140 GI/2021

(93)

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. 03]

नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 17—िनवरी 23, 2021 िजनवार/ पौष 27— माघ 3, 1942

No. 03] NEW DELHI, JANUARY 17 – JANUARY 23, 2021, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 27–MAGHA 3, 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, 20 िनवरी, 2021

का. आ. 41.—भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजन म, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त

िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, एलआईसी िाउससंग फाइनेंस जलजमटेड के मु्‍ का यकारी

अजिकारी श्री जसद्धा य मोिन्ती (िन्म जतज : 8.6.1963) को दिनांक 1.2.2021 को ा इसके पश्चात पिभार ग्रिण

करने की तारी से उनकी अजिवर्षयता की तारी (अ ायत 30.6.2023) तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले

िो, 2,05,400-2,24,400 रुपए के वेतनमान में भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंि जनिेिक के पि पर जन ुि

करती िज।

[फा. सं. ए-15011/02/2020-बीमा-I]

जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01022021-224859

CG-DL-W-01022021-224859

94 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 41.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Siddhartha Mohanty (date of birth:

8.6.1963), Chief Executive Officer, LIC Housing Finance Limited as Managing Director, Life Insurance

Corporation of India, in the pay scale of Rs. 2,05,400-2,24,400 with effect from the date of assumption of

charge of the post on or after 1.2.2021 and up to the date of his superannuation (i.e.,30.6.2023), or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. A-15011/02/2020-Ins.I]

VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.

कार्मयक, लोक जिका त त ा पेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मयक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दि ल् ली, 18 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 42.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए अप णाचल प्रिेि राज्

सरकार के सतकयता जवभाग : जसजवल सजचवाल , पपुमपारे, ईटानगर की अजिसूचना सं. वीआईिी-

18/2011/619, दिनांक 29 अप्रजल, 2020 के माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, भारती िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िाराएं 409, 468, 471, 477-ए, 34 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) की िारा 13(2)

सपठ त िाराएं 13(1)(सी) & 13 (1)(डी) (i) & (ii) के तित ििय एसआईसी (वीआईिी) पीएस मामला सं.

01/2012 (पूवय में भारती िण्ड संजिता की िाराएं 409, 468, 471, 477-ए, 34 के तित बोमडीला मामला सं.

12/2011 के प प में ििय) से संबंजित अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍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 अप णाचल प्रिेि राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/11/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S. O. 42.—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 Arunachal Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. VIG-18/2011/619 dated 29th April, 2020

of Department of Vigilance : Civil Secretariat, Papumpare, Itanagar, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Arunachal Pradesh for

investigation into the offence(s) relating to SIC(VIG) PS Case No. 01/2012 under sections 409, 468, 471, 477-

A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w sections 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (Previously registered as Bomdila Case No. 12/2011 under

sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code); 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. 228/11/2020-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दि ल् ली, 19 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 43.—केन् र सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िज‍ त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए अजिव‍ ता, श्री पा य घोष को सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी-2(ई)/87-कोल. से

उद्भूत 2017 की सीआरआर सं. 3639 और सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी-3(एस)/07-कोल. से उद्भूत 2018 की

सीआरआर सं. 2239 का दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन (केंरी अन् वेषण ब् ूरों) की ओर से कलकत् ता उच् च न् ा ाल ,

कोलकाता में और इन मामलों से उद्भूत ा उससे संबंजित अ वा उसके आनुषंजगक अन् मामलों का संचालन करने

के जलए जन ुज‍ त की तारी से तीन वषय की अवजि के जलए ा मामले का जनपटान िोने तक, िो भी पिले िो, जविेष

लोक अजभ ोिक के प प में जन ु‍ त करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/05/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2021

S. O. 43.—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 Partha Ghosh, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting CRR No. 3639 of 2017 arising out of CBI Case No. RC-2(E)/87-Kol and CRR

No. 2239 of 2018 arising out of CBI Case No. RC-3(S)/07-Kol, on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Calcutta High Court at Kolkata and for other matters arising out of these

cases or connected therewith or incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or till

disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/05/2020-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दि ल् ली, 19 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 44.—केन् र सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िज‍ त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए अजिव‍ ता, श्री अर्नयबन जमत्रा को सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी-2(ई)/87-कोल.

से उद्भूत 2017 की सीआरआर सं. 3639 और सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी-3(एस)/07-कोल. से उद्भूत 2018 की

लोक अजभ ोिक के रुप में जन ु‍ त करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/05/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2021

96 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S. O. 44.—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 Anirban Mitra, Advocate, as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting CRR No. 3639 of 2017 arising out of CBI case No. RC-2(E)/87-Kol and CRR

No. 2239 of 2018 arising out of CBI Case No. RC-3(S)/07-Kol, on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Calcutta High Court at Kolkata and for other matters arising out of these

cases or connected therewith or incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or till

disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/05/2020-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दि ल् ली, 19 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 45.—केन् र सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री रजव प्रकाि और श्री िोिेब हुसजन अजिव‍ ताओं को, जविेष न् ा ािीि

न् ा ाल , भ्रष्टाचार जनरोि, केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो, गाजि ाबाि और जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजपत अपील ा पुनरीक्षण

न् ा ाल ों में केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरों मामला सं. आरसी 1202019ए0004 से उिभूत अपील, पुनरीक्षण ा अन्

मामलों िेतु दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन (केन् री अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त उि मामले के अन्वेषण के संचालन

के जलए, उनकी जन ुजि की तारी से तीन वषय के जलए ा मामले के जनपटारे तक, इनमें से िो भी पूवयतर िो, जविेष

लोक अजभ ोिक के प प में जन ु‍ त करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/08/2020-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. जत्रपा ी, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2021

S. O. 45.—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. Ravi Prakash and Shri.

Zoheb Hossain, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of Central Bureau of

Investigation Case No. RC1202019A0004, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch,

Ghaziabad, instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Court of Special Judge, Anti

Corruption, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ghaziabad and appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the

said case in appellate or revisional courts established by law, for a period of three years from the date of their

appointment or till the disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/08/2020-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

वाजणज् एवं उद्योग मंत्राल

(वाजणज् जवभाग)

नई दि ल् ली, 18 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 46.—केन्री सरकार, जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का

22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के सा पठ त, जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म

12, के उपजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससय इन्सपे‍टोरेट जग्रदफ इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड,

द्वार सं्‍ ा 23-13-28, प्र म एंव जद्वती तल, फाजतमा जबसल्डंग, ॉम्पसन स्ट्रीट, जविा ापत्तनम-530001 (जिसे

एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण माना िाएगा) को इस अजिसूचना के िासकी रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

वषय की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा

अनुसूची में जनर्िय्‍ ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं्‍ ा का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर,

1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्ियष्ट जनि और

अ स्ट्क समूि-।, अ ायत, लौि अ स्ट् क, मैंगनीि अ स्ट् क, फेरोमैंगनीि त ा बा‍साइट और समूि-II, अ ायत, िोम

अ स्ट् क त ा बजराइट्स के जन ायत से पूवय जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन जविा ापत्तनम पत्तन, गंगावरम पत्तन,

काकीनाडा पत्तन और कष्‍णपट्टनम पत्तन में उ‍ त जनि एवं अ स्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प प

में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ायत् :

(i) ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-I का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 जनि और अ स्ट्क

समूि-II का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जवजनर्ियष्ट जनरीक्षण के सम

अपनाई िाने वाली जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िॉंच के जलए जन ायत जनरीक्षण पठरषि् द्वारा जनजमत

नामजनर्ियष्ट अजिकाठर ों को प ायप्त सुजविाएं िेगी; और

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

(जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ायत जनरीक्षण पठरषि द्वारा सम -सम पर, जलज त प प में,

दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/3/2021-जन ायत जनरीक्षण]

दिवाकर ना जमसरा, सं ुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S. O. 46.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Private

Limited, Door No. 23-13-28, 1st and 2nd Floor, Fatima Building, Thompson Street, Visakhapatnam – 530001

(hereinafter referred to as said agency), as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette , for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely,

Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferromanganese and Bauxite; and Group – II, namely, Chrome Ore and Barytes as

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 20th December, 1965 and S.O.3978 dated 20th

December, 1965, respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam Port,

Gangavaram Port, Kakinada Port and Krishnapatnam 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 and the Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II

(Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their 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-16014/03/2021-Export Inspection]

DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.

98 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tuojh] 2021

.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa

blds Ik'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh] Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II]

[kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼iia½] rkjh[k] 3 vDrwcj] 2020 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad

dk- vk- 875] rkjh[k 28 flrEcj] 2020 ds izdk'ku ij] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa

blds Ik'pkr mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh

mi/kkjk ¼a1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;akfrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM]

Mkd?kj la[;k 60] ftyk fcykliqj&495006] NRrhlx<+ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik'pkr mDr ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k

gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krkasZ dk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s

rS;kj gS A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 37-619 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 92-96 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ Hkwfe esa ;k ml

ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj] rkjh[k 3 vDrwcj] 2020 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;]

fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZa ds v/khu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&

¼1½ ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa vkSj vU; lqlaxr fof/k ds v/khu ;Fkk vo/kkfjr izfrdj]

C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkfn ls lacaf/kr vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~ lHkh lank; djsxh(

¼2½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk ftlesa ljdkjh dEiuh

}kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy;s vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k

vkSj mDr vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kksa esa mixr lHkh O;; ogu

fd;s tk;saxs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds fy;s ;k muds laca/k esa

fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa] vihy lfgr] vkfn dh ckcr mixr lHkh O;; Hkh ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu

fd;s tk;saxs(

¼3½ ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa] {kfriwfrZ

djsxh tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k

mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(

¼4½ ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj mlds vf/kdkj dks

fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxhA

¼5½ ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj “krksZa dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe

ds fof'k’V {ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxhA

[Qk- la- 43015@09@2017-,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f'kjksef.k ljkst] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2021

S. O. 47.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal number S.O. 875, dated the 28^th September, 2020 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-

section (ii), dated the 3^rd October, 2020 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

the all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred

to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section

(1) of section 10 of the said Act.

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat

Road, P. B. No. 60, District-Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Government

Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose

in this behalf.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby direct that the land measuring 37.619 hectares (approximately) or 92.96 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands so vested, shall, with effect from 3^rd October, 2020

instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company subject to

the following terms and conditions namely:-

(1)

the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest,

damages, etc. and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant

law;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining

the amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure

incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal

including all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings, including appeals, etc. for

or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the

Government Company;

(3)

the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any

other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the

Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4)

the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so

vested, to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 09/ 2017-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2021

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

eS- lhesaV dksjiksjs'ku vkQ bafM;k fy-] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼44@2016½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-29012@21@2016-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2021

S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Cement

Corporation of India Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2021.

[No. L-29012/21/2016-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2016

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Jeet Singh Kshatriya,

Purani Basti, At& PIO-Akaltara,

District Janigir-Champa (CG)-495552

…Workman

100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The General Manager

Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

At& PIO-Akaltara,

District Janigir-Champa (CG)-495552

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16^th day of December 2020)

As per letter dated 12/4/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per

Notification No.L-29012/21/2016-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part of Management of CCL Akaltara Unit at first transferring Shri Jeet

Singh Kshatriya from Akaltara to Kolkata and again based on his request letter Dated 13-2-1991 from

Kolkatta to CCI Unit Akaltara on reversion ground as per the order dated 5/3/1991 and again not

considering his request on family problem ground to be retained at Akaltara and again transferring

him to CCI Rajban Unit without considering his request tantamount to vindictive attitude and malafide

intention of the Management of CCL Akaltara Unit and whether it is just and appropriate and if not,

what action in case of Shri Jeet Singh Kshatriya, Ex.Assistant account is justified?.”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The notice was held sufficiently served on workman side vide order dated 2-1-2020 but he never

appeared. The Management filed its appearance, hence the case was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against

the workman vide order dated 2-1-2020.

No statement of claim or any evidence was filed by the workman. The Management filed its written

statement wherein it was pleaded that the present controversy has already been settled by this Tribunal in Case

No.CGIT/LC/R/50/2003 vide its Award dated 13-5-2016. The workman who was party in the pre-decided case

also was offered the post of Junior Account Assistant vide letter dated 8-7-1976. He was liable to be transferred

at the sole discretion of the employer at anywhere in India or at any branch /office/ project/ section/department/

plants /unit of the Management Corporation or from one shift to another shift. His transfer was to be governed

by the prevailing Rules and Regulations. He accepted the conditions as above incorporated in his offer of

appointment vide his acceptance letter dated 12-7-1976 and joined his job. He was promoted to the post of

Accountant and due to exigency of work and requirement of finance, staff at Kolkatta office, the Management

decided to transfer him to Kolkatta Zonal Office. The workman requested for cancellation of his transfer order

which was not accepted vide letter of Management dated 17/19-7-1989 and the workman was directed to report

on duty at Kolkatta. The workman then again filed a representation before the Management for cancellation of

his transfer order and requested that if the transfer order is not cancelled, he may be reverted back to his

previous post and previous posting. He subsequently reported to the transferred post in Kolkatta Zonal Office on

20-10-1989 and absented himself unauthorisedly without any intimation, permission and without the leave being

sanctioned. He filed a Writ Petition No.4366/1989 during the period of his absenteeism seeking his reversion to

wage Board Scale and posting back to previous place from where he was transferred. Hon’ble High Court

directed vide its order dated 22-11-1990 directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month.

