308 GI/2021

(171)

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. 04]

नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 24—िनवरी 30, 2021 िजनवार/ माघ 4— माघ 10, 1942

No. 04] NEW DELHI, JANUARY 24 – JANUARY 30, 2021, SATURDAY/MAGHA 4 –MAGHA 10, 1942

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जविेि मंत्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 14 िनवरी, 2021

का. आ. 70.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, म् ूजन में श्री अजनल कुमार, सिा क अनुभाग

अजिकारी को दिनांक 14 िनवरी 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के

जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2014]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाव, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-04022021-224929

CG-DL-W-04022021-224929

172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2021

S.O. 70.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

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

Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Munich to

perform the Consular services with effect from 14th January, 2021.

[F. No. T-4330/01/2014]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 20 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 71.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव izca/kd] VkbZxj 4 flD;ksfjVh ,aM fMVsfDVo bafM;k izk-fy-] भीलवाड़ा, (राि) और अन् एवं उनके

कमवचारी के प्रबंंितंत्र के संबंद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बंीच अनुबंंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में श्रम

न् ा ाल ,- भीलवाड़ा के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 02/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को 18.01.21

को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2017) of The Labor Court - Bhilwara, (Raj) as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Manger, Tiger 4 Security and

Detective India Private Limited, Bhilwadra, (Raj) and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 18.01.21.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh vthr dqekj fgaxj] vkj-ts-,l- ¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½

izdj.k la[;k % 2@2017 ,y-lh-vkj

Jh mn;yky xkMjh iq= Jh :iyky] fuoklh&

nsoukjk;.k eafnj ds ikl] xka/khuxj] HkhyokMk

---izkFkhZ

% cuke %

izca/kd] eS- VkbZxj 4 flD;ksfjVh ,aM fMVsfDVo bafM;k izk- fy-]

410] QksFkZ Q~yksj] 'ks[kkokVh dkEiysDl] LVs'ku jksM]t;iqj

---foi{kh@fu;kstd

mifLFkr %

Jh dUgS;kyky cqykor] izfrfuf/k&izkFkhZ dh vksj lsA

foi{kh ds f[kykQ ,drjQk dk;ZokghA

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

173

iapkV

fnukad 21-10-2019

Jfed us foi{kh fu;kstd ds fo:) mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus laca/kh Je fookn mi eq[; Je vk;qDr

¼dsUnzh;½] vtesj ds le{k is'k fd;k] tgka 45 fnu dh le;kof/k esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ us

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls iapkV esa vkxs vf/k- 1947 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds rgr

;g fookn U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;kA

mijksDrkuqlkj fookn izkIr gksus ij i{kdkjksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj ryc fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ us Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k fd mlus foi{kh ds v/khu Qjojh 2014 ls HkhyokMk fLFkr

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad] 'kk[kk &lsok lnu jksM] HkhyokMk ds ,-Vh-,e- ij flD;ksfjVh xkMZ&ds;j Vsdj ds in ij

fnukad 17-10-2015 rd dke fd;kA izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnolksa ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk

25&ch ds rgr mldk fu;kstu fu;fer fu;kstu gSA og fnukad 18-10-2015 dks dk;Z ij mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh

ds lqijokbZtj us cSad ds izca/kd ds funsZ'k ij mls dke ij ysus ls euk dj fn;kA mls fcuk fdlh tkap ds] fcuk

dksbZ dkj.k crk;s] fcuk uksfVl fn;s fnuakd 18-10-2015 ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ vf/k- 1947

dh /kkjk 25&,Q]th o ,p ds vkKkid izko/kkukas dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA lsok i`Fkddj.k ds ckn ls gh og

csjkstxkj gSA og leLr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

foi{kh dh vksj ls ckotwn rkehy fdlh ds gkftj ugha gksus ij fnukad 12-1-2018 dks muds f[kykQ

,drjQk dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k fn;s x;s x;sA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa mn;yky , M 1 o dqynhi , M 2 ds c;ku 'kiFk i= ij ntZ djok;s x;s

rFkk cSad iklcqd izn'kZ 1] vk/kkj dkMZ izn'kZ 2] ifjp; i= izn'kZ 3 dks iznf'kZr djok;k x;kA

loZ izFke ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; Jfed& fu;kstd ds lca/k gSa ,oa D;k foi{kh us

izkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-10-2015 dks voS/k :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k\ ;fn gka] rks izkFkhZ D;k vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh gS\

lk{; esa izkFkhZ mn;yky us eq[; ijh{k.k Lo:i 'kiFk i= esa vafdr fd;k gS fd foi{kh daiuh us mls

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad dh 'kk[kk iqj jksM] HkhyokMk ds ,-Vh-,e ij flD;ksfjVh xkMZ&ds;j Vsdj ds in ij Qjojh 2014

esa fu;ksftr fd;k] rc ls gh mlus yxkrkj fnukad 17-10-2015 rd ogka larks"kizn lsok,a nhA mlds dk;Z ls foi{kh

dks dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh ,oa mldk dk;Z LFkkbZ izd`fr dk FkkA mlus izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnolksa ls vf/kd

dke fd;kA mldk fu;kstu fu;fer fu;kstu gSA fnukad 18-10-2015 dks tc og dk;Z ij mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh

ds lqijokbZtj us Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kd ds funsZ'k ij izkFkhZ dks dke ij ysus ls lkQ badkj dj fn;kA mls

lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA blls iwoZ mls dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k o tkap ugha dh xbZA bl izdkj vf/k- 1947 dh

/kkjk 25&,Q ds vkKkid izko/kkukas dh vogsyuk dj mls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA og iqu% fu;ksftr gksus dk

vf/kdkjh gSA

izkFkhZ ds xokg dqynhi flag , M 2 us Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk crk;s x;s rF;ksa ds tSls gh mYys[k vius eq[;

ijh{k.k Lo:i 'kiFk i= esa fd;s gSaA

cgl ds nkSjku izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k o fyf[kr cgl Hkh is'k dh

rFkk okafNr vuqrks"k iznku djus dk fuosnu fd;kA

izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa o izLrqr lk{; ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd foi{kh flD;ksfjVh o fMVsDVho lsok,a miyC/k

djkus dk dk;Z djrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks bUgha dk;ksZa esa ls fdlh dk;Z ds fy, fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA bl LVst ij

izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls foi{kh dk m|ksx dh rkjhQ esa gksuk izdV gksrk gSA

izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr foi{kh }kjk tkjh igpku i= izn'kZ 3 dsd voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ]

foi{kh ds ;gka Qjojh 2014 ls dk;Zjr jgk gSA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk flD;ksfjVh ,oa fMVsDVho dk dke djuk mDr

igpku i= ls izdV gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us Lo;a dk foi{kh ds ;gka flD;ksfjVh xkMZ ds in ij gksus dk tks dFku fd;k

gS] ml laca/k esa foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ [kaMu ekStwn ugha gSA foi{kh ckotwn fof/kor rkehy gekjs le{k mifLFkr

ugha gqvk gSA blh Øe esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd i=koyh ij foi{kh }kjk Je izorZu vf/kdkjh ¼dsUnzh;½]

174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

HkhyokMk dks izsf"kr ,d i= fnukad 28-1-2015 dh QksVks izfr ¼tks izkFkhZ }kjk is'k dh xbZ gS½ miyC/k gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ

dk ds;j Vsdj ds in ij dk;Z djus dk mYys[k gSA blds vykok Lo;a izkFkhZ us vius tks cSad LVsVesaV dh izfr

izn'kZ 1 is'k dh gS] mlesa mls foi{kh ls osru jkf'k 4429 #- fnukad 13-3-2015 dks izkIr gksus dk vadu gSA bu lHkh

ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka crk;s vuqlkj flD;ksfjVh xkMZ & ds;jVsdj ds in ij dk;Zjr jgk gSA

mlds igpku i= esa mldk fu;kstu Qjojh 2014 ls gksus dk mYys[k gS rFkk mlus foi{kh }kjk fnukad 18-10-2015

dks lsok i`Fkd djus dk tks vfHkopu o lk{; is'k fd;k gS] bldk dksbZ [kaMu gekjs le{k ugha gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ

dh lk{; v[kafMr gSA Qjojh 2014 ls 17-10-2015 rd mldk fu;kstu vf/k- 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds ifjis{; esa

fu;fer fu;kstu gksuk Hkh izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls Li"V gSA foi{kh us mifLFkr gksdj izkFkhZ ds fu;fer fu;kstu o

larks"kizn dk;Z ds laca/k esa dksbZ foijhr vk'k; dk vfHkopu ;k lk{; is'k ugha fd;k gS] vr% ;g izdV gksrk gS fd

mls fnuakd 18-10-2015 dks voS/k rkSj ij lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;kA mldk fu;kstu foi{kh us fdUgha 'krksZa ds rgr

vof/k fo'ks"k ds fy, fd;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh izdV ugha gksrhA vr% mls voS/k rkSj ij lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds

dkj.k og iqufuZ;kstu dk vf/kdkjh gSA

vkns'k

vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed Jh mn;yky xkMjh iq=

Jh :iyky o izca/kd] eS- VkbZxj 4 flD;ksfjVh ,aM fMVsfDVo bafM;k izk-fy- ds e/; Jfed&fu;kstd ds laca/k gSaA

izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 18-10-2015 ls lsok i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ Jfed iqu% flD;ksfjVh

xkMZ&ds;jVsdj ds in ij fu;ksftr gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dks iapkV izdkf'kr gksus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj iqu% flD;ksfjVh xkMZ&ds;jVsdj ds in

ij fu;ksftr fd;k tk;sA izkFkhZ Jfed lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk 18-10-2015 ls iqufuZ;kstu dh frfFk rd mls lsok

i`Fkd djrs le; ns; osru dh nj ls dqy osru dh 20 izfr'kr jkf'k Hkh izkIr djsxkA

iapkV dh izfr jkT; ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ Hksth tk;sA

vthr dqekj fgaxj] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 20 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 72.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव मिाप्रबंंिक, आई टीआई जलजमटेड, मनकाृुर, गोंडा ( ूृी) एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंंितंत्र के संबंद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बंीच अनुबंंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 11/2014) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

13.01.2021 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/173/2013-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 72.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

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

to The General Manager, ITI Limited, Mankapu, Gonda (UP) and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 13.01.2021.

[No. L-42011/173/2013-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

175

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

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

I.D. No. 11/2014

Ref. No. L-42011/173/2013-IR(DU) dated 07.03.2014

BETWEEN :

Shri B. K. Mishra, President

ITI Limited Labour Union

A-804, Sanchar Vihar Colony

ITI Township, Mankapur

Gonda (UP) – 271308

The General Manager

ITI Limited, Mankapur

Gonda (UP) – 271308

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/173/2013-IR(DU) dated 07.03.2014 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

05.02.2015, 08.06.2015 & 12.08.2015, 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 B.K. Mishra, President, ITI

Limited Labour Union, A-804, Sanchar Vihar Colony, ITI Township, Mankapur, Gonda (UP) and the General

Manager, ITI Limited, Mankapur, Gonda (UP) for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“क् ा प्रबंंिन आई.टी.आई. जलजमटेड, मनकाृुर, गोंडा द्वारा अृने श्रजमक जिर बंी. के. जमश्रा को दिनााँक

12-01-2011 से जनलंजबंत दक ा िाना व जनवावि भत्ता 75 प्रजतित न दि ा िाना उजचत एवं वजिाजनक िज?

दि निीं तो श्रजमक क् ा जित लाभ ृाने का अजिकारी िज?”

The case of the workman, B. K. Mishra, in brief, is that he had been appointed in category B with the

opposite party establishment w.e.f. 26.02.1987 and had been raising matters relating to the labour welfare

before the management, therefore, the management got annoyed and in order to victimize him, placed under

suspension w.e.f. 12.01.2011, on account of false and fabricated charges. The workman has alleged that the

management kept him under suspension for 15 months and during his suspension period only 50% as

subsistence allowance in violation to the Certified Standing Orders. The workman has also alleged that the

management, during his suspension period, made deductions at rate of his full basic pay instead at the rate of

the subsistence allowance paid to him; accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of the management

be declared illegal and he be held entitled for subsistence allowance @ 50% for the period of 90 days w.e.f.

from 12.01.2011 and thereafter he be given subsistence allowance @ 75%.

The management of the ITI has disputed the claim of the workman by filling its written statement;

wherein it has contended that the workman has been issued charge sheet for grave misconduct i.e. to create

nuisance inside the Factory continuously and he had been paid suspension allowance as per provisions of the

Standing Order. The management has submitted that the workman had been punished for his misconduct vide

order 12.10.2012 and since the workman has not challenged the punishment order dated 12.10.2012, therefore,

his present claim is liable to be rejected outrightly being devoid of any merit.

The workman filed his rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating the facts already submitted in his

statement of claim has submitted nothing new.

The parties have filed photocopies of the documents, in support of their respective case. However, on

18.04.2018, an application along with death certificate of the workman has been moved before this Tribunal;

however, none turned up on behalf of the workman after substitution had been allowed.

It was the case of the workman that he had been paid suspension allowance at lower rates than it was

provided under Certified Standing Orders of the ITI and the claim of the workman had been disputed by the

management with submission that he had been paid the subsistence allowance as per Standing Orders, therefore

176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

it was incumbent upon the workman to substantiate his claim through cogent evidence. The workman filed

documentary evidence but could not prove them through oral evidence due to his demise, even none turned up

from his legal heirs after substation. Since the matter had been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the

Appropriate Government, therefore, this Tribunal is duty bound to answer the same.

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 to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action of

the management in not giving him the subsistence allowance as per Rules. 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.

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.”

10.

In the present case the workman did not turn up to substantiate its case by way of filing any oral

evidence due to his death. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of workman

or his legal hires to come forward with the case that the workman was actually not given the subsistence

allowance at the prescribed rates; but the workman or his legal hires failed to forward any substantive evidence

in support of its claim, in spite of ample opportunity being provided to it. Thus, there is no reliable material for

recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the action of the management of the

ITI in not giving him subsistence allowance @ 75% was unjustified and illegal.

11.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman; and as such, I come to the conclusion

that the workman, B. K. Mishra is not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed by him.

12.

Award as above.

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

LUCKNOW.

01st January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 73.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव मिाप्रबंंिक, एचएमटी मिीन टूल्स जलजमटेड, िलािल्ली, बंैंगलोर (कनावटक), एवं श्री मुजन प्ृा उनके

कमवचारी के प्रबंंितंत्र के संबंद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बंीच अनुबंंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , बंैंगलोर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 09/2012) को प्रकाजित

करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को 13.01.2021 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2021-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

177

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 73.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 . the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

General Manager, HMT Machine Tools Limited, Jalahalli, Bangalore (Karnataka), and Sh Muniyappa ,

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 13.01.2021.

[No. L-42025/07/2021-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 05^TH JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ID 09/2012

I Party

II Party

Sh. Muniyappa,

S/o Chinnaiah,

R/a No. 724, MES Road,

5^th Cross, Bhovi Colony,

Jalahalli, Bangalore - 560013.

The General Manager,

HMT Machine Tools Limited,

Jalahalli, Bangalore - 560013.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. S. B. Mukkannappa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. T. Raja Ram

AWARD

It is a petition filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity

‘the Act’ hereinafter).

