijit Nath is legal and justified? If so, to what reliefs

are these workmen entitled?”

On receipt of the notification, a Reference Case was registered and the concerned parties were notified.

The workman side appeared and submitted written statement stating that 17 workmen mentioned in the

Schedule of the reference are locals of the Sibsagar District where the Regional Office of the management is

situated. For the purpose of exploration of oil, the management of ONGC acquired land belonging to the family

of the concerned workers in the year 1986 with an assurance to provide job at least to one member of each of the

affected families temporarily and thereafter on permanent basis. Name, Address, etc. of each concerned worker

was annexed along with claim statement as Annexure-1. It was also stated that the decision to provide jobs was

arrived at in an agreement after meeting held between the management of ONGC, workers of All Assam Labour

Union of Sibsagar District and representative of Government of Assam on 10.09.1986 at the Circuit House,

Sibsagar. It was clearly mentioned in the claim statement that in the meeting it was decided that 53 persons of

Changmai Gaon and 49 persons of Baliaghat whose land were acquired by the ONGC, can be appointed

temporarily for a period of 90 days subject to the renewal/extension of employment from time to time. In this

respect several meetings were held but no fruitful and permanent employment was given by the management of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2611

ONGC. Ultimately the management of ONGC assured that the land affected people of Changmai Gaon and

Baliaghat may be given temporary/contractual appointment first. It was mentioned in the claim statement that

according to the Standing Order of the ONGC there were 3 classes of employees namely regular, temporary and

casual and there is no provision for any contractual employee in ONGC. However the management engaged

them for performing the duties of Security Guards but even after the engagement for 10 years their jobs were not

regularized. On being aggrieved by the conduct of the management the concerned workers and their Union

raised an Industrial Dispute before the concerned Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati and after

holding of conciliation proceeding the conciliation Officer sent a “failure report” to the concerned Ministry

wherefrom the reference sent. According to the concerned workmen the nature of the job which they were

performing i.e. the job of Security Guards are perennial in nature and hence the management must regularize

their engagement.

By filing written statement the management opposed the claim raised by the concerned workmen and

specifically stated that the nature of the dispute did not qualify to be an Industrial Dispute and hence the

reference itself was not maintainable. It was also stated that the concerned workmen were engaged by the

ONGC through Contractor and there existed no employer employee relationship between the management and

the concerned workers and the matter was covered u/s 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation)

Act, 1970. The management submitted copies of the several agreements of the management with the contractors

for engagement of Security Guards.

The Tribunal to which the matter was referred passed an Award on 30.11.2000 directing the

management of the ONGC to regularize the service of the workmen within a year from the date of the Award

and it was further directed that if all of them could not be regularized within the aforesaid time they should be

paid equal remuneration with that of the regular employee working in the equal status till regularization. The

management of ONGC challenged the correctness of the Award by filing Writ Petition No. 8368/2001. Vide

judgment dated 21.05.2004 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the

Award dated 30.11.2000 and remitted back the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh decision confining

the matter only to 11 persons excluding the 6 who have already been found to be contractors engaged by the

ONGC. After receipt of the remittal order the Tribunal again proceeded with the matter and disposed of the

same vide Award dated 15.05.2009 holding that the concerned 11 numbers of workmen namely 1) Deba Kanta

Das, 2) Sriprasad Das 3) Basiratddin Ahmed, 4) Anil Ch. Das, 5) Dijen Kakati, 6) Pranab Borah, 7) Prafulla

Das, 8) Bhadra Kanta Das, 9) Rupam Kr. Das, 10) Bipul Baruah and 11) Bijit Das are not entitled to be

regularized or permanently absorbed by the ONGC. After the passing of the aforesaid Award dated 15.05.2009

the concerned workers challenged the same before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P (C) No.3654/2010.

Vide order dated 27.11.2014 Hon’ble Gauhati High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to

give a fresh finding considering all the evidence that was available on record. Against the aforesaid judgment of

the Hon’ble Single Bench, ONGC preferred Writ Appeal No.202/2016. Vide order dated 13.06.2016, the

Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Appeal and made an observation that the Tribunal will be at liberty to decide

the matter on its merit.

After the aforesaid order when the matter was received back by the Tribunal the parties appeared on

being notified and the workman side examined one more witness namely Bijit Nath as workman witness No.5. It

may be mentioned here that earlier the workman side examined 4 numbers of witnesses. The management side

also examined one witness namely Sri R.K. Agrahari as management witness No.4. Both the witnesses were

cross examined by the respective rival parties. Thereafter the matter was argued by the parties. Learned Sr.

Counsel Mr. G.N. Sahewalla argued on behalf of the ONGC. He was assisted by learned advocate B. Das.

Argument on behalf of the workman side was put forward by learned advocate A. Kundu.

During argument workman side submitted that there was no dispute that land was acquired by the

ONGC and there was an agreement between the ONGC and the family of the land holders whose land was

acquired and it was agreed upon that at least one member from each family whose land was acquired by the

ONGC will be given an employment by the management of ONGC. It was further argued that thereafter ONGC

engaged some persons but made no arrangement for regularization. Workman side referred the minutes of

meeting dated 16.7.1986 (Exhibit-15) and stated that in that meeting the ONGC committed to appoint land

affected persons. Minutes of another meeting dated 01.08.1986 was also exhibited as Exhibit-16 where after the

concerned workers were engaged as Security Guards to various drilling sites, gas gathering sites , the rig wells

etc. It was further stated that the concerned workers worked for a period of 10 years but even then the ONGC

did not make any arrangement to regularize them. It was further argued on behalf of the workman side that the

management is bound to honour the agreements arrived at during the meetings (Exhibit-15 and Exhibit-16).

2612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr Sahewalla, appearing for the management of ONGC, on the other hand,

submitted that the concerned workers have never been under direct employment of ONGC in any capacity. He

further submitted that certain works like Security Guard etc. were outsourced to various contractors and those

contractors engaged the concerned works as Security Guards and also paid their wages etc. He however

submitted that the wages etc. paid by the contractors to the workers were subsequently reimbursed to the

contractor by the management of ONGC. In that connection he referred to certain exhibits proved by the

management namely Exhibit-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, G(ii), H(ii), I(ii) etc. He also submitted that the lands which

were acquired by the ONGC from the respective land owners were completely and duly compensated by the

management of ONGC. He also submitted that an understanding with the ONGC with the families of the land

owner was that one member each from each family would be provided an employment. He also stated that it

was never agreed that such engagement will be regular engagement because for giving regular engagement in a

Public Enterprises certain Rules and Regulations are to be followed and such employment can only be made

through open and public advertisement allowing all eligible persons to compete for such employment. The

witness of the workman side proved certain documents showing that there were meetings between the Union

and the management in presence of the District Administration for providing employment to the families of the

land owners. The workman witnesses did not deny that the concerned workers were employed through the

contractors and their wages etc. were paid by the contractors. All the workman witnesses stated the above facts

and further stated that it was understood by the concerned workers that they would be subsequently given

regular employment by the ONGC in due course. It was also stated by the witnesses of the workman side that

though initially the Authorities of ONGC was reluctant to employ one member of each land affected family but

ultimately at the initiative of the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the district meetings were held and

ultimately the ONGC committed to appoint land affected persons.

8. The main objection raised by the management side was that there was no employer-employee

relationship among the management and the concerned workers and hence, this reference itself is not

maintainable. It is an admitted fact that for deciding existence or otherwise of employer-employee relationship

between the management and the workers, the following points are to be decided.

(i)

Who appoint the workers ?

(ii)

Who pays the wages ?

(iii) Who is the authority to take disciplinary action ?

(iv) Who supervises the work of the workers ?

(v)

Whether there is continuity of service ?

9. From the evidence of the witnesses of the parties it was clear that the concerned workers were engaged

by the contractor. The work was outsourced by the management to the contractors and such agreements between

the management and respective contractors have been proved in this case. It was also not in dispute that wages

were paid to the concerned workers by the respective contractors. Cross-examination of workman witnesses

No.5 categorically revealed that the contractor used to pay their wages and that the pass issued by the ONGC to

facilitate entry of the concerned workers to the ONGC premises was non-employee pass. It was also admitted

position that they never appeared in any selection process conducted by the ONGC for recruitment of staff and

there was clear admission by the workman Witness No.5 that during the period of employment one contractor

used to pay their wages as contract workers. Hence, it was clear that wages were paid by the contractor and

there was absolutely nothing on the record to suggest that the contract workers received their wages from the

principal employer. In regard to the control over the concerned workers it would be natural that the Institution

where the workers would be engaged by the contractor would have some basic control over them because

ultimately it was the Institution’s works which were being executed through the Contractor. There was

absolutely nothing on record to show that the management of ONGC had any absolute control over the workers.

It was the contractor who used to pay their wages and it was he (contractor) who had the ultimate control over

the engaged workers.

10. In regard to the alleged condition that ONGC would engage one person from each land affected family,

the “agreement” was stated to have been arrived at between the Union and the ONGC and the Local

Administration. Such Agreement, even if it is found to be valid, cannot over ride the established Rules and

Regulation of regular employment in a Public Enterprise. That apart, this Tribunal does not appear to be the

competent forum to decide validity or enforceability of any “contract”. During cross examination, management

witness No.4 the witness was suggested that he has failed to show that the concerned workers were contract

labourers. It was the duty of the workman side to show that they were under direct temporary or casual

employment of ONGC and being so for long time some right for regular employment accrued to them. However

workman side could not prove such thing. On the contrary it was fully proved that the wages etc. were paid to

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2613

the workers by the respective contractors. On consideration of the evidence on record in its entirety it clearly

transpired that there was no employer-employee relationship between the ONGC and the concerned workers.

This reference, therefore, appears to be not maintainable under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. If the workers

claimed regular employment on the basis of any “contract” or “agreement”, this Tribunal does not appear to be

the appropriate forum to decide the validity or enforceability of such contract or agreement. Since the concerned

workers failed to prove that there was employer-employee relationship between ONGC and the concerned

workers within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, they (workers) do not appear to be eligible for any

relief. The reference, therefore, stands disposed of with a no relief award.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal, this 13^th day of May, 2020.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@110@2008-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 905.—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. 12 of 2009) 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 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20012/110/2008-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 12/2009

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 30.06.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/110/2008 (IR(CM-I)) dated 27/02/2009 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 disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

2614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Colliery of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in

denying regularization as Boiler Foremen to S/Shri Dayaram Jaiswara, Amrika Rajbhar and

late Fantoosh Rabidas, M/Loaders is justified and legal? To what reliefs are the workmen

concerned entitled and from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the workman/union didn’t appear before the

Tribunal. However the management has appeared in this case, but subsequently left appearing before the

Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to workman/union as well as to the management but the

notice issued to workmen/union returned with endorsement of “Addressee left”. Now the Case is pending

since 12/03/2009 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has

lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ 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-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@1999½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@310@1997-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 906.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 25 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 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20012/310/1997-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act , 1947

REFERENCE NO 25 OF 1999

PARTIES

The Secretary,

B.C.K.U.,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad 826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

Bhalgora Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Bhalgora, Distt: Dhanbad.826001

Order No. L-20012/310/97-IR(C-I) Dated Nil

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr.B.N.Singh, Ld. Union Representative

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. N.M. Kumar, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26^th March, 2020

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2615

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/310/97-IR(C-I) Dated Nil.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Burragarh Colliery of BCCL in not confirming

Sh. Surendra Paswan to the post of Store Clerk and not paying him the wages of the said post

are justified? If not so, to what relief he is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/310/97-IR(C-I) Dated Nil of the reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was

registered as Reference case No. 25 of 1999 on 21.01.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to

issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal

on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said

order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.

2. Consequent upon registration and subsequently notices, the Sponsoring Union filed the Written

Statement of Claim on 18.05.2001.The whole fact was as briefed hereunder with serving a copy to the Opposite

Party /Management:

A) That the workman named Surendra Paswan has been working as Store Clerk since 1992 continuously

with unblemished record of service.

B) that the concerned workman has put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year as

Store clerk to the satisfaction of the management.

C) that the concerned workman was transferred to Bhalgora Area 19.10.1994 and since then the

concerned workman has been working as Store clerk as per direction and authorization of the

Management and as such he has put in more than 240 days attendance as Store clerk in each

calendar year.

D) That the Management has implemented Wage Board Recommendation which has got statutory force

as per decision of the Hon’ ble Patna High Court and the management has also implemented NCWA

which is a settlement as per decision of the Patna High Court.

E) That the concerned workman accordingly represented before the Management for his regularization

as Store Clerk and payment of wages of a clerk without any effect.

F) That ,though the concerned workman has been working as store clerk against permanent vacancy

as per direction and authorization of the Management till then the management neither regularized

the concerned workman as Store Clerk/Clerk nor paying the concerned workman clerical wages as

per NCWA.

G) That the concerned workman represented before the management several time for his regularization

in Clerical Grade and for wages of a Clerk till then the Management has been paying the concerned

workman only Group a wages in utter violation of the provision of NCWA and principle of natural

justice.

H) That the management discriminated the concerned workman in the matter of regularization and in

the matter of payment of monthly wages and other attendance benefits as per NCWA

I) That the Management also denied equal wage for performing equal nature of job.

J) That, seeing no other alternative the Union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an Industrial

dispute demanding regularization of the concerned workman s Store Clerk/Clerk. During the course

of conciliation proceeding the Management‘s plea was that the concerned workman was allegedly

engaged as Store clerk as and when required. The Union vehemently protested against the false and

motivated statement of the management. However, due to the adamant attitude of the Management

the conciliation proceeding ended in failure and the appropriate government referred the dispute for

adjudication.

K) That the action of the management in not confirming Surendra Paswan to the post of Store Clerk and

not paying him wages of the said post was neither legal nor justified.

2616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

L) That the action of the management was illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principle of

natural justice.

M) That the action of the management is vindictive in nature and smacks of anti-labour policy of the

management.

N) That the action of the Management in discriminatition in nature and against the provision of NCWA.

O) That the workman seeks from Management to confirm him as Store Clerk and to pay him wages of a

Store clerk with retrospective effect with all arrear of wages.

3. On the other hand, as against the Written Statement of Claim so filed by the Sponsoring Union, the

Management/Opposite Party countered filed Claim on 12.08.2002 with serving a copy of the same to the

petitioner ,defended the claim somewhat as follow:

A) That the present reference is not maintainable both in law and facts of the case.

B) That Sri Surendra Paswan is a permanent employee of Kustore Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal

Ltd., and his designations M/Loader, but he was allowed to work time to time as a general Mazdoor.

C) that the concerned workman never continuously worked as a clerk nor worked as a Store clerk

though he was given job time to time to handle materials under the guidance of Store –keeper from

one Store to another.

D) That vide letter No dated 10.06.1992 he was offered to take training of clerk under certain

conditions. It was clearly indicated in the offer letter if he was willing to accept the above terms and

conditions, he should report for duty to the Dy.C.M.E. /Agent for his new assignment and it was to

be affective from the date he was to report for new assignment.

E) That the concerned workman did not report to the concerned authorities for new assignment as per

the office letter and continued to work as a Miner /Loader at Hurriladih Colliery under Bhalgora

area. Subsequently he was diverted to workman as a General Mazdoor.

F) That in the year 1995,he was transferred to Bhalgora Project and then to Borragarh Colliery, where

he was employed as a General Mazdoor in Category-I

G) That as per norms of the Company those Miners Loaders who have been working in Time Rated

category since more than 3 years and completed 190 days for Underground and 240 days on surface

in a year are entitled for regularization in the designation/job being performed by them.

H) That those employees who accepted the terms and conditions offered by the Management to

workman as clerk (T) are regularized after fulfilling the criteria and found suitably for the job. Since

the concerned workman did not accept the terms and conditions offered to him vide letter

dt.10.06.1992, the question of regularization as clerk does not arise at all. It is further submitted that

there has been no discrimination or violation of Natural Justice in this case.

I) That the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

J) That the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union vide letter dt.21.06.96 raised an Industrial Dispute before the

A.L.C. (C) Dhanbad about the concerned workman. The Project Officer/Agent Burragarh Colliery

vide letter dated 11.09.1996 explained the facts of the case and prayed for dropping the proceedings.

In that letter it was specifically stated that the concerned workman is being paid more than whatever

is required to be paid for working to handle the materials from one place to another and that there is

no case for regularization of the concerned workman as Store clerk

K) That anything contained in the Written Statement of the workman, if not accepted by the

management in the above paras, may be deemed to be denied by the management.

L) That the Employer reserves its right to amend the Written-Statement after receiving the rejoinder of

the workman and to file documents and to examine its witnesses to prove its case.