The Management after considering his representation in the light of the aforesaid order of Hon’ble High Court,

transferred the workman back to his previous place vide its order dated 5-3-1991. Thereafter he joined at his

previous place of posting and filed his joining report on 29-3-1991. He was again promoted on 12-3-2001 but

he did not accept his promotion, hence, he continued to draw pay which he was drawing earlier before

promotion. He raised a dispute which was referred to this Tribunal and was registered as CGIT/LC/R/50/2003

and was decided vide Award dated 13-5-2016 as referred to earlier. The Akaltara unit where the workman has

been posted became a sick unit and production stopped there. The Unit was referred to BIFR.

The case of Management is that when the Unit itself becomes sick, it is imperative of Management to

transfer its employees to different units which was affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.14804/2003 in case of CCI Employees Union vs. Union of India . In view of

the proceedings before BIFR the scheme of voluntary retirement was notified which was opted by the workman

and he was paid the retrial benefits. The workman filed another case before the Labour Court, Bilaspur on the

same cause of action, which was dismissed vide order dated 16-1-1998. An appeal against this order was also

dismissed vide order dated 18-9-1998. Another Writ Petition No.5052/1999 filed against the order of appeal by

the workman was also dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur vide its order dated 29-2-2000.

Accordingly the Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

The Management filed affidavit, uncross-examined of its witnesses and proved documents as referred

above which are (Annexure M-1 to M-25).

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

101

Arguments of Mr. A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management were heard. None appeared from

the side of the workman. I have gone through the record as well.

The Reference is the point in issue in the case in hand.

The initial burden to prove its case lies on the party who asserts it. In this case the burden lies on the

workman in which he has utterly failed. Hence the reference is liable to be answered against the workman.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

The action of the management of CCL Akaltara Unit at first transferring Shri Jeet Singh

Kshatriya from Akaltara to Kolkata and again based on his request letter Dated 13-2-1991

from Kolkatta to CCI Unit Akaltara on reversion ground as per the order dated 5/3/1991 and

again not considering his request on family problem ground to be retained at Akaltara and

again transferring him to CCI Rajban Unit without considering his request is held to be legal

and justified.

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

10.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as

per rules.

DATE: 16.12.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2021

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

,y-vkbZ-lh- vkQ bafM;k] 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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼59@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 15-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-17012@14@2013-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2021

S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2013 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of LIC of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.01.2021.

[No. L-17012/14/2013-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 59/2013

Ref. No. L-17012/14/2013-IR(M) dated 21.08.2013

BETWEEN :

Shri Manoj Kumar

House No. S-19/40-E, Varuna Pul, Nai Bazar

Varanasi (UP)

The Divisional Manager

LIC of Inda, Bhelpur

Varanasi.

The Zonal Manager

LIC of India

The Mall, Kanpur (UP)

102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-17012/14/2013-IR(M) dated 21.08.2013 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

18.09.2015, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Shri Manoj Kumar, House No. S-19/40-E, Varuna Pul, Nai Bazar,

Varanasi (UP) and the Divisional Manager, LIC of Inda, Bhelpur, Varanasi & the Zonal Manager, LIC of India,

The Mall, Kanpur (UP) for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF

INDIA, VARANASI IN TERMINATING SERVICES OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR W.E.F. 10.04.1999

WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE IS JUST AND PROPER AND IF NOT, WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3. The case of the workman, Manoj Kumar, in brief, is that he had been appointed as Peon on 16.12.1996 after

calling names from the Employment Exchange and conducting interview and his services had been terminated

vide oral order dated 10.04.1999 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. The workman has alleged that

he worked continuously with the management for two years three months and twenty six days; but the

management in a certificate issued to him has wrongly mentioned that he had worked for only 85 days. The

workman has also alleged that the management taken other persons working with him but has not taken him on

duty in disregard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 953-968/2005 in the case of

D.V. Anil Kumar; accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination w.e.f. 10.04.1999 be declared

unjust and he be reinstated with consequential benefits.

4. The management of the LIC of India has disputed the claim of the workman through its written statement;

wherein it has submitted that workman had been engaged as per need for 85 days only on purely temporary

basis form 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997 vide engagement letter dated 13.12.1996 in terms and condition mentioned

therein. It has been submitted by the management that the services of the workman come to an end

automatically after completion of the tenure for which he was engaged and since he was engaged/worked for 85

days only therefore, there arise no question of notice of notice pay. The management has also contended that

the workman was neither qualified in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex court; nor did he appeared in the test &

interview, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of the said orders of the Apex Court. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5. The workman filed its rejoinder; wherein apart from reiterating the averments already made in the statement

of claim, introduced nothing new.

6. The workman field documentary evidence in support of his case vide list W-15; whereas the management

filed its list of documents vide list M-16, which shall be referred as and when required. The workman

examined himself whereas the management examined Shri Ram Lakhan Tiwari, Chief Manager, LIC, City

Branch -2, Varanasi in support of their respective case. The parties cross-examined the witnesses of each other.

Perused entire evidence available on record and scanned entire evidence available on record in light of

the rival pleading. I have scanned entire evidence available on record in light of the rival pleading and

respective pleadings of the parties.

8. The workman has come up with a case that he worked with the management of the LIC w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to

10.04.1999 and his services have been terminated by the management without any notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof or any retrenchment compensation. It is also the case of the workman that he bad been given

employment as per orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 953-968/2005 in the case of D.V.

Anil Kumar.

In rebuttal, the management has contended that the workman had been engaged for 85 days only on

purely temporary basis form 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997 as per terms of engagement vide engagement letter dated

13.12.1996 and that the workman was neither qualified nor he appeared for test/interview in terms of orders of

the Hon’ble Apex Court; and since the workman was engaged for 85 days only therefore, there was no need of

giving any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof.

10.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action/order, the burden lies upon him to

prove illegality of the action/order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court

must fail. In the present case, burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the

termination order and to prove that the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he had

worked continuously w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to 10.04.1999. This claim has been denied by the management;

therefore, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

103

preceding his alleged termination. In Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed as under:

“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the

appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for

240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in

his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to

the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of

appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground

alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”

11.

In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC)

Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the workman could be entitled for the protection of section

25 – F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing the fact that he had been in

employment with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that in such cases, the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months

preceding the date of termination to decide the question of the continuous service for the purpose of section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact

worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

Thus, in order to substantiate the workman has filed number of photocopy of the documents, less any

appointment letter or termination order; rather it has been stated by the workman during his cross-examination

that his name was sent by the Employment Exchange and his LIC called for names of the candidates from

Employment Exchange for 85 days only. He also stated that he has not filed any document regarding working

upto 10.04.1999. Moreover, the photocopy of the certificate filed by the workman goes to show that he worked

with LIC w.e.f. 16.12.96 to 10.03.197 for 85 days and he had been paid salary @ Rs. 2611/- per month, this

goes to disprove his version and prove the version of the management that the workman worked for 85 days

only during his engagement period with the LIC. On the contrary, the management has filed letter dated

13.12.1996, paper No. 16/1, regarding offer of appoint of the workman w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997 for 85

days only; wherein it has been mentioned in clause 2 of the letter that the appointment shall automatically cease

with the expiry of the term and his services could be terminated in between also without assigning any reason

and prior information. The management has also filed letter dated 16.12.1996, paper No. 16/2, addressed to the

Employment Officer; whereby he had been intimated about appointment of the workman w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to

10.03.1997 for 85 days.

12.

Admittedly the appointment letter dated 13.12.1996, issued to the workman was a fixed term

appointment i.e. w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997 for 85 days only, which automatically came to an end with the

expiry of the time period and there was no need of any notice or notice pay etc. as per clause 2 of the

appointment letter dated 13.12.1006. The is no iota of evidence that the workman actually worked beyond the

said period of engagement i.e. w.e.f. 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997, as claimed by him in his statement of claim.

The details of engagement, available on record, do not show that the workman actually worked for 240 days in a

year preceding the date of alleged termination i.e. 10.04.1999. Thus, the workman has utterly failed to

discharge the burden that lied upon him and has failed to substantiate his pleading by cogent documentary

evidence that he was actually in the services of the management of LIC and he worked for 240 days during

period 09.04.1998 to 10.04.1999 i.e. one year preceding the date of his alleged termination; and his services

were terminated in violation of Section 25 of the I.D. Act, 2005, without giving him any notice or notice pay in

lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation. Moreover, as regards non-grant of benefit of order dated

18.01.2011 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 953-968 of 2005, it is noteworthy to mention here

that in the said order Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that benefit was extended only to those temporary

104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

persons were are working in LIC for more than five years and possess minimum eligibility qualification and age

as prescribed at the relevant time of their entry in LIC; however, in the instant case the workman had worked

only for 85 days, therefore, he was not eligible for consideration within the purview of the said scheme and the

management had rightly not considered him for appointment.

13.

Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work

for 240 days in a year was on the workman but he has failed to discharge the same. There is no reliable material

for recording findings that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date

of his alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was passed by the management.

14.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman; and I come to the conclusion that he is

not entitled to any relief.

15.

Award as above.

30^th December, 2020

LUCKNOW

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 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 26@2015½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@49@2015-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 50.—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. 26 of 2015) 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 16.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/49/2015-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. 26/2015

Employer in relation to the management of Ghanoodih Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri Amit Mahto, Manager (P)

For workman

: Sri Gopal Prasad, Representative

State : Jharkhand.

Industry :-Coal

Dated 26.11.2020

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

105

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/49/2015- (IR(CM-I)) dated 19.06.2015, 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 Ghanoodih Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s.

BCCL in not correcting the date of birth Sri Ghanshyam Sharma, Dumper Operator as

02.07.1961 as per his educational certificate and intentionally retiring prematurely him without

any basis from the services of the Company w.e.f. 01.01.2015 is fair and justified? To what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. Sri Gopal Prasad the representative of concerned

workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma has filed its written statement of claim on 27/08/2015 and the

management Ghanoodih Colliery Bastacolla Area has filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 28/01/2016.

The representative of the concerned workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the

management on 05/05/2016.

The claim of the sponsoring union namely Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad as per its written

statement is as follows:-

That the concerned workman was appointed by authority of M/s. BCCL on 01/07/1980 as a permanent

employee and he was working in Ghanudih Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL and was performing

his duties as Dumper Operator having his personal no. 01192277 and CMPF No. D/47/283. The concerned

workman is a matriculate having Matriculation Certificate and Mark-Sheet and he had submitted all the Xerox

copy of Educational Certificate to the concerned authority but after getting the copy of the service excerpt, the

concerned workman came to know that his date of birth had not been recorded as per Matriculation Certificate.

The date of birth of concerned workman as per his Matriculation Certificate is 02/07/1961 but in the service

record his date of birth has been wrongly entered as 01/07/1955 and accordingly the concerned workman was

illegally and arbitrarily got retired w.e.f. 01/01/2015. The concerned workman had submitted several

representation before the management for rectification of his date of birth but no action was taken on his

representation and he was prematurely retired from service. There is a provision under JBCCI-IV-

IMPLEMANTATION INSTRUCTION NO. 76 regarding procedure for determination/verification of age of

employees in which it is mentioned that in case of appointees who have passed matriculation or equivalent

examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the

same will not be altered under any circumstances.

A prayer has been made to pass an award in favour of the concerned workman for correcting the date

of birth of concerned workman as per his Matriculation Certificate.

On the other hand the case of the management as per its written statement cum rejoinder is as follows:-

That the written statement filed by sponsoring union is without any merit and the union has not come

before the Tribunal with clean hands, rather it has suppressed the material facts. It is settled law that the

application for correction of date of birth cannot be made at the fag end of the service as per decision of the

various Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The concerned workman namely Ghanshyam

Sharma joined the services of the company w.e.f. 01/07/1980 as per his service excerpts and in the same

services excerpts prepared in 1988 his date of birth has been shown as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 meaning

thereby that the date of birth of concerned employee Ghanshyam Sharma is 01/01/1955 without any objection.

The service particulars of concerned workman of Basudeopur Colliery also shows the same fact. The concerned

workman was transferred to various Collieries during his service tenure and in Form ‘B’ Register prepared by

various Collieries, his date of birth has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 meaning thereby that his

date of birth is 01/01/1955. The Identity Card of the concerned workman also shows his date of appointment is

01/07/1980 and date of birth as 25 years as on 01/01/1980. The concerned workman had never raised any

objection with the management regarding his date of birth but only raised the objection at the fag end of service

only to gain undue advantage of some years of service which is totally illegally.

The management by way of rejoinder has further stated that the statement made in Para 1 by the

sponsoring union is reproduction of the schedule, statement made in Para 2 of the sponsoring union is a matter

of matter of record, statement made in Para 3, 7, 9 and 10 of the sponsoring union are denied, the statement

made in Para 4, 5 and 6 of the sponsoring union are cooked-up stories, the statement made in Para 8 of the

sponsoring union is reproduction of I.I.76 of JBCCI and the statement made in Para 11 of the sponsoring union

is a prayer portion.

106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The sponsoring union has submitted rejoinder to the written statement of management in which almost

all the averments made by the management are denied.

