6347 GI/2020

(1)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 01]

नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 3—िनवरी 9, 2021 िजनवार/ पौष 13— पौष 19, 1942

No. 01] NEW DELHI, JANUARY 3 – JANUARY 9, 2021, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 13–PAUSHA 19, 1942

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उप- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 6 िनवरी, 2021

का. आ. 1.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिजन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1980 (1980 का 40) की

िारा 3 की उप-िारा (2क) के िूसरे परंतुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, भारती

ररिवज बैंक के परामिज से, एतद्द्वारा, पंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक की प्राजिकषत पूंिी को तीन ििार करोड़ रुपए से बढाकर

िस ििार करोड़ रुपए करती िज।

[फा. सं. 11/8/2019–बीओए-I]

ज्ञानोतोष रा , अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-18012021-224515

CG-DL-W-18012021-224515

2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2021

S.O. 1.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (2A) of section 3 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), the Central

Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby increases the authorised capital of the

Punjab and Sind Bank from three thousand crore rupees to ten thousand crore rupees.

[F. No. 11/8/2019-BOA-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

जविेि मंत्राल

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दि ल् ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2020

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

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, लंिन में जनम्नजलज त सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारर ों

को दिनांक 14 दिसंबर, 2020 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवजिन के जलए

प्राजिकषत करती िज।

1. श्री रमन गुप् ता

2. श्री कौिल दकिोर रा ौर

3. श्री जवकास श्रीवास्ट् तव

[सं. टी-4330/09/2020]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाज, जनिेिक (सी.पी.वी.)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S.O. 2.—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 authorizes the following

Assistant Section Officers in the High Commissin of India, London as Assistant Consular Officers to perform

the consular services with effect from 14^th December, 2020.

Shri Raman Gupta

Shri Koshal Kishor Rathor

Shri Vikas Shri Vastava

[No. T-4330/09/2020]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

नई दि ल् ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 3.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, माले में श्री रामबीर ससंि, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक 17 दिसंबर, 2020 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवजिन के जलए प्राजिकषत

करती िज।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाज, जनिेिक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2020

S.O. 3.—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 authorizes Shri

Rambir Singh, Assistant Section Officer in High Commission of India Male as Assistant Consular Officer to

perform the consular services with effect from 17 December, 2020.

[No.T-4330/01/2015]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

नई दि ल् ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 4.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, ारतूम में श्री उमेि ािव, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक 31 दिसम्बर, 2020 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवजिन के जलए प्राजिकषत

करती िज।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाज, जनिेिक (सीपीवी)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S.O. 4.—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

Umesh Yadav, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Khartoum to

perform the Consular services with effect from 30 December, 2020.

[No.T-4330/01/2016]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

कार्मजक, लोक जिका त और पेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मजक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दि ल् ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 5.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदक्र ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री कुलिीप िंकरराव पारटल, अजिविा और श्री िेतेन िामराव वेनेगवाकर,

4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अजिवक् ता को, मुंबई जस्ट् त बाम्बे उच्च न् ा ाल में दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन (केन् री अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा

अन्वेजषत अजभ ोिन, अपील, पुनरीक्षण और उससे संबंजित अन् मामलों के संचालन के जलए, जन ुजि की तारी से

तीन वषज के जलए ा अगले आिेि तक, इनमें से िो भी पूवजतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प प में जन ुक् त करती

िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/13/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S. O. 5.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Kuldeep Shankarrao Patil, Advocate

and Shri Hiten Shamrao Venegvakar, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutors of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai for conducting the

prosecution, appeal, revision and other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/13/2019-AVD. II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 6.—केन् र सरकारत एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् सरकारत के

उत्तर प्रिेि गषि (पुजलस) अनुभाग-11, ल नऊ के आिेि सं. 878(i)/6-पी-11-2018-301एम/2018त दिनांक

12 जसतंबरत 2018 के माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, जसजवल लाईन ानात इलािाबाि में भारती िण्ड संजिता

(1860 का 45) की िाराएं 409त 418त 420त 421त 467त 471त 477त 201त 120-बी के तित ििज मामला अपराि

सं. 295/2017; और कैंट ानात इलािाबाि में भारती िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 419त 420त 409त

467त 468त 471त 120बी के तित ििज मामला अपराि सं. 329/2017 से संबंजित अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा

ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ासत िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में

दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना के

सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/50/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S.O. 6.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued vide Order No. 878(i)/6-P-11-2018-301M/2018 dated

12^th September, 2018 of Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Grih (Police) Anubhag - 11, Lucknow, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar

Pradesh for investigation into the offences(s) relating to Case Crime No. 295/2017, under sections 409, 418,

420, 421, 467, 471, 477, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Civil

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Line, Allahabad; and Case Crime No. 329/2017, under sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Cantt., Allahabad and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/50/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्लीत 31 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 7.—केंरी सरकारत िंड प्रदक्र ा संजितात 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुएत श्रीमजत सोजन ा मा ुरत वररष्ठ अजिविा और श्री सुिील कुमार िुबेत अजिविात

दिल्ली िाई कोटजत दिल्ली में दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संजस्ट् तत आरसी 8(एस)/2006/

सीबीआई/एससीबी-II/एससी-III (सीबीआई बनाम अिाि उल िक और अन् ) से उत्पन्न िोने वाली अपील ा अन्

संबंजित मामले और उससे संबंजित अन् मामलों ा आनुषांजगक मामलों में केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो की ओर से

उपजस्ट् त िोने और अजभक न करने के जलए जन ुजि की तारी से तीन वषज की अवजि के जलए ा अपील ा मामले

के जनपटान िोने तकत इनमें से िो भी पिले िोत जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प प में जन ुि करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/19/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate and

Shri Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor to appear and plead on behalf of Central

Bureau of Investigation, in the appeal and other related matters arising out of RC 8 (S)/2006/CBI /SCB-II/SC-

III (CBI Vs Azaz ul Haq and others) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Delhi

High Court at Delhi and any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto for a period of three years

from the date of appointment or disposal of the appeal or case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/19/2019-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 6 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 8.—केन् र सरकारत एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए िरर ाणा सरकार, गषि जवभाग,

चंडीगढ के आिेि सं. 20/8/2020-3 एचिीआईत दिनांक 17.10.2020 के माध् म से िारी िरर ाणा राज् सरकार

की सिमजत से भारती िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 346त 365 त ा 302 के अन्तगजत ाना सेक् टर 50त

गुप ग्राम, िरर ाणा में ििज श्री िीरि अिलावत के कज त अपिरण और ित् ा से संबंजित मामला एफआईआर

सं. 249/2020 के संबंि में दकए गए अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे

संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ासत िु्‍प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न

दकसी अन् अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार

का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त िरर ाणा राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/32/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2021

S.O. 8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Haryana, issued vide Order No. 20/8/2020-3HGI dated 17.10.2020 of Haryana

Government, Home Department, Chandigarh, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Haryana for investigation into the offence(s) relating to

Case FIR No. 249/2020 registered at Police Station Sector-50, Gurugram, Haryana, under sections 346, 365 and

302 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) pertaining to alleged kidnapping and murder of one Shri Dheeraj

Ahalawat and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No.228/32/2020-AVD-II]

S. P.R TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ÍëÃ÷âëãÔÒÑ áâìÓ Íýâ»öãÈ» ½ìÖ ÑïÝâÔÒ

नई दिल् ली, 5 िनवरी, 2021

»â.áâ. 9.—»ën¨äÒ ÖÓ»âÓ »âë #ëÖâ ÍýÈäÈ ÚâëÈâ Úì ã» Ôâë»ãÚÈ Ñëe ÒÚ áâÕSÒ» Úì ã» ÚâæÅ÷í»âÏôÌ »ë ÍãÓÕÚÌ »ë ãÔ# Ñçï¨â

- ÐÃIÅâ ãÕsÈöãÈ»ÓÇ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ - Ý½Åä Öë ½çïÊâÔâ È» »ë Ñâ½ô áë¿.Íä.Öä.#Ô.- ãÑtÈÔ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ ãÔãÑÃëÅ, Ñçï¨â, ãÁlÔâ. »cÀ,

ÓâjÒ ½çÁÓâÈ ]âÓâ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ ãÏÀâæ ÁâÌä ¿âãÚ#.

áâìÓ »ën¨äÒ ÖÓ»âÓ »âë #ëÖä ÍâæÍÔâænÖ ãÏÀâÌë »ë ãÔ# áâÕSÒ» ÍýÈäÈ ÚâëÈâ Úì ã» #ëÖä ÐèãÑ Ñe Áâë åÖÖë éÍâÏ} áÌçÖèã¿

Ñe ÕãÇôÈ Úì, áâìÓ ãÁÖÑe ékÈ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ ãÏÀâæ ÁâÌä Úì éÖ»â ÓÜÇ ÚëÈç éÍÒâë½ »ë áãË»âÓ »â áÁôÌ ã»Òâ Áâ#ñ

áÈð áÏ, »ën¨äÒ ÖÓ»âÓ, ÍëÃ÷âëãÔÒÑ áâìÓ ¼ãÌÁ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ (ÐèãÑ Ñe éÍÒâë½ »ë áãË»âÓ »â áÁôÌ) áãËãÌÒÑ,1962

(1962 »â 50) »ä ËâÓâ 3 »ä éÍËâÓâ (1) ]âÓâ ÍýÊù ×ãkÈÒâe »â ÍýÒâë½ »ÓÈë Úç# éÖ ÐèãÑ Ñe éÍÒâë½ »ë áãË»âÓ »â áÁôÌ »ÓÌë »ë

áÍÌë áâ×Ò »ä घोषणा »ÓÈä Úì ð

»âëæ vÒãkÈ, Áâë ékÈ áÌçÖè¿ä Ñe ÕãÇôÈ ÐèãÑ Ñe ãÚÈÏ} Úì, éÖ ÈâÓä¼ Öë ãÁÖ»âë åÖ áãËÖè¿Ìâ Ñe ÒçkÈ ÐâÓÈ »ë ÓâÁÍÝ

»ä ÍýãÈÒâï ÖâËâÓÇ ÁÌÈâ »âë éÍÔbË »Óâ Êä ÁâÈä Úì, åk»äÖ ãÊÌ »ë ÐäÈÓ, ÐèãÑ »ë Ìä¿ë ÍâåÍÔâæÌ ãÏÀâ# ÁâÌë »ë ãÔ# éÖÑe

éÍÒâë½ »ë áãË»âÓ »ë ÖïÏnË Ñe Ùä ÖÜÑ ÍýâãË»âÓä, áë¿.Íä.Öä.áëÔ. - ãÑ^âÔ ÍâæÍÔâænÖ ãÔÑäÃëÅ, Ñçï¨â, ãÁlÔâ »cÀ, ½çÁÓâÈ

(ÍýânÈ áãË»âÓä / ÖÚâÒ» »ÔëkÃÓ, ½çÁÓâÈ ÖÓ»âÓ, ÍýânÈ nÒâÒâÔÒ, Ñçï¨â, ãÁlÔâ »cÀ »âë ãÔã¼È रूÍ Ñe áâÜëÍ ÐëÁ Ö»ë½âó

áÌçÖè¿ä

ãÁÔâ ð »cC

ÓâjÒ ð ½çÁÓâÈ

Sr.

No.

Village

Tehsil

Survey Number

Sub.Div.

No.

Area

Ha.

Are

Sq.Mt.

