3306 GI/2022
(1023)
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. 21]
नई दिल् ली, मई 22— मई 28, 2022, िजनवार/ ज् येष् ठ 1— ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
No. 21]
NEW DELHI, MAY 22—MAY 28, 2022, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 1–JYAISTHA 7, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् ठ सं् या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि ृ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 मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय 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)
ृषथ्वी जवज्ञान मंत्रालय
(भारत मौसम जवज्ञान जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 22 अप्रजल, 2022
का.आ. 496.—केंन्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम,1976
(य ासंिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, ृषथ्वी जवज्ञान मंत्रालय के
अिीनस्ट् कायाालय भारत मौसम जवज्ञान जवभाग के अिीन जनम्नजलज त कायाालयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
कमाचारीवषन्ि ने हिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को एतद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िजैः
1. मौसम केंर ृटना, िय प्रकाि नारायण अंतरराष्ट्रीय िवाई अड्डा, ृटना- 800014 (जििार)
2. मौसम केंर रााँची, जिरसा मुंडा िवाई ृत्तन रोड, जिनू, रााँची- 834002 (झार ंड)
3. मौसम केंर िेिरािून, मोिकमृुर, िररद्वार रोड, िेिरािून- 248005 (उत्तरा ंड)
[फा. सं. DGM-HQ- 28019(11)/1/2021 OL section DGM]
डॉ. जविय कुमार सोनी, उृमिाजनिेिक (प्रिासन)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28052022-236065
CG-DL-W-28052022-236065
1024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES
(India Meteorological Department)
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2022
S.O. 496.— In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central Government hereby notifies the following
offices under the India Meteorological Department, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Earth Sciences whereof
more than 80 percent staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
1. Meteorological Centre Patna, Jay Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna- 800014 (Bihar)
2. Meteorological Centre Ranchi, Birsa Munda Airport Road, Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
3. Meteorological Centre Dehradun, Mohkampur, Haridwar Road, Dehradun-248005( Uttarakhand)
[F. No. DGM- HQ- 28019(11)/1/2021 OL section DGM]
Dr. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, DDG (Administration)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@53@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O.497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/53/2005 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 25/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 20.04.2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1025
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/53/2005- IR (C-I) dated 19.12.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the NCWA from the management of BCCL, Sijua Area that Smt. Surjee
Bhuini, wife of late Nanka Bhuia, workman may be given employment under the provisions of NCWA
justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependant entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 13/02/2006 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President of National Coal Workers
Congress, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days
but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were
noticed but the workman/union didn’t appear before the Tribunal. Further the management had appeared on certain
dates but union/workman had failed to appear before the Tribunal. Thereafter notice had been issued to the
workman/union which returned unserved. Now the Case is pending since 13/02/2006 and workman/union is not
appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim”
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y-20012@143@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/143/2005–IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 34/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Barora Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 20.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/143/2005- IR (C-I) dated 23.01.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
1026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Barora Area to pay to the Trammers of Damoda
Colliery fixed wage and not fix Tramming rates as per NCWA provisions justified? If not, to what
relief are the workmen entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 13/02/2006 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but
the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were
noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since
13/02/2006 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@99@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/99/2005–IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 26/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Western Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 20.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/99/2005- IR (C-I) dated 19.12.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union from the management of BCCL,
W J Area, that Sh. Bajrangi Nonia and 14 others workmen (as per list) may be regularized as LDH
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1027
Operators in T & S Grade ‘C’ with all consequential benefits justified? If so, to what relief are the
workmen concerned entitled and from what date?”
कमाकारों की सूची
1. श्री ििरंगी नोजनया
2. श्री िजिना नोजनया
3. श्री रािेश्वर िेलिार
4. श्री छेिु ृासी
5. श्री जसराि अंसारी
6. श्री जनमाई गोृ
7. श्री भोला नोजनया
8. श्री जविेिी िाउरी
9. श्री अिुान हसंि
10. श्री गेि प्रसाि माजनकृुरी
11. श्री राम प्रवेि नोजनया
12. श्री एस. के. सोरेन
13. श्री ृरमेश्वर ििाम
14. श्री जवष्णु िाउरी
15. श्री िरािन िाउरी
2. The reference is received on 15/02/2006 by this Tribunal in which the Zonal Secretary of Jharkhand Colliery
Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen
days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties
were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Thereafter notice of
the workman/union returned unserved. Now Case is pending since 15/02/2006 and workman/union as well as
management is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter.
Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2002½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@489@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/489/2001-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 38/2002
Employer in relation to the management of Pindra Colliery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 18.04.2022
1028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/489/2001- IR (C-I) dated 01.03.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of CCL, Pindra Colliery in imposition penality of demotion in
grade on Shri Mahtaha Prasad is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 21/03/2002 by this Tribunal in which the President of R.C.M.S, Pindra Branch,
Hazaribag had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since
21/03/2002 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No “Claim Award” is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@43@2007-vkbZvkj lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/43/2007–IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 06/2008
Employer in relation to the management of Western Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri H. Baitha, O.S. (Legal)
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 19.04.2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1029
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/43/2007- (IR(CM-I)) dated 25.02.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Moonidih Project of M/s BCCL in denying acceptance of
resignation and providing of benefits of VRS to Shri Sagar Lal Hembram, Conveyor Belt Operator, is
justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?”
2. The reference is received on 12/03/2008 by this Tribunal in which the Working President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
but union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However management had appeared on 30/12/2021 and
21/02/2022. Now Case is pending since 12/03/2008 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt
that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@49@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/49/2005 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 66/2005
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 19.04.2022
1030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/49/2005- IR (C-I) dated 26.07.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Janta Mazdoor Sangh from the management of Kustore Colliery of M/s
BCCL for providing employment to Sri Ranjit Kumar, as dependent son of Late Baijnath Sharma, Ex-
Asstt. Foreman, Kustore Regional Store on compassionate grounds is justified? If so, to what relief is
the said Sh. Ranjeet Kumar entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 22/08/2005 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary of Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad
had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
but the workman/union didn’t appear before the Tribunal. Further the management has appeared on certain dates but
union/workman has failed to appear before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 22/08/2005 and
workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter.
Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—-vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62@2003½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@49@2003-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 62/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/49/2003 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 62/2003
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : Sri Sadhu Sharan Pd. Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 19.04.2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1031
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/49/2003- IR (C-I) dated 08.07.2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union from the management of Loyabad
Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s BCCL for regularising Sri Sachidanand Singh in the post of Dhowra
Supervisor w.e.f. 14.2.91 and to pay the appropriate wages etc. from the said date and to allow him
duty as such, at Sendra Bansjora Colliery is fair and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 22/07/2003 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, JJMU, Dhanbad had been
advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the union/workman did not
appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but union/workman did
not appear before the Tribunal but the management had appeared on 06/12/2021. Further in course of hearing of the
case, the Representative of Sponsoring Union Sri Sadhu Sharan Prasad has informed that the concerned workman and
his family member are not interested in contesting the case. In view of such it is felt that the workman/union has lost
its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@207@2005-vkbZvkj-¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO.1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/207/2005–IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 66/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 18.04.2022
1032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/207/2005 (IR (CM-I)) dated 12.06.2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of BCCL, Kusunda
Area that Sh. Munna Beldar, Cableman may be regularized as Drill Operator (EXCVN) justified? If
so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 12/07/2006 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal but the notice of the workman/union
returned unserved. Now Case is pending since 12/07/2006 and workman/union as well as management is not
appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim”
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH,Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29/2016½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@165@2015-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.29/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO 2, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/165/2015 -IR (CM-1)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K. Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO 29 OF 2016
PARTIES:
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Mazdoor Samgh,
At: Beech Balihari, Kusunda, Dhanbad -828121
Vs.
The General Manager
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
At Koyla Bhawan, PO: Koyla Nagar,
Dhanbad -826005
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1033
Order No. L-20012/165/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 15.02.2016
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D. K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th March,2022
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/165/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 15.02.2016.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Central Workshop, East Bassuria under BCCL HQ in not
paying salary from 01.01.2009 to 06.10.2009, Underground Allowance from 1973 to 1979, Arrears of
NCWA amounting to Rs. 64,460.00, Leave encashment for 22 days, Bonus for 2009 & 2010, LLTC &
LTC for block 1999,2006 and 2007 and other dues to Sri Jamuna Mistry, Ex-Block Smith is fair and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to”
1.
On receipt of the above reference from Government of India and subsequently registration on 25.02.2016
notices were sent to the workman as well as to the Respondent/Management .The notices are understood to have
delivered to its destination as none turned undelivered Even after notices, no written statement of claim has been
filed though ample opportunity was given to the workman to file the same nor did turn up for appearance which
construes convincingly facts of workman’s unwillingness in adjudication of the matter. The disputant who raised
the issue is supposed to be well conversant with fact of time- limitation within which the claim should have been
filed.
2.
It is stated that the workman has not shown an inclination to put his appearance nor did file statement of
claim, a basis over which Tribunal usually exercise its jurisdiction .Further lingering of the matter over subject matter
it will be abuse of time and effort of the Tribunal .In view of the facts and materials placed on record the Tribunal did
not find merit in the matter of case to allow relief as sought for in the absence of any required adjudication. So this
Industrial Dispute appears to be no more existing specifically on account of non-inclination of the workman. Tribunal
passes no “No Claim award” in this Industrial Dispute with Reference No. 29/2016 as the workman himself appears
reluctant to contest the case.
3.
Let the copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under I.D. Act for publication.
Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@17@2018-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
1034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.05/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO 1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/17/2018 – IR (CM-1)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 05/2018
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : Sri K.N. Singh, Representative
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 19.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/17/2018 (IR(CM-I)) dated 19.04.2018 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of PB Area of M/s BCCL in denying regularisation/
Promotion to Shri Sadanand Pandey from SBA Cat.VI to Assist. Foreman Grade “C” is proper, legal
and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
2. The reference is received on 01/05/2018 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
and both parties appeared for certain dates. Further during the pendency of the case, the concerned workman Sri
Sadanand Pandey appeared on 18/10/2021 and filed a withdrawal petition stating therein that he is not interested to
proceed with the reference case and he has prayed for withdrawal of the dispute which was allowed. Hence “No
Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 194@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@279@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1035
New Delhi, 20th May, 2022
S.O. 507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 194/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/279/2001 -IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 194/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Rajhara Area of M/s. CCL, Palamu
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers No.1 : None
For the Employers No.II : None
For the workman. :-None
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 18.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/279/2001-IR(C-I) dated 13.09.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“क्या सी.सी.एल., राििारा क्षेत्र के प्रिंितंत्र द्वारा श्री जनमोिी चौिरी की िन्म तारी जवजभन्न प्रमाण ृत्रों के आिार ृर
25.7.37 को सिी न मानते हुये उन्िे 13.2.97 से सेवा जनवषत्त दकया िाना उजचत एवं न्यायसंगत िज? यदि निीं तो कमाकार
दकस राित के ृात्र िैं?”
2. The reference is received on 15/10/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Mines Agent, Hutar Colliery of CCL,
Palamu had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, all three parties were
noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Thereafter Regd. Notice
was issued to all three parties which returned unserved. Now Case is pending since 15/10/2001 and workman/union
as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this
matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-05-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@165@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
1036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2022
S.O. 508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1 DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.05.2022.
[No. L-20012/165/2004 –IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 45/2005
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri Ganesh Prasad, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 19.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/165/2004- IR (C-I) dated 02.06.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Pootki Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Smt. Jhanu
Bourin from the services of the company w.e.f. 14.3.2001 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is
the workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 18/07/2005 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary of B.C.K.U, Dhanbad had
been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the union/workman
did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the
workman/union didn’t appear before the Tribunal. Further the management had appeared on certain dates but
union/workman had failed to appear before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 18/07/2005 and
workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter.
Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2022
का.आ. 509.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य िीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के
सा ृरठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ृवन िंस जलजमटेड के कार ानों और स्ट् ाृनाओं के
जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रवतान से छूट प्रिान करती िज। यि छूट इस
के
प्रभावी
2.
