This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21112020-223231

CG-DL-W-21112020-223231

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 42] नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 8—नवम्बर 14, 2020, शनिवार/ कार्तिक 17—कार्तिक 23, 1942

No. 42] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 8— NOVEMBER 14, 2020, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 17—KARTIKA 23, 1942

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 993.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धारा 20 की उप-धारा (1) के साथ पठित धारा 19 के खण्ड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक, श्री दिनेश कु मार खारा (जन्म तिथि: 28.8.1961) को दिनांक 7.10.2020 को अथवा उसके पश्चात पदभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के अध्यक्ष के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2020-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सचिव

5327 GI/2020

(2813)2814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2020

S.O. 993.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara (date of birth: 28.8.1961), Managing Director, State Bank of India as Chairman, State Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post on or after 7.10.2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2020-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 994.—भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 की धारा 8 की उपधारा (4) के साथ पठित उप- धारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक, श्री एम. राजेश्वर राव (जन्म तिथि 28.4.1961) को पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के उप-गवर्नर के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 1/1/2011-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2020

S.O. 994.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, read with sub-section (4) of section 8 thereof, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M. Rajeshwar Rao (date of birth: 28.4.1961), Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1/1/2011-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 995.—राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, दिनांक 8.10.2020 को समाप्त हो रहे श्री अजय कु मार श्रीवास्तव, कार्यपालक निदेशक, इण्डियन ओवरसीज बैंक के कार्यकाल को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2017-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2020

S.O. 995.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Executive Director, Indian[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2815 Overseas Bank for a period of two years beyond his currently notified terms which expires on 8.10.2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2017-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 996.—राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, दिनांक 18.2.2021 को समाप्त हो रहे श्री देबाशीष मुखर्जी, कार्यपालक निदेशक, के नरा बैंक के कार्यकाल को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2017-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2020

S.O. 996.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Debashish Mukherjee, Executive Director, Canara Bank for a period of two years beyond his currently notified terms which expires on 18.2.2021, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2017-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 997.—राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, दिनांक 8.10.2020 को समाप्त हो रहे श्री मातम वेंकट राव, कार्यपालक निदेशक, के नरा बैंक के कार्यकाल को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2017-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2020

S.O. 997.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Matam Venkata Rao, Executive Director, Canara Bank for a period of two years beyond his currently notified terms which expires on 8.10.2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2017-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 998.—निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम अधिनियम, 1961 (1961 का 47) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. मदनेश कु मार मिश्र, संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक डॉ. शशांक सक्सेना के स्थान पर निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम (डीआईसीजीसी) के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक नामित करती है।

[फा. सं. 8/3/2017-बीओ-II]

संजय कु मार झा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2020

S.O. 998.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), the Central Government hereby nominates Dr. Madnesh Kumar Mishra, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services as a Director on the Board of Directors of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) vice Dr. Shashank Saksena with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 8/3/2017-BO-II]

SANJAY KUMAR JHA, Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 999.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमाशुल्क बोर्ड, प्रधान आयुक्त कार्यालय सीमाशुल्क:

हवाई कार्गो आयात, नई दिल्ली जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्द्र, निदेशक

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 999.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central government, herby notifies, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Office of The Principal Commissioner Customs: Air Cargo Import, New Delhi, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1000.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन, के न्द्रीय वस्तु एवं सेवाकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय, मु ंबई पश्चिम जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-हिन्दी-2 डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश चन्द्र, निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2817

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1000.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central government, herby notifies, Office of The Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 23 अक्तूबर 2020

का.आ. 1001.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।

एतद्द्वारा, कें द्र सरकार भारत के भारत के दूतावास, बग़दाद में श्री बलराम सिंह, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को दिनांक 21 अक्तूबर 2020 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2017]

विष्णु कु मार शर्मा, निदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2020

S.O. 1001.—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 Balram Singh, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Baghdad to perform the consular services with effect from 21 October, 2020.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2017]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दिल्ली, 26 अक्तूबर 2020

का.आ. 1002.—कानूनी आदेश राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ और फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मे कें द्र सरकार श्री गौरव वर्मा, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को 26 अक्टूबर 2020 से भारत के भारतीय उच्चायोग, सूवा में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

विष्णु कु मार शर्मा, निदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 26th October, 2020

S.O. 1002.—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 1048), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri2818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Gaurav Verma, Assistant Section Officer in High Commission of India, Suva to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 26 October 2020.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2015]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1003.— कानूनी आदेश राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ और फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मे कें द्र सरकार श्री संदीप कु मार गौतम, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को 03 नवम्बर, 2020 से भारत के भारतीय उच्चायोग, लुसाका में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/07/2020]

विष्णु कु मार शर्मा, निदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 3rd November, 2020

S.O. 1003.—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 Sandeep Kumar Gautam, Assistant Section Officer in High Commission of India, Lusaka to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 03 November, 2020.

[F. No.T-4330/07/2020]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1004.—कें द्र सरकार, राजभाषा [संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग] नियमावली, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी भाषा का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती हैः-

लाल बहादुर शास्त्री

राष्ट्रीय प्रशासन अकादमी,

मसूरी, उत्तराखंड

पिन-248179

[फा. सं. ई-15023/1/2020-हिंदी]

रश्मि चौधरी, अपर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2819

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2020

S.O. 1004.—Central Government in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for official purpose of union] Rules, 1976 notifies following office of Department of Personnel and Training whose more than 80 percent staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi language:-

Lal Bahadur Shastri

National Academy of Administration,

Mussoorie, Uttarakhand Pin-248179

[F. No. E-15023/1/2020-Hindi]

RASHMI CHOWDHARY, Addl. Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1005.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड के अंतर्गत निम्मो बाजगो पावर स्टेशन, अल्ची, लेह, लद्दाख संघ शासित प्रदेश-194107, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

[फा. सं. 11011/9/2017-हिंदी]

राज पाल, वरिष्ठ सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1005—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Nimoo Bazgo Power Station, Alchi, Leh, UT of Ladakh-194107 of the NHPC Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No.11011/9/2017-Hindi]

RAJ PAL, Senior Adviser

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1006.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) के साथ पठित निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12, के उपनियम (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मिनरल्स लैब सर्विसेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, डी. न. 1-30-18, 'श्री दुगर्म्बा निवास', ग्राउं ड फ्लोर, 4th मेल, बंगरा कु लूर, आनंद गैराज के पास, कोटारा चौकी, मंगलुरु, कर्नाटक- 575013 जिसे एतद्पश्चात उक्त अभिकरण माना जाएगा) को इस अधिसूचना के शासकीय राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की शासकीय राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत2820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] सरकार की अधिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अधिसूचना की संख्या का.आ.

3975 के तहत प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह-। अर्थात लौह अयस्क के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन मंगलौर पत्तन में उक्त खनिज एवं अयस्क के निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात् :

(i) यह अभिकरण, खनिज और अयस्क समूह-। के निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जाँच करने के लिये निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा निमित्त नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

(ii) यह अभिकरण, इस अधिसूचना में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट अपने कार्यो का निष्पादन करने के लिए, निदेशक (निरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय-समय पर, लिखित रूप में, दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के -16014/12/2020-निर्यात निरीक्षण]

दिवाकर नाथ मिश्रा, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 10th November, 2020

S.O. 1006.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, D.No. 1-30-18, 'Shri Durgamba Nivas', Ground Floor, 4th Mail, Bangra Kulur, Near Anand Garage, Kottara Chowki, Mangaluru, Karnataka-575013, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores- Group-I, namely, Iron Ore specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Mineral and Ore at Mangalore Port, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii) the said agency in performance of its function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing, from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/12/2020-Export Inspection]

DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1007.—के न्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम,1957 (1957 का 20)(जिसे इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii), तारीख 2 मई, 2020 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 399, तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2020 द्वारा प्रकाशित उस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2821 विनिर्दिष्ट 428.64 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) अथवा 1059.19 एकड़ (लगभग) परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और के न्द्रीय सरकार का, उपयु र्क्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और झारखंड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 428.64 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) अथवा 1059.19 एकड़ (लगभग), माप वाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अर्जित किए जाने चाहिए ;

अतः, अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट 428.64 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) अथवा 1059.19 एकड़ (लगभग), माप वाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में और उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं।

इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्यांक आरईवी/04/2020, तारीख 22 सितंबर, 2020 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, जिला रामगढ़ और बोकारो (झारखंड) के कार्यालय में अथवा कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउं सिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में अथवा महाप्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो क्षेत्र, जिला रामगढ़ और बोकारो (झारखंड) अथवा महाप्रबंधक, भूमि और राजस्व, सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, दरभंगा हाउस, राँची- 834001, झारखंड अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभाग), सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इन्स्टीच्यूट लिमिटेड, गोंडवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, राँची- 834008, झारखंड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।

अनुसूची

कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो ओसीपी

जिला रामगढ़ और बोकारो (झारखण्ड)

[ रेखांक संख्यांक आरईवी/04/2020, तारीख 22 सितंबर, 2020 ]