The sponsoring union has examined only one witness. He is the concerned workman namely

Ghanshyam Sharma.

The WW-1, Ghanshyam Sharma has deposed before the Tribunal that he was appointed by the

management of M/s. BCCL on 01/07/1980 and at the time of his joining he had submitted his Matriculation

Certificate, Mark-Sheet and other original documents to the concerned authority which was returned to him after

verification of the original documents by concerned authority. He has also stated that as per Matriculation

Certificate his date of birth is 02/07/1961 but the management had wrongly inserted his date of birth as

01/01/1980 in place of 02/07/1961. He has also deposed that he had reported to the management in writing for

correction of his date of birth but the management deliberately did not do anything. He has also stated that the

management had wrongly inserted his date of birth as 25 years as on 01/07/1980 in the I.D. Card and in Admit

Card Register of Kenduadih Colliery. He has further deposed that the management had entered his age as 25

years on 01/01/1980 in the Form ‘B’ Register and in his service excerpt. He has further stated that the

management had illegally and arbitrarily forced him to retire from service w.e.f. 01/01/2015. He has further

deposed that he had submitted his representation on 06/12/2010 before the Ghanoodih Colliery but no action

was taken.

In the cross-examination he has stated that he joined at Kenduadih Colliery on 01/07/1980 and he was

not aware of the contents of Form ‘B’ Register. He has identified his signature and photograph in Form ‘B’

was transferred to Basudeo Colliery but he did not know the contents of Form ‘B’ Register of Alkusa Colliery.

He has not identified his signature on Exhibit M-6 marked as Exhibit X for identification and he had expressed

doubt on Exhibit M-4 and has stated that signature marked as Exhibit Y is not his signature. He has also stated

that he had raised the dispute regarding his date of birth in the year 2010.

The concerned workman has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Photo Copy of Certificate of Ghanshyam Sharma Board of High School and

Intermediate Education, U.P. 1979.

Exhibit W-2- Photo Copy of Voter I.Card of Ghanshyam Sharma issued by Election Commission of

India.

Exhibit W-3- Photo Copy of PAN Card of Ghanshyam Sharma.

Exhibit W-4- Photo Copy of Identity Card of Ghanshyam Sharma issued by Bharat Coking Coal

Limited.

Exhibit W-5- Attested copy of Marksheet of High School Examination, 1979 of Ghanshyam Sharma.

Exhibit W-6- Photo Copy of Implementation Instruction No. 76 issued under the signature of A.V.

Brahma, Member Secretary JBCCI-IV.

Exhibit W-7- Photo Copy of Letter No. 1/(15)/2013. E. 5 dated 18/19-12-2014 issued by Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad-III addressed to General Manger Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL.

Exhibit W-8- Carbon Copy of Letter no. 1311 dated 29/10/2013 of Project Officer, Ghanudih Colliery

addressed to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad- III regarding date of birth of Ghanshyam

Sharma.

Exhibit W-9- Photo Copy of Letter no. 3041 dated 12/14-10-2011 written by Dy. General Manager,

Ghanudih Colliery addressed to Project Officer, Godhar Colliery.

Exhibit W-10- Photo Copy of representation dated 06/12/2010 of concerned workman before Agent,

Ghanudih Colliery regarding correction of his date of birth in his service records.

The management has examined only one witness. He is MW-1 Dharmendra.

10.

The MW-1, Dharmendra has deposed that the concerned workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma joined

the service of the company w.e.f. 01/07/1980 as per service excerpts and in the same service excerpts prepared

in 1988 his date of birth has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 meaning thereby that his date of birth

is 01/01/1955. He has also stated that the service particulars of Basudeopur Colliery shows appointment of

concerned workman as on 01/07/1980 and his date of birth as 25 years as on 01/01/1980. He has further deposed

that the concerned employee was transferred to various collieries during his service tenure and in all the Form

‘B’ Register prepared in various collieries his date of birth has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/19890.

He has also deposed that in the Identity Card Register his date of appointment is mentioned as 01/07/1980 and

his date of birth is mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980. He has further stated that the concerned workman

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

107

has never raised any objection to the management during his long tenure of service of about 35 years regarding

his date of birth but he has raised the objection at the fag end of service only to gain undue advantage of some

years.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that as per service excerpts his age was assessed 25 years as

per medical board. He has further deposed that it is not a fact that the workman had given Matriculation

Certificate at the very beginning. He has admitted that it is a fact that the concerned G.M. had recommended the

case of the workman for correction of his date of birth as per Matriculation Certificate.

11.

The management has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit M-1- Photo Copy of Identity Card Register of Kenduadih Colliery.

Exhibit M-2- Photo Copy of Identity card of Ghanshyam Sharma issued by Kenduadih Colliery.

Exhibit M-3- Photo Copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Alkusa Colliery.

Exhibit M-4- Photo Copy of Service excerpts of Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery.

Exhibit M-5- Photo Copy of Service Particular of Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery.

Exhibit M-6- Photo Copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery.

Exhibit M-7- Photo Copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Gopali Chak Colliery.

12.

The learned representative of the sponsoring union representing the concerned workman has submitted

before the Tribunal that the concerned workman namely Ghashyam Sharma was appointed on 01/07/1980 in

Kenduadih Colliery and at that time Ghanshyam Sharma had produced his educational certificate in the office of

the Colliery but the management had failed to produce the service book of that Colliery before the Tribunal. He

has further argued that the management had erroneously written 25 years of age in the I.Card without any basis.

He has also submitted that the Project Officer and General Manager had recommended the matter of correction

of date of birth of the concerned workman to the management but the same was rejected vide letter dated

29/12/2014 on the ground that the matter had been raised at the fag end of service which is not justified. He has

also argued that the concerned workman had already raised his dispute in the year 2010 but the management had

not taken any action in his case. He has further submitted that as per Implementation Instruction No. 76

(annexure-1) there is a clear cut provision that in case of an appointees who has passed matriculation and

equivalent examination the date of birth recorded in the said certificate should be treated as correct date of birth

and the same will not be altered.

He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court has reported in 2014 (3) JLJR.

13.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted that the concerned workman

had been appointed as a Dumper Operator and he had not produced any educational certificates at the time of his

appointment regarding his date of birth. He has also submitted that the concerned workman has raised the

industrial dispute after 35 years regarding his date of birth which is at the fag end service, so it is not

maintainable. He has also argued that at the time of his appointment, age of the concerned workman had been

mentioned as 25 years as on 01/07/1980 and this fact has been mentioned in his Form ‘B’ Register of different

Collieries, so the industrial dispute raised by the concerned workman is not maintainable.

14.

Now, the only point of consideration in this case is whether the action of the management of

Ghanoodih colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL in not correcting the date of birth of Sri Ghanshyam

Sharma, Dumper Operator as 02.07.1961 as per his educational certificate and intentionally retiring prematurely

him without any basis from the services of the company w.e.f. 01.01.2015 is fair and justified and to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?

FINDINGS

15.

At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that it is an admitted fact that the concerned

workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma was appointed on 01/07/1980 as a Dumper Operator and at the time of his

appointment his age has been mentioned as 25 years in his Form ‘B’ Register. it is also an admitted fact that the

concerned workman had raised the dispute before the management for correction of his date of birth as

02/07/1961 on the basis of his matriculation certificate but the same was rejected on the ground that request had

been made at the fag end of his service and he subsequently retired from the service of the company w.e.f.

01/01/2015.

16.

The first point of consideration in this case is whether the date of birth of Ghanshyam Sharma the

concerned workman is 25 years as on 01/07/1980 or his date of birth is 02/07/1961 as per his matriculation

certificate.

108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

Now, the Tribunal will examine the oral and documentary evidences produced by both the parties in

this case.

18.

The WW-1 Ghanshyam Sharma has categorically deposed that at the time of his appointment as a

Dumper Operator on 01/07/1980 he had submitted his matriculation certificate, mark-sheet and other original

documents to the concerned authority and after verification, the original documents were returned to him. He

has also deposed that his date of birth has been recorded as 02/07/1961 in his matriculation certificate but the

management had wrongly inserted his date of birth as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 in place of 02/07/1961. He has

further deposed that he had submitted representation on 06/12/2010 before the Agent, Ghanudih Colliery for

correction of his date of birth but the same was rejected and he was forced to retire prematurely from service

w.e.f. 01/01/2015. In the cross-examination he has stated that he was not aware of the content of Form ‘B’

The MW-1 Dharmendra has deposed that at the time of appointment of Ghanshyam Sharma on

01/07/1980 his date of birth had been recorded as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 meaning thereby his date of birth is

01/01/1955 without any objection. He has also deposed that the date of birth of concerned workman has been

mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 in the service particulars of Basudeopur Colliery and other collieries.

He has also stated that in the Identity Card of the concerned workman his date of birth has been shown as 25

years as on 01/01/1980. He has also stated that the concerned workman had not raised the dispute during the

long service of 35 years but had raised the dispute at the fag end of service which is not maintainable. In the

cross-examination he has deposed that it is not a fact that workman had given his matric certificate at the

beginning of his service. He has admitted that their General Manager had recommended the case of workman to

correct the date of birth as per matriculation certificate.

19.

Now, coming to the documentary evidences of the concerned workman it appears that Exhibit W-1 is

the photo copy of certificate of Ghanshyam Sharma of Board of High School and Intermediate Examination

U.P. issued on 12^th July 1979 in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 2^nd July 1961. Exhibit W-2 is

photo copy of Voter I. Card of Ghanshyam Sharma issued by Election Commission of India in which his age

has been mentioned as 43 years as on 01/01/2003. Exhibit W-3 is photo copy of PAN Card of Ghanshyam

Sharma in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 02/07/1961. Exhibit W-4 is photo copy of Identity

Card of BCCL. Exhibit W-5 is Mark-sheet of Ghanshyam Sharma of High School Examination,1979 in which

his date of birth has been mentioned as 02/07/1961. Exhibit W-6 is Photo copy of Implementation Instruction

No. 76 (Annexure 1). Exhibit W-7 is order of ALC, Dhanbad-III. Exhibit W-8 is photo copy of letter of Project

Officer, Ghanudih Colliery addressed to Assistant Commissioner, Dhanbad-III. Exhibit W-9 is a photo copy of

letter dated 12/14-10-11 written by Project Officer Godhar Colliery to Deputy General Manager, Ghanudih

Colliery and Exhibit W-10 is the photo copy of representation of Ghanshyam Sharma before Agent, Ghanudih

Colliery regarding correction of his date of birth.

On the other hand the documents of management shows that :-Exhibit M-1 is the photo copy of Identity

Card Register of Kenduadih Colliery. Exhibit M-2 is Xerox copy of Identity Card of concerned workman of

Kenduadih Colliery. Exhibit M-3 is Xerox copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Alkusa Colliery. Exhibit M-4 Xerox

copy of service excerpts of Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery. Exhibit M-5 is Xerox copy of service

particulars of Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery. Exhibit M-6 is Xerox copy of Form ‘B’ Register of

Ghanshyam Sharma of Basudeopur Colliery. Exhibit M-7 is Xerox copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Gopali Chak

Colliery.

20.

Now after analysing the oral and documentary evidences of the both the parties it is quite apparent that

the concerned workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma had submitted his matriculation certificate, mark-sheet and

other original documents to the concerned authority of at the time of appointment and his testimony on this

point has not been impeached in the cross-examination. Moreover it is also apparent that concerned workman

had passed his matriculation examination in the year 1979 as per certificate of Board of High School and

Intermediate Examination U.P. issued on 12^th July 1979 (Exhibit M-1) and in that certificate his date of birth has

been mentioned as 2^nd July 1961. Further in the mark-sheet of Ghanshyam Sharma of High School Examination

1979 (Exhibit M-6) his date of birth has been mentioned as 02/07/1961 and in his PAN card (Exhibit W-3) his

date of birth has been mentioned as 02/07/1961.

21.

However, the management has produced photo copy of Identity Card Register of Kenduadih Colliery

(Exhibit M-1) in which date of birth of concerned workman has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980

but the management has not produced the service excerpt or Form ‘B’ Register of Kenduadih Colliery without

any explanation where the concerned workman was first appointed. Further in the Identity card (Exhibit M-2)

date of birth of concerned workman has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 and all other Form ‘B’

Service Particulars of Basudeopur colliery (Exhibit M-5) and Xerox copy of Form ‘B’ Register of Basudeopur

Colliery (Exhibit M-6) and Gopali Chak colliery (Exhibit M-7) his age has been mentioned as 25 years as on

01/01/1980.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

109

22.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that Implementation Instruction No. 76 which is marked as

Exhibit W-6 reads as follows:-

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES

(A)

Determination of the age at the time of appointment.

Matriculates

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth

recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any

circumstances.

23.

Now, in this case as per Exhibit W-1 and W-5 it is very much evident that the date of birth of

concerned workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma is 2^nd July 1961 and the management has not disputed those

certificates before the Tribunal. Further there is a provision of recording the date of birth of the appointee as per

matriculation certificate and there is evidence that the concerned workman had submitted those certificates but

surprisingly the management had not entered the date of birth of concerned workman on the basis of

matriculation certificate.

24.