The claim of the 1^st Party workman is, he joined the 2^nd Party on 27.10.1981 as casual worker on daily

wage basis: in the year 1983 he was transferred to Sewerage Department and worked there upto 1986: in the

year 1990 he was transferred to HTC Department: he was doing the job which is permanent in nature: his

service was terminated w.e.f 08.07.1992, but juniors to him were allowed to continue: termination compensation

was not paid: aggrieved by his termination he raised Industrial Dispute before the State Labour Court in

Reference No. 89/1995 which concluded by an Award dated 08.09.2004 directing the Respondent Company to

reinstate him with continuity of service. The Award was implemented: he was reinstated and posted to work in

R.D Department as a Fitter: his service was utilised as helper: he has worked continuously in the 2^nd Party,

doing the work of permanent nature: he is a permanent employee but his service is not regularised. Similarly

placed employees raised Industrial Dispute for regularisation of their service: while the matter was pending

before the State Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 16/1999 the 2^nd Party entered into settlement with 106

workers: out of 106 workers the service of 83 of them was regularised and they were put on training for a period

of one year and thereafter absorbed as permanent employees. However, the 1^st Party continued as a daily wager:

he raised Industrial Dispute before the State Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 206/2006, but reference was rejected

on the ground that he cannot be ordered for regularisation on the basis of Award passed in I.D 18/1995. He is

orally terminated w.e.f. 27.08.2011 without prior notice / notice pay / compensation. His salary for the month of

July - August 2011 is not paid to him: as on the date of his oral termination he was holding the Token No. 700:

the order of oral termination is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Appointment Order and against the

principles of natural justice. He has worked continuously from 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011. His termination

amounts to illegal retrenchment for non-compliance of provisions of Sec 25-F of ‘the Act’: he is unemployed

and he is under obligation to maintain the family.

Claim is contested by the 2^nd Party on the following lines:

1^st Party was engaged as casual labourer on 27.10.1981: he was discontinued due to non-availability of

work: however, as per the Award passed in Reference No. 89/1995 he was reinstated and engaged as casual

labourer by paying minimum wages without any consequential benefits: the Industrial Dispute raised by him in

178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. 206/2006 seeking regularisation was concluded by rejected the reference and by holding that he is not

entitled for any relief. The Award dated 31.03.2011 binds him and his prayer for regularisation is rejected by

the Labour Court, hence further adjudication on the very same question of regularisation does no arise: it

amounts to resjudicata. His nature of work was purely casual in nature: whenever there is exigency of work

such work will be extended to casual labourers who are on the Muster rolls of the Company. The reference is

not maintainable.

Two witness are examined for the 2^nd party: the first witness is Officer Hindi and Legal and second

witness is AGM (HR) HMT and the Award passed by State Industrial Tribunal in I.D No. 206/2006 was

produced as Ex M-1.

Both the witnesses have reiterated the case of the 2^nd Party that, since the regularisation is already

rejected by the Labour Court dated 31.03.2011 present dispute is not maintainable.

The 1^st Party adduced rebuttal evidence and produced documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-12.

During his cross examination, MW-1 admits that 1^st Party was appointed as casual labourer on

27.10.1981 and transferred to Sewerage Department in the year 1983: he worked in the Sewerage Department

from 1983 to 1986: his daily wages has been increased from the initial rate of Rs. 6/- per day to Rs. 12/- per day,

and then to Rs. 22/- per day. As per the Award in CR No. 89/1995 he was reinstated and posted to R & D

Department.

During cross examination of MW-2 he came with a new version that the 1^st Party worked upto the year

2006: however he could not specify the date on which his service was discontinued. He expressed his

helplessness to produce the Muster Roll under the excuse that they maintain the documents 8 – 10 years only.

However, admits the suggestion that since the workman was litigating from the year 2006 probably his Muster

Roll may be available: the witness during the course of cross examination made yet another improvement to the

case of the 2^nd Party by stating that a notice was issued to the workman about dropping him from service.

The 1^st Party during his cross examination admits that on dismissal of his petition ID 206/2006 he was

not permitted anymore with the 2^nd Party.

Admittedly the 1^st Party workman was taken as a casual worker and continued to be so until he was

refused employment allegedly on 27.08.2011. The dispute raised by him seeking regularisation of service

having been rejected by the State Labour Court vide Award dated 31.03.2011, the present petition is for the

relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. On his own showing all the while he worked as a casual

worker on daily wage basis: it is not his case that he has worked against any sanctioned vacancy. Being a casual

labourer he falls within the definition of ‘workman’ contemplated by Sec 2(s) of ‘the Act’.

The tone of counter of the 2^nd Party in their counter statement is, his request for regularisation already

having been adjudicated by the Competent Forum, same is hit by the principles of resjudicata: they extend work

to the casual labourers who are on the Muster Rolls of the Company, if there is no work the workmen cannot be

engaged. Fortunately for the workman in the present petition he is not seeking for regularisation but for

reinstatement.

This is the second refusal of employment for him by the 2^nd party. As per Ex W-1 / Award in

Reference No. 89/1995 he had been orally refused employment w.e.f 08.07.1992. Award was passed on

08.09.2004 almost after a time gap of 12 years directing the 2^nd Party to reinstate him into service with

continuity of service only without any other consequential benefits. For the second time he is orally refused

employment w.e.f. 27.08.2011. Fortunately for the workman there is no specific denial of the 2^nd Party that he

has not worked continuously all these days, that lends and inference that from the date of his initial engagement

till 27.08.2011 with the in between break of 08.07.1992 to 08.09.2004 (the period during which he was out of

work) he has worked for the 2^nd Party. Despite their being such a long gap his service is saved by the Award

passed by the State Forum in Reference No. 89/1995 which awarded him the relief of reinstatement into service

with continuity of service only without any other consequential benefits. The 2^nd Party is the custodian of the

documents pertaining to the number of days he was provided work. Not even a scrap of paper is produced by

them to demonstrate that all the while his engagement was on need base and not continuous.

The identity of the 1^st Party and his engagement as casual / daily wager since not disputed, it shall be

presumed that he has continuously worked w.e.f 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011. 2^nd Party being a Public Sector

Undertaking having its own Recruitment Rules cannot be shouldered with the burden of reinstating the casual

worker whose service is not required for them. Moreover 1^st Party is already aged 55 years. For not having

complied the provisions of Sec 25-F of ‘the Act’, the refusal of employment amounts to illegal retrenchment

which shall be addressed by Awarding monetary compensation. Instead of reinstatement he shall be paid

Retrenchment Compensation for the period 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011 along with interest at 12% per annum.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

179

AWARD

The petition is allowed on following terms:

The 2^nd Party is directed to pay Retrenchment Compensation to the 1^st Party workman Sh. Muniyappa

as per the provisions of Sec 25-F of ‘the Act’ along with interest at 12% to be calculated in respect of the period

27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of publication of the Award otherwise it shall carry future

interest at 6% per annum.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 05^th January, 2021)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tuojh] 2021

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

eS- ghjh ekbUl] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 72@2016½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-27011@1@2016-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 74.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2016) 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. Hirri

Mines, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.01.2021.

[No. L-27011/1/2016-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/72/2016

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

The General Secretary,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

Hirri Mines,

Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh)

…Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager

M/s. Hiri Mines

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 7^th day of –December 2020)

1. As per letter dated 1-9-2016 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-27011/1/2016-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether Censure action on the part of the Secretary & President of of Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh, Hirri Mines (SAIL), Hirri in issuing censure notice to the above named Union

representatives by Hirri Mines Management as per standing order is appropriate and justified? If

not, what relief both the Union representatives are entitled to?”

180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

The workman side was never present inspite of service of registered notice.The counsel for

Management appeared and filed their statement regarding the case.

The case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the workman/Union on 8-1-2020.

The Management filed affidavit of its witness Surendra Kumar Nayak with documents which are M-1

to M-7.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for Management Shri A.K.Shashi. None appeared for workman.

The Reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.

The primary burden to prove its case lies with the workman side in which they have utterly failed. On

the other hand the Management has proved its case as pleaded in its written statement through cross-examined

affidavit and documents Exhibit M-1 to M-7.

