4476 GI/2022
(1305)
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. 28]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 10—िुलाई 16, 2022, िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 19—आषाढ़ 25, 1944
No. 28]
NEW DELHI, JULY 10–JULY 16, 2022, SATURDAY/ASADHA 19–ASADHA 25, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
को ला मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 8 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 645.—केन्री सरकार ने को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20)
(जिसे इसके ृश्चात उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत के रािृत्र,
असािारण, भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 16 फरवरी, 2021 में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की
अजिसूचना सं् ांक का॰आ॰ 695(अ), तारी 16 फरवरी, 2021 द्वारा प्रकाजित उस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में
जवजनर्िजष्ट 804.43 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 325.55 िेक्टे र (लगभग) ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार का
अिजन करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्री सरकार को अृनी ररृोटज िे िी िज;
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25072022-237531
CG-DL-W-25072022-237531
1306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और केन्री सरकार का, उृ ुजक्त ररृोटज ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात और झार ंड सरकार से ृरामिज करने के
ृश्चात् ि समािान िो ग ा िज दक इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िजष्ट 719.66 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 291.24 िेक्टे र
(लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार का अिजन दक ा िाना चाजिए।
अतः अब केंरी सरकार उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए
घोषणा करती िज दक इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िजष्ट 719.66 एकड़ (लगभग) अ वा 291.24 िेक्टे र (लगभग), माृ
वाली भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िजत दकए िाते िैं।
इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं् ांक आरईवी/04/2022, तारी 12 अप्रजल, 2022 का
जनरीक्षण उृा ुक्त जिला बोकारो (झार ण्ड) के का ाजल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता
700001 के का ाजल में ा मिाप्रबंिक ढोरी क्षेत्र, जिला बोकारो (झार ण्ड) ा मिाप्रबंिक, भूजम और रािस्ट्व, सेंरल
कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, िरभंगा िाउस, रााँची- 834001 (झार ंड) के का ाजल में ा मु् मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग),
सी.एम.ृी.डी.आई.एल., गोंडवाना ृजलेस, कांके रोड, रााँची- 834008 (झार ंड) के का ाजल में दक ा िा सकता िज।
अनुसूची
कल् ाणी जववषत ृरर ोिना
जिला बोकारो (झार ण्ड)
( रे ांक सं् ांक आरईवी/04/2022, तारी 12 अप्रजल, 2022 )
सभी अजिकार:
क्रम
सं् ा
ण्ड
ग्राम
ाना सं.
ाना/
सर्कजल
जिला
अिजन के अिीन
रटप्ृजण ां
क्षेत्र एकड़ में क्षेत्र िेक्टे र
में
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1.
क
मकोली
69
बेरमो
बोकारो
1.10
0.45
भाग
2.
मकोली
69
बेरमो
बोकारो
301.32
121.94
भाग
तारमी
71
चन्रृुरा
बोकारो
94.94
38.42
भाग
तुररओ
70
चन्रृुरा
बोकारो
217.47
88.01
भाग
3.
ग
तुररओ
70
चन्रृुरा
बोकारो
103.20
41.76
भाग
तारमी
71
चन्रृुरा
बोकारो
1.63
0.66
भाग
कुल क्षेत्र (क + + ग):
719.66
एकड़
(लगभग)
291.24
िेक्टे र
(लगभग)
भू-अजभले ों के अनुसार अजिग्रिीत दकए िाने वाले प्लाटों के ब् ौरे :
ण्ड
ग्राम/ मौज़ा
ाना
सं.
ाता
सं.
प्लॉट सं् ा
अजिग्रिण
का क्षेत्र
(एकड़ में)
भूजम का प्रकार
भू -अजभले के
अनुसार अजभिारी
का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
क
मकोली
69
1
119(भाग)
1.10
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
िोड़ :
1.10
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1307
मकोली
69
1
1 (भाग)
44.94
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
बी
मकोली
69
3
14 (भाग)
0.22
रज ती िोन-2
अस्ट्ृष्ट
मकोली
69
1
15
0.60
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
5
16
0.20
रज तीृरती क़िीम
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
1
17
0.17
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
7
18 (भाग)
0.37
रज ती िोन-1
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
5
33 (भाग)
0.58
रज ती ृरती क़िीम
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
2
35 (भाग)
0.20
रज ती िोन-1
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
2
37
0.17
रज ती िोन-2
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
1
38
1.18
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
5
39
4.33
रज ती टांड़-3
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
8
40
0.21
रज ती िोन-3
िूृ लाल कुरमी
मकोली
69
8
41
0.39
रज ती िोन-2
िूृ लाल कुरमी
मकोली
69
10
42
0.01
गजर मिरुवा ास
ृरती
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
10
43
0.08
गजर मिरुवा ास
ृरतीक़िीम
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
2
44
0.44
रज ती िोन-2
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
5
45
0.25
रज ती िोन-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
7
46
0.31
रज ती िोन-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
7
47
0.24
रज ती िोन-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
4
48
0.72
रज ती िोन-3
कन्हु घटवार
मकोली
69
5
49
0.43
रज ती िोन-3
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
6
50
0.46
रज ती िोन-3
नन्िलाल
मकोली
69
8
51
0.59
रज ती िोन-3
िूृ लाल कुरमी
मकोली
69
3
52
0.26
रज ती िोन-3
असृष्ट
मकोली
69
5
53
0.20
रज ती िोन-3
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
2
54
0.41
रज ती िोन-2
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
2
55
1.68
रज ती िोन-3
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
1
56
0.14
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
2
57
0.17
रज ती िोन-3
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
2
58
3.16
रज ती िोन-2
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
5
59
1.14
रज ती िोन-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
4
60
0.38
रज ती टांड़-2
कन्हु घटवार
1308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मकोली
69
4
61
0.01
रज ती ृरती क़िीम
कन्हु घटवार
मकोली
69
4
62
0.34
रज ती टांड़-2
कन्हु घटवार
मकोली
69
5
63
1.20
रज ती टांड़-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
5
64
0.84
रज तीटांड़-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
5
65
0.08
रज ती मकान
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
5
66
0.06
अज्ञात
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
2
67
3.41
रज ती टांड़-2
िीरात माजलक
मकोली
69
3
68
0.60
रज तीटांड़-2
असृष्ट
मकोली
69
5
69
0.36
रज ती टांड़-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
6
70
0.57
रज ती टांड़-2
नन्िलाल
मकोली
69
7
71
0.25
रज ती टांड़-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
8
72
0.54
रज ती टांड़-2
िूृ लाल कुरमी
मकोली
69
10
73
0.08
गजर मिरुवा ास
ृरतीक़िीम
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
5
74
0.33
रज ती टांड़-2
ेिन घटवार
मकोली
69
7
75
0.61
रज ती टांड़-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
10
76
0.14
गजरमिरुवा ास
ृरतीक़िीम
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
7
77
0.62
रज ती टांड़-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
9
79 (भाग)
0.15
रज ती िोन-2
प्रिलाि घटवार
मकोली
69
10
80(भाग)
0.15
गजर मिरुवा ास
ृरतीक़िीम
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
7
81
0.05
रज ती िोन-3
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
7
82
0.76
रज तीिोन-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
9
83
0.27
रज ती टांड़-2
प्रिलाि घटवार
मकोली
69
10
84
0.13
गजर मिरुवा ास
ृरतीक़िीम
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
8
85
1.27
रज ती िोन-2
िूृ लाल कुरमी
मकोली
69
7
94 (भाग)
0.07
रज तीटांड़-2
जबिु घटवार
मकोली
69
6
95 (भाग)
0.86
रज ती िोन-2
नन्िलाल
मकोली
69
3
96 (भाग)
1.46
रज ती टांड़-2
अस्ट्ृष्ट
मकोली
69
12
118 (भाग)
36.30
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
1
119 (भाग)
184.25
गजर मिरुवा ास
िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
मकोली
69
121
0.41
अज्ञात
ऑनलाइन में क्षेत्र
और दकस्ट्म
अनुृलब्ि िज
मकोली
69
122
0.52
अज्ञात
िोड़ :
301.32
तुररओ
70
34
1 (भाग)
217.47
गजर मिरुवा ास
सरकारी भूजम
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1309
जत ानी दकस्ट्म
िंगल
िोड़ :
217.47
तारमी
71
52
1 (भाग)
91.05
गजर मिरुवा ास
जत ानी दकस्ट्म िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
तारमी
71
20
3 (भाग)
0.04
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
11
4 (भाग)
0.09
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
3
5 (भाग)
0.07
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
52
8 (भाग)
0.07
ृरतीृीड़ ,गजर मिरुवा
ास
सरकारी भूजम
तारमी
71
11
9
0.26
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
11
10
0.30
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
3
11
0.06
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
20
12 (भाग)
0.08
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
3
13
0.17
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
30
14
0.08
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
37
15
0.07
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
37
16
0.49
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
52
17
0.12
ृरतीृीड़, गजरमिरुवा
ास
सरकारी भूजम
तारमी
71
30
18
0.32
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
30
19
0.07
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
20
20
0.09
रज ती िोन 3
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
20
21
0.12
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
37
22(भाग)
0.03
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
30
23
0.50
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
11
24
0.09
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
3
25(भाग)
0.27
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
1310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तारमी
71
20
26(भाग)
0.22
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
30
27(भाग)
0.01
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
तारमी
71
37
28 (भाग)
0.27
रज ती िोन 2
बकास्ट्त लगान
ृाने वाला
िोड़ :
94.94
ग
तुररओ
70
8
8 (भाग)
0.06
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो, कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
9
0.19
रज ती िोन 3
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
10
0.09
रज ती टांड़ 2
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
6
11 (भाग)
0.75
रज ती टांड़ 2
डमर मितो वल्ि
िरी मितो, कौम
कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
5
14 (भाग)
0.10
रज ती टांड़ 2
िीवन मितो व
नानहु मितो
ृेिरन नरा ण
मितो वजगराि
ग
तुररओ
70
6
15(भाग)
0.29
रज ती िोन 3
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
6
16(भाग)
0.86
रज ती टांड़ 2
डमर मितो वल्ि
िरी मितो, कौम
कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
21(भाग)
0.08
रज ती िोन 2
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो, कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
5
22(भाग)
0.11
रज ती ृरती क़िीम
िीवन मितो व
नानहु मितो
ृेिरन नरा ण
मितो वजगराि
ग
तुररओ
70
8
23 (भाग)
0.28
रज ती िोन 2
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
34
25 (भाग)
0.06
गजर मिरुवा ास ृरती
नाला
सरकारी भूजम
ग
तुररओ
70
2
26 (भाग)
0.05
रज ती िोन 2
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
8
33(भाग)
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 2
बड़का िौलत
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1311
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
2
34 (भाग)
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 2
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
34
219
(भाग)
0.55
गजर मिरुवा ास
जत ानी दकस्ट्म ृरती
ृत र
सरकारी भूजम
ग
तुररओ
70
8
274
(भाग)
0.22
रज ती िोन 1
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो, कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
6
275(भाग)
0.09
रज ती िोन 1
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
3
277(भाग)
0.51
रज ती िोन 2
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
6
278
0.17
रज ती टांड़ 3
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
5
279
0.03
रज ती ृरती ृत् र
िीवन मितो व
नानहु मितो
ृेिरन नारा ण
मितो आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
2
280
0.33
रज ती िोन 1
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
8
281
0.24
रज ती िोन 1
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
6
282
0.21
रज ती िोन 1
डमर मितो वल्ि
िरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
2
283
0.36
रज ती िोन 1
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
3
284
0.08
रज ती िोन 2
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
3
285
2.93
रज ती िोन 1
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
2
286
0.14
रज ती टांड़ 3
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
8
287
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 3
बड़का िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो,कौम कुमी
1312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ग
तुररओ
70
6
288
0.16
रज ती टांड़ 3
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
34
289
(भाग)
44.80
गजर मिरुवा ास
जत ानी दकस्ट्म िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
ग
तुररओ
70
3
290
0.38
रज ती िोन 1
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
3
291
0.14
रज ती िोन 2
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
5
292
0.24
रज ती ृरती नाला
िीवन मितो व
नानहु मितो
ृेिरन नारा ण
मितो आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
3
293
0.06
रज ती िोन 2
चुरामन मितो
वल्ि रघु मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
11
294
0.56
रज ती िोन 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
295
0.12
रज ती िोन 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
296
0.29
रज ती िोन 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
297
0.08
रज ती िोन 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
35
298
0.12
गजर मिरुवा आम
जत ानी दकस्ट्म रास्ट्ता
सरकारी भूजम
ग
तुररओ
70
1
299(भाग)
0.14
रज ती टांड़ 2
काजतका वल्ि चंि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
300
0.16
रज ती टांड़ 1
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
1
301(भाग)
0.11
रज ती टांड़ 1
काजतका वल्ि चंि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
9
302
0.19
रज ती टांड़ 2
नानहु मितो वल्ि
नारा ण मितो,
कौम कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
10
303
0.30
रज ती टांड़ 2
नुना मितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1313
वगजरि ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
304
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
305
0.03
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
306
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
1
307(भाग)
0.30
रज ती टांड़ 1
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
308
0.40
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
309
0.10
रज ती टांड़ 1
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
1
310
0.03
रज तीमकान 2 सिन१
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
35
311
0.11
गजर मिरुवा आम
जत ानी दकस्ट्म रास्ट्ता
सरकारी भूजम
ग
तुररओ
70
7
312
0.03
रज ती मकान 2 सिन१
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
313
0.08
रज ती टांड़ 1
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
314
0.08
रज तीमकान 2
सिन १
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
315
0.11
रज ती टांड़ 1
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
316
0.70
रज ती टांड़ 1
जबिारीमितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
317
0.18
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटािौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
1314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
318
0.20
रज ती टांड़ 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
10
319
0.27
रज ती टांड़ 2
नुना मितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
वगजरि ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
320
0.18
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटािौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
9
321
0.58
रज ती टांड़ 2
नानहु मितो वल्ि
नारा ण मितो,
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
1
322
0.59
रज ती टांड़ 2
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
10
323
0.49
रज ती टांड़ ३
नुनामितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
आदि ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
324
0.26
रज ती टांड़ 3
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
1
325
0.15
रज ती टांड़ 3
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
360
0.18
रज ती टांड़ 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
361
0.14
रज ती टांड़ 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
362
0.21
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
363
0.14
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
364
0.31
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारीमितो व
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1315
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
365
0.34
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारीमितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
366
0.09
रज ती िोन 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
1
367
0.18
रज ती टांड़ 2
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
1
368
0.48
रज ती िोन 1
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
10
369
0.54
रज ती िोन 1
नुना मितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
आदि ,कौम कुमी
।
ग
तुररओ
70
11
370
0.06
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
371
0.29
रज ती िोन 1
छोटािौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
5
372
0.03
रज ती ृरती क़िीम
िीवनमितोवनान
हु मितो, ृेिरान
नारा ण मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
11
373
0.32
रज ती िोन 1
जबिारीमितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
1
374
0.33
रज ती िोन 1
काजतका वल्ि चााँि
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
375
0.03
रज ती िोन 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
1316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ग
तुररओ
70
11
376
0.03
रज ती िोन 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
10
377
0.03
रज ती िोन 2
नुना मितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
वगजरि ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
10
409(भाग)
0.04
रज ती िोन 2
नुना मितो वल्ि
बदढ़ ा मितो
वगजरि ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
7
423
0.03
रज ती िोन 3
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
32
426(भाग)
0.32
रज ती िोन 2
कार्तजक ससंि वल्ि
बबल ससंि ,कौम
घटवार ।
ग
तुररओ
70
11
427(भाग)
0.24
रज ती िोन 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
7
428(भाग)
0.09
रज ती िोन 2
छोटा िौलत मितो
वल्ि गोृाल
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
11
429
0.08
रज ती िोन 2
जबिारी मितो व
िरि ाल मितो व
ननकु मितो
ृेिरान मितो
आदि
ग
तुररओ
70
6
439
0.04
रज ती िोन 2
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
2
441
0.09
रज ती िोन 2
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
6
442
0.09
रज ती िोन 3
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
2
443(भाग)
0.04
रज ती िोन 3
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
ग
तुररओ
70
444
0.09
रज ती िोन२
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी ।
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1317
ग
तुररओ
70
8
445(भाग)
0.14
रज ती िोन 2
बरका िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो, कौम,
कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
446(भाग)
0.01
रज ती िोन 3
बरका िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो, कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
448(भाग)
0.26
रज ती टांड़ 3
बरका िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो
ग
तुररओ
70
6
449(भाग)
0.03
रज ती टांड़ 3
डमर मितो
वल्ििरी मितो,
कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
2
450(भाग)
0.20
रज ती िोन 2
िुिा मितो वल्ि
जगरी मितो, कौम
कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
8
451
0.03
रज ती िोन 3
बरका िौलत
मितो वल्ि िरी
मितो ,कौम कुमी
ग
तुररओ
70
34
493
(भाग)
35.75
गजर मिरुवा ास
जत ानी दकस्ट्म िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
िोड़ :
103.20
ग
तारमी
71
99
606
(भाग)
1.63
गजर मिरुवा ास
जत ानी दकस्ट्म िंगल
सरकारी भूजम
िोड़ :
1.63
सीमा वणजन:
ब्लॉक
सीमा रे ा
सीमा वणजन
क
क-क1-क2-क
ब्लॉक सीमा मकोली मौज़ा के प्लॉट सं् ा 119 से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु ‘क’1
और ‘क2’ से गुिरते हुए जबन्िु ‘क’ ृर बंि िोती िज ।
- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-
7- 8- 9- 10- 11-
12- 13- 14- 15- 16-
17- 18- 19- 20अ-
20- 21- 22- 23- 24-
25- 25- 26- 27- 28-
29- 30- 31- 32- 33-
34- 35- 36- 37- .