M) So the Management of Burragarh Colliery of M/s BCCL stands by its action in not confirming Sh.

Surendra Paswan, the concerned workman to the post of Store Clerk and not paying him the wages

of the said Post are justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2617

4. Both sides filed rejoinder rejecting the contention of each other

5 In course of hearing of the Industrial Dispute Case both Sponsoring Union filed written statement of claim

which was countered by the Opposite Party/Management by filing also counter claim and went on one step

ahead by filing rejoinder on behalf of Employer. The case under trial deposition of the evidence of the workman

WW-I is examined and cross examined. In the process the documents which were cropped up were displayed

and marked as Ext. W-1 to W-2/7.Then the onus passed on to the evidence of the management /O.P. Upon

failure of the consecutive fourth date and the management failure to adduce evidence on its part without

assigning any cogent reason thereof the evidence chapter was closed on the part of the Management by the

Court vide its order dt. 30.09.2005 and finally shifted for argument of the parties. Since then (10.01.2006), the

case status abruptly stayed hovering over stage of argument. To sum up there were no less than altogether

eighteen sittings took place over the same status on different dates likewise, 10.01.2006, 13.04.2006,

29.06.2006, 26.09.2006, 31.12.2014, 12.02.2015, 21.04.2015, 08.06.2015, 03.08.2015, 21.09.2015, 24.11.2015,

21.03.2016, 24.05.2016, 13.07.2016, 10.11.2016, 24.08.2017, 06.06.2019 and lastly on 03.12.2019 but no

major breakthrough. To say the least approach of the Management is not only perverse but in fact clear violation

of the provisions under the Act. The one key fact that was cropped up during recourse of proceeding that the

workman concerned had already got his due share of promotion and this being factual position, the subject

matter was to be rendered infractuous as it could not be completed for adjudication for so long years.

6 As regards Notices dt.18.05.2001, 17.04.2002, 4.07.2002, and fresh summon on 14.05.2019 and

18.11.2019 were issued. Apart from it, one chance was offered to explore the probability of settling it down

through Lok Adalat for which Notice dt 08.12.2014 was also sent. But matter could not be materialized as the

Management does not try to budge from their stand. The Sponsoring Union could not respond to the fresh

Notices dt.14.05.2019 and 18.11.2019 nor give any cogent reasons thereof .In a way it reflects the workman

deliberately skipped to respond the Notice or ceases taking interest in the case.

7 Finally the Industrial Dispute case was taken up for hearing on 03.12.2019 for final hearing or passing

order in default. None appeared from either side. Regrettably even after attaining the stage of final argument

,the last leg of final adjudication ,the Sponsoring Union did not make little efforts to get it completed the very

old case as years back in 1999 but exposed latches which disentitles the workman from claiming relief sought

who himself raised the Industrial Dispute. In the absence of appropriate pleading on a particular issue there can

be no adjudication of such issue as the Tribunal couldn’t considered and recorded a finding thereon.

8 It is relevant to say that in the absence of any appropriate pleading on a particular issue there can be no

adjudication of the Reference nor could the Tribunal have considered the contention and recorded a finding of

argument. In coming to the above findings, the Tribunal did not find out rationality to put on hold the case for

period indefinitely in the successive absences marked on the part of Sponsoring Union/petitioner. Even if

sincere efforts and ample opportunities at the last moment the Sponsoring Union rather kept the proceedings

afloat on several pretexts on merits. Thus the case does not have ground inputs on merit due to sheer

disinterestedness of the Sponsoring Union to defend the charge. Moreover, the workman had not acted diligently

to justify the delay as bonafide .So it could not be endeavored to decide the matter on merit

9 In that view of the matter and close perusal of the different materials available on record, it has been made

clear that the Petitioner has not taken any positive step. More so full statutory remedy as provided he had

availed .There is no exceptional case made out by the workman (petitioner) to enable the Court to entertain the

case as raised.

In the absence of any such exceptional ground being made out rather more inclined to rolling on suo

motu indefinitely though the case was almost edge of maturity and hanging on arguments since years together

.Sufficient adjournments were granted over the issue to let the case cover up adjudication on merit giving

successive notices. Such being the position the Tribunal find no scope to proceed with hearing of the Industrial

Dispute Case for an indefinite period of time. The issue on which the case had been raised by the Petitioner

himself turned evasive to face hearing. It is indactive, in real terms there is nothing to do away with or diluted

the issue by now. Upon holding this view firmly the dispute is disposed of as the workman as of now does not

have grievance to be redressed from the Management and relief whatsoever the workman no longer need. The

Award is passed accordingly on the same footing.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

2618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@237@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 907.—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. 82 of 2005) 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 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20012/237/2004-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 82/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No. III of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 31.07.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/237/2004- IR (C-1) dated 13/09/2005 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 disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“क् ा भारत कोककंग कोल जलजमटेड गोसवंिृुर क्षेत्र – III के प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा श्रीमजत िुलाली काजमन कमाकार को जन मानुसार आवास

दकरा ा भता न दि ा िाना उजचत एवं न् ा संगत िज? दि निीं तो कमाकार दकस राित की ृात्र िैं त ा दकस तारी से?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the union/workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union and this case was reserved for

‘No Dispute’ Award on 17/07/2017 but award was not passed due to retirement of P.O. Thereafter again

registered notice was issued to workman/union but again no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union.

Now the Case is pending since 26/09/2005 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt

that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2619

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

. 908—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 2, ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ए र इंजड ा जलजमटेड और अन् 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-&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 105@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013@02@2020-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 908.—In pursuance of Section 2A 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.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 105 of 2018) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. Air India Ltd., and others and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20013/02/2020-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT No. 2: NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 105/2018

Date of Passing Award : 14^th January, 2020

Shri Sandep Kumar S/o. Ramphal,

Village and Post Office Shahbad Mohammadpur,

New Delhi 110061,

Through Industrial Workers’ Union,

F-328, Gali No.22, Sadh Nagar-II, Palam Colony,

New Delhi 110045.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

Delhi International Airport Fuel Fame Facility,

Delhi I.G.I Airport Terminal -3,

New Delhi 110037.

M/s. Indianoil Skytanking Pvt. Ltd.

Fuel Fame Facility,

Delhi I.G.I Airport

Shahbad Mohammadpur,

New Delhi 110061.

…Managements

Appearances :-

Shri Piyush Kumar, A/R : For the Workman

Ms. Chetna Rai, A/R

: For the Management No.1

None

: For the Management No.2

AWARD

This claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”) has been

filed directly by the workman Rakesh Yadav with the averments inter-alia that he was employed with the

2620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management on the post of Operation Officer since 1/7/2013. His last drawn wages were Rs.18,900/- per

month. He worked with honesty and dedication. He did not give any chance of complaint to his superiors

during his service and his work & conduct was unblemished. The Managements did not provide him legal

facilities like payment of overtime, bonus of Rs.18,900/- , pay slip, attendance card/leave book etc. When he

started demanding the same, the Management started taking his signatures on blank papers/vouchers in the

name of giving legal facilities and ultimately terminated his services in illegal manner on 11/8/2017 without

giving any notice, charge-sheet, termination letter or service compensation and this amounted to violation of

provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The workman sent a demand letter dated 20/2/2018 through speed post, to

the Management, requesting for reinstatement of his services and payment of earned wages but to no response.

It is a matter of record that the workman thereafter approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation

Officer, raising his grievances. However, no settlement could be reached during conciliation proceedings and a

certificate to that effect was issued by the Conciliation Officer as provided under Section 2-A of the Act. The

workman claims that he is unemployed since the date of his termination from service and despite efforts he

could not get employment. Showing his willingness to work under the Management on the same post, the

workman/claimant has prayed for reinstatement into service with back wages and continuity of service.

Management No.1 filed its written statement, thereby resisting the claim of the workman and took

preliminary objections on the grounds inter alia that the workman/ claimant was never its employees and even

the workman himself has not filed any document to show that he was an employee of Management No.1 and as

such, the present claim is not maintainable. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.

Management No.2 filed its written statement refuting the claim of the workman/claimant regarding not

providing him with legal facilities and about illegal termination of his services. It has been stated that the

claimant was employed as Operation Officer through selection process vide appointment letter dated 8/6/2013

and he joined the Management company on 1/7/2013. In the appointment letter which was duly accepted by the

workman, it was clearly stated that his services are transferrable and can be seconded or deputed by the

company to any other location within India or abroad. Vide letter dated 12/8/2017 the claimant was transferred

to the Management’s operations at Chennai Airport and he was relieved from his assigned duty at Delhi with

effect from close of business hours on 13/8/2017. He requested for withholding his transfer vide e-mail dated

15/8/2017 which was not accepted by the Management and same was duly communicated to the claimant vide

e-mail dated 17/8/2017. On 25/8/2017 the claimant informed that he does not accept the transfer as he felt that

it would not benefit him personally or professionally. On 28/8/2018 the claimant was informed that non

compliance to the transfer order would necessitate appropriate action by the Management as per terms &

conditions of the appointment letter but the claimant himself did not report for duty at Chennai Airport and thus,

he himself abandoned his employment voluntarily. His full and final settlement amounting to Rs.39370/- was

remitted to his SB A/C No.3313263819 with SBI, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi on 13/3/2018, which amount

he accepted without a demur and thus, claim of the workman/claimant is without merit. Management No.2 has

prayed for dismissal of claim petition.

The workman/claimant did not file any rejoinder despite adjournments sought for the purpose. On the

pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in this case on 6/8/2019 :-

Whether the proceeding is maintainable ?

Whether there exist any employer and employee relationship between the Management No.1 and

the workman ?

Whether the service of the workman was illegally terminated by Management No.2 i.e. M/s India

Oil Skytanking Pvt. Ltd.?

Whether the claimant had voluntarily left the job and received the amount due from the employer

Management No.2 towards full and final settlement of his dues ?

To what relief the claimant is entitled to ?

Perusal of the record shows that despite number of opportunities granted to the workman/claimant to

adduce evidence in support his case regarding illegal termination of his services, he did not lead any evidence.

It is a matter of record that on 7/1/2020 A/R for the claimant moved a letter stating that the workman /claimant

was not in touch with him and requested for closure of the case/dispute. It seemed that the workman/claimant

was not interested to prosecute the case. Accordingly, this Tribunal vide order dated 7/1/2020 was constrained

to reserve the matter for passing Award.

At the outset it is mentioned that onus was upon the claimant/workman to prove his allegations

regarding illegal termination of his services by the Management and also to counter the defence of the

Management No.2 that it was the workman who himself had abandoned the job voluntarily and had got full &

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2621

final settlement of his dues and further that he was not gainfully employed since after discharge/termination

from service.

The workman/claimant has failed to discharge the onus. In view of the fact that the claimant has not

led any evidence in support of his case, this Tribunal is constrained to pass “No Dispute Award” in the matter.

Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 2, ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ िी एम आर और अन् 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-&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

180@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013@02@2020-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 909.—In pursuance of Section 2A 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.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 180 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. G.M.R and others and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20013/02/2020-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2: NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II,

New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 180/2015

Date of Passing Award : 13^th January, 2020

SHRI Rakesh Yadav,

S/o. Shri Abhroik Yadav,

R/o. H.No. L-1, Gali No.10/2096-A, Sangam Vihar,

New Delhi through

Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Trade Unioin,

E-169, Indira Kalyan Vihar, Opp. C-173 Okhla Phase-1,

New Delhi 110020.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

M/s. G.M.R,

Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (P.E),

Udhan Bhawan, O.P.T. Terminal Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi 110037.

2622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. GE T&D India Pvt. Ltd.

(earlier known as M/s Alastom T&D India Pvt. Ltd.),

T-5 & T-6, Plot I-14, Aix House Jaypee Wishtown,

Sector 128, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh 201304. (contractor)

M/s. Trishul Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd.

H.No.12, 18^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai (Tamilnadu) 600083.

…Managements

Appearances :-

None

: For the Workman

Ms. Chetna Rai, A/R

: For the Management No. 1

Ms. Rishika Aggarwal, A/R

: For the Management No. 2

AWARD

A claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”) has been

filed directly by the workman Rakesh Yadav with the averments inter-alia that he had been working with

dedication and honesty, under the Managements on the post of Electrician since 24/5/2010. He gave no chance

of any complaint during his service and his last drawn wages was Rs. 10477/- per month. The Managements did

not provide him legal facilities like payment of overtime, pay slip, identity card etc. and when he started

demanding the same, the Management started harassing her and ultimately terminated his services in illegal

manner on 24/3/2014 without giving any show cause notice, charge-sheet, termination letter or service

compensation. The workman sent a demand letter dated 8/4/2015 through speed post/courier, requesting for

reinstatement of his services but to no avail. Thereafter he through the Union approached the Assistant Labour

Commissioner/Conciliation Officer but the Management did not appear before the Conciliation Officer, as a

result of which a certificate of failure report was issued by the ALC. The workman is unemployed since the

date of his termination from service and he could not get service despite best efforts. He has prayed for

reinstatement into service with back wages and continuity of service besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

Management No.1 resisted the claim of the workman, by filing written statement and took preliminary

objections on the grounds inter alia that the workman/claimant never worked with or employed by Management

No.1, rather he was admittedly employed by Management No. 2 and 3. Denying the allegations of the

workman/claimant regarding making oral demands for providing legal facilities to him or that he worked under

the control & supervision of Management No.1, prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.

Management No. 2 while refuting the claim of the workman /claimant took preliminary objections in

its written statement inter alia that relationship of employer and employee never existed between Management

No.2 and the workman, because Management No. 2 had engaged Management No.3 as a sub-contractor and as

per information, the workman/claimant was engaged by Management no. 3. The claimant has concealed

material facts with regard to filing of LCA case No.16 of 2014, papers of which file may be perused. The

claimant can not claim his alleged employment with and his alleged termination by three establishments

simultaneously for the same period and same cause. Management No. 3 has informed Management No2 that the

claimant remained unauthorisedly absent from duties on or after 25/3/2014 and inspite of call letter/s sent to the

workman, he failed to report for duty with Management No. 3. Thus prayer has been made for dismissal of

claim petition with costs.

Management No. 3 in its written statement while admitting the factum of employment of the claimant

w.e.f.24/5/23010 submitted that the claimant during the tenure of his employment demonstrated misconduct and

indiscipline on many occasions but instead of taking punitive action, the workman was let off after many verbal

warning and counseling. It is alleged that as per police case registered at PS IGI Airport and statement of

witnesses inclusive of claimant recorded by I.O./SI Ms. Meena, the claimant was involved in an act of theft .

Instead of terminating his service, the workman/claimant was called by the Management for discussion at its

office, vide letter dated 19/4/2016 (sic.19/4/2014) enclosing therewith a train ticket, which letter was

deliberately not received by the workman. Again the said letter was sent to the claimant on 22/4/2016 (sic

22/4/2014) through First Flight Courier, which was received by the workman through his wife Ms. Rinku.

Again on 6/5/2014, HR Manager of Management No. 3 was in Delhi and called the workman to meet & discuss

the matter but the workman/claimant refused to do so which clearly demonstrate the malafide intention of the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2623

workman. It is alleged that the claimant has to pay a sum of Rs.9000/- as balance standing against advance

taken by him. Denying the allegations of the claimant regarding not giving him legal facilities, it is averred that

the Management company is duly registered under the provisions of ESI Act and EPF Act and is following

labour enactments and earned salary of the workman was subject to statutory deductions towards ESI and PF.

Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.

The workman/claimant filed rejoinders, thereby reiterating his own case as set up in the claim petition

and denied the respective allegations of the Management/s.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in this case on 15/1/2019 :-

Whether the proceeding is not maintainable against Management No.1 and 2 ?

Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the Management No.1 &

2 and the workman herein ?

Whether service of the workman was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the Management ?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and against whom ?

Perusal of the record shows that despite number of opportunities granted to the workman/claimant to

adduce evidence in support his case regarding illegal termination of his services, he did not lead any evidence.

It is a matter of record that the claimant had opted not to participate in the proceedings since 21/5/2019 onwards.

As a matter of precaution, fresh notice of appearance was issued to the claimant for 4/11/2019 through

registered post but despite that he did not cause appearance either on 4/11/2019 or on subsequent date of hearing

on 7/1/2020. Ultimately this Tribunal vide order dated 7/1/2020 was constrained to reserve the matter for

passing Award.

At the outset it is mentioned that onus was upon the claimant/workman to prove his allegations

regarding termination of his services by the Management without any reason in illegal manner. The

workman/claimant has failed to discharge the onus. In view of the fact that the claimant has not led any

evidence in support of his case, this Tribunal is constrained to pass “No Dispute Award” in the matter. Award

is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ 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-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 195@1998½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@742@1997-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 910.—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.2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 195 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 28.09.2020.