In the light of the above mentioned facts, holding the case of the workman not proved, the reference

deserves to be answered against the workman. Accordingly as ex-parte award is passed as follows:-

A. The Censure action on the part of the Secretary & President of Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh, Hirri Mines (SAIL), Hirri in issuing censure notice to the above named Union

representative by Hirri Mines Management as per standing order is held appropriate and

justified.

B. The Union Representative are held entitled to no relief.

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

per rules.

DATE: 7.12.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tuojh] 2021

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

eS- Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dksjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] 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; la- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16@2019½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-30011@8@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 75.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.01.2021.

[No. L-30011/8/2019-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

181

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/16 OF 2019

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party/ Management

: Mr.Anand Pai, Adv.

For the second party/ Union

: Mr. Prasad S. Samant, Dy. Gen. Secretary

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 28^th day of November, 2020

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 10.05.2019 passed

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. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL),

Mumbai for obtaining ‘declaration forms’ in respect of members of Petroleum Karmachari Navnirman

Union (PKNU) for the year 2018 is fair & just? If not, what relief the union is entitled to?”

By the order dt.01/07/2019, passed by the Tribunal, Notice was directed to be issued to the parties.

On 13.8.2019, Mr.R.S. Pai, Learned counsel for the management was present but none was present on

behalf of the Union. In the circumstances, the case was fixed for 25.10.2019.

On 23.11.2020, Mr. Prasad S. Samant, Dy .General Secretary filed an application for disposal of the

reference proceedings and stated that the Union is not interested in pursuing the reference proceedings as

number of workmen have been retired under VRS and no industrial dispute of any kind now exists and prayed

for disposal of the reference for want of prosecution.

On receipt of the application, the matter was taken up today i.e. 27.11.2020 through video

conferencing. Mr. Anand Pai learned counsel for the management and Mr. Prasad S. Samant, General Secretary

of the Union were present.

Mr. Prasad S. Samant, General Secretary of the Union reiterated the same as stated in the application

and Mr. Anand Pai, learned counsel for the management had ‘No Objection’.

In view of the above, it is apparent that there is no pleading or evidence filed on behalf of the second

party / Union in support of its claim. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the second party / Union.

The Reference made to this Tribunal is, therefore, disposed of for want of prosecution as prayed by the

Union.

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tuojh] 2021

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

fdjhcq: vk;ju vksj ekbu] 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- 327@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-26011@12@2000-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2021

S.O. 76.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 327/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kiriburu

Iron Ore Mine, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.01.2021.

[No. L-26011/12/2000-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

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. 327/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Iron

Dated 29.12.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-26011/12/2000-IR(M) dated 25/10/2000 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 Kiriburu Iron Ore Mine in withholding promotion of

Shri Kanuram Jerai is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/ workman nor the management

appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since 21/11/2000 and workman/union as well as

management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this

matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 77.—राष्ट्रृ‎जत, श्री रािा मोिन चतुवेिी, ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी, केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक

अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर को ‎ सौंृे गए केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल ,

अिमिाबंाि के ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी के अजतररक्त प्रभार की अवजि दिनांक 15.01.2021 से छ: माि तक अ वा

जन जमत प ृ से ृि भरे िाने तक अ वा अगले आिेिो तक, इनमे िो भी ृिले िो तक बंढ़ाते िज ।

[सं. अ-11016/08/2020-सीएलएस-II]

सतीि चन्िर, अवर स‎जचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

183

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2021

S.O. 77.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding

Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad entrusted to Shri Radha

Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur for a

further period of six months with effect from 15.01.2021 or till the post is filled up on regular basis, or until

further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/08/2020-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secry.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 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 22@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@436@2000-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2021

S.O. 78.—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. 22 of 2001) 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 18.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/436/2000-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. 22/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Moonidih Area, Western Jharia 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 30.12.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/436/2000-(C-I) dated 25/01/2001 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. BCCL in terminating the services of the

workman Sri Rasraj Mohali EX-Security Guard, Western Jharia Area, Moonidih M/s BCCL, is

justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

concerned union/workman and the said notice returned with endorsement of “insufficient address”. Now the

Case is pending since 01/03/2001 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] 25 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17ds 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 30@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@501@2001-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2021

S.O. 79.—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. 30 of 2002) 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 18.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/501/2001-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. 30/2002

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29.12.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/501/2001-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 RCMS is justified in demanding the following benefits from the management of

BCCL, Sijua Area in respect of Sh. Sidhi Chouhan: i) That the workman should be given Grade

“E” from the date of his deployment in OCP and Grade “D” 4 years thereafter. ii) That the

workman should be given SPRA increment w.e.f. 1987. iii) That the workman should be given

interim relief denied to him. iv) That the workman should be given protection of wages of Group

VA before he was given Cat-II wages in 1997?” If so, to what relief (s) is the workman entitled

and from what date?”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

185

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

subsequently the union/workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. 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] 25 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 34@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@549@2001-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2021

S.O. 80.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 34 of 2002) 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 18.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/549/2001-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. 34/2002

Employer in relation to the management of Block-II OCP 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 28.12.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/549/2001-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 management of Block-II OCP of M/s BCCL is justified in not regularizing

Sri Majnu Ram to the post of head Mechanic. If not, to what relief is the 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 union/workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now, the Case is pending since

186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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] 25 tuojh] 2021

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 2, ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ एयर इंडिया सत्स एयरपोर्ट सर्वटसेज प्राइवेर् लिलिर्ेि] नई दिल्िी 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013@02@2021-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2021

S.O. 81.—In pursuance of Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

No.1, New Delhi (Ref. No. 88 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi

and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-20013/02/2021-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1: NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 88/2014

Date of Passing Award : 23^rd November, 2020

Air India Sats Airport Services Private Limited,

Through its Asstt. Vice President (HR and Admn.)

MS/ Ruby Sethi.

A-63, IGI Airport Road,

NH-8, IGI Airport Road,

NH-08, Mahipalpur,

New Delhi-110037

…Management

Versus

Sh. Kalu Ram & 182 Others

…Opp. Parties

Appearances :-

Shri Anuj Aggarwal

: For the Management

Shri Maya Ram

: Opp. Parties

AWARD

This order deals with the application filed by the management of Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt.

Ltd, invoking the provision of sec 33(2) (b) of the I D Act 1947, seeking approval for the Termination of

Service of it’s 183 employees notice of the petition being served on the said workmen they entered appearance

through their AR and contested the proceeding. During the pendency of the proceeding the applicant

Management filed one petition praying deletion of names of 153 workmen out of the list of 184 workmen

appended to the petition on the ground that after a sympathetic consideration the management reinstated them in

to service. The said stand not being opposed by the respondent workmen the list filed by the applicant has been

taken on record.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

187

The contention raised by the applicant Management is that the opposite parties are the fixed term

employees of the management engaged in different capacities as the management is engaged in providing public

utility service in Air port as defined u/s 2(n) of the ID Act. The workmen are the members of the Air India

SATS Employees Union.,

On 10.9.14, the management received a letter addressed by the Air India SATS Employees Union

addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, wherein it was declared that the workmen who are the

members of the Union would agitate from the morning shift of 11.09.2014, as per notice dated 14.02.2014

responding to the said letter the applicant Management intimated to the Union that the agitation proposed is

illegal in terms of sec 22 and 24 of the ID Act. Inspite of that the workmen went into agitation /strike on