उि छूट जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन िज; अ ाात्:-
(1) कार ाना और स्ट् ाृना छूट प्राप्त कमाचाररयों के नाम और ृिनाम जवजनदिर्ष्ा करते हुए, कमाचाररयों का एक
रजिस्ट्टर र ेगी;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1037
(2)
कमाचारी उि अजिजनयम के अिीन ऐसी प्रसुजविाएं प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको ृाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूचना
द्वारा िी गई छूट के प्रवषत्त िोने की तारी से ृूवा संित्त अंििानों के आिार ृर िकिार िो िाते िैं;
(3)
छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, यदि कोई अजभिाय ृिले िी दकए िा चुके िों, तो वे वाृस निीं दकए िाएंगे;
(4)
उि कार ाने का जनयोिक उस अवजि की िाित जिसके िौरान उस कार ाने ृर उि अजिजनयम (जिसे
इसमें इसके ृश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िज) प्रवतान के अध्यिीन ा ऐसी जववरजणयां, ऐसे प्राप ृ में और
ऐसी जवजिजर्ष्यों से युि िोगी िो कमाचारी राज्य िीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि
अवजि की िाित िेनी अृेजक्षत िोती ीं;
(5)
जनगम द्वारा उि अजिजनयम की िारा 45 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन जनयुि दकया गया कोई सामाजिक
सुरक्षा अजिकारी या जनगम का इस प्रयोिन के जलए इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकषत कोई अन्य ृििारी-
(i)
उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी
जववरण में अंतर्वार्ष् जवजिर्ष्यों को सत्याजृत करने; या
(ii)
यि अजभजनश्चयन करने के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य िीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा
य ाअृेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभले उि अवजि के जलए र े गये े या निीं; या
(iii)
यि अजभजनश्चयन करने के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके
फलस्ट्वप ृ इस अजिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िज, नकि में और वस्ट्तु प ृ में ृाने का
िकिार िज या निीं; या
(iv)
यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िि उि कार ाने के संिंि में अजिजनयम के
उृिंि प्रवषत्त े, ऐसे दकन्िीं उृिंिों का अनुृालन दकया गया ा या निीं, जनम्नजलज त काया
करने के जलए सिि िोगा-
(क) प्रिान या आसन्न जनयोिक से अृेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे
इस अजिजनयम के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िज ; या
( ) ऐसे प्रिान या आसन्न जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना,
कायाालय या अन्य ृररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय ृर प्रवेि करना और
उसके प्रभारी से यि अृेक्षा करना दक वि कार्माक के जनयोिन और मििूरी के
संिाय से संिंजित ऐसे ले ा, िजियां और अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या
अन्य ृििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और उनकी ृरीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी
िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं; या
(ग) प्रिान या आसन्न जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि
को, िो ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, कायाालय या अन्य ृररसर में ृाया िाए, यि
जवश्वास करने का युजियुि कारण िज दक वि कमाचारी िज, ृरीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, कायाालय या अन्य ृररसर में र े गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, ले ा,
ििी या अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तजयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) य ाजस्ट् जत ऐसी अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।
1038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(6)
जवजनवेि या जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रित्त छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और ति नए प्रजतष्ठान को छूट के जलए
समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।
[सं. एस-38014/02/2020-एस एस-I]
मिन चौरजसया, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2022
S.O. 509.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories and
establishments of Pawan Hans Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a
period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
2.
The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and
designations of the exempted employees;
(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have
been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by
this notification operates;
(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such
returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period
under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said
Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —
(i)
verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 of
the said Act for the said period; or
(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State
Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer
in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this
notification; or
(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period
when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment to be
empowered to —
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider
necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied
by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person
found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to
examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and
payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in
such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document
maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or
(e) exercise such other powers as may be specified.
(6)
in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the
new entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/02/2020-SS-I]
MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1039
नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2022
का.आ. 510.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार उृ मिाप्रिंिक, िीएसएनएल, िूरसंचार कार ाना, िूरसंचार जवभाग, जभलाई, (म.प्र.), के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध
जनयोिकों और श्री ििीर अिमि, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िार्ष् केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] ििलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या CGIT/LC/R/24/2005) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित
करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 40012/165/2004-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2022
S.O. 510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/24/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Deputy General manager, BSNL, Telecom Factory, Department of Telecommunication, Bhilai ,
(M.P.), and Shri Zaheer Ahmed, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 18/05/2022.
[No. L-40012/165/2004-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2005
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Zaheer Ahmed
S/o Shri N.Ahmed,
R/o Subba Sah Ki Mazar,
Thakkar Gram,Adhartal, Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Deputy General manager,
BSNL, Telecom Factory,
Department of Telecommunication,
Bhilai (M.P.)
..Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 4th day of May-2022)
As per letter dated 23/3/2005 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-40012/165/2004-
IR(DU).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Deputy General Manager, Telecom Factory, Bhilai, Durg
(Chhattisgarh) in imposing the punishment of termination of the services on Shri Jahir Ahmed S/o
Shri N. Ahmed, Ex-Mazdoor, T.No. 1153 vide order dated 15/8/2001 is justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed as General
Mazdoor with the Management. He came to Jabalpur on 1-3-1993 because he was suffering from Sehizophuenia
disease, after oral information to management where he had been under treatment from Government Victoria Hospital
Jabalpur. He informed about his sickness to the management after full recovery. He approached the Management for
joining his duties on 19-9-1998 but the management refused to permit him to continue. Subsequently the management
issued a charge memorandum dated 19-3-1999 alleging him of unauthorized absence from duties and also stating that
the medical certificates filed by him were frivolous and bogus. The workman was dismissed from service on the
charge of unauthorized and willful absence from duty on the basis of inquiry which was not done properly. Charges
1040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were not proved and punishment is disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly it has been prayed that setting aside
the order of dismissal the workman be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
3.
The Management has stated that the workman absented himself for more than 5 years and the inquiry was
conducted against him in which was found guilty of unauthorized and willful absence without getting any leave
sanctioned. The inquiry was conducted legally and properly, charges are proved and punishment is proportionate to
the charge.
4.
On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-
“1.Whether the Departmental inquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper or
not?
2.Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charge?
3.Whether the workman is entitled to any relief”
5.
ISSUE NO.1:-Issue No.1 was taken as preliminary issue and was decided in favor of the Management
holding the departmental inquiry legal and proper vide order dated 22-12-2021. Thereafter the parties were given
opportunity to lead evidence on other issues. None of the parties produced any evidence .
6.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the management Shri A.K.Shashi. The workman did not
appear for arguments. He did not file any written arguments also. I have gone through the record.
7.
ISSUE NO.2:- Before entering into merits of Issue No.2, the other point arises as to whether the charges are
proved from the Inquiry or not? According to the workman, the charges were not proved from the inquiry. The case
of the Management was that the charges were well proved from the evidence collected during the inquiry.
8.