ब्लॉक सीमा मकोली मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 1 के जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर
जबन्िु सं् ा ‘ 1’ ( मकोली के प्लाट सं् ा 18 के भीतर), 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 (मकोली के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर), 7 और 8 (मकोली के
प्लाट सं् ा 119 के भीतर), 9, 10, 11 (मकोली के प्लाट सं् ा 119
के भीतर) से मुड़ती हुई जबन्िु 12 (मकोली और तारमी मौिा रे ा ृर
मकोली के प्लाट सं् ा 119 के समीृ), 13 (मकोली और तारमी मौिा के
सं ोिन जबन्िु ृर ), 14 और 15 (तारमी मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 1 के
भीतर) 16 (तारमी के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर) से 19 और 20ए
1318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(तुररओ और तारमी के मौिा सीमा रे ा ृर), 20 (तारमी के प्लाट सं् ा
01 के प्लाट सीमा ृर ), 21 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर), 22,
23, 24 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के प्लाट सीमा ृर ), 25, 26,
27 और 28 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर), 29 ( तुररओ और
मकोली मौिा के सीमा रे ा ृर), 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
त ा 36 (मकोली मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 118 के भीतर) त ा जबन्िु 37
(मकोली मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 1 के भीतर) से िोकर गुिरती हुई मकोली
मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘ ृर बंि िोती िज ।
ग
ग0-ग1-ग-2-ग3-ग4- ग5-
ग6- ग7- ग8- ग9- ग9ए –
28 – 27 - ग10- ग11-
ग12- ग13- 24- 23-ग0
ब्लॉक सीमा जबन्िु सं् ा ग0 (तुररओ मौिा के प्लाट सं् ा 289 के भीतर )
से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु सं् ा ग (प्लाट सं् ा 323 ृर), ग1 (तुररओ के प्लाट
सं् ा 360 ृर), ग2(तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 363 ृर), ग3 (तुररओ के प्लाट
सं् ा 369 ृर), ग4 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 289 ृर), ग5 ( तुररओ और
तारमी की सीमा रे ा ृर), ग6 (तारमी के प्लाट सं् ा 606 ृर), ग7
(तुररओ और तारमी की सीमा रे ा ृर), ग8 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 493
ृर), ग9 तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 289 ृर), ग9ए तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 274
ृर), 28 और 27 तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 01 के भीतर), ग10 तुररओ के
प्लाट सं् ा 08 ृर), ग11 (तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 17 ृर), ग12 (तुररओ के
प्लाट सं् ा 274 ृर), ग13 तुररओ के प्लाट सं् ा 293 ृर), 24 और
23 ( तुर ो के प्लाट सं् ा 01 की सीमा ृर) से गुिरते हुए आरंजभक जबन्िु
‘ग0’ ृर बंि िोती िज ।
[फा. सं. 43015/17/2019-एलए एण्ड आईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2022
S.O. 645.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 695
(E), dated the 16th February, 2021, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 16th February, 2021, the Central Government gave notice
of its intention to acquire 804.43 acres (approximately) or 325.55 hectares (approximately) lands and all rights in or
over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the
Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the
Government of Jharkhand, is satisfied that the lands measuring 719.66 acres (approximately) or 291.24 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby declares that the lands measuring 719.66 acres (approximately) or 291.24 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number REV/04/2022, dated the 12th April, 2022 of the area covered by this notification
may be inspected in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the Office of Coal
Controller, 1, Council House street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the Office of the General Manager, Dhori Area, District -
Bokaro (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Land and Revenue, Cental Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi-
834001, Jharkhand or Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute
Limited, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi - 834008, Jharkhand.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1319
SCHEDULE
Kalyani opencast project
District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)
[ Plan bearing number REV/04/2022, dated the 12th April, 2022 ]
All rights :
Serial
number
Block
Village
Thana
num-
ber
Thana
/ Circle
District
Area under acquisition
Remarks
Area
(in acres)
Area
(in
hectares)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1.
A
Makoli
69
Bermo
Bokaro
1.10
0.45
Part
2.
B
Makoli
69
Bermo
Bokaro
301.32
121.94
Part
Tarmi
71
Chandrapura
Bokaro
94.94
38.42
Part
Turio
70
Chandrapura
Bokaro
217.47
88.01
Part
3.
C
Turio
70
Chandrapura
Bokaro
103.20
41.76
Part
Tarmi
71
Chandrapura
Bokaro
1.63
0.66
Part
Total Area (A+B+C):
719.66
acres
(approxi-
mately.)
291.24
hectares
(approxi-
mately.)
Details of plots to be acquired as per land record:
Block
Village
/
Mouza
Thana
num-
ber
Khat
a
num-
ber
Plot
number
Area
under
acquisition
(in acres)
Type of land
Name of recorded tenant
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
A
Makoli
69
1
119 (P)
1.10
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
Total:
1.10
B
Makoli
69
1
1 (P)
44.94
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
3
14 (P)
0.22
Raiyati Don-2
Not clear
B
Makoli
69
1
15
0.60
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
5
16
0.20
Raiyati PartiKadim
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
1
17
0.17
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
7
18 (P)
0.37
Raiyati Don-1
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
33 (P)
0.58
Raiyati PartiKadim
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
2
35 (P)
0.20
Raiyati Don-1
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
2
37
0.17
Raiyati Don-2
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
1
38
1.18
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
5
39
4.33
Raiyati Tand-3
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
8
40
0.21
Raiyati Don-3
Dhuplal Kurmi
B
Makoli
69
8
41
0.39
Raiyati Don-2
Dhuplal Kurmi
B
Makoli
69
10
42
0.01
GMK parti
Government land
B
Makoli
69
10
43
0.08
GMK PartiKadim
Government land
B
Makoli
69
2
44
0.44
Raiyati Don-2
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
5
45
0.25
Raiyati Don-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
7
46
0.31
Raiyati Don-2
BishuGhatwar
B
Makoli
69
7
47
0.24
Raiyati Don-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
4
48
0.72
Raiyati Don-3
Kanhu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
49
0.43
Raiyati Don-3
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
6
50
0.46
Raiyati Don-3
Nand lal
B
Makoli
69
8
51
0.59
Raiyati Don-3
Dhuplal Kurmi
B
Makoli
69
3
52
0.26
Raiyati Don-3
Not Clear
B
Makoli
69
5
53
0.20
Raiyati Don-3
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
2
54
0.41
Raiyati Don-2
Jirat Maalik
1320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
B
Makoli
69
2
55
1.68
Raiyati Don-3
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
1
56
0.14
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
2
57
0.17
Raiyati Don-3
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
2
58
3.16
Raiyati Don-2
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
5
59
1.14
Raiyati Don-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
4
60
0.38
Raiyati Tand-2
Kanhu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
4
61
0.01
Raiyati PartiKadim
Kanhu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
4
62
0.34
Raiyati Tand-2
Kanhu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
63
1.20
Raiyati Tand-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
64
0.84
Rayati Tand-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
65
0.08
RayiyatiMakan
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
5
66
0.06
Unknown
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
2
67
3.41
Raiyati Tand-2
Jirat Maalik
B
Makoli
69
3
68
0.60
Rayiyati Tand-2
Not clear
B
Makoli
69
5
69
0.36
Raiyati Tand-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
6
70
0.57
Raiyati Tand-2
Nand lal
B
Makoli
69
7
71
0.25
Raiyati Tand-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
8
72
0.54
Raiyati Tand-2
Dhuplal Kurmi
B
Makoli
69
10
73
0.08
GMK PartiKadim
Government land
B
Makoli
69
5
74
0.33
Raiyati Tand-2
Khedan Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
7
75
0.61
Raiyati Tand-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
10
76
0.14
GMK PartiKadim
Government land
B
Makoli
69
7
77
0.62
Raiyati Tand-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
9
79 (P)
0.15
Raiyati Don-2
Prahlad Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
10
80 (P)
0.15
G.M.K. PartiKadim
Government land
B
Makoli
69
7
81
0.05
Raiyati Don-3
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
7
82
0.76
Rayiyati don-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
9
83
0.27
Raiyati Tand-2
Prahlad Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
10
84
0.13
G.M.K. PartiKadim
Government land
B
Makoli
69
8
85
1.27
Raiyati Don-2
Dhuplal Kurmi
B
Makoli
69
7
94 (P)
0.07
Rayiyati Tand-2
Bishu Ghatwar
B
Makoli
69
6
95 (P)
0.86
Raiyati Don-2
Nand lal
B
Makoli
69
3
96 (P)
1.46
Raiyati Tand-2
Not clear
B
Makoli
69
12
118 (P)
36.30
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
1
119 (P)
184.25
G.M.K (Jungle)
Government land
B
Makoli
69
121
0.41
Unknown
Rakba and Type
unavailable online
B
Makoli
69
122
0.52
Unknown
Total:
301.32
B
Turio
70
34
1 (P)
217.47
G.M.K. Khatiyani type
Jungle
Government land
Total:
217.47
B
Tarmi
71
52
1 (P)
91.05
GMK Khatiyani type
Jungle
Government land
B
Tarmi
71
20
3 (P)
0.04
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
11
4 (P)
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
3
5 (P)
0.07
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
52
8 (P)
0.07
PartiPir, GMK
Government land
B
Tarmi
71
11
9
0.26
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
11
10
0.30
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
3
11
0.06
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
20
12 (P)
0.08
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
3
13
0.17
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
30
14
0.08
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
37
15
0.07
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast Tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
37
16
0.49
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
52
17
0.12
PartiPid, GMK
Government land
B
Tarmi
71
30
18
0.32
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
30
19
0.07
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1321
B
Tarmi
71
20
20
0.09
Raiyati Don 3
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
20
21
0.12
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
37
22(P)
0.03
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
30
23
0.50
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
11
24
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
3
25(P)
0.27
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
20
26(P)
0.22
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
30
27(P)
0.01
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
B
Tarmi
71
37
28 (P)
0.27
Raiyati Don 2
Bakast tax receiver
Total:
94.94
C
Turio
70
8
8 (P)
0.06
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
9
0.19
Raiyati Don 3
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
10
0.09
Raiyati Tand 2
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
11 (P)
0.75
Raiyati Tand 2
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
5
14 (P)
0.10
Raiyati Tand 2
Jivan Mahto and Nana
Mahto pesharan Narayan
Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
6
15(P)
0.29
Raiyati Don 3
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
16(P)
0.86
Raiyati Tand 2
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
21(P)
0.08
Raiyati Don 2
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
5
22(P)
0.11
Raiyati PartiKadim
Jivan Mahto and Nana
Mahto pesharan Narayan
Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
8
23 (P)
0.28
Raiyati Don 2
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
34
25 (P)
0.06
GMK partiNala
Government Land
C
Turio
70
2
26 (P)
0.05
Raiyati Don 2
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
33(P)
0.08
Raiyati Tand 2
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
2
34 (P)
0.08
Raiyati Tand 2
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
34
219 (P)
0.55
GMK Khatiyani Type
PP
Government land
C
Turio
70
8
274 (P)
0.22
Raiyati Don 1
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
275 (P)
0.09
Raiyati Don 1
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
3
277(P)
0.51
Raiyati Don 2
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
6
278
0.17
Raiyati Tand 3
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
5
279
0.03
Raiyatiparti-pathar
Jivan Mahto and Nana
Mahto pesharan Narayan
Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
2
280
0.33
Raiyati Don 1
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
281
0.24
Raiyati Don 1
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
282
0.21
Raiyati Don 1
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
2
283
0.36
Raiyati Don 1
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
1322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
3
284
0.08
Raiyati Don 2
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
3
285
2.93
Raiyati Don 1
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
2
286
0.14
Raiyati Tand 3
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
287
0.08
Raiyati Tand 3
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
288
0.16
Raiyati Tand 3
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
34
289 (P)
44.80
GMK Khatiyani type
Jungle
Government Land
C
Turio
70
3
290
0.38
Raiyati Don 1
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
3
291
0.14
Raiyati Don 2
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
5
292
0.24
Raiyatipartinala
Jivan Mahto and Nana
Mahto pesharan Narayan
Mahto, etc
C
Turio
70
3
293
0.06
Raiyati Don 2
Churaman Mahto S/o
Raghu Mahto
C
Turio
70
11
294
0.56
Raiyati Don 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
7
295
0.12
Raiyati Don 2
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
296
0.29
Raiyati Don 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
297
0.08
Raiyati Don 2
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
35
298
0.12
GMK Aam Khatiyani
Type Road
Government Land
C
Turio
70
1
299 (P)
0.14
Raiyati Tand 2
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
300
0.16
Raiyati Tand 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
1
301 (P)
0.11
Raiyati Tand 1
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
9
302
0.19
Raiyati Tand 2
Nanhu Mahto S/o Narayan
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
10
303
0.30
Raiyati Tand 2
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
304
0.08
Raiyati Tand 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
7
305
0.03
Raiyati Tand 2
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
306
0.08
Raiyati Tand 2
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
1
307 (P)
0.30
Raiyati Tand 1
Katika, S/O Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
308
0.40
Raiyati Tand 2
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
309
0.10
Raiyati Tand 1
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
1
310
0.03
RayiyatMakan 2
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1323
Sahan 1
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
35
311
0.11
GMK Aam Khatiyani
Type Road
Government Land
C
Turio
70
7
312
0.03
Rayiyat Makan 2
Sahan 1
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
313
0.08
Raiyati Tand 1
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
314
0.08
Rayiyat Makan 2
Sahan 1
Bihari
Mahto
and
Hardayal
Mahto
and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
7
315
0.11
Raiyati Tand 1
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi.
C
Turio
70
11
316
0.70
Raiyati Tand 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
7
317
0.18
Raiyati Tand 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o.
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
318
0.20
Raiyati Tand 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
10
319
0.27
Raiyati Tand 2
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
320
0.18
Raiyati Tand 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
9
321
0.58
Raiyati Tand 2
Nanhu Mahto S/o Narayan
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
1
322
0.59
Raiyati Tand 2
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
10
323
0.49
Raiyati Tand 2
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
324
0.26
Raiyati Tand 3
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
1
325
0.15
Raiyati Tand 3
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
360
0.18
Raiyati Tand 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
361
0.14
Raiyati Tand 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
11
362
0.21
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
11
363
0.14
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
11
364
0.31
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
11
365
0.34
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
1324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C
Turio
70
11
366
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
1
367
0.18
Raiyati Tand 2
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
1
368
0.48
Raiyati Don 1
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
10
369
0.54
Raiyati Don 1
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
370
0.06
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto Pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
7
371
0.29
Raiyati Don 1
Chota Daulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi.
C
Turio
70
5
372
0.03
Raiyati PartiKadim
Jivan Mahto &nanhu
Mahto, Pesharan Mahto
etc
C
Turio
70
11
373
0.32
Raiyati Don 1
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc
C
Turio
70
1
374
0.33
Raiyati Don 1
Katika, S/o Chand, Caste -
Kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
375
0.03
Raiyati Don 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
376
0.03
Raiyati Don 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
10
377
0.03
Raiyati Don 2
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
10
409 (P)
0.04
Raiyati Don 2
Nuna Mahto S/o Badhiya
Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
7
423
0.03
Raiyati Don 3
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
32
426(P)
0.32
Raiyati Don 2
Kartik Singh S/o Babal
Singh, Caste Ghatwar
C
Turio
70
11
427 (P)
0.24
Raiyati Don 2
Bihari Mahto and
Hardayal Mahto & Nanku
Mahto pesharan Narayan
Mahto, etc
C
Turio
70
7
428 (P)
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
ChotaDaulat Mahto S/o
Gopal Mahto, Caste kurmi
C
Turio
70
11
429
0.08
Raiyati Don 2
Bihari
Mahto
and
Hardayal
Mahto
and
Nanku Mahto pesharan
Narayan Mahto, etc.
C
Turio
70
6
439
0.04
Raiyati Don 2
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi.
C
Turio
70
2
441
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
6
442
0.09
Raiyati Don 3
Dumar Mahto S/o Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
2
443 (P)
0.04
Raiyati Don 3
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
444
0.09
Raiyati Don 2
Dhuja Mahto S/o Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi.
C
Turio
70
8
445 (P)
0.14
Raiyati Don 2
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1325
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi.
C
Turio
70
8
446 (P)
0.01
Raiyati Don 3
Barka daulat Mahto S/o
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi.
C
Turio
70
8
448 (P)
0.26
Raiyati Tand 3
Barka daulat Mahto S/o.
Hari Mahto.
C
Turio
70
6
449 (P)
0.03
Raiyati Tand 3
Dumar Mahto S/o. Hari
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
.
C
Turio
70
2
450 (P)
0.20
Raiyati Don 2
Dhuja Mahto S/o. Giri
Mahto, Caste Kurmi
C
Turio
70
8
451
0.03
Raiyati Don 3
Barka daulat Mahto S/o.
Hari Mahto, Caste Kurmi.
C
Turio
70
34
493 (P)
35.75
G.M.K. Khatiyani type
Jungle
Government Land
Total:
103.20
C
Tarmi
71
99
606 (P)
1.63
G.M.K. Khatiyani type
Jungle
Government Land
Total:
1.63
Boundary description:
Block
Boundary line
Boundary description
A
A-A1-A2-A
Block
boundary
starts
at
point
'A’
of
plot
number
119 of Makoli mouza and passing through points number A1 and A2 and closed
at point 'A’.
B
B-B1-B2-B3-B4-B5-
B6-B7-B8-B9-B10-
B11-B12-B13-B14-
B15-B16-B17-B18-
B19- B20a -B20-B21-
B22-B23-B24-B25-
B26-B27-B28-B29-
B30-B31-B32-B33-
B34-B35-B36-B37-B.
Block boundary starts at point ‘B’ of plot number 1 of Makoli mouza and passes
through point B1 (in plot number 18 of Makoli) to B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 (in plot
number 1 of Makoli) to B7 and B8 (in plot number 119 of Makoli ) turns to B9,
B10 and B11 (in plot number 119 of Makoli Mouza ) to B12 (in plot number
119 at Mouza boundary of Makoli and Tarmi) to B13 (Junction of mouza
Makoli and Tarmi ) to B14 and B15 (in plot No.1 of Tarmi mouza ) to B16 (in
plot number 02 of Tarmi ) to B17 (in plot number 27 of Tarmi) to B18 (in plot
number 1 of Tarmi mouza) to B19 and B20a (at mouza boundary of Turio and
tarmi) to B20 (at plot boundary of plot number 01 of Turio ) to B21 (in plot
number 01 of Turio ) to B22, B23, B24 (at plot boundary of plot number 01 of
Turio ) to B25, B26, B27 and B28 (in plot number 01 of Turio) to B29 (at
mouza boundary of Turio and Makoli ) to B30, B31, B32, B33, B34, B35 and
B36 (in plot number 118 of Makoli Mouza ) to B37 (in plot number 01 of
Makoli mouza) and closes at starting point B of plot number 01 of Makoli
mouza.
C
C0-C-C1-C2-C3-C4-
C5-C6-C7-C8-C9-
C9a-B28-B27-C10-
C11-C12-C13-B24-
B23-C0.
Block boundary starts at point C0 (in plot number 289 of Turio mauza) and
passes through point C (at plot number 323) to C1 (at plot number 360 of Turio)
to C2 (at plot number 363 of Turio) to C3 (at plot number 369 of Turio) to C4
(in plot number 289 of Turio) to C5 (at mouza boundary Turio and Tarmi) to C6
(in plot number 606 of mauza Tarmi) to C7 (at mauza bounary of Turio and
Tarmi) to C8 ( in plot number 493 of Turio mauza ) to C9 (in plot number 289 of
Turio) to C9a (in plot number 274 of Turio) to B28 and B27 (in plot number 01
of Turio) to C10 (at plot number 08 of Turiyo) to C11 (at plot number 17 of
Turiyo) to C12 (at plot number 274 of Turio) to C13 (at plot number 293 of
Turio ) to B24 and B23 (at plot boundary of plot number 01 of Turio ) and closed
at point C0.
