3569 GI/2021
(1163)
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. 24]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 4—िुलाई 10, 2021 िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 13—आषाढ़ 19, 1943
No. 24]
NEW DELHI, JULY 4—JULY 10, 2021, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 13 –ASHADHA 19, 1943
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िुलाई, 2021
का.आ. 417.—िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजन म, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का
प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के का यृालक जनिेिक और अंचल प्रबंिक
(च न श्रेणी) श्री बी. सी. ृटना क (िन्म जतज 19.3.1963) को 1.10.2021 को ा इसके बाि का यभार ग्रिण
करने की तारी से और उनकी अजिवर्षयता की आ ु (अ ायत 31.3.2023) तक ा आगामी आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले
िो, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम में प्रबंि जनिेिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज।
[फा. सं. ए-15011/02/2021-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-17072021-228344
CG-DL-W-17072021-228344
1164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 417.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act,
1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. B. C. Patnaik (date of birth: 19.3.1963), Executive
Director and Zonal Manager (Selection Grade), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as Managing Director, LIC,
w.e.f the date of assumption of charge of office on or after 1.10.2021 and up to the date of his attaining the age of
superannuation (i.e.,31.3.2023), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. A-15011/02/2021-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 िुलाई, 2021
का.आ. 418.—िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजन म, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का
प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम की का यृालक जनिेिक और अंचल प्रबंिक
(च न श्रेणी) सुश्री आईृ जमनी (िन्म जतज 19.8.1963) को 1.8.2021 को ा इसके बाि का यभार ग्रिण करने की
तारी से और उनकी अजिवर्षयता की आ ु (अ ायत 31.8.2023) तक ा आगामी आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो,
भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम में प्रबंि जनिेिक के प ृ में जन ुि करती िज।
[फा. सं. ए-15011/02/2021-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 418.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Ipe Mini (date of birth: 19.8.1963),
Executive Director and Zonal Manager (Selection Grade), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as
Managing Director, LIC, w.e.f the date of assumption of charge of office on or after 1.8.2021 and up to the date
of her attaining the age of superannuation (i.e.,31.8.2023), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. A-15011/02/2021-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
जविेि मंत्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 20 िून 2021
का.आ. 419.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के मिावाजणज् िूतावास वैंकूवर मैं श्री अलन वरगीस मेत् ु, सिा क अनुभाग
अजिकारी को दिनांक 20 िून 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवयिन के जलए
प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2015]
जव्णु कुमार िमाय, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1165
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2021
S.O. 419.—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 Alan Varghese Mathew,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India Vancouver to perform the
Consular services with effect from 20.06.2021.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2015]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
नई दिल् ली, 25 िून 2021
का.आ. 420.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के भारती उच्चा ोग माृुटो में श्री मनोिर ससंि िे ावत, सिा क अनुभाग
अजिकारी को दिनांक 25 िून 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवयिन के जलए
प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2015]
जव्णु कुमार िमाय, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021
S.O. 420.—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 Manohar Singh
Shekhawat, Assistant Section Officer in High Commission of India Maputo to perform the Consular services as
Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 25 June, 2021.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2015]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
नई दिल् ली, 25 िून 2021
का.आ. 421.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के भारत के िूतावास, बिरीन में श्री सुमन कष्ण, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी
को दिनांक 25 िून 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवयिन के जलए प्राजिकषत
करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2017]
जव्णु कुमार िमाय, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)
1166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021
S.O. 421.—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 Suman Krishan,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Bahrain to perform the Consular
services with effect from 25 June, 2021.
[F. No. T-4330/01/2017]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
कार्मयक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्मयक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 31 मई, 2021
का.आ. 422.—केन् र सरकारत एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए गोवा राज् सरकारत गषि
जवभाग (सामान् )त गोवा की अजिसूचना सं. 30/01/2015-सीबीआई/एचडी(िी)/834त दिनांक 19.03.2021 के
माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, श्री अल्तमि अंसारीत बावचीत द़िडालगो िोटलत ृणिीत गोवा और जनवासी 210त 4 ा
जनजामृुरात मिाराष्ट्रा डाईंग के समीृत जभवंडी, मिाराष्ट्र द्वारा नाबाजलग/बच्चों के ौन िोषण करने एवं इंटरनेट का
उृ ोग करते हुए बाल ौन उत्ृीड़न सामग्री का प्रकािन/ृारेषण करने के संबंि में सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन मत
2000 (2000 का 21) और लैंजगक अृरािों से बालकों का संरक्षण अजिजन मत 2012 (2012 का 32) के तित दकए
गए अजभकज त अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ासत िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण
करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त गोवा राज्
में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/25/2021-एवीडी-II]
एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2021
S.O. 422.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Goa, issued vide Notification No. 30/01/2015-CBI/HD(G)/834 dated 19.03.2021,
Department of Home (General), Goa, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Goa for investigation into the offence(s) under the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(32 of 2012) alleged to have been committed by Shri Altamash Ansari, Chef at Fidalgo Hotel, Panaji, Goa and
resident of 210, 4th Nizampura, Near Maharashtra Dyeing, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, pertaining to indulgence in
sexual abuse of minors/children and publishing/ transmitting of child sexual abusive material by using internet
and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any
other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/25/2021-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1167
नई दिल् ली, 31 मई, 2021
का.आ. 423.—केन् र सरकारत एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मध् प्रिेि राज् सरकारत गषि
जवभागत भोृाल की अजिसूचना सं. एफ-12-41/2021/बी-1/ टूत दिनांक 24.03.2021 के माध् म से िारी सिमजत
से, श्री केिव जमश्रात ृुत्र श्री सवेि चंर जमश्रात जनवासी उमठर ा मध् प्रिेि द्वारा सोिल मीजड ा प्लेटफॉमय का
उृ ोग करते हुए बाल ौन उत्ृीड़न सामग्री की ऑनलाईन जबक्री/साझा/ृठरचालन के संबंि में सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी
अजिजन मत 2000 (2000 का 21) और लैंजगक अृरािों से बालकों का संरक्षण अजिजन मत 2012 (2012 का 32)
के तित दकए गए अजभकज त अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ासत िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
समस्ट्त मध् प्रिेि राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/24/2021-एवीडी-II]
एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2021
S.O. 423.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Madhya Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. F-12-41/2021/B-1/Two dated 24.03.2021,
Home Department, Bhopal, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole State of Madhya Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) under the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(32 of 2012) alleged to have been committed by Shri Keshav Mishra, S/o Shri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, resident
of Umariya, Madhya Pradesh, pertaining to online selling/sharing/ circulating of child sexual abusive material
by using social media platform and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with
such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts.