The charge against the workman was that he absented himself for about more than 5 years i.e. from 2-3-1993
to 19-8-1998 without any intimation and any leave sanctioned to him. Thus he willfully and unauthorisedly absented
himself from duty during the said period, hence committed mistake. The inquiry Office has held the charges proved
on the basis of the evidence collected during the inquiry, as it is evident from the perusal of Inquiry Report. The
inquiry papers proved by the Management go to show that the workman did file some medical certificates but he did
not care to examine the doctor’s issuing these certificates and treatment. The Inquiry Office found that the medical
certficates were not genuine because they did not contain any opd number. The burden to prove that the absence was
not willful was on the workman during the inquiry. Simply by filing medical certificates, he cannot be held to have
proved his absence in voluntarily, hence the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the charge is proved is supported by
evidence during the Inquiry and there is no occasion to differ.
9.
As regards the proportionality of punishment, the charge is of unauthroised and willful absence for 5 years
for which major punishment of termination/dismissal from service is provided in rules. The discretion exercised by
the Controlling and Disciplinary Authority cannot be held to be disproportionate with respect to the punishment in the
given facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered against the workman.
10.
ISSUE NO.3:- On the basis of the findings recorded in Issue No.1 and Issue No.2, the workman is held
entitled to no relief.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of Deputy General Manager, Telecom Factory, Bhilai,
Durg(Chhattisgarh)in imposing the punishment of termination of the services on Shri Jahir Ahmed S/o
Shri N.Ahmed, Ex-Mazdoor, T.No.1153 vide order dated 15/8/2001 is held to be just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1041
नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2022
का.आ. 511.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
प्रभारी अजिकारी, केंरीय ईंिन अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, जिलासृुर यूजनट नंिर 27, जिलासृुर,; मेससा कांजत जसक्यूररटी
सर्वासेि, यिुनंिन नगर, जिलासृुर (छ.ग.); मेससा इंटरनेिनल जसक्योररटी फोस्ट्डा,यिुनंिन नगर कॉलोनी, तफरा,
जिलासृुर (छ.ग.), मेससा प्राइमर जसक्योररटी सर्वासेि, इंदिरा कॉलोनी, तारििार, जिलासृुर (छ.ग.), के प्रिंितंत्र के
संिद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रामािार सूयावंिी, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िार्ष् केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या CGIT/LC/R/79/2005) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42012/118/1999-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2022
S.O. 511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/79/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Officer in Charge, Central Fuel Research Insitute, Bilaspur Unit No.27, Bilaspur, M/s Kanti Security
Services, Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur(C.G.); M/s International Security Forced, Yadunandan Nagar Colony, Tafra,
Bilaspur (C.G.), M/s Primer Security Services, Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.), and Shri Ramadhar
Suryavanshi, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
18.05.2022.
[No. L- 42012/118/1999- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/79/2005
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ramadhar Suryavanshi,
Ex-worker of CFRI,
Village & PO:Pandaripur, Post Ghutaku
TQ:Takhatpur,District Bilaspur-495001.
…Workman
Versus
The Officer in Charge,
Central Fuel Research Insitute
Bilaspur Unit No.27, Khuli Chowk
Post Box No.41, Bilaspur-495 001.
2.
M/s. Kanti Security Services
Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3.
M/s. International Security Forced,
Yadunandan Nagar Colony,
Tafra, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4.
M/s. Primer Security Services,
Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
…Management
1042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on this 13-5-2022)
As per letter dated 9-8-2005 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-
42012/118/1999-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Kanti Security Services, Bilaspur (CG), Primer Security
Services, Bilaspur (CG), International Security Force, Bilaspur and Central Fuel Research Insittue,
Bilaspur (CG) in terminating the services of Shri Ramadhar Suryavanshi is justified?if not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?.”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have filed their
respective statement of claim/defence.
2. The preliminary plea is regarding maintainability of this reference before this Tribunal. Neither of the parties have
filed their written argument. I have gone through the record and the evidence will be discussed as and when required.
3. In the light of perusal of record, the issue which comes up for determination is that :-
1.
Whether the Management of Central Fuel Research Institute which is an ancillary of Central
Scientific and Industrial Research(CSIR) is employer for the purposes Industrial Dispute Act
1947, hereinafter referred to as the word Act?
2.
Whether the dispute is cognizable by this Tribunal or not ?
4. There is a judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court passed in the case of Smt. Padma Ravindranath and Others Vs.
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Civil Appeal No. 17872/1792 of 1991 decided by order dated 5-2-1995
wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that CSIR is not an industry for the purposes of the Act.
5. In the light of these preposition of law, the dispute between the parties cannot be termed as Industrial Dispute.
Hence the dispute is not cognizable by this Tribunal and the reference requires to be answered accordingly.
6. The Reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal as CSIR is not an industry as defined in Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 .
7. On the basis of the above finding, the reference is held not cognizable by this Tribunal.
8. The reference is answered accordingly.
9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2022
का.आ. 512.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मु्य मिाप्रिंिक, टेलीकॉम फजक्री, राइट टाउन, ििलृुर (म.प्र.), के प्रिंितंत्र के संिि् जनयोिकों और
श्री रामरतन ृारुस, द्वारा सजचव ऑल इंजडया ृी एंड टी इंडजस्ट्रयल वकासा यूजनयन, टेलीकॉम फजक्री, राइट टाउन, ििलृुर
(म.प्र.), कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िार्ष् केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर के ृंचाट
(संिभा सं्या CGIT/LC/R/25/2002) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 40011/24/2001-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2022
S.O. 512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/25/2002) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager,Telecom Factory, Right town, Jabalpur (M.P.), and Shri Ramratan Parus,
through The Secretary All India P&T Industrial Workers Union, Telecom Factory, Wright Town, Jabalpur (M.P.),
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.05.2022.
[No. L-40011/24/2001-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1043
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/2002
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ramratan Parus
Secretary All India P & T
Industrial Workers Union,
Telecom Factory,
Wright Town, Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory
Right town, Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10-5-2022)
As per letter dated 22/1/2001 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 40011/24/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Factory, right Town, Jabalpur in awarding
punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years with effect to
postpone future incremetns for participating in Union activities in the Factory on 5/10/88 to
Shri D.J.Mukherjee and Mohd. Tahir is just and legal?If not to what relief the workman is concerned? .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have filed their
respective statement of claim/defence.
2. According to the workman the departmental inquiry was initiated against two workmen D.J.Mukherjee and Mohd.
Tahir by management which was conducted against Rules and procedure. The workman were not given proper
opportunity to defend themselves. On the basis of the inquiry report the Disciplinary Authority wrongly held the
charges proved and the punishment was also excessive. Accordingly, the workmen have requested for setting aside
the punishment holding the charges not proved.