Ý½Åä

ÑâïÅÕä

Govt.260

270

Govt.260

220

ÑâïÅÕä

Govt.226

ÌâÌâ ’ÐâÅäÒâ

ÑâïÅÕä

Govt.553 P

303

Govt.553 P

122

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ÌâÌâ ’ÐâÅäÒâ

ÑâïÅÕä

121

»âïÅâ½Óâ ÑâëÃâ

Ñçï¨â

385

388

390

396

398

394

402

393

489

Road

517P Govt.

506

507

484

508

483

509

482

33 Govt.

8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

»âïÅâ½Óâ ÑâëÃâ

Ñçï¨â

517 P - River

122

121

120

150

149

Road

148

146

147

517P Govt.

159

¼â¼Ó ÑâëÃä

Ñçï¨â

213

228

227

226

233 Canal

234

235

224

223

239

Cart Track

222

221

241

528-Cart Track

105

107

106

99 Gram

Panchayat

97 Gram

Panchayat

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

¼â¼Ó ÑâëÃä

Ñçï¨â

48-Gauchar

526-Cart Track

520 - NH Road

460

461

459

458

463

456

455 Govt.

Êë×ÔÍÓ

Ñçï¨â

405

Govt. 570 P

430

423

424

429

428

Govt. 570 P

Cart Track

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Êë×ÔÍÓ

Ñçï¨â

Govt. 570 P

Govt. 97

Govt. 570 P

100

Cart Track

132

131

121

122

123

124

Cart Track

River

½ëÔÅâ

Ñçï¨â

382

Govt.383

Govt.384

412-Cart Track

Govt.387

389

388

378-Gauchar

379

376 Govt.

375

410-Road

309

350

349

311

312

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

½ëÔÅâ

Ñçï¨â

347

313

314 Govt.

317

316

315

321 Govt.

414-Nala

322

323

242

ÐçÁÍçÓ ÑâëÃä – 2

Ñçï¨â

423

424

713

ÍýÈâÍÍçÓ– 2

Ñçï¨â

1 – P Govt.

Íýâ½ÍÓ - 2

Ñçï¨â

Nala

Govt. 65P

Govt. 65 P

ÏÓâÒâ

Ñçï¨â

22 Govt.

506-Road

504-Road

141 Govt.

156

160-Gauchar

12 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ÏÓâÒâ

Ñçï¨â

231 -Road

238

237

489-Road

244

246

247

248

330

328

491-Road

327

326

325

324

323

322

317

321

320

318 Govt.

319

277 Govt.

276

278

280

281 Govt.

284

285

286

287

288

289

Íýâ½ÍÓ - 1

Ñçï¨â

219

229

231

ãÕÓâÌäÒâ

Ñçï¨â

351-Gauchar

345

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ãÕÓâÌäÒâ

Ñçï¨â

344

343

ÐâëÓâÓâ

Ñçï¨â

293

317-Cart Track

282

283

286

319

320

356

357

353

352

349

346

347

344

½çïÊâÔâ

Ñçï¨â

529

530

531

542

543

Cart Track

550

551

550 NH.Road

552 NH.Road

549

Canal

562 - Canal

561 - Canal

561

Cart Track

555

555 – Road

551

555

Cart Track

14 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

½çïÊâÔâ

Ñçï¨â

7 - Road

585P Govt.

Cart Track

132

585P Govt.

134

134 - Road

135

136

137

585P Govt.

200

199

198

585P Govt.

198

194

193

210

585P Govt.

214

[फा. सं. आर-12031/2/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26406]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2021

S.O. 9.—Where as it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest and

safety that for the Transportation of Hydrocarbon through Mundra – Bathinda Extension Pipeline from Tragadi

to Gundala route, pipeline should be laid by HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat.

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of protection of the said

pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is to be laid, and

which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government

hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule may submit objection in

writing to the Competent Authority, HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat (Prant

Officer / Assistant Collector, Government of Gujarat, Prant court, Mundra, Dist. Kutch) within twenty one days

from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, is

published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : KUTCH

STATE : GUJARAT

Sr.

No.

Village

Tehsil

Survey Number

Sub.Div.

No.

Area

Ha.

Are

Sq.Mt.

Tragadi

Mandavi

Govt.260

270

Govt.260

220

Govt.226

Nana Bhadiya

Mandavi

Govt.553 P

303

Govt.553 P

122

121

Kandagara Mota

Mundra

385

388

390

396

398

394

402

393

489

Road

517P Govt.

506

507

16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kandagara Mota

Mundra

484

508

483

509

482

33 Govt.

517 P - River

122

121

120

150

149

Road

148

146

147

517P Govt.

159

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Khakhar Moti

Mundra

213

228

227

226

233 Canal

234

235

224

223

239

Cart Track

222

221

241

528-Cart Track

105

107

106

99 Gram Panchayat

97 Gram Panchayat

48-Gauchar

526-Cart Track

18 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Khakhar Moti

Mundra

520 - NH Road

460

461

459

458

463

456

455 Govt.

Deshalpar

Mundra

405

Govt. 570 P

430

423

424

429

428

Govt. 570 P

Cart Track

Govt. 570 P

Govt. 97

Govt. 570 P

100

Cart Track

132

131

121

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Deshalpar

Mundra

122

123

124

Cart Track

River

Gelda

Mundra

382

Govt.383

Govt.384

412-Cart Track

Govt.387

389

388

378-Gauchar

379

376 Govt.

375

410-Road

309

350

349

311

312

347

313

314 Govt.

317

316

315

321 Govt.

414-Nala

322

323

242

Bhujpar Moti-II

Mundra

423

424

713

20 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pratappar– II

Mundra

1 – P Govt.

Pragpar– II

Mundra

Nala

Govt. 65P

Govt. 65 P

Baraya

Mundra

22 Govt.

506-Road

504-Road

141 Govt.

156

160-Gauchar

231 -Road

238

237

489-Road

244

246

247

248

330

328

491-Road

327

326

325

324

323

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Baraya

Mundra

322

317

321

320

318 Govt.

319

277 Govt.

276

278

280

281 Govt.

284

285

286

287

288

289

Pragpar– I

Mundra

219

229

231

Viraniya

Mundra

351-Gauchar

345

344

343

Bhorara

Mundra

293

317-Cart Track

282

283

286

319

320

356

357

353

352

349

346

347

22 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bhorara

Mundra

344

Gundala

Mundra

529

530

531

542

543

Cart Track

550

551

550 NH.Road

552 NH.Road

549

Canal

562 - Canal

561 - Canal

561

Cart Track

555

555 – Road

551

555

Cart Track

7 - Road

585P Govt.

Cart Track

132

585P Govt.

134

134 - Road

135

136

137

585P Govt.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

Gundala

Mundra

200

199

198

585P Govt.

198

194

193

210

585P Govt.

214

[F. No. R-12031/2/2018-OR-I/E-26406]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 5 िनवरी, 2021

का. आ. 10.—केन्री सरकार, पेरोजल म और जनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उप ोग के अजिकार के अिजन)

अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 के ण् ड (क) के अनुसरण में और पेरोजल म एवं प्राकषजतक गजस

मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के का. आ. 2967(अ). दिनांक 12 जसतम्बर, 2016 एवं का. आ. 2891(अ). दिनांक 30

अगस्ट्त, 2017, की अजिसूचना के संिोिन में उक् त अजिजन म के अिीन गुिरात राज् के राज् क्षेत्र के भीतर

जिन् िुस्ट् तान पेरोजल म कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड की मुन्रा दिल्ली पाईपलाईन और पालनपुर वड़ोिरा पाईपलाईन के जलए

सक्षम अजिकारी के का ों का जनवजिन करने के जलए प्रांत अजिकारी, पालनपुर, जिला बनासकां ा को प्राजिकषत करती

िज। ि अजिसूचना की तारी से लागू िोता िज ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/5/2019-ओआर-I/ई-30377]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2021

S. O. 10.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in modification of Notification of the Government of India in

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 2967(E) dated the 12^th September 2016 and S.O. No. 2891(E)

dated the 30^th August 2017, the Central Government hereby authorizes Prant Officer, Palanpur, Dist.

Banaskantha to perform the functions of Competent Authority for HPCL’s Mundra Delhi Pipeline and Palanpur

Vadodara Pipeline under the said Act, within the territory of Gujarat State. This is applicable from the date of

notification.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/5/2019-OR-I/E-30377]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

24 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

वाजणज् एवं उ्ोग मंत्राल

(वाजणज् जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 11.—केन्री सरकार, जन ाजत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963

(1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के सा पर त जन ाजत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964

के जन म 12, के उपजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससज एसिीएस इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड,

पारािीप पोटज रस्ट्ट एम्प्लॉईस को-ओपेरेरटव, एट सि ोग जबसल्डंग, प्लॉट नंबर 474, ि िेव मागज – पारािीप पोटज

75412 (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण माना िाएगा) को इस अजिसूचना के िासकी रािपत्र में प्रकािन की

तारी से तीन वषज की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की

अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िज्‍ ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 के तित

प्रकाजित अजिसूचना मे उपाबद्ध अनुसूजच ों में जवजनर्िजष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-I, अ ाजत लौि अ स्ट्क, के

जन ाजत से पूवज जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन पारािीप पत्तन, गोपालपुर पत्तन और िामरा पत्तन, में उक् त जनि और

अ स्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ाजत् :

(i)

ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। के जन ाजत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 जन म 4 के अिीन

जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जल े जन ाजत जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्िजष्ट

अजिकारर ों को प ाजप्त सुजविाएं िेगी; और

(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्िज्‍ ट अपने का ो का जन्‍ पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक

(जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ाजत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा सम -सम पर, जलज त प प में, दिए

गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/16/2020- जन ाजत जनरीक्षण]

दिवाकर ना जमसरा, सं ुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2021

S. O. 11.— 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 recognizes M/s SGS India Private Limited, Paradip Port Trust Employees

Co-operative, AT Sahayog Building, Plot No. 474, Jaydev Marg, Paradip Port-754142, as an agency (hereinafter referred to

as the said 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 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to

export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Gopalpur Port and Dhamra 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 carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(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-16014/16/2020- Export Inspection]

DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2020

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

iatkc ,.M fla/k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 01@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@2@2009-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2020

S.O. 12.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab

& Sind Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.12.2020.

[No. L-12012/2/2009-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01/2009

Date of Passing Award- 17^th November, 2020

Between:

Shri B.B. Anand,

S/o Shri Bhagwan Dass,

R/o –50/10, Ashok Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.

… Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank,

21, Rajindra Place,

New Delhi-110008.

… Management

Appearances:-

Shri D.M. Sharma (A/R)

: For the claimant

Smt. Kittu Bajaj (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-12012/2/2009 IR (B-II) dated 21^st January, 2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi in imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri B.B. Anand is legal and justified. What relief the

concerned union/workmen are entitled to?”