[F. No. 43015/17/2019-LA & IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director
1326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल् ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 646.—को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म,1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके
ृश् चात् उक् त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 9 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3,
उृ ंड (ii), तारी 27 नवम्बर, 2021 में प्रकाजित, भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना का. आ. सं् ांक
811, तारी 24 नवम्बर, 2021 को िारी, उक् त अजिसूचना से संलग् न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत भूजम और ऐसी भूजम, (जिसे
इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक् त भूजम किा ग ा िज), में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार, उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 10 की उृिारा
(1) के अिीन, सभी जवल् लंगमों से मुक् त िोकर, आत् ंजतक प ृ में केन् री सरकार में जनजित िो गई ी ;
और, केन् री सरकार का ि समािान िो ग ा िज, दक नािजनज कोलफील् ्स जलजमटेड, जिला ससंगरौली, मध् प्रिेि
(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् सरकारी कंृनी किा ग ा िज), ऐसे जनबंिनों और ितों का, िो केन् री सरकार इस जनजमत्त
अजिरोजृत करना उजचत समझे, अनुृालन करने के जलए रिामंि िज ;
अत: अब, केन् री सरकार, उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 11 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते
हुए, ि जनिेि िेती िज, दक इस प्रकार जनजित भूजम 564.323 िेक् टर (लगभग) ा 1394.442 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली
उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार तारी 27 नवम्बर, 2021 से केन् री सरकार में इस प्रकार जनजित बने रिने के
बिाए, जनम् नजलज त जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुए, सरकारी कंृनी में जनजित िो िाएंगे, अ ाजत:-
(1) सरकारी कंृनी, उक् त अजिजन म के उृबंिों के अिीन और अन् सुसंगत जवजि ों के अिीन ा अविाररत सभी
प्रजतकर, ब् ाि, नुकसाजन ों और वजसे िी मिों की बाबत् सभी संिा करेगी;
(2) सरकारी कंृनी द्वारा ितज (1) के अिीन, संिे रकमों का अविारण करने के प्र ोिनों के जलए उक् त अजिजन म
की िारा 14 के अिीन एक अजिकरण का ग न दक ा िाएगा और दकसी ऐसे अजिकरण और उक्त अजिकरण की
सिा ता करने के जलए जन ुक् त व् जक् त ों के संबंि में उृगत सभी व् , उक्त सरकारी कंृनी द्वारा विन दकए
िाऐंगे और इसी प्रकार जनजित उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के जलए ा उनके संबंि में अृीलों आदि
िजसी सभी जवजिक का जवाजि ों की बाबत् उृगत, सभी व् भी, सरकारी कंृनी द्वारा विन दकए िाऐंगे ;
(3) सरकारी कंृनी, केन् री सरकार ा उसके ृििारर ों की, ऐसे दकसी अन् व् के संबंि में क्षजतृूर्तज करेगी, िो
इस प्रकार जनजित उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के बारे में, केन् री सरकार ा उसके ृििारर ों द्वारा ा
उनके जवप द्ध दकन् िीं का जवाजि ों के संबंि में आवश् क िो;
(4) सरकारी कंृनी के ृास उक्त भूजम और उक्त भूजम में इस प्रकार जनजित अजिकारों को केन्री सरकार के ृूवज
अनुमोिन के जबना, दकसी अन् व्यजक्त को अंतररत करने की िजक्त निीं िोगी; और
(5)
सरकारी कंृनी, ऐसे जनिेिों और ितों का ृालन करेगी, िो केन्री सरकार द्वारा, िब कभी आवश् क िो, उक्त
भूजम के जवजिष्ट क्षेत्रों के जलए दि े िाएं ा अजिरोजृत दकए िाएं।
[फा. सं. 43015/20/2020-एलए एण्ड आईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1327
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 646.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S. O. 811, dated the 24th November, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3,
Sub-section (ii), dated the 27th November, 2021, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all
rights in or over the lands described in the schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the
said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section
10 of the said Act ;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Northern Coalfields Limited, District Singrauli,
Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and
conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the said land measuring 564.323 hectares (approximately) or 1394.442 acres
(approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the 27th November, 2021
instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the
following terms and conditions, namely:-
(1)
The Government company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the
like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant laws ;
(2)
A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable by the Government company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with
any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government company
and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in
connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government
company;
(3)
The Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government
or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested ;
(4)
The Government company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested to
any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and
(5)
The Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the
Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/20/2020- LA & IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2022
औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
mik;qDr] dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu] ctkt uxj] t;iqj, (रािस्ट् ान)] izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] Hkkysjh jksM] pw:]
(रािस्ट् ान) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री jruyky, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - ि ृुर (रािस्ट् ान) ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 75/2015) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 15.06.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल–42012/143/2015–आईआर(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
1328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st July, 2022
S.O. 647.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Deputy Commissioner, Central School, bajaj nagar, jaipur, (Rajasthan); The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, Churu, (Rajasthan) and Shri Ratanlal, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 15.06.2022.
[No. L- 42012/143/2015-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
L-42012/143/2015–IR(DU)
27/08/2015
jruyky iq= Jh fyNe.kukFk tksxh
fuoklh okMZ ua- 11 pw:
}kjk vf/kd`r la?k izfrfuf/k
---izkFkhZ
1-
mik;qDr] dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu] 92 xka/kh uxj ekxZ] ctkt uxj] t;iqj & 302015
2-
izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] Hkkysjh jksM] pw: & 331001
---vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ ugha
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh gok flag &vf/koDrk
fnukad % 07&04&2022
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 27/08/2015 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ Mh o 2 , ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fuEukafdr fookn bl
vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k D;k izca/ku izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] pq: dk deZdkj Jh jruyky iq=
Jh fyNe.kukFk tksxh] ckxoku dks ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 05-02-2015 ds }kjk ukSdjh ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa
U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
2-
fnukad 9-3-2016 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd fnukad 2-9-2013 dks izkFkhZ dks
nSfud osru Hkksxh ds in ij dsUnzh; fo|ky; vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ds fu;kstu esa fu;qDr fd;k x;kA fnukad 5-2-2015 rd
izkFkhZ yxkrkj bl in ij dk;Zjr jgkA izkFkhZ ls vko';drkuq:i prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dk Hkh dk;Z fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ
dh lsok foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd gksus ls izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/;
fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj ds laca/k gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh ls pijklh ds fjDr in ij fu;fer fd;s tkus dh ekax dh ftlls
f[kUu gksdj foi{kh us fnukad 5-2-2015 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nhA lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds varxZr izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,o¡ NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ls
dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks lsok esa j[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dks gVk fn;k x;kA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q] th ,oa
,p½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;s tkus ls lsoklekfIr voS/k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks foxr osru] ifjykHk ,oa lsok esa fujarjrk
lfgr cgky fd;k tkosaA
foi{kh us oknksRrj esa okn ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa lQkbZ] lqj{kk rFkk
ckxokuh ds fy;s ekU;rk izkIr QeksZa ls djkj fd;k tkrk gSA ;g lafonk fo|ky; vkSj QeZ ds chp gksrh gSA QeZ }kjk gh
deZdkj dks fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh }kjk 'kq: esa ckxokuh dk;Z ds fy;s yxk;k x;k FkkA
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1329
izkFkhZ] foi{kh dk nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ugha Fkk] uk gh mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh }kjk dh x;hA izkFkhZ dh lsok lafonktU;
Bsds ij nh xbZ FkhA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk bl izdj.k esa uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru rFkk NaVuh eqvkots dh jk'kh dk Hkqxrku
djus dh vis{kk djuk mfpr ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA izkFkhZ us oknksRrj ds mijkar vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr
fd;s gSA
3-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; jruyky dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ MCY;w&1 ls MCY;w&24 rd
izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
4-
foi{kh us viuh lk{; esa fnukad 11-7-2019 dks vksekjke pkS/kjh] izkpk;Z dks lk{; esa izLrqr djrs gq;s 'kiFk&i=
izLrqr fd;k fdarq fnukad 11-7-2019 ls 21-12-2021 rd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds lk{kh Jh vksekjke pkS/kjh ls volj fn;s tkus
ds mijkar Hkh izfrijh{kk ugha dhA blfy;s foi{kh lk{kh ls izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk fd;s tkus dk volj lekIr dj fn;k
x;kA foi{kh us izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&1 vkSj ,e&4 izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
5-
fnuakd 30-3-2022 dks izkFkhZ i{k iqu% vuqifLFkr jgkA vr% foi{kh vfHkHkk"kd ds ekSf[kd rdZ lqus vkSj lk{; ij
fopkj fd;kA
6-
foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls ckxokuh dk;Z ds fy;s j[kk x;k FkkA lkabZ
IyslesaV ,tsalh gh izkFkhZ dh fu;kstd FkhA foi{kh }kjk lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh dks gh lafonktU; ns; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k
tkrk FkkA izn'kZ MCY;w&6 ls MCY;w&22 rd tks mifLFkfr jftLVj izLrqr fd;s x;s gaS] bu ij Li"V vafdr gS fd ;g
jftLVj vuqcaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa ds gSA izn'kZ ,e&1 vkSj ,e&2 lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh ls foi{kh }kjk fd;k x;k vuqca/k gSA
izn'kZ ,e&3 vxLr 2013 ls tuojh 2015 rd lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh dks fcy ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k Hkqxrku gSA blh
izdkj ,e&4 bl vuqca/k dh vof/k esa vfHko`f) fd;s tkus dk i= gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd foi{kh lk{kh ls dksbZ
izfrijh{kk izkFkhZ }kjk ugha dh x;h gS] blfy;s foi{kh ds dFku v[kafMr jgs gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk lsok esa
fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk vkSj lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA
7-
eSusa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh }kjk izlrqr rdksZa ij /;kuiwoZd fopkj fd;k ,oa lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA
8-
bl fookn esa loZizFke ;g fopkjh.kh; gS fd D;k izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; deZdkj vkSj fu;kstd ds laca/k
fo|eku jgs gSA
9-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa foi{khx.k ds v/khu
fnukad 2-9-2013 dks bqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa mifLFkfr iaftdk izn'kZ MCY;w&6 ls MCY;w&24 rd izLrqr dh gSA
mifLFkfr iaftdkvksa ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd bu iaftdkvksa ij Li"V :i ls ;g vafdr gS fd ;s iaftdk
vuqcaf/kr deZpkjhx.k dh mifLFkfr ls lacaf/kr gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bu mifLfFkfr iaftdkvksa ij izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku fd;s
tkus laca/kh dksbZ vadu ugha gSA izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd mls dksbZ fyf[kr fu;qfDr vkns'k ugha fn;k
x;k gSA mls ;g irk ugha gS fd foi{kh lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls ckxokuh vkSj lQkbZ dk dk;Z djokrs gks\
izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd mls ru[okg dsUnzh; fo|ky; ds fizflaiy nsrs FksA mls ru[ok nsrs le; jftLVj esa gLrk{kj djokrs
FksA og jftLVj gkftjh dk jftLVj FkkA fdarq izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr gkftjh jftLVj izn'kZ 6 ls 23 ds voyksdu ls
izkFkhZ dks osru Hkqxrku dk dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ iqu% vufHkKrk O;Dr djrs gq, dgrk gS fd mls irk
ugaha fd gkftjh jftLVj esa gLrk{kj Bsdsnkj dks fn[kkus ds fy;s djokrs gksA og ;g Hkh Kkr gksus ls badkj djrk gS fd
foi{kh gj lky lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh ls vuqca/k djrs gksA izkFkhZ dh lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh lk{kh vksekjke pkS/kjh ds
dFku egRoiw.kZ izrhr gksrs gSaA ftlesa mlus dgk gS fd fo|ky; esa lQkbZ] lqj{kk rFkk ckxokuh dh O;oLFkk ds fy;s
dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu ds fn'kkfunsZ'k vkSj fu;eksa ds vuq:i fdlh ekU;rk izkIr QeZ ls vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij lsok yh
tkrh gSA ckxokuh dk;Z ds fy;s lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh pw: }kjk izkFkhZ dks lafonk ds vk/kkj ij j[kk x;k FkkA bl vk'k;
dk i= izn'kZ ,e&4 lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh dks fy[kk x;k FkkA izn'kZ ,e&4 dsUnzh; fo|ky; pw: esa lkQ lQkbZ rFkk
ckxokuh ds dk;Z dk vuqca/k fnukad 1-11-2013 ls 31-01-2014 rd c<k;s tkus ds laca/k esa gSA izn'kZ ,e&3 ds voyksdu ls
;g izdV gksrk gS fd lkabZ IyslesaV ,tsalh pw: }kjk vDVwcj 2013 ls tuojh 2015 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; pw: esa ckxokuh
dk;Z fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i izLrqr fd;s x;s fcy gaS] ftudk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk fd;k x;kA izn'kZ ,e&1 o 2 lkabZ
IyslesaV ,tsalh vkSj foi{kh ds e/; ckxokuh lsok iznku djus laca/kh lafonk dh 'krsZa vkSj fuca/ku gSa] ftu ij mHk;i{k ds
gLrk{kj fo|eku gSaA ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh ds lk{kh vkSekjke pkS/kjh ls izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh
x;h gSA bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{; dk dksbZ [kaMu izkFkhZ }kjk u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k bl lk{kh
ds dFku Lohdk;Z izekf.kr gksrs gaSA
1330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10-
lk{; ds bl foospu ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{khx.k ds laosnd eSllZ lkabZ IyslesaV
,tsalh pw: }kjk dh xbZA mDr laosnd }kjk ckxokuh dk;Z ds fy;s fu;qDr ,d O;fDr ds osru dk Hkqxrku izn'kZ ,e 3
fcy ds ek/;e ls foi{kh ls izkIr fd;k x;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr laosnd us osru jkf'k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks fd;k
vFkok fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ;g rF; Hkh Li"V ugha gks ik;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
2 ¼th½ vkSj ¼,l½ ds varxrZ ifjHkkf"kr fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj ds laca/k izekf.kr ugha gks ik;s gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dks
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q]th vkSj ,p½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k fdlh izdkj miyC/k ugha gSA
11-
mi;qZDr foospu ds mijkar pwafd izkFkhZ foi{kh }kjk fu;ksftr ckxoku gksuk izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS blfy;s fnuakd 5-
2-2015 dks dfFkr :i ls dh xbZ lsoklekfIr Hkh foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ jru yky tksxh
foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
12-
Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fookn dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k
tkrk gSA
13-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27/1996) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@210@95-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2022
S.O. 648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/210/95 –IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/27/1996
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Mangal Singh,
Mohan colliery, WCL,
Kanhan Area,PO-Junnardeo
District Chhindwarha (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Manager
Mohan colliery, WCL,
Kanhan Area,PO-Junnardeo
District Chhindwarha (M.P.)
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1331
AWARD
(Passed on 17-6-2022 )
As per letter dated 8-11-95 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-22012(210)/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Mohan Colliery, WCL, PO Junardeo, District Chhindwara
(M.P.) in dismissing Sh. Mangal S/o Munni, Tub Loader Mohan Colliery w.e.f. 4-2-94 is justified ?if not,
to what relief the worker is entitled? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have
appeared and filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a Tub Loader in
1972. He received injuries in his eyes while working in the mines in the year 1987. He received treatment for his
injuries but could not recover fully. He was earlier working in the mines. He requested the Management to given him
job of surface duty. The Management did not accede to his demand. The Management issued a false charge sheet
levelling false and fake charges and under the pretext of departmental inquiry, removed him from service on
4-2-1994. According to the workman the action of the management was against law. The workman has accordingly
prayed for his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits , setting aside his removal.
3.
The case of the Management is that while he was working as Tub-Loader in Mohan Colliery of Kanhan Area,
his work was found totally unsatisfactory as he was in the habit of absenting himself from duty without any
intimation, permission or sanction of leave. He was given ample opportunity to improve himself but of no avail. He
remained absent from duty from 4-12-1991 without any intimation, permission and sanction of leave. He was directed
to report on duty many time which he did not comply. Thereafter the management issued a letter No.1203 dated
15-9-1992 directing him to report on duty immediately. The workman did not report on duty, hence the Management
issued a charge sheet dated 18-9-1992 for his willful and unauthorized absence from work from 4-12-1991 to
18-9-1992. The workman submitted an application dated 16-9-1992 to the Branch Manager received by the Office on
19-9-1992 and reported on duty on 19-9-1992. He remained in office for three days i.e. 19-9-1992, 20-9-1992 ad
21-9-1992 but worked only on 19-9-1992, thereafter he remained absent from 21-9-1992 without any intimation,
permission or sanction of leave. He did not care to reply to the charge sheet, hence the Management decided to
constitute a departmental inquiry vide order of Management dated 30-9-92. Shri S.C.Chetrapal, the then Senior
Personnel Officer of Mohan Colliery was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Shri A.K.Verma Safety Officer was appointed
as the management representative. The Inquiry Officer fixed a date 28-10-92 and sent a memo notice dated 18-10-92
to the workman for fixing this date by registered post at his permanent address. The notice was returned back
undelivered. A copy of this notice was also sent by Peon Shatru Prasad on the company accommodation address of
the workman which was also returned back unserved because the workman was not found on that address. The
workman did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 28-10-1992. The inquiry was adjourned for 7-11-1992. Again
a notice was sent to the workman by registered post which was returned undelivered. Then the inquiry was adjourned
for 8-2-1993. The registered notice sent to the workman for this date was also received unserved, hence the notice
was published in newspaper, Nav Bharat Times, Nagpur edition on 4-2-1993. The workman did not appear on this
date also. Then the inquiry proceeded against the workman. Statements of the four witnesses were recorded and
documents were produced by Management representative. The inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report
recording a finding of proof of charge of misconduct by way of habitual unauthorized and willful absence. The
Disciplinary Authority after following the principles of natural justice agreed to the finding of the Inquiry Officer
and then passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 4-2-1994. Thus
according to the management, the Inquiry was conducted according to Rules and procedures providing the workman
sufficient opportunity which he never availed. The charges were proved during the inquiry and the punishment is also
not disproportionate to the charges. Accordingly, the Management is requested that the reference be answered against
the workman.
4.
It comes from perusal of record that the workman did not appear during the proceedings before this Tribunal,
hence award was passed by my learned Predecessor on 2-10-1999 holding that since the workman did not appear, the
dispute probably cease to exist.
5.
The workman preferred a writ petition before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur W.P.No.6369/2001 which
was finally decided by the Single Bench vide order dated 27-4-2017. Hon’ble High Court of M.P. set aside the award
holding that no dispute award could not passed and directed the Tribunal to pass a fresh award after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
6.
After receipt of this order of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., notices were issued to the parties which were
served. The parties appeared through their respective counsel. During the pendency of this case, it came out that the
1332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman had died in between, hence notices were sent to the legal representatives of the deceased workman and were
served, but they have not appeared.
7.
None appeared from the side of the workman. At the time of argument also, no written argument was filed.
I have heard learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.
8.
The following issues come up for determination in the case in hand:-
(1)
Whether the inquiry conducted was legal and proper?
(2)
Whether the charges are proved from the inquiry?
(3)
Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charge?
(4)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
9.
ISSUE NO.1:-
It comes out from the perusal of the record that the inquiry proceeded ex-parte against the workman. The burden to
prove the fact that the workman was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry is on the
workman. No evidence has been adduced from the side of the workman on this point. On the other hand the case of
the management is that notices were issued to the workman on the inquiry for each and every date. They could not be
served because the workman was not found on the address mentioned in his service record, hence notices were
published in the newspaper. He did not appear even thereafter.
10.
Perusal of the record reveals that the charges framed against the workman was as follows:-
(1)
Rule 26.24: Habit of absenting without sufficient reasons or habit of coming late.
(2)
Rule 26.30 Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying
beyond sanctioned leave.
11.
The perusal of the record further reveals that registered notice were sent to the workman for the dates fixed
which were returned unserved as the workman was not found on the address mentioned in his service records. It is
established that notices were published in the newspaper also.
12.
The learned counsel for the management has referred to decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of
State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs,. M.Natrajan and Another (1997)4 LLN.50., wherein it has been held that
when the delinquent employee choose not to participate in the inquiry, inspite of information, the Inquiry Officer was
justified in proceeding with the inquiry in his absence.
13.
IN another case the State Bank of India and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013)2 SCC 740
referred to by learned counsel for the management, it has been held that in ex-parte inquiry if the charges are borne
out from the documents kept in normal business, no oral evidence is required to prove the charges. It was also held
that when the delinquent employee did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, inspite of knowledge, the Inquiry
Officer was justified to proceed ex-parte against him.
14.
IN the light of the above discussion, the departmental inquiry is held legal and proper against the workman.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO.2:-
The charge against the workman has been dealt earlier. I have gone through the report and the inquiry proceedings.