11.9.2014. According to the provisions of sec 22(1)(a) of the ID Act the notice of strike is only valid for six

weeks and that count only the strike and agitation exhibited by the work men was illegal. It has also been stated

that prior to the notice dated 14.2.2014, some workmen had indulged in strike and agitation for which the

management had informed the conciliation officer and Asst. Labour Commissioner soliciting their intervention

to restore peace. Accordingly efforts were made for resolution of the grievance of the workmen and several

rounds of meetings were held. But for the adamant attitude of the workmen and the Union no fruitful purpose

could be served. When the conciliation officer intervened in the matter, it was agreed that a Bipartite Committee

shall be constituted having equal no of representatives from the Management and Union, to discuss and find out

a solution on issues like wage Revision, service condition, welfare measures etc. There after the strike was

called off. But the committee failed to find a resolution of the grievance for the adamant attitude of the workmen

and their union. In order to serve their own motives the workmen again started agitation/strike on 11.09.2014, in

an illegal manner violating the procedure laid u/s 22 and 24 of The ID Act. The notice dt14.02.2014 has lost it’s

validity after six weeks and the workmen having knowledge of the same again resorted to agitation on

11.09.2014. The workmen created disturbance in the work place and their act caused disruption in the ground

handling service rendered by the management in the Airport. The situation when became worse, information

was given to police for maintenance of Law and Order. Apprehending that the workmen may continue resorting

to other illegal act including violence, the Management approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for grant

of permanent Injunction against such activities of the workmen and their union. The Hon’ble High Court were

pleased to grant ex parte- ad –interim injunction. Since agitation and connected activities has substantially

affected the business of the applicant Management and in total violation of the provisions of sec 23 of the ID

Act, in view of the fact that at that time ID No 145/2013 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and another

dispute pertaining to violation of sec 9A was pending before the conciliation officer. For the atmosphere of

threat and terror created in the workplace by the workmen the Management could not conduct a regular

Departmental Inquiry. However following the principles of natural justice show cause notices were served on

the individual workman, calling upon them to justify as to why their services shall not be terminated for the

misconduct shown by them. The workmen did not file any reply and the services of the workmen as per the list

appended to the petition were terminated w.e.f. 15.09.2014, and while doing so, the Management fully and

consciously complied the provisions of sec 25 F of the ID Act. Hence this application for approval in terms of

sec 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

In their reply the workmen have challenged the maintainability of the application on various grounds.

The main ground of objection is that the termination of such a big no of employees amounts to unfair labour

practice and suppression of Union Activities. More over, the termination was made without any domestic

inquiry, merely by serving a show cause notice in which sufficient and reasonable time was not allowed to the

workman to take his defence. It has also been pleaded that the belated application moved by the Management on

16.10.14, seeking approval is liable to be rejected. The workmen have also stated that the Management while

serving the order of retrenchment/termination never complied the provisions of sec 25 F of the ID Act as the

cheque issued was not specifically for one month pay as the notice pay. The Management has not paid the duty

pay, leave salary and other financial entitlements to the workmen toward their full and final settlement. Hence

the belated application filed by the management is liable to be rejected.

In it’s replication the Management has stated that the termination was effected on 15.09.2014 and the

present application was filed on 16.10.2014, i.e one month after the order of termination. The delay occurred as

there was no presiding officer in the Tribunal and management took one month time in preparing the records to

be placed before the Tribunal in respect of 183 workers. While relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble SC in

the case of Straw Board Manufacturing Co. VS Govind (AIR 1962 SC 1500), it has been pleaded that the

delay cannot be made a ground for rejection of the application. It has also been stated that the Tribunal if comes

to hold that delay has been caused in filing the petition, the same may be condoned in the interest of justice.

Considering the rival stand taken by the parties to the proceeding the following points were formulated

for adjudication

188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

whether the approval application is maintainable

(2)

whether the Management has complied the provisions of sec 33(2) (b) of the ID Act

(3)

whether the strike resorted to by the workmen on 11.09. 2014 was illegal / unjustified.

On behalf of the management one of it’s officer testified as AW 1. Besides that several documents have

been placed on record which include the copies of the notices dt13.02.2014 and 10.09.2014, reply by the

management to the letter dated 10.09.2014, copy of the settlement dated 6.6.2014, copies of the show cause

notices, copies of the termination order and photo copies of the cheques for the notice pay given to the

workmen. Three of the workmen namely Sunil, Gopal and Rakesh Kumar testified as WW 1,2,&3 respectively.

The facts which are not disputed by the parties are that the workmen were employed by the

Management /Applicant as fixed term employees indifferent categories. There were disputes pending between

them relating to pay and other service conditions. On 10.09.2014 the workmen resorted to agitation/strike and

the management served show cause notice on them on11.09.2014 and served the order of termination on

15.09.2014. Whereas the Management has pleaded that the strike was illegal for want of proper notice in terms

of sec 22 and 23 of the ID Act, the workmen have stated that the order of termination is illegal for non

compliance of the provisions of sec 25 F of the Act in as much as no domestic inquiry was conducted for the

alleged act of misconduct.

The witness examined by the management stated that the workmen never served notice on the

Management about the proposed strike and the said strike being adhered to after more than six weeks from the

notice date i.e14.2.2014 is illegal. Attention of the Tribunal was drawn to the said notice. On behalf of the

workmen no rebuttal evidence has been adduced. Be that as may be, the Management also served show cause

notice on the workmen giving them 48 hours time to show cause as to why their services shall not be terminated.

That period as seen from the notices placed on record was ending on 13.09.14 and the termination orders were

passed on 15.09.14. Describing the time allowed as unreasonable the workmen have pleaded that they being

made victim of unfair labour practice, the petition for approval be rejected.

The object of sec 33 of the ID Act is that the condition of service will remain unchanged during

pendency of the industrial dispute to ensure the interest of healthy growth of Trade union Movement. Thus

application for permission u/s 33 is necessary only when industrial dispute is pending. Before granting or

refusing approval the Tribunal is required to allow both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their

respective stand. In this proceeding the management has placed documentary evidence to prove compliance of

the requirements of sec 33 of the Act. Copies of the show cause notice and cheques showing payment of notice

pay have been filed. But the workmen have disputed the acceptability of those documents on the ground that a

notice to show cause within 48 hours cannot be accepted as following the principles of natural justice before

termination. This argument advanced by the workmen sounds convincing against the stand of the Management

that for the chaos created by the workmen domestic inquiry was not possible before Termination. As per the

pleading of the Management police was informed to maintain Law and Order. No evidence has been adduced to

prove the action taken by police against the agitating workers, which leads to a conclusion that the workmen

were agitating peacefully. Not only that the workmen have stated that they were peacefully agitating against the

in action of the Management in resolving their grievance, though a committee was constituted for the same. A

letter written by the management to the authority requesting not to grant entry pass to the workmen has been

placed on record. Drawing attention to the same workmen have argued that the Management prevented them

from working and gave it a colour of illegal strike. From this evidence it cannot be concluded that the workmen

were indulged in an illegal strike. But the Management without adhering to proper procedure, in a hurried

manner served the show cause notice on them giving minimum time to show cause and justify their stand.

Hence it is held that the workmen were not involved in an illegal strike.

The workmen have also disputed the stand of the Management that provisions of sec 33(2)(b) was

complied by the management. It has been stated that the cheques given to the workmen nowhere discloses that

the same were towards notice pay. Though the workmen had to receive other monetary benefits like leave salary

etc. those were never paid by the management at the time termination. The witness examined on behalf of the

Management though stated about the money paid through cheques, nowhere stated that the same was towards

notice pay. On the contrary the witnesses examined by the workmen have disputed in clear terms that the same

was not notice pay as they had to get other monetary benefits from the management. Management has not

produced any other document like sanction order to rebut the stand of the workmen.

The other challenge advanced against the approval is belated filing of the application. The order of

termination were passed on 15.09.2014 and the application has been filed on 16.10.2014, i.e after one month.