26 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As stated in the claim statement, the claimant B.B. Anand was serving with the management Bank as a

clerk cum cashier since 1980. During his posting as such in the Branch of the Bank at Narayana, on 22.1.2005,

after closure of cash, a shortage of cash of Rs1,45,750/- was detected in 109 packets of GC Notes . The claimant

being the cashier and custodian of the cash in his official capacity, was primarily held responsible for the

shortage .on the same day he deposited 1,10,000/- and on 24.1.2005, deposited the balance 35,750/- thereby

making up the shortage. However on 8.2.2005, show cause notice was served on him contemplating initiation of

departmental proceeding. After consideration of his reply, charge was framed and one departmental inquiry

alleging misconduct was held in which the claimant participated and took a stand of innocence and false

implication. The inquiry ended on 5.11.2005 with a finding that the charge against the delinquent/claimant

stands proved. The disciplinary Authority thereafter served the copy of the inquiry report on the claimant calling

him to show cause as to why punishment shall not be imposed on him for the misconduct proved. The claimant

submitted his reply and after taking the same into consideration, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of

compulsory retirement, which was communicated to him on 22.5.2006. Being aggrieved the claimant first

preferred a writ application before the Hon’ble High Court and then raised a dispute before the appropriate

Govt., which referred the same for adjudication by this Tribunal on the legality of the punishment imposed on

the claimant.

On completion of pleadings by both the parties i.e the claimant and management of the bank, issues

were framed and the issue relating to the fairness and legality in conduct of the domestic inquiry was taken up

for consideration at the first instance as the preliminary issue. Considering the evidence adduced and documents

placed on record by both the parties, an order dated 17.10.2019 was passed by this tribunal in this proceeding

that the domestic inquiry was conducted following the rules and procedure and proper opportunity was given to

the delinquent/claimant to set up his defence. It was also held that principles of natural justice were followed

and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority holding the claimant guilty of misconduct does not suffer from any

infirmity or illegality. Thus order was passed giving opportunity to the claimant as well as the respondent bank

to adduce evidence on the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the claimant. But none of the parties

opted to adduce evidence and argument was heard on 11.2.2020 and matter was reserved for passing of the

Award.

The learned AR for the claimant during course of argument submitted that the claimant in this matter

has been falsely implicated as no cash was directly received by him from the customer. It is one Ajit Singh who

had received the same. But no inquiry was held against him nor he was examined as a witness. On the contrary

the claimant apprehending danger to his service and carrier made deposit of the short amount on two

installments, for which no loss was caused to the Bank. But the management did not consider these aspects and

imposed the harshest and major punishment of compulsory retirement on him, which is disproportionate to the

charge proved. He thereby pleaded for modification of the same.

The learned A R for the Bank on the contrary submitted that the alleged incident is an instance of loss

of faith of the employer on the employee. Moreover the Bank deals with public money on the basis of faith

reposed on it by the customers. Though no loss was incurred by the Bank for the alleged incident, the admission

of guilt by the claimant has consequence of loss of faith and the management has rightly and appropriately

passed the order of compulsory retirement as a mode of punishment against the claimant which needs no

interference.

This tribunal in view of the arguments advanced has to give a finding on the proportionality of the

punishment imposed on the claimant. In the case of Muriadih Colliery VS Bihar Coalliery Kamgar Union

(2005) 3 SCC331, the Hon’ble SC have held

“it is well-established principle in law that in a given circumstance, it is open for the Industrial

Tribunal acting u/s 11-A of the I D Act 1947 to interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic

inquiry for good and valid reasons. If the tribunal decides to interfere with such punishment awarded in

domestic inquiry, it should bear in mind the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the

offence and stringency of the punishment.”

In this matter the claimant soon after the detection of the shortfall of cash made deposit of the amount

which amounts to his admission of the guilt. More over while deciding the preliminary issue it has already been

held that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner following the principles of natural justice and the charge

against the delinquent has been properly proved. Now it is left to be examined if the punishment imposed

commensurate the gravity of the charge proved. For doing so it is necessary for this tribunal to advert to all the

points raised during the hearing of this proceeding. The learned A R for the management while supporting the

order of the Disciplinary Authority, submitted that the admission of guilt by the claimant leading to deposit of

short fall has left no room for interference by the Tribunal. In his counter reply the learned A R for the claimant

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

while citing the case of P.V.K. Distilary Ltd V. Mahendra Ram (2009)5 SCC 705,argued that the Tribunal has

wide discretion in the matters of awarding punishment or modifying the same.

Whether a misconduct is severe or otherwise depends on the facts of each particular case. In a case

where the charge is about misappropriation of public money, no doubt the same is serious in nature. More over

the finding in this case is based upon the documentary evidence placed on record.

In the case of Regional Manager U.P.S R TC, Etawah & others VS Hotilal and another, 2003 (3)

SCC 605, referred in the later case ofU.P.SRTC VS Nanhelal Kushwaha (2009) 8 SCC, 772,the Hon’ble

Apex Court have held that “The court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record

reason as to why it is felt that the punishment inflicted was not commensurate with the proved charge. A mere

statement that the punishment is not proportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved ,but the

mental set up, the type of the duty performed and similar relevant circumstances, which go into the decision

making process are to be considered while deciding the proportionality of the punishment awarded. If the

charged employee holds a position of trust where Honesty and Integrity are in built requirements of functioning,

it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.”

Where a person deals with public money or engaged in financial transaction, or acts in a fiduciary

capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is required. But in this matter the claimant, a banker

by profession, for his own action could not stand the test of trustworthiness. Thus judged in that background, the

claimant of this proceeding while working in the capacity of clerk cum cashier lost the trust of his employer and

the later aptly imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on him which is proportionate to the

misconduct committed by him.

The reference is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is accordingly decided against the claimant and it is held that the

punishment of compulsory Retirement imposed on the claimant by the Management is legal, just and proper.

The claimant is not entitled to any relief. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

17^th November, 2020

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2020

का.आ

13.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 119@2013½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@67@2013-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2020

S.O. 13.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union

Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.12.2020.

[No. L-12012/67/2013-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 119/2013

Date of Passing Award- 19^th November, 2020

Between:

Shri Usman,

S/o Shri Matiullah,

Moh.. Khalil Sharki,

Tehsil Sadar,

Distt. Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

… Claimant

Versus

Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Sadar,

Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Arvind Kumar (A/R)

: For the claimant

Shri Rajat Arora (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of Union Bank of India, Sadar, and its workman/claimant

herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

vide letter No. L-12012/67/2013 IR (B-II) dated 09.10.2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following

effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Sadar, Shahjahanpur branch in

terminating the services of workman Shri Usman without complying with section F,G,H of the ID Act,

1947 is justified? What relief workman is entitled to?”

As per the claim statement the claimant/workman was working as a peon in the Union Bank of India in

its Branch at Tehsil Sadar Shahajahanpur U.P Since 19.06.2005 the duty assigned to him was cleaning the bank

premises served water Tea etc to the staff and carry the vouchers from one place to the others and attained any

other work as per the instruction of the bank staff. He was discharging his duty with hard labour to the utmost

satisfaction of the employer and at no point of time any complained was made against him. But the management

was not maintaining attendance register pay register, in respect of his employment and not providing PF, ESI,

Minimum wages, Leave salary, bonus, overtime etc. not only that the workman was being compelled to work

from 7.a.m to 7.P.M without overtime dues being paid to him. When he demanded his legitimated dues the

management develops enmity towards him and even delayed to pay his earned wages amounting to Rs. 52,094/-

for the period 01.01.2008 to 30.04.2010. On 19.06.2010 when he renewed his demand for the said money the

management on that day abused misbehaved and terminated his service after obtaining his signature forcefully

on various papers. The termination was illegal since no notice for termination or termination compensation etc

was paid to him nor any notice to showcause was served. No disciplinary action was ever taken against him on

23.07.2010 the workman served a demand notice for his illegal and arbitrary termination by the management.

Since, no action was taken on the same, 9on 12.10.2012 the workman gave a representation to the ministry of

labour and employment and the matter came up for conciliation. The bank officials appeared and joint

discussions were held but no fruitful result came out. Thus, the appropriate government referred the matter for

adjudication as referred above.

The management being served with the notice appeared and filed written statement refuting the stand

taken by the workman. It has been specifically stated that there existed no employer and employee relationship

between the claimant and the management. The management Bank is a public sector Bank having its own rules

and regulations for employment. The claimant was never appointed/recruited by the Bank through the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

sponsorship of the employment exchange or by any other mode of recruitment mandated by the government. His

name never appeared in the muster roll of the Bank nor he was ever paid salary out of the salary account of the

Bank, from where all regular employees of the Bank are paid salaries. It has been clarified that the workman not

being an employee of the Bank, the allegation made by him about illegal termination is false and vague. It has

also been stated that during the relevant period there was acute shortage of supply of electricity in the state of

UP as well as at Shahajahanpur where the branch office of the bank is located. Thus, the Branch manager of

Shahajahanpur had hired the Generator from one Ragib Ali Khan to supplement an electric supply. The

Generator so hired on rent was to be operated by a man and the service provider Ragib Ali by his letter dated

10.04.2010 had informed the Branch manager that one Shri Usman (claimant) previously engaged by him to

operate the generator on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 2000/- has been removed from service for his illness and

frequent absent w.e.f March 2010. Thus, the claim of the claimant that he was illegally removed from service is

baseless and false.

On these rival pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India Sadar Shahajahanpur Branch in

terminating the service of Usman without complying with section 25-F,G,H of the Id Act is

justified?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.

The claimant has examined himself as WW1/1. Similarly the management examined one of the retired

managers as MW1 who proved the documents MW1/1 to MW1/2. Both the witnesses were cross examined by

the adversary.

ISSUE NO. 1

It is a decided principle of law that the person claiming employer employee relationship carries the

burden of proving the same. Thus, in this case the claimant/workman is under the obligation of proving the said

relationship. Except his oral evidence no other evidence has placed on record to prove the same. He has filed

photocopy of one salary register wherein his name appears showing payment of sum amount for month of July

2009 to April 2010. But this photocopy doesn’t contain the signature of the DDO with his official seal to attach

authenticity to the same. The witness who has all along pleaded to be an employee of the Bank during cross

examination has stated that he was called by the Branch Manager and his interview was taken. No one else had

appeared in the interview except him. Being asked about the salary slip he also stated that except some vouchers

no other paper is with him to prove that he was getting salary from the bank. Again being asked about his

employment registration no. he denied to have the same. On the other hand the ex-manager of the Bank

examined as MW1 has stated that he was working as the management of that bank from September 2009 to June

2012. During that period the claimant was never working as an employee of the Bank. But he was working as

the operator of the Generator set supply on rent by an outsider Ragib Ali Khan and the claimant was being

engaged as the operator. He had further added that in January 2011 Ragib Ali Khan removed his generator from

the Bank and the new person was given the contract for the purpose. Thus, the service of the claimant came to

an end with the end of the contract between the bank and Ragib Ali khan. He has thereby denied the claim of the

workman and his relationship with the bank as ex-employee. Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence

placed on record that one and only conclusion is that the claimant was never the employee of the management

Bank and his service was never terminated illegally by the Bank. This issue is accordingly answered against the

claimant.

Issue NO. 2

In view of the finding in respect of issue No. 1, the issue no.2 is decided against the claimant and it is

held that he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, ordered

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered against the claimant and he is held not entitled to the relief

sought for. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section

17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

19^th November, 2020.

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY Presiding Officer

30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम् बर, 2020

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

सरकार मेससज अध् क्ष और प्रबंि जनिेिक, सोमा एंटरप्राइिेि जलजमटेड, िजिराबाि -, और अन् एवं उनके कमजचारी

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमजकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औ्ोजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औ्ोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , एनाजकुलम, के पंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 22/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को 22.12.20 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2020

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

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

relation to The Chairman & Managing Director, Soma Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad. & Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.12.20.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Wednesday the 9^th day of December 2020, 18 Agrahayana 1941)

ID No. 22/2017

Workman

Tapas Ghosh

Hijal Pukuria (near ESSO Pump)

Habra, 24 Parganas (N)

West Bengal – 743271

Now residing at

C/o Atul Shaji

Thachery, PRS 101

Fathima Church Road north end

(Kumaranasan Road east end)

Kochi – 682020

By M/s.Mathews K.Philip

Management

: 1.