There is a statement of four Management witness in support of charge. I have gone through their statement. These
witnesses have filed documents in respect of attendance sheet which support their statement, hence from the
aforementioned evidence collected during the inquiry, the finding of the inquiry officer that the charge of misconduct
against the workman by way of unauthorized , willful absence from duty is justified in law and fact and the charges
are held proved. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
16.
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:
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1333
“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 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
1334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
17.
As per Rules, willful and unauthorized absence from duty invites major punishment of dismissal also. Hence
the punishment cannot be held so shockingly disproportionate to warrant any interference by this Tribunal. Issue
No.3 is also answered against the workman.
18.
ISSUE NO.4:-
In the light of the findings recorded in Issue No.2 and 3, the workman is held entitled to no relief. Issue
19.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of Mohan Colliery, WCL, PO Junardeo, District Chhindwara
(M.P.) in dismissing Sh. Mangal S/o Munni, Tub Loader Mohan Colliery w.e.f. 4-2-94 is held
to be justified in law and fact.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
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] 11 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@46@2012-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012) of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/46/2012– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/2012
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Maharaj Kumar Nishad,
S/o Shri Gorelal Nishad,
Shankar Nagar, Nawagarh,
District Bemetara (CG)
…Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Sector-1, Bhilai
District Durg (Chhattisgarh)
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1335
AWARD
(Passed on 10-6-2022)
As per letter dated 30-8-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.l-12012/46/2012-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri maharaj
Kumar Nishad w.e.f. 17/5/2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled? .”
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/defense
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he worked in the Nawgarh Branch of the
Bank as a daily wager since 1996 to 17-5-2009 continuously and completed continuous service of 240 days in every
year including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement. He was disengaged without giving any notice or
compensation. Being engaged continuously for around 13 years, he had acquired status of temporary staff , hence his
dis-engagement is against law. Accordingly the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with back wages and
benefits.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that there is Local Implementation Committee of staff members for
welfare of staff members in every branch. The Branch manager is the ex-officio President of the Said Committee.
The bank provides subsidy to the Committee for running canteen and catering services for the staff members working
in the branch. The said Committee engages canteen boys. Then Bank has nothing to with the engagement of such
canteen boys nor has any supervisory or administrative control over them. Payment of such canteen boys is made by
the Local Implementation Committee and not by the Bank. The workman in fact was engaged as a canteen boy by the
Local Implementation Committee. He was never engaged by the bank as claimed by the workman, hence there is no
question of his dis-engagement by Bank rather he was dis-engaged by the Local Employment Committee. This is also
the case of the Management that the workman never completed 240 days in continuous engagement in any year
preceding the date of his disengagement, accordingly the Management has requested that the reference be answered
against her workman.
4.
The workman has filed rejoinder, wherein he has mainly reiterated his case as stated in his statement on oath.
5.
None of the parties have filed any written or documentary evidence. The Management has filed written
arguments. None was present for workman at the time of argument. The workman has not filed any written argument
also.
6.
I have gone through the written argument filed by the Management and record .
7.
The Reference is the issue for determination , in the case in hand.
8.
The initial burden to prove his case as taken in his statement of claim is on the workman. He has failed in
doing so, hence holding his claim not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is
answered accordingly.
9.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri maharaj
Kumar Nishad w.e.f. 17/5/2009 is held to be legal and justified.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@236@2004-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
1336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/236/2004– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/8/2005
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kailash Prasad
S/o Shri Bhuvneshwar Prasad
Jhuggi No.23, Dharampuri,
Near Regional College,
Shyamla Hills Bhopal
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India
Local Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10-5-22)
As per letter dated 28-12-2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-12012/236/2004-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Kailash Prasad S/o Shri Bhuvaneshwar Prasad w.e.f. 1/2/1998 is
justified? If not, to 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/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was called for interview by the
management vide letter dated 27-4-1987 and after interview, he was first appointed as a daily wager on 11-5-1989 in
the Govindpura Branch of the Bank in Bhopal since then he has been working continuously till 23-12-1992 in the said
Branch and thereafter transferred to Sultaniya Road Branch, Bhopal where he worked continuously till 31-1-1998.
He was illegally disengaged under the oral orders of management on 1-2-1998 without paying any compensation or
notice which is against Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the word Act). His
disengagement is also in violation of Section 25H of the Act as he was not called upon to join when the vacancy came
out . Accordingly the workman has prayed that setting aside his dis-engagement, the workman be reinstated with all
back wages and benefits.
3.
According to the management the workman worked as a daily wager/mesanger in the Industrial Estate
Govindpura Branch from 1-5-1989 to 30-9-1990. He worked for a total period of 362 days in this span. Thereafter,
he worked in sultaniya road Branch from 15-8-1992 to 30-81998 for total number of 1473 days , hence he never
completed 240 days continuously in any year including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement. He was a
daily wager and was engaged on daily basis and and when required. His disengagement is not violative of the Act.
Accordingly the management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has examined himself on oath as witness. He has been cross-examined by management.
5.
The management has examined its witness Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Chief Manager who has been cross-
examined by the workman. The workman has filed and proved Exhibit W-1 his interview letter and Exhibit W-2 the
certificate issued by the Branch manager. No documents has been filed by Management. The workman did not appear
at the stage of arguments, hence arguments of learned counsel for the Management Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi were
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1337
heard. Learned Counsel has filed written arguments also, which is on record . I have gone through the written
arguments and record as well.
6.
The Reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
7.
Section 25B and Section 25F and Section 25 H of the Act are being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of
work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in
continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he
shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if
the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to
which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the
workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-
five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F.
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: 1[***] (b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on
the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate
Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]
25H.
Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the
employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be
prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer
themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-
employment shall have preference over other persons.
8.
The burden to prove continuous engagement for 140 days in any is on the workman. He has stated this fact
in his examination in Chief in the form of an affidavit. In cross-examination he admits that he was called for work by
the management as and when required. He also admits that he was not engaged by following recruitment procedure.
He further states that no written appointment letter was issued to him.
9.
Perusal of Exhibit W-2 makes it clear that according to this document, the workman worked as a daily wager
for 171 days in 1989 and 190 days in the year 1990 which is below the bar of 240 days in a year. The management
witness has stated categorically that the workman was a daily wager and was engaged by Bank as and when required.
He never completed 240 days in any year. This witness has further stated that he worked for a total period of 382
days within the time span of 11-5-1989 to 30-9-1990 in I.E Govindpura Branch and for 1473 days within the time
span of 15-8-1991 to 31-8-1998. This witness leads ignorance as to whether the workman was given any notice or
compensation before his dis-enagement.
10.
It is clear now that the present case is a case of affidavit vs. affidavit. One party asserts it and the other party
denies it . IN absence of evidence corroborating the claim made by the workman in his affidavit, his claim cannot be
held to be proved. Accordingly holding the claim of the workman not proved 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 Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Kailash Prasad S/o Shri Bhuvaneshwar Prasad w.e.f. 1/2/1998 is
held to be just and proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
1338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@63@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/63/2019– IR(B-1)]
D.GUHA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/5/2020
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan
F-1 Tripti Vihar, Opp.Engineering College
Ujjain (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General manaer,
State Bank of India
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10th day of May-2022)
As per letter dated 27/12/2019 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-
12011/63/2019-IR(B-1)The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bank karmchari Sangathan against the management of
SBI, LHO Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal claiming difference fo wages w.e.f. 1.11.1999 to 2016 and
regularization in service in favour of Shri Santosh Uchatia, daily wage workman is justified or not?if so,
what relief the daily wager is entitled for? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
Inspite of service on parties, the workman never appeared. None of the parties have filed any statement of
claim/defence inspite of sufficient time given to them.
3.
Since the burden to prove the claim is on the workman in which he has miserably failed. May be the
workman is not interested in pursing his claim.
4.
Accordingly the reference deserved to be answered against the workman and is answered against the
workman.
5.
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 : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1339
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if'pe e/; jsyos ds izca/kra=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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 122@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41012@33@2012-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41012/33/2012– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/122/2012
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Dashrath Kumar Raikwar,
S/o shri Panalal Raikwar
H.No.1868,Upper Lane,
Railway Colony,Civil Lines,
Jabalpur (MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager
West Central Railway
Jabalpur (M.P.)
The General Manager,
West Central Railway,
Indira market,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 11-5-2022)
As per letter dated 29/10/2012 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-
41012/33/2012_IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the disputant, Shri Dasrath Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Pannalal Raikwar, for
regularizing him in class-IV post w.e.f. 7/9/1999 by the Management of West Central Railway , Jabalpur is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?” .”
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/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was engaged as attendant in the
Homeopathic Dispensary which is an undertaking or part of Central Railway,Jabalpur. Wages and salary were paid
by Railways. He rendered his services from 7-9-1999 to 20-12-2003 without any break. He was discontinued form his
services wrongly without any reason under the oral orders of Management without any notice or compensation which
is against law. In the light of letter No.E/M dated 21-12-2006 issued by the Directorate of Railway Board and vide
letter dated 3-5-2006 issued by the Joint Directorate Railway Board, the similarly situated employees who were junior
to the workman were absorbed by the respondent. The workman filed petition before Central Administrative Tribunal
which is OA No.798/2010. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 6-1-2011 with a direction to Management
to consider the representation of the workman regarding his reinstatement and absorption. The management illegally
rejected his representation vide order dated 16-5-2011 ignoring the directions issued by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The workman again filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal No. OA/883/2011 which was
withdrawn with a liberty to avail remedy available under law. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Assistant
1340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur since the dispute was not resolved within 45 days nor was the matter sent to the
Central Government, he filed a case before this Tribunal. According to the workman the action of the management
was arbitrary and against law. The workman has not been gainfully employed since the date of his dis-engagement.
He has particularly prayed for his disengagement and absorption as regular Class-IV employee with all back wages
and benefits.
3.
The case of the management is that the Dispensary is not maintained and run by Railways but rather it is run
by SBF, a Committee of Railway employees who employ private Homeopathic Doctors on honorary basis. The
workman was not even employed by the SBF Committee because there was no post of Attendant to the Doctor. He
was appointed by the Doctor himself to help him. It is further pleaded that the wages of the workman and Doctor
were not paid by the Railways rather it was paid by the Committee. There has never been any relation of workman
and employer between the management and the applicant workman. The Railway Board Letter dated 3-5-2006
provides the cut off date for eligible candidates for absorption as 10-6-1997 which has never been extended.
Accordingly the Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has examined himself on oath. He has proved photocopy of entries in the attendance register
as Exhibit W-2. He has further proved a cheque issued by the Committee in favour of Dr.Nema for Rs.1100/- which
is Exhibit W-3. He has also proved letter of Public Information Officer issued in R.T.I stating that expenses and
wages of the persons working in the Homeopathy Hospital are paid by the SBF Committee as directed by Railway
Board. This document is Exhibit W-4. The workman has also been cross-examined by the Management. The
workman has also examined Shri C.L.Nema as its witness who has been examined and cross-examined on
Commission. Dr. C.L. Nema has proved Exhibit W-1 which is certificate issued by him mentioning that the workman
has been working as a peon in the Homeopathic Dispensary from 7-9-1999 to 7-9-2000. The workman has examined
another witness Ajay Singh Kaurav, Ex-Railway Employee who has been cross-examined by the Management. The
Management has examined Ram Singh, Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector Railways who has been cross-examined by
the workman side.
5.
None of the parties appeared for oral arguments. The management preferred to file written arguments which
is on record. I have gone through the record as well. The following issues arises for determination, after perusal of
record in the light of rival arguments:-
1.
“Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for more than 240
days in a year under the Management?
2.
Whether the dis-engagement of the workman is against law?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?”
6.
ISSUE NO.1:- This issue has two points for determination. The first is whether the workman was employed
under the Management of Railways and whether he continuously worked for 240 days or more in any year.?
7.
As regards the first point for determination, the workman has stated that he was appointed by the Railways
i.e. Management in the case as Assistant to the Homepathic Doctor whereas the Management has denied and has
stated that in fact he was engaged by the Doctor himself who was engaged by the SBF Committee of the Railway
Employees and payment of wages were made to the Doctor and the workman by the SBF employees. The workman
and management witness both have reiterated their case on this point. The Doctor witness C.L.Nema has submitted
that the workman was employed by one Sharmaji of Personel Department who was Assistant Personnel Officer. This
witness admits that wages has been paid from the Account of the SBF Committee.
8.
The other witness Kaurav who is a retired Railway Employee has stated that he had seen the workman
working in the Homeopathy Hospital. The photo copy of cheque provided by the workman goes to show that the
cheque was issued by the SBF Committee, the RTI letter Exhibit W-4 also reiterates the same. There is no document
regarding appointment of the workman in form of offer of appointment. The workman also admits that he did not go
through any recruitment process before his engagement. Hence from the above discussion, the relationship of an
employer and workman as defined in the Act is held not proved between the parties. It is held proved that the
workman was working under the SBF Committee and not under the Railways.
9.
As regards the point , whether the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year or not,
the workman has proved attendance sheets which are photocopy and show his attendance. This attendance sheet is
counter signed by the Doctor witness. The workman has further stated that he worked continuously for 240 days in
every year. His dis-engagement is corroborated by proved attendance sheet, hence the fact that workman worked for
240 days in a year including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement is held proved. Issue No.1 is answered
accordingly.
10.
Issue No.2 & Issue No.3:- For the sake of convenience, Issue No.2 and Issue No.3 are taken together. In
the light of the finding on Issue No.1, the dis-engagement of the workman may be said to be against law because no
notice or compensation was given by the Committee which engaged him before his dis-engagement but since the SBF
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1341
Committee is independent of the management of Railways which are a party to the reference, the workman is entitled
to claim no relief from the Management of Railways’. Accordingly Issue No.2 and Issue No.3 are answered.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The demand of the disputant, Shri Dasrath Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Pannalal Raikwar, for
regularizing him in class-IV post w.e.f. 7/9/1999 by the Management of West Central Railway,
Jabalpur 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
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 653.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
अध् क्ष और प्रबंि जनिेिक,मेससज भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली; मु् मिाप्रबंिक,मेससज भारत संचार जनगम
जलजमटेड, जत्रवेंरम, प्रिान मिाप्रबंिक, मेससज भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, बीएसएनएल, का ाजल ृुलीमूड िंक्िन,
कोट्टा म के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और जिला सजचव, बीएसएनएल कजिुअल कॉन्रजक्ट लेबर ूजन न (सीटू) कोट्टा म
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनाजकुलम के ृंचाट(संिभज सं् ा
28/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
22.06.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40011/5/2020- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2020) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum
Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi ,;The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Trivandrum,; The Principal General Manager, M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
BSNL Office, Pulimood Junction, Kottayamand and The District Secretary, BSNL Casual Contract Labour Union
(CITU),Kottayam, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.06.2022.
[No. - 40011/5/2020- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 27th day of April 2022, 7 Vaisakha1944)
ID No.28/2020
Workman/Union
:
The District Secretary
BSNL Casual Contract Labour Union (CITU)
Kottayam District Committee
Kottayam - 682002
Managements
: 1. The Chairman and Managing Director
M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan
Harish Mathur Lane, Janpat
New Delhi – 110001
2. The Chief General Manager
M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Kerala Circle
Trivandrum – 695033
1342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The Principal General Manager
M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
BSNL Office
Pulimood Junction
Kottayam - 682002
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.04.2022 and the same day this Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt
passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry ofLabourby its order No. L-
40011/5/2020-IR(DU) dated 17.07.2020 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL in denying regularization as demanded by the BSNL
Casual Contract Labour Union (CITU) vide letter dt.31.05.2019 to Rajendran K. and 40 others contract
workers (as per the annexure-v enclosed) engaged in Kottayam SSA for the work of Technicians/Associate
Engineers for doing line maintenance, Cable fault rectification and broadband maintenance/commercial
works etc. in BSNL is proper and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to ? What other
directions, if any, are necessary in the matter ?"
3.
After receipt of the reference from the Central Govt, notice was issued to the Union as well as Managements
1, 2 and 3. The Managements 2 and 3 entered appearance. Thereafter the matter was posted on various dates for filing
claim statement. The Union never entered appearance. After 18.11.2021 there was no representation for the parties
and no claim statement is filed inspite of the directions issued by this Tribunal. Finally the matter was taken up on
27.04.2022. There was no representation for the parties and no claim statement is filed even after 2 years after
acknowledged the notice by the Union. Hence it is felt that the Union is not interested in prosecuting the industrial
dispute and there is no point in continuing with the industrial dispute.
4.
Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the Union.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.;
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 654. —औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार जिला अजभ ंता (िूरसंचार),भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, मंडला (म.प्र.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री संतोष कुमार जतवारी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/8/2010) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 28.06.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40012/82/2009- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/8/2010) of the Central Government Industrial-
Tribunal-cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The District Engineer (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Mandla (M.P.)and Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.06.2022.
[No. L- 40012/82/2009- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1343
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/8/2010
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Qtr .No.S-41, Jail Lines,
Central Jail,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The District Engineer(Telecom)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Mandla (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10-6-22)
As per letter dated 5/1/2010 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-
40012/82/2009—IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the District Engineer(Telecom,BSNL, Mandla, in terminating
the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari w.e.f. 4/1/2006 is legal and 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/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he has been working with the
management as driver since 1995 in the office of District Engineer Telecom, Mandla as a daily wager on fixed salary
of Rs.1600/-. He completed about 11 years in continuous service but in the capacity of daily wage driver and worked
to the satisfaction of Management. He was issued various appreciation certificate from time to time by representative
of the management. Also before working as a driver, he has worked continuously as a labour in muster roll from 1990
to 1995. The Management terminated his services w.e.f. May-2006 without any notice or compensation or
opportunity of hearing inspite of the fact that there were clear vacant posts with the Management. According to the
workman, the action of the management is against law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the workman has
prayed that he be reinstated in service with all back wages and benefits.
3.
The case of management is mainly that though the workman worked as a daily wage driver but he never
worked continuously for 240 days in a year, hence his dis-engagement is not against law and reference deserves to be
answered against the workman .
4.
The workman has filed his rejoinder wherein he has mainly reiterated his case as taken in his statement of
claim
5.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has proved documents
Exhibit W-1 photocopy of log book which is appreciation letters issued by the Officers of the Management ,Exhibit
W-2 to Exhibit W-11. He has also filed and proved gate pass issued to him on 5-4-2006 by management, Exhibit W-
12 and the copies of all the application filed by him on different dates seeking his regularization Exhibit W-13 to W-
19 and other were appreciation letters Exhibit W-20 to W-22. He has been examined by the Management. The
Management has preferred not to examine any witness.
6.
I have heard arguments of Mr. Praveen Yadav, learned counsel for the workman. None was present for the
Management at the time of arguments. The Management has preferred not to file any written argument also. I have
gone through the written argument and the record as well.
7.
On perusal of record in the light of rival claims and arguments, the following issues come up for
determination, in the case in hand:-
(1)
Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement of 240 days in
every year including the year preceding the date of his disengagement?
(2)
Whether the dis-engagement of the workman is justified in law and facts?
(3)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
1344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
ISSUE No.1:-
The respective claims of the parties on this issue have been elaborated earlier. Before entering into merits
some provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 requires to be reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous
service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to
be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case
of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding
the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
9.
It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as a daily wager right from 1995 till March-2006. This
fact is not disputed specifically by management in their written statement of defense. Another claim of the workman
is that he continuously worked during this period for more than 240 days in every year including the date of his
disengagement. The burden to prove this fact is on the workman because the management has denied this claim.
10.