[F. No. 228/24/2021-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 1 िुलाई, 2021
का.आ. 424.—केन् र सरकारत एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि सरकार, के आिेि
सं. 04 सी.बी.आई/VI-ृी-4-2018-18(27)B/18 दिनांक 19 अप्रजल, 2018, गषि (ृुजलस) िारा-4, ल नऊ, के
माध् म से िारी उत्तर प्रिेि राज् सरकार की सिमजत से, एक नाबाजलग लड़के मास्ट्टर अभ प्रताृ ससंि की ित् ा से
संबंजित, ाना गौरीगंि, जिला अमे ी में भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराओं 302 एवं 201 के तित
ििय मामला अृराि सं. 14/18 से संबंजित अृराि(िों) के अन्वेषण और ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ासत िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का
जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/16/2018-एवीडी-II)
एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव
1168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 1st July, 2021
S.O. 424.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued vide Order No. 04 C.B.I./VI-P-4-2018-18(27)B/18 dated 19th April,
2018, Home (Police) Section-4, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s)
relating to case Crime No. 14/18, registered under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
at Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi, pertaining to murder of a minor boy Master Abhay Pratap Singh
and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any
other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/16/2018-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
नागर जवमानन मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2021
का.आ. 425.—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के
जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगयत भारती जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण के
जनम्नजलज त का ायल ों, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मयकों द्वारा सिंिी का का यसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा ग ा िज, को
एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।
1. िीव जवमानृत्तन का ायल , िीव, भारती जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण ।
2. ृाक् ोंग िवाईअड्डा का ायल , ृाक् ोंग, भारती जवमानृत्तन प्राजिकरण।
[फा. सं. ई-11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]
अंिुमाली रस्ट् तोगी, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 9th June, 2021
S.O. 425.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official
Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Offices of the
Airports Authority of India, under Ministry of Civil Aviation , whereof 80% staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
1.
Diu Airport Office, Diu, Airports Authority of India
2.
Pakyong Airport office, Pakyong, Airports Authority of India
[F. No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]
ANGSHUMALI RASTOGI, Jt. Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1169
को ला मंत्राल
नई दिल् ली, 5 िुलाई, 2021
का.आ. 426.—केन्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णयत ृठरक्षेत्र की
भूजम में से को ला अजभप्राप्त िोने की संभावना िज;
और उि अनुसूची में वर्णयत भूजम के क्षेत्र में अंतर्वयष्ट करने वाला रे ांक सं् ांक आरईवी /01/ 2021,
तारी 6 मई, 2021 का जनरीक्षण सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड (भूजम और रािस्ट्व जवभाग), िरभंगा िाउस, रााँची –
834029 (झार ण्ड) के का ायल में ा मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, अरगड़ा क्षेत्र, जिला ििारीबाग
(झार ण्ड) के का ायल में ा मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), आर.आई.-III, केन्री ान ोिना और जडिाईन संस्ट् ान
जलजमटेड, गोंडवाना ृजलेस, कांके रोड, रााँची (झार ंड) के का ायल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस
स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के का ायल में दक ा िा सकता िज ;
अतः अब, केन्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अियन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20)
(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात उि अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृ िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग
करते हुए, उि अनुसूची में वर्णयत भूजम में को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज ।
उि अनुसूची में वर्णयत भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व्यजि,-
(i)
सम्ृूणय भूजम ा उसके दकसी भाग ा उि भूजम में ा उसके ऊृर दकसी अजिकार के अियन प्रजत
आक्षेृ कर सकेगा; ा
(ii ) उि अजिजन म की िारा 4 की उृिारा (3) के अिीन की गई कारयवाई से हुई दकसी क्षजत ा
संभाजवत क्षजत उि अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन दकसी नुकसानी के जलए प्रजतकर का िावा कर
सकेगा; ा
(iii) उि अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन प्रभाविीन िो गई ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप्त के संबंि
में ा उि अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (4) के अिीन प्रभाविीन िो ग े नन ृट्टे के जलए
प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा और उि अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ण्ड (i) से ंड
(iv) में जवजनर्ियष्ट मिों के संबंि में उृगत व्य को उृिर्ियत करने के जलए ृूवोि भूजम से संबंजित
सभी मानजचत्रों, चाटों और अन् िस्ट्तावेिों को,
इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से 90 दिनों के भीतर मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स
जलजमटेड, अरगड़ा क्षेत्र, जिला ििारीबाग (झार ण्ड) ा मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, भूजम और
रािस्ट्व जवभाग, िरभंगा िाउस, रााँची – 834029 (झार ण्ड) को सुृुिय करेगा ।
1170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
जगद्दी ‘सी’ ओसीृी
जिला - ििारीबाग (झार ण्ड)
[ रे ांक सं् ांक आरईवी/ 01/ 2021, तारी 6 मई, 2021 ]
ंड
ग्राम
ाना
सं् ा
अंचल
जिला
अियन के अिीन रकबा
ठटप्ृजण ां
एकड़ में
िेक्टे र में
ए
डाड़ी
43
डाड़ी
ििारीबाग
87.51
35.41
भाग
बी
डाड़ी
43
डाड़ी
ििारीबाग
0.32
0.13
भाग
सी
डाड़ी
43
डाड़ी
ििारीबाग
18.14
7.34
भाग
अर्ियत की िाने वाली भूजम का कुल रकबा
( ए +बी+ सी ) :
105.97
एकड़
(लगभग)
42.88
िेक्टे र
(लगभग)
सीमा वणयन :
ए1- ए2-ए3-ए4-ए5-ए6-ए1.
-
रे ा जबन्िु ‘ए1’ से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु ए2, ए3, ए4, ए5 और
ए6 से गुिरते हुए आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘ए1’ ृर जमलती िज ।
बी1-बी2-बी3-बी4-बी5-बी6-बी7-बी1.
-
रे ा जबन्िु ‘बी1’ से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु बी2, बी3, बी4, बी5,
बी6 और बी7 से गुिरते हुए आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘बी1’ ृर जमलती
िज।
सी1-सी2-सी3-सी4-सी5-सी6-सी7-सी8-
सी9-सी10-सी11-सी12-सी13-सी14-
सी15-सी16-सी17-सी18-सी19-सी20-
सी21-सी22-सी23-सी24-सी25-सी26-
सी27-सी28-सी29-सी30-सी31-सी32-
सी33-सी34-सी35-सी36-सी37-सी38-
सी39-सी40-सी41-सी42-सी43-सी1.
-
रे ा जबन्िु ‘सी1’ से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु सी2, सी3, सी4, सी5,
सी6, सी7, सी8, सी9, सी10, सी11, सी12, सी13, सी14,
सी15, सी16, सी17, सी18, सी19, सी20, सी21, सी22,
सी23, सी24, सी25, सी26, सी27, सी28, सी29, सी30,
सी31, सी32, सी33, सी34, सी35, सी36, सी37, सी38,
सी39, सी40, सी41, सी42 और सी43 से गुिरते हुए
आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘सी1’ ृर जमलती िज ।
[फा. सं. 43015/04/2021-एलए एण् ड आईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 426.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the
land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/01/2021, dated the 6th May, 2021 containing details of the
areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited
(Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General
Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada Area, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) or at the office of the
Deputy commissioner, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration
Division), RI-III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi
(Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1171
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the
Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the said
Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may --
(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land;
or
(ii) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by
any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting
license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act, for mining lease
ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land
to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1)
of section 13 of the said Act,
to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada Area, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi-
834029 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
GIDI ‘C’ OCP
DISTRICT- HAZARIBAGH (JHARKHAND)
[ Plan bearing number REV/01/2021, dated the 6th May, 2021 ]
Block
Village
Thana
number
Circle
District
Area under acquisition
Remarks
In acres
In hectares
A
Dari
43
Dari
Hazaribagh
87.51
35.41
Part
B
Dari
43
Dari
Hazaribagh
0.32
0.0.13
Part
C
Dari
43
Dari
Hazaribagh
18.14
7.34
Part
Total area to be acquired (A+B+C) :
105.97
acres
(approxi-
mately)
42.88
hectares
(approxi-
mately)
Boundary Description:
Boundary Line
Boundary Description
A1-A2-A3-A4-A5-A6-A1
-
Line starts from point ‘A1’and passes through
points A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and meets at starting
point ‘A1’.