सभी अधिकार:

1. ग्राम बसंतपुर में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक: 78 (भाग) और 85 (भाग)।

2. ग्राम कोतरे में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक : 1, 2, 3, 4( भाग), 5 से 16, 17 (भाग), 21 (भाग), 22 (भाग), 23 (भाग), 24, 25 (भाग), 27, 28 (भाग), 31, 32, 33 (भाग), 34 ( भाग), 37( भाग), 38 ( भाग) और 17/52।

3. ग्राम हुरदाग में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक : 1( भाग) और 2 ( भाग)।

4. ग्राम पचमो में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक : 7 ( भाग), 8 (भाग), 9 ( भाग), 333 (भाग) और 352 (भाग)।

5. ग्राम पुरनापानी में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक : 108 ( भाग), 109 (भाग) और 112 ( भाग)।

भू-अभिलेख के अनुसार अर्जित की गई भूमि का विवरण नीचे सारणी में दिया गया है:-

जिला : रामगढ़ (झारखंड) :

जिला : बोकारो (झारखंड) :

सीमा वर्णन :

[फा. सं. 43015/15/2018-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

मुके श, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2020

S.O. 1007.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 399, dated the 30th April, 2020, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 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 2nd May, 2020, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the the land measuring 428.64 hectares (approximately) or 1059.19 acres (approximately) and all rights in and over such land in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Jharkhand is satisfied that the all rights in and over land measuring 428.64 hectares (approximately) or 1059.19 acres (approximately), described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that all rights in and over land measuring 428.64 hectares (approximately) or 1059.19 acres (approximately), described in the Schedule annexed hereto are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number REV/04/2020, dated the 22nd September, 2020 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District – Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the office of Coal Controller, 1, Council House street, Kolkata -700001 or in the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kotre Basantpur Pachmo Area, District Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Land and Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834001, Jharkhand or Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi - 834008, Jharkhand.

SCHEDULE

KOTRE BASANTPUR PACHMO OCP

DISTRICT- RAMGARH AND BOKARO (JHARKHAND)

[ Plan bearing number Rev/04/2020, dated the 22nd September, 2020 ]

ALL RIGHTS :

1. Plot numbers acquired in village Basantpur : 78 (P) and 85 (P).

2. Plot numbers acquired in village Kotre : 1, 2, 3, 4 (P), 5 to 16, 17 (P), 21 (P), 22 (P), 23 (P), 24, 25 (P), 27, 28 (P), 31, 32, 33 (P), 34 (P), 37 (P), 38 (P) and 17/52.

3. Plot numbers acquired in village Hurdag: 1(P) and 2(P).

4. Plot numbers acquired in village Pachmo: 7(P), 8(P), 9(P), 333(P) and 352(P).

5. Plot numbers acquired in village Purnapani: 108(P), 109(P) and 112(P).

Details of land acquired with land records is given in the table below:-

District: Ramgarh (Jharkhand):

District: Bokaro (Jharkhand):

Boundary Description:

[F. No. 43015/15/2018-LA&IR]

MUKESH , Under Secy.

सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय

(एसएमई अनुभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1008.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृ त अधिभोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम 1971 (1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii), तारीख 14 मई, 2016 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय की[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2829 अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 865, तारीख 12 मई, 2016 को उन बातों के सिवाय अधिक्रांत करते हुए जिन्हें ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पूर्व किया गया है अथवा किए जाने का लोप किया गया है, निम्नलिखित तालिका के स्तंभ (1) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को के न्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के रैंक के समतुल्य अधिकारी होने के नाते उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन हेतु सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है तथा आगे निर्देश देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी उक्त तालिका के स्तंभ (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में अपनी अधिकारिता की सीमा के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा अथवा उसके अधीन प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा और सम्पदा अधिकारी को सौंपे गए कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेगा।

तालिका

उपाबंध

[फा. सं. के -01/4/2020-एसएमई]

मर्सी एपाओ, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

(SME Section)

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2020

S.O. 1008.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises number S.O. 865, dated the 12th May, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 14th May, 2016, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Central Government to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act and further directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the limits of his jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Designation of officer Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Shri Navin Chopra, Chief General Manager – Selection Grade, the National Small Industries Corporation Limited, New Delhi.

Premise owned or taken on lease from time to time by the National Small Industries Corporation Limited in the National Capital territory of Delhi and in other places where its Zonal Offices, Branch and Sub-Branch Offices, Technical Service Centres are situated as mentioned in Annexure.

ANNEXURE

[F. No. K-01/4/2020-SME]

MERCY EPAO, Director

-

नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर, 2020

.—पंचाट में संशोधन के लिये सीजीआईटी, बंगलुरु से दिनांक 20.10.2020 का संदर्भ

सं. सीजीआईटी-एलसी/बीएनजी/पंचाट/आईडी/26/2015/869 प्राप्त हुआ है, जिसे दिनांक 28.04.2020 के आईडी सं. में दिनांक 06.07.2020 की अधिसूचना सं. जेड-16025/4/2020-आईआर (एम) के द्वारा राजपत्र में अधिसूचित किया गया था। पंचाट के संचालन भाग के अंतर्गत पृष्ठ सं. 17, पंक्ति सं. 3 पर पंचाट के आंशिक संशोधन में ''दिनांक 20.12.2013 के एक्स एम-4'' के स्थान पर ''दिनांक 07.11.2014 के एक्स एम-13'' के रूप में पढ़ा जाए। संशोधित पंचाट इसके साथ संलग्न है

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2020-आईआर (एम)]

नवीन वैध, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 5th November, 2020

S.O. 1009.—A reference No. CGIT-LC/BNG/Award/ID 26/2015/869 dated 20.10.2020 received from CGIT, Bangalore, correcting the Award, which was notified in Gazette vide Notification No. Z-16025/4/2020- IR(M) dated 06/07/2020 in Award I.D. No. 26/2015 dated 28.04.2020. In partial modification in Award at page No. 17, line No. 3 under heading AWARD may be read as " Ex M-13 dated 07.11.2014" instead of " Ex M-4 dated 20.12.2013." The corrected Award is annexed herewith.

[No. Z-16025/4/2020-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 300/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/247/2000-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी/अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1010.—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.300 of 2000) 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 04.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/247/2000-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2855

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. 300/2000

Employer in relation to the management of P. B. Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri Gopal Tiwari. Asstt.

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 30.06.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/247/2000-(C-I) dated 29/09/2000 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

"Whether the termination of Sri Bhola Lal Das by the management of BCCL Gopalichak

Colliery w.e.f. 18.09.93 is proper, justified and legal? If not, whether the workman is entitled to

be regularized in service as Mining Sirdar from the date of his appointment and to be reinstated

in service with back wages."

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but subsequently workman/union left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the learned counsel of Union appeared on 11/09/2019 and informed that workman/ union was not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 250/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/68/2000-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी/अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1011.—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. 250 of 2000) 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 04.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/68/2000-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer2856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 250/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 28.09.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/68/2000 (C-I) dated 29/08/2000 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

"Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not paying the

legal dues such as payment of life cover scheme, payment of 50% wages under 6.4.2 of NCWA-V

to the worker suffering from Leprosy, payment under Benevolent fund, idle wages from Feb. 93

to 1.8.95, attendance Bonus for 16 quarters and annual Bonus (exgratia) to the wife of Late

Nidarwa Bhuia is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the wife of the deceased workman is

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but subsequently workman/union left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice were sent to both the parties. However the management has appeared in this case, the concerned workman has not appeared subsequently management left appearing before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 18/09/2000 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

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 52/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/414/1999-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी/अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1012.—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. 52 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2857 in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 04.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/414/1999-IR(CM-I)]

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. 52/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (N) Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None.

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour, Representative

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 30.09.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/414/1999-(C-I) dated 21/01/2000 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

"क्या बी.सी.सी.एल, भवरा (नॉर्थ) कोलि॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री सीताराम महतो एवं श्री नेपाल बौरी को पीस रेट से टाइम रेट मे नियार्मतीकरण पर वेतन निर्धारित करते समय उनके स्पेशल पीस रेट भत्ते को न जोड़ा जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र है?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared. In course of hearing of the case, the Vice President of Sponsoring Union Sri S.C. Gour has informed that workman/union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost its interest in this matter. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/04/2019-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी/अनुभाग अधिकारी2858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1013.—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.14 of 2019) 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 04.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/04/2019-IR(CM-I)]

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. 14/2019

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal Dated :29.09.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/04/2019 (IR(CM-I)) dated 21/02/2019 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

"i) Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in denying wages to

Sri Shyam Kishore Yadav, Assistant Foreman for a period from 01.11.2013 to 28.12.2013 is

proper, legal and justified?

ii) If not, what relief he is entitled to? And what other directions are necessary in this

regard?"

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 both of them left appearing before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 19/03/2019 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

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पटना (बिहार) के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 04(सी)/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/76/2015-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2859

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1014.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04 ( C)/2016) of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna (Bihar) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/76/2015-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No. 04 (C) of 2016

Between the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Chanakya Place, 'R' Block, Patna (Bihar) And Their workman Sri Kishore Kumar, S/O- Sri Ashok Das, Chhoti Ambedkar Nagar, Bakhtiyarpur, Patna (Bihar)-803212.