In view of above discussion and as per I.I. No. 76 the Tribunal finds and holds that the date of birth of

the concerned workman namely Ghanshyam Sharma is as 2^nd July 1961 as per his matriculation certificate and

the same should have been recorded in his Form ‘B’ Register and service excerpts of Ghanudih colliery of

Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL

25.

The next point of consideration in this case is whether concerned workman had admitted his date of

birth as 25 years as on 01/01/1980 and he has raised the dispute at the fag end service.

26.

In this regard it is required to mention here that the WW-1 Ghanshyam Sharma has categorically

deposed before the Tribunal that the management had wrongly inserted his date of birth as 25 years as on

01/01/1980 in place of 02/07/1961 and he had submitted his original matriculation certificate, mark-sheet and

other documents at the time of his appointment and the same had been returned after verification. He has also

deposed that he had submitted representation before the management on 06/12/2010 for correction of his date of

birth but the same was rejected and he was forced to retire prematurely from service w.e.f. 01/01/2015. In the

cross-examination he has also deposed that he was not aware to the content of Form ‘B’ Register. Moreover his

testimony has not been impeached in cross-examination.

It is required to mention here that the Exhibit W-10 is the representation of the concerned workman

submitted before the Agent, Dhanudih Colliery for correction of his date of birth in his service record and

Exhibit W-9 is a letter of Dy. General Manager Dhanudih colliery addressed to the Project Officer, Godhar

colliery for sending service records of Ghanshyam Sharma.

Moreover MW-1 had admitted in his evidence that the General Manger had recommended the case of workman

for correction of his date of birth as per matriculation certificate.

27.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the learned representative of the sponsoring union has

relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 2014 (3) JLJR in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that:-

“ In the present case the appellant-company failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the Implementation

Instruction. It is the appellant’s omission and not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute being

raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude of such corporations wherein to avoid the rectification

of a date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because they have number of resources at their

command, goes against the grain of equity and duty towards society at large.”

28.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of management has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court as reported in 1995 AIR 1499 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that:-

“ No reason is given as to why towards the fag end of the service career of the appellant before it, such

correction should have been permitted. Moreover, even though the Matriculation certificate produced

by the appellant before the Division Bench for the first time was seriously doubted, no opportunity had

been given to the Government to make good the doubt. Having gone through the said judgment of the

Division Bench in appeal, we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the Division Bench

was wholly unjust-fied in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge of the same court

whereby it was held, in our view, rightly that the appellant’s writ application filed for correction of his

date of birth at the fag end of his service career for avoiding his superannuation which was due, cannot

be entertained.”

110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further the learned lawyer of management has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High

Court passed in L.P.A. No. 123 of 2010 in which the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that:-

“These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the

cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by

the court.”

29.

Now in this matter there is evidence that the concerned workman had already submitted his

matriculation certificate, mark-sheet and other documents at the time of his appointment and the same had been

returned after proper verification but his date of birth has been mentioned as 25 years as on 01/01/1980.

Moreover the management had not produced the service excerpts/Form ‘B’ Register of Kenduadih Colliery

where concerned workman was first appointed. Further the concerned workman had raised the dispute after

submitting an application to Agent, Ghanudih Colliery on 06/12/2010, so it cannot be said that the concerned

workman had raised the dispute for rectification of his date of birth at the fag end of his service.

30.

In view of above discussion the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the concerned workman had not

admitted his age as 25 years on 01/01/1980 and he had not raised the dispute at the fag end of service.

31.

After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal renderes the following award:-

“The action of Management of Ghanoodih colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL in not

correcting the date of birth of Ghanshyam Sharma, Dumper Operator as per his educational certificate

and intentionally retiring prematurely him without any basis from the service of the Company w.e.f.

01/01/2015 is not fair and justified”

32.

Hence, the concerned workman is entitled for relief which is as under:-

The management of Ghanoodih Colliery under Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL is directed to record the

date of birth of Ghanshyam Sharma, Dumper Operator as 02/07/1961 in service record/Form ‘B’ Register and

other records of M/s. BCCL in place of 25 years as on 01/01/1980 within one month after publication of award

in the Official Gazette and consequently his service will be deemed to continue after his date of superannuation

i.e. 01/01/2015 with all back wages and other benefits as per recorded date of birth on the basis of this Award.

This is the Award of the Tribunal.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 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 27@2016½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@26@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, 18th January, 2021

S.O. 51.—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.27 of 2016) 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 16.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/26/2016-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

111

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. 27/2016

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For workman

: Sri D.N. Banerjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 27.11.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/26/2016- (IR(CM-I)) dated 05.09.2016, 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 P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL in denying compassionate

employment to Shri Manoj Kumar, dependent son of Late Jai Prakash Ram, who expired on

29.05.1998 under the provisions of NCWA is fair and justified? If not, to what relief Shri Manoj

Kumar, dependent son of Late Jai Prakash Ram is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. Sri D.N. Banerjee the learned lawyer of

sponsoring union has filed its written statement of claim on 04/10/2016 and the management Bararee Coke

Works, Putkee Balihari Area has filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 18/07/2017.

The learned lawyer of sponsoring union has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management

on 29/08/2017.

The claim of the sponsoring union namely Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association as per its

written statement is as follows:-

That Late Jai Prakash Ram, was an employee of Bararee Coke Plant under P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL,

PO: Kusunda, District: Dhanbad having designation-Valveman Helper, Personal No. 00581561, Form-‘B’ No.

568, CMPF A/C No. D/530956 and he died on 29/05/1998 while in service. Thereafter Sri Manoj Kumar son of

the deceased workman namely Late Jai Prakash Ram applied for employment on 08/12/1998 as per provision of

NCWA in the prescribed format of CIL and its subsidiaries duly signed, verified with NOC from all surviving

family members of the deceased. After recieving such prescribed Forms by the management of Bararee Coke

Plant and after finding it correct the same was sent to P.B. Area Office and thereafter to M/s. BCCL, HQ Koyla

Bhawan for approval. The competent authority at Koyla Bhawan vide Letter No. BCCL/PA-

VI/13/PBA/13/40/99/27579-83 dated 10/11.12.2001 communicated its approval for employment of Sri Manoj

Kumar as piece rated Miner Loader subject to Medical fitness to the General Manager, P.B. Area and General

Manager, P.B. Area sent the same to Project Officer, Bararee Coke Plant for its compliance. Subsequently the

management of Bararee Coke Plant on receipt of approval letter had sent information to Sri Manoj Kumar for

appearance in Medical Board at his permanent home address which was returned “UNDELIVERED”.

Thereafter, Champa Devi wife of deceased employee Late Jai Prakash Ram came to know regarding the grant of

approval by the management but time period was over. She requested the management of Bararee Coke Plant

for its re-validation. The management of Bararee Coke Plant had sent a proposal for re-validation of

employment of Sri Manoj Kumar but same was regretted. Thereafter the wife of deceased workman had made a

mercy appeal but no action was taken.

A prayer has been made to give employment to the son of deceased workman w.e.f. 25/12/2001 as well

as other relief to compensate the mental agony and harassment with cost of litigation caused by the employer.

112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL as per its written statement cum rejoinder is as

follows:-

That the present reference case is not maintainable and it is a stale dispute. The management had

accorded approval for employment in the year 2001 but the applicant had not reported for medical examination,

therefore the offer of appointment was automatically cancelled in the year 2001 itself, whereas the sponsoring

union has raised the present industrial dispute after lapse of more than 15 years. There is no employer-employee

relationship between Manoj Kumar and the management of BCCL, so there is no industrial dispute within the

meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after lapse of

reasonable period as the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the

time of the death of the sole breadearner. The application for employment was submitted by the dependent of

deceased workman namely Manoj Kumar after death of his father Late Jai Prakash Ram Ex-Valvemen, who

died on 29/05/1998 and the same was referred to Head Quarter for approval. The Head Quarter of BCCL

accorded approval for employment of Manoj Kumar for employment as PR underground miner loader vide

letter dated 10/11-12-2001 subject to medical fitness and prior verification of certificate of identity and

relationship certificate issued by BDO/Mukhiya of the Area. Subsequently the dependent, concerned was

intimated for appearing in medical examination and the said letter was sent on his permanent address by

registered post, but he didn’t appear before the Medical Board for Medical examination, so the offer of

appointment was automatically cancelled. It was specifically mentioned in the offer of appointment letter that if

he failed to appear within seven days from the date of issuance of the offer of appointment letter, it would be

stand cancelled and no further correspondence would be entrusted.

The management by way of rejoinder has stated that the statement of the union made in Paragraph No.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the written statement are matter of record, the statement of union made in Paragraph No. 6

of written statement is not correct, the statement of the union made in Paragraph No. 7 and 8 of the written

statement are not relevant, the statement of union made in Paragraph No. 10, 11 and 12 of the written statement

are not correct and not relevant.

The sponsoring union has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management in which it has

been mentioned that statement made in Paragraph No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are denied, the statement made in

Paragraph No. 6, 7 and 8 are matter of record, the statement made in Paragraph No. 9 is partially denied as

because the letter was sent to the applicant on the permanent home address while applicant was residing on the

present address.

The sponsoring union has examined only one witness. He is WW-1, Manoj Kumar.

The WW-1, Manoj Kumar has deposed before the Tribunal that his father Late Jai Prakash Ram was an

employee at Bararee Coke Plant under P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL and he died on 29/05/1998 while he was on the

roll of management. He has also stated that after death of his father, he had submitted an application for

employment under the provisions of NCWA on a prescribed proforma of M/s. BCCL in triplicate to the

management for his employment and after finding his papers correct, the management of Bararee Coke Plant

had sent his application to the Head Quarter for approval and subsequently the approval was granted vide letter

dated 10/11/2001. He has also stated that after death of his father he was residing in quarter of company at

Bararee Coke Plant which is mentioned in column 16 of Verification Roll Format and he had written

applications to the management on 11/02/2013, 21/10/2014, 29/10/2014, 12/01/2015 and 04/08/2016 for

providing employment to him but Bararee Coke Plant did not reply. He has also stated that he had not received

any information from the management of Bararee Coke Plant and subsequently I.D. was raised in which written

statement was submitted on 20/09/2015. He has proved the copy of reply of I.D. Case No. 1(63)/15 E-6 which

has been marked as Exhibit W-1. He has also proved his application, identification certificate, verification roll

and attestation form, which had been submitted before the management for getting employment and the same

has been marked as Exhibit W-2, Exhibit W-3, Exhibit W-4 and Exhibit W-5 respectively. He has also proved

letter of BCCL dated 10/02/2005 by which management had called for some documents from Head Quarter and

the same has been marked as Exhibit W-6. He has also proved the letter dated 19/02/2005 written by Project

Officer, Bararee addressed to Dy. Chief Manager (P) and the same has been marked as Exhihit W-7. He has also

proved his application under R.T.I Act and the same has been marked as Exhibit W-8. He has also proved his

application for first appeal and the same has been marked as Exhibit W-9. He has also proved the order of

Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi and the same has been marked as Exhibit W-10.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that his father died on 29/05/1998 and he had submitted his

application form for employment in the same year. He has denied the fact that after approval for appointment he

had been referred to Medical Board for Medical Examination but he did not appear in the said Medical Board.

He has also stated that he had not received any letter from the BCCL for appearing before the Medical Board, so

he could not appear before the Medical Board on the fixed date. He has also stated that he had mentioned his

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

113

correspondence and permanent address on the application for employment. He has also stated that he has no

knowledge about the membership of his father to any workers union but this case has been filed by Gopal Babu,

Leader of the union. He has also stated that he had visited office of BCCL several times but no satisfactory reply

was given to him. He has also stated that it is not true that he had been given offer of appointment and he had

not joined the service.

The sponsoring union has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Photo Copy of letter no. BCW/2015/108 dated 20/09/2015 of Project Officer, Bararee

Coke Works, Putkee Balihari Area addressed to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-I in I.D. Case

No. 1(63)/2015/E-6 regarding not providing employment to the dependent son of concerned workman.

Exhibit W-2- Photo Copy of employment application form of applicant Manoj Kumar duly certified

by the BDO of the respective Anchal.

Exhibit W-3- Identification certificate of applicant Manoj Kumar.

Exhibit W-4- Verification Roll of applicant Manoj Kumar. Exhibit W-5- Attestation Form of applicant Manoj

Kumar.

Exhibit W-6- Photo Copy of Letter No. 1114 dated 10/02/2005 of A.K. Singh, Personnel Manger

(MP&R)- HQ, Koyla Bhawan addressed to Dy. CPM, P.B. Area regarding revalidation of employment of

Sri Manoj Kumar.

Exhibit W-7- Photo Copy of Letter No. 005/20084 dated 19/02/2005 of Project Officer, Bararee Coke

Works addressed to Dy. PCPM-PB Area.

Exhibit W-8- Photo Copy of RTI application dated 11/02/2013.

Exhibit W-9- Photo Copy of Form-‘G’ Rule 6 (1) First Appeal dated 12/01/2015.

Exhibit W-10- Photo Copy of information of hearing from Central Information Commission dated

04/08/2016.

10.

On the other hand the management has examined only one witness. He is MW-1, Rajeev Kumar

Mishra.

11.