Provision of sec 33 requires simultaneous filing of the application with the act of termination. It has been

explained by the Management that the post of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was then lying vacant for

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

189

which delay occurred. This explanation of the Management is not accepted since the Presiding Officer has no

role to perform in filing of the application. It is pertinent to mention that the post of Presiding Officer when

remains vacant the link officer designated by the Ministry of Labour & Employment remains in complete charge

of the Tribunal. Hence this explanation is not worthy of acceptance. The learned counsel for the Management by

placing reliance in the case of Complete Dewatering System Pvt. Ltd Vs. Govt of NCT Delhi, decided by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi submitted that delay in filing the application cannot be the sole ground for

rejection of approval. He further argued that the law requires the action of dismissal and application for approval

to be made simultaneously. But that does not mean that both the action should be made at a time. He thus

submitted that the Tribunal has to examine if both the acts form same transaction or not.

The Hon’ble SC in the case of Straw Board Manufacturing vs Govind referred supra have held that:

“seeking approval of an action by dismissing or discharging an employee should be made

simultaneously with the offer of the wage to the employee. The same did not mean that filing of

application should be on the same date of payment of wage. But the conduct of the employer should be

such, so as to make the filing of the application apart of the same Transaction. It depends upon the facts

of each case.”

In this case the employer as in the case of Complete Dewatering referred supra has not filed any

separate application for condo nation of delay. Further the plea that filing was delayed for the vacancy created in

the post of the presiding officer of the Tribunal or in preparing voluminous documents, is not worthy of

acceptance and it is held that the Management has not filed the application for approval simultaneously with the

action of dismissal of the workmen. The materials placed on record also do not justify the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workmen after following due procedure and principle of natural

justice. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The application filed by the Management Applicant seeking approval of it’s action in terminating the

services of all the 183 workmen is held devoid of merit and stands rejected. Since approval has not been granted

it is immaterial to delete the names of 153 workmen who have been re employed. The petition filed u/s 33(2)(b)

of the ID Act is accordingly disposed of.

Dictated & corrected by me.

23^rd November, 2020

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 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 234@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-01-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@119@2000-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2021

S.O. 82.—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.234 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

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

Government on 18.01.2021.

[No. L-20012/119/2000-IR (CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 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. 234/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri N.M. Kumar, Advocate

For workman

: Sri S.N. Goswami, Advocate

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 30.12.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/119/2000- IR(C-I) dated 09.08.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management in dismissing Sri Nanku Sao M/Loader dt. 12.6.93 is

justified and legal? If not to what relief or reliefs is the dependent of the workman is entitled?”

“Whether the action of the management in not employing Sri Munib Sao in place of his father

under compassionate ground is legal, proper and justified? If not to what relief or reliefs is the

dependent of the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The Vice President of C.M.E.W.A has filed his

written statement of claim on 30/08/2001 and the management Kustore Colliery of M/s. BCCL has filed its

written statement on 11/12/2001.

The Vice President of C.M.E.W.A. has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management on

01/02/2002.

The claim of the concerned workman as per written statement filed by Vice President C.M.E.W.A. is

as follows:-

That the concerned workman namely Late Nanku Sao was permanent employee of Kustore Colliery

and he was sick in course of service, so he was under treatment of Central Hospital, Kustore since 15/03/1989

to 30/12/1990. The concerned workman had informed the management regarding his treatment and

subsequently he died on 25/12/1991. The dependent son of the deceased workman was minor at the time of his

death and the wife was mentally retarded, so the information of death of the deceased workman could not be

given in the time to the local management. The dependent son of the concerned deceased workman after

acquiring the age of maturity submitted the requisite forms for his employment in the year 1998 but the

management denied the employment to the dependent of the concerned deceased workman on the ground that

his father was dismissed in the year 1993. The management after gap of three years had charge-sheeted the

workman in the year 1993 and subsequently after holding enquiry passed the order of dismissal against the dead

person, so the action of the management in dismissing the deceased workman is illegal and unjustified.

A prayer has ben made to pass an award in favour of the concerned workman.

On the other hand the case of the management of Kustore Colliery Area of M/s. BCCL as per its

written statement is as follows:-

That the Nanku Sao, the concerned workman was working at Kustore Colliery and he was charge-

sheeted for unauthorised absence w.e.f. 01/07/1989 vide letter dated 13/01/1993 and subsequently a domestic

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

191

enquiry was held in which the concerned workman did not turn up on the dates fixed for enquiry. Thereafter a

notice was published in daily newspaper on 21/02/1993 and subsequently a registered letter was issued to the

concerned workman on his home address but the concerned workman did not appear before the Enquiry

Officer, so the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry Ex-parte and found the charges levelled against the

concerned workman fully proved. After that the Enquiry Officer submitted its report to the Project Officer

Kustore Colliery and subsequently with the approval of the competent authority the concerned workman was

dismissed from service vide letter no. 1284, dated 12/06/93. Later on, after lapse of five years Sri Munib Saw

said to be the son of Nanku Saw the concerned workman, applied for employment in place of his father stating

therein that his father Late Nanku Sao died on 25/12/1991 but his application was not considered by the

management as Nanku Sao was already dismissed from service. The dependant son of Nanku Sao is neither

entitled for employment on compassionate ground nor he is entitled for any relief under NCWA as dismissal

order of his father is just and legal.

A prayer has been made to hold the action of the management as legal and justified.

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

the averments made by the management has been denied.

The management has also filed the rejoinder to the claim of the concerned workman in which it has

been mentioned that with regard to contents of Para no. 1 of written statement of the workman, it has been

stated that it is terms of reference, with regard to the contents of Para no. 2 and 3 of written statement of

concerned workman, it has been stated that the concerned workman, after holding Ex-Parte enquiry was

dismissed from company vide letter, dated 12/06/1993, with regard to the contents of Para no. 4 to 6 of written

statement, it has been stated that the dependent son of concerned workman namely Munib Sao had applied for

employment after five years on 13/06/1998, with regard to the contents of the Para no. 7 it has been stated that it

is matter of record, and with regard to contents of Para no. 8, 9 and 10 it has been stated that they are denied.

The concerned workman has examined only one witness in support of its case. He is WW-1,

Munib Saw.

The WW-1, Munib Saw has deposed before the Tribunal that his deceased father was a permanent

employee of the Kustore Colliery, under Area-VIII of M/s. BCCL working as Minor Loader having P.02332716

CMPF. A/C No. D/527555 and in course of his employment his father was suffering from acute Tuberculosis.

He has also stated that his father was under treatment at Colliery Hospital, Kustore and he was referred to

Central Hospital, Dhanbad for better treatment, so his father could not attend his duty due to his illness. He has

further stated that his father had availed sick leave from 09/04/1989 to 30/12/1990 and further availed leave on

medical grounds for treatment but he died on 25/12/1991. He has also stated that the death certificate of his

father had been submitted to the management on 10/01/1992 for information and at that time his mother namely

Gomti Devi was suffering from mental disease. He has also stated that he had submitted application for

employment under Para-9.3.2 of NCWA-V on the ground of death of his father in harness while in service on

compassionate grounds with all supporting documents. He has further stated that after death of his father

charge-sheet vide dated 27/02/1993 had been issued by the Project Officer, Kustore Colliery and thereafter the

management had issued dismissal letter vide dated 12/06/1993, after death of his deceased father which is

illegal and unjustified.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that his father died in the village and at that time he was 12

years old. He has also deposed that his father was absent from duty from 1989 and he was dismissed in the year

1993.

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

Exhibit W-1- Photo copy of the I.Card of Late Nanku Saw.

Exhibit W-2- Photo Copy of Service Excerpt Form.

Exhibit W-3 Series- Photo Copy of three treatment prescriptions showing treatment of Late

Nanku Saw starting from 16/03/1989 and on 30/12/1990 the Nanku Saw was referred to Central Hospital,

Dhanbad for admission and further treatment.

Exhibit W-4- Photo copy of letter dated 12/02/1998 of Project Officer, Kustore addressed to

Munib Sao regarding refusal of providing employment to him.

192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit W-5- Photo copy of letter dated 10/4-02-1999 written by Project Officer, Kustore Colliery to

General Secretary, Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association regarding refusal to provide employment to

son of Late Nanku Saw as Nanku Saw was dismissed from service..