For the management : Sri R. R. Jha, Sr. Manager, PNB, Circle Office, Patna.

For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.

Present: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated- 22nd September, 2020

By the adjudication order no.-L-12012/76/2015-IR(B-II) dated- 12.02.2016 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act"), the following dispute between the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Chanakya Place, 'R' Block, Patna (Bihar) And Their workman Sri Kishore Kumar, S/O- Sri Ashok Das, Chhoti Ambedkar Nagar, Bakhtiyarpur, Patna (Bihar)-803212 for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank to terminate the service of workman Sri Kishore Kumar was correct and valid when he demanded for increasing his monthly wages? It not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Before this reference case one I.D. Case No.:- 14(C) of 2015 was pending before this tribunal between the same parties with the same relief as has been prayed in this reference case. Later on the workman withdrew the I.D. Case in view of recent judgement of the Hon'ble Patna High Court and on prayer of the workman order was passed accordingly in the light of the petition filed by the workman.

3. Further with the consent of both the parties the deposition recorded in the I.D. Case and the documents which were marked Exts. and statement of claim, written statement and rejoinder to written statement of the both parties were adopted in this reference case vide order dated- 07.03.2019.

4. The case of the workman Sri Kishore Kumar is that Punjab National Bank opend a branch at Athmalgola, Dist.- Patna on 24.02.2014. The workman was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a Part Time Sweeper at the Athmalgola branch on the same date i.e 24.02.2014. The workman used to discharge the duties such as opening of Bank's gate, cleaning, sweeping the branch premises; taking out registers, books from the almirah, placing the same on tables and vice-versa;, cleaning tables, chairs, counters etc; , posting of mails, serving water to the members of staff and customers of the bank, other sundry works of a part –time sweeper, peon etc;. The workman used to receive his wages in his own name and also in the name of other persons. The workman used to receive payment in different names for threat of losing his job. The work performed by the workman were perennial in nature and not seasonal. The workman worked in the bank uninterruptedly from 24.02.2014 to 06.04.2015. When the workman as usual went for duties on 07.04.2015, he was stopped from working and was informed that his services were terminated. The management after termination of the workman Kishore Kumar appointed fresh Part Time Sweeper at Athmalgola branch and other branches of the bank. The2860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman was neither given any notice, notice pay, nor any retrenchment compensation before his termination and as such mandatory provision of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 were violated. The management violated the provisions of Bipartite Settlement and provisions of section 77 & 78 of the Industrial Dispute ( Central ) Rules,1957. The workman prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages in the services of the bank as a part time sweeper on 1/3rd pay scale of a full time subordinate staff and he also prayed for regularization of his services as a part time sweeper / peon.

5. The case of the management is that there was no employer – employee relationship between the bank and Sri Kishore Kumar and accordingly dispute raised by the workman Sri Kishore Kumar does not constitute an Industrial dispute. The service conditions of the workmen / staff in the banking industry are governed by the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and various Bipartitle Settlement. The persons who are engaged to do casual work are excluded from the operation of the Award. Kishore Kumar was never appointed by the bank. He rendered his services of different nature totally based on the requirement of the bank and his availability. Kishore Kumar has been called on by the bank from time to time for cleaning of the bank premises or for serving water to the staff and customers of the bank. Kishore Kumar volunteered his service as per the need of the bank and the bank used to pay for the services extended by him. The further case of the management is that at the time of his engagement Kishore Kumar mentioned that he was only 8th pass but later on when applications were invited for the post of Part Time Sweeper he mentioned his qualification as intermediate pass. There is a suppression of material facts from the bank authority. Kishore Kumar was called by the bank from time to time and he was paid necessary payments by the bank for the work done by him. Any such work done by him does not create his right for appointment / regularization in the bank services. The further case of the management is that the job of Kishore Kumar was ad-hoc in nature depending upon the requirement of the bank. Since there was no employer - employee relationship therefore the question of termination does not arises at all. He was given opportunity to apply for the post of Part Time Sweeper in the bank but as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria therefore his candidature was cancelled. Other persons who fulfilled to eligibility criteria were appointed for permanent post. The further case of the management is that Kishore Kumar was not an employee of the bank and he was just a casual worker. The service conditions of the workman / employees in the Banking Industry are governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award and various Bipartite settlements. The recruitment in the bank in the subordinate cadre is done through the medium of employment exchange, after going through the selection process to those candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria as per bank's rules. Hence, no right exists for any person to claim regularization / absorption in bank de hors the bank's rules / guidelines. The rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the constitution. Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among eligible persons, the same would not confer any right for permanent employment in bank. According to the management Kishore Kumar is not entitled for any relief sought by him and the action taken by the management is just and proper.

6. The workman after filing of the written statement of the management also filed rejoinder to the same stating therein the same facts and plea already taken in the statement of claim. According to the workman Kishore Kumar while working with the bank for a pretty long period attained the status of a workman. The status of Kishore Kumar was that of a temporary part time sweeper workman awaiting his regularization / permanent absorption / confirmation in the services of the bank under 1/3rd pay scale of a full time subordinate staff. The name of Kishore Kumar was also empanelled by the management for absorption of his services in the bank. Kishore Kumar had attained the status of a temporary workman and as per the spirit of Sastri Award and Bipartitle Settlement the services of the workman should have been confirmed as a part time sweeper under 1/3rd wages of a full time subordinate staff. The action of the management in terminating services of the workman is neither legal not justified and the workman is entitled to be reinstated and regularization in the services of the bank.

7. Both the parties examined only one witness each in support of their case.

8. W.W-1 Kishore Kumar the workman himself appeared before this tribunal in support of his case. He in deposition stated that he used to work as a part time sweeper in Athmalgola branch of Punjab National Bank. He also used to perform the duties of a peon in the branch. He used to work in the branch from 9.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M. He used to perform various duties including opening the gate of the branch, sweeping of the bank premises, taking out register from the Almirah and placing the same on tables, taking out cash box from the strong room and keeping the same at proper place etc. He used to get Rs. 791/- as weekly wages. He was paid by voucher. His wages were also paid besides in his own name in the name of some other person namely Rajesh, Rakesh, Rahul, Ranjeet, Sohan, Mohan etc. He worked in the branch from 24.02.2014 to 06.04.2015. During this period no other person used to work in the branch. He used to perform the duties like that of a permanent sweeper or peon till 06.04.2015 when he was removed from his work. While he was working in the branch one another person was appointed in the bank as a part time sweeper / or peon and after that he was[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2861 terminated. No notice, notice pay or compensation was paid to him before terminating him. He has stated that he belongs to schedule caste and he should be reinstated in the branch with full back wages.

In cross-examination he has stated that he has studied upto intermediate and he used to receive payment putting his own signature as well as the signature of Rahul, Ranjeet, Rakesh, Amar, Sohan, Mohan etc.

9. Management has also examined only one witness on behalf of the management witness namely M.W-1 Kumar Badrinath appeared in this tribunal and deposed in the case. He in his deposition has stated that he knows Kishore Kumar who used to come in the branch for sweeping purposes and he was duly paid on the same day. He has further stated that he advised him to file an application for appointment on the post of part time sweeper, while the appointment process for the post of part time sweeper was going on. Kishore Kumar applied showing his qualification as 8th pass, but at the time of interview it was disclosed that he was under graduate and therefore he was not selected for the post. His claim in this case is wrong.

In cross- examination of M.W-1 he has stated that Athmalgola branch of the bank started functioning in 2014. There was not any peon or part time sweeper of permanent nature from 24.02.2014 to 06.04.2015 in the branch. He has further stated that educational qualification for a 4th grade employee is intermediate. The branch manager used to pay the workman through voucher by taking his signature on the voucher. This witness has denied the facts that workman of this case Kishore Kumar was paid by vouchers in the name of some other persons. He has further stated that he cann't bring in this tribunal those persons whose signatures appear on the vouchers. He has further stated that he cann't say as to how much period Kumar worked in the branch. He has further stated that the status of Kishore Kumar was not of a part time sweeper rather he was a daily wager. He has further stated that he only forwarded the application of Kishore Kumar and he did not forwarded application of any other person. He proved all the vouchers upon which signature of Kishore Kumar as part time sweeper was present. He also identified his own signature on the voucher and the same has been marked as Ext.-W. In this case all the documents have been filed on behalf of the workman only. The management has not got exhibited any documents in support of his case.

The following documents have been brough on record by the workman Kishore Kumar.

Ext.- W & W/1- are the vouchers by which Kishore Kumar and other persons wee paid their wages.

Ext.-W/2- the copy of letter dated- 27.09.2014 issued by Chief Manager, HRD Deptt., Circle Office, 'R' Block, Patna to all incumbents in charge to furnish information in respect of the persons working on stop gap arrangement.

Ext.-W/3- Letter dated- 17.10.2014 by Manager, BO Athmalgola given to Chief Manager, HRD Section, CO Patna relating to person working on stop gap arrangement HRD dt-27.09.2014.