[No. L-20012/742/1997-IR(CM-1)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Dr. S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO 195 OF 1998

PARTIES:

: The General Secretary,

DMS, At Lalghaura

PO: Malkera,,

Distt: Dhanbad-826001

(Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

Katras Project Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Malkera, Distt: Dhanbad

(Jharkhand)-826001

Order No. L-20012/742/97-IR (C-I) dt. 09.11.1998

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. S.K.Sinha . Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. H. Nath Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19^th March 2020

WARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/742/97-IR (C-I) dt. 09.11.1998.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of East Katras Colliery in stopping Sri Guru Manjhi

from duty w.e.f. 28.08.74 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman

entitled?”

On receipt of the. Order No. L-20012/742/97-IR(C-I) dt. 09.11.1998 of the reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was

registered as Reference case No. 195 of 1998 on 23.11.1998 in this Tribunal and accordingly an order to that

effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear

before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In

pursuance of the said order notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.

The Sponsoring Union by filling Written Statement claim under the said Reference on 04.01.1999 with

serving a copy of the same to the Opposite Party stated the facts in brief as under:

The workman named Guru Manjhi had been working as permanent M/Loader at East Katras

Colliery since long with unblemished service track on record.

That unfortunately the workman started absenting himself from duty because of illness from

06.05.1974 to 22.07.1974 due to illness.

That the concerned workman absented from his duty from 06.05.1974 to 22.07.1974 due to

reasonable cause of his illness and the same was duly communicated to the management.

That the concerned workman after recovering from his illness reported for his duty but the anit-

labour and anti-Adivasi Management instead of allowing him to resume his duty, issued him a

false and motivated charge sheet dated 30.07.1974 for absenting from his duty with effect from

06.05.1974to 22.07.1974.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2625

That the concerned workman replied to the charges stating therein the reason for absence and

though the explanation of the concerned workman was satisfactory enough till then the

management did not allow him to resume his duty.

That the concerned workman since then sitting idle due to the illegal action of the management.

That the concerned workman neither received any notice of enquiry nor any enquiry conducted in

his presence or his knowledge.

That the concerned workman also as yet not received any letter from the management about the

so-called action of the Management.

That the concerned workman represented before the Management several times for allowing him

to resume his duty but as yet without any effect, except some false assurance.

That after exhausting all avenues for amicable settlement and seeing no other alternative the

Union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the

A.L.C.(C)Dhanbad but the same ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the

Management.The conciliation failure referred the dispute for adjudication .

That the action of the management of stopping from duty w.e.f. 28.08.1974 was illegal, arbitrary,

unjustified and against the principle of natural justice.

That the action of the Management of not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty

was illegal, vindictive and against the provision of the Standing Order.

That the action of the management was smacks of anti-labour policy of the Management.

That the workman seeks reinstatement with full back wages.

4. On the other hand Mr. H. Nath appearing on behalf of the O.P./Management filed W.S. on 01.07.2002

denying all the allegations categorically even para-wise rebuttals with counter filed written Statement on behalf

of the Employers with summarized facts as hereunder:

(a) That the present reference is not maintainable both in law and on facts.

(b) That the concerned workman was working as Loader at East Katras Colliery. The General

Secretary, Dalit Mazdoor Sangh raised an Industrial Dispute in the year 1996 before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner© Dhanbad, which was number as 1/28/96 about the dismissal of the

concerned workman

services on his own.

(d) That the Union during the conciliation proceeding was requested to produce the workman

concerned for verification as to how he was removed from the service of the Company. The

Union, however, failed to produce the workman concerned either before the Management or

before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C)

(e) That during a corporate level meeting was held on 19.03.1997 with Representative for Dalit

Mazdoor Sangh and the re-instatement of the workman concerned was taken up. After

discussion, the Union dropped the issue and also agreed to withdraw the dispute of the concerned

workman from the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ©.this was also brought to the notice of the

conciliation Authority.

(f)

That since the Union decided to drop the case, there should have been no reference.

(g) That from the records of the Colliery it is found that one Guru Manjhi was appointed on

15.11.1972 . but in the Columns concerning him there is neither thumb impression nor the Photo

of the workman concerned. Simply his name has been entered in Form –B Register. From the

verification of C.M.P.F. Record, it has also detected that there is no contribution Card in the

name of the concerned workman thereby proving that in spite of his appointment on 15.11.1972,

he did not work at all.

(h) That raising the a dispute after delay of 24 years makes the dispute and the demand a stale

demand, which is not maintainable in view of the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and the High Courts, which will be urged at the time of hearing

2626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

That anything contained in the Written Statement of the workman, if not accepted by the

management, in the above paras may be denied by the management.

(j)

That in view of the above facts the workman is not entitled for employment from neither the job

nor any relief whatsoever.

4. The Sponsoring Union also did not file rejoinder so did the Management. Though the list of the

documents filed by the Ld. Advocate Mr. H. Nath on behalf of the Employer /Opposite Party in support of claim

but the documents, in question, were neither exhibited nor marked. So long as the Sponsoring Union insisted

upon to call for documents from the Management who is custodian of documents. The Management /O.P. in its

Written Statement and subsequent submission did not mention anything about the issue of charge sheet for

long absence. Rather it questioned the working and continuance in service by the concerned workman since

beginning. Therefore, the workman was asked to file original copy of charge sheet if issued to substantiate his

claim in the absence the Management doing so.

5. In course of long drawn proceeding of hearing of the case advanced to the stage of hearing argument

on merit just one step behind before finally adjudication . But under the shield of different pretexts the hearing

was deferred time and again without any significant move on the part of the Sponsoring Union/workman,who

raised the Industrial Dispute, appeared to be not desirous to contest the case on merit by exposing prolonged

absence. The matter kept on adjourned viz. on 05.12.2005, 10.03.2006, 01.06.2006, 28.08.2006, 24.07.2014,

23.09.2014, 11.11.2014, 05.01.2015, 24.02.2015, 28.04.2015, 25.06.2015, 21.08.2015, 18.09.2015, 26.11.2015,

30.03.2016, 16.06.20, 16.09.08.2016, 09.05.2019 and finally on 15.01.2020.as there were no less than nineteen

adjournments that took place in the line of the natural justice apart from stepping on 16.04.2019 and

19.12.2020.Though the Tribunal’s observation vide order dt. 05.08.2005 came that the domestic enquiry on

preliminary point against the workman could not be determined as fair and proper and in consonance with

principle of natural justice as there was no materials to draw the conclusion if any domestic enquiry was ever

held against the workman or not . Though the Reference advanced to the edge of final hearing of argument by

the parties stagnated since 05.12.2005.

6. Notices dtt. 13.07.2001, 18.02.2002, 04.01.1999, 08.11.2005, 24.07.2014, 11.11.2014 and in fresh spell

of notices dt.18.04.2019 19.12.2019 were issued both litigant parties under registered post as the case was

once again scheduled to be resumed for hearing over argument of hearing fixing the date on 09.05.2019 but

on date none appeared from either side so the Case was again adjourned after reviewing fixing the date on

15.01.2020 but this time again same situation the Tribunal had to witness with none appearance from either

side. There was no other option under the state of unwillingness of the Union side /workman by whose efforts

the Reference case stood ,do not show seriousness to pursue the case to finality left behind just one step to

cover of final adjudication .

7. Apparently the Industrial Dispute Case was set on 15.01.2020 to resume hearing final over hearing

of argument but what transpires from record either from workman nor management was reportedly found

present In the last spell two notice were issued to the parties finally over the stage of evidence of on the part

of the Management /O.P. for hearing argument. The materials on case record is indicative of the fact that

workman consecutively proved failure for appearance to proceed with hearing of the case over argument on

merit in the backdrop of ample opportunity provided to the Union/workman. The hearings on argument has been

kept pending since 05.12.2005 without assigning any cogent reasons thereof. The approach of the workman

appears to be very casual and indifferent since they seem to be least interested to get the case to final

adjudication. As the Tribunal fully convinced not merely through materials on record but by the posture of the

Sponsoring Union /workman that the matter of dispute seems to be over or of no merit by now.

8. On perusal of submission of both sides and going though the materials on record, I find no scope to

continue with this case further for adjudication in the absence of unwillingness of the Sponsoring Union having

good cause to go on merit as the Sponsoring Union did not let the case move to it finality on adjudication.

Undoubtedly the party concerned (workman) has not acted diligently to decide the matter on merits but

conspicuously silent to resume hearings as and whenever called for. The Reference case was originally in the

year back 1998 spanning more than twenty years with no breakthrough since 05.12.2005.

9. On the face of fact that the workman no longer needs any relief from the Management of Katras Project

Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad to be granted in this case matter under the state of sheer reluctance, the Industrial

Dispute Reference Case is dispensed with the firmness that no specific relief under Reference needs be

addressed by the O.P./Management by now for the workman concerned in this case.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2627

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ;wdks cSad 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼10@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@36@2012-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-12012/36/2012-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

- 10/2013

jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

jsQjsUl ua. L-12012/36/2012–IR(B-II) fnukad 23/11/2012

xaxk flag iq= Jh HkS: flag jkBkSM+

fuoklh mLrk ckjh ds ckgj chdkusj

egkea=h] jktLFkku dStqvy yscj ;wfu;u]

Mkxk Ldwy ds ikl] chdkusjA

v/s

1- tujy eSustj] ;wdks cSad] iz/kku dk;kZy;]

10 ch-Vh-,e- lj.kh] dksydkrkA

2- 'kk[kk izca/kd] ;wdks cSad]

'kgj 'kk[kk Hkqft;k cktkj] chdkusjA

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh f'ko vorkj flag &vfHkHkk"kd

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lqjsUnz flag & vfHkHkk"kd

fnukad % 14- 07- 2020

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 23-11-2012 dks fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ,oa 2 ¼,½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrXkZr iznRr

'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fuEukafdr fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Bikaner to terminate the services of Shri Ganga

Singh, w.e.f., 17/12/2008 is fair, leagal and justified. What relief the concerned workman is entitled

to?”

bl lUnHkZ ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos

dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA

bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 3-2-2014 dks izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ dk dFku gS dh mldh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 6-7-2005 dks foi{kh cSad dh 'kgj 'kk[kk Hkqft;k cktkj chdkusj esa

ekSf[kd vkns'k ls vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa dh xbZA izkFkhZ dh lsok fnukad 17-12-2008 dks 'kk[kk izca/kd

2628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jh ,l- ds- tSu }kjk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lekIr dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ us fnukad 6-7-2005 ls 17-12-2008 rd yxkrkj

dk;Z fd;k vkSj ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vo/kh esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z Hkh fd;kA izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dks gVkus ds ckn Jh iznhi daMkjk dks

fu;qDr fd;k x;kA foi{kh us ofj"Brk lwph dk izdk'ku ugha fd;k vkSj **igys vk;s vkSj ihNs tk;sa** fl)kUr dk

ikyu Hkh ugha fd;kA bl izdkj foi{kh us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½] ¼,p½ rFkk fu;e 77 ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku

Hkh fd;k gSA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ,oa leLr ifjykHk fnykrs gq, lsok esa cgky fd;k

tkosaA

foi{kh us fnukad 1-5-2014 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds v/khu cSad ds

fu;ekuqlkj ,oa fu/kkZfjr p;u izfdz;k viuk dj fu;fer deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA fnukad 6-7-2005

ls 17-12-2008 rd dk;Z djus dk dFku vk/kkjghu ,oa feF;k gksus ls vLohdkj gSA izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds e/; deZpkjh

vkSj fu;ksDrk dk lEcU/k ugha jgkA izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa va'kdkyhu vkdfLed etnwj ds :i esa dk;Z dh miyC/krk ,oa

dk;Z iwjk gksus rd dHkh dHkkj yh tkrh FkhA ftldk dke ds fglkc ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA foi{kh

dh Hkqft;k cktkj chdkusj esa Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr v/khuLFk deZpkjh gSA tks foxr 24 o"kZ

ls fujUrj lsokjr gSA mDr Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh dh vuqifLFkfr] vodk'k ;k izf'k{k.k esa tkus ij gh dk;Z vkf/kD;

gksus ij izkFkhZ dks dk;Z djus dk ekSf[kd Bsdk fn;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ] pwafd vLFkk;h Fkk mldk uke fu;fer

deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwfp esa izdkf'kr djus dk dksbZ iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr

ugha dh xbZ blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vUrxZr uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa izfrdj fn;s tkus dk dksbZ

volj gh mRiUu ugha gqvkA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA

izkFkhZ us 16-10-2014 dks vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr djrs gq, oknksRrj esa fd;s x;s foi{kh ds dFku dks vLohdkj

fd;k vkSj dgk fd rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd Jh ,l- ds- tSu us izkFkhZ dks fiNys 6 o"kZ ls dk;Zjr gksus dk izek.k i=

fnukad 23-9-2008 dks fn;k gSA izkFkhZ us ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us dHkh Bsdk ugha fy;kA vr% okn esa okfUNr vuqrks"k fn;k tkosaA

izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; izkFkhZ xaxkflag dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izysf[k; lk{; esa izn'kZ MCY;w&1 ls 11

rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA

foi{kh dh vkSj ls vius lk{; esa Jh dq.kky dfiyk] ofj"B izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izysf[k; lk{; esa

dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA foi{kh dh vkSj ls Jh lqcks/k dqekj xqIrk dk Hkh 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA

fdUrq LFkkukUrj.k gks tkus ls bl lk{kh dks ifj{khr u djrs gq, Jh dq.kky dfiyk] ofj"B izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k

x;kA

fnukad 2-3-2020 dks eSuas mHk;i{k ds rdZ lqus ,o¡ miyC/k lk{; dk fookn ds lUnHkZ esa ifj'khyu fd;kA

rnqijkar dksfoM&19 egkekjh ls mitfur ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k fn- 30-3-2020 dks vf/kfu.kZ; ugha lquk;k tk ldk

,oa vkt gsrq LFkfxr fd;k x;kA

vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us vius lk{; ls foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 6-7-2005 ls 17-12-2008

rd dk;Z djuk vkSj ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk Hkh izekf.kr

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us bl vof/k ds osru okmpj foi{kh ls izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k Fkk fdUrq foi{kh }kjk mDr

okmpj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;s tks fd foi{kh ds gh vkf/kiR; esa gSA blfy;s foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh

tkuh pkfg;s vkSj izkFkhZ dk dFku izekf.kr eku fy;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izek.k i= foi{kh }kjk gh

tkjh fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa foxr 6 o"kkZsa ls izkFkhZ dk lsokjr gksuk 'kk[kk izca/kd us izekf.kr fd;k gSA vr% okn

Lohdkj fd;k tkosaA

10-

foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdZ esa fu;fer deZpkjh Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh ds vuqifLFkr jgus ij ;k dk;Z

vf/kd gksus ij vko';drkuq:i izkFkhZ ls dk;Z djokuk vkSj etnwjh dk Hkqxrku djuk dgk gSA mudk ;g izcy rdZ

gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa dk;Z djrk Fkk blfy;s dksbZ fu;fer mifLFkfr jftLVj ;k Hkqxrku dk

eLVjjksy la/kkfjr ugha fd;k tkrk FkkA ftl nLrkost dk vfLrRo gh u gks mls u rks izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS

vkSj uk gh izLrqr u dj ikus ds ifj.kkeLo:i izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk foi{kh ds izfr dh tk ldrh gSA izkFkhZ ij gha ;g

nkf;Ro vkjksfir Fkk fd og lsoklekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z djus dk rF; viuh

lk{; ls izekf.kr djsa fdUrq izkFkhZ us bl nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k gSaA blfy;s izkFkhZ ds okn esa dksbZ lkj ugha

gSA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr dks lsok esa ugha j[kk x;kA fnukad 23-9-2008 dks izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izek.k i= dks

izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd Jh ,l- ds- tSu }kjk tkjh fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugah fd;k gSA ;fn bls izekf.kr

eku fy;k tkosa rks Hkh bl izek.k i= esa of.kZr rF; izkFkhZ ds nkos ds dFkuksa ls fojks/kkHkklh gaSA izkFkhZ us fnukad

6-7-2005 ls dk;Z djuk dgk gS tcfd izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izek.k i= esa fnukad 23-9-2008 dks gh fiNys 6 o"kZ ls izkFkhZ

dk lsokjr gksuk of.kZr gSA blfy;s bl izek.k i= dks fdlh izdkj fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA mUgksus vius

rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s gS %&

¼1½

(1996) 7 S.C.C. 562 LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k @lqjs'k dqekj oekZ