Exhibit W-6- Carbon Copy of letter dated 13/06/1992 of Munib Saw addressed to Project Officer,

Kustore Colliery for providing him job.

Exhibit W-7- Carbon Copy of letter dated 10/01/1992 of Munib Saw addressed to Project Officer,

Kustore Area regarding death of his father on 25/12/1991.

Exhibit W-8- Original copy of Certificate issued by Dr. P.K. Narayan mentioning therein that

Nanku Sao son of Late Biphan Sao of Village Raharia P.S. Pratappur Dist. Chatra died on 25/12/1991 due to

long illness..

Exhibit W-9- Death certificate issued by Panchayat Sevak.

10.

The management has filed an affidavit of Arshad Jalali under order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC but he

has not appeared before the Tribunal for cross-examination. Since the examination in chief of MW-1, Arshad

Jalali has not been tested on cross-examination, so his examination in chief has got no value in the eyes of law.

11.

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

Exhibit M-1- A show cause notice/chargesheet dated 13/01/1993 to Nanku Sao for his non appearance

since 01/07/1989..

Exhibit M-2- A carbon copy of notice dated 17/02/1993 addressed to Nanku Sao regarding holding of

enquiry by Enquiry Officer namely A. Jalali.

Exhibit M-3 series- Original copy of a notice sent to the concerned workman by registered post, copy

of news paper showing publication of notice in Amrit Bazar Partika on 21/02/1993 and copy of publication of

tender notice dated 20/02/1993.

Exhibit M-4- Original copy of the enquiry report and enquiry proceeding..

Exhibit M-5- Original copy of the note sheet dated 07/04/1993 for approval for dismissal of

Nanku Sao.

Exhibit M-6- Copy of the order dated 11/06/1993 regarding dismissal of Nanku Sao.

12.

The learned lawyer of the sponsoring union has submitted before the Tribunal that the concerned

workman namely Late Nanku Saw was a permanent Underground Miner Loader working at Kustore Colliery

Area-VII of M/s. BCCL and he had been suffering from Acute Tuberculosis as the result he was referred to

Central Hospital, Dhanbad of M/s. BCCL for better treatment. He has also argued that the concerned workman

was granted sick leave from 09/04/1989 to 30/12/1990 and subsequently granted special leave as he was

suffering from T.B. and because of that he could not report his duty during the course of medical treatment. He

has also argued that the concerned workman died on 25/12/1991 in course of his service, leaving behind his son

Munib Saw and wife who was suffering from mental illness. He has further argued that the management had

been informed by Munib Sao son of Late Nanku Saw on 10/01/1992 but the management issued charge-sheet

against the deceased workman and after holding Ex-Parte enquiry dismissal order dated 12/06/1993 was issued

against him. He has also argued that the dismissal order issued against dead person is illegal, arbitrarily and

unjustified and the penalty imposed of dismissal against dead person is shockingly, disproportionate in the eye

of law. He has further argued that the dependent son of deceased workman namely Munib Saw had submitted

his application for his appointment as his father was in roll of service at the time of his death under medical

treatment but his case was not considered by the management. He has further argued that the dependent son of

the concerned workman is legally entitled for employment as per clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-V and his wife is

entitled for monetary compensation since the death of the concerned workman as per clause 9.5.0 (ii) of

NCWA-V.

13.

On the other hand the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the management has submitted that the

Late Nanku Saw was a permanent employee of BCCL but he was unauthorised absent from his duty since

01/07/1989 without any information and permission of the management as a result management had issued

charge-sheet vide letter dated 13/01/1993 but the concerned workman had not submitted his reply to the charge-

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

193

sheet. He has also argued that the concerned workman did not turn up in the enquiry proceeding, so the notice

was published in two local newspapers and thereafter registered notice was issued on his home addressed but

even than the concerned workman did not appear in the enquiry proceeding. He has also submitted that the

enquiry was conducted Ex-Parte and after submission of the enquiry report the concerned workman was

dismissed from the service vide letter no.1284, dated 12/06/1993. He has also argued that the Munib Saw

alleged son of Nanku Saw had applied for employment after 5 to 6 years of his dismissal on compassionate

grounds which was not considered by the management as his father was dismissed from the service. He has also

argued that the dismissal of concerned workman Nanku Saw is in accordance with the principles of natural

justice, so his dependent son is not entitled for any relief.

14.

Now the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of the management in dismissing

Sri Nanku Saw Miner Loader is justified and legal and to what relief the dependent of the workman is entitled

for.

FINDINGS

15.

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

was a permanent employee of Kustore Colliery Area-VII of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and he was dismissed from

service on 12/06/1993.

16.

It is the claim of the concerned workman that the concerned workman namely Late Nanku Saw was

sick and was under treatment of Central Hospital, Kustore since 15/03/1989 to 30/12/1990 and in course of

treatment he died on 25/12/1991. It is further claim of the concerned workman that the management had charge-

sheeted the concerned workman in the year 1993 and after holding ex-parte enquiry the order of dismissal

against the dead person was passed which is illegal.

17.

On the other hand it is the case of the management that the concerned workman Late Nanku Saw was

charge-sheeted for his unauthorised absence w.e.f. 01/07/1989 to 13/01/1993 and after holding domestic

enquiry the concerned workman was dismissed from service vide letter no. 1284, dated 12.06/1993. It is also

the case of the management that Munib Saw applied for employment in place of his father after five years of

death of his father but his case was not considered by the management as he was not entitled for employment on

compassionate ground as well as any relief whatsoever as per NCWA.

18.

Now, in the light of pleadings of the both the parties the Tribunal will analyse oral and documentary

evidences of both the parties available on the record in the light of the schedule.

19.

The WW-1, Munib Saw has deposed that his father was suffering from acute Tuberculosis and was

under treatment at Colliery Hospital, Kustore from he was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad for better

treatment, so his father could not report to his duty. He has also deposed that his father had availed sick leave

from 09/04/1989 to 30/12/1990 and further availed leave on medical ground for treatment but he died on

25/12/1991. He has also deposed that death certificate of his father had been submitted to the management on

10/01/1992. He has also stated that he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on death of his

father in harness while in service but his case was not considered. He has also stated that the management after

death of his father had issued charge-sheet on 27/02/1993 and after holding enquiry dismissed his father on

12/06/1993 which is illegal and unjustified. In the cross-examination he has stated that at the time of death of

his father, he was 12 years old. He has also stated that his father was absent from duty from 1989 and he was

dismissed in the year 1993.

20.

Now, coming to the documentary evidence of the sponsoring union it appears that the Exhibit W-1 is

the photo copy of the I.Card of Late Nanku Saw. Exhibit W-2 is service extract of Late Nanku Saw. Exhibit

W-3 series are three treatment prescriptions showing treatment of Late Nanku Saw from 16/03/1989 to

30/12/1990 and on 30/12/1990 he was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad for admission and further

treatment, Exhibit W-4 is the photo copy of letter written by Project Officer Kustore Colliery to Munib Sao

regarding refusal of providing employment to him as his father was dismissed from service. Exhibit W-5 is the

letter written by Project Officer, Kustore Colliery to General Secretary, Coal Mines Engineering Workers

Association regarding refusal to provide employment to son of Late Nanku Saw as Nanku Saw was dismissed

from service. Exhibit W-6 is a Carbon Copy of letter dated 13/06/1998 written by Munib Saw to Project

Officer, Kustore Colliery for providing him job. Exhibit W-7 is the Carbon Copy of letter of Munib Saw dated

10/01/1992 addressed to Project Officer, Kustore Area regarding death of his father on 25/12/1991. Exhibit W-8

194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is a certificate issued Dr. P.K. Narayan mentioning therein that Nanku Sao son of Late Biphan Sao of Village

Raharia P.S. Pratappur Dist. Chatra died on 25/12/1991 due to long illness, and Exhibit W-9 is the death

certificate issued by Panchayat Sevak of Gram Panchayat.