The Chairman & Managing Director

M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd

2, Avenue, 4, Banjara Hills

Hyderabad – 500034

The Project Manager

M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd

Near St.Anns School, Eloor

Udyogamandal

Kalamassery – 683501

By Adv. Mathews K.Uthuppachan

This case coming up for final hearing on 09.12.2020 and the same day this Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court passed the following:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

AWARD

Present industrial dispute is filed U/s 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

According to the workman he worked with the management 1 and 2 for the period from 19.12.2014-

21.01.2017. His services were terminated w.e.f. 21.01.2017 by a letter dt.21.01.2017. No notice or notice pay

was given to him under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore his termination is illegal. He is entitled to

receive Rs.13,71,932/- under various heads. He approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and

due to the non co-operation of the management, the conciliation efforts failed. The management filed written

statement denying the above allegations. The workman also filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the

management.

When the matter was posted for evidence of the workman, the workman field an affidavit

dt. 28.07.2020 informing that the dispute between himself and the management are amicably settled between

the parties on the condition that management shall give Rs.5 lac in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Since the dispute is settled out of Court, there is nothing to be adjudicated in the present dispute before this

Tribunal.

Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed and the dispute is answered accordingly.

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 9^th day of December,

2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 15.—औ्ोजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससज मिाप्रबंिक, अिोक िोटल, नई दिल्ली और अन् एवं उनके कमजचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और उनके कमजकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औ्ोजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली-2 के पंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 13/2013) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को िाडज और

सॉफ्ट कॉपी 28.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/31/2012-आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2020

S.O. 15.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2013) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager, Ashok Hotel, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received

by the Central Government With Hard and soft Copy on 28.12.2020.

[No. L-42011/31/2012-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 13/2013

Date of Passing Award- 19^th November, 2020

Between:

Shri Dilip Singh,

L/R substituted Smt. Sushila

Through the President,

Ashok Hotel Staff Qrtr, C-48-49, 50-B,

Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi.

… Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Ashok Hotel,

50-B, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi.

… Management

Appearances:-

Shri S.S. Upadhaya (A/R)

: For the claimant

None for the Management (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of Ashoka Hotel, and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-42011/31/2012 IR (DU) dated 06/07/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Ashok Hotel New Delhi in regard to stoppage of two annual

increment with cumulative effect, imposed by General Manager (Ashok Hotel) vide order dated

14.01.2008 to workman Shri Dilip Singh, Ex-technical Grade-III is justified or not. If not, to what

relief the workman Shri Dilip Singh S/o Shri Jatin Singh, Ex-technical grade-III, token No.4539 is

entitled to and from which date?’’

As per the claim statement the workman Dilip Singh was working with the management of Ashok

Hotel as a regular employee as tech-III. On 21.05.2006 he was placed under suspension and on 17.07.2006

charge sheet alleging misconduct was served on him. The workman by writing letters dated 17.07.2006,

22.07.2006 and 18.08.2006 requested for withdrawal of the charge sheet. The management of Ashok hotel

instead of withdrawing of charge sheet issued the order of inquiry on 04.09.2006 which continued upto

16.01.2007. At the end of the inquiry the workman was found guilty and the charges proved against him. The

said inquiry was never conducted in a fair manner giving proper opportunity to the workman for defence. The

inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority who served a notice on the workman and

imposed the penalty by stopping two of his annual increments with cumulative effect.

Being aggrieved the workman raised a dispute before the labour commissioner where effort for

conciliation failed and the appropriate government referred the matter for adjudication as above.

Being noticed the management of Ashok Hotel appeared and filed the written statement. In the written

statement the management has admitted the claimant to be its ex-employee. It has been stated that the claimant

was charged for grave and serious act of misconduct of drunkenness and indiscipline behavior while in duty and

abusing the seniors. During the departmental inquiry all the procedure of the certified standing order where

followed and proper opportunity for defence was allowed to the claimant. He had also taken the help of the

defence assistant. Thus, basing on the evidence collected the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the

punishment which entails no interference by this tribunal. It has also been stated that the claim petition is not

maintainable for want of espousal.

On this rival contention the following issues were framed.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ISSUES

Whether the action of the management of Ashok Hotel with regard to the stoppage of two annual

increments with cumulative effect by order dated 14.01.2008 of the workman is justified or not?

If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date/

Both parties were called upon to adduce oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of the claimant

Shri S.S Upadhay the president of Ashok Hotel Mazdur Janta Union testified as WW1and prove the documents

relating to espousal. The claimant examined himself as WW2 and prove the documents marked in a series of

WW2/1 to WW2/14. These documents include the show cause notice charge sheet, suspension order, and the

letters written by the claimant for withdrawal of the charge, the inquiry order and the demand notice etc one

more document has been filed which is in the nature of appeal made by the claimant to the appellate authority.

Both the witnesses were cross examined by the management at length by the respondent. During the pendency

of the proceeding the claimant Dilip Singh died and his wife has been substituted by order dated 04.03.2020.

Several opportunities were given to the management for adducing evidence on two occasion cost was imposed

too. But management failed to adduce oral and documentary evidence.

Issue No. 1

The claimant examined as WW2 has stated that on 31.05.2006 he was placed under suspension by the

management without assigning any reason the order of suspension has been marked as WW2/1. He then wrote

letters requesting withdrawal of the suspension order and those letters have been marked as WW2/2 to WW2/04.

But the management did not take any action and on 17.07.2006 served the charge sheet which has been marked

as WW2/05. In the charge sheet false allegation was leveled about his indecent behavior while on duty. He

again wrote letter for withdrawal of the charge sheet but the management did not pay any heed and proceeded

with the domestic inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer P.C Swarnakar in the most illegal and unlawful

manner. No fair opportunity was given to the workman for setting of the defence. The said inquiry officer

submitted his report on 28.11.2007 after one year which is violative of the provision of the certified standing

order of Ashok Hotel which mandates completion of the inquiry within 6 months and service of the charge

within 30 days from the date of the suspension. But in the case of the claimant all these procedure were blatantly

violative. The inquiry officer appreciated the matter in a bias manner though no independent witnesses were

produced by the presenting officer. The appeal made by the claimant was also rejected in a mechanical manner

without considering the defects pointed out by the claimant. He has thereby stated that the report of the inquiry

officer and the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is illegal and not

sustainable in the eye of law. Both WW1 and 2 were cross examined at length but nothing substantial has been

elicited to negative their stand. WW1 has filed certain documents to prove that after proper espousal demand

notice were served on the management and no relief since allowed by the management a dispute was raised

before the labour commissioner.

As stated in the preceding paragraph no evidence has been adduced by the management.

The allegation relates back to the year 2006 and as seen from the record from the very beginning the

workman is disputing the fairness of the inquiry. In such a situation it was incumbent upon the management to

adduce evidence to nullify the allegation. The first and foremost action which could have been taken by the

management before this tribunal was to produce the inquiry proceeding and examined the inquiry officer

Mr. Swarnakar. Neither the documents were produced nor the witnesses were examined to prove the fairness in

the conduct of the inquiry. While dealing with the management contention made in the written statement that no

prejudice has been caused to the workman during the inquiry this tribunal has no other option then taking a view

that the management has tried to withheld the oral and documentary evidence relating to the inquiry. This is a

fatal flaw in the disciplinary proceeding and per-se prejudice was caused to the claimant for non production of

document and non examination of witnesses for the inaction of the management in countering the allegation

made by the claimant it is held that the views and finding of the disciplinary authority are not based on any

evidence available on record of the inquiry proceeding in asmuchas infact the complaint which forms the basis

of the charge sheet against the workman was not at all proved before the inquiry officer. Had that been so done

the management would not have omitted to produce the records of the disciplinary proceeding and would not

have omitted examining the material witnesses despite repeated opportunity granted. In this circumstances the

tribunal is constrained to conclude that the action of the disciplinary authority in substituting his own findings in

respect of the charges appears to be simply based on assumptions and presumptions and are not based on

34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence adduced in the inquiry proceeding and are, therefore not sustainable. That being the position the action

of the management imposing punishment of stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect is held to be

illegal. This issue is accordingly answered in the favour of the workman/claimant.

Issue NO. 2

The claimant in view of the findings of the issue no.1 is held entitled to refixation of his pay after

allowing the increments stopped by the management. He is entitled to the arrear of the same without interest if

would be paid within the time stipulated in this order. This issue is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. The finding of the disciplinary

authority and imposition of the punishment on the claimant pursuant to the disciplinary authority is held to be

illegal. The claimant is held entitled to the two annual increments which have been illegally withheld. The

management/ respondent is directed to refix the pay of the claimant after applying the increments when due and

pay the arrear of the differential pay to the claimant within 3 months from the date when the award would

become executable. The said amount shall not carry any interest and be paid to the legal heir of the claimant

within the time stipulated failing which the said arrear amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date

when it was illegally stopped and till the final payment would be made. Send a copy of this award to the

Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

19^th November, 2020

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 16.—औ्ोजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससज सजचव, रक्षा मंत्राल , नई दिल्ली और अन् एवं उनके कमजचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

उनके कमजकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औ्ोजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली -2 के पंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 69/2019) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को िाडज और

सॉफ्ट कॉपी 28.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2020

S.O. 16.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2019) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court New Delhi -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received

by the Central Government With Hard and soft Copy on 28.12.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 69/2019

Date of Passing Award- 20^th December, 2019

Between:

Shri Titu Ram and 39 others,

Through- Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union,

Head Office:- D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi- 110086.

… Workmen

AND

Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union,

Branch Office:- A-193, Karampura,

New Delhi- 110015.

Versus

The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Defence,

South Block, New Delhi- 110011.

Director General, Army Supply Corps. (A.S.C),

Sena Bhawan, P.O. Delhi Headquarter, New Delhi-110011.

Shri Rajshekhar Sharma, Lieutenant Colonel,

210, FOL Depot, ASC Delhi Cantt.,

New Delhi- 110010.

…Managements

Appearances:-

Shri Kailash (A/R)

: For the Workmen.

Ms. Pragya Srivastava (A/R)

: For the Managements

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a complaint/application filed by the workman Titu Ram and 36 others (list

appended) u/s 33A of the ID Act 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act).

The averments in the complaint, in short is that the workmen have been working in the office of

Commandant, 2010 FOL Department, Delhi Cant New Delhi since long as casual workers to the utmost

satisfaction of the employer. Their demand for regularization in service of the management was not considered

despite repeated request and representation. Having no other efficacious remedy, the workmen had approached

the Labour Commissioner, where a conciliation proceeding was taken up. The conciliation since failed, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication. The dispute has been registered as

Id NO. 71/2013. The management after entering appearance in that proceeding being aggrieved by the same,

terminated the services of the workmen w.e.f 1^st April 2019, in gross violation of the provisions of section 33 of

the ID Act. Hence, the petition.

Being noticed, management appeared and filed reply pleading inter alia on the maintainability of the

petition filed by the workmen. The contentions raised are that the management being in discharge of sovereign

function of the state is not an industry. Moreover the business of the management is governed as per the policy

decision of the government in the Ministry of Defence. On 13^th April 2012 the ministry issued a standard

operating procedure on outsourcing of services and according to the same outsourcing of goods and services

was to be done through valid contracts. Again on 7^th Feb 2018, direction was issued from IFA Head Quarter

Delhi for undertaking outsourcing as per the direction of Ministry of Defence vide letter No.