The workman has examined himself as witness and he has reiterated his claim as mentioned above in his
examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit. In his cross-examination he admits that he was first kept on muster
roll as labour. He denies that he was called for duty as and when required. He also denies that he never worked
continuously for 240 days in any year . There is nothing more significant in his cross-examination. The workman has
further filed and proved appreciation letters Exhibit W-1 to W-14. Exhibit -17 to W-23 which certify that this
workman has been working as a driver with the management as a daily wager and has been driving the management
vehicle. This certificate ranges from 1996 to 2005. These certificates reiterate the case of the workman as stated by
the workman in his statement on oath on this point. His case is further corroborated by Exhibit W-15, W-16 which
show that the workman has been driving the Management vehicle. The workman has further filed photocopy of log
book maintained by workman which is in 17 pages, Exhibit W-23 . This document also corroborates the case of the
workman as stated above.
11.
His case is further corroborated by another set of photocopy of log book filed and proved by the workman
which is 623 pages showing that he has been driving the Management vehicle. The latest entry in this document is
of 17-3-2006 and the first entry of 4-3-1996.
12.
As against this evidence, the Management has not filed and proved any documents nor has examined any
witness. Hence there is no occasion for this Tribunal to disbelieve the claim of the workman as stated above.
Accordingly the claim of the workman that he continuously worked for 240 days or more in every year from 1995 to
2006 including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement is held proved. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
13.
ISSUE NO.2:-
The workman has assailed his dis-engagement on two grounds. Firstly no notice or compensation was given
before his dis-engagement. Hence there is violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and
consequently one Todar Singh junior to him was given permanent employment ignoring the claim of the workman,
hence there violation of Section 25G of the Act. Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is being
reproduced as below:-
25F.
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: 1[***] (b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on
the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate
Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1345
25G.
Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any
other workman.
14.
It is not disputed that no notice or compensation was given by the management to the workman before his
termination. The workman has reiterated this fact in his statement of oath also, hence the termination of the workman
is in violation of Section 25F of the Act and is held so accordingly.
15.
As regards the second ground , the workman has stated that One Todar Singh Yadav who was junior to him
is still working in the department as a regular employee. The Management has not examined the workman on these
facts. Hence it will be deemed that this facts were admitted by the Management, hence his disengagement of the
workman is also held in violation of Section 25G of the Act. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
16.
Issue No.3:-
In the light of the finding recorded earlier, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled to.
Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that the workman should be ordered to be reinstated with full back
wages and benefits. He has referred to a decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State
of Haryana & Others (2015) 4 SCC 458. In this case it has been laid down in para 21 and 22 of the judgment that
when order of termination is void ab initio, the workman is entitled to full back wages.
Hon’ble the Apex Court has referred to another three Bench Judgement in the Deepali Gundu Surwase V.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak mahavidyalaya(2013) 10 SCC 324.
In the case of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another (2014) 15 SCC
313, a two Judges Bench has laid down certain criteria for awarding reinstatement with full back wages.
In another case Municipal Council, Jintur V. Sunder Namdeo Khillare(2013) LAB.I.C. 2818 Bombay
High Court a Single Bench Judgement has been referred to by learned counsel for the workman. It has been laid
down that when it was proved that six employees junior to the workman were regularized, the regularization of the
applicant /dailywager workman, setting aside his termination is not un-justified.
In the case of Officer Incharge Defence Standardization Cell V. Mukesh Kumar(2013) LAB.I.C.3329.
Delhi High Court, another Single Bench Judgement referred to by learned counsel for the workman the practice of
appointing workman on monthly basis and renewing it every month for a period of 3 years as held unfair labour
practice. The work done by him was of perennial nature. His termination was held unjustified in law. Direction of
reinstatement of workman with 25% of back wages was upheld.
The case of Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra) is a three bench judgment , hence the principles laid down in this
case will override the decisions of all the cases referred above. Hon’ble the Apex Court has laid down following
broad principles which are as under:-
“38.
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
38.1.
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
38.2.
The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the
adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the
employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/
workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3.
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/ workman was
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the
termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to
specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the
same or substantially similar emoluments.
1346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
38.4.
The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11- A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the
employee/ workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing
orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found
proved then it will have the discretion not to award fullback wages. However, if the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charges then there will be ample
justification for award of full back wages.
38.5.
The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross
violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of
victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully
justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Court should not
exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award
passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s
obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of
wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrong doer is the employer and sufferer is the
employee/workman and there is justification to give premium to,the employer of his wrong
doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of
full back wages.
38.6
In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary
adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time
ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this
the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee
or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the
termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should
bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis
the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the
agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending
money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases, it would be prudent
to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin works Private Limited V.Employees of
Hindustan TinWorks Private Limited (supra).
38.7
The observation made inJ.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the
employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the
judgments of three Judge Benches referred to here-in-above and cannot be treated as good
law.This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an
employee/workman.
Furthermore, in Tapash Kumar Paul V. BSNL (2014) 4 SCR 875 :[2014(6) SLR 538 (SC)], it is
held :-
“Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu’s case (supra) which
has correctly relied upon higher bench decisions of this Court in Surendra Kumar Verma’s
case (supra) and Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the opinion that the
appellant herein is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since in the absence of full
back wages, the employee will be distressed and will suffer punishment for no fault of his
own.”
17.
Know coming to the case in hand , in the light of the aforesaid preposition of las, it is established that the
workman has spent around eleven years as Driver and before that five years as muster roll. He has been a daily wager
all throughout. This is also established that he has not been selected by following due procedure regarding
recruitment of driver. There is evidence on record that there was a vacancy of driver at the time when the dispute was
raised. This is also proved that one person junior to him has been given regular appointment as claimed by the
workman in his statement on oath and the Management has not controverted this allegation by any evidence. Since
the workman was not appointed as per recruitment procedure against any vacancy, his reinstatement will not be a
relief justified in law. In may considered view, keeping in view the tenure of engagement and other facts concerned
as mentioned above, a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) as full and final settlement of
all his claims will meet the ends of justice. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
18.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1347
A.
The action of the management of the District Engineer(Telecom,BSNL, Mandla, in
terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari w.e.f. 4/1/2006 is held against law.
B.
The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh
only) as full and final settlement of all his claims. The amount shall be payable by
management within 30 days from the date of publication of Award in official gazette, failing
which it shall attract simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Award till payment.
C.
Parties to bear their own cost.
19.
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, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 655.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मजससज एनी टाइम सर्वजस प्रा. जलजमटेड, का ाजल , टीए-91, ओररएंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमसज के ृास बेसमेंट, मु्
तुगलकाबाि एक्सटेंिन, नई दिल्ली, मिाजनिेिक, मेससज मिाले ा जन ंत्रक, आईएनए, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जन ोिकों और श्री िजलेंर ससंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम
न् ा ाल -1 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 182/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2022-19-आईआर (डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 182/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s. Any time Service Pvt. Ltd., Office at, TA-91, Basement Near Oriental Bank of Commerce, Main Tughlakabad
Extn. New Delhi,;The Director General, M/s. Controller General of Account, INA, New Delhi and Shri Shailendra
Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.07.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2022-19-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-I, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty
ID.NO.182/2019
Shri Shailendra Singh,
S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh,
R/o C-570, J.J. Camp, C-40,
Near Gate No.6, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-2 New Delhi-110020
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Any time Service Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at, TA-91, Basement Near Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Main Tughlakabad Extn.
New Delhi-110019.
2.
The Director General,
M/s. Controller General of Account,
INA, New Delhi.
…Management
1348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Shailendra Singh (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired
from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act
empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His
contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been
given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of
section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered
requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being
referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2.
The claimant had moved an application with requested to withdraw the case as do not have any demands
against the management. Now ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award passed. 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
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 656.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससज बीआर अम्बेडकर बा ो मेजडकल, अनुसंिान केंर, (एसीबीआर) नॉ ज कैंृस,दिल्ली,; मजससज प्रीजम र
सेफगा्सज 20, जववेकानंि माकेट, सेक्टर-2,आर के ृुरम, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती
दकरणवती, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1 नई दिल्ली
ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 236/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2022-18-आईआर (डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 236/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/S. B.R Ambedkar Bio Medical, Research Centre, (ACBR) North Campus, Delhi,; M/s Premier Safeguards at
20,Vivekanand Market, sector-1, R.K Puram, New Delhi and Smt. Kiranwati,Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.07.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2022-18-IR (DU)]
D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-I, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 236/2018
Date of Passing Award- 31.05.2022
Between:
Smt. Kiranwati,
W/o Late Shri Ram Kumar,
R/o H. No. G-250, Gali No. 30 (Old Gali No.8),
West Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
…Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1349
Versus
1.
M/s. B.R Ambedkar Bio Medical,
Research Centre,
(ACBR) North Campus,
Delhi- 110007.
2.
M/s. Premier Safeguards at 20,
Vivekanand Market, sector-1,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Sunil Kumar (A/R)
: For the claimant
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant wherein she has stated that from 25.04.2017 she was employed as
security Guard in the establishment of the management no.1 on a monthly wage of Rs. 7800/-. She had joined the
service through the contractor M/s Premier Safeguard and the said management had assured her that the monthly
salary would be Rs. 14000/- But the said salary was never paid to her and her remuneration per month was confined to
Rs. 7400/-.At the time of her employment no appointment letter minimum wage facilities of PF and ESI, leave and
overtime etc paid to her. She was not even allowed to sign in the attendance register for which she was often raising
objection. On 24.08.2017 the management did not allow her to enter the premises and resume the duty. Her service
was later on terminated w.e.f 31.08.2017. At the time of termination the provision of section 25F and G were never
complied by the employer. Being aggrieved he had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner
where a conciliation took place. But the conciliation failed for the non cooperation of the management. Finding no
other way she filed the present application seeking the relief of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential
benefits.
Initially B R Ambedkar Bio Medical Research centre was added as the only management. Subsequently a
contractor M/s Premier Safeguard was added as the respondent NO.2 by order dated 01.04.2019.
Being noticed though an official of Management no.1 had appeared on 09.10.2018 and received the copy of
the claim no WS was filed. Subsequently the management NO.2 was proceeded exparte by order dated 22.11.2019
and on the same date the right of the management No.1 for filing WS was closed.
The claimant testified as WW1and proved the failure report issued by the Labour Commissioner as WW1/1.
The claim petition filed before the Labour Commissioner and the representation filed by the claimant to the
management have been marked as WW1/3. The photocopy of the bank passbook showing credit of Rs. 7800/- per
month in the account of the claimant has been filed. The reply submitted by the management no.1 during the
conciliation showing breakup of the salary and the office note of management no.1 with regard to the claim of the
claimant before the labour commissioner has been marked as WW1/5 and WW1/6 respectively.
In her oral testimony the claimant has stated that she was working for the management NO.1 to the
satisfaction of the employer. But her service was abruptly terminated by the management and while doing so the
provisions of section 25F and G were not complied. Describing the same as illegal act contrary to the provision of
law the claimant has stated that a direction be given for his reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
The claimant has described herself as permanent employee and thus, the illegality committed in her
termination.
Perusal of the evidence and the documents it appears that the claimant had worked as a security guard for a
brief period i.e. from 25.04.2017 to 31.08.2017 i.e. for four months only. The provision of law laid u/s 25F of the ID
Act clearly provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under an employer shall be retrenched until the workman has been given one month notice indicating the
reason of retrenchment, has been paid 15 days average pay for a every completed year of continuous service etc. for
the purpose of deciding continuous service it is required to be proved that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar
year preceding to her retrenchment. Here is a case where the claimant had served for four months only and the office
note of the management no.1 marked as WW1/6 clearly discloses that the service of the claimant was not satisfactory
for which the contractor was asked to remove her from the premises. That instruction was carried out by the
management. Such a situation this tribunal in absence of any other evidence is of the view that no illegality was
committed in termination of the service of the claimant. Thus held that the claim is not maintainable and claimant is
held not entitled to any relief. Hence, ordered.
1350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is dismissed on merit. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate
government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 657.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, अिोक िोटल, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अिोक िोटल मििूर िनता ूजन न,
चाणक् ृुरी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1
नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 151/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 08.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42011/144/2021-आईआर (डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2022
S.O. 657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager, Ashok Hotel, New Delhi and The Ashok Hotel Majdoor Janta Union, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.07.2022.
[No. L-42011/144/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-I, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Parnita Mohanty
ID.NO.151/2021
The Ashok Hotel Majdoor Janta Union
(Affiliated to HMS), C-47, Ashok Hotel
Staff others, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi-110003
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Ashok Hotel,
New Delhi-110021.
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.
L42011/144/2021-IR-(DU) dated 30.11.2021 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:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Ashok Hotel Majdoor Hotel Janta Union vide letter dated 04.04.2019 to the
management of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi for payment of bonus for the year 2017-18 directly to the garden
employee as well as staff quarter employee is proper, legal and justified ? If so, to what relief the disputant
is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter” ?
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1351
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 filed an application with the request to declare no dispute
award regarding less payment of bonus for financial year 2017-2018. That during the period, the management has
paid balance amount of bonus for the financial year 2017-18.
3.
Since the workman and management no left any dispute regarding payment of bonus for the year 2017-18.
Now ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award passed. 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
नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 658.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, बैंक नोट प्रेस, िेवास (म.प्र.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिाप्रबंिक, बैंक नोट प्रेस
क्रांजतकारी कमजचारी संघ, िेवास के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/99/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.एल-16011/5/2003-आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 11th July 2022
S.O. 658.—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/99/2007) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas (M.P.) and The General Manager, Bank Note Press Krantikari
Karmachari Sangh, Dewas which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
07.07.2022.
[No. L-16011/5/2003- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/99/2007
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Versus
The General Manager
Bank Note Press Krantikari
Karmachari Sangh,
3370, BNP Colony, Dewas.
…Workman
The General Manager,
Bank Note Press,
Dewas (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 9-6-22)
As per letter dated 20/9/2007 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-16011/5/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
1352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Note Press Mazdoor Sangh for seeking similar incentives, for the
workmen employed in Ink Factory, as paid to workmen in Bank Note Press, Dewas, is legal and justified?
If yes, to what relief the workmen are 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/defense.
2.
According to the workman Union the Bank Note press is a factory registered under the Factories Act and is
engaged in printing of currency notes. There are various sections in the factories such as Control, printing, plate
making, stores workshop, Ink Factory, dispensary, Estate, Administrative Section etc. The Bank Note Press launched
a group incentive scheme with a view to increase production. The endorsement of the Scheme read as under :-
“The scheme will cover all industrial employees and such classified staff up to the level of inspector,
Junior supervisors and store keepers attached to the factory, who are observing the same working
hours and holidays as the factory and whose presence is necessary for efficient working of industrial
employees . The scheme does not cover any office staff and staff engaged in Estate, Dispensary and
Canteen.”
3.
According to the workman all the employees are covered under the definition of worker in Factories Act but
they are beings discriminated with regard to the incentive. The employees of Control, Canteen, and workshop
sections are being given undue favour in this respect. The employees of canteen dispensary and estate staff are not
being given benefit of incentive scheme at par with the workers of Printing Control workshop etc. According to the
workman this against Rule 14 and 16 and Article 38 and 37 of the Indian Constitution. Accordingly, the workman
Union has prayed that the benefit of Incentive Scheme be given to the workers working in Ink Factory and other
sections at par with the workers working in Printing Control and workshop Sections.
4.
The case of the management is mainly that the Order No.F.3(10)/80-BNP datedf 5th October,1983 which
was made effective from 11-9-1983(i.e. the date of signing of the agreement)has been applicable to both main Factory
and Ink Factory. For example, earlier to this order, the incentive payment was payable only on the Basic pay for the
employees of main Factory and Ink Factory. With this order the employees of the main factory and Ink Factory
started getting incentive including basic pay + D.A. + ADA + 4 hours per week single rate Overtime Allowance as per
Para 5 of this order, the workmen of Ink Factory would continue to remain a separate group as was being followed
since 1977. The submission of the applicants that without slightest justification highly arbitrary discrimination was
introduced in the scheme whereby relief is denied to employees woking in the Ink Factory is totally wrong and
baseless. In fact, the Ink Factory employees are also benefited with this order as the emoluments for the purpose of
incentive included basic pay+DA+ADA=4 hours single OTA per week. The base level of the Ink Factory was 65%
of the machine utilization which was reduced to 60% vide Order No.F.4(68)/83-BNP dated 5th March,1987 which was
further benefited the employees of the Ink Factory for earning incentive payment. Accordingly the management has
prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
5.
In evidence the workman Union has examined Ramlal Manjhi who has been cross-examined by the
management. The management has not cross-examined any witness.
6.
Heard argument of Shri A.K.Shashi , learned counsel for the workman and Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned
counsel for the management and have perused the record.
7.
The reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.
8.
The only point to be answered in the case is whether the Management is justified in granting two sets of
incentive to the workers working in the Ink Factory and the workers working in the Main Factory. The case of the
workman is that since both the section workers are required for production and printing of currency notes, hence there
cannot be any discrimination in this respect. There is a copy of group incentive Scheme for the Bank Note press
issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Union of India. Copy of this scheme is on the
record of the file. According to para-3 the scheme will cover direct industrial workers of Printing Control department
and Ink Factory and other workers which are essential staff direct supervisory staff and non-essential direct staff as
mentioned in this Rule 6A provides about the rates of incentive. According to Rule 6 the direct workers of the printing
press especially geletain section will be given incentive starting from 75%/40%/60% of the basis pay whereas the
workers of Ink Factory will be given incentive of 65%/40%/60% of basic pay . It is clear that the group incentive
scheme itself provides two rates of incentive to the workers or Printing Press and Ink Factory hence, the management
of Bank Note Press cannot be held unjustified in law and fact in awarding incentive at two different rates to the
workers of Printing Factory and Ink Factory and accordingly the workman of Ink Factory and other establishment are
held not entitled to get incentive at par with workers of Printing Factory. The reference deserves to be answered
accordingly.
9.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1353
A.
The demand of the Bhartiya Note Press Mazdoor Sangh for seeking similar incentives, for the
workmen employed in Ink Factory, as paid to workmen in Bank Note Press, Dewas, is held not
justified in law and fact.
B.
The workmen are held entitled to no relief.
10.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eukyk ckyk?kkV {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gSA
[la- ,y-12012@3@2005- vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/3/2005– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2005
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
M.B.K.G.B. Karamchari Union,
Motinagar,Ward No.24,
Balaghat-481445 (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Behind Bus Stand,
Mandla (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 12-5-22)
As per letter dated 7/9/2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/3/2005-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, Mandla Balagaht Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Mandla in not regularizing Shri Samlulal Yadav and terminating his services is legal and justified? if not,
to what relief the workman is entitled for? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have filed
their respective statement of defence/claim.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed by the management
bank after following due procedure against a clear vacancy w.e.f. 1-1-1998 for the post of Messenger and has been
working continuously since then. He was not paid wages as paid to regular employees working on the same post and
doing the same job which is in violation of Article 39(d) of Constitution of India. He has been paid wages on daily
1354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rated basis by Management Bank after continuously engaging the workman for more than 240 days in every year ,
his services were terminated in the year 2005 without any notice or compensation which is against law. It is further
stated that on 30-9-2000 five posts of permanent messenger were lying vacant as per the letter issued by the Head
office of the management Bank. The Chairman of the Management Bank admitted in his letter dated 16-1-2004 that
55 persons were working on daily wages as messengers in different branches of the Bank but the management did not
regularize his services which is also against law. The wages were paid by the Management to the workman through
vouchers. Accordingly the workman has prayed that setting aside his dis-engagement, the workman be reinstated and
regularized .
3.