3. According to the Management, these two workmen were working as employees in the Telecom Factory, Jabalpur
under the Management on the date of incident i.e. 5-10-1988 as Progress man Gr.I and Fitter Instrument Gr.I
respectively. On 30-9-1988 at 10 am to 12.30 pm they exhibited lack of devotion to duty by leaving their place of
duty without permission and instigated others to stop working by calling and collecting a mob of workers committing
tress-pass in chamber of General Manager without permission. They gheraoe the General Manager and other Officers
of the management and wrongfully confined them and also delivered highly inflammatory and provocative speeches
which charged the mob who entered in the chamber of General Manager and damaged the property in the chamber.
They were suspended on 3-10-1988 and charge sheet was issued to them. A departmental inquiry was contemplated
again on 5-10-1988 as while under suspension these two workmen committed a willful insubordination and
disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of superior authority by unauthorisedly entering into factory premises
through gate No.2 at 9 a.m. They also trespassed the chamber of General Manager of the factory participating in
demonstration for the revocation of the suspension and wrongfully confined the General Manager, Deputy Manager
and other Officers. They shouted at highest pitch in the chamber of General Manager demanding withdrawal of
suspension orders. And also shouted abusive and filthy slogan and threatened the Officers. A separate chargesheet
was issued for this incident also and separate departmental inquiry was conducted and Shri A.B.Samantha the then
Assistant Manager and Shri S.S.Jangi, Assistant Engineers were appointed the Inquiry officer and Presenting Officer
respectively in the inquiries. Both the workman made the representation for change of Inquiry officer and
Disciplinary Officer. The Inquiry Office was changed and Shri J.P.Khare Divisional Engineer from different circle
was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The request for change of Disciplinary Authority was refused. According to the
management, the Inquiry proceeded as per rules. The Inquiry officer submitted Inquiry Report dated 20-4-1991
holding the charges of misconduct proved against these two workmen after issuing notice and perusing representation
of these workmen, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 8-10-
1991. These two workmen preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which were dismissed by the Appellate
Authority vide two separate orders dated 13-6-1992 and 3-6-1992. Thereafter, these two workmen preferred a
Revision Petition under Rule 29 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 against the order of Appellate Authority. The Revisional
1044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Authority modified the punishment from dismissal to reduction in pay to the minimum of the time-scale for 3 years
with cumulative effect” and further directed that the period of dismissal to rejoining the duty shall not be treated as
duty. This order was passed on 29-1-1993 and 28-1-1993 in respect of the workmen D.J.Mukherjee and Mohd. Tahir
respectively. D.J.Mukherjee preferred a mercy petition to President of India thereafter which was not accepted.
According to the Management, the charges were rightly held proved against the workman and the ultimate punishment
is not excessive. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4. The following preliminary issue was framed by my learned Predecessor on the basis of pleadings:-
1.
Whether the Inquiry conducted against the workman is proper and legal?
5. The workman failed to adduce evidence on this preliminary issue. The management filed the affidavit of its
witnesses as his examination in chief but he was not produced for cross-examination, hence in the back drop of these
facts, the departmental inquiry was held legal and proper by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 9-5-2016.
This order is part of this award.
6. Following other issues were framed by my learned Predecessor:-
No.2 Whether the charges are proved against the workmen?
No.3 Whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charge?
No.4 Whether the workmen are entitled to any relief?
7. The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on these remaining issues.
8. The workman did not lead any oral or documentary evidence on these issues. The management filed affidavit of its
witness Rakesh Sahu who proved the inquiry papers Exhibit M1 to M-22. He was not cross-examined by workmen
inspite of opportunity being given.
9. At the time of argument also the workman did not appear, hence argument of learned counsel for the Management
were heard by me and I have also perused the record. No written argument was filed by the workman.
10. Issue No.2:- Perusal of statement of charge levelled against these workmen reveals that as many as eight charges
of misconduct were levelled against the workman D.J.Mukherjee and four charges were levelled against the workman
Mohd. Tahir regarding mis-conduct with regard to incident of 30-9-1988 and 5-10-1988. The substance of charge has
been mentioned earlier while detailing the statement of defence by management. According to the charges, these
workmen committed misconduct which is in violation of Rule 31B of Certified Standing Orders. It also comes out
that as many as five witnesses have been examined by prosecution in support of the charges, they all are eyewitness
and victims. The delinquent employees examined as many as nine witnesses in defence and has stated that these
workmen were not present in the incident . The inquiry officer has discussed the statements of these witnesses and
held the witnesses of defence not reliable . I have gone through the statement of all the witness of prosecution and
defence and I find no occasion to disagree from the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly affirming the finding
of the Inquiry Officer regarding the proof of the charges of mis-conduct by these two workmen, these charges are
proved and Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
11. Issue No.3:-
Before proceeding, the settled preposition of law on the issue requires to be mentioned, which is as follows:-
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence relied
before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of invoking the
powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that the Court should
interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the misconduct committed or it is
harsh.
1. Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the
scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its
own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would
appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty
imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate
punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
2. In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court
or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment
imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1045
nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned
having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be maintained,
and the department /establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”
3. In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long
line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the
legal position in the following words:
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the
administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to
the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of
what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made
by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the
administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-
making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to
shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording
cogent reasons in support thereof.”
4.
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary
proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
5. In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the
conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on
appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers
from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the
court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or
appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature
of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous
penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works.
Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If
the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with
the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere with findings of fact
recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they
are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could
have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere
with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been
violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations
12. The Principle which emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that this Tribunal does not work as an Appellate
Authority and secondly that no interference in punishment is warranted by this Tribunal. It is proved to the
satisfaction of this Tribunal that the punishment is not so shockingly disproportionate to the charge that is requires
interference.
13. In the case in hand, the charges proved are of abusing and behaving violently with the Senior Officers, disobeying
their lawful orders and also instigating other workmen to do so. These are the charges of gross indiscipline and
serious misconduct. The punishment awarded is reduction of increments of three years with cumulative effect.
1046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Discipline is the core of every institution. No institution can work if there is indiscipline and insubordination, hence in
these circumstances, the punishment awarded cannot be held to be so excessive to warrant interference by this
Tribunal. Accordingly, holding the punishment awarded proportionate to the charges, thus Issue No.3 is answered.
14. Issue No.4:- In the light of the finding recorded above, the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly
Issue No.4 is answered.
15. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of Telecom Factory, right Town, Jabalpur in awarding punishment
of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years with effect to postpone
future increments for participating in Union activities in the Factory on 5/10/88 to Shri
D.J.Mukherjee and Mohd. Tahir is held to be just and legal.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
16. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2022
का.आ. 513.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मु्य ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर िनरल, डाक जवभाग िल भवन, एमृी सर्काल िोिंगािाि रोड, भोृाल (म.प्र.), के प्रिंितंत्र
के संिद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रािेि िंिारे, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िार्ष् केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या CGIT/LC/R/86/2011) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40011/19/2011-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2022
S.O. 513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/86/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court – Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Post Master General, D/o Posts Dal Bhawan, M.P.Circle Hoshangabad road, Bhopal (M.P.), and
Shri Rajesh Banjare, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
18.05.2022.
[No. L-40011/19/2011- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/86/2011
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Rajesh Banjare,
S/o Shri Arjunlal Banjare,
8/8/ Nai Aabadi, Ujjain Road,
Dewas ( M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief Post Master General
D/o Posts Dal Bhawan,
M.P. Circle Hoshangabad road, Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1047
AWARD
(Passed on 9-5-2022)
As per letter dated 19/9/2011 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-40011/19/2011-
IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master, Department of Post, Dewas, in not
regularizing the service of Shri Rajesh Banjare S/o Shri Arjunlal Banjare is legal and justified?What
relief the workman is entitled to? .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have filed their
respective statement of claim/defence.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed as cleaner in the Main
Post Office Dewas under the Management against the vacant post of cleaner on 6-7-1994 and continued in service till
13-6-1999 and was terminated without any notice or compensation which was against law. He filed a case against his
termination before Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur which was disposed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30-
9-2000 with the observation that the workman could pursue remedy before appropriate forum. The workman then
filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 hereinafter referred to as the word Act
which was registered as CGIT/LC/6/C/2001 and was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 7-9-2015. He was
reinstated by Management on 24-10-2003 on the same post and has been working since 24-10-2003 till date to the
satisfaction of Management as cleaner since last 13 years but the Management is not providing him benefits
admissible to regular employees nor is regularizing him as per rules, where as he has put in 13 years of continuous
service with the management and is entitled to be regularized as per rules and also entitled to all the benefits
admissible to regular employees. According to the workman, this is against law and is unfair labour practice which is
required to be undone by the Tribunal. Accordingly the workman has prayed that he be held entitled to all the benefits
admissible to regular employees engaged in cleaning work and be regularized as per rules.
3. The case of the management is mainly that consequent upon death of a Group-D employee who was a cleaner in the
Main Office, the workman was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1994. He continued as a daily wager cleaner
till 21-6-1999 and was discontinued after a regular cleaner joined the services. Again he was engaged as a daily
wager since 24-10-2003 on the wage rates fixed by the Collector for daily wagers and has been working as a daily
wager till date. According to the management, since the workman is not appointed as per procedure, he is not entitled
to be regularized.
4. The workman has filed and proved documents, Exhibit W1 to Exhibit W-10 to be referred to as and when required
and has examined himself on oath. He has been cross-examined by Management. The Management has examined its
witness Shri Praveen Shrivastav, Superintendent and has been cross-examined by the workman. The Management has
filed a photocopy of certified copy of order of this Tribunal passed in Case No. CGIT/LC/C/6/2001 under Section 33
C(2) of the Act.
5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel Shri Amitabh Dey for the workman and Shri S.K,Mishra learned counsel
for the management. Both the parties have filed written arguments also. I have perused the written arguments as well
as the record.
6. Perusal of the record in the light of rival arguments makes out the following issues for determination:-
1.
Whether the Management has adopted unfair labour practice by not regularizing the services of
workman Rajesh Banjare?
2.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?”
7. Issue No.1:- It is not disputed between the parties that the workman has been working with the management as a
daily wager right from 24-10-2003 till date. The question thus arises is whether it is unfair labour practice to engage a
badli or casual labour for a work for a period of more than 10 years without regularizing his services. Section 2r(a) of
the Act requires to be mentioned as follows:-
2(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
The Vth Schedule of the Act is being reproduced as following which mentiones about the unfair labour
practice.
2[THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
[Seesection 2(ra)]
1048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
I.—On the part of employers and trade unions of employers
1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to organise, form,
join or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or
other mutual aid or protection, that is to say:—
(a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organised;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organisation, with a view to
undermining the efforts of the trade union organisation.
2. To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any trade union, that is
to say:—
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organising a trade union of his workmen; and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favour to one of several trade unions attempting to
organise his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is not a recognised trade
union.
3.
To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.
4.
To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating against any
workman, that is to say:—
(a) discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or organise
a trade union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being as trike which
is deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating of workmen because of trade union activities;
(d) refusing to promote workmen to higher posts on account of their trade union activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord amongst
other workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade union;
(f)
discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their trade
union activities.
5. To discharge or dismiss workmen—
(a) by way of victimisation;
(b)
not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted
evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegation of absence without leave;
(f)
in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or
withundue haste;
(g)
for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature
of the particular misconduct or the past record or service of the workman, thereby leading
to a disproportionate punishment.
6.
To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such work to
contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.
7.
To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of following
management policy.
8.
To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct bond, as a
pre-condition to allowing them to resume work.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1049
9.
To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
10.
To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for
years,with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11.
To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying against an
employer in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute
12. To recruit workmen during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
13. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
14. To indulge in acts of force or violence.
15. To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognised trade unions.
16. Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
II.—On the part of workmen and trade unions of workmen
1.
To advise or actively support or instigate any strike deemed to be illegal under this Act.
2.
To coerce workmen in the exercise of their right to self-organisation or to join a trade union or
refrain from joining any trade union, that is to say:—
(a) for a trade union or its members to picketing in such a manner that non-striking workmen
are physically debarred from entering the work place;
(b) to indulge in acts of force or violence or to hold out threats of intimidation in connection
with a strike against non-striking workmen or against managerial staff.
3.
For a recognised union to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the employer.
4.
To indulge in coercive activities against certification of a bargaining representative.
5.
To stage, encourage or instigate such forms of corrective actions as wilful “go slow”, squatting on
the work premises after working hours or “gherao” of any of the members of the managerial or
other staff.
6.
To stage demonstrations at the residence of the employers or the managerial staff members.
7.
To incite or indulge in willful damage to employer's property connected with the industry.
8.
To indulge in acts of force or violence or to hold out threats of intimidation against any workman
with a view to prevent him from attending work.]