21.

On the other hand the documentary evidence of management shows that Exhibit M-1 is a show cause

notice dated 13/01/1993 issued to Nanku Sao for his non appearance since 01/07/1989. Exhibit M-2 is a notice

dated 17/02/1993 for holding enquiry by Enquiry Officer namely A. Jalali. Exhibit M-3 series are copy of

notices sent to the concerned workman. Exhibit M-4 is the enquiry report and enquiry proceeding. Exhibit M-5

is the note sheet dated 06/04/1993 for approval of dismissal of Nanku Sao and Exhibit M-6 is the order dated

11/06/1993 of dismissal of Nanku Sao.

22.

It is required to mention here that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management had been held as

fair and proper vide order dated 27/01/2016.

23.

At this stage it is relevant to mention Section 11A of I.D. Act. The Section 11A of I.D. Act reads as

follows:-

Section 11A- “Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in

case of discharge or dismissal of workmen- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or

dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for

adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is

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

order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions,

if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser

punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.”

24.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in a case as reported in 1973 AIR 1227

(Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre…Vs Management & others) which is as follows:-

“The Act is beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in

construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as a

beneficent rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on the

section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more

beneficial to the employees has to be preferred. The interpretation must be liberal enough to achieve

the legislative purpose”.

25.

However the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a another case as reported in 2005 (2) SCALE 302

(Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade) has been pleased to hold that:-

“It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount

of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of

punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct.

The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this court referred

to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the

High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the

existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as

to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires

the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may pursuade the Labour

Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by

way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Act and reduce the punishment.”

26.

In the present case the concerned workman was dismissed from service for his unauthorised absence of

his duty since 01/07/1989.

27.

At this stage it is required to mention here that the Exhibit W-3 series are prescriptions of medical

department of BCCL, Dhanbad and the first prescription was of 16/03/1989. Further the Exhibit W-3 also

shows that the concerned workman was regularly treated in outdoor department of BCCL Ltd., Kustore Area.

Moreover it also appears that on 30/12/1990 the concerned workman was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad

for admission and further treatment. The Exhibit W-8 is a death certificate issued by Dr. P.K. Narayan, M.B.B.S

in which it has been mentioned that Nanku Sao died on 25/12/1991. Further the Exhibit W-9 is a death

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िनवरी 30, 2021/माघ 10, 1942

195

certificate issued by Panchayat Sevak which shows that Nanku Sao the concerned workman died on

25/12/1991. The medical report/prescriptions of BCCL shows that the concerned workman was under the

treatment since 16/03/1989 and had continued till his death on 25/12/1991.

28.

In view of above discussion the Tribunal finds and holds that the concerned workman namely

Nanku Sao was under medical treatment since 16/03/1989 and he died on 25/12/1991in course of treatment.

29.

It appears surprising that the management had issued a charge-sheet to the concerned workman on

13/01/1993(Exhibit M-1) for his absence since 01/07/1989 whereas the concerned workman died on

25/12/1991. It also appears surprising that the management had conducted departmental/domestic enquiry after

death of the concerned workman and subsequently dismissed him from service vide order dated 11/06/1993

(Exhibit M-6).

It is relevant to mention here that the Munib Saw son of concerned workman Nanku Sao had informed

the management on 10/01/1992 regarding the death of his father on 25/12/1991 and even then the

domestic/departmental enquiry was conducted against the concerned workman which reached at its conclusion

of dismissal of the concerned workman with immediate effect.

30.

In view of above discussions the Tribunal finds that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the

concerned workman Nanku Sao for his absence from 01/07/1989 from duty, while he was under medical

treatment and consequently he died on 25/12/1991, is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and

there is existence of mitigating circumstances which requires reduction of punishment.

31.

Hence, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of concerned workman is not

justified and the punishment of dismissal order vide letter no. 1284 dated 11/06/1993 is set aside.

32.

Now, the concerned workman namely Nanku Sao had died on 25/12/1991 and subsequently he was

dismissed vide order dated 11/06/1993 which was set aside by this Tribunal, so dependent of the concerned

workman is entitled for receiving all the death benefit of deceased workman namely Nanku Sao.

33.

The, next point of consideration in this case is whether Munib Saw son of deceased Nanku Sao is

entitled for appointment on compassionate ground or if not to what relief he is entitled to?

34.

In this regard it is required to mention here that Munib Saw son of the deceased Nanku Sao had

submitted an application before the Project Officer, Kustore Colliery on 10/01/1992 that his father died on

25/12/1991 while in service and he was under 18 years of age, so after completion of 18 years he would be

given employment in the colliery (Exhibit W-7). Further Munib Saw again submitted representation on

13/06/1998 for employment on the ground that he had reached the age of 18 years.

35.

Further the management had taken decision that since Nanku Sao had been dismissed from service on

the ground of misconduct, so Munib Saw is not entitled for employment in Kustore Colliery (Exhibit W-4 and

Exhibit W-5).

36.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the order of dismissal order of Nanku Sao passed by the

management of Kustore Colliery vide letter no. 1284 dated 11/06/1993 had been set aside by this Tribunal, so

the Tribunal will examine whether the dependent of the deceased workman namely Nanku Sao is eligible for

appointment on compassionate ground or not?

37.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that clause 9.5.0 (i), (ii) and (iii) of chapter-9 of Social

Security under NCWA-V reads as follows:-

(i)

In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either

accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or employment irrespective of her

age.

(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical

unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have

the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month or employment.

(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause

9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 15

years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment

196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2021/MAGHA 10, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the

period the male dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary

compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.

38.

It is important to mention here that the WW-1, Munib Saw has deposed in his cross-examination that at

the time of the death of his father he was 12 years old. Moreover he has also stated that he had informed the

management by submitting an application regarding death of his father on 10/01/1992.

However, the management in his argument has submitted that WW-1, Munib Saw in his affidavit has

mentioned his age as 33 years on 15/07/2015, so after making calculation his age comes to eight years on

25/12/1991.

39.

Now, there is categorical evidence of WW-1 Munib Saw that he was twelve years old at the time of

death of his father, the concerned workman and as per clause 9.5.0 (iii) of Social Security under NCWA-V there

is requirement that the male dependent of concerned workman should be 15 years and above in age.

40.

In view of above discussion the Tribunal finds and holds that Munib Saw depended son of deceased

Nanku Saw was aged about 12 years at the time of the death of Nanku Saw on 25/12/1991, so as per clause

9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-V he was not eligible for employment in place of his father. However as per clause 9.5.0

(ii) of NCWA-V the dependent wife of the concerned deceased workman is entitled for monetary compensation

of Rs. 2000/- per month since 25/12/1991.

41.

Now, in view of above discussion the Tribunal renders the following the Award:-

“The action of the management in dismissing Sri Nanku Sao M/Loader by order dated 12/06/1993 is

not justified and legal and the action of the management in not employing Sri Munib Sao in place of

his father under compassionate ground is legal, proper and justified.”

42.

Hence, the dependent of the deceased concerned workman is entitled for following relief:-

(a)

The dependent of the concerned workman is entitled for receiving all death benefits of the

deceased workman namely Nanku Sao.

(b)

The wife of the deceased concerned workman is also entitled for monthly compensation as per

NCWA-V since the death of concerned workman and she is further entitled for revision of

monthly compensation as per subsequent NCWA.

43. The management of Kustore Colliery of M/s. BCCL is directed to pay all the death benefits to the dependent

of the concerned workman and to pay the monetary compensation to the wife of deceased concerned workman

since his death as per NCWA-V and as per subsequent NCWA within one month after publication of the Award

in the Official Gazette.

This is Award of the Tribunal.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

KUMER CHAND MEENA

Digitally signed by KUMER CHAND

MEENA

Date: 2021.02.04 19:31:49 +05'30'