Ext.-W/4- Letter dt- 01.04.2015 issued by Chief Manager HRD Deptt. Circle Office, 'R' Block, Patna regarding interview for recruitment as peon in subordinate cadre given to the workman Sri Kishore Kumar.

Ext.-W/5- Application for appointment dt- 18.01.2019 written by Sri Kishore Kumar given to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 'R' Block, Patna.

Ext.-W/6- Photo copy of Matriculation Certificate.

Ext.-W/7- Photo copy of Intermediate Pass Marks Sheet.

Ext.-W/8- Photo copy of Matriculation marks sheet.

Ext.-W/9- Photo copy of Caste Certificate of the workman.

Ext.-W/10- Photo copy of registration of employment exchange card.

Ext.-W/11- Photo copy of Voter Identity Card.

Ext.-W/12- Photo copy of PAN Card.

Ext.-W/13- Photo copy of letter dt- 12.05.2017 regarding verification of document in respect of recruitment of peon in subordinate cadre written by Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, HRD Deptt. Circle Office, 'R' Block, Patna given to workman Sri Kishore Kumar.

Ext.-W/14- Photo copy of letter dt- 24.05.2017 issued by Bankaddressed to Thana incharge, Bakhtiyarpur, P.S requesting to submit report relating to character of Kishore Kumar before consideration of his appointment as a peon.

Ext.-W/15- Photo copy of letter dt- 18.06.2017 written by Police Officer to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 'R' Block Chanakiya Tower, Patna regarding the character verification of Kishore Kumar.

10. The learned representative of the workman submitted that in this case the workman has been able to successfully prove his case for reinstatement. He submitted that the workman Kishore Kumar served the branch of the bank from the date of its opening i.e- 24.02.2014 till the date of his termination i.e- 06.04.2015. The workman discharged the duties of peon / sweeper as has been mentioned in the statement of claim from 9.00 A.M to 6.00P.M continuously without any break. The duties of the workman were perennial in nature and he was paid wages weekly @ 791/81. The case of the workman is that all of a sudden he was stopped working from 07.04.2015 without any notice and he was also not paid any amount of compensation, which is violation of section-25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The document which has been exhibited on behalf of the workman fully support his case.

11. The learned representative of the workman further referred some of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Patna High Court in support of his case. He relied upon-

1994 (42) BLJR page-1300, the case of Mithilelsh Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors. But this judgement is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is the case of termination of service of a workman who was appointed in a regular time scale of pay on temporary and adhoc basis which is not the case of this very workman. Who was engage by the then branch manager as stop-gap-arrangement.

The representative of the workman further relied upon the case of one Harjinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp. reported in 2010 (1) SCR page- 591. This case relates to the reinstatement of a terminated employee who was appointed in a fixed pay scale and there was violation of rule of last-come-first go as junior to the workman were retained in service, which is not the case here before this tribunal and as such this case is also not applicable.

The learned representative of the workman further referred the case of Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association VS Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors reported in (2015)19 SCC 62. This was a case regarding the absorption as regular and permanent service employees in their respective posts of the LIC. In that very case employees were working as temporary / Badli and part time and they were appointed by the management on daily wages basis against the leave vacancies of its employees in class III & IV posts, which is not the case of the employee which is before this tribunal and hence this case is also not applicable.

The representative of the workman further referred one judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs Municipal Council, Sanaur which was delivered on 11.04.2011 in Civil Appeal No.- 3190 of 2011, which was a case of termination of service and reinstatement.

In that very case the workman who was engaged on contract basis was terminated without holding any enquiry and without given any notice and compensation and persons junior to him were retrained in service, it is not the case before this tribunal. As such this ruling is also not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. The leaned representative of the workman further relied upon one judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs The Sec. Municipal Employee Union in Civil Appeal Nos.- 3209 – 3210 of 2015 on 27th March,2015. It was case of equal pay for equal work. The grievances of the workmen were that they were being monetarily exploited as they were not paid the benefits and allowances etc as are being paid to other permanent safai kamdars. This judgement is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case pending before this tribunal.

12. The learned representative of the management submitted that there was no employer employee relationship between the bank and Kishore Kumar and accordingly so called dispute raised by Kishore Kumar does not constitute an Industrial Dispute. It was further submitted that Kishore Kumar was never appointed by the bank rather he rendered his services of different nature totally based on the requirement of the bank and his availability. He was called from time to time for cleaning the bank premises and serving water to the customers of the bank and staff. He was made necessary payment by the bank for work done by him. Any such work done of him does not create his right for appointment / regularization in the services of the bank. Job of Kishore Kumar was adhoc in nature depending upon the requirement of the bank. He was given opportunity to apply for the post of PTS but as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria therefore his candidature was cancelled. Kishore Kumar was denied job in the bank only because he was intermediate pass and the qualification for the post of PTS is matric fail. As such the workman is not entitle for any relief sought for by him. The learned representative of the management relied upon two orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The copy of the orders which have been filed in this tribunal do not bear the case number in which the said orders were passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the aforesaid orders can not be considered.

13. After hearing the learned representative of both the parties and going through the materials as well as the documents which have been brought on the record, I am of the view that the workman Kishore Kumar is entitled for some relief in this case. This workman was serving the branch of the bank from the date of its opening till the date of his termination continuously. The payment vouchers also supports this facts, although some vouchers are in the name of some other persons. The case of the workman is that no other person was[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2863 either temporarily or part time or permanently employed in the branch for cleaning the same and it was the workman himself who ask cleaning the branch and doing other works of a peon in the branch. M.W-1 Kumar Badri Nath who was the branch manager at relevant time of Athmalgola branch has admitted this fact in the para-5 of the cross-examination of his deposition that from 24.02.2014 to 06.04.2015 there was no permanent or PTS or peon in the branch. He has also admitted in para-7 of his deposition that payment was made by vouchers and the person who used to work was paid by the vouchers by taking his signature. The case of the workman is that some vouchers are in the name of other persons though no other person worked and he himself worked and he was forced to make signature of other persons and for the fear of losing his job he put the signature of other persons on the vouchers. From perusal of signature on the voucher it appears that all the signatures were made by one and the same person and this fact is further corroborated by the voucher at page-41 which shows that earlier Kishore Kumar put his signature but after cutting the same the signature of Ranjeet Kumar is appearing on the voucher. No other person has come forward to put his claim that he ever worked any day in Athmalgola branch and the management also failed to bring the persons in whose name the vouchers exist. The handwriting of the signatures which are appearing on the voucher appears to be of the same person and when no other person come forward to put his claim and the management also does not bring such persons whose signature are appearing in the voucher, it means that it was only Kishore Kumar was working in Athmalgola branch and not any other person.

14. Later on when the management started process for the regular appointment of the persons who were working on stop gap arrangement in different branches of the bank, the name of only Kishore Kumar was recommended by the branch manager vide Ext.-W/3 with the positive recommendation that the boy is working very good in his allotted job and he is very sincere and responsible. On 18.01.2015 the workman Kishore Kumar submitted his application form (Ext.-W/5) for appointment to the Circle Office Patna. The interview letter (Ext.- W/4 dated- 01.04.2015 ) was issued to this workman to appear for interview on 10.04.2015 but before he could face and appear for interview his services were terminated on 07.04.2015. By Ext.-W/13 the workman was called for documents verification and he was directed to be present at Circle Office on 22.05.2017. After documents verification on 22.05.2017, a registered letter dated- 24.05.2017 (Ext.-W/14) was given by Circle Office, Patna to officer incharge, Bakhtiyarpur police station for anticidents and character verification of Kishore Kumar. In that letter it was mentioned that the workman Kishore Kumar has appeared before the interview board for employment of peon in the bank and after receipt of the police report matter for his appointment and giving job will be considered. The requireed police report was submitted by the Bakhtiyarpur police station vide Ext.-W/15 in which it was clearly mentioned that there was no complaint against this very this workman Kishore Kumar in the police station and during enquiry it was found that the workman is a man of very good character.

It is very much surprising that after considering / verification of the entire documents, the workman was called for the interview and it also appears that after successful interview a police report was called for from the concerned police station regarding his character which was also favourable but even then workman was not considered for appointment only on the ground that workman is intermediate although M.W-1 in his para-6 of his deposition admitted that the educational qualification for appointment of a IVth grade employee is intermediate. It is surprising that even after fulfilling the criteria for appointment of a IVth grade employee the workman was denied employment in the bank by the management.

15. From the documents available on the record it is evident that the worked worked more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his date of termination. It is evident that the workman was continuously working in the branch from 24.02.2014 to 06.04.2015 and he was terminated on 07.04.2015 and before his termination the requirements of section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 were also not complied with by the management. As such the termination of the workman Kishore Kumar is not correct and valid and is illegal in the eye of law.

In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that termination of services of the workman Sri Kishore Kumar is not correct and valid and he is entitled for reinstatement in service.

Accordingly the workman Kishore Kumar is hereby reinstated in service with 50% back wages. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

And accordingly this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer2864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, ईरनाकुलम, कोचीन के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 20/2013)को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/88/2012-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1015 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013) 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 09.11.2020.