8. In the Vth Schedule of the Act, at point 9, it is an unfair labour practice to employee working as badlis or casual or
temporary and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of a
permanent worker. Going by the admitted facts as mentioned above it is established that by engaging the present
workman for more than 10 years continuously since 24-10-2003 till ate as a casual labour without regularizing him is
unfair labour practice adopted by the management. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
9. Issue No.2:- IN the light of the findings recorded at Issue No.2, the question arises as to the relief the workman is
entitled to . Section 25Tof the Act prohibits unfair labour practice.
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether
registered under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour
practice.
Section 25(U) of the Act provides punishment for it which is mentioned as under:-
25U. Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour
practice shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.]
10. Like many Acts which are not approved by law, there are civil and criminal consequences . The Criminal
consequences of unfair labour practice is provided under Section 25U of the Act. The civil consequences of adopting
unfair labour practice is not provided in the Act. The question again arises as to whether this Tribunal will be a mute
spectator in such a case where the management is guilty of adopting unfair labour practice and allowing such a
practice to perpetuate or will be pro active and pass suitable orders to undo such practice.
1050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. I am of the considered view that this Tribunal cannot sit idle and Act as a mute spectator in such a case and allow
such an illegality to perpetuate. This Tribunal is thus within its powers and obligations to dispense complete justice
between the parties and pass suitable orders in this respect.
12. Learned Counsel for the management has referred to Judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of
Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi AIR(2006) SC 1806 in this respect in order to support his argument
that since the workman was not appointed as per service rules and following due process regarding selection no right
can be granted to him regarding his regularization or permanency of service. Learned Counsel has further referred to
judgment of this Tribunal in the case under Section 33 C(2) of the Act referred to earlier.
13. On the other hand it has been submitted by learned counsel for workman that the judgment of Uma Devi
case(supra)it is not fully applicable in Industrial adjudications. Learned Counsel has referred to the judgment of
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of U.P.State electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Others
reported in Indian Kanoon/Doc./1569551 and the judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the following cases:-
1.
Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation reported in (2015) 6 SCC 321.
2.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari
Sangathan (2009) 8 SCC 556.
3.
Harinandan Prasad and Another Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another (2014) 7 SCC 190.
In the case of Pooran Chandra Pandey( supra) Hon’ble the Apex Court has made the following
observations in para 16 of the judgement which reads as under:-
16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find
that often Uma Devi’s case (supra) is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclids
formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar
University (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), a little difference in facts or even
one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our
opinion, Uma Devi’s case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a
particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi’s case (supra) inapplicable to the facts
of that case.
14. In the case of Ajay Pal Singh (supra), para-16 as referred to by learned counsel for the workman is being
reproduced as under:-
16:-The effect of the Constitution Bench Decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Una devi in case of unfair
labour practice was considered by this Court in Maharashtra SRTC Vs. Casteribe Rajya Praivahan
Kaarmchari not overridden powers of the Industrial and labour Courts in passing appropriate order,
once unfair Laboaur practice on the part of employer is established. This court observed and held as
follows Casteribe Sanghathana Case, SCC PP.573-74 & 579, para 34-36 and 47).
34.”It is true that Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees’Assn. V. State of
Karnataka arising out of Industrial adjudication has been considered in State of Karnataka Vs.
Umadevi and that decision has been held to be not laying down the correct law but a careful and
complete reading of the decision in Umadevi leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court was
concerned in Umadevi was the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment where the employees
have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as
recognized by the rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularization and conferring them status
of permanency have been passed.
35:- Uma devi is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article
32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue direction of absorption, regularization or
permanent continuance of temporary, contractual , casual , daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the
recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme.
36:- Uma devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under
Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who
have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV
where the posts on which they have been working exists. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden
the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under the Industrial and
Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP ACT, ONCE
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER UNDER Item 6 of the
Schedule IV is established.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1051
47:-It was strenuously urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that the Industrial
Court having found that the Corporation indulged in unfair labour practice in employing the
complainants as casual on piece-rate basis, the only direction that could have been given to the
Corporation Was to cease and desist from indulging in such unfair labour practice and no direction of
according permanency to these employees could have been given. We are afraid the argument ignores
and overlooks the specific power given to the Industrial/Laboaur Court under Section 30(1)(b) to take
affirmative action against the erring employer which as notice above is of wide amplitude and
comprehends within its fold a direction to the employer to accord permanency to the employees
affected by such unfair labour practice.
15. Further more para 33 to 38 of the judgment in the case of Harinandan Prasad and Another (supra) referred to by
learned counsel for the workman is also being reproduced as follows:-
33. It is, thus, this fine balancing which is required to be achieved while adjudicating a particular
dispute, keeping in mind that the industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principle
of fair play and justice.
34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that
when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would
not give direction for regularization only because a worker has 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
to regularize such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily
wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art.14 of the
Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet
the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it
is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or
otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with
them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of
the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and
would be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving
the equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision.
35. The aforesaid examples are only illustrated. It would depend on the facts of each case as to whether
order of regularization is necessitated to advance justice or it has to be denied if giving of such a
direction infringes upon the employer’s rights
36. In the aforesaid backdrop, we revert the facts of the present case. The grievance of the appellants
was that under the Scheme contained in Circular dated 6.5.1997 many similarly placed workmen have
been regularized and, therefore, they were also entitled to this benefit. It is argued that those who had
rendered 240 days service were regularized as per the provision in that Scheme/Circular dated
6.5.1987.
37. On consideration of the cases before us we find that appellant No.1 was not in service on the date
when Scheme was promulgated i.e. as on 6.5.1987 as his services were dispensed with 4 years before
that Circular saw the light of the day. Therefore, in our view, the relief of monetary compensation in
lieu of reinstatement would be more appropriate in his case and the conclusion in the impugned
judgment qua him is unassailable, though for the difficult reasons (as recorded by us above) than those
advanced by the High Court. However, in so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he was engaged on
5.9.1986 and continued till 15.9.1990 when his services were terminated. He even raised the Industrial
dispute immediately thereafter. Thus, when the Circular dated 5.9.1987 was issued, he was in service
and within few months of the issuing of that Circular he had completed 240 days of service.
38. Non-regularization of appellant No.2, while giving the benefit of that Circular dated 6.5.1987 to
other similar situated employees and regularizing them would, therefore, be clearly discriminatory. On
these facts, the CGIT rightly held that he was entitled to the benefit of scheme contained in Circular
dated 6.5.1987. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has failed to notice this pertinent and
material fact which turns the scales in favour of appellant No.2. High Court committed error in
reversing the direction given by the CGIT, which was rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge as
well, to reinstate appellant No.2 with 50% back wages and to regularize him in service. He was entitled
to get his case considered in terms of that Circular. Had it been done, probably he would have been
regularized. Instead, his services were wrongly and illegally terminated in the year 1990. As an upshot
of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these appeals partly. While dismissing the appeal qua appellant
No.1, the same is accepted in so far as appellant No.2 is concerned. In his case, the judgment of the
Division Bench is set aside and the award of the CGIT is restored. There shall, however, be no order as
to costs.