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2629

¼2½

AIR 2006 lqfize dksVZ 1806 lSdszVªh] LVsV vkWQ dukZVd@meknsoh o vU;

¼3½

(2019) 1 S.C.C. (L & S) 138 eksgEEkn vyh @ LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k

¼4½

AIR 2002 lqizhe dksVZ 1147 jsat QksjsLV vkWfQlj@,l-Vh- gknheuh

¼5½

2006 S.C.C. (L & S) 38 lqjsUnz uxj fMfLVªDV iapk;r@MkãkHkkbZ vejflag

¼6½

2004 (5) S.L.R. 816 E;wfufliy dkikZsjs'ku Qjhnkckn@lhjh fuokl

11-

mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ,oa lk{; ds euu ds i'pkr bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq, gS%&

D;k izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu lsoklekfIr fnukad 17-12-2008 ls iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj

o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k\ fdUrq foi{kh }kjk lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u djus ls lsoklekfIr voS/k gS \

----------------- izkFkhZ

D;k izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk ofj"Brk lwph dk izdk'ku ugha djrs

gq, izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr dks lsok esa j[kk x;k \ blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr voS/k gS \----------------- izkFkhZ

¼3½ vuqrks"k \

izkFkhZ us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus fnukad 6-7-2005 ls

17-12-2008 rd foi{kh dh Hkqft;k cktkj 'kk[kk esa vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ

xaxkflag Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlus dksbZ fyf[kr fu;qfDr i= is'k ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh dgk fd mldh

fu;qfDr frfFk 6-7-2005 ds LFkku ij 6-7-2002 gksuh pkfg,A izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa Hkh fu;qfDr frfFk

6-7-2005 gh vafdr dh gSA mlus vfHkopuksa esa la'kks/ku gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuki= Hkh vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k

gSA blfy;s bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu vkSj lk{; esa mRiUu ;g fojks/kkHkkl izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks lafnX/k ,oa

vfo'oluh; cukrk gSA ;fn mldh fu;qfDr frfFk 6-7-2002 gksrh ¼ftldk fd dksbZ vk/kkj gh izLrqr ugha gqvk gS½ rks

izkFkhZ ds le{k ,slh dksbZ ck/;rk ugha Fkh fd nkos ds vfHkdFku vkSj lk{; ds 'kiFk i= nksuksa esa fu;qfDr frfFk

6-7-2005 fy[kokrk vkSj mls la'kksf/kr djus dk dksbZ iz;kl Hkh ugha djrkA bl fLFkfr esa ;g laHko izrhr gksrk gS fd

izkFkhZ us fnukad 7-9-2016 dks tks izys[k QksVksdkWih ds :i esa izLrqr fd;s muesa izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izek.k i= Hkh

lfEefyr FkkA ;g izn'kZ MCY;w&1 izek.k i= fnukad 23-9-2008 dks tkjh fd;k x;k vkSj blesa fiNys 6 o"kksZa ls izkFkhZ

dk foi{kh cSad esa lsokjr gksuk vafdr FkkA izkFkhZ us fnukad 23-2-2017 dks fd;s x;s izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku viuh lsok]

izek.k i= ds vuqlkj N% o"kZ iw.kZ djuk n'kkZus ds fy;s gh fu;qfDr frfFk 6-7-2005 dh txg 6-7-2002 gksuk dgk gS

tks fd fo'oluh; ugha gSA

12-

foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks dk;Z dh vko';drk gksus ij ;nk&dnk dk;Z ij j[kk tkrk Fkk

D;ksafd cSad dh mDr 'kk[kk esa Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh uked fu;fer deZpkjh fu;qDr FkkA mlds vodk'k ij gksus ij

gh izkFkhZ ls dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrs gq, dgk gS fd Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh

mldh lsok eas vkus ls iwoZ gh dk;Zjr gS vkSj vc Hkh dk;Z dj jgs gSA izn'kZ MCY;w&7 izys[k ls Hkh ;g izdV gksrk gS

fd fnukad 10-7-2008 ls 20-11-2008 rd dh vof/k esa ek= 20-11-2008 dks gh izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj gS ,oa 'ks"k frfFk;ksa

ij Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh ds gLrk{kj fo|eku gSaA

13-

izn'kZ MCY;w&1 iz'kalk i= dks cSad dh fu;fer izfdz;k ds v/khu tkjh fd;k tkuk Hkh izdV ugha gksrk gS

D;ksafd bl izek.k i= ij cSad dh dksbZ fuxZeu la[;k vafdr ugha gS vkSj u gha bl izek.k i= dks foi{kh }kjk

Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us bl izek.k i= dks tkjh djus 'kk[kk izca/kad dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr djus dk dksbZ

iz;kl Hkh ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bl izek.k i= esa izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr frfFk rFkk in ftl ij izkFkhZ

dk;Zjr gS] dk Hkh mYys[k ugha gSA bl izek.k i= dks izkFkhZ ds nkos esa of.kZr fu;qfDr frfFk 6-7-2005 ds izek.keLo:i

Hkh xzg.k ugah fd;k tk ldrk gS] D;ksafd izek.k i= tkjh djus dh fnukad 23-9-2008 dks foxr 6 o"kZ ls izkFkhZ ;fn

cSad esa ;fn dk;Zjr gksrk rks mldh fu;qfDr fnukad 23-9-2002 ds vklikl dh dksbZ frfFk gksrhA bl izdkj izkFkhZ bl

izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh cSad esa Loa; ds fu;qDr gksus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA

14-

izn'kZ MCY;w&2 vkSj 3 izys[kksa ls dksbZ rF; izdV ugha gksrk D;ksafd buesa dksbZ rF; of.kZr ugha gS vkSj ;s

QksVksdkWih ek= gSaA izn'kZ MCY;w&4 izkFkhZ dks fnukad 11 ls 13-12-2008 rd fd;s x;s 300 :i;s ds Hkqxrku dk

okmpj gSaA izn'kZ MCY;w&5 fnukad 16-7-2005 dks izkFkhZ dks fd;s 200 :i;s ds Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr gSA blh izdkj

izn'kZ MCY;w&6 fnukad 18-2-2006 dks 300 :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ls lEcfU/kr okmpj gSA izn'kZ MCY;w&8 ls 11]

pijklh cgh ds i`"Bkas dh QksVksdkWih gS ftl ij izkFkhZ ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ fooj.k vafdr u gksus ls lk{; dh n`f"V ls

mudk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA

15-

fnuakd 16-10-2014 dks izkFkhZ us fnukad 6-7-2005 ls 17-12-2008 rd ds osru okmpj foi{kh ls izLrqr

djokus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA foi{kh us izfrmRrj esa bl vof/k esa izkFkhZ ds dk;Zjr gksus ds rF; dks vLohdkj fd;k gS

rFkk vkdfLed :i ls djok;s x;s dk;Z dk dksbZ i`Fkd ls vfHkys[k u j[ks tkus dk dFku Hkh fd;k gSA foi{kh us

vius izfrmRrj ds leFkZu esa Jh eukst dqekj xksLokeh ,oa Jh lqcks/k dqekj xqIrk ds 'kiFk i= Hkh izLrqr fd;s gSA

bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk okafNr izys[kksa dk vfLrRo esa gksuk gh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk bu izys[kksa

dks izLrqr u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ¼ftUgsa 'kiFk i= }kjk iq"B Hkh fd;k x;k gS½ bu izys[kksa dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk

2630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lEHko izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa jsat QksjsLV vkWfQlj@,l-Vh- gknheuh]

lqjsUnz uxj fMfLVªDV iapk;r@Mkã;kHkkbZ vejflag ,oa E;wfufliy dkikZsjs'ku Qjhnkckn@lhjh fuokl ds fu.kZ;ksa dk

voyEc fy;k gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd ,d deZdkj }kjk fu;kstd

ds v/khu lsoklekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ dj ysus dk rF; izekf.kr

djus dk izkFkfed fl)hHkkj Loa; deZdkj ij gksrk gSA ;fn deZdkj lsok lEcU/kh izys[kksa dks fu;kstd ls izLrqr

djokus dk fuosnu djsa] fdUrq ,sls izys[k ;k rks vfLrRo esa gh uk gks ;k izkFkhZ us izkFkfed lk{; Hkh izLrqr u dh gks

rks fu;kstd }kjk okfUNr izys[kksa dks izLrqr u fd;s tkus ij fu;kstd ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk

ldrh gSA

16-

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us eksgEEkn vyh@LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k ds fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd ;fn

deZdkj lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ 1 o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh lsok fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr u djsa rks mls vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA

17-

bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ ,d o"kZ

dh vof/k esa 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djus dk rF; izekf.kr djus esa foQy jgk gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½

ds vUrxZr lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk

fd;s tkus dk dksbZ volj Hkh ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

18-

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 2 %& izkFkhZ us viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr djus ds iwoZ

fu;ekuqlkj ofj"Brk lwph dk izdk'ku foi{kh us ugha fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkjh vc Hkh dk;Zjr gaSA izkFkhZ

dks gVkus ds ckn Jh iznhi daMkjk dks j[kk x;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mls gVkus ds ckn Lohij ds

in ij Jh iznhi daMkjk dks yxk;k x;kA tks mldh ekrk ds gVus ds ckn yxkA mlds igys Jh iznhi daMkjk dh

ekrk Lohij dk dk;Z djrh FkhA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus dHkh Lohij dk dk;Z czkUp esa ugha fd;k

rFkk lsoklekfIr ds mijkUr cSad esa fu;qfDr ds fy;s mlus dksbZ vkosnu Hkh ugha fd;kA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gks tkrk

gS fd Jh iznhi daMkjk dh fu;qfDr izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij ,oa leku izd`fr ds in ij ugha dh xbZ] D;ksafd izkFkhZ rks Loa;

dh fu;qfDr ikuh Hkjus] psd o M~kQV cuokus vkfn ds dk;Z ds fy;s gksuk dgdj vk;k gSA tcfd Jh iznhi daMkjk

Lohij ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA blfy;s dfu"B vkSj ofj"B gksus lEcfU/k dksbZ fLFkfr dk;Z dh izd`fr fHkUu

gksus mRiUu gh ugha gqbZA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdlh fu;fer in ds fo:) p;u izfdz;k viukrs gq, ugha dh xbZ gSA

nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwfp cuk;s tkus vkSj mlds izdk'ku dh vis{kk foi{kh ls blfy;s Hkh

ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s fd izkFkhZ ds vfrfjDr ek= Jh gqdepUn Hkknk.kh fu;fer deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA izkFkhZ

us ;g ugha dgk gS fd nSfud osru Hkksxh vkdfLed deZdkj dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph foi{kh us cuk j[kh gks] ftls

izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us lqjsUnz uxj fMfLVªDV iapk;r@Mkã;kHkkbZ vejflag ds fu.kZ; esa

;g dgk gS fd ofj"Brk lwfp ds vfLrRo esa gksus ls lEcfU/kr fdlh izek.k ds vHkko esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½

,oa ¼,p½ ds vikyu ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA fu;kstd ls ;g vis{kk ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s

dh os nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj"Brk lwph cuk;sA lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ mlls dfu"B O;fDr dks

foi{kh }kjk lsok esa j[ks tkus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA blfy;s ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr

vf/ker ds vuqlj.k esa izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh

ugha gSA vr% ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

19-

vuqrks"k %&fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr gksus ds dkj.k foi{kh cSad ds izca/ku }kjk

fnukad 17-12-2008 dks izkFkhZ dh dfFkr :i ls dh xbZ lsoklekfIr izekf.kr ugha gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ dks vkdfLed :i ls

dk;Z dh vko';drk ds vuq:i dk;Z ij j[kk x;kA ftldk Hkqxrku mls dj fn;k x;kA blfy;s izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½] ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

20-

vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fookn

dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

21-

vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr

izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkQ cMkSnk 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;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 18@2013½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@87@2012-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2631

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Bank of Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-12012/87/2012-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

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

(Monday the 24^th day of February 2020, 5 Phalguna 1941)

ID No. 18/2013

Workman

Shri. Dineshkumar B.

Puthenveedu

Perumbavoor

Ernakulam - 683542

By Adv. Ashok B. Shenoy

Management

The Assistant General Manager

Bank of Baroda

T.D. Road

Ernakulam –682011

By M/s. B.S. Krishna Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 09.01.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

24.02.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

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

10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order

No. L-12012/87/2012-IR(B-II) dated 05.03.2013 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

The dispute referred is;

“Whether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of

Shri. Dineshkumar from the post of temporary/part time sweeper from Perumbavoor branch is illegal ?

What benefit he is eligible to get ? ’’

The workman herein was employed in the subordinate cadre as Peon in the service of the management

bank at their Perumbavoor branch in Ernakulam district. He was employed in the service of the Perumbavoor

branch from 13.07.2009. He had been employed continuously and regularly against regular and permanent

vacancy to do regular and permanent nature duties of Peon. On 07.01.2012, the services of the workman was

terminated by the Manager of the Perumbavoor branch orally. The workman raised an industrial dispute before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) on 28.11.2011. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure on

16.10.2012. According to the workman the termination of his service amounts to retrenchment. The workman

was employed continuously from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012 and he was retrenched from service of the Bank

without any notice of retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice as mandated by Sec 25F of the ID Act 1947.

The management did not pay any retrenchment compensation as mandated in Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947.

Retrenchment of workman’s service is therefore illegal, unjust and also null and void. It is also illegal, unjust

and void for violation of provisions of Para 522, 523 and 524 of Sastri Award. Employees much junior in

service to the workman are retained in service by the management. This is in violation of mandatory provisions

of Sec 25G of the ID Act, 1947 and Para 507 of Sastri Award. The management employed fresh and new hands

in service of the management against the very same work for which the workman was employed. This is in

violation of Sec 25H of ID Act, 1947 and Clause 20.12 of 1^stBipartite settlement dt.19.10.1996 and Para 493 of

Sastri Award. Hence the termination of the workman is illegal and is stained by malafide and victimization. The

2632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman was treated by the management as temporary workman against permanent vacancy just to deprive

him off the status and privilege of a permanent workman. By adopting this practice, the management was

indulging in unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of ID Act, 1947 and Para 495 and 522 of Sastri Award.

In terms of clause 20.12 of the 1^st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1966 the management is bound to retain and

absorb the workman in regular service especially when the vacancy against which he was employed is

permanent and continues to exist. Since retrenchment the workman is without any job and income. Hence the

workman pleaded that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f.

07.01.2012 be declared illegal and unjust and also declare that he be reinstated in service of the management

with full back wages, continuity of service and other attended benefits.

The management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The workman was neither

employed in the Bank nor any letter of appointment was issued to him and therefore, there is no question of

terminating his service.

The management is a nationalized public sector Bank with prescribed rules and policies in the matter of

recruitment into its regular service. For appointment in the subordinate cadre, recruitment is made through

notification to Employment Exchange and after complying with the formalities of test and interview. The

instructions and guidelines of Govt. of India and Reserve Bank of India in the matter of reservation are also

strictly followed in the matter of recruitment. The competent authority for sanctioning of regular post in the

subordinate staff cadre in the management Bank is General Manager (HRM) and the appointing authority is the

Regional Head. The Branch Manager can neither sanction nor appoint staff in the subordinate cadre in the

management Bank. The workman in the dispute was not appointed in the management Bank by the competent

authority. He was not engaged in any regular vacancy in any branch of the Bank. He was not appointed an

employee of the management Bank. There is no employer-employee relationship between the workman and the

management. The workman was intermittently engaged as daily wager on casual/temporary basis at the

Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank during 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. He was being paid

appropriate wages on daily basis. He was not engaged 240 days at any point of time. He was not engaged

against a sanctioned post in the management Bank. The workman was not subjected to any recruitment process

by the management Bank and no appointment letter was given to him. The workman was engaged by Branch

Manager who is not the appointing Authority or the sanctioning Authority in the management Bank. Temporary

and casual engagements on day to day basis will not create any right of employment in the management Bank.

The workman was engaged intermittently as daily wager from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012 as Peon. His

engagement for 240 days or above alone will not entitle him to claim reinstatement or regularization in the

service of the Bank. His engagement was through Branch Manager who is not the competent appointing

Authority for subordinate staff in the management Bank. The management is a public sector Bank and is a

“State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Appointment to any post in the management is made only

after complying with the statutory rules, regulations and directions issued by Govt. of India from time to time.