[No. L-12012/88/2012-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 24th day of February 2020, 5Phalguna1941)

ID No. 20/2013

Workman : Smt.V. K. Nirmala Nakkilikattu House Allapra P.O. Perumbavoor P.O. Ernakulam - 683533 By Adv. Ashok B. Shenoy

Management : The Assistant General Manager

Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Vasudeva Building T. D. Road Ernakulam –682 By M/s. B. S. Krishnan 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

1. 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-12012/88/2012-IR(B-II) dated 05.03.2013 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Ms.V. K. Nirmala from the post of temporary/part time sweeper from Perumbavoor Branch is illegal ? What benefit she is eligible to get ? ''

3. The worker was employed in the subordinate cadre as sweeper in the services of the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank. She was employed in the service of the Perumbavoor branch from 20.07.2009.

She had been employed continuously and regularly against a regular and permanent vacancy to do regular and permanent nature of duties of sweeper. She had been discharging all the duties entrusted to her diligently, honestly and without any complaints from any quarters. On 07.01.2012 the worker's services were orally terminated by the Manager of the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank. Aggrieved by the oral termination of the services, the worker raised an industrial dispute against the management challenging the termination of her service before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Ernakulam. In view of the adamant stand taken by the management, the conciliation efforts by Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) failed. The termination of the services of the worker by the management amounts to retrenchment. The worker continued to work with the management continuously from 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. However the management has neither issued notice of retrenchment to the worker nor paid the worker wages in lieu of such notice as mandated by Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. The management has not paid the retrenchment compensation as required under Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. Retrenchment of worker's service is therefore illegal, unjust and also null and void in law. The retrenchment of the worker is also in violation of Para 522, 523 & 524 of Sastri Award. Employees much junior in service to the worker herein are retained in service by the management. This is in violation of mandatory provision in Sec 25G of ID Act, 1947 and Para 507 of Sastri Award. It was also pointed out that fresh and new hands have been employed by the management in their service against the very same work and jobs for which the worker was employed. This is in violation of Sec 25H of ID Act, 1947, Clause 20.12 of 1st Bipartite Settlement dt.19.10.1966 and Para 493 of Sastri Award. The worker was treated by the management as a temporary worker against permanent vacancy just to deprive her of the status and privilege of a permanent worker. The management is in the habit of engaging employees on temporary basis against permanent vacancies one after another and retrenched them to be replaced by new hands in the same way. Such practice of the management amounts to unfair labour practice prohibited U/s 25T of ID Act, 1947 and violates Para 20.7 and 20.8 of 1st Bipartite Settlement and also Para 495 and 522 of Sastri Award. In terms of Clause 20.12 of 1st Bipartite settlement dt.19.10.1966, the management is bound to retain and absorb the worker in regular service especially when the vacancy against which she was employed is permanent and continues to exist. Since retrenchment from service of management Bank, the worker is without any job and income.

4. The management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The management is a nationalized public sector Bank. There are prescribed rules, procedures, policies and norms in the matter of recruitment into its regular services. For appoint of subordinate staff 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. Competent authority for sanction of regular post in the subordinate staff cadre in the management Bank is General Manager (HRM) and the appointing authority is Regional Head. The Branch Manager is neither the sanctioning authority nor the appointing authority. The worker was not appointed in the management Bank by any competent authority. She was not engaged against any regular vacancy in the branch. She was not appointed as an employee of the Bank and there was no employer employee relationship between the worker and the management Bank. The worker was intermittently engaged as daily wager on casual/temporary basis at Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank during 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012. She was being paid appropriate wages on the basis of her engagement. She was not engaged 240 or more days at any point of time. The worker was not subject to any recruitment process and was not given any appointment letter. The worker was engaged by the Branch Manager who is not the appointing authority. Temporary employees engaged on a day to day basis have no right of employment in the management Bank. The engagement of the worker was not through Employment Exchange and her engagement was not in compliance with the prescribed procedures for the appointment. Management Bank is a public sector organization and is a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appointment in the management Bank is governed by rules and guidelines issued by Govt of India from time to time. Appointment in the subordinate staff cadre is to be made by the competent authority and against sanctioned vacancies and also subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria. In the normal course, appointment in subordinate cadre is done through Employment Exchange. If suitable candidates are not available through Employment Exchange, other source of recruitment are considered. The worker in this case was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and she was not subjected to any recruitment process. It is denied that the worker worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and worker must be put to strict proof of the same. It is baseless and incorrect to allege that the management violated Sections 25F, 25G, 25H of ID Act and provisions of Bipartite Settlement and Sastri Award. The worker has no right to claim permanent engagement and is not entitled to get the status and privilege of a permanent worker. Our Constitution envisages right of equality and equal opportunity in the matter of public employment under Article 14 & 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.

5. The worker filed replication denying the above allegations in the written statement filed by the management. The management, being a nationalized Bank, on opening of its branch at Perumbavoor on 20.07.2009 employed the worker against the permanent vacancy of sweeper cum peon. No permanent sweeper was posted in the branch on 20.07.2009 till 07.01.2012. The worker was entrusted the duties of permanent nature in the branch from the date of opening of the branch. The worker was entrusted with the duties of sweeper cum peon and she had been working under the supervision of the branch authorities and had been given access to all areas in the premises including the security area of the branch. She was regularly paid wages against voucher slips duly authorised by the branch authorities and accounted against Bank's Profit & Loss account. She was also paid bonus for the period she was employed with the management Bank. There are no rule, procedure, policies or norms in the matter of recruitment into the regular service of the management Bank. The norms and guidelines if at all any, are discretionary and not mandatory in nature. There is no mandate that the appointment or recruitment of subordinate staff can be made only through Employment Exchange. No sweeper cum peon other than the worker was engaged by the branch authorities to attend the permanent and regular duties in the branch. She was regularly and continuously attending the job and she was being paid wages including for Sundays. At no point of time the worker was put on notice that she employed against a post not sanctioned by the management. It can be seen that she was paid wages much higher than the wages for 240 days in a year and she was also paid bonus. The management Bank is having 85 branches and 2 Administrate offices in Kerala and the permanent employees working in the subordinate cadre are only 90. There were considerable number of temporary peons and sweepers entrusted duties of permanent nature. The management Bank had regularized 37 temporary sub staff entrusted with duties of permanent nature during 2009-2011. After retrenchment from the service of the Bank on 07.01.2012, new temporary employees were engaged by management Bank without affording an opportunity to the worker for re-employment. Sponsorship of Employment Exchange is not a mandatory condition for employment in the post and job against which the worker was employed in the management Bank.

6. After completion of pleadings, the worker examined herself as WW1 and marked exhibits W1 & W2. The worker also examined WW2. The learned Counsel for the worker sought to mark exhibits W3 to W10 through the witness. Counsel for the management opposed the request on the ground that the witness had no connection with any of those documents sought to be marked in the proceedings. Since the witness had no connection with the documents, the request of the learned Counsel for the worker was disallowed. The management examined MW1 and marked Exbt.M1 through him. Exhibits M2 to M7 were marked by consent of parties.

7. On the basis of the reference and pleadings, the issues to be decided are;

1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the worker w.e.f. 07.01.2012 was in accordance with the provisions of Sec 25F of ID Act ?

2. Whether the management violated any of the provisions of ID Act, Bipartite Settlement or Sastri Award while terminating the services of the worker?

3. Relief and cost ?

8. Issue nos. 1 & 2

According to the worker, she was engaged by the management Bank on 20.07.2009 when the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank was opened. She was engaged as a sweeper-cum-peon and continued to be employed till 07.01.2012 continuously and regularly against a regular and permanent vacancy and was doing regular and permanent nature of duties of a sweeper-cum-peon. On 07.01.2012, the services of the worker was orally terminated by the Branch Manager. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the oral termination of the worker amounts to retrenchment. However she was neither issued any notice of retrenchment nor wages in lieu of notice mandated U/s 25F of ID Act, 1947. The retrenchment of the worker from service is therefore illegal, unjust, null and void in law. It is also in violation of Paras 522, 523 & 524 of Sastri Award. According to the learned Counsel for the management, the worker was never employed by the management Bank. Her services were intermittently used by the Bank from 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012 and she was also paid wages for the services rendered by her. Her engagement was only temporary on a day to day basis and the worker has no right of 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, recruitment is made through notification in the Employment Exchange and after complying with the formalities of test and interview. The worker was not given any appointment order and therefore, there was no retrenchment of the worker by the management. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the policies and procedures relied on by the management are for regular recruitment and the worker has no claim for regularization. With regard to the policies also the worker through[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2867 WW2 established that the management resorted to regularization of temporary and casual subordinate staff on the basis of settlement between the union and the management. The management relied on Exbt.M1 to point out that HR resourcing 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 post of sub staff in various zones. The learned Counsel for the worker pointed out that 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. It is also seen that Para 7.0 of Exbt.M1 provides for engagement of staff on temporary basis. Such temporary engagement also requires of the approval of the General Manager(HRM). It has come out through the evidence of MW1 that during the relevant point of time there was no regular sweeper or peon in Perumbavoor branch. It has also come out through his evidence that since there was no regular sweeper or peon posted in the branch during the relevant point of time, all the work that are required to be done by the sweeper and peon were getting done through the temporary employee. Even though he stated that there were another sweeper-cum-peon working in the branch, he could not remember their names or address. He further stated in his evidence that during his tenure as Branch Manager in Perumbavoor branch from 09.06.2010 to 09.10.2011, he was aware that the worker was working in the branch as a temporary sweeper cum peon. It was also admitted by MW1 that the accounts of Perumbavoor branch was audited by the audit team during his tenure in the branch and the auditor has not objected to the engagement of the worker and payments made to her. He also admitted that no action was taken against him for engaging the worker and making payments to her. Hence it is clear that the engagement of the worker had the required approval and the payments made to her were fully authorized.