B1-B2-B3-B4-B5-B-6-B7-B1
-
Line starts from point ‘B1’ and passes through
points B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 and B7 and meets at
starting point ‘B1’.
C1-C2-C3-C4-C5-C6-C7-C8-C9-C10-C11-C12-
C13-C14-C15-C16-C17-C18-C19-C20-C21-C22-
C23-C24-C25-C26-C27-C28-C29-C30-C31-C32-
C33-C34-C35-C36-C37-38-C39-C40-C41-C42-
C43-C1.
-
Line starts from point ‘C1’ and passes through
points C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11,
C12, C13, C14, C15, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20,
C21, C22, C23, C24, C25, C26, C27, C28, C29,
C30, C31, C32, C33, C34, C35, C36, C37, C38,
C39, C40, C41, C42 and C43 and meets at starting
point ‘C1’.
[F. No. 43015/04/2021-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.
1172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
संस्ट् कषजत मंत्राल
नई दिल् ली, 5 िुलाई, 2021
का.आ. 427.—केंरी सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृ जन म 4 के अनुसरण में संस्ट् कषजत मंत्राल के संबद्ध का ायल भारती ृुरातत् व सवेक्षण के अिीनस्ट्
का ायल ों को जिसमें 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाठर ों/कमयचाठर ों ने सिंिी का का यसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा
िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज जिनका ब् ौरा जनम् नानुसार िज: -
1. अिीक्षण ृुरातत् वजवि, भारती ृुरातत् व सवेक्षण, प्रागजतिास िा ा, नागृुर।
2. उृ अिीक्षण ृुरातत् व रसा नज्ञ का का ायल , जवज्ञान िा ा, संरक्षण अनुसंिान प्र ोगिाला, अिंता
गुफाएं, डॉ. बाबा सािेब आंबेडकर जवद्याृी ृठरसर, औरंगाबाि।
3. अिीक्षण ृुरातत् व रसा नज्ञ का का ायल , उत् तरी क्षेत्र, 63/4, केंराल , संि प् लेस, आगरा (उत् तर प्रिेि)।
4. उृ अिीक्षण ृुरातत् व रसा नज्ञ का का ायल , जवज्ञान िा ा, ृटना क्षेत्र, ृटना (जबिार)।
5. उृ अिीक्षण ृुरातत् व रसा नज्ञ का का ायल , ृजश्चमी ंड, डॉ. बाबा सािेब आंबेडकर जवद्याृी ृठरसर,
औरंगाबाि।
ि अजिसूचना रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से प्रवषत् त िोगी।
[फा. सं. ई-13016/1/2019- सिंिी]
संिुक् ता मुिगल, सं ुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF CULTURE
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 427.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the following subordinate offices of Archaeological
Survey of India an attached office of Ministry of Culture wherein more than 80% officers/staff have acquired
the working knowledge of Hindi. Details are given as below:-
1.
Superintending
Archaeologist,
Archaeological
Survey
of
India,
Prehistory
Branch,
Nagpur-440006.
2.
Office of the Dy. Superintending Archaeological Chemist, Science Branch, Conservation Research
Laboratory, Ajanta Caves, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Marathvada University Complex,
Aurangabad.
3.
Office of the Superintending Archaeological Chemist, Northern Zone, 63/4, Kendralaya, Sanjay
Place, Agra (U.P).
4.
Office of the Dy. Superintending Archaeological Chemist, Science Branch, Patna Zone, Patna
(Bihar).
5.
Office of the Dy. Superintending Archaeological Chemist, Western Zone, Dr. Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Marathvada University Complex, Aurangabad.
This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
[F. No. E-13016/1/2019-Hindi]
SANJUKTA MUDGAL, Jt. Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1173
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 179@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@69@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 179/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/69/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 179/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2)
The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/69/2019-IR (B-I) dated 13.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Smt. Kailashben Shankarbhai Senva, part
1174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
time sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just
& proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Smt. Kailashben Shankarbhai Senva, part time
sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 27th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file her statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute her claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 165@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@47@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.165/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/47/2019-IR (B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 165/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2)
The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1175
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/47/2019-IR (B-I) dated 05.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Bharat Udhabhai Gohel, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Bharat Udhabhai Gohel, part time sweeper is
entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 175@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@62@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 175/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/62/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
1176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 175/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2) The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/62/2019-IR (B-I) dated 16.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Praful Babubhai Vaghela, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Praful Babubhai Vaghela, part time sweeper
is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 27th December 2019. The Ministry had directed
the party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1177
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 160@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@49@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/49/2019-IR (B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 160/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2)
The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
..First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/49/2019-IR (B-I) dated 10.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s. Hardik
Constructions, Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Akshay Mahendrabhai
Vaghela, part time sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f.
25.07.2018 is legal, just & proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Akshay
Mahendrabhai Vaghela, part time sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other directions
are necessary in the matter?”
1178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 158@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@42@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.158/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/42/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 158/2019
(1) The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2) The Proprietor, M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1179
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/42/2019-IR (B-I) dated 10.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Ketan Manubhai Solanki, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Ketan Manubhai Solanki, part time sweeper
is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 177@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@67@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 177/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/67/2019-IR (B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 177/2019
(1) The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
1180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/67/2019-IR (B-I) dated 13.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Smt. Sanjuben Maganlal Daka, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Smt. Sanjuben Maganlal Daka, part time sweeper
is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 27th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file her statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute her claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 163@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@45@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1181
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 163/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/45/2019-IR (B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 163/2019
(1) The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2) The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/45/2019-IR (B-I) dated 05.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Mukesh Mangabhai Solanki, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Mukesh Mangabhai Solanki, part time
sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
1182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 178@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-12011@68@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 178/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/68/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 178/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2)
The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/68/2019-IR (B-I) dated 13.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1183
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the management
of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions, Ahmedabad
over alleged illegal termination of services of Smt. Sushilaben Shankarbhai Senva, part time sweeper and
demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just & proper? If so, to
what relief the concerned workman, Smt. Sushilaben Shankarbhai Senva, part time sweeper is entitled to
and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 27th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file her statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute her claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 156@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-12011@41@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.04.2021.
[No. L-12011/41/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 156/2019
(1) The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
1184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) The Proprietor, M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/41/2019-IR (B-I) dated 10.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Nikhil Kamleshbhai Solanki, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Nikhil Kamleshbhai Solanki, part time
sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 167@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@51@2019-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2021
S.O. 437.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 167/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/51/2019-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1185
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
Dated 17th March, 2021
Reference (CGITA) No. - 167/2019
(1)
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
8th Floor, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
(2)
The Proprietor,
M/s. Hardik Constructions,
M-177/2114, Surya Apartment, Opposite Medical Complex,
Sola Road, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380054
…First Parties
V/s
The National General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh,
F-1/F-10, Zavernagar Society, Harni Varsiya Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022
…Second Party
Present: None on behalf of Claimant(s)
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred
by the Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred
the below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/51/2019-IR (B-I) dated 05.12.2019
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dispute raised by Akhil Bharatiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodara against the
management of State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad and their contractor, M/s Hardik Constructions,
Ahmedabad over alleged illegal termination of services of Shri Sanhay Jitendrabhai Vaghela, part time
sweeper and demand for reinstatement in services with back wages w.e.f. 25.07.2018 is legal, just &
proper? If so, to what relief the concerned workman, Shri Sanhay Jitendrabhai Vaghela, part time
sweeper is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The same reference was received in this Tribunal on 16th December 2019. The Ministry had directed the
party raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants. A period of more than a year has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the
statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry. It is worthwhile mentioning that this reference is
prior to spread of COVID-19 pandemic and adversities of lockdown.
2. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute his claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
3. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
4. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
1186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2021
.—jk"Vªifr] Jh iq.ksZUnq dqekj JhokLro] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k
lg Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj dks lkSais x, dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds
ihBklhu vfèkdkjh ds vfrfjDr izHkkj dh vofèk fnukad 25-06-2021 ls N% ekg rd dh vofèk vFkok in ij
fu;fer fu;qfDr rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks rd c<+krs gSaA
[la- v-11016@05@2020&lh,y,l-II]
lrh'k pUnz] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2021
S.O. 438.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar entrusted to Shri Purnendu Kumar
Srivastave, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for a period
of six minths with effect from 25.06.2020 or till the regular appointment to the post, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/05/2020-CLS-II]
SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2021
—jk"Vªifr] Jh oh- fot;k dqekj] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k lg
Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye dks lkSais x, dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds ihBklhu
vfèkdkjh ds vfrfjDr izHkkj dh vofèk fnukad 27-07-2021 ls N% ekg rd dh vofèk vFkok fu;fer inkfèkdkjh dh
fu;qfDr rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks rd c<+krs gSaA
[la- v-11016@05@2020-lh,y,l&II]
lrh'k pUnz] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2021
S.O. 439.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad entrusted to Shri V. Vijay Kumar,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam for a period of six
months with effect from 27.07.2021 or till the appointment of the regular incumbent or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/05/2020-CLS-II]
SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2021
.—jk"Vªifr] Jherh nhIrh eksgik=k] ihBklhu vfèkdkjh] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k lg
Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ dks lkSais x, dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k lg Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds ihBklhu
vfèkdkjh ds vfrfjDr izHkkj dh vofèk fnukad 27-07-2021 ls N% ekg rd dh vofèk vFkok fu;fer inkfèkdkjh dh
fu;qfDr rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa tks Hkh igys gks rd c<+krs gSaA
[la- v-11016@05@2020-lh,y,l-II]
lrh'k pUn] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2021
S.O. 440.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of th post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore to Smt. Dipti Mohapatra, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai for a period of six months with
effect from 27.07.2021 or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the
earliest.
[No. A-11016/05/2020-CLS-II]
SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1187
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2021
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 264@97 vkSj M-05@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-07-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@122@96-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2021
S.O. 441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 264/97& M 05/2004 ) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.07.2021.
[No. L-12012/122/96- IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/264/97
Present: P. K.Srivastava, H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Daulatram Raikwar
S/o late Shri Kesriram Raikwar
Behind Rai Bhawan,
P.O.Silwarni, Distrist Raisen (MP)
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager
State Bank of India
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AND
Case No.CGIT/LC-M-05-2004
Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India
Bhopal
…Appellant
Versus
Daulatram Raikwar
S/o Late Shri Kesiram Raikwar
Behind Rai Bhawan,
Silwarni, District Raisen (MP)
…Respondent
AWARD
(Passed on this 30th June-2021)
As per letter dated 4/9/97 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 12012/122/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya bharatiya State Bank ka Sh. Daulatram Raikwar ko unke pita ke sthan par anukamppa
neyukti dekar aur dinank 1-1-91 se 22-8-94 takaaa naukri karwakar anuchit dhang se bina kese
inquiry, retrenchment, compensation aadi ke naukri se nikal dena, nyayuchhit hai. Yadi Nahi to
karmkar kes reyat ke haqdar hain? .”
1188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that since 1982 he was appointed as
waterman and worked continuously since 1990 as a daily wager. He was paid on monthly basis. After the
retirement of his father later Kesriram who was a waterman in the said Branch of the Management Bank, the
workman was appointed as regular waterman/messenger on regular pay scale and other benefits on 31-12-1990.
He worked in that position till 22-8-1994, when his services were terminated by an oral order of the
Management without paying him any compensation or notice salary. It was further alleged in the claim that he
used to work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. sometimes up to 7 p.m. and when he refused to do the personal work of
the then Branch Manager, his services was dis-engaged which is against law. He is not in employment from the
date of his dis-engagement, hence his dis-engagement is against law. Accordingly, it has been prayed that he
be reinstated with all consequential benefits, setting aside his dis-engagement.
3.
The case of Management in its written statement of defense is mainly that the workman was engaged
by the Branch Manager of the Management Bank for filling up of drinking water in the Branch, whenever
required. He never remained in continuous service, rather his services were taken on the exigency of work. The
number of days , he was engaged in the Bank from 1982 to 1993 have been elaborated in the paragraph(2) of the
statement of defense, which goes to show that in the last year i.e. from 1-1-1993 to 20-8-1993 he worked only
for 20 days. Accordingly, it is the case of the Management that the workman never worked continuously for
240 days in any calendar year. He did not make himself available for work w.e.f 21-8-1993, hence dis-
engagement of his services does not arise because, he abandoned his engagement on his own. The Management
further denied that the father of the workman was an employee for the Branch and pleaded that his father was
also a daily wager, hence there was no question for appointment of the workman on compassionate grounds.
Accordingly, it has been claimed that the dis-engagement of the workman is not against Section 25F of
Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Management has further denied that the workman was dis-engaged on
22-8-1994. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
In evidence, the workman examined himself on oath. The Management has also examined its witness
on oath. The workman has filed and proved Exhibit W-1 which is letter dated 24-12-1990 written by the Branch
Manager to the Regional Officer, regarding the engagement of the workman.
5.
It is worth mentioning that the case proceeded ex-parte against the Management. An ex-parte Award
dated 23-5-2008 was passed by my learned Predecessor which was set aside on the application of the
Management Bank and it is thereafter, the Management filed its written statement of defense and examined its
witness. The Management has filed no documentary evidence.
6.
I have heard the arguments of Shri Arun Patel, learned counsel for workman and Shri Ashish Shroti,
learned counsel for the Management. Management has filed a memorandum of argument also which is on
record.
7.
Learned Counsel for workman has relied on following case laws:-
8.
Director Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda., AIR(2010) SCC 1236
wherein it is held:-
“Continuous service of 240 days – Burden of proof- workman hired on daily wage basis, hence he
would have difficulty in having access to all official documents, muster rolls etc. when workman
claimed and deposed that he worked for 240 days- the burden of proof shifts to employer to prove that
he did not complete 240 days of service in the required period to constitute continuous service.”
9.
In Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan(2016) 1 SCC 546 ,when muster rolls were not produced by
the employer, it was held that :-
“Adverse inference , held, rightly drawn against the Management.”
10.
In the case of District Development Officer & another Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia(2018)2 SCC
276, it was held:-
“that the workman was a daily wager for a tenure of two and a half years-the compensation amounting
to Rs.2,50,000, in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential
benefits was held proved.”
11.
The Management has relied on following case laws:-
Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173 held that :-
“If the post is not a sanctioned, appointment therein would be illegal and the onus to prove that the
workman was gainfully employed is on the workman. Further held that the onus to prove completion
of requisite statutory period is on workman and not on the Management.”