The appointment in the subordinate staff cadre is to be made by the competent authority only against sanctioned

vacancies and also subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria for such appointment. The appointment to the

subordinate cadre can be done only through Employment Exchange. If suitable candidates are not available

with Employment Exchange, the management can explore other sources of recruitment. The workman in this

case was never sponsored by Employment Exchange and not subject to any recruitment procedure. The action

of the management in dis-engaging the service of the workman is proper, legal and valid and there is no

violation of the provisions of the ID Act or the provisions of the Sastri Award. It is baseless and incorrect to

allege that the management has violated Sec 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act and the provisions of Bipartite

Settlement and Sastri Award. It is baseless and incorrect to allege that the management is in the habit of

employing workman against permanent vacancies one after another and retrench them to be replaced by new

hands. The management denied any unfair labour practice or violation of provisions of ID Act, Bipartite

Settlement and Sastri Award. Constitution of India envisages right of equality and equal opportunity in the

matter of public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There is no fundamental right in those

who have been employed on daily wages or on contractual basis to claim regularization and absorption in the

regular service.

The workman filed replication denying the allegations in the written statement filed by the

management. The workman specifically denied the allegation of the management that he was not employed in

the Bank and therefore there was no question of terminating his service. The workman was appointed as a Peon

in the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank on 13.07.2009 when the branch was opened against a

permanent vacancy of Peon in the branch. No permanent peon was posted in the branch from 13.07.2009 to

07.01.2012. The workman was employed continuously and regularly against a permanent vacancy to do regular

and permanent nature of duties of Peon. The workman was entrusted with the duties of permanent nature in the

branch. The workman herein was entrusted with the duties of a Peon and had been under the supervision of the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2633

branch authorities. He had access to all areas in the premises including the security area of the branch. The

workman was being paid wages against wage voucher slips and is accounted against Bank’s profit & loss

account. He was also being paid bonus from the date of his employment till his termination on 07.01.2012. The

engagement of the workman by the Bank was continuous without break and was paid wages even on holidays as

given to permanent employees. The management Bank is having 85 branches and 2 Administrate Offices in

Kerala and the permanent employees working in the state in the subordinate cadre is only 90. There are

considerable number of temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent nature. The management had

regularized 37 temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent nature during the years 2009-2010 and

2011. As many as 1966 officers were recruited through campus selection and the averment of the management

that the recruitments are done only through proper notification and selection process is only to justify the denial

of employment to the workman. After retrenchment of the workman w.e.f. 07.01.2012, a new temporary

employee is engaged by the management in Perumbavoor branch without affording the workman an opportunity

for re-employment. Sponsorship by Employment Exchange is not a condition precedent for employment in the

post and job against which the workman herein was employed in the management Bank. Permanent

employment is denied to the workman by the management Bank only to deny him the benefits available to

permanent employees.

On completion of pleadings, the workman examined WW1 and WW2 and marked Exbts. W1 to W10.

Exbt. W3 and W5 to W10 were marked subject to objection as the documents were not related to the

management Bank. Management examined MW1 and MW2 and marked Exhibits M1 to M8. Evidence of

MW2 is common to ID no.10/2013, ID nos.18/2013, 19/2013 and 20/2013.

On the basis of the reference the issues to be decided are;

Whether the termination of Sri.Dineshkumar from the post of temporary/ part time sweeper from

Perumbavoor branch is illegal?

Relief and cost

Issue No. 1

In the reference received from the Central Govt, the issue that is referred is whether the termination of

Sri.Dineshkumar from the post of temporary/ part time sweeper is legal? However from the claim statement it is

seen that the claim of the workman is that he was working as Peon in the management Bank from the date of

opening of the branch at Perumbavoor branch. Since temporary sweeper and Peon are in the sub staff category

of the management Bank, it is taken that the reference is with regard to termination of temporary Peon and the

same is answered accordingly. According to the workman, he was employed in the service of the management

Bank at Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009 when the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank

commenced its operation. He was engaged as Peon and continued to be employed till 07.01.2012 continuously

and regularly against the regular and permanent vacancy and was doing regular and permanent nature of duties.

On 07.01.2012 his services were orally terminated by Branch Manager. According to the learned Counsel for

the workman the oral termination of the workman amounts to retrenchment. However he was not issued with

any notice of retrenchment nor wages in lieu of notice as mandated by Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. The

retrenchment of the workman’s service is therefore illegal, unjust and null and void in law. It is also in violation

of Paras 522, 523 and 524 of Sastri Award. According to the learned Counsel for the management, the

workman was never employed by the management Bank and intermittently used his service between 13.07.2009

to 07.01.2012 and he was paid daily wages for the services rendered by him. His engagement was only

temporary/casual on a day to day basis and the workman has no right to employment in the management Bank.

The management Bank is a nationalized bank and therefore follows prescribed rules and procedures for

appointment in its regular service. For appointment in the subordinate staff cadre, the recruitment is made

through notification in the Employment Exchange and after complying with the formalities of test and

interview. The workman was not given any appointment order and therefore there was no retrenchment of the

workman by the management Bank. According to the learned Counsel for the workman, the policies and

procedures relied on by the management are for the regular recruitment and the workman has no claim for

regularization. With regard to the policies also the workman through WW2 established that the management

Bank resorted to regularization of temporary and casual subordinate staff on the basis of settlement between the

Union and the management. It is also pointed out that as per Exbt.W4 that there is a Bipartite Settlement

between the management Bank and All India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation for absorption of casual/

temporary peons/sweepers in 3 phases. As per Exbt.W3 it is pointed out that 37 temporary subordinate

employees were appointed as permanent employees in Kerala branches from 2008 to 2011. The management

relied on Exbt.M1 to point out that the HR policy covers the appointment of subordinate staff also. According to

the learned Counsel for the management, General Manager(HRM) is the competent authority to sanction the

2634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

post of sub staff in various zones. However the learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the specific

guidelines and criteria for recruitment in subordinate staff cadre forms part of Exbt. M1 as Annexure 1, which is

not enclosed along with Exbt.M1. Further it is also seen that at Para 7.0 of Exbt.M1 that there is a provision for

engagement of sub staff on temporary basis. This provision authorized engagement of temporary sub staff for a

limited period not exceeding 90 days by the branches in rural and semi urban centers. Such temporary

engagement also requires the approval of General Manager(HRM). According to MW1, Perumbavoor branch

of the management Bank was not having any regular Peon from the date of inauguration of the branch on

13.07.2009 till 07.01.2012. MW1 did not deny the fact that there was a sanctioned post of Peon when the

Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank was opened on 13.07.2009. Further he admitted that the

workman was being engaged as a Peon from 13.07.2009. MW1 also admitted that the workman was doing the

work of a regular peon from the date of his appointment till MW1 left the branch on 09.10.2011. He further

confirmed that no permanent peons were posted as long as he was working in the branch. It is admitted by

MW1 & MW2 that the accounts of the Perumbavoor branch was being audited every year and the payment of

wages to the workman was being done through Profit & Loss account/ Sundry charges through vouchers. The

auditors never pointed out any irregularity in the wages paid to the workman and no action was also taken

against the Manager who made such appointment and payments. Hence it is only probable that the engagement

of the workman had the approval of the competent authority and the payments made to him were fully

authorized.

10.

The case of the workman herein is that he was working against the vacancy of a regular peon in the

Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. To substantiate the above point,

the workman called for Exbt.M6, Peon Delivery Book from 05.08.2009 to 16.12.2011 which will clearly

indicate the nature of work handled by the workman during the relevant period. Exbt.M7 and M8 series of

letters will show that the workman was entrusted with the responsibility of collecting gold coins for and on

behalf of the Bank of Baroda, Perumbavoor branch. The workman also in his evidence stated that there was no

other Peon available in the branch and he was handling all the work of the regular peon and he was having

access to all areas of the branch including the security areas. Hence it is very clear that the management Bank

was engaging the workman against the permanent vacancy of a peon and he was entrusted the responsibility of a

regular peon. On an application by the workman the management produced

The true copy of statement of A/c no.328501500000100 maintained at Perumbavoor branch in

respect of the workman from 29.07.2009 to 31.12.2012. This document is marked as Exbt.M2 in

this proceedings.

True copy of Ledger account statement of Sundry charges A/c No. 32850054511004 of

Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. This document is marked as Exbt.M3 in

this proceedings.

True copy of available debit vouchers relating to wages paid to temporary employees from

13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. These documents are marked as Exbt.M4 series.

True copy of the available debit vouchers relating to Bonus paid to the debit A/c

no.32850052431001 for the period from 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. These documents

are marked as Exbt.M5 series.

The management failed to produce Form-C Bonus paid statements for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12.

According to them the said documents were not available with the Bank. The Form-C Bonus would clearly

indicate the number of days the workman worked in the branch which is a clear proof to establish that the

number of days the workman worked in the branch during each year when the bonus is paid. According to the

learned Counsel for the workman, the Form-C Bonus paid statement under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a

very crucial document to establish the claim of the workman that he worked for more than 240 days in a year

immediately prior to his retrenchment on 07.01.2012. Except for the statement that these crucial documents are

not available with the branch, the management has not offered any explanation for non production of the same

in the affidavit. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that adverse presumption will have to be drawn

against the management for non production of these crucial documents. The learned Counsel relied on the

decision of Gauri Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 12 SCC 754. In the above case, the workman was

working with the respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a permanent and sanctioned post

w.e.f. 01.01.1987 till his services came to be retrenched and he had rendered service of more than 240 days in

every calendar year and has received salary from the respondent department each month. The workman

challenged the retrenchment as bad in law as the same is in violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of the

ID Act. The workman applied for production of the Muster Roll and the management failed to produce the

relevant Muster Rolls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G

Ketker Vs. Muhammed Haji Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Murukesam Pillai Vs. Manikyavasaka

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2635

Pandara, (1917) 5 LW 759 held that even if the burden of proof does lie on a party, the Court can draw an

adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts of

issue. The learned Counsel for the workman also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram

Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs Mahak Singh and others, 2007 4 SCC 94, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that when the workman discharged their initial onus by producing the documents in their possession,

it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the claim of the workman that he did not work for more

than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior to his/her termination. In this particular case the

Form-C Bonus paid statement is a crucial document in the custody of the management to substantiate the claim

of the workman that he was working for more than 240 days in a year immediately before his retrenchment.

Since the management failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for non production of the document, an

adverse presumption can be drawn that the workman worked continuously for 240 days immediately prior to his

retrenchment. Further from Exbt.M3, Ledger account statement of Sundry charges for the period from

13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012, it can be seen that the workman worked for 334 days for the period from 15.01.2011

to 07.01.2012 ie., 1 year immediately prior to his retrenchment on 07.01.2012 and was paid a salary of

Rs.95,874/-. The Exbt.M4 series of debit vouchers support the above evidence. Exbt.M5 series of debit

vouchers for bonus paid would show that Rs.6300/- was paid to the workman in the year 2009-10, Rs. 8400/- in

the year 2010-11 and Rs.4900/- in the year 2011-12. The workman through these documents proved that he

worked for more than 240 days during one year immediately before his termination. Hence the management is

liable to follow the conditions precedent contemplated under Sec 25F of the ID Act, 1947 before termination of

his service.

11.

The learned Counsel for the management argued that the workman in this case is only a casual

employee on daily wages and hence he is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. The learned

Counsel for the workman relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar K. Vs

Managing Director, KTDC Ltd, 2019 (1) KHC 225 to point out that the definition in Sec 2(s) of the ID Act

includes casual employees also. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court held that;

“ Para 18. From this it is quite evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2(s) of the ID Act

includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra)(in the context governed by

the provisions of the workman’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in hand.”

12.

The learned Counsel for the management relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and the State of Bihar and others Vs Devendra Sharma,

Civil Appeal no. 7879/2019, to argue that the management Bank being a ‘state ‘ under Article 12 of the

Constitution, no back door entry in service can be allowed violating Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the workman on the other hand relied on various decisions and argued that when there

is a violation of the provisions of ID Act, the dictum laid down in the above decisions is clearly distinguishable.

In Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation,(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 321 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court considered the decision in Umadevi’s case (Supra) and held that ;

“17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a

Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in

ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16

of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and powers of the Industrial

and Labour Court provided therein were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The

issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was decided in

Uma Devi’s case.

18. We have noticed that Industrial Disputes Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and

certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the

employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving

them the status and privilege of permanent employees.

19. Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of

workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer retrenches

the workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been

paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice apart from compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in

excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the

2636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appropriate Govt or such Authority as may be specified by appropriate Govt by notification in the

official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Sec 25F is violated and the employer there by, resorts

to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with privilege as provided under the

Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the

employee was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(20) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- - -- -- - - -- - - - --- -

(21) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that the

initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of

India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair labour practice cannot

be resorted to and thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and

other benefits in terms of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240

days in a calendar year”.

The above decisions was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur

Casual Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 Supreme

Court Cases 786. The Hon’ble Court held that an undertaking of the Government which comes within

the meaning of ‘industry’ or its establishment cannot justify its illegal action including unfair labour

practice nor can ask for different treatment on the ground that public undertaking is guided by Articles

14 & 16 of Constitution of India and the private industries are not guided by 14 & 16 of the

Constitution. In Umrala Grama Panchayat Vs Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 12

SCC 775 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the services of the workmen in that case be

regularized and made permanent since they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

13.

In view of the above, it is very clear that the management terminated the service of the worker in clear

violation of the provisions of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

14.

The workman also pleaded that he was terminated from the service of the management in violation of

Sec 25G of the ID Act, on the ground that the employees much junior in service to him were retained in service

when he was terminated from the service of the establishment. The workman did not lead any evidence to

substantiate and support violation of Sec 25G of the ID Act. The workman also alleged that the management

appointed fresh hands against the post held by him for doing the same job which he was doing. Having

retrenched him from service of the management the workman has a right to be offered re-employment against

any future vacancy in preference over others. Since the management failed to implement the mandate of Sec

25H, they violated the provisions of Sec 25H of ID Act. There is no evidence to support the case of the

workman that another person was appointed in his place without offering him a re-employment there by

violating the provisions of Sec 25H of the ID Act. The workman also claimed that the management violated

Sec 25T of the ID Act by resorting to the unfair labour practice of employing the workman as a casual worker

and continued his service for years together with the object of depriving him the status and privilege of a

permanent workman. As per Sec 2(r)(a), “unfair labour practice” means any practice specified in the 5^th

Schedule of the Act. In the 5^th Schedule I (x) “the action of the management to employ workman as badali’s,

casuals or temporary and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and

privilege of permanent workman, is classified as an unfair labour practice, on the side of the management”. In

this particular case, it is seen that the workman was appointed as a temporary peon on 13.07.2009 and he was

continued till 07.01.2012. Hence it is very clear that there was a post of Peon against which the workman was

appointed on casual basis and he continued his service with Bank for almost 2½ years drawing daily wages. It

is a fact that he is denied the facility of a regular peon when his services were terminated by the management

Bank. This is a clear case of unfair labour practice.

15.

Considering all the above facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the

termination of the workman from the services of the management Bank is abinitio void and is in violation of

Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947 and retaining him as a daily wage employee for almost 2 ½ years and denying him the

benefits of regular employees is an unfair labour practice in violation of Sec 25T of ID Act.

16.

Issue No. 3

Issue No.2 regarding the legality of termination of the workman was decided in favour of the

workman and against the management. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that once this Tribunal

found that the termination of the workman was illegal, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back

wages. The learned Counsel for the management argued that in the special circumstances of this case, it may not

be ideal to order reinstatement with full back wages and he argued that it is ideal to provide monetary

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2637

compensation in the place of reinstatement. Relying on the decision of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs

Rajkumar, 2019 1 LLJ 513 SC the learned Counsel for the management argued that the workman was a daily

wages employee and he continued as a daily wage employee and is not entitled for regularization considering

the spirit of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (Supra). The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case relying on the decision of BSNL Vs Bhurumal, (2014) 7

SCC 177 and District Development Officer and another Vs Satish Kantilal Amerelia 2018 12 SCC 298 held

that in the circumstances of that case it would be just and proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary

compensation to the workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential

benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject in BSNL case (Supra) as follows;

“Para 33. It is clear from the readings of the aforesaid judgments 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

workmen are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, or unfair labour

practice, etc. However when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the

termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Sec 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should given monetary compensation which will

meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

Para 34. The reasons for denying the relief for 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 U/s 25F of the ID Act, evenafter 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 evenafter he is reinstated

he has no right to seek regularization [see State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi(3)]. Thus when he cannot

claim 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 in as much 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.