9. From the above discussion, it is very clear that the worker was engaged by the management Bank from 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012 as sweeper-cum-peon. Having found that the worker was engaged by the management Bank, the further issue to be decided is whether her oral termination w.e.f. 07.01.2012 is in violation of industrial dispute provisions of Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947 and Para 522, 523 & 524 of Sastri Award. The worker filed an Interlocutory Application seeking production of certain documents to substantiate her claim that she worked in the management Bank continuously for more than 240 days, one year immediately prior to her retrenchment. The worker requested for production of the following documents.

1. Statement of account No. 32850100000138 maintained at Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank in the name of the worker for the period from 20.07.2009 to 31.12.2012

2. Ledger account statement of Sundry charges-others-A/c No. 32850054511004 maintained at Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the period from 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012.

3. Debit vouchers relating to wages paid to temporary sub staff employees to the debit A/c No. 32850054511004 maintained at Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the period from 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012.

4. Form-C Bonus paid statement/Register under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 submitted to the Controlling Authority of Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the financial years ended 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012

5. Statement of office account – Bonus paid account No. 32850052431001 maintained at Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the period from 20.07.2009 to 31.12.2012.

6. Debit vouchers relating to Bonus paid to employees to the debit of account No. 32850052431001 for the financial years 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012

7. Temporary employees wages calculation register maintained by Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the period 20.07.2009 to 07.01.2012

8. Letter no.BOB/PERAMBA/01 dt.12.08.2009 sent by Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank to Regional Office of the Bank at Ernakulam

9. Copy of E-mail circular dt.19.02.2013 issued by HRM Department of management Bank, to all branches in Kerala Region, directing payment to all subordinate staff employees, pro-rate wages at the first stage of basic pay and all allowances thereon, as applicable to permanent subordinate staff employees

10. Copy of PERAMBA/03/2011 dt.23.11.2011 addressed to the management by its Perumbavoor branch2868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] IA No.34/2014 filed for this purpose was allowed by this Court and the management was directed to produce the documents called for by the worker.

The management produced the following documents

1. True copy of the statement of account No.32850100000138 maintained at Perumbavoor branch from 09.09.2009 to 31.12.2012

2. True copy of the Ledger account statement of Sundry charges account No. 32850054511004 of Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009 to 31.12.2012

3. True copy of available Debit vouchers relating to wages paid to temporary employees account No. 32850054511004 from 27.07.2009 to 07.01.2012

4. True copy of the statement of Bonus account No.32850052431001 maintained at Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009 to 31.12.2012

5. True copy of available Debit vouchers relating to Bonus paid to temporary employees to the debit account No.32850052431001 for the financial year 01.04.2009 to31.03.2012

6. True copy of the Peon delivery book from 05.08.2009 to 14.01.2010

According to the learned Counsel for the worker, Exbt.M3 and M4 series, Form-C bonus paid statement/register under Payment of Bonus Act submitted to the Controlling Authority by the Perumbavoor branch of the management Bank for the financial years 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012 are very crucial in establishing that the worker worked for more than 240 days, one year immediately prior to her oral termination. Form-C return of bonus paid will indicate the number of days the worker worked in the bank. Though the worker requested for production of Form-C bonus paid statements for 2009-2012, the management failed to produce any of the statements and the management failed to explain the reasons for non production of the same. However the management produced all the debit vouchers from 08.01.2011 to 07.01.2012 and also the Ledger account statement of Sundry charges for the corresponding period. From the above documents it can be clearly established that the management paid a salary of Rs.31,654/- from 08.01.2011 to 07.01.2012 and the average daily wages paid to the worker was Rs.95/- per day. Hence it can be seen that the worker worked for more than 300 days one year immediately prior to her retrenchment. The learned Counsel for the worker submitted that an adverse presumption will have to drawn against the management for non production of other crucial documents such as Form-C Bonus paid statement. 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 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 case, as already stated, Exbt.M4 series of Debit vouchers and Exbt.M3 true copies of the Ledger account of Sundry charges will clearly establish that the worker worked for more than 300 days one year immediately prior to her retrenchment. Hence the non production of Form-C bonus paid statement will not affect the conclusion that the worker worked for more than 240 days during one year immediately before her termination. Hence the management is liable to follow the conditions precedent before the retrenchment of the worker as contemplated U/s 25 F of ID Act, 1947.

10. The learned Counsel for the management argued that the worker in this case is only a casual employee on daily wages and hence she is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. The learned Counsel for the worker 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 quiet 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."

11. 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 worker 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 Uma Devi'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 Dispute 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 for 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 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 SCC 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.

12. 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, 1947.

13. The worker also pleaded that she was terminated from the service of the management Bank in violation of Sec 25G of ID Act, 1947 on the ground that the employees much junior in service to her were retained in2870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] service when she was terminated from the service of the management Bank. The worker did not lead any evidence to substantiate and support violation of 25G of ID Act. The worker also alleged that the management appointed fresh hands against the post held by her for doing the same job which she was doing. Having retrenched her from the service of the management Bank, the worker has a right to be offered re-employment against any future vacancy in preference over others. According to the worker there is a violation of Sec 25H of ID Act as well. However there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of the worker that Sec 25H of ID Act, 1947 is violated by the management Bank. The worker also alleged that the management violated the provisions of Sec 25T of ID Act by resorting to unfair labour practice of employing the worker as a casual worker and continued her service for years together. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the post of sweeper-cum-peon in Perumbavoor branch of management Bank was regular at the relevant point of time. Further there is no evidence that a permanent or temporary sweeper is appointed in her place by the management Bank and hence there is no basis in the allegation of the worker that Sec 25T of ID Act is violated by the management.

14. Considering all the facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the retrenchment of the worker from the service of the management Bank is abinitio void and is in violation of Sec 25F of ID Act, 1947. However the management had not violated Sec 25G, 25H and 25T of ID Act, 1947 as decided above.

15. Issue No. 3

Issue nos.1 & 2 regarding the legality of termination of the worker was decided in favour of the worker and against the management. The learned Counsel for the worker argued that once this Tribunal found that the termination of the worker was illegal, she 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 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 worker was a daily wages employee and she 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, of 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, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated he has no right to seek 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 juniors 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[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2871 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 worker on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasmar Singh Vs State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the worker 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 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 worker was engaged as a daily wage employee and she worked continuously for more than 240 days one year before her termination. Further the claim of the worker regarding unfair labour practice was found to be not proved. The management failed to establish that the worker was gainfully engaged during the period of termination. Hence this is a fit case the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand and others Vs Rajkumar, 2019 1 LLJ 513 SC is squarely applicable. It is seen that the worker was engaged on a daily wage basis and she has already crossed the age of 45 and no other allegations against the management such as unfair labour practice could be proved in this industrial dispute. In the circumstances of this case it would be just proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the worker in full and final satisfaction of her claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. It is seen that the worker was working on a daily average wage of Rs.95/- when her services were terminated on 07.01.2012. If she is reinstated in service with full back wages she will be entitled to a back wages of approximately Rs.2,65,000/-. Further she is also entitled for the benefits under Sec 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. Taking into account all these aspects, it is felt that interest of justice will be met if the management is directed to pay a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the worker in full and final settlement within one month from the notification of the award. Hence an award is passed holding that the termination of the worker from the serviced of the management Bank from 07.01.2012 is illegal, unjust and abinitio void. She is entitled for a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of full back wages and other consequential 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 24th day of February, 2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer2872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1     -    Smt.V. K. Nirmala, dt.25.01.2016
WW2     -    Shri.V. N. Krishnan, dt.14.10.2016

Witness for the Management:-

MW1 - Shri. Krishnakumar E. N. dt. 08.02.2017

Exhibits for the Workman:-

W1       -    True copy of the letter dt.28.11.2011 submitted by workman to the Asst. Labout Commissioner
              (C), Ernakulam
W2       -    Copy  of  the  Report  Failure  of  Conciliation  proceedings  dt.03.10.2012  of  the  Asst.  Labour
              Commissioner (C), Ernakulam

Exhibits for the Management:-

M1       -    True copy of the HR Resourcing Policy of the management Bank
M2       -    True  copy  of  the  statement  of  account  No.  32850100000138  maintainedby  workman  at
              Perumbavoor branch from  09.09.2009 to 31.12.2012
M3       -    True copy of the Ledger account statement of Sundry charges account No. 32850054511004 of
              Perumbavoor branch from 13.07.2009  to 31.12.2012
M4       -    True  copy  of  available  Debit  vouchers  relating  to  wages  paid  to  temporary  employees  account
              No. 32850054511004   from 27.07.2009 to 07.01.2012
M5       -    True copy of the statement of  Bonus account No. 32850052431001 maintained at Perumbavoor
              branch from 13.07.2009 to 31.12.2012
M6       -    True  copy  of  available  Debit  vouchers  relating  to  Bonus  paid  to  temporary  employees    to  the
              debit account No. 32850052431001 for the financial year 01.04.2009 to31.03.2012
M7       -    True copy of the Peon delivery book from 05.08.2009 to 14.01.2010

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार तुंगभदरा मिनरल्स प्रा. लि. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 57/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011/32/2013-आईआर (एम)]

नवीन वैध, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1016.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Tungbhadra Mineral Pvt. Ltd.and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.11.2020.