10(4)/2007/D(MOV) dated 13.04.2012. Not only that, as per the letter no. 58840/HCL/ST-17(B) dated 25^th Jan

2019 of Head Quarter Western Command, a direction was received to undertake contract for outsourcing/hiring

of casual labours for financial year 2019-2020 as per policy of Government of India. In view of the said

36 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

direction, it was necessary to undertake outsourcing of service of casual labours through contractor for all

routine task of FOL Depot. The respondent no. 3 never acted in his personal capacity or with any kind of

vindication in disengaging the service of the workman w.e.f. 1^st April 2019.

It has also been pleaded that as per the policy the FOL depot is to undertake “Casual daily rated

personnel” i.e for work load of ad hock nature. Labours will be employed on day to day basis and paid on daily

rates on contingent bills. They will be treated as casual employees. There is no continuity in hiring and hiring of

a particular persons does not exceed 240 days. While admitting disengagement of the applicants w.e.f 1^st April

2019, it has been stated by the management that the Competent Authority in the meantime has granted sanction

for hiring casual labours and procedure for such hiring on daily basis has already started w.e.f. 1^st May 2019.

With regard to the status quo order passed by this tribunal directing not to change the service

conditions, pending disposal of Id No. 73/2013, it has been stated that the said order came to the knowledge of

the management after 1^st April 2019.

In their replication, workmen have started that the stand taken by the management are not based on

fact. While admitting that they have been taken on work w.e.f. 1^st May, 2019, advanced their grievance for non

release of their remuneration for the period between 1^st April to 30 April 2019.

Neither party opted to adduce oral or documentary evidence. During course of argument, the Ld. A/R

for the workmen submitted that in view of the facts of disengagement and re-engagement of the workmen as

admitted by the management, the tribunal should pass an award for appropriate relief to the workmen on

account of charge of service condition by the management during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute before

this tribunal. In his counter reply, the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the alleged disengagement

never amounts to change of service condition since the claimants were /are working as casual workers on daily

wage and their engagement is purely on need basis.

As observed in the preceding paragraph no evidence has been adduced by the management to prove

that the workmen are engaged on need basis and are daily wagers.

It is not disputed that the claimant/applicants of this petition are working for the management for a

pretty long period and their engagement period varies from 1982 to 2010. It is not disputed that they were/are

working continuously and the duties discharged by them are perennial in nature, though the competent authority

at one point of time had decided to outsource the said services and later on decided to engage daily wagers

directly. The Industrial and Labour law while defining workmen have not drawn any distinction between regular

and casual employees, or temporary employees. In the case of Delhi Cantonment Board vs. CGIT and others

decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and reported in 129 (2006) DLT 610, it has been held that

“There is no distinction in Industrial Law between a permanent employee and a temporary employee. As long as

the person is employed to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work

for hire or reward , he is a workman and the Industrial dispute Act, and will get the benefits of the Act.

Provision of Law laid u/s 33 of the Act clearly provides that during pendency of the proceedings either

before the conciliation officer or Labour Court or Industrial tribunal, no employer shall alter or change the

conditions of service of the workman without written permission/approval from the authority before which such

proceedings are pending. In case of contravention of the provisions of section 33 by any employer, aggrieved

employee has been given a right to make a complaint in writing under section 33A of the Act before the

Authority before whom such proceedings were pending at the time of retrenchment/discharge etc. of the

workman.

Section 33A of the Act enjoins upon the Industrial Adjudicator a twin duty- the first is to find out as to

whether the employer has contravened the provisions of section 33 and to answer the question as to whether the

dismissal or such other punishment as may have been imposed upon the workman is justified in law.

It is manifest from the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed and marked as WW1/1 to

WW1/6 and MW1/1 to MW1/5 that the claimants were engaged as casual workers by the management whether

or not, there exists any relationship between them as employer and employee and if the claimants are entitled to

the relief of regularization of service is the subject matter of dispute in Id No. 73/2013 pending before this

tribunal. But the management without any express permission from this tribunal terminated their services w.e.f.

1^st April 2019. Needless to mention that the disengagement of the claimants was without complying with the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Act and thereby amounts altering the terms and conditions of their

employment in contravention of the provisions of law laid u/s 33 of the Act.

The law is well settled that conditions contained in the proviso to section 33(2)(b) of the act are

mandatory in nature and non compliance of the same would render the order of discharge or dismissal etc. void

or inoperative. To this view, I am fortified by the decision as reported in 2003 LLR 68 Indian Telephone

Industries Ltd. vs. Prabhakar H. Manyare. The management has terminated the services of the workman,

without any approval from the Competent Authority and without payment of wages for one month, as provided

under section 33(2)(b) of the Act. On the contrary, the plea of the workman/claimant that they were not allowed

to perform duty without sufficient cause, is acceptable. Consequently, this tribunal has no hesitation to hold that

action of the management in dismissing/terminating the services of the claimants is illegal and void. Not the

residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages

and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in

the employment of the management for a long period. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to

the claimant/workman by the management. Moreover, the job of the workman is of perennial and regular nature.

Provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Act are almost akin to the provisions of section 25-F of the Act as both

these provisions lay down certain conditions precedent to the retrenchment/discharge of workmen and also

required the employer to give one month’s wages in lieu of notice.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyak

Mahavidyalaya reported as (2013) 10SCC 324 has held as under:

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

(1)

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages is the normal rule.

(2)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting

back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority

or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser

wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead

cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting

wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because

it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who

makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to

prove a negative fact. Therefore once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on

the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was

getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.

The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of

termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with

the mandate of section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per

se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as no nest. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to

hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the

requirement of giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of section 25F (a) and

(b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in

employment as if his service was not terminated. Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health

Division No.1 Panipat (2010)5 SCC 497.

A bench of three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private

Limited vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of

reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of services is found to be invalid. It

would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant

law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of

employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventually the workman is required to be reinstated,

38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of

workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back

wages.

Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Manu/DE/1922/2018 decided on 10.05.2018 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of

illegal termination and reinstatement held as under:-

“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation

of the statutory provisions and/or the Principles of Natural Justice or is guilty of victimizing the

employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment

of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or

136 of the constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because

there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get

full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same the courts must always keep in view that

that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the

sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his

wrong doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of

full back wages.”

Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing

duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled

for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 percent back wages, in as much as termination of the

claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after

his termination by the management. Award is passed accordingly against management.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

20^th December, 2019

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2010½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@85@2009-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 17.—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.03 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28.12.2020.

[No. L-20012/85/2009-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

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. 03/2010

Employer in relation to the management of Barora 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 29.10.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/85/2009-(IR(CM-1)) dated 15/12/2009 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

“Whether the action of the Management of Regional Hospital, Baghmara under Barora Area of

M/s BCCL in superannuating Smt. Esther Singh, Staff Nurse from the services of the company

w.e.f. 31.08.2004 is justified and legal? ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notices were issued to both

the parties and the notice issued to the sponsoring union returned with endorsement- “Addressee left”. Now the

Case is pending since 05/01/2010 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that

workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@267@2003-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 18.—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.04 of 2006) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28.12.2020

[No. L-20012/267/2003-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

40 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 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. 04/2006

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 29.10.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/267/2003-IR(C-1) dated 06/12/2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of BCCL,

Sijua Area that Sh. Vijay Paswan, General Mazdoor Cat-I may be promoted to Cat-II w.e.f.

1993, to Cat-IV w.e.f. 1996, to Cat-VI w.e.f. 1999 and in Grade-I w.e.f. 2001 justified? If so, to

what relief is the workman entitled?”

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 on 05/08/2019 & 27/09/2019, but subsequently

left appearing before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 02/01/2006 and workman/union is not

appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute

Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ए र इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; बैंगलौर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k सी आर

14@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012@31@2003-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 19 .—In pursuance of Section Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore

(Ref. No. CR 14 of 2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Air India Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 28.12.2020.

[No. L-11012/31/2003-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 19^THMARCH, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 14/2008

I Party

II Party

Sh. K.S. Narayana,

No. 72, II Cross Kaika Layout, Vijaynagar,

Bangalore – 560040.

Sh. Mahadeva,

S/o Sh. Mariswamy Gowda,

No. 34, 6^th Cross,

Dwarakanagar, Hoskerehalli,

BSK 3^rd Stage,

Bangalore – 560085.

The Commercial Manager,

Air India Ltd.,

Unity Building, JC Road,

Bangalore – 560002.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Muralidhara

Advocate for II Party : Smt. K. Subha Ananthi

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-11012/31/2003-IR(CM-I) dated 18.02.2008 in exercise

of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the Management of Air India in stoppage of work / terminating the

services of S/Shri K.S. Narayana and Mahadeva w.e.f. 14.06.2002 is justified and legal? If not, to

what reliefs are the concerned workmen entitled?”

The 1^st Party workmen are aggrieved by the action of their Ex-Employer /Air India Limited in refusing

employment to them without any justifiable reason, it is their grievance that, they had requisite qualification to

be regularised in service but to deprive their right of regularisation; the 2^nd Party regularised the service of

workmen who are Junior to them and terminated them from service; even thereafter also they have appointed

some casual employees into service; they are unemployed and may be reinstated into service without continuity

of service and consequential benefits.

After the 2^nd Party filed their counter statement by way of rejoinder, 1^st Party further claim that the

service particulars given by the 2^nd Party in their Counter Statement is incorrect. Sh. K.S. Narayan was not

working with M/s G.D.S. Enterprises engaged by Air India; he was directly employed by the 2^nd Party as Helper

since December 1994 and his service was terminated w.e.f. 14.06.2002; Sh. Mahadeva was appointed directly

as Helper by 2^nd Party since September 1997; they have worked continuously without break from the date of

joining the service. They were not given wage slips; they are the employees of the 2^nd Party.

The 2^nd Party countered the claim on following lines that, Air India Limited and Indian Airlines

Limited amalgamated with National Aviation Company and stood dissolved without being wound up vide order

of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India dated 27.08.2007; the National Aviation Company of

India undertook to deal with the legal / legal proceedings which were initiated against the Transferor Companies

in respect of the period upto the effective date to the exclusion of the transferor Companies; it has undertaken to

pay all amounts including interest, penalties and damages etc., which the transferor companies may be called

upon to pay or secure in respect of liabilities or obligations relating to the transferor company for the period

upto the effective date, 27.08.2007; the name of the National Aviation Company of India limited is now

changed to Air India Limited from 24.11.2010. Sh. K S Narayan worked for M/s. G.D.S. Enterprises who was

engaged by Air India Limited in and around the year 1995 for carrying the job of cleaning and sweeping of Air

India premises at Airport. In and around 1997, the services of M/s G.D.S. Enterprises was dispensed with; the

workmen were engaged purely on causal need basis from time to time 2 days in a week for attending the casual

work. Causal employment of unskilled workmen on daily wages is without any issuance of Appointment order

42 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or termination order. In and around 2002 Government of India mandated rationalization of the work procedure

at Air India wherein Air India, Indian Airlines and HAL constituted a joint working group. Thereupon, flight

handling activities were handled under the supervision of Contractor of the joint working group. Recruitment to

the 2^nd Party is strictly mandated under the rules and policies by Government of India; recruitment is banned by

the Government since May 1997 as the 2^nd Party was found to be over staffed, since then no fresh vacancy is

notified / filled in the unskilled categories. The 1^st Party workmen filed Writ Petition No. 289-291/2000 for a

direction to the 2^nd Party for absorption and regularisation of their services; Writ Petition was disposed with the

observation that if the petitioners are entitled for absorption by regularising their services the same may be

considered by the Respondent in accordance with Law. Since, there was no direct recruitment in the Company

they were not considered for regularisation; the workmen filed Review Petition No. 128/2001 in W.P No.