Para 35. We would however, like to add a cavate here. There may be cases where termination of daily

wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in

violation of the principles of last come first go viz. While retrenching such a worker daily wage junior

to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized 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.’’

The learned Counsel for the workman on the other hand relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Jasmar Singh Vs State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the workman is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages since the order of termination was void abinitio. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above case relied on the following observation of the Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase

Vs Kranti Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya, 2013 10 SCC 324 to hold that when the termination is found to

be illegal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

“Para 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or

removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which

he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person

who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in

terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee

relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned but his

entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are

deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the

family has to borrow from relatives and other aquittance to avoid starvation. These sufferings

2638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

continued till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the

employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent

judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultravires the relevant

statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages.

If the employer was to deny back wages to the employee, or contesting his entitlement to get

consequential benefits then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening

period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back

wages to an employee who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to

indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the

obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments”.

In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a workman working as a

daily paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Karnal) for more than 240 days.

In the present case, it is true that the workman was engaged as a daily wage employee and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days for one year before his termination and it is also found that his continued

employment for prolonged time as a daily wage worker was an unfair labour practice U/s 25T, as he was

engaged as a casual employee for years together with the object of depriving him off the status and privilege of

permanent workman. The management failed to establish that the workman was gainfully engaged during the

period of termination. Hence it is not a simple case where the procedure contemplated U/s 25F of ID Act is

violated.

Considering all the facts, evidence and pleadings, I am inclined to hold that the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in the service of the management Bank with full back wages, continuity of service and other

consequential benefits.

Hence an award is passed holding that the termination of the workman from the services of the

management Bank from 07.01.2012 is illegal, unjust and abinitio void. He is entitled to be reinstated in service

of the Management Bank with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attended benefits.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 24^thday of February,

2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Shri.Dinesh Kumar B., dt.18.01.2016

WW2

Shri.V.N.Krishnan , dt.10.05.2016

Witness for the Management:-

MW1 -

Shri.KrishnaKumar , dt.05.12.2016

MW2

Shri.ZiyadRahuman M dt.30.04.2019

Exhibits for the Workman:-

Letter dt.20.03.2012 submitted by workman to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C),

Ernakulam

Copy of the Report Failure of Conciliation proceedings dt.16.10.2012 of theAsst.Labour

Commissioner(C), Ernakulam

True copy of letter dt.04.03.2013 issued by the Dy.General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal

Office, Chennai under RTI Act.

True copy of Tripartite Settlement dt.18.03.2008 between Bank of Baroda and All India Bank

of Baroda Employees’ Federation

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2639

True copy of Settlement dt.25.11.2013 between the management of Union Bank of India and

the All India Bank of Union Bank of India Employees’ Association

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.25.06.2013 between the management of Bank of

India and Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions

True copy of letter dt.09.04.2013 of Asst.General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Head

Office, Trivandrum enclosing a Memorandum of Settlement dt.21.10.2011 between the

management of SBT and SBT Employees Union

True copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.30.08.2014 between the management of Canara

Bank and Canara Bank Employees Union

True copy of DBOD.CORIA No.15968/04.03.001.2013/13 dt.09.05.2013 issued by Reserve

Bank of India

W10

True copy of letter dt.27.02.2013 issued by the Dy. Manager, Bank of Baroda, Corporate

Center, Bombay

Exhibits for the Management:-

True copy of the HR Resourcing Policy of the management Bank

True copy of the statement of account No.32850100000100 maintained at Perumbavoor

branch from 29.07.2009 to 31.12.2012

True copy of the Ledger account statement of Sundry charges account No.32850054511004 of

Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012

True copy of the available Debit vouchers relating to wages paid series to temporary

employees from 13.07.2009 to 07.01.2012

True copy of available Debit vouchers relating to Bonus paid to series the debit account

No.32850052431001 for the period 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 and 2011-2012

True copy of the Peon delivery book of Perumbavoor branch for the series period 13.07.2009

to 16.12.2011

True copy of the letter dt.11.08.2010 of Perumbavoor branch addressed to Ernakulam branch

requesting gold coins

True copy of the letter dt.06.05.2011 of Perumbavoor branch series addressed to Ernakulam

branch requesting gold coins.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj flafMdsV cSad 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;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 01@2017½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-39025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Syndicate Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-39025/01/2020-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

2640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

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

(Wednesday the 5^th day of February 2020, 16 Magha 1941)

ID No. 01/2017

Workman

: Sri.S. Chandra Babu

Revathy, ENRA-C41/1

Elakathu Nagar

Valiyavila, Thirumala P.O.

Trivandrum – 695006

By Adv. A. Jayasankar

Management

: The General Manager

Syndicate Bank

Manipal

Karnataka – 576014

By Adv. R.S. Kalkura

This case coming up for final hearing on 09.01.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

05.02.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

This is a dispute raised U/s 2A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

According to the workman, he joined the service of the management Bank on 28.11.1978 as Attender.

He was promoted as Clerk w.e.f 30.06.1984. He served the Bank for 36 years. While working as Clerk in the

Killipalam branch of the management Bank, the workman was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide

order dt.02.05.2013. A formal charge sheet was issued on 27.11.2013. In the charge sheet it was alleged that a

customer orally complained to the Branch Manager that she remitted an amount of Rs.11,500/- to her jewel loan

account on 13.03.2013 and the said amount was not credited to her account. It was also alleged that another

customer gave a written complaint to the Branch Manager on 17.04.2013 stating that she remitted Rs.20,000/- in

her gold loan account on 13.02.2013 and the said amount was not credited to her account. The management

therefore alleged the misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of Bank against the workman. The

workman in his reply dt.17.12.2013 admitted the misconduct and explained the circumstances leading to the

adjustments in the account. The management was not satisfied with the reply and initiated departmental enquiry

against the workman. The workman participated in the enquiry and admitted guilt before the Enquiry Officer.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.05.2014. The workman submitted his reply on 29.05.2014 again

pleading for mercy. A show cause notice was issued to him on 26.07.2014 proposing punishment of dismissal

from the service of the Bank. He was also afforded a personal hearing on 13.08.2014. The workman participated

in the personal hearing, admitted the guilt and pleaded for mercy. The Disciplinary Authority vide order

dt.25.09.2014 imposed a punishment of dismissal on the workman. The workman submitted an appeal on

02.11.2014 before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, he attained the age of

superannuation on 30.11.2015. The Appellate Authority also afforded a personal hearing on 04.06.2015. The

appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dt.19.02.2016 and the same was communicated to

the workman on 29.04.2016. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did not consider the

fact that the workman admitted his guilt and pleaded for mercy from the very beginning. His meritorious service

for 36 years was not considered while proposing an order for punishment. The circumstances that lead to the

adjustments in accounts were not considered by the management and the Enquiry Officer. It is cardinal

principle of Industrial Law that justice should be tempered with mercy so that the erring workman can be given

an opportunity to reform himself.

The management denied the allegations in the claim statement. The management held a full-fledged

domestic enquiry against the workman. A proper enquiry in tune with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement

(Memorandum of Settlement) dt.10.04.2002 and the Domestic Enquiry Rules framed by the Bank applicable to

its employees and was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice, equity and good

conscience. The workman was provided with adequate opportunity to adduce evidence. There is no violation of

principles of natural justice.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2641

The workman while working as Clerk at Killipalam was placed under suspension for serious allegation

of misappropriation of Rs.11,500/- from Smt.Dharmaja Kumari and Rs. 20,000/- from Smt.Balamani Mohan

remitted towards their jewel loan accounts. On 18.03.2013, Smt.Dharmaja Kumari orally complained to the

Branch Manager that she remitted an amount of Rs.11,500/- in her jewel loan account on 13.03.2013 and the

amount was not seen credited to her jewel loan account. She produced the xerox copy of the counter foil issued

by the workman bearing his signature. Since the workman was the Cashier in the branch on 13.03.203 the

Branch Manager vide letter dt.18.03.2013 called upon the workman to remit the amount immediately and also

calling for his explanation. Though the workman was on leave from 18.03.2013 to 21.03.2013, he remitted the

amount of Rs.11,500/- on 20.03.2013 to the SB account of Smt.Dharmaja Kumari, since the jewel loan account

was already closed on 18.03.2013. On verification of branch records, it was observed that no cash was credited

on 13.03.2013 against the jewel loan account of Smt.Dharmaja Kumari. There was no excess cash reported on

13.03.2013. Hence it is very clear that the workman misappropriated an amount of Rs.11,500/- remitted by

Smt.Dharmaja Kumari. Another customer Smt.Balamani Mohan complained to the Branch Manager on

17.04.2013 in writing that she had remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- to her jewel loan account on 13.02.2013

and that the said amount was not credited to her jewel loan account. Since the workman was the Cashier in the

branch on 13.02.2013, the Branch Manager called for his explanation vide letter dt.17.04.2013. Since the

workman was absent from 17.04.2013 to 20.04.2013 the letter was posted to his residence and was received by

his wife and subsequently when the workman joined duty on 22.04.2013, the workman received the letter in

person. The workman’s wife remitted the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the jewel loan account of Smt.Balamani

Mohan on 18.02.2013. Hence a charge sheet no.CGS/ROT/01/2013 dt.27.11.2013 was issued to the workman

charging gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. In his reply dt.17.12.2013 the

workman admitted the guilt. Considering the nature of gravity of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority

ordered a departmental enquiry against the workman. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a fair and proper

enquiry, submitted his findings vide his report dt.09.05.2014. A copy of enquiry report was sent to the

workman. In his reply he reiterated his earlier position and admitted the guilt. The Disciplinary Authority

offered the workman a personal hearing on 13.08.2014, awarded a punishment of dismissal from service of the

Bank with immediate effect. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the punishment vide its proceedings

dt.19.02.2016. The Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings in a fair and proper manner following the

principles of natural justice. The misconduct committed by the workman and admitted by him and otherwise

proved in the domestic enquiry are of very grave and serious nature. Management is a financial institution

dealing with public money. A Bank employee has to observe high degree of honesty and integrity as he holds a

position of trust and confidence where honesty and integrity are built into the functioning of a financial

institution such as the management Bank. If a Bank employee indulges in doing unauthorized acts as the one

committed by the workman, the public conscience would be shocked and the image of the Bank will be

tarnished. Hence the punishment awarded to the workman is not at all disproportionate to the misconduct proved

against him. The question of leniency can be examined only when there is bonafide intentions on the part of the

employee which lead to certain irregularities. In the instant case, the misconduct committed by the workman is

with malafide intention and does not qualify for any interference.

The workman did not file any rejoinder.

On completion of pleadings, the documents produced by the management were marked by consent as

Exbt.M1 to M9. The management did not produce the enquiry file. However they produced a copy of the

enquiry report and some of the documents as part of management evidence.

The following issues were framed to be adjudicated.

Whether the enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural

justice?

Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on proper and legal evidence ?

Whether the punishment awarded is proportionate to the charges proved against the workman ?

Relief, if any

Issue No.1

The management neither produced the enquiry file nor the documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer,

in this industrial dispute. A copy of the enquiry report is produced as Exbt. M7. From the enquiry report, it is

seen that 30 documents were marked in the enquiry on the management side and 2 documents on the side of the

workman. The management examined MW1 and marked documents through him in the enquiry. Majority of the

documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer is not available in these proceedings. In the normal course, it is a

fit case to setaside the enquiry report as the documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer nor the proceedings of

2642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry are available for this Tribunal to evaluate whether the enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner.

However it is seen that the workman admitted the misconduct from the very beginning when the charge memo

was issued to him. Further he admitted his misconduct during the course of enquiry also. The learned Counsel

for the workman fairly conceded that he is not challenging the fairness of the enquiry since the workman has

admitted the misconduct at every stage of proceedings. Since there is no serious challenge on the issue of

fairness and legality of the enquiry, the issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

Issue No. 2 & 3

The charge against the workman is that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.11,500/- from Smt.Dharmaja

Kumari and Rs.20,000/- from Smt.Balamani Mohan remitted by them towards their jewel loans. Smt.Dharmaja

Kumari orally complained to the Branch Manager that she remitted an amount of Rs.11,500/- to her jewel loan

account on 13.03.2013. She also produced a photocopy of the counter foil issued by the workman with his

signature. Since the workman was the Cashier on 13.03.2013 the workman was directed to explain the anomaly

and remit the amount immediately to the jewel loan account of the customer. The workman remitted the amount

on 20.03.2013 to the SB account of Smt.Dharmaja Kumari since the jewel loan account was already closed by

her on 18.03.2013. On verification of the Bank records, it was observed that no cash was remitted to the jewel

loan account of Smt.Dharmaja Kumari on 13.03.2013 and the credit slip was not available in the slip bundle.

No excess cash was also reported on 13.03.2013. Immediately on receipt of the letter from Bank, the workman

repaid the amount to the account of Smt.Dharmaja Kumari on 20.03.2013.

10.

Another customer Smt.Balamani Mohan also complained that an amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited in

her jewel loan account on 13.02.2013 was not credited to her account. Necessary entries were made in the jewel

loan token issued to her. The management called for explanation vide letter dt.17.04.2013 and Smt.Nileena

Sankar wife of the workman came to the branch on 18.04.2013 and deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the

jewel loan account of Smt.Balamani Mohan on 18.04.2013.

11.

The management issued a charge sheet no.CGS/ROT/01/2013 dt.27.11.2013 to the workman for acts of

gross misconduct of “doing acts prejudicial to the interest of bank “. The workman vide his letter dt.17.12.2013,

Exbt.M6 admitted his guilt. In Exbt.M6 the workman stated as follows;

“1. It is true that on the relevant dates mentioned in the charge sheet an amount of Rs.20,000/- and

11,500/- were remitted by the clients concerned in to the Bank. I had issued counter foils for the

receipts in my capacity as casher of the Bank.

2. However on account of circumstances beyond my control I did not credit the amount concerned

to the Bank and there by committed a lapse which I had regretted.

3. The circumstances under which I committed the acts have been very elaborately explained in my

letter dt.24.07.2013 address to the Vigilance Officer of the Bank. I request you to the said latter

dt.24.07.2013 as part and parcel of my reply to the charge sheet.’’

Along with the above explanation a copy of the latter dt.24.07.2013 given by the workman to the

Vigilance Officer, Syndicate Bank was also enclosed. In the above letter also the workman admitted having

committed the misappropriation. According to him, he was constructing a house, in the name of his wife and

due to financial difficulties the contractor was harassing him and for getting over the immediate difficulty he did

the misappropriation. He was anticipating some amount from KSFE and he was planning to deposit the money

immediately on receipt of the same. Since there was some delay in getting the money from KSFE he was forced

to commit the above adjustment. Further from the enquiry report it is seen that the Enquiry Officer read the

charges against the workman during the course of enquiry and asked whether he admits the charges. The

workman admitted the charges and he only explained the circumstances under which he was forced to do the

financial irregularities.

12.

From the above evidence, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the workman committed the gross

misconduct of misappropriation of customer’s money. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that the

workman never disputed the allegations in the charge memo and only pleaded for mercy before issuing the

charge sheet, after issuing the charge sheet during the course of enquiry and also before the Disciplinary

Authority and appellate authority. In view of the above the learned Counsel for the workman argued that the

capital punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the charges proved against him, particularly

because he admitted to the adjustment of money and explained the circumstances which forced him to do it and

also refunded the money to the customers immediately when the matter was pointed out to him. According to

the learned Counsel for the management, the management conducted a preliminary investigation before framing

of charges against the workman. Fair and reasonable opportunities were given to the workman to explain his

defence. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice. The findings of enquiry are

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2643

totally based on evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority has considered all

the facts, circumstances and evidence in the enquiry along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer before

proposing punishment to the workman. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority gave him

adequate opportunity for personal hearing before the punishment is confirmed. The management is a financial

institution dealing with public money. A Bank employee has to observe high degrees of honesty and integrity as

he holds a position of trust and confidence. Hence the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and

confirmed by the Appellate Authority is proportionate to the charges proved against him.

13.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the impact of misappropriation of money by a Bank employee

in various decisions. In State Bank of India and others Vs S. N.Goyal, 2008 8 SCC 92 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held at Para 41 of its judgment that;

“The employees of the Bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and

honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the Bank. Any misappropriation even

temporarily, of the funds of the Bank or its customers/borrowers constitute a serious misconduct

inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the

Bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrower’s account. If the

matter is viewed lightly or leniently, it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such

activities thereby undermining the entire Banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is

misconceive and rejected”.

In State Bank of India and another Vs Bela Bagchi and others, 2005 7 SCC 435 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the

interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do

nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager, Central

Bank Vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996 9 SC 69 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in similar circumstances

that it is nor defence that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the case when an employee acted without

authority. Considering the dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, it is not

appropriate to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the workman.