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1189
12.
In State of M.P. Vs. Arjunlal Rajak(2006) 2 SCC 711 it was held that :-
“When the dis-engagement is held against law, it will not result in automatic reinstatement. Further
held that it may be appropriate to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement in certain cases.”
13.
It is to further mention here that the workman had filed an application seeking direction to the
Management to produce the documents namely viz payment voucher and muster roll. This application was
allowed vide order dated 4-2-2019 and Management was directed to produce the documents or file affidavit, if
the documents were not available. The Management did not file documents nor did they file any affidavit, that
these documents were not available.
14.
After having perused the record in the light of the rival arguments, following points come up for
determination in the case in hand:-
1. ‘‘Whether the dis-engagement of the workman on 22-8-1994 is justified in law?’’
2. ‘‘Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?”
15.
ISSUE NO.1:-
2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary
action, but does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the
workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of
work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in
continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he
shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the
workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one
hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman,
during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the
case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in
any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the
workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in
excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate
Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by
notification in the Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the
employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be
prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer
themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for
re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
1190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No documents have been filed by any of the parties in support/rebuttal of claim. There is only on
record statementd of the workman and of the Management witness on oath. On this point the workman has
stated in its statement of oath that he was engaged on compassionate ground after the death of his father as a
waterman on 31-12-1990 and remained in engagement till 22-8-1994 when he was dis-engaged under an oral
order, without any notice or compensation. The Management witness has denied the engagement of the
workman till 22-8-1994 rather has stated that he was engaged as a daily wager. His father was also a daily
wager, hence there was no question of his appointment on compassionate basis. He worked till 20-8-1993 and
left on his own, hence there is no question of his dis-engagement. It was also stated that he worked only for a
period of 20 days in the year 1-1-1993 to 20-8-1993, hence the point which arises for consideration is whether
the workman was engaged till 22-8-1994 as claimed by the workman or till 20-8-1993 as claimed by the
Management.
16.
As has been stated earlier, there is no documentary evidence in respect of claim/rebuttal. The
Management witness has stated in his cross-examination that there is no document available with the Branch
regarding the engagement of the workman. He was not posted in the Branch. The Bank Manager posted during
that period can only tell us as the exact period when the workman had worked in the Branch. He has denied that
the Management has deliberately withheld the documents.
17.
On the other hand the workman has reiterated his claim in his statement on oath and there is nothing
significant in his cross-examination to dis-credit him on this point.
18.
As observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director Fisheries Terminal Division (supra) and
Gauri Shankar(Supra), when the workman has stated on oath his continuous engagement for 240 days in the
year preceding the date of his dis-engagement, the burden shifts on Management to disapprove it and
accordingly in the case of Municipal Council, Sujanpur (Supra) referred to by learned counsel for Management
is of no help to Management, hence the continuous engagement of the workman for period of 240 days as daily
wager, in the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement is held proved. It is not disputed that no notice or
compensation was given to the workman, hence his dis-engagement is held in violation of Section 25G and 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
19.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
As the dis-engagement of the workman has been against law, the question arises as to what relief the
workman is entitled to. Learned Counsel has relied on the case of Deepali Gundu Suwase Vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapad Mahavidyalaya(2013) 10 SCC 324(2013(6) SLR 642(SC) broad principles in this respect were laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which are as follows:-
“38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages is the normal rule.
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the
adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the
employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/
workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it
has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/ workman was gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination
of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a
particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always
easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows
that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the
employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section
11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the
employee/ workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing
orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found
proved then it will have the discretion not to award fullback wages. However, if the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charges then there will be ample justification
for award of full back wages.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1191
38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in
gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of
victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully
justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Court should not
exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed
by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on
the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to
pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal
termination of service, the wrong doer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman
and there is justification to give premium to, the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him
of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary
adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring
that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure
and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants
cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if
he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his
service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in
most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or
workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer,
i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with
certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases, it would be prudent to adopt the course
suggested in Hindustan Tin works Private Limited V.Employees of Hindustan TinWorks Private
Limited (supra).
38.7 The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement
the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of
the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to here-in-above and cannot be treated as good
law.This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an
employee/workman.
Furthermore, in Tapash Kumar Paul V. BSNL (2014) 4 SCR 875 :[2014(6) SLR 538 (SC)], it is
held :-
“Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu’s case (supra) which has
correctly relied upon higher bench decisions of this Court in Surendra Kumar Verma’s case
(supra) and Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the opinion that the appellant herein
is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since in the absence of full back wages, the
employee will be distressed and will suffer punishment for no fault of his own.”
20.
In the case in hand, 27years have elapsed since the dis-engagement of the workman. He was not
appointed against regular vacancy. He was simply a daily wager and no rules were followed in his appointment.
These facts dis-entitle him for reinstatement. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute arose in the year 1997
and sent for adjudication and since then pending at various level and the workman has been dragged in litigation
since the year 1997 and also that he has stated on oath that he was not in regular employment after his dis-
engagement, a lump sum compensation as full and final settlement of his claims including cost of litigation of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) will meet the ends of justice in my view.
21.
Accordingly, he is held entitled to compensation of lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only)
as full and final settlement of his claims including cost of litigation. Accordingly Issue No. 2 is answered.
22.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the Management in dis-engaging the services of Shri Daulatram Raikwar is
held unjustified in law and fact.
B. The workman is held entitled to compensation of lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One
lakh only) as full and final settlement of his claims including cost of litigation.
23.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
DATE: 30.6.2021
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
1192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08-07-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@204@2004-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2021
S.O. 442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.07.2021.
[No. L-12012/204/2004-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/16/2015
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ramgopal Tharu,
S/o Shri Nanhelal tharu
Behind Urdu School, Gopalganj,
Sagar (M.P.)
… Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India
Divisional Office, Moti Market,
Jayendraganj (MP)
Gwalior (MP)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 28th day of June-2021)
As per letter dated 12/1/2005 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-12012/204/2004-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of
Sh. Ram Gopal Gharu, who claimed to have worked during 1.11.1987 to 28-2-2003 as temporary
part time Safai Karamchari is legal and justified? If not , what relief is the disputant concerned
entitled to?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the applicant was appointed in the
Gopalganj Branch of Sagar District of the Management Bank as from 1/11/1987 till 28/2/2003 when his
services were terminated for no vacancy available, after paying retrenched compensation amount Rs.8340/- and
one month pay towards notice period amounting to Rs.2135/- inspite of the fact that there was a clear vacancy in
the Bank, hence the services were terminated arbitrarily without paying other retiral dues like gratuity, provident
fund etc. The workman approached the Management for his reinstatement but it was not considered, thereafter
he raised dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur. After failure of conciliation, a report
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1193
was sent to the Ministry of Labour and thereafter the reference has been sent to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The workman has accordingly prayed for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3.