289-291/2000 and the same was rejected. Aggrieved workmen field a Contempt Petition before the Hon'ble

High Court in No. 2796-98/2001 to initiate contempt proceedings against the Company and its Officers for

disobeying the order dated 07.07.2000 (in the W.P No. 289-291/2000) said petition came to be dismissed. The

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore submitted his failure of Conciliation Report to the Central

Government on 16.04.2003. The Government vide order dated 28.11.2003 declined to refer the dispute for

adjudication with the observation that, the issue raised by the workmen has already been decided by the Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka vide Writ Petition No. 25311-313/2002 and the Petition has been dismissed and hence

no Industrial Dispute subsists. Said Order was impugned before the Hon'ble High Court and the Writ Petition

was allowed directing the Central Government to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with the Law keeping

in view the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court. The claim of the 1^st Party workmen is refuted.

There is no merit in their claim and they are not entitled for any relief.

Both parties have adduced evidence with their documentary proof to substantiate their respective

stands. The concerned workmen are examined as WW-1 and WW-2; the Assistant General Manager (HRD)

retired is examined for the 2^nd Party.

During the cross examination of MW-1, he did not dispute the suggestion that the workmen were

working under the direct control and supervision of Officers of Air India Limited; they were provided identity

card to enter the Airport premises, they were paid wages by way of voucher by Accounts Department based on

the number of days of their work. He has categorically admitted that, no retrenchment compensation was paid

to the workmen at the time of their termination.

The documentary proof of the 1^st Party are - Ex W-1 Photostat copies of daily permits pertaining to

Sh. Mahadeva for the period 15.09.1997 to 15.12.1997; Ex W-2 the temporary pass of Sh. K S Narayana; Ex

W-3 Photostat copy of the fax message addressed to Senior Manager in respect of the casual workmen

including 1^st Party seeking authority to make ex-gratia payment; Ex W-4 the Photostat copy of the daily

permits for the period 01.06.1996 to 30.06.2001; Ex W-5 the letter addressed by the Airport Manager to the

Airport Director seeking renew of temporary pass of the 1^st Party workman; Ex W-6 the Photostat copy of the

letter of the Cargo Service Manager dated 18.06.2002 addressed to General Manager reporting engagement of a

new worker in the place of 1^st Party Sh. K.S. Narayana and Manjunath(?); Ex W-7 the Photostat copy of the

payment slip in respect of November 1998 pertaining to Sh. K.S. Narayana for 28 days; Ex W-8 the Photostat

copy of the attendance for the month of August 1999 to June 2002; Ex W-9 the Photostat copy of the covering

letter of Airport Manager while forwarding the attendance (fax) of Narayan and Manjunatha (?) for the month

of August 1999; Ex W-10 the Photostat copy of the petty cash voucher of Sh. K S Narayana dated 02.07.2002;

Ex W-11 the Photostat copy of the letter of District Cargo Manager confirming that Narayan worked for 20

days in the month of June 1999; Ex W-12 and Ex W-13 the Photostat copy of the letter dated 20.12.1997 and

15.09.1997 by Airport Manager requesting to renew the daily permit in respect of Sh. Mahadeva; Ex W-14 the

Photostat copy of the fax message which is illegible for reading with naked eye; Ex W-15 the Photostat copy of

Ex W-1; Ex W-16 and Ex W-17 are the Photostat copy of the attendance card of Mahadeva for July 2001,

August 2001, October 2001, January to April 2002 and June 2002; Ex W-18 the Photostat copy of the petty

cash voucher for the period 12.09.1997.

Sh. MD for the 1^st Party submits that the workmen are illegally retrenched without following the

procedure contemplated by Sec 25-F of the Act, said fact is admitted by MW1. The 1^st Party had filed an

application dated 03.10.2013 calling upon the Management to produce wage paid vouchers and the attendance

that those documents are not now traceable. In that view of the matter, adverse inference needs to been drawn

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

against the 2^nd Party for suppressing the material documents pertaining to the continuous service rendered by

the workmen for the period 01.01.1998 to 14.06.2002. The 1^st Party workmen who are at the receiving end

were able to produce the Photostat copies of the documents which are in their custody.

Sh. MD adds, MW-1 since admitted that the workmen have served directly under the supervision of

the 2^nd Party and their termination as admitted by the 2^nd Party was without following the mandate of Sec 25-F

of the Act, they may be reinstated into their original post. They had litigated before the Hon'ble High Court for

regularization of their service, in the present reference, their claim is for reinstatement. Hence, the principle of

Res-judicata is not a bar to award relief in their favour.

In the written argument 2^nd Party has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court it the matter of

Secretary State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The question of regularisation having been logically concluded by the orders of the Hon'ble High

Court, the endeavour in the present petition is only about the legality of the stoppage of work / termination

of the services of Sh. K.S. Narayan and Mahadeva w.e.f. 14.06.2002. The identity of the workmen is not

disputed. The very fact that they dragged the employer to the Court until their review petition was rejected vide

order dated 07.02.2001 is sufficient to infer that they were refused employment w.e.f. 14.06.2002. No valid

reason is shown by the 2^nd Party for dispensing with their services, they are the casual workers appointed

without appointment order and terminated without termination letter. Since, the documents / Photostat copies

produced by the 1^st Party is insufficient to establish their contention that they served continuously as temporary

employees till the last date of their service, I have no other go except to draw adverse inference on the basis of

the submission made by them in respect of the application filed by the 1^st Party on 03.10.2013; in the said

application, the 1^st Party had sought for wage paid vouchers and the attendance register for the period

01.01.1998 to 14.06.2002 and those documents are not produced under the pretext that they are misplaced. That

drives me to infer that they had worked continuously for the period 01.01.1998 to 14.06.2002. The service

since qualified by Sec 25-B of ‘the Act’ they could not have been refused employment without following the

mandate of Sec 25-F of ‘the Act’, that makes their removal w.e.f. 14.06.2002 an illegal retrenchment. Then the

question would arise about moulding of relief, both the workmen during the cross examination have admitted

that they are engaged in business and are eking out their livelihood.

In that view of the matter, ordering reinstatement as daily wagers at this point of time is not the appropriate

relief for them. Instead awarding a monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the workmen in the place

of notice pay of 3 months (Sec 25-F(B)) towards retrenchment compensation would serve the ends of justice

being met.

AWARD

The reference is accepted.

The action of the Management of Air India Limited in stoppage of work / terminating the services of

Sh. K.S. Narayana and Mahadeva w.e.f 14.06.2002 is not legal and not justified.

The 2^nd Party is directed to pay monetary compensation at Rs. 25,000/- to each of the workmen within

60 days of publication of the Award in the Official Gazette failing which the amount shall carry future interest

of 6% per annum.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 19^th March, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@2019½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@73@2018-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

44 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 20.—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.07 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 28.12.2020.

[No. L-20012/73/2018-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

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. 07/2019

Employer in relation to the management of M/s. R.K. Transport of Gajlitand OCP..

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman

: Sri Pintu Mondal. Representative

For the Contractor (R.K. Transport)

: Sri Ravi Agrawal

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29.10.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/73/2018-(IR(CM-1)) dated 14/12/2018 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 M/s. R.K. Transport in retrenchment of

Sri Md. Sikandar Ansari and 10 other workmen engaged in Gajlitand Open Cast Project under

Katras Area IV of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited without following the conditions as

prescribed under Section 25 F of the Act and not paying bonus, wages and other dues to these

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

2. After receipt of the reference, all three parties were noticed and all three parties appeared for certain dates

but subsequently workman left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Secretary

JJMU of Sponsoring Union Sri Pintu Mondal has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case

and Sri Agrawal Project Incharge of the R.K. Transport Company has informed that all dues including bonus

has already been paid. It is felt that the workman has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No dispute” award is

passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Office

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@255@2004-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 21.—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.24 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28.12.2020

[No. L-20012/255/2004-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

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. 24/2005

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For workman

: Sri Lala Sahdeo Pd., Representative

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29.10 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/255/2004-IR(C-I) dated 31.03.2005, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, C.V. Area to dismiss Shri. Ajeet Bouri, Under

Ground Loader with effect from 17.08.2001, during the period when the workman was

terminally ill and had been referred by company hospital to Cancer Hospital is hasty, ill

intentioned and malafide? If so, whether the demand of Janta Mazdoor Congress that the

workman may be treated on rolls of the company till the date of his death and his dependent son

may be given employment under the provision NCWA is justified?

And, to what other relief the workman or his legal heirs are entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The sponsoring Union Janta Colliery Mazdoor

Congress has filed its written statement of claim on 18/08/2005 and the management C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL

has filed its written statement on 09/05/2006.

The Sponsoring Union has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management on 16/07/2007.

The claim of the concerned workman as per written statement filed by Janta Colliery Mazdoor

Congress is as follows:-

That concerned workman namely Ajeet Bouri was a permanent workman was employed at Dahibari

Colliery under C/V Area of M/s. BCCL and he was designated as Underground Loader with Sl. No. 4029 in the

‘B’ Form register of the aforesaid colliery. The concerned workman had been suffering from some ailment for

last few years prior to the year 2001 and he was under treatment at various places including the Colliery

Hospital and Company’s Hospital at Saraidhela, Dhanbad. The concerned workman was absent during the

period of his indisposition and he had submitted sick certificate for his illness for the period prior to the year

2001 and all these certificates are in the custody of the management of Dahibari Colliery. The concerned

workman again fell sick in the year 2001, so he failed to attend his duty at Dahibari Colliery from 12/02/2001

46 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and at that time his family members were also suffering from illness. The concerned workman reported for his

duty on 17/04/2001 at Dahibari Colliery and submitted application regarding his illness as well as medical

certificate but the management of Dahibari Colliery asked him to report to management of Basantimata Colliery

for duty without issuing transfer order or release order. The concerned workman had reported to the office of

Dy. Personnel Manager, Basantimata Colliery but the Dy. Personnel Manager did not allow him to join duty and

subsequently the management of Basantimata Colliery had issued a charge-sheet No. BCCL/B.M/Agent/01/913

dated 3^rd May 2001 with a copy to Agent Dahibari Colliery and Sr. P.O., Dahibari Colliery stating therein that

workman was absent from 12/02/2001 to 21/04/2001 at Dahibari Colliery without any information. The

aforesaid charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workman when he was sick and was under the treatment of

N.L.O.C.P. Colliery Dispensary under C/V Area for vomiting and fever since 04/05/2001 to 31/05/2001 and

Medical Superintendent declared him fit from 01/06/2001. Subsequently the concerned workman was under

treatment of local registered doctor where he was treated for jaundice from 01/06/2001 to 19/06/2001 and was

declared fit for work form 20/06/2001. After that the concerned workman reported for his duty with the medical

certificates but he was not allowed to resume duty. The charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workman

without issuance of any show cause notice to him and without holding any preliminary enquiry as well as

without any report from the Section In-charge of the Colliery. Subsequently Enquiry Officer was appointed vide

letter dated 11/12.07.2001 to conduct enquiry and he started the proceeding of enquiry. The entire enquiry

proceeding was biased and perfunctory and both the witnesses of management were arranged and tutored. In the

meantime the management of Basantimata Colliery had issued a letter no. BM/Agent/01/1713 dated 10/08/2001

to the concerned workman and he had submitted a representation in reply to the aforesaid letter showing

mitigating stand that he was already under treatment. The concerned workman who was already under treatment

of Colliery Medical Hospital and later on he was referred to Central Hospital of BCCL, Saraidhela, Dhanbad

where he died on 15/02/2002 after diagnosis that he was suffering from cancer. In the meantime, a show cause

was issued on 10/08/2001 to the concerned workman who had submitted the representation dated 11/08/2001

but he was dismissed on 14/08/2001 without obtaining approval of General Manager which is required as per

Certified Standing Orders.