The case of the management is mainly that the earlier management of MandlaBalagahatShetriyaGramin
Bank is now named as SatpuraShetriyaGramin Bank after amalgamation. The workman was engaged by the earlier
bank before amalgamation, hence there has never been any relation of workman and employee between the present
management of the Bank who have not been impleaded as party in the reference. It is also stated that the workman
had in fact worked as a daily wager on the basis of availability of work in the Branch for which he was paid. Since he
was not appointed against any vacancy, following the recruitment procedure, his disengagement without notice is not
against law. Also it has been stated that he never completed 240 days or more in any year including the year of his
alleged dis-engagement.
4.
The workman has examined himself as a witness. He has been cross-examined by Management. He has
been re-examined further. He has proved Exhibit W-1, W-2 and W-3 which are letter of Branch Manager dated 15-6-
2011 certificate issued by the Branch dated 21-10-2010 and certificate dated 16-8-2014. The workman has further
filed copy of letter of Branch Manager BhambhaniBhanjare sent by him to the General Manager on 21-10-2010, copy
of dispatch register regarding 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 all admitted by Management.
5.
Management has filed copyof letter of District Employment Officer, Balaghat dated 15-3-2011 sent to the
General Manager , copyof letter of General Manager dated 3-3-2011 regarding 23 vacancies of messengers in the
Branch and requesting him to send names of the candidates. The Management has also filed requisition form(copy)
for recruitment through employment exchanges, letter of Management dated 10-9-2010 sent to another employee
HarilalHandaall admitted by workman and marked as Exhibit M1 to M4.
6.
The Management has examined Vimal Kumar Jain Scale-1Officer as its witness who has been cross
examined by the workman side.
7.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the workman and Management. The Management has
preferred written arguments also through its learned counsel ShriAshishShroti. I have gone through the written
arguments and the records.
8.
Following issues arises for determination, in the case in hand after peruse of record in the light of rival
arguments:-
1.
Whether the workman has successfully proved his disengagement for a period of 240 days in
every year and the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement.?
2.
Whether the dis-engagement of the workman is legal ?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
9.
Issue No.1 and Issue No.2:- Since these two issues are inter linked with each other , they are being taken
together. Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act is being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous
service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to
be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case
of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding
the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1355
10.
The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a messenger against the vacancy by the management.
He has corroborated his case in his statement on oath, on this point. He has failed to file any appointment letter
offering him appointment. He also admits that his name was not in any seniority list but the persons who was engaged
later on was regularized .there is nothing in his statement to show that he was appointed by following the due
procedure of recruitment. The Management witness has stated on oath that he was a daily wager to work on daily
basis as and when required by the Branch and he never completed 240 days in continuous service in any year. The
witnessfurther denied that any workman junior to him was regularized.
11.
Exhibit W-1 is the communication sent to the Branch Manager by General Manager of the Bank wherein he
has stated that the Branch has taken the work of messengerfrom applicant /workman since long which is againstthe
directions. The two certificates Exhibit W-1 and W-3 also corroborates the statement of the workman on this point,
hence in the light of these facts, the stand of the workman that he worked continuously for 240 days in every year
appears more to be more reliable and probable than the management witness on this point. Hence the workman is
held to have proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in every year as a daily wager including the year
preceding the date of his dis-engagement. It is also not disputed that no notice or compensation was issued before the
dis-engagement of the workman. This is in violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is
being reproduced as follows:-
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf,
the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that
category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
12.
Though the workman has taken another ground that persons engaged after the workman have been
regularized but his allegation is held not proved in the light of the above discussion. Issue No.1 and Issue No.2 is
answered accordingly.
13.
Issue No.3:- In the light of the findings recorded earlier, the point which arises for consideration is as to what
relief the workman is entitled. It has been submitted from the side of the management that the workman was not
appointed against vacancy following recruitment procedure . It is also submitted that the Bank has amalgamated in
another bank and on these grounds it has been submitted that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement
/regularization of his services. Judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in HondaramRamchandra Vs. Yeshwant
Mahadev Kadam (2007) 14 SCC 277 in this respect. Learned Counsel has further referred to another judgment of
Mahboob Deepak vs Nagar PanchayatGajraula&Anr (2008)1 SCC 575. In the light of the principle laid down in
these two judgments, the workman is held not entitled to reinstatement/regularization of his services. Keeping in view
the period of his engagement for about 10 years and the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as mentioned
above, a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice. Issue No.3 is
answered accordingly.
14.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the of the Chairman, MandlaBalagahtKshetriyaGramin Bank Mandla in not
regularizing Shri Samlulal Yadav and terminating his services is held to be bad in law.
B.
The workman is held entitled a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs, one lakh only)in
lieu of his claims as full and final settlement payable by Management with interest @9% p.a.
from the date of publication of Award in Official Gazette till the date of payment.
15.
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] 12 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@31@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
1356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/31/2019– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2019
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
All India State Bank of India Employees
Association, C/o State Bank of India,
Shahpura Branch (Bhopal)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General manager
Stater Bank of India
Local Head office
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10th day of May-2022)
As per letter dated 9-8-2019 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-
12011/31/2019-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (Erstwhile State
Bank of Indore) in terminating the services of workmen Shri Nemi chand Patel w.e.f. February-2013 &
Shri Mahesh Mehra w.e.f. 2010 & not regularising them even after completion of 240 days in a calendar
year is legal and justified?if not to what relief the above workmen are entitled for? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
Inspite of service on parties, the workman never appeared. None of the parties have filed any statement of
claim/defence inspite of sufficient time given to them.
3.
Since the burden to prove the claim is on the workman in which he has miserably failed. May be the
workman is not interested in pursing his claim.
4.
Accordingly the reference deserved to be answered against the workman and is answered against the
workman.
5.
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] 12 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kra=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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@64@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1357
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/64/2019– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/2020
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank karmachari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar. Opposite Engineering college
Ujjain (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Dy.General manager (O & C)
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office
Hoshangabad road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 10th day of May-2022)
As per letter dated 23/12/2019by 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-
12011/64/2019-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Union named Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan claiming Bonus
payment in favour of Shri Santosh Uchatiya daily wage employee(Sweeper for the period from 1-11-99 to 31-
3-2016 is justified or not?If so, what relief the daily wager is entitled for? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
Inspite of service on parties, the workman never appeared. None of the parties have filed any statement of
claim/defence inspite of sufficient time given to them.
3.
Since the burden to prove the claim is on the workman in which he has miserably failed. May be the
workman is not interested in pursing his claim.
4.
Accordingly the reference deserved to be answered against the workman and is answered against the
workman.
5.
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] 12 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/;]
e/; izns'k xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@12@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
1358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Madhya Pradesh
Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/12/2014– IR(B-1)
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2014
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Dhruvdas Kolare,
Ward No.-16,Parasia,
District Chhindwara
…Workman
Versus
The President ,
Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank
South Civil Lines,
Chhindwara (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 11-5-2022)
As per letter dated 11/3/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/12/2014-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya shri Dhruvdas Kolare jo varsh 2004 se 2011 tak Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, Chandmeta
mein Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari ke roop mein mein neyojit the ko bank Prabhandan ke dwara
Neyemet kamgar ke roop mein shamil kar neyamit na kiye jaana uchhit hai?Yadi nahi to Shri Dhruvdas
Kolare kya anutosh paane ke adhikari hain? .”
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 defence/claim.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he worked as a peon continuously without any
break in Chaandmeta Branch of the Bank from year 2004 to year 2007 and in Parasiya Branch from year 2007 to
year 2011. He was discontinued by Management without any notice or compensation in August-2011. The three
other employees namely Jugal Kishore Aldak, Sudhakar Dhakre and Chandrakan Baraskar were working in the
Respondent Bank who were on similar footing, raised a dispute and they were ordered to be regularized by Labour
Court Chhindwara. According to the workman, the Management has acted arbitrarily in disengaging the workman
and not regularizing him.
3. According to the management, the workman was engaged as a daily wager on the availability of the work in the
Bank. He never worked continuously for 240days in any year including the year preceding the date of his dis-
engagement. The management has further denied any regularization of service of Jugal Kishore Aldak, Sudhakar
Dhakre and Chandrakan Baraskar as mentioned by the workman. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the
reference be answered against the workman.
4. The workman has examined himself on oath as witness. He has filed and proved Exhibit W-4 letter dated 5-7-
2005 issued by the Bank. Exhibit W-5 is photocopy of deposit slip and Exhibit W-6 is photocopy of payment
voucher, Exhibit W-7 is photocopy of stamp voucher, Exhibit W-8 is schedule for preparing and depositing cheque.
Another Voucher is Exhibit W-9, a letter of management is Exhibit W-10, deposit of cheque is Exhibit W-11, letter
written by cashier is Exhibit W-12 and another letter issued by Bank is Exhibit W-13. Exhibit W-1 is the notice
issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner during the pendency of the dispute, Exhibit W-2 is letter of Assistant
Labour Commissioner to Secretary of the Ministry which are admitted by the Management.
5. The Management has filed deposit slip/payment voucher of copies admitted by workman which are Exhibit M-1
to Exhibit M-16 and has examined its witness Tikaram Joshi, Branch Manager who was not cross-examined by the
workman, hence opportunity was closed. I have heard arguments of workman in person. The Management has not
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1359
submitted any any written argument. I have perused the record in the light of the rival arguments. The following
issues come up for determination in the case in hand:-
1.
Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in a year
including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement?
2.
Whether the dis-engagement of the workman is legal?
3.
Relief to which the workman may be entitled to?
6. ISSUE NO.1:-
Before entering into any discussion Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, requires to be reproduced as
under:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous
service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to
be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a
period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case
of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding
the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
7. The case of the workman is that he was appointed on regular basis, whereas according to the Management the
workman was employed as a daily wager who never completed 240 days in any year in continuous service. From the
evidence on record, it transpires that the workman was not selected following the recruitment process. There is no
evidence to support this point. A comparative study of the statement of the workman in the light of the statement of
the Management witness brings out and establishes the fact that the workman was a daily wager, engaged by the
Management. Though the Management witness had denied the continuous engagement of workman for 240 days and
more in any year but Management witness has not appeared for cross-examination and secondly the statement of the
workman is consistent on this point and is supported by the documents Exhibit W-1 to W-8 proved by the workman
and payment vouchers filed by Management itself. Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the workman is held to
have successfully proved his continuous engagement as a daily wager in every year including the year preceding the
date of his dis-engagement. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
8. ISSUE NO.2:- It is the case of the workman that he was not paid any notice or compensation before his dis-
engagement. The Management states that no notice or compensation was required, hence it is established that the
workman was dis-engaged without any notice or compensation. In the light of the fact that he has successfully
proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in every year, the dis-engagement of the workman without any
notice or compensation is nothing but violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is as
follows:-
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf,
the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that
category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
Thus , accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.
9. ISSUE NO.3:- In the light of finding recorded above, the point arises as to what relief the workman is entitled to
. The workman has been working as a daily wager from the year 2003 to 2011. Since he was not appointed by
following the recruitment procedure, he does not deserve to be reinstated. Thus, keeping in view the tenure of his dis-
engagement and the fact that he was simply a daily wager, he is held entitled to lump sum compensation. Keeping all
the facts in consideration, a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) in lieu of his claims
will be just and equitable in the case in hand. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
10. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
1360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A.
The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be against law and is
unjustified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand
only) in lieu of his claims with interest @9% p.a. from the date of notification of Award in
Gazette till the date of payment.
C.
No order as to costs.
11.
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, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 663.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार वररष्ठ मंडल प्रबंिक, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम, अिमेर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और सजचव, ऑल
इंजड ा अनुसूजचत िाजत/अनुसूजचत िनिाजत एवं बुजद्धष्ट एल.आई.सी. एम्प्लॉईज़ वेलफे र एसोजसएिन, अिमेर के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर ृंचाट (संिभज
सं् ा 75/2007) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. एल- 17011/7/2007-आईआर(एम)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The Senior Division Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer and The Secretary, All
India Anusuchit Jati/Anusuchit Janjati and Buddhist L.I.C. Employees Welfare Association Mandal, Ajmer.
[No. L-17011/7/2007-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
/
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
/
/
–IR(M)
/
/
lfpo] vkWy bf.M;k vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa
cqf)"V ,y-vkbZ-lh- ,EiykbZt osyQs;j ,lksfl;s'ku e.My]
dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe jkukMs ekxZ] vtes
--- izkFkhZ
ofj"B e.My izcU/kd]
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe e.My]
dk;kZy;]thou izdk'k jkukMs ekxZ] iksLV cSx ua- 02 vtesj
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh jes'k pUnz cqUnsy & izkFkhZ Jfed
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh tqxy fd'kksj vxzoky &vf/koDrk
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1361
%
fnukad % 29&03&2022
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 15@11@2007 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls
vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ Mh o 2 , ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fuEukafdr fookn bl
vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k
“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Zonal Office, Ranade
Marg, Ajmer vide order dated 29/2/2005 in deducting three increments of Sh. Ramesh Chand Bundale is
justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”
2-
rnqijkar fnukad 13-2-2012 dks bl fookn esa vafdr frfFk **29-2-2005** dks la'kksf/kr dj **28-02-2005^^ la'kksf/kr
fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr fnuakd 20-4-2012 dks iqu% la'kks/ku djrs gq;s Je U;k;ky; vtesj dks bl fookn ls foyksfir dj
fn;k x;kA
3-
fn- 26-2-2010 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd foi{kh us izkFkhZ ds fo:)
fn- 30-4-2007 dks tkap dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dj Jh ih-,u- feRry izca/kd dks tkap vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ us
fn- 8-9-2004 rFkk 20-10-2004 dks i= izsf"kr dj tkap vf/kdkjh dks cnys tkus dk fuosnu fd;k ysfdu foi{kh us bl ij
dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;kA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks ;g vk'kadk gks tkus ij fd mls U;k; izkIr ugha gks ldsxk] foHkkxh; tkap
esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq tks i= foi{kh us mls fn;s Fks] mUgsa ysus ls badkj dj fn;kA foi{kh }kjk izkd`frd U;k; ds foijhr
tkdj voS/k :i ls 16-11-2005 dks naMkns'k ikfjr dj izkFkhZ dks ns; osrueku es ls 3 okf"kZd o`f) LFkk;h rkSj ij ?kVk;s
tkus dh 'kkfLr nh xbZA vkns'k ds fo:) vihy vkSj eseksfj;y ;kfpdk izkFkhZ us izLrqr fd;sA ftUgsa Hkh fcuk O;fDrxr
lquokbZ fd;s izkFkhZ ds fo:) iwokZx`gxzLr gksdj naMkns'k ;Fkkor j[kk ,dkf/kd vkjksi i= foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks fn;s tks voS/k
,oa nwf"kr gSaA vr% vizkFkhZ ds fo:) vokMZ ikfjr dj izkFkhZ jes'k pan ds fo:) ikfjr naMkns'k fn- 16-11-2005 dks vikLr
djsa vkSj dkVh xbZ osruo`f) ds ifjykHk fnyk;s tkosaA
4-
foi{kh us oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk iath;u Jfed ;wfu;u ds :i esa ugha gqvk
rFkk og ,d jktuSfrd laxBu gSA lsok laca/kh ,sls ekeys ftlesa lsoklekfIr dk naM uk gks dsoy ,sls Jfed laxBu }kjk
mBk;k tk ldrk gS tks VsªM ;wfu;u ,DV ds varxZr iathd`r gksA Jfed jes'k pUn cqUnsy vknru vuq'kklughu O;fDr
gSA izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s gh jes'k pUn cqUnsy dks nafMr fd;k tk pqdk gSA jes'k pUn cqUnsy
ds fo:) dh xbZ tkap fof/k ds vuq:i gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk izsf"kr fofHkUu i= mlus tkucw>dj ugha fy;sA vr% okn
fujLr fd;k tkosaA
5-
fn- 24-1-2017 dks izkFkhZ jes'k pUn cqUnsy }kjk fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;s rFkk fn- 16-5-17 dks foi{kh }kjk
fyf[kr rdksZa dk izfrmRrj izLrqr fd;k x;kA
6-
fn- 8-3-2022 dks mHk;i{k us ;g fuosnu fd;k fd pwafd nksuksa gh i{kksa ds fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s tk pqds gSa
blfy;s mUgh ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k esa xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k tkosaA bl fuosnu dks Lohdkj dj
vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA
7-
loZizFke ;g n`"VO; gS fd D;k jes'k pUn cqUnsy us bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr vkS|ksfxd fookn ds vuq:i vuqrks"k
izkIr djus ds fy;s nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k gS\ Je ea=ky; }kjk fn- 15-11-2007 dks lanfHkZr fookn esa izkFkhZ ds
fo:) fn- 29-2-2005 dks ikfjr naMkns'k] ftlds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks ns; osrueku esa ls 3 okf"kZd osruo`f);ka dkVh xbZ Fkh]
dh oS/krk ds ijh{k.k dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k FkkA fn- 13-2-2012 dks fookn dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq;s naMkns'k dh frfFk **29-2-
2005** ds LFkku ij **28-2-2005** la'kksf/kr dh xbZA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ls ;g vis{kk Fkh fd og lanfHkZr fookn ds vuq:i
gh vius nkos dk vfHkdFku vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr djrk] fdarq izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nkos ds vfHkdFku dk iBu ek= ;g
n'kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ us naMkns'k fn- 28-2-2005 ds fo:) dksbZ vuqrks"k gh ugha ekaxkA oju~ blds LFkku ij naMkns'k fn- 16-
11-2005 ds fo:) vuqrks"k ekaxk gSA
8-
foi{kh us Hkh vk'p;Ztud :i ls vius oknksRrj esa bl laca/k esa dksbZ vkifRr ugha fd dh izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ekax
fookn ds vuq:i ugha gSA ;gh ugha izkFkhZ us vius fyf[kr rdksZa esa Hkh ftl naMkns'k dks vikLr djus dk fuosnu fd;k gS
mldh frfFk Hkh 16-11-2005 gh gS] tcfd lanZfHkr fookn esa naMkns'k fn- 28-2-2005 dh oS/krk dk ijh{k.k visf{kr gSA blh
dze esa ,d vkSj egRoiw.kZ rF; foi{kh }kjk fn- 28-1-2020 dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djrs gq;s bl vf/kdj.k ds laKku esa yk;k
x;k gSA bl izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk foi{kh }kjk Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k vtesj }kjk fn- 13-11-2013 dks
ikfjr vokMZ dh izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA bl vokMZ ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd fo}ku Je U;k;ky; ,ao
vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; vtesj }kjk Hkh dsUnz ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr jsQjsal la- -L-17012/5/2008–IR(M) fn- 23-6-2008 ds varxZr
fuEukafdr fookn “Whether the action of the management of Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Ranade Marg, Ajmer in deducting the three increments vide order dated 28/2/2005 from the salary of Sh. Ramesh
Chand Bundel is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” dk U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k x;k gSA bl
1362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fLFkfr eas ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk ,d gh fookn dks nks fHkUu&fHkUu vf/kdj.kksa dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq
laHkor% Hkwyo'k nks ckj lanfHkZr dj fn;k x;kA D;ksafd bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fookn ogha fookn gS ftls Je U;k;ky;
vtesj dks Hkh iqu% lanfHkZr dj fn;k x;kA egRoiw.kZ rF; ;g gS fd vtesj vf/kdj.k }kjk lanfHkZr okn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u
djrs gq;s 13-11-2013 dks gh vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k x;k fdarq izkFkhZ us bl rF; dh tkudkjh vKkrdkj.ko'k bl
vf/kdj.k dks ugha nhA foi{kh dh vkSj ls Hkh fn- 28-1-2020 ds iwoZ vf/kdj.k dks dksbZ tkudkjh bl laca/k esa miyC/k ugha
djok;h xbZA
9-
bl fLFkfr esa bl vf/kdj.k dk ;g lqfopkfjr fu"d"kZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ekaxi= lanfHkZr fookn ds vuqlj.k
esa ugha gS rFkk bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fookn tks izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr naMkns'k fn- 28-2-2005 ls lacaf/kr Fkk] Je
U;k;ky; vtesj }kjk fn- 13-11-2013 dks gh vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k tk pqdk gSA
10-
foi{kh }kjk tks vk{ksi ekaxi= dh iks"k.kh;rk ds laca/k esa fd;s x;s gSa rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo:) dh xbZ foHkkxh; tkap
ds ijhJ.k ds laca/k esa visf{kr gSa] mu ij dksbZ fopkj fd;k tkuk bl fookn esa fo|eku ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k vko';d
ugha jg tkrk gSA
11-
pwafd izkFkhZ }kjk fookn esa lanfHkZr naMkns'k fn- 28-2-2005 ds laca/k esa dksbZ nkos dk vfHkdFku gh izLrqr ugha fd;k
x;k gS rFkk fn- 28-2-2005 dks ikfjr naMkns'k ds laca/k esa Je U;k;ky; vtesj }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; iwoZ esa gh ikfjr fd;k tk
pqdk gS] izkFkhZ lanfHkZr fookn ds varxZr dksbZ vuqrks"k bl vf/kdj.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
12- Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk lanfHkZr fookn pwafd =qfVo'k u dsoy bl vf/kdj.k dks oju~ Je
U;k;ky; vtesj dks Hkh izsf"kr dj fn;k x;k gS] blfy;s bl fookn dk fuLrkj.k mi;qZDrkuqlkj gh fd;k tkrk gSA
13-
Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fookn dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k
tkrk gSA
14-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2022
का.आ. 664.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिनऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री संि कुमार नराजन ा, िौसा,
रािस्ट् ान के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर
ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 27/2013) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. एल-17012/3/2013-आईआर (एम)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 664.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Sanjay Kumar Narania, Dausa, Rajasthan.