The case of Management in its written statement of defence is that the workman was a daily wager on
contractual basis, engaged as part time sweeper in the Branch within the period as stated by the workman. He
was not a regular employee of the Bank, appointed according to the existing Rules. His engagement was for a
short time on daily basis on the availability of work. He was not required to report on the next day. It was
further pleaded that the Second Party Management has an elaborate selection procedure evolved out of the
agreement entered into between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation being
the Federation of the State Bank of India Employees’ Association, which provided an opportunity for giving
chance to the temporary/casual workers for consideration for permanent appointment in the Bank’s service. The
Provisions of various agreements i.e. 17-11-1987, 16-7-1988, 28-10-1988 and 9-1-1991 were made between the
Management and All Indian State Bank of India Staff Federation. According to these settlements, the interview
of those employees who were discontinued after 1-7-1975 or working in the Bank upto 31-7-1988 have been
conducted by the Bank and a panel of selected candidates was prepared by the Bank in accordance with the
settlement prescribed here in above. Previously, the temporary employees who had completed the minimum
prescribed period of service, during the period from 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988, were considered. In consultation of
the Management with the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, the said period was extended from 31-
7-1988 to 14-8-1991. Accordingly, the eligible daily wagers, casual employees who had completed the required
minimum service during the period from 1-7-1975 to 14-8-1991 were to be given chance for permanent
employment in the services of the Bank. The Second party Management accordingly advertised in the
newspapers for furnishing application on the prescribed formats for such a daily rated employees/casual workers
who have worked for the stipulated period as provided under the settlement during the period with effect from
31-7-1988 to 14-8-1991.
4.
Since the workman never applied for consideration of permanent employement of the Branch in
pursuance to the advertisement, he was not regularized and was retrenched after notice and paying
compensation. According to the Management, the reference is required to be answered against the workman.
5.
The workman has filed his rejoinder, wherein he has mainly reiterated his pleadings.
6.
In evidence, the workman has filed and proved letter of bank increasing his daily wage, retrenchment
notice, cheque of compensation Exhibits W-1, W-2 and W-3 respectively. The workman has also examined
himself on oath and has been cross-examined by Management.
7.
The Management has not filed any documents and has examined its witness Mahesh Kumar Sahu and
Mukesh Kumar Gupta on oath. Opportunity of cross examination of these two witness were given to workman
but were not availed , hence the opportunity has been closed by my learned Predecessor. At the stage of
argument also the workman did not appear hence, the arguments of learned counsel for the Management Shri
Ashish Shroti were heard. He has also filed written argument which is on record. I have perused the written
arguments as well as the record.
8.
The Reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.
9.
As regards the retrenchment/dis-engagement of the workman, this cannot be faulted in law because due
notice was given to him and compensation as well as notice payment was also given to him are proved by the
documents Exhibits W-1 to W-3 filed by workman himself. The case of the workman is that he was not
absorbed on the post of sweeper for which he was engaged, inspite of the fact that there was a clear vacancy.
According to the Management , there is a set procedure for appointment given in the various Bi-Partite-
Settlement as mentioned in the written statement of defence(paragraph-04). It is further stated in the pleadings
and in the evidence of Management that the workman did not avail the opportunity by filing an application and
joining the selection process. Admitted by the workman is the fact that he was only a daily wager when he was
engaged and was not engaged following any Selection Procedure. In the case of Secretary of State of
Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others ,AIR(2006) SC 1806 of five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court had held “that appointment dehors due process of selection envisaged by constitutional scheme
1194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
confers no right on appointee”. Hence in the light of aforesaid circumstances and proved facts, it can be safely
held that the action of Management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of workman are legally
justified. Hence the workman is held entitled to no relief.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Ram
Gopal Gharu, who claimed to have worked during 1.11.1987 to 28-2-2003 as temporary part
time Safai Karamchari is justified in law.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
11.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
DATE: 28.6.2021
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 2 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-07-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@57@2004-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2021
S.O. 443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.07.2021.
[No. L-12012/57/2014-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANEXXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 02/2015
Date of Passing Award- 16th June, 2021
Between:
Shri Ram Nath,
S/o Shri Sumeri,
at-PO- Mirzapur, Tehsil- Behat,
Distt. Saharanpur, UP.
… Workman
Versus
The State Bank of India,
Mirzapur Branch,
Distt. Saharanpur, UP
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1195
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma (A/R)
: For the Workman.
Jaya Tomar (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of State Bank of India, Mirzapur Branch, and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-12012/57/2014 (IR(B-I) dated 12/12/2014 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the management of SBI is wrong in denying the continuation of Shri Ram Nath’s service and
done against the provisions of law? If so, what remedies lies with the workman and what specific steps
should be taken by the SBI management to reinstate him with specific benefits?’’
The claimant in his claim statement has stated that his father was a permanent employee of the Bank
and working as a sweeper. After father’s death the claimant was appointed as a sweeper w.e.f 1.5.98 and worked
continuously till the year 2013, when his service was illegally terminated by the Management. During this
period he had worked continuously for 240 days and more in each calendar year. Initially the bank was paying
him wage @Rs 20/- per day and subsequently the same was increased. At the time of termination of his service
in the year 2013, his wage per day was Rs 120/-.the Management Bank has a policy for regularizing the service
of daily rated workmen which was circulated to the branches of the Bank asking the Branch manager to furnish
the details of such workers. One such circular of the Management was communicated to the Branch and in
response to the same the manager of SBI, Mirzapur Branch, where the claimant was working, had sent the case
of the claimant for regularization of his service. Not only that ,on subsequent dates also the Branch Manager had
recommended his name for regularization of his service along with twenty others and the name of the claimant
was at serial no 1. But no action was taken by the Management in this regard. Suddenly the management
stopped disbursing his salary w.e.f 1.11.12. But the claimant continued to work as earlier and on 19.2.2013,
submitted a representation for payment of his wages against the work done. The Bank Management in their
letter dt 8.4.2013 informed him that he was never appointed by the Bank for service and thus, no wage is
payable to him w.e.f December 2012. The Bank thereafter discontinued his service w.e.f 8.4.13, which amounts
to illegal termination since the procedure laid down under the ID Act was not followed before the termination.
No seniority list was displayed nor any notice for termination was served on him nor any retrenchment
compensation was paid in gross violation of the provisions of sec 25G and 25 H of the ID Act. It has further
been stated by the claimant that the Bank was making him to work eight hours a day during which besides doing
the job for cleaning and sweeping, he was attending other works as directed by the staff of the Bank. He was
also accompanying the Bank staff to the field during the recovery actions taken. An Identity card was also
issued to him as any other staff of the Bank. Having failed in his attempt for redressal of grievance, he had
raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, where steps taken for conciliation failed too and the
appropriate Govt referred the dispute for adjudication in terms of the reference.
With such pleading the claimant has prayed for reinstatement into service with continuity of service
for the intervening period and back wages at the appropriate rate from the initial date of engagement together
with any other relief as this Tribunal would deem fit.
The Management Bank filed a written statement denying all the stand taken by the claimant. It states
that the claimant is not a workman and there exists no employer and employee relationship between the Bank
and the claimant. The claimant was engaged as a sweeper on daily wage basis after his father’s death and was
paid the wage through vouchers only. SBI is a public sector Bank having it’s own procedure for recruitment. No
appointment letter was ever issued to him nor he was appointed against any clear vacancy. Any person
appointed in the Bank following due procedure is given an appointment letter and PF No. Salary is being paid
through Bank account and salary slip is issued for every month. It has also been stated that the ID Card filed by
the claimant was at the Branch level only to facilitate his entry into the Bank premises to carry out the sweeping
work. to the written statement The claimant had never worked for 240 days in the calendar year as claimed by
him. No attendance Register is maintained for the daily wage workers and the claimant is put to strict proof of
his claim of working for 240 days in a calendar month. The Branch Manager of the Bank had never
recommended the case of the claimant to the Head Office recommending for his appointment against regular
vacancy. Furthermore the Management has stated that a policy decision was taken at higher level for
engagement of sweepers through contractors and as a result of which the engagement of the claimant on daily
wage basis was discontinued. No unfair labour practice was ever adopted by the Bank as the claimant was
never it’s employee. Thus there was no need for giving retrenchment notice or retrenchment compensation.