The MW-1, Rajeev Kumar Mishra has deposed before the Tribunal that approval for appointment of

Manoj Kumar had been granted by the company in the year 2001 and offer of appointment had been sent to him

in which it was mentioned about the period within which he had to join the service. He has further deposed that

it had been mentioned in the letter of offer of appointment that if he did not join within seven days the offer of

appointment, the offer would automatically be cancelled. He has also stated that Manoj Kumar did not join the

service within the stipulated period and the company authority had not re-validated its offer of appointment, so

the claim of the petitioner is not justified.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that there is a prescribed format for appointment in BCCL and

the applicant had submitted all the applications before the authority. He has further stated that the offer of

appointment was sent on the permanent address of the Manoj Kumar. He has also stated that in Column no. 16

of Exhibit W-4, the address of the applicant has been mentioned as Bararee Coke P.O.- Kusunda P.S.-

Kenduadih Dist.- Dhanbad but the company had not sent the offer of appointment on the address mentioned in

column no. 16 of verification roll (Exhibit W-4). He has also stated that there is no provision on the standing

order of BCCL that in case of return of offer letter by the post, the same would be sent on the present address

and thereafter the offer letter would have been published in newspaper. He has denied the suggestion that he had

suppressed the offer of appointment.

12.

The management has not proved any documents in support of its case.

13.

The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the sponsoring union has submitted before the Tribunal that

Jai Prakash Ram was an employee of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL who died in course of service on 29/05/1998 and

after his death his son Manoj Kumar had applied for his appointment in place of his father as per provision of

NCWA. He has also submitted that management had approved the appointment of applicant Manoj Kumar, after

death of his father Late Jai Prakash Ram the concerned workman but the management had issued a letter of offer

of appointment on the permanent address of the applicant whereas the applicant had furnished the present

address as Bararee Coke PO: Kusunda PS: Kenduadih Dist: Dhanbad in his application. He has further

submitted that the applicant had never received his offer of appointment and he had requested the management

for re-validation of the offer of appointment which was regretted by the management. He has also submitted that

114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the management had deliberately suppressed the matter, so that the applicant may not get employment in the

company of BCCL.

14.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted before the Tribunal that the

management had issued the offer of appointment letter on the permanent address of the applicant Manoj Kumar

with a condition to appear within seven days before the Medical Board otherwise the offer would be

automatically cancelled. He has also submitted that the applicant had never appeared before the Medical Board

as a result his offer of appointment was cancelled. He has also argued that there is no provision to re-validate the

offer of appointment, so award may be passed in favour of the management.

15.

Now, the only point of consideration in this reference case is whether the action of the management of

P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL in denying compassionate employment to Shri Manoj Kumar, dependent son of Late

Jai Prakash Ram, who expired on 29/05/1998 under the provision of NCWA is fair and justified and to what

relief he is entitled?

FINDINGS

16.

At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that it is an admitted fact that Late Jai Prakash

Ram was an employee of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL and he died on 29/05/1998 while he was in service. It is also

an admitted fact that after death of Late Jai Prakash Ram his dependent son Manoj Kumar had applied for his

appointment under the provision of NCWA and the management of BCCL had approved the appointment of

Manoj Kumar in place of his father Late Jai Prakash Ram. It is also an admitted fact that offer letter of

appointment had been issued to the son of deceased workman on his permanent address by registered post.

17.

Now, the question arises whether the management had denied the compassionate employment to

Shri Manoj Kumar by not sending the offer of appointment letter on his present address?

18.

In this regard the WW-1, Manoj Kumar had categorically stated that the applicant after death of his

father was residing in company quarter at Bararee Coke Plant which is mentioned in column no. 16 of his

Verification Roll Format. He has further stated that he had submitted several applications in writing on

11/02/2013, 21/10/2014, 29/10/2014, 12/01/2015 and lastly on 04/08/2016 to know the fact but the management

of Bararee Coke had neither given him employment nor any reply. In the cross-examination he has also

admitted that he has mentioned his correspondence and permanent address on his application and he had not

received any letter from BCCL for appearing before the Medical Board, so he could not appear before the

aforesaid Board.

19.

The MW-1, Rajeev Kumar Mishra has deposed that the offer of appointment had been sent to the

applicant Manoj Kumar on his permanent address. In the cross-examination he has admitted that in column no.

16 of Exhibit W-4, the address of applicant has been mentioned as Bararee Coke PO: Kusunda PS: Kenduadih

Dist: Dhanbad and the company had not sent the offer of appointment on the address mentioned in column no.

16 of the verification roll (Exhibit W-4).

20.

After perusal of the Exhibit W-4 which is Verification Roll, it appears that in Column no. 16, under

heading Details With Full Address Of Places Where You Reside During The Last 5 Years it is mentioned as-

Village Bararee Coke PO: Kusunda PS: Kenduadih Dist: Dhanbad State: Bihar.

Further after perusal of Exhibit W-5 which is Attestation Form it appears that in Present Address is

mentioned as Bararee Coke, PO: Kusunda PS: Kenduadih Dist: Dhanbad. Further in column no. 3 of Attestation

Form Home Adderess is mentioned as Kanhachatti PO: Kanhachatti PS: Chatra Dist: Hazaribag. Further Exhibit

W-6, which is letter dated 10/02/2005, shows that Manoj Kumar had submitted application for re-validation of

employment which was turned down. The Exhibit W-9, which is application of First Appeal, shows that the

applicant had preferred first appeal. The Exhibit W-10 is the copy of order of Central Information Commission,

New Delhi.

21.

Now, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence it is quite apparent that the management of

BCCL had accorded approval of appointment of applicant Manoj Kumar after death of his father Late Jai

Prakash Ram but the management had sent the offer of appointment letter on the permanent address of Manoj

Kumar whereas as per Exhibit W-4 he was residing at Bararee Coke PO: Kusunda PS: Kenduadih Dist:

Dhanbad, so it is the an obligatory duty of the management to sent the offer of appointment letter on the present

address if it returned unserved on the address sent. Moreover the applicant had submitted application on several

dates for information but the same had not been made to available to him. Moreover the applicant had submitted

application for re-validation which was turned down.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

115

22.

It is required to mention here that the employment to the dependent son of deceased, who died in

harness is to mitigate the minimum financial hardship caused to the distress family after sudden death of the sole

breadearner.

23.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana as reported in 1994

SCC (4) 138 has been pleased to observe that:-

“as a rule, appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of

application and on merit but appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid

rule, which has given after taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in

service and leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object was to enable

the family to tide over sudden crisis. However, such appointments on compassionate grounds have to

be made in accordance with the rules regulations or administrative instructions taking into

consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.”

24.

Now in the instant case the concerned employee namely Jai Prakash Ram died on 29/05/1998 and

thereafter his son Manoj Kumar applied for appointment and the proposal of his appointment was approved by

the competent authority after three year in the year 2001 but the offer of appointment letter was sent on the

home address whereas the applicant was residing at his present address for last 5 years and that had not been

taken into consideration by the management. The management should have sent a fresh offer of appointment

letter to the applicant after it had returned unserved. Moreover the management had not considered the request

for re-validation of the offer of appointment letter which is not just and proper.

25.

Under such circumstances and conditions the Tribunal finds that the management of Bararee Coke

Plant, P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL had denied the compassionate appointment to Manoj Kumar, son of deceased

workman namely Late Jai Prakash Ram.

26.

In view of above discussion the Tribunal renders the following Award:-

“The action of the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL in denying compassionate employment to

Shri Manoj Kumar, dependent son of Late Jai Prakash Ram, who expired on 29/05/1998 under the provisions of

NCWA is not fair and justified.”

27.

Hence, the applicant Manoj Kumar is entitled for relief which is as under:-

The management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL is directed to offer an employment to Shri Manoj Kumar

deceased son of Late Jai Prakash Ram, Bararee Coke, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih as piece rated miner loader

subject to his medical fitness within one month after publication of the Award in the Official Gazette.

This is the Award of the Tribunal.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 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 31@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@217@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 52.—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.31 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 16.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/217/2004-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 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. 31/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated :27.11.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/217/2004-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 demand of the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union for regularization of

Md. Karim Ansari to the post of Rope Splicier Category-V from the management of Jealgora

Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and

from what date?”

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

subsequently the workman/union left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again two regd. notices were

issued to concerned union/workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the

Case is pending since 25/04/2005 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that

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

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

eSllZ bZ-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 33@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@535@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 53.—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. 33 of 2002) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

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

Government on 16.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/535/2001-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

117

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. 33/2002

Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area of M/s. E.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 25.11 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/535/2001-IR (C-I) dated 28/02/2002 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 E.C.L. in not accepting the date of appointment

of Sri Basdeo Ojha as 1.7.69 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned 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. Thereafter registered notice was issued to the

workman/union which returned with endorsement of “Addressee left”. Now the Case is pending since

21/03/2002 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] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 306@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@295@2000-vkbZvkj- ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 54.—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. 306 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

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

Government on 16.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/295/2000-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 306/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Karo Special Project of M/s. CCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 26.11 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/295/2000-C-I dated 30/10/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Karo Special Project of M/s C.C.Ltd. to terminate the

service of Sri Shiv Ram Mehetar on the grounds of long absentee is legal and justified? If not, 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 the parties left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notices were issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared. Later on the Ld. Lawyer of management appeared but no one

appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since 21/11/2000 and workman/union is not

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

Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,ukZdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12025@01@2021-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-12025/01/2021-IR (B-I)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

119

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

ERNAKULAM

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

(Monday the 9^th day of March 2020, 19 Phalguna 1941)

ID No. 17/2014

Workman…

Shri. K.V. Joy

Kollamolath House

Karukapilly P.O.

Kolenchery

Ernakulam – 682311

By Adv.Mathews K. Uthuppachan & Terry V. James

Managements…

1. The Deputy General Manager

State Bank of India

LHO Annex

Shanmugham Road

Ernakulam – 682301

2. The Chief General Manager

State Bank of India

Local Head Office

S. S. Kovil Road, Thampanoor

Trivandrum – 695001

3. The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of India

HR Department, LHO

S. S. Kovil Road, Thampanoor

Trivandrum – 695001

4. The Chief Manager

State Bank of India

M.G. Road Branch

Ernakulam – 682011

By Adv. Raynold Fernandez N.

This case coming up for final hearing on 21.01.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

09.03.2020 passed the following:

AWARD

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

Notice was issued to the managements. Only management no. 4 entered appearance and managements

1 to 3 remained ex-parte.

The workman filed a claim to pass an award holding that his termination from service and denial of

employment is not legally justifiable and also direct the managements to reinstate him in service and regularise

his service with full back wages and continuity of service. The workman is an Ex-serviceman having served

in the Army for 23 years. The workman joined the service of the management Bank as temporary guard on

07.10.2005 and his services were illegally terminated by the management on 03.01.2013. The dispute raised

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) ended up in failure and the conciliation officer permitted

the workman to raise this industrial dispute. After retirement from Army, the workman got himself registered

in Zilla Sainik Welfare Board. The Zilla Sainik Welfare Board recommend his name for selection to the post of

temporary guard in State Bank of India. The workman attended an interview in September 2005 and he was

appointed as a temporary guard by the management Bank and his services continued till 03.01.2013. The

workman worked for 1335 days during the aforesaid period in various branches of State Bank of India for the

last 9 years. The State Bank of India conducted a recruitment for selection of Security /Armed Guards in 2005

and thereafter the selection was conducted only in May 2010. The workman also applied against the

notification in 2010. However the application was rejected by the management Bank on the ground that he has

crossed the age ceiling limit of 45 years. On 07.10.2005, when the workman was appointed by the management

Bank as temporary guard he was aged 44 years. The management used to select temporary armed guards

against permanent armed guards after conducting interview and physical test. The workman bonafidely

believed that he will also get regularised as a permanent armed guard. Hence the workman did not apply for

120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

any other job. The management never intimated the Zilla Sainik Welfare Board regarding the guidelines

dt.21.07.2002. When the application for permanent armed guard was rejected on the ground that he crossed the

age of 45 years the workman made a representation seeking relaxation of age to the extent of his provisional

service, before the management Bank. The representation was not considered by the management Bank. Since

the rejection of the application of the workman was not intimated to Zilla Sainik Welfare Board they did not

sponsor the workman’s name for any other job. Hence he lost the opportunity to be suitably appointed in

some other institution. The workman and 4 other similarly placed Ex-servicemen filed W.P.(C).8520/2011

before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenging the rejection of their application. The Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dt.11.10.2012 observed that if

regularisation is sought, temporary service has to be reckoned and special consideration has to be given. In

view of the judgment the workman approached the management claiming regularisation of his service. The

same was rejected vide order dt.31.12.2012. The workman moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Ernakulam, against the rejection. When the industrial dispute was pending, State Bank of India

initiated recruitment process for filling up the vacancies of armed guards in Kerala. The Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) issued an order dt.22.08.2013 staying the recruitment process. The management

challenged the said order in W.P.(C).3112/2013 and Hon’ble High Court vide order dt.26.08.2013 stayed the

operation of the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central). The workman approached the Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala in W.P.(C) 22055/2013 to stay the selection process till a final order is passed by Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central). The Hon’ble High Court did not stay the recruitment process but directed the

Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) to dispose of the industrial dispute expeditiously. The workman

challenged the order of the Hon’ble High Court before the Division Bench in W.A.64/2014 which was

disposed of by the Court vide judgment dt.10.01.2014 directing the Ministry of Defence to consider and pass

orders on the request given by the workman with regard to relaxation of age. No orders are passed by the

Ministry so far. The workman is not alternatively or profitably employed after his termination by the

management Bank. Having worked for more than 240 days continuously in the previous 3 years immediately

before his termination, the service of the workman could only be terminated by complying with the provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination of the workman and denial of employment is illegal and arbitry.