Hence I am inclined to hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on legal evidence and

the punishment imposed on the workman is proportionate to the charges proved against him.

14.

Issue No. 4

In view of the findings on issue nos. 2 & 3, the workman is not entitled for any relief claimed by him.

In view of the above, an Award is passed holding that the enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper

manner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on legal evidence, the punishment awarded is

proportionate to the charges proved against the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief claimed

by him.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 5^thday of February,

2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Exhibits for Management:-

True copy of suspension order dt.02.05.2013

True copy of the letter dt.18.03.2013 issued by Management to workman

True copy of the complaint dt.17.04.2013 submitted by Smt.Balamani Mohan

True copy of the letter dt.17.04.2013 issued by the Management to the workman

True copy of the charge sheet dt.27.11.2013 issued to the workman

True copy of reply dt.17.12.2013 issued by the workman admitting guilt

True copy of enquiry report dt.09.05.2014 holding that the charges levelled against the

workman as proved.

True copy of dismissal order dt.25.09.2014 issued to the workman

True copy of the proceedings No.20/PD:IRD(W)/DA-7 dt.19.02.2016

2644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj U;w eaxyksj iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 19@2006½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-45011@1@2006-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

New Mangalore Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-45011/1/2006-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 07^TH SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 19/2006

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

New Mangalore Port & Dock,

Workers’ Union,

Market Building,

Panambur,

Mangalore - 575010

The Chairman,

New Mangalore Port Trust,

Panambur,

Mangalore - 575010

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-45011/1/2006-IR(B-II) dated 17.05.2006 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’) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the demand made by the New Mangalore Port & Dock Workers’ Union for regularisation

of service of workers engaged for the management of New Mangalore Port Trust for the work of

sweeping, cleaning and gardening is justified? If so, what relief are the 21 workers mentioned in

the Annexure to the Representation dated 29.06.2005 entitled to?”

The claim of the 1^st Party is,

that the 2^ndParty is a Major Port Trust established under the Major Port Trust Act. It is a Central Government

Undertaking. It has employed permanent workmen, whose wage and service conditions are determined by the

periodical settlement. The 1^st Party Workmen are engaged as Safaiwalas (Sweepers) and Mali-cum-Majdoors

for the work of cleaning the Offices, Hospitals and Roads of the premises of the 2^nd Party. The Safaiwalas

attend the work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting of all the aforesaid buildings and toilets attached to it

maintained by the 2^nd Party in respect of its main activities. To carry on other works, they have Inspection

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2645

Building, Recreation Park, Guest House, Garage, Workshop, Pump House, Generator Room, Canteen Staff

Quarters and Wharf Non-Residential Buildings etc. along with the parks and gardens maintained in the

premises. The 1^st Party Workmen work for 8 hours or more for a day but are paid meagre wages which comes

to around Rs. 2,300/- per month. They are working for the last 15 years continuously. They are paid daily

wages and the work done by them is perennial in nature. The permanent Safaiwalas and workers are paid to the

extent of Rs 8000/- per month with all the social security and welfare benefits. But, the 1^st Party Workmen

except for the meagre pay of Rs. 2300/- per month are deprived of other social security benefits. The 1^st Party

approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 11045/1998 seeking direction to the Central

Government to prohibit the contract labours in respect of cleaning and gardening in the 2^nd Party /

Establishment. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.09.2002 with a direction to the 1^st Party to approach

the industrial tribunal for appropriate relief. The 1^stParty are entitled for absorption; the 2^nd Party has not

registered itself as principle employ under the provisions of Contract Labours (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970 to engage the contract labour. There is no contractor with valid license to employ and provide labour to

the 2^nd Party in the work of sweeping and gardening. Hence, there is no labourer labour contract in the eye of

law. The 1^st Party discharged the duties under the direct control and supervision of the Officers of the 2^nd Party.

They are paid wages by the 2^nd Party. Hence, they are the direct employees of the 2^nd Party.

The claim is contested as per the grounds below,

that they have not engaged any worker directly for the work of sweeping, cleaning and gardening. The work

specified in the claim statement is carried out by the contractor by engaging his casual workers. There is no

employer employee relationship between the 2^nd Party and the Workmen working under the contractor. The

works are given on contract basis by inviting tender and contract is awarded to the contractor who quotes lowest

rates. They have their own permanent workmen as stated in the claim statement; the members of the 1^st Party

are additional persons who are engaged through the contract workers. The contract workers are awarded yearly

by calling a fresh quotation. The contractors are engaging local labours available for the part time cleaning of

the premises and public places of the Port Trust whenever required. So far, there is no complaint against the

contractor by anyone pertaining to exploitation in respect of non-payment of minimum wages, time of work or

any other violation of rule.

It is further stated by 2^nd Party that they have not engaged any workers on Safaiwalas (Sweeper), Mali-

cum-Majdoor for the work of cleaning Offices, Hospital, Roads etc. directly. Whenever there is some

temporary / part time work of cleaning, dusting, sweeping etc, these works are entrusted to the contractor under

the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The wages and other benefits of the

said workers are paid by the contractor directly but not by 2^nd Party Port Trust. The labour regulation applicable

to the contract labour is strictly adhered. The labourers engaged by the contractors are of migratory in nature,

every now and then they change the contractors and do not continue for a long period under any of the

contractor. For the post of perennial work, regular and skilled employees are engaged. They have engaged

labourers / Maali-cum-Majdoor directly for the work of development and maintenance of garden, parks etc.

Since such work requires sufficient knowledge of Soil testing, plantation and horticulture knowledge.

It is further stated that the dispute raised by the 1^st Party before the Conciliation Officer failed, failure

report was submitted to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi. Because of the permission

granted by the Hon'ble High Court directing the 1^st Party to approach the Tribunal, the present dispute is filed

before this Tribunal.

The claim for absorption of the workmen in the Port Trust is baseless, unreasonable and untenable.

The wages are disbursed to the workmen by the contractor or his nominee directly to the workers and the 2^nd

Party deputes its representative to be present in token of having disbursed the salary in its presence by the

contractor. The 2^nd Party is neither supervisor nor controlling authority for the 1^st Party Workmen. Discipline

of the workers is regulated by the contractor and not by the principle employer. The contract entrusted to the

contractor does not specify the number of the person required to be engaged but it quantifies work only. The

leave / absence etc of the workers is followed by the contractor only, not by the 2^nd Party. No advances of any

nature is paid by the 2^nd Party to the 1^st Party Workmen. It is only the contractor who regulates the same. It is

the responsibility of the contractor to maintain the record pertaining to the workers / contract workers. The

work entrusted to the contractor or engaging contract labour is neither a sham contract nor a camouflage. The

work undertaken by the contractor is not statutory employment under the provisions of Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Engaging contract labours in the 2^nd Party is not a sham arrangement or

camouflage. Based on the actual requirement for temporary nature of work, works are awarded to the licensed

contractor after inviting competitive tenders every year. It is not possible for the 2^nd Party to absorb all the

temporary labourers engaged by the contractors.

2646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both parties adduced evidences. On behalf of the 1^st Party, out of five witnesses examined, four of

them were the concerned workmen and the first witness was the General Secretary of the Union - 24 documents

were marked as Ex W- 1 to Ex W-24. Rebuttal evidence is adduced by the Executive Engineer, Civil of the 2^nd

Party and Ex M-1 is marked.

Both learned Advocates submitted their respective written argument and also their oral argument.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the workmen at Serial No. 19 and 21, namely, Sh. A. Ramesh

Kumar and Sh. Manjunath M are said to have been removed from service and an application was filed seeking

restoration of their service. The application is pending.

Learned Counsel for the 1^st Party filed a memo on 10.12.2019 that the Union is not pressing the claim

in respect of six of the 1^st Party Workmen at Serial No. 1, 7, 12, 15, 17 and 20. Thus, the reference order

confines to 15 workmen only, however out of them 2 are terminated.

The affidavit evidence of the WW-1 is mere reiteration of claim of the 1^st party. Relevant

documentary evidence in support of the claim are the Photostat copies of Muster Roll (Ex W-5 and Ex W-15)

for the months of June 2009, December 2009, March 2010, April 2010, January 2011, September 2011, October

2011 and March 2013, the payslips pertaining to the concerned workmen, their Employees’ State Insurance

Card and Provident Fund Declaration / Provident Fund Contribution.

During the cross examination, WW-1 admitted that the Safai Karamcharis are not given appointment

letter by the 2^nd Party; Ex W-5 does not bear the seal of the verifying Authority. At Exhibit W-15 / Muster Roll

for December 2009, Serial No. 12 name Manju is seen but no such 1^st Party Workman is to be found in the list

of concerned workmen annexed to the order of reference. The name of the workman at Serial No. 21 of the list

of Mali-cum-Majdoor is Manjunatha M. Further, the witness admitted that he has no document to establish

that Manju and Manjunatha M are one and the same person. He admits that the workmen are paid by different

contractors; the Employees’ State Insurance cards and the Provident Fund contributions document are not under

the code number of NMPT. All other WWs admitted during their cross-examination that they are not issued

appointment order by the 2^nd Party. None of them are in possession of any document to establish that they are

paid by the 2^nd Party.

During the rebuttal evidence, MW-1 / Executive Engineer (Civil) had averred in his affidavit evidence

that 2^nd Party has a recruitment policy for appointment which involves identification of vacant post, finding

suitable candidates from Employment Exchange, Interview and Selection. He gave the list of 10 permanent

employees who were already working in the post of Safaiwala to demonstrate that the question of regularisation

of the person annexed to the referenced order is not possible. During the cross examination, he admitted that

the Safaiwalas mentioned in the list produced by him as MW-1 are working as Peons and Attendants

subsequent to 29.06.2005, from then onwards there are no permanent regular Safaiwalas.

From the perusal of documents produced by the 1^st Party, the Muster Roll (Ex W-5 and W-15) are not

continuous. W-15 pertains to December 2009 and March 2010 reflecting the names of 17 employees. Ex W-5

is the Photostat copy of the Muster Roll. During the period 2010 and 2011, the number of employees was 11/10

only as per the above Muster Rolls. Ex W-5 probably bears the signature of Junior Engineer as token of

endorsement of the disbursal of wage to the employees. Mere signature of the representative of the 2^nd Party on

the Muster Roll documents go to prove that the 2^nd Party is the immediate owner of the workmen.

The case of the 2^nd Party that one of its Officers used to be present when the wages were disbursed to

the 1^st Party Workmen coincides with the signature of Junior Engineer on the Muster Rolls. There is nothing to

presume from W-5 or W-15 that the attendance register was maintained by the 2^nd Party. It appears that W-5 is

inspected by Inspector of the Employees’ State Insurance Department. One of the workmen Smt. Vimala /

WW-4 admits that she is paid by the contractor Purshotham. It is not shown that EPF and ESI contribution is

made in the code number allotted to the 2^nd Party. Ex W-17 to Ex W-22 are the Identity Cards issued by the

ESI Corporation and registration details of the employees concerned. The name of the employer shown in this

document is not that of the 2^nd Party but of a third person. The claim is not raised in respect of the contractor

but directly against the principle employer i.e. 2^nd Party NMPT.

The 1^st Party had claimed in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal on 08.05.2007 that the 1^st Party

Workmen are working for last 13-15 years continuously as Safaiwalas and Mali-cum-Majdoors. As per the

Annexure to the Reference order, they are said to be working from February 1990 onwards. But there is not

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2647

even a bit of documentary proof in respect of their continuous service ever since 1990s. The reference was

made to this office on 17.05.2006. All the Exhibits marked are of subsequent origin. Had if they come to the

court with some tangible evidence in respect of continuous service rendered by them in the premises of the 2^nd

Party prior to the date of raising the dispute, there would have been some room for this Tribunal to probe further

as to who is the immediate employer of the 1^st Party, whether it is the 2^nd Party or the contractor?

Unfortunately, for the 1^st Party, they have collected documents during the pendency of the proceedings. They

appear to encash up on the fact that there is no contractor with valid license and the 2^nd party has not registered

itself as the principle employer under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The 2^nd Party

having been established under the Major Port Trust Act, is an instrument of the State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India. They have not admitted the identity of the 1^st Party Workmen. Though, they have not

produced the Photostat copies of the contract entered into with the contractor, still the burden was on the 1^st

Party to explain the discrepancy about their own documents i.e. Provident Fund and ESI contribution is made

by a 3^rd person in his Code Number but not by the 2^nd Party. There is variance in the number of employees; as

per the order of the reference the number of employee is 21. As per the Ex W-5, during 2005 it was 11 and

again during 2009 it was 17.

The judgments referred by the 1^st Party are,

AIR-1978-1410-(SC) Hussainbhai V/s The Alath Factory Tezhilali Union and Others; 1999-I-LLJ-

1086-(SC) Secretary Haryana State Electricity Board V/s Suresh and Others; 2008-II-LLJ-1071-(SC) G.M.

ONGC., Shilchar V/s ONGC Contractual Workers Union; 2011-IV-LLJ-292-(SC) Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak

Sahakari S.Ltd. V/s Vinod Kumar Sharma-dead-by LRs and Others; FLR-2015-(144)-597-(SC) Durgapur

Casual Workers Union and Others V/s Food Corporation of India and Others; 2015-(145)-FLR-688-(SC)

Umrala Gram Panchayat V/s Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and Others; 2008-I-LLJ-452-(Orissa High

Court) Paradeep Port Trust V/s General Secretary, Utkal Port and Dock Workers Union, Paradeep Port and

Others, dwell upon the proposition of law that if the contractor is a mere name lender it is always open to the

Tribunal to lift the veil to understand the true nature of the transaction between the principle employer and the

workmen. The benefit of these judgments could have been beneficially applied to the case on hand if the claim

averment was proved. Unfortunately, the employee employer relationship of the 1^st Party Workmen with the

2^nd Party is not established satisfactorily, that being so, there is no question of regularisation of their service by

the 2^nd Party.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to LDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 07^th September, 2020)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 25@2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@11@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2020

S. O. 915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Syndicate Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-12011/11/2014-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

2648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULUM

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

(Tuesday the 4^th day of February 2020, 15 Magha 1941)

ID No. 25/2014

Workman/Union

: The Assistant Secretary

Syndicate Bank Staff Association

Elamakkara

Ernakulam – 682026

By Adv. K. Shri Hari Rao

Management

: The Regional Manager

Syndicate Bank

Ernakulam –682

By Adv. M.P. Ashok Kumar

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.12.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

04.02.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

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

10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order

No. L-12011/11/2014-IR(B-II) dated 02.04.2014 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

The dispute referred is;

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in not regularizing the service and in not

paying legitimate salary to Shri.K.S.Premachandran, attender/sub staff in the stationary pool of

Syndicate Bank is justified? What relief the concerned workman/union is entitled? ”

The union filed a claim statement on behalf of Sri.K.S.Premachandran, the worker in this industrial

dispute. The workman was performing the duties as Attender in the stationery pool of Syndicate Bank,

Ernakulam since 31.10.2008 and continues to do the same work even today. The services of Sri. K.S.

Premachandran, the workman is not regularized even after so many years of service with the Bank. The

Attender’s salary is much more than what the workman is getting now. Hence the workman is entitled to

regularisation and equal pay for equal work. The denial of the above benefits to the workman is violative of

Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The workman is working continuously with the management

Bank from 2008. Hence the union raised the dispute that the service of Sri.K.S.Premachandran be regularized

as Attender from 31.10.2008 and he may be granted legitimate salary in the post of Attender w.e.f. 31.10.2008.

The management filed written statement denying the above allegations. According to the management,

there is no Employer-Employee relationship between the workman and the management as the workman is not

an employee of the Bank. The workman was never appointed in services of the Bank. He rendered the service of

casual labour at stationery pool, Ernakulam occasionally. His engagement is purely casual in nature and he was

in no way connected in business or routine functions of the branch. The management Bank has got prescribed

procedure for appointments. No vacancy can be filled up in a Bank according to the will and pleasure of a Bank

Manager. All nationalized Banks including present management has got clearly laid down procedure for

recruitment in every cadre. The workman has not gone under any such recruitment process to be considered as

an employee of the management Bank. If at all there is any relationship between the management and the

workman it was in the nature of contract for work and not a contract of work. The workman was engaged for

very short periods of few hours in a day or few days in a week and he was also paid the coolie for the work. He

was engaged only when the stationery items are received in bulk are required to unloaded and kept in the

stationery pool. His services were also utilized for packing and sending the stationery materials all over Kerala

and Lakshadweep branches by courier. This is not a permanent nature of work and there is no continuous work

for the workman in the stationery pool. There is no sanctioned post of Attender at stationery pool and there is no

necessity for the Bank to post Attenders for such manual work for occasional and short duration. The duties and

responsibilities of attender are entirely different.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2649

The union filed rejoinder reiterating the claim in the claim statement. If the Manager has no authority

to engage him then under what authority he is paying daily salary and bonus to the workman.