[No. L-29011/32/2013-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2873

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 28TH OCTOBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 57/2013

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary, Tungbhadra Mineral Staff & Workers Union, Taranagar (Karnataka) - 583119,

The Executive Director, M/s Tungbhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd., HM Larochelle, Flat No. 302, No. 6, Benson Cross Road, Benson Town, Bangalore - 560046.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara

Advocate for II Party : Mr. M. Kalidas

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29011/32/2013-IR(M) dated 21.08.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the employee of Tungbhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd. mass retrenchment is valid or not

and whether the terminal benefits paid by the management are sufficient? If not, what relief

the employees are entitled to?"

1. The 1st Party Trade Union has espoused the cause of 54 of its members who were the employees of the 2nd Party and were retrenched vide order dated 31.12.2012. It is stated that the union had signed several settlements with the Management relating to wage and service condition of the workmen in the past. In this reference the legality of the retrenchment order is questioned. Their claim is, the 2nd Party is engaged in the business of extraction of mining iron ore and the subsequent marketing; 2nd Party is a joint venture company registered under the Companies Act; the Mysore Minerals Limited, a Government of Karnataka undertaking has 26% of the share holding, while V.M Salgaocar and Brothers has 74% of the share holding in the Company; the Managing Director of the Mysore Minerals Limited is the Chairman of the 2nd party. Important decisions pertaining to the Business and other affairs of the Company are taken by the Board of Directors; the company is involved in mining and extraction of iron ore in various places of Bellary District, Karnataka. But the mining operations in the region of Bellary, Hospet, Sandur etc., were suspended owing to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in July 2011. The captive iron ore mines at KH Block (Bellary Iron Ore Mines) and Rajapura and Appannahalli Iron Ore Mines suspended the mining operation in July 2011. 54 workmen engaged in mining work and other allied jobs were directed to do maintenance job, security jobs etc. The Ore stocks collected so far at the Captive mines of Rajapura and Appanahalli Iron Ore Mines were sold through e-tendering / e-auction prior to July 2011 by Central Empowerment Committee constituted for monitoring the iron ore stock. The 2nd Party received nearly 40 crores from the sale of the Iron ore, still there is huge stock of extracted iron ore in the premises of the 2nd party, the share proceeds of the iron ore extracted in KH Block mines sold by CEC through e-tendering / e-auction is yet to be received by the 2nd party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted resumption of Mining Operations of prescribed quantity subject to clearance of Rehabilitation and Reclamation plan in B-Category Mines. Thus, 2nd Party resumed Mining Operation at Rajapura and Appanahalli Iron Ore Mines. Though the Mining Operation was suspended, the company was carrying on various other activities and the workers were retained for the said job since July 2011.

2. It is further claimed that, the 2nd Party issued individual notice dated 31.12.2012 terminating the employment of all the workmen and officers, along with the notice of termination a cheque purported to be the unpaid wages due to each workman for the month of November and December 2012, Gratuity, Retrenchment Compensation, Leave Encashment etc, was enclosed. The 1st Party Union protested against unjust and illegal layoff, they also protested against the short payment of retrenchment compensation. They had calculated the retrenchment compensation without counting upon the House Rent Allowance payable to the workmen; upon realising itself of the short payment of retrenchment compensation, the 2nd Party issued another cheque for additional amount representing the short payment on 05.01.2013 but the date of the additional cheque was mentioned as 31.12.2012 in order to cover up the lapses. The workers received the cheques under protest.

After terminating the services of the permanent workers and officers, the 2nd Party engaged the services of contract labour to carry on the work connected to e-tendering / e-auction, security and other allied permanent jobs which were till then done by the permanent workers. Since, the 2nd Party had started a campaign in the establishment that there would be mass retrenchment of employees, the 1st Party had raised an Industrial Dispute vide petition dated 21.12.2012 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bellary Region. During the pendency of the dispute, the 2nd Party resorted to mass retrenchment of its entire staff.

3. It is further claimed that the action of retrenchment is illegal, the Board of Directors of the 2nd Party was the Competent Authority, they had not discussed the issue of retrenchment and had not approved the retrenchment. The Executive Director was not authorised by the Board of Directors to terminate the services of the 1st Party workmen w.e.f 31.12.2012. As per the permission given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to extract iron ore in B-category after submitting R and R plan, the 2nd Party had submitted R and R Plan in respect of Rajapura and Appanahalli Iron Ore Mines but did not pursue the R and R Plan only with an intention to terminate the services of the entire workforce. Short payment of retrenchment compensation to each workman as on the date has rendered the retrenchment void ab initio, inoperative and invalid. Mass retrenchment was effected without discussing with the 1st Party and without exploring the other possibilities of laying off the workmen. Even the Conciliation Officer was not informed of the proposed retrenchment, though the conciliation proceeding was in motion. The Mining operations were temporarily suspended and 2nd Party was permitted to operate the mines in B-category subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. The 1st Party workmen are entirely dependent on the jobs with the 2nd party, they have no prospects of getting employment elsewhere; they cannot seek employment elsewhere because of the age factor and they have no other source of income.

4. The claim is contested by the 2nd Party on following lines:-

the 1st Party Union has no authority to espouse the cause of the staffs / workers; the 1st Party workers have accepted clean and unconditional termination letter, they have encashed the full and final terminal amount; 53 members of the staff had not recorded their protest; they have received excess amount of their statutory dues, the demand now made is unlawful and unwarranted. Since it was impossible for the Management to continue work any further, the staff / workers were taken into confidence by explaining the situation to them and their terminal dues and benefits were worked out. The terminal benefit amounted to over Rs. 400 lakhs. Appropriate notices were issued along with the cheque towards terminal benefits and other dues. As a gesture of goodwill several amounts though not statutory required to be paid came to be included; the staffs / workers did not raise objection to the termination but requested for some additional amount. Their prayer for additional benefits was considered though such benefits were not legally due to them. The 1st Party members are paid wages in lieu of one month's notice or wages and compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months. Following items are included in working of the Retrenchment compensation:

i) Salary for the month of November 2012

ii) Salary for the month of December 2012

iii) Notice pay – One month salary

iv) Gratuity

v) Retrenchment Compensation

vi) Leave Encashment

vii) Production premium for the year 2010-11 to 2012-13(upto December 2012)

viii) Medical Allowance for the year 2012

ix) Leave Travel Allowance for the year 2012

x) Bonus at the rate of 20% for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 (upto December 2012) and

xi) Annual increment arrears April 2012 – December 2012

The workmen are paid during the idle period also; the terminal benefits paid are much in excess of the statutory entitlements. Export of iron ore is banned by the Karnataka State Government w.e.f 26.07.2010.

5. It is further stated that the staff / workers strength in the 2nd Party is only 87, chapter V-B of 'the Act' is not applicable to them, hence no question of obtaining prior permission / approval from the Central Government. It is impermissible for the staff / workers to go back upon the settlement and to raise additional and frivolous demands. The 1st Party union in order to achieve their self interest is assisting for such demand.

6. Evidence is adduced by both the parties. Two witnesses were examined for the 1st party; documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-6 are marked for them.

MW-1 / the Director of the Tungabhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd., is the sole witness for the 2nd Party, through him 24 documents were exhibited.

The examination in chief evidence of the witnesses is nothing but reiteration of their claim statement / counter statement averments.

7. During the cross examination of MW-1 it emerged that decision to terminate the services of the workmen was taken by Salgaocar Mining Industries Limited: the witness never worked at Taranagar (concerning the 1st Party member) he had worked at Corporate Office, Goa thus he had no personal knowledge about the retrenchment process and was not a Party to the conciliation proceeding. The witness explained the circumstances under which two cheques were issued to the workmen by way of retrenchment compensation, thus first cheque was issued by calculating as per the I.D Act benefits, on the request of the workmen they updated the annual increment, bonus and then issued the second cheque; though there was no production, premium incentive was paid; first cheque was returned by the workmen and the second cheque was accepted.