The management filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition. It is admitted

by the management that the workman was appointed on 07.10.2005 as temporary guard by the management

Bank at the age of 45 years. The engagement of the workman was purely temporary and there was no

illegality in terminating his services. The management denied the allegation that selection of permanent staff is

done from the temporary watchman/guard after conducting interview and physical test. The management had

never made out any representation to the workman that he will be regularised in service at some point of time.

The management cannot be held responsible if the workman was not aware of the guidelines dt.21.07.2002

issued by the management Bank for recruitment of armed guards. The management Bank has framed

comprehensive guidelines for recruitment of armed guards in permanent vacancies as early as 21.07.2002. In

sub clause (f) of Clause 5 of the above guidelines, it is mentioned that the age ceiling is subject to the

maximum of 45 years. Phase 1 of the selection process involves physical test and phase 2 involves interview

by a properly constituted selection committee. A copy of the guidelines dt.21.07.2002 is produced as Exbt. M1.

It is true that the workman applied for a post of armed guard against circular dt. 27.05.2010 and the same was

rejected for the reason that the workman crossed the age of 45 years. The relaxation allowable in respect of

the post of armed guards is subject to the maximum age limit of 45 years. There is no provisions in the

guidelines for relaxation of upper age limit of 45 years. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment

dt. 11.10.2012 in W.P.(C) 8520/2011 upheld the view that the age limit provided in Clause 5(f) of the

comprehensive guidelines cannot be interfered with. The Court further observed that the issue is something

which comes within the realm of policy for selection in the matters of appointment. The contention of the

workman that when he was initially appointed he was within the age limit will not in any way help the

workman. Further the temporary service of casual employees cannot be computed for the purpose of arriving

at the eligibility of age criteria as per the guide lines. The claim of the workman that he worked continuously

for 1335 days over a period of 9 years is denied by the management. There was no continuous engagement

and the workman was engaged on a temporary basis as and when there is a vacancy. The management also

denied the allegation that the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It

is true that the workman applied against the circular dt.27.05.2010 for regular appoint. However his application

was rejected as he crossed the age of 45 years as on the cut of date. The workman approached the Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) no.22055/2013 for staying the selection process of armed guards. The

Hon’ble High Court refused any relief. W.A. 64/2014 filed by the workman before the Division Bench was

disposed of with direction to the Defence Ministry to consider the representation of the workman regarding

relaxing of age. The defence ministry has not passed any order till date. The workman was only a casual

employee and hence there was no termination of service of the workman. There is no violation of the

provision of Sec 25F of ID Act. The workman has already approached the Hon’ble High Court for the same

relief and identical contentions and same was declined by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The workman

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

121

cannot re-agitated the same issues in this proceedings. The management is not guilty of any unfair labour

practice.

The workman filed a rejoinder denying the allegations in the written statement and reiterating his

claims in the claim petition.

The workman examined WW1 and WW2 and marked Exbts.W1-W12. Exbt.W9 and W10 were

marked subject to proof. The management examined MW1 and marked Exbt.M1 and M2.

After completion of pleadings and evidence the following issues are framed for examination.

Whether the workman is entitled for regularisation, relaxing the age limit of 45 ?

Whether there is any violation of sec 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Relief and cost

8. Issue No.1

It is an admitted fact that the workman was appointed as temporary armed guard in the service of the

management Bank on 07.10.2005 when he was 44 years of age. His engagement was done through Zilla Sainik

Welfare Board. There was no recruitment of permanent armed security guard in the management in between

2005 and 2010. On 27.05.2010 the management Bank issued a circular for appointing permanent armed

security guards. The workman also applied for the post. However his application was rejected on the ground that

he crossed the age of 45 years as on the date of application. The request given by the workman for relaxation

of age limit was also rejected by the management Bank. At the time of the initial appointment in 2005 the

workman was aged 44 and therefore well within the age limit of 45 years. According to the learned Counsel

for the management the recruitment of armed guards in permanent vacancies is guided by the comprehensive

guidelines in Exbt.M1. As per the eligibility criteria in Exbt. M1, the maximum age ceiling is 45 years.

Clause 5 (f) of Exbt.M1 reads as follows;

‘‘Age Ceiling - For recruitment as Bank guards, Ex-servicemen are entitled to relaxation in age ceiling

in full, to the extent of service in the Armed Forces and 3 years in addition there to, subject to the maximum age

ceiling of 45 years’’.

The workman and similarly placed armed security guards challenged the rejection of their

application for regular appointment claiming relaxation of age limit in a series of writ petitions before the

Hon’ble High Court Court of Kerala. The Hon’ble High Court considered all these matters and disposed of all

the writ petitions by a common judgment in W.P.(C) 8520/2011 vide its order dt.11.10.2012. The Hon’ble

High Court of Kerala considered all the above issues including the provisions in Clause 5(f) of Exbt.M1.

The Hon’ble High Court after examining various issues concluded that

‘‘The above aspect, when harmoniously constructed with Clause 5(f) of the comprehensive guidelines

indicate that the rationale behind is to ensure that selected candidates are left with enough service

and to ensure that they are possess desired standards of physical fitness. This Court is not in a

position to interfere with the decision taken by the Bank authorities in their wisdom in formulating

guidelines prescribing such cut of age in consonance with guidelines of the Central Govt. It is a

matter which is purely coming within the realm of policy decision in the matter of appointment.

Unless it is established that such policy lacks total nexus with the objective sought to be achieved or

that it is totally irrational and arbitry, this Court cannot interfere. Moreover there is no direct

challenge against the guidelines prescribed. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners are entitled to

be selected in the process of recruitment against permanent vacancy which is made through prescribed

selection process on the basis of settled guidelines. Therefore the challenge against rejection of

candidature on the basis of crossing of upper age limit cannot be sustained ".

The Hon’ble High Court also considered whether it is justifiable to consider the temporary service and

relaxation of the eligibility criteria in the case of the workman. After considering the facts and also the related

decisions the Hon’ble High Court held that" In that point of view the urge for regularisation in service of the

Bank on the basis of temporary appointments need consideration. But it is for the appropriate authorities to

decide such issues". While dismissing the writ petition the Hon’ble High Court made it clear that the dismissal

of the writ petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioners claim of regularisation of service in the Bank

or seeking in further modification of the guidelines providing relaxation in upper age limit. It is left open to the

petitioners to approach the appropriate authority either in the Bank or in the Central Govt to seek for such

modifications and to seek recruitment against permanent vacancies arising in future. They will also be at liberty

to seek regularisation on the strength of temporary service put in. From the above it is clear that the question of

relaxation of age for permanent appointment of the workman and also considering the relaxation taking into

account the temporary service, was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the same was rejected

with a direction to the workman to approach the appropriate authority seeking relaxation. Hence it is not open

122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this Court to examine the same issues which were considered and disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court.

Hence the claim for relaxation of age limit and regularisation of service of the workman are decided against the

workman and in favour of the management.

9. Issue no.2

According to the learned Counsel for the workman, the workman worked continuously for 9 years and for 1335

days. It was also argued that the workman worked continuously for 240 days for all 3 years since 2010. When

he was terminated on 03.01.2013 he was not given any notice, notice pay or compensation as required U/s 25F

of ID Act, 1947. Hence his termination is arbitry and is clearly illegal. To substantiate his claim the workman

produced Exbts.W1-W7. Those exhibits are certificates issued by various branches of the management Bank

stating that the workman worked with them for so many days during a particular period. The question involved

is whether the workman worked for 240 days one year immediately prior to his termination of service.

Exbt.W6 will show that the workman worked for 246 days for the period from 01.12.2011-12.10.2012. The

workman could primafacie establish that he has worked for more than 240 days within one year prior to his

termination on 03.01.2013. The workman filed IA no.11/2016 seeking a direction to the management to

produce the original attendance/duty register, attendance book and wage payment details with respect to the

workman maintained at State Bank of India, M.G.Road, Ernakulam branch during the period 10/2005 to

12/2012. After protracted proceedings, the Interlocutory Application was allowed directing the management

to produce the listed documents or to file an affidavit in case of non production. The management neither

produce the documents nor filed any affidavit explaining the reasons for non production of the documents

ordered to be produced in the proceedings. The documents ought to be produced by the workman are in the

custody of the management and are crucial in establishing whether the workman worked for 240 days one year

prior to his retrenchment particularly in view of the fact that the workman has primafacie established that he

worked for more than 240 days. Hence an adverse presumption will have to be drawn against the management

for non production of crucial documents such as attendance register and payment details of the workman for the

relevant point of time. It may be relevant to examine the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gauri

Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 12 SCC 754. In the above case, the workman was working with the

respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f. 01.01.1987

till his services came to be retrenched and he had rendered service of more than 240 days in every calendar year

and has received salary from the respondent department each month. The workman challenged the retrenchment

as bad in law as the same was in violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of the ID Act. The workman

applied for production of the Muster Roll and the management failed to produce the relevant Muster Rolls. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs Muhammed Haji

Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Murukesam Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 5 LW 759 held that

even if the burden of proof does lie on a party, the Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds

important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts of issue. It may also be relevant to

examine the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs Mahak Singh

and others, 2007 4 SCC 94, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their

initial onus by producing the documents in their possession, it is the responsibility of the management to

disprove the claim of the workman that he did not work for more than 240 days with the management one year

immediately prior to his/her termination. In this case, as already stated, Exbt.W6 certificate issued by the

Management Bank, will clearly establish that the worker worked for more than 240 days one year immediately

prior to his retrenchment. However the documents ordered to be produced by the Management such as the

attendance register and wage payment details of the workman, could have conclusively proved the claim of the

workman that he worked for more than 240 days one year immediately prior to his retrenchment. Hence in the

absence any explanation on the side of the Management an adverse inference is that the workman worked for

more than 240 days one year immediately prior to his termination on 03.01.2013. Hence the management is

liable to follow the conditions precedent before the retrenchment of the workman as contemplated U/s 25F of

ID Act, 1947.

10.

It was also pointed out that the workman in this case is only a casual employee on daily wages and

hence he is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. The learned Counsel for the workman relied

on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar K. Vs Managing Director, KTDC Ltd, 2019

(1) KHC 225 to point out that the definition in Sec 2(s) of the ID Act includes casual employees also. In the

above case the Hon’ble High Court held that;

“Para 18. From this it is quiet evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2(s) of the ID Act

includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra) (in the context governed by

the provisions of the workman’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in hand.”

11.

Another issue to be considered is in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and the State of Bihar and others Vs Devendra Sharma, Civil

Appeal no. 7879/2019, to argue that the management Bank being a ‘state‘ under Article 12 of the Constitution,

whether back door entry in service can be allowed violating Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It was

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

123

argued that when there is a violation of the provisions of ID Act, the dictum laid down in the above decisions is

clearly distinguishable. In Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 Supreme Court

Cases 321 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) and held that ;

“17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a Court

would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the

overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution

of India. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and powers of the Industrial and Labour Court provided

therein were not at all under consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice

was neither the subject matter for decision nor was decided in Uma Devi’s case.

18. We have noticed that Industrial Dispute Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and certain

other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging

employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving them the status and privilege of

permanent employees.

19. Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen.

A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer retrenches the workman. Such a

workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages

for the period of the notice apart from compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to

serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Govt or such Authority as may be specified by

appropriate Govt by notification in the official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Sec 25F is violated and

the employer there by, resorts to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with privilege as

provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment

of the employee was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(20) - - - - - - - - - - - -

(21) - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that the

initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 &16 of the Constitution of India or in

accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted to and

thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of

Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year”.

The above decisions was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur

Casual Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786. The

Hon’ble Court held that an undertaking of the government which comes within the meaning of ‘industry’ or its

establishment cannot justify its illegal action including unfair labour practice nor can ask for different treatment

on the ground that public undertaking is guided by Articles 14 &16 of Constitution of India and the private

industries are not guided by 14 &16 of the Constitution. In Umrala Grama Panchayat Vs Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union, 2015 12 SCC 775 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the services of the

workmen in that case be regularized and made permanent since they worked for more than 240 days in a

calendar year.

12.

In view of the above, it is very clear that the management terminated the service of the workman in

clear violation of the provisions of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13.

Issue No. 3

Issue no.2 regarding the legality of termination of the workman is decided in favour of the workman and

against the management. The learned Counsel for the workman argued that once this Tribunal found that the

termination of the workman was illegal he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages. The

workman was already on the verge of retirement age and he is a daily wage employee and continued as a

daily wage employee and is not entitled for regularisation for the reasons discussed at issue no.1. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand and others Vs Rajkumar, 2019 1 LLJ 513 SC relying on the

decision of the Court in BSNL Vs Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer and

another Vs Satish Kantilal Amerelia 2018 12 SCC 298 held that in the circumstance of that case it would

be just and proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the workman in full and final

satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

laid down the law on the subject in BSNL case (Supra) as follows ;

124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ Para 33. It is clear from the readings of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of

reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied

mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent

workmen are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, of unfair labour

practice, etc. However when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the

termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Sec 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should given monetary compensation which will

meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

Para 34. The reasons for denying the relief for reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law

that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non payment of retrenchment compensation

and notice pay as mandatorily required U/s 25F of the ID Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated

he has no right to seek regularization [see State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi(3)]. Thus when he cannot

claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is

going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the

Court itself in as much as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary

compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation giving

the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

Para 35. We would however, like to add a cavate here. There may be cases where termination of daily

wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in

violation of the principles of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors

to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under

some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker

should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course

of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases reinstatement should be the rule and

only in exceptional cases, for the reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied”.