A prayer has been made by the sponsoring union that the workman may be treated as on roll of the

Colliery till the date of his death and his dependent son should be given employment under the provision of

NCWA along with all other benefits such as payment of Life Cover Scheme and Special Leave Wages for

sickness due to cancer.

In course of hearing of the case a petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased workman for

substituting the name of her deceased husband by her son namely Jaidev Bouri and the same has been allowed

vide order dated 07/05/2012.

The case of the management as per written statement cum rejoinder filed by C.V. Area, BCCL,

Dhanbad is as follows:-

That there is no valid Industrial Dispute in the present case in the eye of law or within the meaning of

Section 2(K) of the I.D. Act. The reference order is vague and suffers from the vice of total non-application of

mind and the reference is abuse of the process of law. The concerned workman namely Ajeet Bouri was absent

from his duty since 12/02/2001 for which a charge-sheet was issued and served to him under clause 26.1.1 of the

certified standing order vide charge-sheet no. 931 dated 03/05/2001. Subsequently the concerned workman

Ajeet Bouri submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet which was found not satisfactory and an enquiry was

ordered by the management by appointing an impartial Enquiry Officer. The concerned workman appeared

himself before the Enquiry Officer and he was given full opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry

proceeding. The Enquiry Officer after completion of enquiry had found the charges of willful absence of Ajeet

Bouri proved beyond doubt which is the misconduct. The concerned workman Ajeet Bouri was a habitual

absentee and on previous occasion, he was warned several times but he did not changes his attitude, so after

considering his records the Agent of Basantimata Colliery dismissed him from the services of the Company. The

concerned workman had been dismissed from the service, so he was not entitled for his treatment in Company’s

dispensary/hospital and his dependent is not entitled for employment against his death. A prayer has been made

to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The management has further mentioned in its written statement cum rejoinder that the statement of

sponsoring union in Para no. 1 and 2 are matter of records, statement made in Para nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14 15, 18, 19, 24 and 29 are incorrect, the statement made in Para nos. 16 & 17 regarding enquiry cannot

be said as perfunctory, the statement made in Para no. 20 has already been replied, statement made in Para no.

21, 22 and 23 regarding second show cause was not found satisfactory, statement made in Para nos. 25 and 28

and 30 are repetition and statement made in Para no 26 and 27 is fiction of mind. A prayer has been made to

pass an Award in favour of the management.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

The concerned workman has submitted his rejoinder to the written statement of the management in

which he denied almost all the averments made in the written statement of the management.

The sponsoring union has filed an affidavit of examination in chief of Lala Sahdeo Prasad as WW-1

but the aforesaid witness subsequently did not appear before the Tribunal for cross-examination.

Now, the WW-1 Lala Shadeo Prasad has not been tested on the cross-examination, so his evidence in

examination in chief is not trustworthy and reliable, so it has got no value in the eyes of law.

The concerned workman has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Photo Copy of application of Ajeet Bouri regarding his request to allow him to join his duty.

Exhibit W-2- Photo Copy of forwarding letter to Central Hospital, Dhanbad for treatment of Ajeet Bouri.

Exhibit W-3 series- Photo Copy of Discharge Certificate dated 08/12/2001 of Ajeet Bouri from Central

Hospital, Dhanbad and was referred to Chittaranjan Cancer Institute Calcutta with others medical certificates.

Exhibit W-4- Photo Copy of Circular regarding procedure for dealing the cases of misconduct.

Exhibit W-5- Death Certificate of Ajeet Bouri issued by Dr. A.K. Bhowmik, Medical Suptd., N.L.O.C.P., C.V.

Area of BCCL.

The Management has not examined any witness in support of its case.

10.

The Management has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit M-1- Carbon Copy of Dismissal Order dated 14/09/2001 of workman Ajeet Bouri.

.Exhibit-M-2- Original Enquiry Proceedings and Original Enquiry report.

Exhibit M-3- Carbon Copy of letter dated 11/07/2001 regarding appointment of Enquiry Officer.

Exhibit M-4- Carbon Copy of notice dated 11/07/2001 regarding enquiry.

Exhibit M-5- Carbon Copy of Letter dated 10/08/2001 regarding reply on enquiry report.

11.

The representative of the sponsoring union representing the concerned workman has submitted before

the Tribunal that the concerned workman Ajeet Bouri was suffering from illness and he had taken leave for two

days 10/02/2001 to 11/02/2001, he could not report his duty on 12/02/2001as he was sick and he had submitted

an application for extension of his leave. He has also argued that on 17/04/2001 the concerned workman had

gone to join his duty with fitness certificate but he was asked to report at Basantimata Colliery as he was

transferred. He has also argued that the concerned workman was not allowed to join at Basantimata Colliery and

a charge-sheet was issued against him for his unauthorised absence from the period 12/02/2001 to 21/04/2001.

He has also argued that the concerned workman was absent from duty for the aforesaid period when he was sick

along with his family member, so he could not join his duty. He has also submitted that the concerned workman

again fell sick and he was admitted to Central Hospital, Saraidhela on 07/10/2001 and in course of treatment he

died from cancer on 15/02/2002 but the management had dismissed the concerned workman on 14/08/2001. He

has also argued that the concerned workman was illegally dismissed from service while he was under medical

treatment, so the action of the management in dismissing him from service is not legal and justified. He has also

argued that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman is disproportionate to his guilt. He has further

submitted that the concerned workman may be reinstated and the legal heirs of the concerned workman are

entitled to all benefits granted to dependent of this case in case of death of the workman.

12.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted before the Tribunal that the

concerned workman was charge-sheeted on 03/05/2001 for his unauthorised absence from duty from 12/02/2001

to 21/04/2001 and he was a habitual absentee. He has further argued that a domestic enquiry was held against

the concerned workman and in course of enquiry proceeding the concerned workman had participated and he

was given full opportunity to defend himself but he had not produced any paper to show that he was suffering

from cancer. He has also argued that the concerned workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 14/08/2001 and

subsequently he died on 15/02/2002. He has also argued that after death of concerned workman, this Industrial

Dispute was raised. He has further submitted that the concerned workman died on 15/02/2002 and dispute was

raised in the year 2004, so there is no question of substitution in this case. He has also submitted that the

concerned workman was not entitled for any relief under the Industrial Dispute Act.

13.

Now the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of the management of BCCL,

C.V. Area to dismiss Shri Ajeet Bouri, Undergournd Loader w.e.f. 17/08/2001 is hasty, ill-intentioned and

malafide and to what relief he is entitled to.

48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

FINDINGS

14.

At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that neither the sponsoring union nor the

management has adduced any oral evidence in this case, so the entire case is based on documentary evidence.

15.

It is an admitted fact that the concerned workman namely Ajeet Bouri was absent from his duty since

12/02/2001 to 21/02/2001 and he had given an application for his joining duty but he was not allowed to join

and subsequently the charge-sheet was issued to him for his absence from duty by the management of

Basantimata Colliery. It is also an admitted fact that the enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer namely Shri

A. Prasanna, Dy. P.M., Basantimata Colliery in which the concerned workman was found guilty and

subsequently a second show cause was issued to him on 10/08/2001 to which he had submitted his reply on

11/08/2001 but vide order dated 14/08/2001 he was dismissed from service. It is also an admitted fact that the

concerned workman died on 15/02/2002 as he was suffering from carcinoma.

16.

It is relevant to mention here that in this case the concerned workman had participated in the enquiry

proceeding and he had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness as well as to adduce it is witness.

Further a second show cause was issued to him at he had submitted his reply, so the Enquiry Officer had

conducted the enquiry in fair and proper manner.

17.

Now, the question arises whether the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated

14/08/2001 awarded to the concerned workman is proportional to his guilt or not?

18.

At this stage, it is relevant to mention Section 11A of I.D. Act. The Section 11A of I.D. Act reads as

follows:-

Section 11A- “Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in

case of discharge or dismissal of workmen- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or

dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for

adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is

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

order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions,

if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser

punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.”

19.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in a case as reported in 1973 AIR 1227

(Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre…Vs Management & others) that:-

“The Act is beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in

construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficent

rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on the section, it follows

that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the

employees has to be preferred. The interpretation must be liberal enough to achieve the legislative

purpose”.

20.

However the Hon’ble in a another case as reported in 2005 (2) SCALE 302 (Mahindra and

Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade) has been pleased to hold that:-

“ It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain

amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the

quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of

misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this

court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division

Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on

the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so

as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which

requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may pursuade the

Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court

cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Act and reduce the

punishment.”

21.

In the present case the concerned workman had been dismissed from the service vide order dated

14/08/2001only because he was absent from duty from 12/02/2001 to 21/04/2001.

At this stage it is relevant to mention that the concerned workman Ajeet Bouri was initially employed

in Dahibari Colliery under C/V Area of M/s. BCCL but during his period of absence he was transferred to

Basantimata Colliery from there charge-sheet was issued to him for his absence on 3^rd May 2001.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

22.

It is required to mention here that the Exhibit W-1, which is the photo copy of application of concerned

workman namely Ajeet Bouri shows that on his application there is an endorsement that the last date of work of

concerned workman was on 09/02/2001, C.L was granted to him on 10/02/2001 and he was absent from

12/02/2001 to 21/04/2001.

It is necessary to mention here that the Exhibit W-3 series show that Ajeet Bouri was under treatment

from 05/05/2001 to 31/05/2001 and subsequently from 01/06/2001 to 19/06/2001 as he was suffering from

Jaundice. Further there is a discharge certificate of Central Hospital BCCL, Dhanbad showing therein admission

of the concerned workman on 07/11/2001 and discharge on 08/12/2001 with endorsement that the patient was

referred to Chitranjan Cancer Institute Calcutta with one attended. Further the Exhibit W-5 which is death

certificate of the concerned workman shows that the concerned workman died on 15/02/2002 as he was

suffering from carcinoma.

23.

Now in the instant case there is ample evidence showing that the concerned workman was granted

casual leave on 10/02/2001 and when he had reported for his joining at Dahibari Colliery, he was asked to report

at Basantimata Colliery where he was charge-sheeted for his absence from duty on 12/02/2001 to 21/04/2001.

More over there is also evidence that the concerned workman was under medical treatment from 05/05/2001 to

till his death on 15/02/2002 and in the meantime he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 14/08/2001.

24.

It is relevant to mention here that the wife of the deceased workman has filed a petition before the

Tribunal that neither she nor any legal heirs would claim service in future in place of her deceased husband but

the petition is not in accordance with the schedule of reference made by the Ministry of Labour & Employment

so the petition is not being considered.

25.

In view of above discussion the Tribunal finds that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman

for his absence from duty for about two months only whereas he was suffering from ailments and he died in

course of treatment of Carcinoma on 15/02/2002, so the punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to the

gravity of the misconduct and there is existence of mitigating circumstances which requires reduction of

punishment.