On completion of pleadings, the union was examined WW1 and WW2 and exhibits W1 and W2 were

marked through him. Management examined MW1 and marked exhibits M1 and M2 through him.

The issues to be adjudicated are ;

Whether Sri.K.S.Premachandran the workman is entitled for regularization in service and

whether he is entitled for the salary of an Attender/sub staff?

Relief and cost

Issue No. 1

According to the union, the workman Sri. K.S. Premachandran is performing the duties of Attender in

the stationery pool of Syndicate Bank, Ernakulam since 31.10.2008. According to the learned Counsel for the

management, the workman was not provided any regular engagement as claimed by him. Only when there is

bulk receipt of stationery in the stationery pool, the services of the workman will be utilized to unload the same,

arranged it in the stationery room and distribute the stationery to all the branches of the management bank in

Kerala and Lakshadweep through courier. The learned Counsel for the management submitted that the work

involves a few hours or a maximum of few days in a month, the daily wages were being paid to the workman.

The learned Counsel for the union relied on Exbt. W1 and W2 to argue that the workman was engaged by the

management Bank from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 continuously. Exbt.W1 and W2 are communications from

Syndicate Bank Regional Office, Ernakulam to the Manager, stationery pool, Kalamassery dt.25.07.2014

sanctioning a bonus of Rs.23,480/- for the period from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. According to the learned

Counsel for the management, bonus is payable to an employee if he works for 30 days with an establishment. It

is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the workman was paid only minimum bonus for these years. It

clearly shows that the workman was not working in the management Bank continuously. The management also

produced Exbt.M1 and M2 to prove that there was a scheme to regularize the service of those who worked

with the Bank on temporary basis for 240 days and more in a period of 12 consecutive months between

01.01.1982 and 31.12.1989 and also those who had worked on temporary basis for less than 240 days but more

than 90 days during the period from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1989. Detailed instructions regarding absorption of

temporary attenders on regular basis was also circulated on 12.11.1998. It is also pointed out that the

management Bank issued instructions dt.16.10.2015 for appointment of temporary employees in sub staff

cadre ie., Attender and Part Time Sweeper. The above instructions contained details regarding qualification,

constitution of the committee and details regarding the methods by which the vacancy shall be arrived at for

District wise empanelment. The workman in this industrial dispute was never an applicant to be considered for

empanelment for appointment as temporary Attender.

The only evidence available to prove that the workman worked in the management Bank is Exbt.W1

and W2. Exbt. W1 is a confirmation copy of the communication sent by the Syndicate Bank Regional Office to

the Manager, Stationery Pool, Kalamassery regarding the sanctioning of bonus to the workman from 2008-2009

to 2011-2012. This document would go to show the workman was engaged beyond 30 days in a year by the

management Bank from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. The documents produced by the union will in no way prove

the continuous engagement of the workman by the management Bank. When the management Bank denied

continuous engagement, the burden goes on the union to prove that the workman was engaged continuously

during these years by the management. The union did not make any attempt in that direction to substantiate their

case of continuous engagement or engagement upto 240 days by the management. In such engagement of

workers, there will be no proof regarding appointment. However the management will have proof regarding

payment of salary which ought to have being called for to substantiate his case of continuous engagement. In

the absence of any proof to that effect, it is not possible to accept the claim of the union that the workman was

engaged continuously by the management Bank. Further the learned Counsel for the management also argued

that there is no sanctioned post of Attender in Stationery Pool at Kalamassery.

10.

Considering the facts, evidence and pleadings in this industrial dispute, I am inclined to hold that the

evidence in this industrial dispute will not in any way support the claim of the union for regularization in the

cadre of Attender and therefore he is not entitled for the salary and other benefits of an Attender/sub staff in the

management Bank.

11.

Issue No. 2

In view of findings at issue no.1, the union is not entitled for any relief claimed in the claim statement.

2650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hence an award is passed, holding that the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in not

regularizing the service and not paying legitimate salary to Sri.K.S.Premachandran is fully justified. He is not

entitled for the relief claimed by the union in this industrial dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 4^thday of February,

2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Shri. K.S. Bhat, dt.20.05.2016

WW2

Shri.K. S. Premachandran, workman dt.26.04.2019

Witness for the Management:-

MW1 -

Shri. Kiran Kumar.H, dt.28.10.2019

Exhibits for the Workman:-

Letter dt.25.07.2014 from Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Ernakulam (Personnel

Cell) to Manager, Stationery Pool, Kalamassery regarding the issuance of Rs. 23480/- being

the amount of bonus paid to workman for the years 2008 to 2012

IP Message sent by Syndicate Bank (Personnel Cell), Regional Office, Ernakkulam to the

Manager, Stationery Pool, Kalamassery regarding the issuance of Rs. 23480/- as bonus to

workman for the period from 2008 to 2012

Exhibits for Management:-

Circular no.034-2006-BC-HRD dt.24.02.2006 issued by Syndicate Bank

Revised Circular No.435-2015-BC-PD-55-HRDD dt.16.10.2015 issued by Syndicate Bank.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj esllZ डब् ल ू.सी.एल. 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 – सि - Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25/2014½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012@7@2014 -vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-22012/7/2014 -IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2651

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/25-2014

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The Joint General Secretary

Rashtriya Koyla Khadam Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)

Shramik Shakti Bhawan,

PO Chandametta

District-Chhindwara

…Workman

Versus

The Manager

Western Coalfields Ltd.

Tandsi Project Kanhan Area

PO Rampur (Demua)

District Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^th day of September--2020)

As per letter dated 18/3/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-22012/7/2014-IR(CM-II)The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the demand of the Union for providing compassionate appointment to

Shri Manoj the applicant, younger brother of Late Dinesh, Ex-Emplyee of WCL, Tandsi Sub Area

Kanhan Area, District Chhindwara(MP) is just reasonable and fair? If yes, what relief the applicant

is entitled to and from which date? .”

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

Parties have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

According to the workman, his brother Dinesh was appointed by Management on 2-12-1996 in Tandsi

Project Kanhan Area and died on 21/7/1997 during the course of employment. The workman, being dependent

family member, applied for compassionate appointment on the ground that the claim was made at a highly

belated stage of 8 years and was not fit for compassionate appointment which is against law and rules. The

workman side has accordingly requested that the applicant be offered compassionate appointment as dependent

brother of the deceased workman Dinesh.

The case of Management is that deceased was appointed in place of his mother Premwati on

compassionate basis after Premwati sought retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Dinesh died on

21/7/1997. His widow had remarried to other person, she did not apply for compassionate appointment. The

present applicant Manoj claimed for compassionate appointment as dependent brother of the deceased workman

Dinesh, who was himself appointed on compassionate basis as stated above, after a lapse of 7 years his

representation was considered and was rejected as highly delayed. According to the Management the financial

condition of the family was sound and that is why the original compassionate appointee mother Premwati

sought voluntary retirement. It was also claimed that applicant Manoj was not dependent on deceased workman

Dinesh and the legal heir of the deceased workman never applied for compassionate appointment. Also it was

pleaded that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right . Accordingly it has been prayed that the

reference be answered against the workman.

The workman side filed some photocopy of documents which were not admitted by Management and

not proved by workman side.

During the course for hearing the workman side absented itself and case was ordered to proceed ex-

parte vide order dated 14-8-2019.

2652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Management has filed its affidavit supporting its case as stated above. No evidence was filed from

the workman side.

Arguments of Mr. A.K. Shashi, learned counsel for the Management were heard on ex-parte basis. I

have gone through the record.

The reference is point for determination in the case in hand.

10.

The burden to prove its case is on workman side which has not been discharged. Hence the case of the

workman does not stands proved and the reference is required to be answered against the workman.

11.

Accordingly the demand of the workman side for providing compassionate appointment to Manoj

the applicant, the younger brother of late Dinesh an ex-employee is held not justified and the applicant is

held entitled to no relief.

12.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

DATE: 18.9.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2020

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj esllZ डब् ल् ू.सी.एल. 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 – सि - Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012@16@2013-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkj

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2020

S. O. 917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2020.

[No. L-22012/16/2013-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/2013

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Shram Shakti Bhawa,

PO Chandameda,

District Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Manager

Western Coalfields Limited,

Chhinda Colliery, Pench Area,

P.O. Chhinda, Tehsil Parasia,

District Chhindwara (MP)

…Management

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2653

AWARD

(Passed on this 21^st day of August-2020)

As per letter dated 9-4-213 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/16/2013-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the demand of the Union/Workman for modification/conversion in the post from

BlastingMazdoor to Sub Station Attendan in respect of Smt. Shantabai, W/o late Ramprasad,

Chhinda Colliery, WCL, Pench Area is justified, valid and reasonable? If yes, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?” .

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

Both the sides have filed their pleadings which shall be referred to as and when required.

The Workman side filed photocopies of the documents but the workman never appeared after filing his

statement of claim nor did he produce any oral or documentary evidence admissible in law.

The Management side examined on oath its witness who has denied the claim of the workman. None

was present from the workman side to cross-examine, hence closing the opportunity of cross-examining the

Management witness by the workman, the witness was discharged.

The case proceeded for arguments but none appeared from the workman side for arguments and no

written arguments were filed. Mr. A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for Management appeared and his arguments

were heard.

The Reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.

The Fundamental principle of law is that the burden to prove his case lies on the person who asserts the

claim. The workman did not discharge this burden. On the other hand the Management witness has fully

controverted the claim in his statement of oath which is uncross-examined inspite of opportunity being given.

In the backdrop of these circumstances, it is lawful to hold that the claim of the workman is not proved,

hence the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and he is held not entitled to any relief.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

The demand of the Union/Workman for modification/conversion in the post from Blasting

Mazdoor to Sub Station Attendant in respect of Smt. Shantabai, W/o late Ramprasad,

Chhinda Colliery, WCL, Pench Area is not justified and is illegal and unreasonable.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

C. No order as to costs.

10.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

DATE: 21.8.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

2654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

भारती अंतररक्ष अनुसंिान संग न

(अंतररक्ष जवभाग )

बैंगलूरु, 16 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 918.—सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 (2000 का 21) की िारा 70 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अंतररक्ष जवभाग इसके द्वारा इसरो िूरजमजत अनुवतान एवं आिेि नेटवका (इस्ट् रजक)

के सूचीबद्ध अनुभागों/क्षेत्रों/सेवाओं के जलए स्ट् ाजृत आइ.टी. अवसंरचना को उक् त अजिजन म के प्र ोिन के जलए

संरजक्षत प्रणाली घोजषत करता िज।

इसके अंतगात िाजमल दकए गए इस्ट् रजक के अनुभाग/क्षेत्र/सेवाएं जनम् नांदकत िैं:-

अंतररक्ष स्ट् वास्ट् थ् आंकड़ा अजभग्रिण, आँकड़ा प्रसंस्ट् करण, स्ट् वास्ट् थ् मॉनीटरन एवं आइ.टी. सिा ता

नेटवका

ii.

प्रमोचक रॉकेट सिा ता प्रचालन, भू-स्ट् टेिनों एवं सिा क प्रणाजल ों का मॉनीटरन एवं जन ंत्रण

iii.

नौविन सेवाएं, ोि एवं बचाव प्रचालन

क.

इसरो/इस्ट् रजक के प्रिान द्वारा प्राजिकषत इसरो/इस्ट् रजक के ृिनाजमत कमाचारी;

अंतररक्ष जवभाग के ृिनाजमत अजिकारी/अजभ ंता;

ग.

संजविागत प्रबंजित सेवा प्रिाता के प्राजिकषत सिस्ट् ा कमाचारी ा तीसरा ृक्षकार जविेता/

जविेताओं ा इसके सिभागी/सिभाजग ों; और

घ.

इसरो/इस्ट् रजक के प्राजिकषत व् वसा सिभागी/(सिभाजग ों)

ि अजिसूचना आजिकाररक रािृत्र में इसके प्रकािन की तारी से प्रवषत्त िोगी।

[सं. डी. एस. 5-15015/3/2020-अनु. 5-अं.जव.]

के. जव. रमण बाबु, अवर सजचव

INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION

(Department of Space)

Bengaluru, the 16th September, 2020

S.O. 918.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), the Department of Space hereby declares the IT infrastructure installed for

listed Sections/ Areas/ services of ISRO TELEMETRY TRACKING AND COMMAND NETWORK

(ISTRAC), as the protected system for the purpose of said Act.

Sections/Areas/services of ISTRAC being covered under this are: -

Spacecraft health data reception, data processing, health monitoring and IT support network

ii)

Launch Vehicle support operations, monitoring & control of ground stations and allied systems

iii)

Navigation Services, Search and rescue operations

The following persons shall be authorised to access the protected system: -

(a)

Designated ISRO/ ISTRAC employees authorised by Head of the ISRO/ ISTRAC;

(b)

Designated officers/engineers of the Department of Space;

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 10, 2020/आज‍ वन 18, 1942

2655

(c)

Authorised members or employees of Contractual Managed Service Provider or third-party

vendor(s) or its partner(s); and

(d)

ISRO/ ISTRAC authorized business partner(s).

This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[D.S. 5-15015/3/2020-Sec-5-DOS]

K. V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

बैंगलूरु, 16 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 919.—सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 (2000 का 21) की िारा 70 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अंतररक्ष जवभाग इसके द्वारा सतीि िवन अंतररक्ष केंर िार, श्रीिररकोटा

(एस.डी.एस.सी. िार) के सूचीबद्ध अनुभागों/क्षेत्रों/सेवाओं के जलए स्ट् ाजृत आइ.टी. अवसंरचना को उक् त अजिजन म

के प्र ोिन के जलए संरजक्षत प्रणाली घोजषत करता िज।

इसके अंतगात िाजमल दकए गए एस.डी.एस.सी. िार के अनुभाग/क्षेत्र/सेवाएं जनम् नांदकत िैं:

ोस मो टर उत् ृािन सुजविा एवं रव चरण भरण के जलए रेंि ंत्रीकरण प्रणाली, प्रदि ा जन ंत्रण

प्रणाली।

ii.

ोस मोटर ृरीक्षण एवं प्रमोचन कॉम् प् लेक् स प्रणाजल ों के जलए ंत्रीकरण।

क.

इसरो/एस.डी.एस.सी. िार के प्रिान द्वारा प्राजिकषत इसरो/ एस.डी.एस.सी. िार के ृिनाजमत

कमाचारी;

अंतररक्ष जवभाग के ृिनाजमत अजिकारी/अजभ ंता;

ग.

संजविागत प्रबंजित सेवा प्रिाता के प्राजिकषत सिस्ट् ा कमाचारी ा तीसरे ृक्षकार जविेता/जविेताओं ा

इसके सिभागी/सिभाजग ों; और

घ.

इसरो/एस.डी.एस.सी. िार के प्राजिकषत व् वसा सिभागी/सिभाजग ों

ि अजिसूचना आजिकाररक रािृत्र में इसके प्रकािन की तारी से प्रवषत् त िोगी।

[सं. डी. एस. 5-15015/3/2020-अनु. 5-अं.जव.]

के. जव. रमण बाबु, अवर सजचव

Bengaluru, the 16th September, 2020

S.O. 919.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), the Department of Space hereby declares the IT infrastructure installed for

listed Sections/ Areas/ services of Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, Sriharikota (SDSC SHAR), as the

protected system for the purpose of said Act.

Sections/Areas/services of SDSC SHAR being covered under this are:

Range Instrumentation system, Process control system for solid motor production facility and

Liquid stage filling.

ii.

Instrumentation for solid motor testing and launch complex systems.

The following persons shall be authorized to access the protected system:

2656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 10, 2020/ASVINA 18, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a)

Designated ISRO/ SDSC SHAR employees authorized by Head of the ISRO/ SDSC SHAR;

(b)

Designated officers/engineers of the Department of Space;

(c)

Authorised members or employees of Contractual Managed Service Provider or third party

vendor(s) or partner(s); and

(d)

ISRO/ SDSC SHAR authorized business partner(s).

This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[D.S.5-15015/3/2020-Sec-5-DOS]

K. V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

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.

SURENDER

MAHADASAM

Digitally signed by SURENDER

MAHADASAM

Date: 2020.10.16 17:46:53 +05'30'