14. In the present case, it is proved that the workman was engaged as a daily wage employee and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days one year before his termination. The management failed to establish that

the workman was gainfully engaged during the period of termination. Hence it is a fit case where the dictum

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand and others Vs Rajkumar (Supra) is

squarely applicable. It is seen that the workman was engaged on daily basis and he was being paid daily wage

of Rs.375/- per day. It is also seen that the workman has crossed 59 years of age as on date. In these

circumstances it would be just and proper and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation to the

workman in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. If the

wages are worked out from his date of termination till date it will approximately come to Rs.8,50,000/- as back

wages. Further he is also entitled to the benefit U/s 25F of the ID Act. Taking into account all these aspects

it is felt that interest of justice will be met if the management is directed to pay 50% of the back wages and

other benefits U/s 25F of the ID Act. Hence the management is directed to pay a lumpsum monetary

compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the workman in full and final settlement of his claim within one month from

the notification of the award.

Hence an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled for regular appointment relaxing

the age limit. However he is entitled to be reinstated with 50% of the back wages and therefore the

management is directed to give him a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- in full and final

settlement of all his claims.

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 March, 2020.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

125

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Shri. K.V. Joy, dt.18.01.2016

WW2

Shri. Joseph M.P., dt. 01.03.2017

Witness for the Management:-

MW1

Shri.N.G. Mathew, dt. 01.11.2019

Exhibits for the Workman:-

Certificate dt. 21.05.2010 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, M.G.Road Branch, Ernakulam

Certificate dt. 17.02.2010 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, Ernakulam Branch

Certificate dt. 20.05.2010 issued by the Chief Manager (HR) Section, SBI, Ernakulam

Certificate dt. 20.05.2010 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, Ambalamedu Branch

Certificate dt. 22.03.2011 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, M.G.Road Branch, Ernakulam

Certificate dt. 12.10.2012 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, M.G.Road Branch, Ernakulam

Certificate issued by the SBI, M.G. Road Branch, Ernakulam

True copy of judgment dt.10.01.2014 in W.A. no. 64/2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of

Kerala

Certificate dt. 03.07.1993 issued by the SBI to Mr.C.Valsalan (marked subject to proof )

W10

Identity Card issued by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Board to Mr. C.Valsalan (marked subject to

proof )

W11

Certified copy of letter dt.30.07.2016 sent by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Ernakulam to

the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, M.G.Road, Trivandrum

W12

Certified copy of letter dt.26.11.2016 sent by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Ernakulam to

the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Market Road, Ernakulam

Exhibits for the Management:-

Photocopy of the guidelines dt. 21.07.2002

Photocopy of the judgement in W.P. (C). 8529/2011(L) dt.11.10.2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

mrj jsyos izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18-01-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-41011@09@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-41011/09/2014-IR (B-I)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 15/2014

Ref. No. L-41011/09/2014-IR(B-I) dated 19.03.2014

BETWEEN :

Mandal Sanghthan Mantri

Uttar Railway Karmchari Union

C/o Shri Parvej Alam, 283/63, Kh, Ghari Kannora

Premvati Nagar, PO, Manak Nagar

Lucknow.

(Espousing cause of Shri Guru Prasad)

AND

Senior divisional Personal Officer

Northern Railway, DRM Office

Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/09/2014-IR(B-I) dated 19.03.2014 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Mandal

Sanghthan Mantri, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, C/o Shri Parvej Alam, 283/63, Kh, Ghari Kannora,

Premvati Nagar, PO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow and Senior divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railway, DRM

Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABANDHAN UTTAR RAILWAY, LUCKNOW DEARA APNE KARMKAAR SHRI GURU

PRASAD, M.C.M. ADHINATH VARI. KHAND ABHIYANTA (TELE), DOORSANCHAR LINE,

U.R., CHARAGH, LUCKNOW KI GRATUITY SE KUL 70,464.00 KI KATAUTI KARNA

NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAAR KYA ANUTOSH PANE KA

ADHIKAARI HAI?”

The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that the workman, Guru Prasad, whose date of birth in his

service book had been mentioned as 09.11.1950; and accordingly he worked upto 30.11.2010 i.e. upto attaining

age of 60 years. It has been alleged by the workman that the competent authority vide order dated 15.11.2010

ordered that the date of birth mentioned on the first page of the service book be treated correct and the workman

be retired and paid retrial benefits accordingly, even then the workman had been retired w.e.f. 30.09.2010 and

deduction form his gratuity towards salary for October & November, 2010 along with income tax, amounting to

Rs. 70464/- had illegally been deducted. The workman has also alleged that the above recovery had been made

without any show cause etc., therefore, the same may be refunded to him with interest.

The management of the railways has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement

wherein it has submitted that the date of retirement of the workman had inadvertently been mentioned as

30.11.2010 instead of 30.09.2010, therefore, when workman was retired on 30.11.2010, the excess payment

made to him, amounting to Rs. 63,876/- was recovered from his gratuity. It has been submitted by the

management rectification had been made in the date of birth, wrongly mentioned in a certificate, which resulted

into recovery of excess amount paid to the workman, therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the

workman and accordingly, the management of the railways has prayed that the claim of the workman’s union be

rejected without any claim to the workman concerned.

The workman’s union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement

of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

After completion of pleadings on behalf of the parties, the parties were called upon to file documentary

evidence in support of their respective case and accordingly, the workman’s union filed documents vide list

dated 17/18-02-2015 and the management of the railways filed none. The workman’s union was given

opportunity to file its evidence on affidavit; and accordingly, it filed its evidence in shape of affidavit on

09.08.2018; but did not turned for cross-examination, on several dates, accordingly, the management was

afforded opportunity to file its evidence on 05.03.2020, closing the opportunity of the workman to get cross-

examined. On the date fixed for management evidence, the learned counsel for management stated that since

the workman did not turn up for cross-examination, therefore, it does not want to final any evidence. Thus,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

127

keeping in view long pendency of the case since 2014, the case was heard on merit and file was reserved for

award.

It is noteworthy to mention that in the instant case the authorized representative of the workman’s

union made his last appearance on 07.03.2019; and since then he is not turning up to contest its case; and it is

only the authorized representative of the opposite party who is appearing before this Tribunal for last several

dates.

The case of the workman that recoveries were made from his gratuity without any show cause etc.; per

contra, the management has come up with a case that the excess payment were made due to wrong entry of date

of retirement; accordingly, the excess payment made was recovered from the gratuity.

In view of rival contentions of the parties, I have scanned entire material placed on the file.

10.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of action, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail.

In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of

the management in making recovery from his gratuity. It was the case of the workman that the recovery was

made from the gratuity of the workman illegally. This claim has been denied by the management; therefore, it

was for the workman to lead evidence to show that the management illegally made recovery form the gratuity.

The workman’s union though filed documentary evidence vide list, W-7; which included photocopy of various

documents; moreover, it did not turn up to prove the photocopy of the documents filed, in evidence before this

Tribunal.

11.

In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its

Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others, Hon’ble High Court relied upon the

law settled by the Apex Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1984 (49) FLR 38 Airtech Private

Limited v. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74) FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and

others; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

“that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be

answered by the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers

to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a

party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

12.

In the present case the workman has not turned to substantiate his case by way evidence as he did not

turn up to get cross-examined. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of

workman to come forward with the case that the management illegally made recovery form the gratuity; but the

workman failed to forward any evidence in support of its claim, as it did not turn up to get cross-examined.

There is no reliable material for recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the

action of the management of Railway in making recovery form the gratuity is illegal and unjustified.

13.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman; and as such, I come to the conclusion

that the workman, is not entitled to any of the relief claimed.

14.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

01^st January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

mrj jsyos izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18-01-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-41011@54@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo

128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Norther

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-41011/54/2015-IR (B-I)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 68/2015

Ref. No. L-41011/54/2015-IR(B-I) dated 12.10.2015

BETWEEN :

The President

Rail Sewak Sangh

By S. N. Shrivastav, J-422, Inderlok Colony

Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

Mandal Sanket & Doorsanchar Abhiyanta

Northern Railway

(bridge line), Varanasi Kant, &

Mandal Rail Prabandhak, Uttar Railway, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/54/2015-IR(B-I) dated 12.10.2015, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the

President, Rail Sewak Sangh, By S. N. Shrivastav, J-422, Inderlok Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and Mandal

Sanket & Doorsanchar Abhiyanta, Northern Railway, (bridge line), Varanasi Kant, & Mandal Rail Prabandhak,

Uttar Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“kya prabandhan, uttar railway dwara shri gauri Shankar ko seva nivrrit dinank 30/06/2011 ke

upraant 3 varsh paschat der se bhugtaan karne deye dhanraashi par byaj bhugtaan na karna, rail

sewa pension niyam 10=993 ke rule 76 ka ullanghan karne par prabadhan ke virudh audhogik

vivad adhiniyam 1947 ki dhara 25 u ke antargat karyvaahi ki maang karna nyayochit evam vaidh

hai? Yadi nahi to shramsangh/kaamgaar ki raahat ko paane ka haqdaar hai?”

The order of reference was endorsed to the President, Rail Sewak Sangh, By S. N. Shrivastav, J-422,

Inderlok Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the statement of

claim along with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

The industrial dispute was registered in the Tribunal on 01.10.2015 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman’ union for filing the statement of claim with list of reliance & list of witnesses

on 29.12.2015; but no statement of claim together with documents etc. was filed. The workman’s union put up

its appearance on 16.02.2016 and since then it did not file any statement of claim and had been seeking date at

one pretext or the other. On 08040216 the management filed its authority in favour of Shri U.K. Bajpai,

advocate, which was taken on record. More than five years’ time has passed and the woman’s union has failed

to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the

workman’s union to contest the case; moreover, Shri Bajpai also denied to file any statement of defence on

behalf of the management in absence of any statement of claim from the workman’

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove

illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail.

In the present case burden was on the workman’s union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the

action of the management in not paying interest on the belated payment of pension benefits as per Rules.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

129

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman’s union does not want to pursue its claim on

the basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as

if there is no grievance left with the workmen’s union. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the

workmen concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

30^th December, 2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

cMksnk if'pe ;w ih xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@169@2008-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda

Western U.P. Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-12012/169/2008-IR (B-I)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 33/2009

Ref. No. L-12012/169/2008-IR(B-I) dated 01/09/2009

BETWEEN :

Shri Harish Chandra S/o Shri Shiv Sahai

Vill: Kurtara Post – Agras

Distt. – Bareilly (UP)

Vs.

The Chairman

Baroda Western U.P. Gramin Bank

Regional Office

124-C, Civil Lines, Bareilly.

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/169/2008-IR(B-I) dated 01/09/2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Shri

Harish Chandra S/o Shri Shiv Sahai, Vill: Kurtara Post – Agras, Distt. – Bareilly (UP) and the Chairman,

Baroda Western U.P. Gramin Bank, Regional Office, 124-C, Civil Lines, Bareilly for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BARODA WESTERN U.P. GRAMIN

BANK, BAREILLY TO DISMISS FROM SERVICE TO SHRI HARISH CHANDRA,

MESSENGER W.E.F. 4-2-2006, IS FAIR, LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF

IS THE WORKMAN CONCERNED ENTITLED TO?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Harish Chandra was working as Messenger in Bithri

Chainpur branch of the bank when he was suspended for alleged charges of financial irregularities, mis-

appropriation and fraud on 04.08.2005 and subsequently had been issued a charge sheet dated 12.08.2005,

which was duly replied by the workman vide his reply dated 24.08.2005; and the management of the Bank,

being unsatisfied with the reply of the workman, appointed Sri Iqbaal Singh, Manager, Bhojipura as Enquiry

Officer, who submitted his enquiry report vide letter dated 20.12.2005 before the disciplinary authority. The

Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause to the workman;

which was duly replied by the workman vide his reply dated 01.02.2006. The Disciplinary Authority issued

punishment order dated 04.02.2006, which was confirmed by the Appellant Authority after considering his

appeal dated 21.03.2006 vide appellate order.

It has been alleged by the charge sheet dated 12.08.2005 is false and frivolous and the inquiry officer

conducted the departmental inquiry without observing the due procedure of domestic inquiry, in violation of the

principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry did not afford proper opportunity

to the workman for his defence. It has also been alleged b the workman that the inquiry officer did not summon

relevant witnesses before inquiry, which caused prejudice to his case; moreover, the Disciplinary Authority and

Appellate Authority issued punishment order and appellate order without considering the reply to the show

cause and his appeal respectively. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the Departmental proceedings

which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside.