1052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16. From the above discussion, the position of law established is that the case of Uma Devi is not fully applicable for
industrial adjudication and disputes arising under the Act. Secondly this is also established that in suitable cases the
Industrial Tribunal may issue direction for regularization or granting permanent status to the workman in order to
ensure complete justice and equality.
17. Now coming to the facts in the case in hand Exhibit W-7 is a information furnished by Management in RTI Act
which goes to establish that there is a vacant post of sweeper in the Main Post Office Dewas. The Management
Witness Mr.Shrivastav has stated in his cross-examination and had admitted that there is vacancy of sweeper with the
Management at present. The work taken from the workman is same as that of a regular sweeper doing on the post of
sweeper in Group-D. The procedure of appointment of sweeper in Group-D is one and same, he also admitted that
the workman is regularly working as a daily wager since 24-10-2003.
18. The Management could not produce any Rules regarding appointment of Sweeper. This is also established from
evidence on record that name of the workman was cleared when he had applied for the post of sweeper his case was
scrutinized by the management. In absence of specific rules regarding recruitment of sweeper, it cannot be held that
the appointment of the present workman is against recruitment procedure. This is also established that the
Management is guilty of adopting unfair labour practice in the case in hand by continuing the workman as a daily
wager vacancy and not granting him benefits of permanent employee by way of regularizing him. Hence, the case in
hand is a fit case for this Tribunal to interfere for the sake of justice and for undoing the unfair labor practice adopted
by the Management in the case in hand. Accordingly the workman in the case in hand is entitled to all the benefits
admissible to permanent and regular sweeper and to be considered for regularization as per rules with the
management.
19. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of Chief Post Master, Department of Post, Dewas, in not
regularizing the service of Shri Rajesh Banjare S/o Shri Arjunlal Banjare is held to be against
law and not justified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to be considered for regularization by Management as per Rules
and is also entitled to all the benefits admissible to a permanent sweeper.
20. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ
e/; jsyos izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua 1 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-41011@17@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2022
S.O. 514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No1. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Central
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/17/2020– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1053
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 15/2020
Employer in relation to the management of Eastern Central Railway, Dhanbad
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri Mithilesh Mishra, Advocate
For the workman. : Sri K.N. Singh. Representative
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Railway
Dated : 20.04.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-41011/17/2020- (IR (B-I)) dated 16.07.2020 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the act of management of Eastern Central Railway, Dhanbad in denying employment to
Shri Ajit Kumar, dependent son of late Mannilal Yadav, on compassionate ground is proper, legal
and justified? If not, what relief is he entitled to?”
2. The reference is received on 17/08/2020 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
and both parties appeared on certain dates. Further in course of hearing of the case, the learned lawyer of the
management has filed a petition stating therein that the concerned workman has been appointed as Asstt. Commercial
Clerk in Eastern Central Railway. The learned lawyer of management has also filed letter of appointment and Pay Slip
of concerned workman. The learned lawyer of concerned workman has admitted the fact, as such case may be closed..
Hence “No Claim” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2022
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj
jsyos ds izca/kr=z ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-12012@01@2017-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2022
S.O. 515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishe the Award (Ref. No. 43/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/01/2017– IR(B-1)]
D.GUHA, Under Secy.
1054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 28, 2022/JYAISTHA 7 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 43/2019
Ref. No. L-12012/01/2017 - IR(B-I) dated: 17.01.2019
BETWEEN :
Shri S. N. Srivastava, General Secretary
Rail Sewak Sangh
J-422, Indralok Colony
Kanpur Road, Lucknow-226023
AND
Deputy Chief Engineer (Bridge)
Northern Railway Bridge Work-Shop
Charbagh, Lucknow.
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-12012/01/2017 - IR(B-I) dated: 17.01.2019 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“KYA PRABANDHAN, UTTAR RAILWAY, BRIDGE WORKSHOP, LUCKNOW DWARA SHRI S.N.
SRIVASTAVA, BRI GRADE-III KO DINANK 21.06.1990 SE 29.10.1990 KI AVADHI KA VETAN KA
BHUGTAAN NA KIYA JANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR KIS
RAAHAT KO PAANE KA HAQDAAR HAI?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri S. N. Srivastava, General Secretary, Rail Sewak Sangh, J-
422, Indralok Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of
claim along with relevant documents, list of witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order
of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the workman’s union for filing the statement of claim with list of witnesses on 21.10.2019. On the
date fixed i.e. 21.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the union; however, the envelope containing notice to the
workman’s union had been received back in the office unserved with remark ‘not known/lene se mana kiya’,
therefore, the service of notice was sufficiently presumed. The management filed its authority on 13.04.2021. Further
dates were fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim. The workman union remained absent on
01.09.2020, 09.12.2020, 03.02.2021, 13.04.2021, 01.09.2021, 16.11.2021, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. The union
neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for adjournment seeking time to file
the statement of claim. More than two years’ time have passed and the workman’s union has failed to file its
statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman’s union
to pursue the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman’s Union does not want to substantiate its claim on
the basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as if
there is no grievance left with the workman’s union. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman
concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
7.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
LUCKNOW.
11th May, 2022.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 28, 2022/ज् येष् ठ 7, 1944
1055
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2022
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj
jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- 2 ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 113@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@08@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2022
S.O. 516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.113/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/08/2020– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty
ID.NO.113/2020
Shri Ravinder Kumar,
Through Sh. Man Mohan Sood, Regional Secretary,
State Bank of India Staff Association, Region-IV,
Saharanpur, Add: House No. 1B/4181, Street No. 48,
Near Sharda Nagar Chowk, Sharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001
…Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region –IV, Saharanpur, Opp. Thana Sadar,
Saharnpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001.
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference No.
L-12011/08/2020-IR(B-I) dated 11.03.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the management of State Bank of India is justified in denying the payment of salary in lieu of
recovery of excess paid sum to the workman Sh. Ravinder Kumar, retired from armed forces and reemployed
with bank? If so, is the bank management free to recover the excess amount paid to the workmen as it deem
fit?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
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. ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.28 10:47:46 +05'30'