Thereby the management has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
1196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed by order dt 22.12.2015, for adjudication.
ISSUES
1.
Whether the Management of SBI is wrong in denying the continuation of Sh Ram Nath’s service
and done against the provision of Law? If so it’s effect.
2.
Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the Management and the
claimant? It’s effect.
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? And what direction to the
management if any.
Before commencement of the hearing the claimant had filed an application u/s 11(3) of the ID Act
calling upon the management for production of original documents from the custody of the Bank which
included the original payment vouchers, letter dated 20.9.2003, letter dated 1.6.2005, letter dated 17.5.2005 by
the GM to the branches of the Bank with respect to appointment of sweepers and several other letter
communications in this regard etc. but the Management Bank denied production of the documents on the ground
that the documents being very old are not traceable. Other documents were destroyed during the heavy rain
when water entered into the branch. Rest of the documents were also lost during shifting of the Branch. Thus
this Tribunal by ordered dt 18.10.2016, permitted the claimant to adduce secondary evidence of the documents.
The claimant examined himself as WW1 and also proved the photocopies of the documents marked in
a series of Ext WW1/1 TO WW1/13. Similarly, the management examined it’s Attorney holder Prasant ku
Agarwal as MW 1 who also proved the circular containing the procedure of appointment of the Bank and a letter
from the Branch Manager who had issued the identity card to the claimant to say that the same was issued to a
daily wager for the specific purpose of facilitating entry into the Bank premises for sweeping. The documents
have been marked as Ext MW 1/1 and MW 1/2. Both the witnesses were cross examined at length by their
adversaries.
At the outset the learned AR for the management submitted that the entire claim is based upon a
misconception of fact that the claimant was an employee of the Bank and his service was illegally terminated.
Relying upon several judicial pronouncements , she submitted that the burden lies heavily on the claimant to
prove the employer and employee relationship between the parties, which the claimant has failed to discharge in
this proceeding. On the contrary, the claimant who was working as a daily wager has claimed reinstatement with
back wages like a permanent employee. Relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Secretary
State of Karnatak VS. Umadevi and others (2006) SCC (L&S)753 and in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad
VS Employer I/R to Food Corporation of India(2014) 7 SCC 190, she submitted that SBI is a public sector
Bank having it’s own procedure of recruitment and regularization or reinstatement would be illegal and in
violation of article 14 of the constitution. She also submitted that the Apex court in the case of Hari Nandan
Prasad have clearly held that when there are vacancies, in absence of unfair labour practice the Labour court
would not give directions for regularization only because a worker had worked as daily wage worker for number
of years. Further, if there are no posts available such a direction for regularization would be impermissible.
In his reply argument the learned AR for the claimant submitted that the management being the
employer have thrown better light on the employer employee relationship. Though the Tribunal directed
production of the documents, management avoided the same. But the documents produced by the claimant very
well proves that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and was getting wage from the Bank. The
witness examined by the Management has also admitted that the post of the sweeper is still vacant in the bank.
In view of the same the Tribunal is empowered to give a direction for regularization of the service of the
claimant considering the number of years he has worked in the bank without proper wage being given.
FINDING
Issue No. 2
This issue has been taken up for consideration at the first instance since it will have a decisive impact
on the finding of the other issue.
The learned AR for the Management strongly contended that there lies no relationship between the
claimant and the Bank as employer and employee and the claimant had never completed 240 days of work in the
calendar year preceding his alleged termination. It is also submitted that the claimant has failed to establish the
employer/ employee relationship.
The workman has pleaded in the claim petition as well as filed an affidavit stating that he was
appointed as a sweeper w.e.f 1.5.98 and continuously worked as such until his service was terminated in the
year 2013. His wage was initially Rs 20/- per day which was increased from time to time and the last drawn per
day wage was Rs120/-during cross examination he has stated that from the internal circular of the Bank he
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1197
could know about the vacant post of the sweeper lying so after the death of his father, a regular employee of the
Bank and made application for the post. Appointment letter was issued to him by the Bank. But no such
appointment letter has been placed on record. The claimant has also stated that Identity card was also issued to
him as an employee of the Bank. The said I Card has been placed on record as evidence. During cross
examination the claimant has stated that he was getting salary once in the first week of the month and was also
getting monthly salary slip like the other employees. On the basis of this oral evidence the management has
challenged the claim of the claimant that the documents like appointment letter and salary slip having not been
filed by the claimant it is difficult to accept the claim that he was the employee of the Bank.
It is true that the above said documents have not been proved by the claimant. But the Management
Bank in the written statement and by the oral evidence of MW 1 has clearly admitted that the claimant was
working in the Bank during the relevant period but as a daily wager and as such his claim for reinstatement is
not tenable under law.
For the opposing stands taken by the parties it is expedient to examine if the evidence on record proves
the employer/ employee relationship between them. Before analyzing the law on the subject and the evidence
on record it is worth mentioning that the claimant has filed photo copies of the documents which he had called
from the Bank, but the latter did not produce those under the explanation that some have been destroyed during
rain and some others during the shifting of the Branch. It has also been explained that no attendance Register is
maintained in respect of persons engaged on daily wage basis. All these explanations offered by the Bank are
not acceptable for the reason that the SBI, a public sector Bank of it’s own repute , was negligent to the extent
that the documents were damaged due to rain and were lost during shifting. It is equally difficult to accept that
the Bank never maintains the attendance register of the daily wage workers when they are being paid on the
basis of the days of work rendered by them. The circumstances clearly prove that the Bank opted to withheld the
documents called for by the claimant to support his claim. In the case of Gopal Krishanji Keykar VS
Md Haji Latif and Others, AIR1968 SC1413 and again in the case of Bal Kishan VS Presiding Officer,
199693) SCT548, the Hon’ble S C have held that the burden of proving the fact was on the Management as the
party which possesses the best evidence is duty bound of producing the same irrespective of the burden of proof.
Hence in this case when the Management has withheld material documents it is to be examined if the
photocopies filed by the claimant goes to prove the said employer/employee relationship.
In this proceeding the claimant has all along maintained that he was working for the Bank eight hours a
day. Besides sweeping he was attending to other works as directed and getting his salary at the beginning of the
month though on a daily wage basis. To support the oral evidence several vouchers (photo copies) have been
placed on record and the management has not denied these documents. The letters written by the then Manager
of the Bank to the Zonal Office and Head Office have also been placed on record as Exhibits to prove this
aspect. The witness examined by the Bank has also admitted during cross examination that the claimant was
working as a sweeper of the Bank during the relevant period.as stated in the preceding paragraph, the claimant
could not place on record the documents in support of his stand. In such a situation, the claim is to be examined
from the other circumstances i.e the effective control test as has been observed in several pronouncements by
the Hon’ble Apex Court including the case of Steel Authority Of India VS National Union Waterfront
Workers Union, reported in 92001) 7 SCC,1. In the case of Workmen of Food Corporation of India VS
Food Corporation of India, AIR 1985(SC) 670, the Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment
always discloses a relationship of command and obedience between them. When the same is proved from the
evidence, the relationship of employer and employee is established.