The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and

has defended its domestic proceedings with submission that the workman had been afforded all reasonable

opportunity given under rules the principles of natural justice were fully complied with; hence, there is no

anomaly with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by it may be upheld

and the action of the Bank vide order dated 04.02.2006 be declared just, fair and legal without any benefit to the

workman concerned.

The workman has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

The workman did not file any document in support of his case. Likewise, the management filed only

copy of charge sheet dated 12.08.2005 with his written statement. It is noteworthy to mention here that the

workman almost refrained the proceedings since 18.12.2012, after filing of rejoinder, and turned up only on few

dates; but did not turn up to prove his case before this Tribunal i.e. he neither filed any documentary nor any

oral evidence to prove his pleadings before this Tribunal.

Keeping in view long pendency of the case, following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated

20.11.2020:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper.

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse?

(iii) Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges or not?

After framing the above preliminary issues, the submissions of the authorized representative has been

heard and date was fixed for award; however, the parties were afforded an opportunity to file their written

submission, if any.

Heard learned counsel of the management alone and perused entire material available on record.

Issue No: 01 & 02:

The authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman committed gross

misconduct of fraud, cheating and misappropriation on various accounts of the customers. He acted dishonestly

and deliberately against the interests of the Bank; accordingly, was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated

12.08.2005 and after conducting a fair domestic inquiry; wherein the workman had been afforded all reasonable

opportunity to defend himself was awarded punishment of dismissal; which cannot be called disproportionate at

all.

In rebuttal, the workman did not submit any oral or written submission; moreover, he failed to prove

his pleadings before this Tribunal through cogent evidence, documentary and oral.

10.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove

illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

131

In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of

the management in dismissing him from the services of the Bank, after conducting a departmental inquiry;

wherein the principles of natural justice were not observed by the inquiry officer and the punishment imposed

upon him was disproportionate. Since the management denied this claim of the workman, therefore, it was for

the workman to lead evidence, documentary as well as oral, to show that the alleged injustice had been done to

the workman; but he could not succeed.

11.

In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its

Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others, Hon’ble High Court relied upon the

law settled by the Apex Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1984 (49) FLR 38 Airtech Private

Limited v. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74) FLR 2004 (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and

others; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

“that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be

answered by the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the

employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation

made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no

evidence is led.”

12.

In the present case the workman did not turn up to substantiate its case by way of filing any oral

evidence and refrained athe proceedings before this Tribunal. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was

obligatory on the part of workman to come forward with the case that the workman was actually not given

prover opportunity of defence before the inquiry officer during domestic inquiry and the inquiry was conducted

against the principles of natural justice; and that also that the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse; and

finally that the punishment imposed upon him was disproportionate or harsh; but the workman failed to forward

any substantive evidence in support of its claim, in spite of ample opportunity being provided to him. Thus,

there is no reliable material for recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the

departmental inquiry was conducted in utter violation to the principles of natural justice or the findings of the

inquiry officer are perverse. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated

hereinabove, the issued No. 01 & 02 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 03:

13.

Now, after decision of the preliminary issue no. 01 & 02, in the favour of the management, the

pleadings of the workman that the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate and this Tribunal should

interfere into it within the provisions providing under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is taken

into account. In this regard, it is well settled that the Labour Court has ample power under section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to substitute a lesser punishment, taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case. Moreover, the principle of proportionality calls for interference of this Court into the

punishment imposed by the management i.e. of removal in view of law in Joseph Solomon vs. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun & another 2012 (134) FLR 424.

14.

It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the

evidence relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope

of invoking the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition

that the Court should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the

misconduct committed or it is harsh. Admittedly, in the instant case the workman was given charge sheet for

committing misconduct of ‘doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank’ i.e. cheating, fraud and

misappropriation; and was penalized with punishment of dismissal. Moreover, it has been held in preceding

para that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the

workman was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; and also that the findings of the Enquiry

Officer do not suffer with the vice of perversity.

15.

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about

the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute

its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to

reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare

cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:

132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed

by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion

that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed

earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of

an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent

person concerned works.”

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a

long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized

the legal position in the following words:

“11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance

of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court

would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the

court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial

review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the

decision.

12.

To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for

interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal

position as follows:

“8.

……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds

the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated

that:

“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to

the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

16.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad

(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High

Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the

conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the

disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of

misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the

position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be

maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would

not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

17.

In the instant case the workman, committed gross misconduct of fraud, cheating, misappropriation in

various accounts of the customers to the tune of Rs. 1,31,600/-, which not caused financial loss to the bank but

also was prejudicial to the interests of the Bank.

Needless to point out that the act of fraud and misappropriation speaks ill of the honesty and integrity

of the workman concerned. This is definitely an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads to loss of

faith in the workman. In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been

observed that:

“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is

affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason

that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss

of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

133

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645

Hon’ble Apex court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss

of confidence in the employee, observing that:

“(i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, be

commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in

service/establishment would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the employee, or would be

detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be

subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a

definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness

or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.”

In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the

contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he

can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence.

18.

Thus, the Bank being a financial institution dealing with the public money, the employees of the Bank

are required to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to day transaction/functioning. The act of dishonesty

or fraud or misappropriation lowers down the reputation of Bank in public. The public loose their confidence in

Bank, which affects Bank’s business and finally the national economy.

19.

Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

“7.

It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the

evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the

material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on

evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be

grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not

interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are

based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see

whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the

material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be

arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.”

20.

In the instant case the charge of gross misconduct of fraud, cheating, misappropriation by the workman

was found to be proved and principles of natural justice were properly observed while conducting the

departmental inquiry; and also the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not found to be perverse, therefore the

punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh to the proved misconduct, at any stretch

of imagination.

Therefore, in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case; and law cited hereinabove, there is no

justification in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the workman by the Disciplinary Authority for the

proved gross misconduct. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled for any

relief.

21.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

29^th December, 2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2021

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

cMksnk if'pe ;w- ih- xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@20@2007-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]

Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo

134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2021

S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Western

U.P. Gramn Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-12011/20/2007-IR (B-I)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 64/2007

Ref. No. L-12011/20/2007-IR(B-I) dated 28.11.2007

BETWEEN :

The District Secretary

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh

Bans Mandi, Bareilly (UP)

(Espousing cause of Shri Pradeep Kumar)

The Chairman

Baroda Western U.P. Gramin Bank

124-C, Civil Lines, Bareilly (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/20/2007-IR(B-I) dated 28.11.2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the District

Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Bans Mandi, Bareilly (UP) and the Chairman, Baroda Western U.P.

Gramin Bank, 124-C, Civil Lines, Bareilly (UP) for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF BARODA WESTERN U.P. GRAMIN

BANK, BAREILLY TO AWARD PUNISHMENT TO SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CLERK CUM

CASHIER OF DEGRADATION TO A LOWER STAGE IN INCREMENTAL SCALE BY EIGHT

INCREMENTS IS FAIR, LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE

WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED?”

It is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Pradeep Kumar was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier

in Damkhoda branch of the Bank when he was had been issued a charge sheet dated 20.08.2003, which was

duly replied by the workman vide his reply dated 20.09.2003; and the management of the Bank, being

unsatisfied with the reply of the workman, appointed Sri Askandar Mirza as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his

enquiry report dated 03.03.2004 before the disciplinary authority. A copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer

was provided to the workman vide leter dated 05.03.2004 for representation and the workman submitted in

representation dated 21.03.2004. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of findings of the Enquiry Officer,

representation of the workman, issued a show cause to the workman vide dated 17.05.2004; which was duly

replied by the workman vide his reply dated 26.06.2004; and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to

the workman, the Disciplinary Authority issued punishment order dated 02.12.2004, which was confirmed by

the Appellant Authority after considering his appeal dated 30.12.2004 vide appellate order dated 21.10.2005.

It has been alleged by the workman that the charge sheet dated 20.08.2003 is ambiguous and does not

disclose the specific detiasl of alleged misconduct. It has also been alleged by the workman that the inquiry

officer conducted the departmental inquiry without observing the due procedure of domestic inquiry, in

violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry did not afford

proper opportunity to the workman for his defence. Further, the workman has alleged that the inquiry officer

did not summon relevant witnesses before inquiry, which caused prejudice to his case; moreover, the

Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority issued punishment order and appellate order without

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 23, 2021/माघ 3, 1942

135

considering the reply to the show cause and his appeal respectively. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that

the Departmental proceedings which were conducted in violation to the principles of natural justice is liable to

be set aside.

The management of the Bank in its written statement has denied the allegations of the workman and

has defended its domestic proceedings with submission that the workman had been afforded all reasonable

opportunity given under rules the principles of natural justice were fully complied with; hence, there is no

anomaly with it; and accordingly, has prayed that domestic enquiry proceedings conducted by it may be upheld

and the action of the Bank vide order dated 02.12.2004 be declared just, fair and legal without any benefit to the

workman concerned.

The workman has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

The workman did not file any document in support of his case, whereas the management filed copy of

entire inquiry proceedings. Following preliminary issues were framed vide order dated 18.05.2010:

(i) Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer is fair and proper? If not, its effect.

(ii) Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse? If so, its effect; and

(iii) Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is harsh? If so its effect.

After framing the above preliminary issues, the parties were called upon to adduce evidence. The

workman examined himself in support of his case; but did not turn up to cross-examine the management witness

on several dates, which led to closure of his opportunity. It is noteworthy to mention here that the workman

refrained the proceedings since 09.09.2014 and neither turned up to cross-examine the management witness nor

for the oral submissions; accordingly, only the submissions of the authorized representative of the management

has been heard; and date was fixed for award, keeping in view long pendency of the case, since 2007; however,

the parties were afforded an opportunity to file their written submission, if any.

Heard learned counsel of the management alone and perused entire material available on record.

Issue No: 01:

The authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman committed gross

misconduct of fraud and acted gorss negligentry whereby he made payment of impersonated loans, which

resulted into monetory loss to the Bank amounting to Rs. 6,46,000/-. He acted dishonestly and deliberately

against the interests of the Bank and misused his post; accordingly, was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated

20.08.2003 for the gross misconduct; and after conducting a fair domestic inquiry; wherein the workman had

been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself was awarded punishment of ‘degradation to a lower

stage in his incremental scale by eight increments’; which cannot be called disproportionate at all.

In rebuttal, the workman did not submit any oral or written submission; moreover, he failed to cross-

examine the management witness.

10.

The workman has come forward with a case that he had been issued an ambiguous charge sheet and he

was denied proper defence, before the inquiry officer, as the Inquiry Officer did not summon the relevant

witnesses during the course of inquiry. The management has denied the charges and in support of its pleadings

has filed affidavit of its witness; but the workman did not turn to cross-examine him; also there is no such

pleading on behalf of the workman that he made any request before the Inquiry Officer to summon any witness,

which was relevant from his point of view, in order to prove his innocence. Admittedly, the workman had been

issued a charge sheet for gross misconduct of issuing impersonated loans, whereby cause loss to the Bank

amount to Rs. 6,46,000/-. From the pleadings of the workman itself as well as the inquiry proceeding, available

on record, it is evident that he had been afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself as he was given

copy of charge sheet with documents and on his denial of charges, before the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry officer

proceeded with the inquiry. The workman did not opt to be represented by any defence representative; also, he

was opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution and was also given an opportunity

to produce witnesses in his defence; apart from affording an opportunity to file written arguments. There seems

no anomaly or denial of principles of natural justices to the workman by the Inquiry Officer; however the

workman has alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not summon the relevant witnesses; but in this connection he

was at liberty to submit a list of witnesses before the Inquiry Officer to be summoned to prove his case, thus, the

workman himself failed to bring the relevant witnesses in the witness box, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit

of the same at this point of time.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action, the burden lies upon it to prove

illegality of the action, here in the instant case, it was burden upon the workman to prove how not summoning

any witness cause prejudice to his case, particularly when he did not make any effort in this regard at all.

However, in the case in hand, there is no iota of evidence on record which goes to suggest that the workman

136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 23, 2021/MAGHA 3, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made any effort to get any of the witness summoned, who was a material witness from his point of defence and

his non-summoning cause prejudice to his case. Thus, the workman utterly failed to substantiate that the Inquiry

Officer did not conduct the inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and accordingly, the

issue No. 01 is decided in favour of the management.

Issue No. 02:

11.

The workman has pleaded that the inquiry report of the Inquiry officer is based on surmise and

conjuncture and are perverse as based on no material. However, the management has denied the allegation of

the workman and has submitted that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on the evidence, collected by

the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry and are detailed.

From perusal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that the Inquiry Officer has based his findings on the

documents produced during the inquiry and written submissions given by the workman before the Inquiry

Officer. Further, he has also referred statement of certain witness i.e. MW-6, 9 and 10; moreover, he has also

mentioned that the workman produced affidavit of as many as five persons in his defence with his written

arguments; hence they were not taken into account as the same were not produced during the course of inquiry.

In this regard it is noteworthy to mention here that the inquiry officer rightly did not consider said affidavits as

they could have only been relied upon when firstly, they would have been produced during inquiry and

secondly, the prosecution would have been afforded opportunity to cross-examine the persons with made

statement in the affidavits. Thus, it could be well inferred that the findings of the Inquiry Officer do not suffer

with the vice of perversity; and accordingly, the issue No. 02 is decided in favour of the management.