26.

Hence the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of concerned workman is not

justified, so the order of dismissal dated 14/08/2001 is set aside.

27.

Now the Tribunal renders the following Award:-

“The action of the management of BCCL, C.V. Area to dismiss Shri. Ajeet Bouri, Under Ground

Loader with effect from 17/08/2001 during the period when the workman was terminally ill and had

been referred by company hospital to Cancer Hospital is hasty, ill intentioned and malafide. Hence the

demand of Janta Mazdoor Congress that the workman be treated on the rolls of the company till the

date of his death and his dependent son be given employment under provisions of NCWA is justified.”

28.

Hence the concerned workman/legal heir is entitled for relief which is as under:-

The management of BCCL, C.V. Area is directed to treat the concerned workman namely Ajeet Bouri

on rolls of the company till the date of his death and his dependent son namely Jaidev Bouri be given all back

wages as well as all the death benefits along with employment and other consequential benefits under the

provisions of NCWA as the concerned workman died in course of service on 14/03/2006.

29.

The management of C.V. Area of M/s. BCCL is directed to implement the award within one month

after publication of the Award in Official Gazette.

This is the Award of the Tribunal.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ भारती ए रलाइंस जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; बैंगलौर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k सी आर

21@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-11012@2@2008-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

50 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2021

S.O. 22.—In pursuance of Section Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore

(Ref. No. CR 21 of 2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28.12.2020.

[No. L-11012/2/2008-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 27^TH MAY, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 21/2008

I Party

II Party

Sh. J Ramdas,

S/o Late Sh. J Vittal,

R/o Trupti, Shivabhag,

1^st Cross,

Mangalore - 575002.

The General Manager,

Indian Airlines Limited,

New Engineering Complex,

Sahar, Vile Parle (East),

Mumbai - 400099.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

Advocate for II Party : Ms. K. Subha Ananthi

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-11012/2/2008-IR(CM-I) dated 24.03.2008 in exercise of

the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Indian Airlines Ltd. in dismissing the services of

Sh. J Ramdas, Sr. Accounts Assistant w.e.f. 14.03.2000 is justified and legal? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

The 1^st Party workman is the former employee of the 2^nd Party / M/s Indian Airlines who is dismissed

from service on the charge of misconduct having been proved against him in a Departmental Enquiry; he has

raised the dispute challenging the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry conducted against him which calumniated in

his dismissal so also the legality of the punishment order imposed.

He claims that he has not committed misconduct as alleged and the order of punishment is illegal and

unjust. In view of the punishment order his livelihood is taken away and his family is put to financial hardship.

The 2^nd Party in their statement have justified the action taken against him.

On the basis of the rival pleading pertaining to the validity of the Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary

Issue was raised, tried and adjudicated vide order dated 25.06.2019, it is observed that ‘despite opportunity was

provided it was the 1^st Party who did not avail the same to defend himself against the charges, thus the issue

was answered affirmatively in favour of the management’.

The 1^st Party was charged on 3 counts, the Charge Sheet runs into 11 pages to edify the same, Firstly,

while working as Cashier at Mangalore during 1996-97 he was assigned the duty of Collection, Remittance and

Accounting of sales remittances from Agents; on 09.05.1996 M/s Ashish International Travels remitted cash of

Rs. 2,32,670/-. The CE prepared RF-7/3795651 and issued the original copy to the agent for the said amount

but accounted only Rs. 2,12,670/- in the other copies of the said RF-7/3795651, thereby misappropriated Rs.

20,000/- for his personal gain. Subsequently after a lapse of 40 days he accounted the said amount of Rs.

20,000/- and upon a debit note No. 63747 dated 03.12.1996 raised on the agent for Rs. 547/- towards penal

interest, he paid the said amount without the knowledge of the Agent. The CE had confirmed the transaction,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 9, 2021/पौष 19, 1942

admitted his handwriting in the documents and gave statements dated 04.04.1997 and 05.04.1997 admitting the

fraudulent and wilful act. Thereby committed misconduct under Standing Order 1 and 16 and Clause 4, 8, 12

to 14.

Secondly, M/s Suraj Tours and Travels, Belman withdrawn Rs. 36,005/- from the Account No. 51 of

the Corporation Bank and remitted the amount to the CE on 05.11.1996 but the CE without issuing proper

receipt in RF-7, issued a receipt for Rs. 36,005/- in a sheet of paper; he did not account the remittance of the

amount but prepared RF-7/4179392 on 11.11.1996 for an amount of Rs. 12,033/- only. Thus, misappropriated

Rs. 36,005/- from 05.11.1996 to 11.11.1996 and Rs. 23,972/- from 11.11.1996 for his personal gain. He

wilfully did not forward AGT-2/109243 dated 01.11.1996 and AGT-4/252742 dated 01.11.1996 submitted by

the Agent to the Area Revenue Division at Mumbai but prepared AGT-4 and AGT-2 from the stationary held by

him and thus pasted Sl. No. 252742 and 109243 respectively on the forged documents. He reflected

Rs. 12,033/- on AGT-4 as against Rs. 36,005/- and indicated Rs. 14,325/- as against Rs. 38,297/- on AGT-2.

He omitted the sales effected on 28^th, 29^th and 31^st of October; correspondingly forged AGT-1/138088

dated 28.10.1996, AGT-1/138089 dated 29.10.1996 and AGT-1/138091 dated 31.10.1996 by pasting the serial

numbers of the original documents on the forged documents. M/s Suraj Tours and Travels withdrew a sum of

Rs. 26,573/- from Account No. 51 of the Corporation Bank on 20.11.1996 and remitted the said amount to the

CE on 20.11.1996. Without issuing proper receipt for the payment received CE did not account the remittance

till 16.02.1997.

He tampered AGT-2 and AGT-4 submitted by the agent.

He wilfully reflected a sum of Rs. 50,544/- on AGT-4 and AGT-2 against Rs. 26,573/- and accounted

for remittance of Rs. 50,544/- vide RF-7/4277164 dated 16.02.1997; he fraudulently altered the sales effected

on 01.11.1996 and 02.11.1996 as Rs. 11,600/- and Rs. 22,056/- instead of Rs. 2,900/- and Rs. 5,800/- and

correspondingly forged the documents and pasted the serial numbers of the original documents on the forged

documents, and included the sales effected which were wilfully deleted….

He altered the date of issue from 28.10.1996 to 02.11.1996 in respect of Tickets……..

Without the knowledge of the Agent he remitted Rs. 2,941/- towards penal interest for delayed

remittance pertaining to the sales of first fortnight of November, 1996 vide RF-7/4277165 dated 16.02.1997.

He was collecting remittances from the Agents in cash in contravention of the subsisting instructions….He

misappropriated remittances made by M/s Suraj Tours and Travels in respect of the sales pertaining to second

fortnight of February, 1996 and first fortnight of March, 1996 and without the knowledge of the Agent paid

penal interest of Rs. 166/- vide RF-7/3795461 24.03.1996 and Rs. 138/- vide RF-7/3795489 dated 09.04.1996

relating to the payments for the second fortnight of February, 1996 and first fortnight of March, 1996.

The above act amounts to misconduct under Standing Order 1 and 16 and Clause 4, 8, 12 to 14.

Thirdly, the Area Revenue Division, Mumbai had issued a Credit Note No. 2851 dated 31.03.1996 for

Rs. 18,502/- in favour of M/s Suraj Tours and Travels which he did not pass on to the agent.

The Travel agent submitted AGT-4/252732 dated 01.06.1996 and remitted Rs. 62,102/- in respect of

sales effected during second fortnight of May, 1996, but the CE tampered with AGT-4 and accounted only

Rs. 43,600/- vide RF-7/3795696 dated 10.06.1996 and misappropriated Rs. 18,502/-. The above act amounts

to misconduct under Standing Order 1 and 16 and Clause 4, 8, 12 and 13.

During the enquiry on behalf of the prosecution four witnesses were examined and as many as 39

documents were marked. The evidence of the management witnesses remained intact without cross

examination and without defence evidence.

The first witness was Sh. A Ram Babu, Station Manager. Among other things he had stated that

during the investigation the CE admitted having misappropriated the payments made by agents and pleaded

guilty. He rendered confessional statements to the Vigilance without any coercion; the Vigilance also recorded

the statements of the agents and other concerned Indian Airlines Staff at Mangalore. He identified the signature

of the CE on the relevant documents so also the statement given by the CE pleading guilty of falsification of

revenue records and defalcation of revenue not only in respect of M/s Ashish International Travels but also M/s

Surja Tours and Travels dated 04.04.1997 consisting of 12 pages ME-12/A and another statement of the CE

admitting falsification of document and misappropriation of revenue collection in respect of M/s Suraj Tours

and Travels dated 04.04.1997 of 8 pages ME-12/B; his further statement consisting of 6 pages dated 05.04.1997

ME-12/C, the witness stated that all the above 3 statements were recorded in his presence and signed by himself

and CE, Sh. Ramdas gave his statement out of his will and without coercion; Sh. Ramdas, Sh. Mokal, Vigilance

Supdt., Sh. Rajgopalan, Manager (Vigilance) and witness had signed the document.

52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2021/PAUSHA 19, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The second witness was the Proprietor of M/s Suraj Tours and Travels, Belman and authorised

Passenger Sales Agent of Indian Airlines since 1995 selling Indian Airlines Tickets.

The third witness was the Senior Manager (Vigilance) of the 2^nd Party who conducted the

investigation. He had recorded the statements of the CE in the presence of witnesses, whereby the CE had

admitted the charges. The witness also further stated that he had recorded the statement of Sh. S K Shetty on

24.04.1997 in the presence of Sh. Ram Babu and CE, wherein Sh. Shetty had given detailed account of his

transaction with Indian Airlines pertaining to the period in question; his statement was followed up by the

Statement of CE in the presence of Sh. Rama Babu wherein CE pleaded guilty of misappropriation of funds,

forgery of documents and alterations effected in the Agent’s documents besides the tickets issued by the Agent.

The fourth witness was the Accounts Assistant, who had worked during 1996-97 under CE / Senior

Accounts Assistant.

On the basis of the undisputed oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer has recorded the

finding of guilt in respect of all the 3 charges. The Disciplinary Authority marked the Enquiry Report along

with proposal of punishment i.e. ‘Removal from Service’; his past records of suffering minor punishments on 3

occasions were also cited in the said letter. CE submitted his explanation, sought for reopening of the enquiry

proceedings, and to give him proper opportunity for defending himself against the charges; he did not dispute

his past records. The Disciplinary Authority did not appreciate his prayer for reopening the enquiry and

observed “… you had been afforded ample opportunity and of your own accord chosen to stay away from the

enquiry…” and thus proceeded to pass the punishment order of ‘Removal from Service with immediate effect’.

The 2^nd Party have not produced the records marked during the enquiry. However, these are all the

admitted documents never disputed by the 1^st Party. Ongoing through the enquiry records I am convinced that

Enquiry Officer has founded his finding on the genuine documents coupled by the statement given by the 1^st

Party before the Vigilance Officer admitting his misconduct. The misconduct proved during the enquiry is of

misappropriation, tampering the documents etc. He has failed to maintain integrity in performance of his duties

and the punishment of Removal from Service is the appropriate punishment.

AWARD

The Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 27^th May, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, 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.

SURENDER

MAHADASAM

Digitally signed by

SURENDER MAHADASAM

Date: 2021.01.18 16:02:57

+05'30'