[No. L-17012/3/2013-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1363
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
Reference No. L-17012/3/2013-IR (M)
Dated: 12.04.2013
Jh lat; dqekj ujkfu;k iq= Jh xaxk lgk; ujkfu;k]
eksgYyk jSxjku] okMZ ua- 23] Hks:th dk [kqjkZ] rglhy ,oa ftyk& nkSlk] ¼jktLFkku½A ---izkFkhZ
1-
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] tfj;s e.My izc/kad]
e.My dk;kZy;& izFke] ^chek Hkou^ Hkxoku nkl jksM+] vEcsMdj lfdZy] t;iqjA
2-
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] tfj;s e.My izca/kd]
e.My dk;kZy;& f}rh;] ukuxh Iyktk] ,& 20] vuhrk dkWyksuh]
xka/kh uxj jsyos LVs’ku ds ikl] t;iqjA
3-
Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] tfj;s 'kk[kk izc/kad]
'kk[kk dk;kZy;& thou T;ksfr] DysDVsªV pkSjkgk] [kku Hkkadjh jksM+] nkSlkA
---vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh ve`r izlkn 'kekZ] vf/koDrkA
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh tqxy fd’kksj vxzoky] vf/koDrkA
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 12-04-2013 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd
fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;
“Whether Shri Sanjay Kumar Narania, workman has worked for more than 240 days continuous service
at LIC Branch Office, Dausa under control of the management of LIC of India, DO Office-II, Jaipur? If
so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?’’
2-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 17-10-2013 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mlus
foi{kh la- 3 ds nkSlk dk;kZy; esa vius ;ksX;rk izek.k i=ksa lfgr vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftl ij mls lk{kkRdkj ds fy,
mls cqyk;k x;kA izkFkhZ 19-04-2007 dks lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gqvk] rnqijkar 25-04-2007 dks foi{kh ds nkSlk dk;kZy; esa
tylsod ds in ij fu;qfDr ns nh xbZA rnqijkar izkFkhZ dks iqu% foi{kh la-& 3 }kjk 18-08-2008 dks ewy izek.k i=ksa lfgr
lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk;k x;kA lk{kkRdkj ds Ik’pkr foi{kh la-& 3 ds dk;kZy; esa tylsod ds in ij izkFkhZ dks 19-08-
2008 dks fu;qfDr nh xbZA ekg vizsy] 2010 ls Qjojh] 2011 rd izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ds t;iqj 'kk[kk dk;kZy; f}rh; esa
yxkrkj 11 ekg rd tylsod ds in ij dk;Zjr jgkA Qjojh] 2011 ls vDVwoj] 2011 rd izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa dk
ifjJfed Hkqxrku izkFkhZ ds uke ls ugha djrs gq;s fdUgha vU; O;fDr;ksa ds ukeks ls fd;k x;kA bl ij izkFkhZ us tc
vkifRr dh rks uoEcj] 2011 ls foi{khx.k us Hkqxrku can dj fn;k vkSj mls ukSdjh ls fudkyus dh /kefd;k nh xbZA
foi{khx.k usa izkFkhZ dks iqu% t;iqj ls nkSlk 'kk[kk dk;kZy; esa lsok nsus ds fy, ;g dg dj Hkst fn;k fd ftl dk;kZy;
esa izkFkhZ dk lk{kkRdkj ysdj ukSdjh ij j[kk gS ogh mls LFkkbZ ukSdjh nsxkA nkSlk dk;kZy; esa 3 fnlEcj] 2011 ls Qjojh]
2012 rd izkFkhZ dks dk;Z djus fn;k x;k ysfdu tc izkFkhZ us LFkkbZ djus dk fuosnu fd;k rks mls ekg ekpZ] 2012 ls
lsokeqDr dj fn;kA foi{khx.k dk ;g d`R; voS/k o euekuk gSA izkFkhZ us ,d jftLVMZ uksfVl ekpZ] 2012 esa foi{khx.k dks
fn;k tks mUgsa izkIr gks x;k ysfdu dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;kA foi{khx.k dk ;g d`R; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q-½ ¼th-½ o
¼,p-½ ds izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gSA izkFkhZ us dqy 298 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z dk iw.kZ
Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr ds mijkar vc rd csjkstxkj gSA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dks lsok
i`FkDdj.k dh fnukad ls tylsod ds in ij lsok esa cgky djokus vkSj mlh fnukad ls lsok esa ekurs gq;s foxr osru o
ifjykHk C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkosaA
3-
foi{khx.k dh vksj ls onksRrj esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd ljdkj }kjk Hkstk x;k jsQjsal voS/k gSA jsQjsal ls ijs
tkdj u rks dksbZ vfHkopu fd;s tk ldrs gS] uk gh ml ij fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ dks tylsod ds in ij
dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA foi{kh la-&3] }kjk ,d fo’ks"k dk;Z ds fy, Li"V 'krksZ ds lkFk vkosnu esa of.kZr vof/k ds fy;s
1364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
73@&:- izfrfnu ds fglkc ls j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us bu 'krksZ dks Lohdkj fd;k] bl fy;s oks bu 'krksZ ls ikcUn gSA
izkFkhZ dsoy 60 fnuksa ds fy;s j[kk x;k FkkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&2 ¼vks-vks-½ ¼ch-ch-½ ,slh fu;qfDrvksa dks NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk
ls ckgj djrh gSA izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;kA foi{khx.k ds ;gkW HkrhZ dh ,d
fu’fpr izfdz;k gSA izfdz;k ds fcuk fiNys njokts ls vkdj ;fn dksbZ dke djuk crkrk gS rks og voS/k gSA foi{khx.k us
izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh uk gh lsokeqDr fd;kA lsok i`FkDdj.k dh frfFk ls izkFkhZ csjkstxkj ugha gaSA izkFkhZ dks ek=
2007 esa fu’fpr vof/k ds fy;s fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh tks Lor% lekIr gks xbZA blfy, izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh
ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tk;sA
4-
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr fd;s x;s gS vkSj iqu% okn Lohdkj djus dk vkxzg fd;k x;k gSA
5-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ AW-1 lat; dqekj ujkfu;k dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ
W-1 ls izn'kZ W-4 rd izys[k iznf’kZr fd;sA
6-
foi{kh x.k dh vksj ls lk{; esa Jherh yfyrk ehuk] lgk;d iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;kA
izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ M-1 izys[k iznf'kZr fd;kA
7-
fnukad 05-05-2022 dks eSusa mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdZ lqusaA lk{; dk ifj’khyu fd;k vkSj foi{khx.k dh vksj
ls izLrqr fd;s x;s fuEukfdar fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu fd;kA
¼1½
egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd’kksj 2003 WLC- (UC) 424 ¼jkt-½
¼2½
'kaHkw cuke eS- lqxu MªkbZDyhulZ 2017 ¼155½ FLR- 291 ¼fnYyh½
¼3½
Hkkouxj E;qfuf’kiy dkWiZjs'ku cuke lyhe HkkbZ] mej HkkbZ ealwjh 2013 ¼138½ FLR- 923 (SC)
¼4½
Hkksxiqj dkWijsfVo lqxj feYl fy- cuke gesZ'k dqekj 2007
SLR (SC)
¼5½
lsdzsVªh LVSV vkWQ dukZVd cuke mek nsoh AIR- 2006 (SC) 1806
8-
vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tks fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq
Hkstk x;k gS mlesa izkFkhZ ds lsok lekiu dh frfFk ugha fy[kh xbZ gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa ekpZ] 2012
ls izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj nsuk of.kZr fd;k gSA blfy, fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr frfFk ekpZ] 2012 ls
xzg.k dh tkdj fookn dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr dj fn;k gS fd mls foi{khx.k us igys
nkSlk dk;kZy; esa] rRi’pkr t;iqj dk;kZy; esa tylsod ds in ij vLFkkbZ :Ik ls fu;qDr fd;kA tc izkFkhZ us LFkkbZ
fu;qfDr dh ekWx dh rks ekpZ] 2012 ls mls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA foi{khx.k us Hkh izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk
rF; Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% okn Lohdkj fd;k tkosA
9-
vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k us loZizFke ;g vk{ksi fd;k fd pwafd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn esa izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekfIr dh dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gSa] blfy, ;g vf/kdj.k lsok lekfIr ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa dks xzg.k dj
fookn dk fu.kZ; djus gsrq l’kDr ugha gSA lanfHkZr fookn Hkh vIk;kZIr rF;ksa ds nks"k ls xzLr gSA lanfHkZr fookn dh 'krksZ ls
ijs tkdj ;g vf/kdj.k fdlh rF; dk fofu’p; ugha dj ldrkA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh la-& 3 }kjk
ek= 60 fnu ds fy, 73@&:- izfrfnu nSfud etnwjh ij] ,d fu’fpr dk;Z vkSj vof/k ds fy, j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us
bu 'krksZ dks Lohdkj dj] dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl vof/k dh lekfIr ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&2 ¼vks-vks-½ ¼ch-ch-½ ds izko/kkuksa ds
vuqlkj lsok lekfIr NaVuh ugha gSA izkFkhZ us t;iqj fLFkr dk;kZy; esa dk;Z djuk vkSj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke ls foi{khx.k
}kjk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk rF; Hkh izekf.kr ugha fd;kA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
10-
eSusa mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ ij euu fd;kA rRi’pkr fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSaA
D;k Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn esa izkFkhZ deZdkj dh lsok lekfIr ,oa mldh frfFk dk mYys[k u gksus
ij Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vfHkopuksa dks xzg.k djrs gq;s fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer gS\
¼i½ ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd'kksj ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd tc
jsQjsal vkns’k esa deZdkj dh lsok ds lekiu dh frfFk dk mYys[k ugha gks rks vf/kdj.k vFkok U;k;ky; dks ;g l{kerk
ugha gS fd og deZdkj ds vfHkopuksa ds vuqlkj lsok lekfIr frfFk dks Lohdkj dj jsQjsal dh 'krksZ esa lalks/ku ;k lq/kkj
djsaA eSusa bl fu.kZ; esa ikfjr vf/ker ij fopkj fd;k rks ;g ik;k fd lanfHkZr vkns’k esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dh dksbZ
frfFk mYysf[kr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ us Hkh bl lanfHkZr vkns’k esa lsok lekfIr ,oa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk dks lekfo"V fd;s
tkus gsrq dksbZ la'kks/ku ugha djok;k gSA bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fookn dh ifjlhekvksa esa jgrs gq;s gh vf/kfu.kZ; djus
dh {ks=kf/kdkjrk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr iznku dh xbZ gSA blfy, bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ
ds nkos ds vfHkdFku esa of.kZr lsok lekfIr frfFk dks xzg.k djrs gq;s fookn dks vf/kfu.khZr fd;k tkuk vfof/k iw.kZ gSA
izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu tks fd ekpZ 2012 ls mldh lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djokus ls laca/k j[krs gS lanfHkZr fookn ls
ijs gksus ds dkj.k xzg.k djus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1365
D;k izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k }kjk fu’fpr vof/k ,oa dk;Z ds fy, lsok esa j[kk tkus ds dkj.k fu;r vof/k ds lekiu ij gqbZ
lsok lekfIr] NaVuh ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q-½ ¼th-½ o ¼,p-½ ds izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gS\
¼i½ AW-1 lat; dqekj us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh la-& 3 us vius i= esa Li"V :Ik ls ;g mYys[k
fd;k Fkk fd p;u gksus dh n’kk esa ;g fu;qfDr 60 fnuksa gsrq iw.kZr% vLFkkbZ :Ik ls dh tk;sxhA ifjJfed 73@& :-
izfrfnu ds fglkc ls] dk;Z fnolks ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxkA izkFkhZ us izn’kZ& 1 bl laca/k esa iznf’kZr fd;k gSA
izn'kZ& 1 ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr 60 fnu dh vof/k gsrq vLFkkbZ rkSj ij nSfud osruHkksxh ds :Ik esa izLrkfor
fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn’kZ& 2 lk{kkRdkj i= ds ckn mls
dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;kA mlus ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd izn'kZ&1 esa 60 fnu ds fy, fu;qfDr fn;k tkuk lgh gS] vkSj
izn'kZ& 2 esa Hkh 32 fnu gsrq vLFkkbZ fu;qfDr gsrq lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqykuk lgh gSA 32 fnu dh dfFkr fu;qfDr ds Ik’pkr
vkxs dh vof/k ds fy;s mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd dfFkr
60 fnu o 32 fnu dh fuf'pr vof/k ds mijkar mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&
2 ¼vks-vks-½ ¼ch-ch-½ ds izko/kku fu’fpr :Ik ls vkdf"kZr gksrs gSA pwfda izkFkhZ dks 60 fnu] o mlds Ik’pkr 32 fnu dh vof/k
ds fy, ,d fo'ks"k iz;kstu ls fuf'pr vof/k gsrq dk;Z ij j[kk x;k ,slh lsok dk lekiu vuqca/k dh vof/k lekIr gks
tkus ij Lor% gks tkrk gSaA ;g lsok lekfIr bl fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk& 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ¼ch-ch-½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj
NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrhA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; Hkkouxj E;qfuf'kiy dkWiZjs'ku cuke lyhe
HkkbZ] mej HkkbZ ealwjh esa ;g dgk gS fd fyf[kr vuqca/k dh fof’k"V 'krZ tc ;s n’kkZ;s fd fu;kstu ,d fu’fpr vof/k ds
mijkar lekIr gksxk rks /kkjk 25 ¼,p-½ ds izko/kku rHkh izHkkoh gksxsa tc deZpkjh dks NaVuh fd;k x;k gksA lafonk&tU;
vof/k ds lekiu ij gqbZ lsok lekfIr NaVuh ugha gksrhA blh dze esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; Hkksxiqj
dkWijsfVo lqxj feYl fy- cuke gesZ'k dqekj ds fu.kZ; esa ekSleh dk;Z ds fy, p;fur deZpkjh dks] ftls vkxkeh ekSle esa
dk;Z ugha fn;k x;k vkSj mlus 240 fnu dh lsok Hkh iw.kZ ugha dh] rFkk deZpkjh ds fu;kstu dk lafonk dk uohuhdj.k u
gksus ds QyLo:Ik lekiu gqvk gks] ;g NaVuh gksuk ugha ekuk x;kA bl fofu'p; esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds izdk'k esa pwfda
izkFkhZ dk fu;kstu fuf'pr vof/k ,oa iz;kstu ds fy, gqvk Fkk blfy, fofgr vof/k ds volku ij lsok Lor% lekIr gks
xbZA ;g lsok lekiu pwfda NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugh vkrk blfy, izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q-½ ¼th-½ o ¼,p-½ ds
izko/kkuksa dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% ;s fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fofu’fpr fd;k tkrk gSA
mi;qZDr fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 o 2 ij izkIr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij pwfda izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr] NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha
vkrh gS] lanfHkZr fookn esa lsok lekfIr frfFk dk mYys[k Hkh ugha gS vkSj bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fookn ls ijs tkdj ;k
fookn ds fuca/kuksa dks la'kksf/kr djus dh la{kerk ugha gS blfy, izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25
¼,Q-½ ¼th-½ o ¼,p-½ ds vUrxZr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
12-
lanfHkZr fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
13-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh
tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 665.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती सडंृल बेबी, एनाजकुलम के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , एनाजकुलम ृंचाट
(संिभज सं् ा 02/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
1366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Smt. Dimple Baby, Ernakulam.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri. V .Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Monday the 25th day of April 2022, 5 Vaisakha1944)
ID No.2/2017
Workman/Union :
Smt.Dimple Baby @ Dimple K.
Pandaliparambil House
Aikaranadu South Village
Elamkulam Kara
Kolenchery P.O.
Ernakulam –682311
By Adv.P. S. Ramachandran Pillai
Managements
:
1. The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India
YogakshemaJeevan Bheema Marg
Mumbai – 400021
2. The Senior Divisional Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
M.G. Road
Ernakulam – 682011
3. The Senior Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Thripunithura
Ernakulam – 682301
4. The Branch Manager
Satellite Branch
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Kolencherry
Ernakulam - 682311
By Adv.R. S. Kalkura
This case coming up for final hearing on 17.01.2020 and 25.02.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court on 25.04.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
Present claim is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The worker has been working as a
temporary sweeper on daily wages against permanent perennial post in the Kolencherry Satellite Branch of the
Management, Life Insurance Corporation continuously from 23.10.2008. The worker had been put in an uninterrupted
and continuous service under the Management from 23.10.2008 on daily wages and her service comes under the
definition of Continuous Service U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The worker requested the Management
to regularize her service in the permanent post of sweeper. The Management never responded to the request. The
worker was being paid a dailywage of Rs.60/-per day which was later enhanced to Rs.100/- per day. The worker
passed pre-degree and also passed Diploma in Computer Applications. Her date of birth is 02.09.1978. The requests
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1367
sent by the worker for regularizing her service was not respondedto bythe Management. In view of the above, worker
filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed the worker
to exhaust the remedies available under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
Management retrenched the worker illegally without complying with the mandates of law, w.e.f. 07.08.2015, as a
measure of victimization. Since the action of the Management is illegal, the same is abinitio void. The Management
had resorted to unfair labour practice U/s 2(ra) and had committed the offence under items 5 and 10 of schedule V of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for which penalty have to be imposed U/s 25T and Sec 25U of ID Act. The illegal
retrenchment of the worker w.e.f.07.08.2015 is an offence and it is a victimization falling under item 5 of Sec 2(ra),
unfair labour practice. The worker is entitled to be reinstated in service with all back wages and other benefits
retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issues of similar workers working in Life Insurance
Corporation of India and directed the Corporation to regularize the workers with back wages accrued to them. The
worker preferred a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kochi. The dispute was taken for conciliation.