In this proceeding the claimant has stated that besides working as sweeper he was attending to other
works as assigned to him by the staff he bank. This oral evidence has not been controverted by the Management.
On the contrary, the vouchers filed by the claimant clearly prove that he was working as a daily wage sweeper
of the Bank for eight hours a day under the supervision and control of the staff of the Bank and was issued an
I Card for facilitating his entry into the Bank. For the fact that he was not allotted a PF no like the regular and
permanent employees of the Bank will not influence his rights in any manner. Hence from the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the claimant coupled with the oral evidence of the MW1, it is proved that the
employer and employee relationship was existing between the Bank and the claimant during the relevant time as
the bank had effective control and supervision over the work of the claimant during the said period. This issue is
accordingly answered in favor of the claimant.
ISSUE No. 1&3
Industrial dispute has been raised by the workman and reference has been made by the appropriate
Govt to adjudicate if any illegality has been committed by the management in refusing to reinstate the claimant
into service and if so to what benefit he is entitled to. The management has forcefully argued and led evidence to
show that the claimant was not a regular employee of the Bank. Thus there arises no question of terminating his
service or refusing his reinstatement. The entire claim is based upon some misconception of facts. Having
considered the submissions and appraisal of the record and documents filed this Tribunal is of the view that
1198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 10, 2021/ASHADHA 19, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
there is no dispute on facts that the claimant was not a regular employee of the Management Bank, but was
engaged as a sweeper on daily wage basis though he was made to work 8 hours a day, almost for15 years , when
his engagement was brought to an abrupt end in the year 2013. It has been admitted by the management witness
MW1 that no notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to the claimant when he was disengaged from
service, which appears to be in gross violation of the provisions of sec 25F and 25 G of the ID Act.
Now it is necessary to examine, can the relief of regularization be granted to the claimant. The sole
argument advanced by the learned AR for the management is that the claimant has not prayed for that relief in
the claim petition filed by him and the Tribunal can not grant a relief beyond the pleading.
But this argument does not sound convincing since the appropriate Govt has made the reference for
adjudication on the legality of the action taken by the management and what other relief which can be granted to
the claimant.
In his pleading the claimant has pleaded that he had worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding
his disengagement by the Bank. Since the date of death of his father, a permanent sweeper of the Bank, the post
is lying vacant. Several representations made by him praying for regularization were not considered and at last
he was threatened to withdraw the representations, otherwise his engagement would be discontinued. In the oral
statement the claimant has stated that ultimately in a vindictive move his engagement was brought to an end in
the year 2013.
The learned AR citing the judgment of Uma Devi and Hari Nandan Prasad referred supra argued
that any order directing regularization will amount to back door entry into the service of a public sector Bank
and thus no order containing any such direction should be passed by this Tribunal.
In the case of Umadevi referred supra, the Hon’ble SC held that the persons who were appointed on
temporary or casual basis without following proper procedure can not claim regularization or absorption since
the same is opposed to the policy of public employment. But this is not a case of claiming automatic absorption
or regularization. The claimant had made several representations for his regularization in accordance to the
policy of the Bank for regularizing the daily wage workers. The documents filed by the claimant clearly shows
that the higher Management of the bank had asked several times the Branch Heads to furnish details of such
workers and the Branch Manager in response to the same had furnished the list of daily wage workers in which
the name of the claimant was at serial no one. The claimant has filed another document marked Ext WW1/6
wherein the Branch Manager while recommending the name of the claimant to the Higher Management had
stated that the daily wage sweeper Ram Nath has worked for more than 240 days in preceding calendar year.
With this the claimant has described the unfair labour practice adopted by the Bank in not regularizing his
service.
The effect of the constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi came up for
consideration with reference to unfair labour practice by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Maharashtra State
Road Transport and Another VS Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangathana, reported in
(2009) 8 SCC,556, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the judgment in the case of Uma Devi
has not overridden the power Industrial and Labour courts to pass appropriate orders once unfair labour practice
on the part of the employer is established. The judgment of Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and
Labour Court of their statutory power. The matter again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble SC in the
case of Hari Nandan Prasad vs Employer Food Corporation of India with reference to the judgement of
Uma Devi. The management has heavily relied upon this judgment of Hari Nandan Prasad to argue that a
direction to regularize the service of the claimant only on the basis of the number of years he had worked as a
daily wager will amount to back door entry. A careful reading of the judgment of Hari Nandan Prasad referred
supra shows that the Hon’ble Apex court after considering the matter from all possible angles came to hold that
the labour courts as a routine practice should not direct for regularization. The court in para 39 have observed
“39. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion
that when there are posts available, in absence of any unfair labour practice the labour court would
not give direction for regularization only because the worker had continued as daily wage
worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a
direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances, giving of
direction for regularization, only on the basis of the number of years put in by such worker as a daily
wager may amount to back door entry in to service which is an anathema to Art 14, of the
constitution.”
Besides the case of Maharashtra Road Transport referred supra, the Hon’ble SC in the case of
Shri Ajaypal Singh VS Haryana Warehousing Corporation, decided in Civil Appeal No 6327of 2014 by
judgment dt 09th July 2014 have held that–
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 10, 2021/आषाढ़ 19, 1943
1199
“The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the power of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts
provided therein were not at all under consideration in the case of Umadevi. The issue pertaining to
unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor it was decided in the case of
Umadevi”
In the light of the above discussed judicial pronouncements, now it is to be examined from the
evidence on record, if there is vacancy for the post of sweeper and if the claimant has been subjected to unfair
labour practice. The claimant has stated in the claim petition as well as in his evidence that his father was
working in the State Bank of India, Mirzapur Branch as a sweeper. He was a permanent employee of the Bank.
After his death since the year 1995 the claimant was working on daily wage basis in the same post and the post
is vacant after his dis engagement. The witness examined by the Bank as MW 1 has admitted during his cross
examination that the said post in the Branch of the Bank is still vacant. Further the said witness has supported
the stand of the claimant with regard to the unfair labour practice meted to him by saying that the notice of
termination or termination compensation was not paid to the claimant in compliance to the provisions of sec 25F
and 25G of the ID Act.
In the case of J&K Bank Ltd vs Central Govt Industrial Tribunal And Others reported in 2018
LAB.I.C 2970 the Hon’ble High Court of J&K have held:-
“unfair labour practice-what amounts to- workman continued in temporary/contractual capacity for
years together despite availability of vacant post, aimed at depriving him of the benefits and privilege
of permanent workman-clearly amounts to unfair labour practice.”
Here is a case where as indicated above the claimant has been victimized on account of unfair labour
practice by the bank. The post for which he is an aspirant is still vacant. Hence considering the circumstances it
is felt expedient in the interest of justice to issue a direction to the bank to regularize the service of the claimant
in the post of sweeper at Mirzapur Branch of the Bank which was vacant during the pendency of this proceeding
.This issue is accordingly answered.
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is allowed. It is held that the service of the claimant was illegally
terminated and he was made a victim of unfair labour practice by the Bank. The claimant is held entitled to
reinstatement to the post of sweeper in the Management Bank within two months from the date when this award
would become executable. The management Bank shall reinstate the claimant in the post as directed along with
20% of the last drawn back wage from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The amount so
accrued shall not carry any interest if paid within one month from the date of reinstatement failing which the
Bank shall pay interest @9% per annum from the date it is payable and till it is actually paid.
Consign the record as per Rule. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
16th June, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Digitally signed by SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Date: 2021.07.17 11:38:36
+05'30'