8. WW-1 is the Secretary of the 1st Party Union and also one of the concerned workmen. In his affidavit evidence he alleges that no workman was given cheque on 31.12.2012 by the Management; the workmen protested against the unjust and illegal retrenchment on 01.01.2013, as they came to know that the retrenchment compensation calculation was not correct; in the retrenchment compensation offered on 31.12.2012 the 2nd Party had not taken into account annual increment and House Rent Allowance payable to the workmen, realising the short calculation of the retrenchment compensation they issued another cheque for additional amount representing the short payment on 05.01.2013: but by mentioning the date on the cheques as 31.12.2012, both cheques were handed over to the workmen around 15.01.2013 and the workmen received the cheques under protest.

Ex W-2 is the notice dated 31.12.2012 served on the workman T Siddesh wherein his signature along with his remark "UNDER PROTEST" is recorded.

9. Vide Annexure Ex W-4 Regional Labour Commissioner was informed that notices were accompanied by the cheque towards terminal benefits and other dues; in calculating the terminal benefits and other dues several amounts though not statutory required to be paid came to be included again as a gesture of goodwill – the workers raised no objection to the termination but requested for additional amount and the demand was not based upon any statutory entitlement, but the same was a request for a "Golden Handshake". The Management conceded to the payment of additional benefits, though such benefits were neither legally due nor payable. The workers returned cheques issued to them and the Management thereupon issued fresh notice along with cheques for higher amounts.

During cross examination of WW-1 it was highlighted that the Management has also produced the Photostat copy of notice dated 31.12.2012 pertaining to Siddesh as Ex M-3 but in the said document there is no such endorsement "UNDER PROTEST". The witness identified from the Management Document / Ex M-19 that it is the Final notice served on 31.12.2012 but there is no such endorsement "UNDER PROTEST" in the said document. He admits that all his 53 co-employees received two cheques each along with a letter and calculation sheet. The witness admits either in the claim statement or in the petition given to ALC (C) they had not shown difference of amount which was due from the Management; this petition is not filed on the ground of short payment.

10. WW-2 is the Treasurer of the Union, through him the petition submitted by the Union to the Conciliation Officer (Ex W-5) detailing 60 workmen who had submitted their affidavit authorising the Union Representative to represent and to legally pursue the matter and Ex W-6 / the Photostat copy of the Conciliation Failure Report dated 03.05.2013 were marked. However, the copy of the affidavit of the 60 workmen is not produced to make the Tribunal understand as to whether the union was authorised to raise the present Industrial Dispute.

11. Fact that the mining operations were suspended throughout the State consequent upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7366-7367/2010 (Ex M-7) and also the order passed by the Government of Karnataka vide order dated 26.07.2010 (Ex M-6) and subsequent order banning Mining, Transportation and Export of Iron Ore Mines was the factuality as on 31.12.2012 is known universally. Further 2nd Party was a unit wherein the number of employees was less than 100 thus there was no need for them to go for permission under Sec 25-N of 'the Act'. The 1st Party members have received the compensation under two cheques dated 31.12.2012 and it is not their case that the amount received by them falls short of the ingredients of Sec 25-F (b) of 'the Act'.

12. From the case demonstrated by both the parties the short question that needs to be addressed is,2876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] i) Whether the retrenchment effectuated on 31.12.2012 was in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Sec 25-F of 'the Act'?

The condition precedent for retrenchment of a worker as per Sec 25-F of 'the Act' is,

a) The workman has been given one months' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice.

b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, 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

c) …….

13. On a travel through the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the quantum of compensation is not the lis between the parties but the date of payment of compensation is the controversy. The payment of retrenchment compensation being condition precedent to retrench a workman, the 1st Party is challenging the validity of the retrenchment order dated 31.12.2012 for not paying the legitimate dues before issuing the retrenchment order.

The 2nd Party has produced Photostat copy of the letter of termination dated 31.12.2012 served on each of the workman along with Photostat copies of two cheques to each one of them and the calculation sheet. So much is made out during the cross examination of WW-1 that the workmen had not recorded their protest on the termination orders, the very caption of the document Ex M-1 contrariety reads thus:

LIST OF STAFF WHO HAVE ACCEPTED UNDER PROTEST LETTER OF TERMINATION HOWEVER HAVE DERIVED FULL BENEFITS FROM ENCASHMENT OF CHEQUE FOR FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AMOUNT.

But no such endorsement of protest can be seen on any of the termination orders from the Ex M-2 and Ex M-3 series. However, these Ex M-3 series are not the original documents, the Ex M-3 series is described in the Index as "Acceptance of Clean and Unconditional Termination letter". The concerned workman apart from signing the termination order have declared that they are accepting the amount being full and complete payment for all the service rendered to the Company. Now the dispute revolves around the question on the factum of actual date of payment of retrenchment compensation.

14. The 1st Party has placed reliance on the following Authorities:

i) Workmen of Coimbatore "B" Mills Ltd., vs Labour Court and others, 1980 I-LLJ Pg-503 (SC)

ii) Somu Kumar Chatterjee and another vs District Judge, 1970 II-LLJ Pg-179 (Patna Division Bench)

iii) Management of M/s. Penguine Textiles Ltd., vs Labour Court, 1975 Lab.I.C. Pg-526 (A.P High Court)

The rationale running in all these judgments is payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent for effective retrenchment of a workman - the retrenchment cannot be revalidated by subsequent payment of compensation and the workman continues to be the employee of the employer.

15. It is the fundamentals of the Evidence Act, that any amount of oral evidence cannot take over the documentary proof. When the documents produced by either parties bare the date 31.12.2012 on the cheques, where is the counter material to accept that the compensation was paid on 05.01.2013. The witness beyond the claim statement pleading, has gone to the extent of stating that the cheque was issued on 15.01.2013. Having raised the dispute in the middle of December itself on sensing the fate of the Establishment, they would not have kept quite if only partial payment was given to them on 31.12.2012; from none of the document I get a clue that they had documented about payment of partial retrenchment compensation. That drives me to hold that the retrenchment compensation was paid along with the termination order but not subsequent thereto.

Moreover, the Authority of the Union for raising the dispute is questioned by the 2nd Party. No resolution copy pertaining to the issue of retrenchment is produced by the 1st Party Trade Union, no authorisation by concerned workmen enabling Sh. Gadad Veeranna, Secretary of the Union / WW-1 to sign the claim statement is shown. That raises doubt about the Authority of Sh. Gadad Veeranna to pursue the dispute. The correctness of the statement of calculation as worked out by the 2nd Party in reference to each individual workman is not disputed, the receipt and utilisation of the compensation is established through Bank Statement Ex M-23 and Ex M-24. It is also the fundamental principle of the Evidence Act that, it is the burden of the Party who alleges a fact to prove the said fact. The oral evidence adduced by 1st Party fails to take over the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : नवम्बर 14, 2020/कार्तिक 23, 1942 2877 documentary proof in respect of date of payment of retrenchment compensation on 31.12.2012. As already observed, there was no requirement for the 2nd Party to obtain permission from the Government to comply the conditions under Sec 25-N of 'the Act' since the workmen strength did not exceed 100. For the discussion supra, I hold that retrenchment of the employees of Tungabhadra Minerals Pvt. Ltd., is valid and the terminal benefits paid by the Management was sufficient. The workmen are not entitled for any further relief under this reference.

AWARD

The Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 28th October, 2020)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/108/2008-आईआर (सीएम-I)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी/अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2020

S.O. 1017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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.11 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 04.11.2020.

[No. L-20012/108/2008-IR(CM-I)]

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. 11/2009

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area 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 : 31.07.20202878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 14, 2020/KARTIKA 23, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/108/2008 IR (CM-1)) 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:

SCHEDULE

"i) Whether the action of the Management of Kusunda Colliery of Kusunda Area of

M/s. BCCL in denying regularization as Trammers to Shri Somar Turi and 26 other

M/Loaders is justified and legal? ii) To what reliefs are the workmen concerned entitled

and from what date?"

Name of the employees working as Trammers:

1. Shri Somar Turi 2. Shri Sipahi Yadav

3. Shri Rajak Mian 4. Shri Rudal Chamar

5. Shri Balkishun Yadav 6. Shri Bittu Lal

7. Shri Amin Manjhi 8. Shri Darogi Mahato

9. Shri Rameshwar Mahato 10. Shri Rathu Gope

11. Shri Ganauri Paswan 12. Shri Nemu Bhuian

13. Shri Josh lal Saw 14. Shri Ramjee Bhuian

15. Shri Baleshwar Singh 16. Shri Sagir Ansari

17. Shri Lodha Tudu 18. Shri Tahir Mian (02502854)

19. Shri Afjal Ansari 20. Shri Md. Asir Ansari

21. Shri Tahir Mian (02928042) 22. Shri Ram Sajan Sharma

23. Shri Brihaspat Nonia 24. Shri Dashrath Bhuian

25. Shri Munshi Saw 26. Shri Bipin Tudu

27. Shri Ram Jagan Bhar

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 management has left appearing before the Tribunal and this case was reserved for 'No Dispute' Award on 13/02/2017 but award was not passed due to retirement of P.O. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to workman/union which returned with endorsement of " The office is always locked". 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

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.