Same was not settled due to the non co-operation of the Management. Hence the worker prayed that she may be
reinstated with back wages and other benefits to regularize her in the permanent and perennial post which she was
working.
2.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. Management is a body corporate
constituted and functioning under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956. Terms and conditions of
employment in the Management are governed by the Regulations and Instructions having statutory backing. It is
well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statutory provisions of the Act, Regulations and
Instructions have overriding effect on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,particularlySec 25 of the Act. The
provisions relating to retrenchment have been held to be inapplicable to the Management. U/s 23 of the Act, the
Corporation is entitled to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it to discharge its
functions under the Act. By virtue of Sec 48 of the said Act the Central Govt may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act and provides for all or any matter specified in sub-sec 2 of
Sec 48. Sec 49 of the Act provides that Corporation may with the prior approval of the Central Govt make
Regulations which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules made there under. In exercise of the powers U/s 49,
the Management had in the year 1960 made regulations known as the Life Insurance Corporationof India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 (herein after referred to as the ‘Staff Regulations’). In the year 1981 by the Life Insurance
Corporation (Amendment)Act, 1981 the Act was amended. Consequent to that the power to make rules relating to
the terms and conditions of service of the employees of theCorporation is vested with Life Insurance Corporation
including those who became its employees U/s 11 (1) of the Act. It is stipulated that the provisions of clause (cc) and
sub-sec 2B and any rules made under clause (cc) shall have effect and any such Rule made with retrospective effect
from any date shall also be deemed to have had effect from that date, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any Court, Tribunal or other authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
or any other law or any agreement, settlement, award or other instrument for the time being in force. The scope of
Amendment Act in so far as the application of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 is concerned has been explained by
the Apex Court in A. V. Nachane and another Vs UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1126. Under regulation 8 of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, notwithstanding anything contained in the regulations, a
Managing Director, an Executive Director (Personnel), a Zonal Manager or a DivisionalManager may employ staff in
class III and class IV on a temporary basis subject tosuch general or special directions as may be issued bythe
Chairman of the Management Corporation. Further under sub-section 2 of said regulation no person so appointed on
a temporary basis shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the
Management Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post which has been highlighted in clause 8(1)
and 8(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960. The engagement of the worker was not
through any recruitment and/or selection process and not covered by the statutory rules. The worker was engaged as
a causal labourer. The worker was engaged for carrying out jobs of casual nature like cleaning of dust, sweeping etc.,
since October 2008. The worker was not doing any skilled job of perennial nature. The worker was never appointed
under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules 1960 or Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993 or any other statutory provision. The worker was not in continuous employment
as contemplated U/s 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The engagement of the worker was need based. The
worker is not eligible to claim any regularization as the engagement was purely on need basis. The worker was
engaged on daily wage basis and was at liberty to leave the job at any point of time and there was no bar on her to
pursue any other outside employment. The worker along with another daily wage workman instituted writ petitionas
W.P.(C) no.17594/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide
judgment dt.15.06.2016 permitted the writ petitioners to approach the competent authority to ventilate their
grievances under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge
directed that the worker may be permitted to continue in the same manner as she was being engaged. It was also
directed that incase the Management is considering any temporary appointment,the worker shall also be considered,
with due preference towards experience and if necessary granting relaxation in the upper age limit. The
Management filed W.A. no.1759/2016 and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment
dt.10.01.2017 allowed the appeal by deleting that portion of the directions contained in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. A copy of the judgment in W.A.no.1759/2016 is produced and marked as Exbt.M2. The disengagement
1368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the claimant wasnot to accommodate any other person and therefore there is absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness
in disengaging the service of the worker. There is absolutely no unfair labour practice on the part of the Management
and she had not worked continuously to seek any relief U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The wages were
paid for the days for which the worker was engaged. The question of regularizing the services of the worker or
granting any relief does not arise especially in the absence of any statutory provision and also in the light ofthe
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs UmaDevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. No
retrenchment occurred since the worker was neither appointed nor terminated under any statutory rules or instructions.
The recruitment of class III and class IV staff in the Management Corporation is being made as per the provisions of
Life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of class III and class IV staff) Instructions, 1993 effective from 25.02.1993.
The said instructions superseded the Recruitment Instructions of 1979. These recruitment rules have been held to be
statutory rules having overriding force over the Industrial Disputes Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vs Asha Ambedkar, AIR 1994 SC 2148. Recruitment rules envisage the normal
mode of recruitment by inviting applications through advertisement in local newspapers and where the appointments
are temporary, the appointment is done by inviting applications through Employment Exchanges. The requisites of
employment, the incidents of service, the process of selection and the pattern of remuneration are all vastly
dissimilar in the case of regular employment and temporary employment. An engagement on daily wage basis is not
envisaged to ripen into a regular employment. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 havebeen overridden
by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Employment of Temporary Staff)Instructions, 1993 and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Recruitment of Class
III and Class IVStaff) Instructions 1993. The engagement of the worker was not according to any of the above
statutory provisions or instructions. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 are not applicable to worker in
respect of matters covered by Sec 48(2) (cc) of the LIC Act, 1956. The worker was not retrenched as provided in Sec
25F of the Industrial DisputesAct as the worker wasnot governed by Regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Staff) Regulations 1960 or Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions,
1993 or any other statutory rules or instructions. Once Sec 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted, there
is no question of application of Sec 25F.
3.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the worker filed an I.A. no.78/2017 praying that she may be
reinstated in the service of the Management w.e.f.07.08.2015 with back wages and other benefits. The Management
objected to the above application and therefore it was decided that the issue can be heard along with the industrial
dispute. The Management filedI.A. no.139/2019 pleading that the issue of maintainability may be heard as a
preliminary issue. The prayer of the Management was seriously objected to by the worker. Hence it was decided that
the question of maintainability also will be decided as a preliminary issue while disposing of the industrial dispute.
4.
On completion of the pleadings, the worker examined herself as WW1 and marked Exbts.W1 to W18. The
Managementdid not examine any witness. However Exbts.M1 and M2 were marked by consent.
5.
On completion of pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration in the proceedings
1. Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?
2. Whether the worker is entitled to reinstatement in the service of the Management with back wages
and other related benefits ?
3. Whether theworker is entitled for regularization in the service of the Management in the permanent
perennial post in which she was working ?
4. Relief and cost ?
6.
Issue no.1
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the Management Corporation is established U/s 3 of the LIC
Act, 1956. U/s 23 of the Act, the Corporation is entitled to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the
purpose of enabling it to discharge its functions. As per Sec 48 of the Act, the Central Govt may make rules to carry
out the purpose of the Act. Sec 49 of the Act provides that the Management may with the previous approval of the
Central Govt, make regulations which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules. In exercise of powers U/s 49 of
the Act, the Management in the year 1960 made Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960. Life
Insurance Corporation Act was amended in the year 1981. It was stipulated that the provisions of clause (cc) and sub-
sec 2B and rules made under clause (cc) shallhave effect and any such rule made with retrospective effect from any
date shall also be deemed to have the effect from that date notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any
Court, Tribunal or authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court while defining the scope of the above amendment in A. V. Nachane and another Vs UOI,
AIR 1982 SC 1126 held that in respect of matters covered by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
or any other law will not be operative.
7.
According to the learned Counsel for the worker, there is no conflict between the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act and the provisions of LIC Act rules, regulations and instructions. According to him the provisions of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1369
Industrial Disputes Act are attracted in this case. He pointed out that even as per the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the question of giving preference to the provisions of LIC Act and regulations will come only when
there is conflict with respect of provisions of Industrial DisputesAct. He further pointed out that application of the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is not completely taken away with regard to the appointments and service
conditions of employees appointed in Life Insurance Corporation.
8.
In the present case, the worker is engaged by the Management w.e.f. 23.10.2008 as a part-time sweeper.
This fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Management. It is also seen that as per Exbt.W16, the
statement of badali’s/sweepers doing cleaning work prepared by the Management, Ernakulam Division that the
worker was engaged w.e.f. 23.10.2008. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, she continued in the service
of the Management in the same capacity till 07.08.2015. The documents Exbts.W14 to W18 and Exbts.W12 Series
support the claim of the worker. The worker as WW1 also deposed in this proceedings that she continued to work
with the Management till 07.08.2015. TheManagement could not discredit the evidence of the worker in this regard.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the worker is not engaged under any of the rules or
regulations. According tothe learned Counsel for the worker, the Management engaged her services for years
together and therefore they cannot claim that the worker is not entitled for the benefits under the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is true that the Management can appoint persons on temporary basis for limited period. Sec 23 of the LIC
Act provides that the Management may employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it
to discharge its functions. Sec 48 deals with powers to make rules including the rules relating to the terms and
conditions of service of employees and agents of the Management. Sec 49 empowers the Management to make
regulations with the previous approval of Central Govt not inconsistent with Act and rules made thereunder to
provide for all matters for the purposes of giving effecttothe provisions of the Act. Regulation 8 deals with temporary
staff. Regulation 8(1) states that notwithstanding anything contain in these regulations the authorities mentioned
therein may employ staff in class III and class IV on a temporary basis subject to such general or special directions as
may be issued by the Chairman from time to time. Sub regulation 2 to regulation 8 states that no person appointed
under sub regulation 1 shall only by reasonof such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service
oftheCorporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post.
9.
Another issue argued by the learned Counsel for the Management is that in view of regulations 8, the
provisions of Industrial DisputesAct is not applicable to the matters covered by Sec 48(2)(cc) of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act. The learned Counsel for the Management relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in A. V.Nachane and another Vs UOI and another, 1982 AIR 1126 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that “ In the instant case Sec 48(2C) read with Sec 48(2)(cc) authorises the Central Govt to make rules to carry out
the purposes of the Act notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law. This means that in respect of
the matters covered by the rules the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct or any other law will not be
operative". The Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the issue in an altogether different set of facts and was
examining whether the Amendment Act of 1981 laid down any legislative policy or furnish any guidelines to
indicate the nature and extent of the modifications that the rules will be permitted to make in the existing laws to carry
out the purposes of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 as amended in 1981. The learned Counsel also relied
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Venugopal Vs Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, AIR 1994 SC 1343 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
amendments introduced in Sec 48 of Life Insurance Corporation Act have clearly excluded the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act so far they are in conflict with the rules framed U/s 48(2)(oo). The Apex Court further
held that once Sec 2(oo) is not attracted, there is no question of application of Sec 25F on the basis of which the
termination of the service of the appellant can be held to be invalid. In the above case also the facts are entirely
different. That was a case wherein the probation of an Officer of the Corporation was not confirmed since he failed
to achieve the targets fixed during probation. It is to be pointed out that in both the above cases the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the exclusion of the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct is applicable only in respect of the
matters covered by the rules or when there is conflict with the rules framed U/s 48(2)(cc). In the present case
admittedly the worker is not appointed under regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations,
1960 and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 or Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Recruitment for Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions 1993. Also there is no conflict
between the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act Regulations and Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
Counsel for the worker relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full
Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2015 KHC
4225. This is a case where temporary employees appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation challenged the validity
of regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. A full bench of the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras held that regulation 8 is applicable to the temporary employees and also held that sub clause b of
Sec 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act is valid and it does not run counter to the provisions of Sec 25F, 25G and
25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held that the applicability of the Industrial disputesAct is excluded
from the field covered by Sec 48(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
after examining the history of the legislation and also the legal authorities on the point reversed the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras upholding the award of regularization passed by the Central
1370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government Industrial Tribunal. In this case, when the worker moved the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C)
no.17594/2015, the Management in their written statement at paras 5 and 11 has taken a specific contention that “ if
the petitioners have got a case that the Corporation is resorting to any unfair labour practice or violated any
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, then it has became necessary to work out their remedy under the Industrial
Disputes Act and not to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ”. Further in Para
5 of the written statement it is stated that “violation of various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be
considered in a writ petition since the petitioners have effective alternate remedy against the dispute under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ”. On the basis of the above contentions the Hon'ble High Court held that
“When the petitioners are raising their claims under the provisions contained in the ID Act and the respondents also
submit that the remedy is under the ID Act, and when there is a statutory forum to adjudicate their claims under ID
Act, there is no meaning in keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. Petitioners are free to approach the
competent authority to ventilate their grievance, as provided under the ID Act ”. This is not challenged by the
Management in W.A.1759/2016. The Management cannot take a conflicting stand on the question of maintainability
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and before this Tribunal.
In thelight of the above discussionsand inview of the legal position settled as per the above authorities, I am
of the view that the facts and circumstances involved in this case attracted provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 as there is no conflict between the said Act and Rules and Regulations under the Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956.
10.
The learned Counsel for the Management also argued that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, in the absence of any statutory provision it
is not possible to regularize the service of the worker. The learned Counsel for the worker pointed out that the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) is not applicable to cases coming under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarified the above position in Maharashtra State
Road Transport and another Vs Casteribe Rajaya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana, 2009 8 SCC 556 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application of Industrial DisputesAct is not at all considered by the
Constitution Bench and therefore it was held that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is not applicable to
cases coming under Industrial Disputes Act. In Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation,(2015) 6
Supreme Court Cases 321 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) and held
that ;
“17.
In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public
employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our
Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of
Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article
14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
and powers of the Industrial and Labour Court provided therein were not at all under
consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither
the subject matter for decision nor was decided in Uma Devi’s case.
18.
We have noticed that Industrial Dispute Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and
certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the
employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without
giving them the status and privilege of permanent employees.
19.
Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent for retrenchment of
workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less
than one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer
retrenches the workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month
notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or
the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice apart from
compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of
continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to
serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Govt or such Authority as may be
specified by appropriate Govt by notification in the official Gazette. If any part of the provisions
of Sec 25F is violated and the employer there by, resorts to unfair trade practice with the object
to deprive the workman with privilege as provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify
such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was in violation of
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(20) - - - - - - - - - - - -
(21) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1371
Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that
the initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 &16 of the
Constitution of India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair
labour practice cannot be resorted to and thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such
ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year”.
The above decisions was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur Casual
Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786. The Hon’ble Court held
that an undertaking of the government which comes within the meaning of ‘industry’ or its establishment cannot
justify its illegal action including unfair labour practice nor can ask for different treatment on the ground that public
undertaking is guided by Articles 14 &16 of Constitution of India and the private industries are not guided by 14 &16
of the Constitution. In Umrala Grama PanchayatVs Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 12 SCC 775
the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the services of the workmen in that case be regularized and made
permanent since they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
Taking into account all the facts and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the present
industrial dispute is maintainable. Hence the issue is decided in favour of the worker and against the Management.
11.
Issue no.2 & 3
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the worker was engaged on daily wage basis as a casual labour
w.e.f. 23.10.2008 and she was not a temporary sweeper as claimed by her. Her services was not uninterrupted or
continuous as contemplated U/s 25B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The worker was doing the work on need basis
and her engagement not through any regular recruitment process. The worker was disengaged when the Management
felt the services of the worker is no more required. The disengagement of the worker was not to accommodate any
other person and therefore there is absolutely no illegality or no arbitress having disengage the services of the worker.
The learned Counsel also pointed out there is no unfair labour practice on the part of the Management as defined
under schedule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pointed out that she cannot claim any relief U/s 25F, as
she was not having continuous service as defined U/s 25B of the Act.
12.
The learned Counsel for the worker argued that the worker has been working as a temporary sweeper on
daily wages against permanent and perennial post. She was working continuously from 23.10.2008 and she has
rendered continuous service U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the Counsel, the services of the
worker was orally terminated w.e.f. 07.08.2015 as a measure of victimization and she approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala for regularization of her service with the Management. According to him, the Management resorted
to unfair labour practice U/s 2(ra) and had committed offence under items 5 and 10 of schedule 5 of the Industrial
DisputesAct, 1947. The unlawful retrenchment of the worker w.e.f. 07.08.2015 falls under item 5 of Sec 2(ra) unfair
labour practice. According to the learned Counsel, the worker is entitled for reinstatement and regularization in the
service of the Management. From Exbt.W16, the statement of badali’s (sweepers doing cleaning work) and daily
wagers, it is seen that the worker was engaged by the Management w.e.f. 23.10.2008 and from Exbt.W12(a to g), it is
seen that the worker worked with the Management till 31.07.2015. The learned Counsel for the Management
submitted that from the documents produced by the worker,it is not established that she worked continuously for 240
days prior to her termination on 07.08.2015. The Exbt.W17 Series of documents produced by the worker are monthly
statements of temporary badalis and daily wagers working at Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ernakulam
Division, Thripunithura branch from 04/2015 to 06/2015. These documents will not conclusively prove that the
worker was engaged during the relevant point of time. However the Exbt.W12 Series of vouchers, for having
received payment by the worker, would establishe the fact that the worker worked from 04/2015 to 31.07.2015.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, this evidence will not satisfy the requirement of continuous
service U/s 25B of the Act. According toSec 25B
“1. a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is for that period, in
uninterrupted service including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or
authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lockout or cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
2.
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause 1 for a period of one
year or 6 months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer for a period of
one year, if the workman during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to
which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than
I. ……
II. 240 days in any other case. “Hence to get the benefit of continuous service U/s 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act the worker ought to have worked with the Management for 240 days during a period of 12
calendar months preceding 07.08.2015. The evidence produced by the worker in this case is not
1372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sufficient to meet the above requirement. The learned Counsel for the worker pointed out that the
worker produced all the documents at her possession to substantiate the claim that she worked for more
than 240 days during the preceding 12 months before her termination. However the Management failed
to rebut her claim by producing any documents in their custody. The learned Counsel for the worker
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division
Vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, 2010 KHC 6126 to argue that once the worker discharged her
responsibility by producing the documents at her command, the burden shifts to the Management to
prove that she has not worked for more than 240 days as required U/s 25B of the Act. In the above case
the workman was a watchman who was paid daily wages and whose presence were marked in the
Muster Roll. According to the Management the workman worked from 1986 till 1988 and during this
period the workman had worked for 93 days, 145 days and 31 days respectively. According to them the
workman had not worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
relying on the decision in R. M. Yellatty Vs Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 1 SCC 106 held that
“The respondent was a workman hired on daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed
out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the above documents,
Muster Roll etc., in connection with his service. He came forwarded and deposed, so in our opinion
the burden of proof shift to the employer/appellant to prove that he did not complete 240 days of
service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service “.
13.
In the present case also it is seen that the worker was examined as WW1 and she stated in her evidence that
she worked with the Management from 2008 to 2015. However she could produce supporting documents only for the
year 2015. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of Gauri Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 12 SCC 754.
In the above case, the workman was working with the respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a
permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f. 01.01.1987 till his services came to be retrenched and he had rendered service of
more than 240 days in every calendar year and has received salary from the respondent department each month. The
workman challenged the retrenchment as bad in law as the same is in violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of
the ID Act. The workman applied for production of the Muster Roll and the management failed to produce the
relevant Muster Rolls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs
Muhammed Haji Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Murukesam Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 5 LW
759 held that even if the burden of proof does lie on a party, the Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds
important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts of issue. The learned Counsel for the
workman also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial EnterprisesLtd Vs Mahak
Singh and others, 2007 4 SCC 94, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their
initial onus by producing the documents in their possession it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the
claim of the workman that he did not work for more than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior
to his/her termination. In this case there is no dispute regarding the fact that the worker was engaged as a daily
wagerw.e.f. 23.07.2008. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that her services were orally terminated w.e.f.
07.08.2015. The documents discussed above will substantiate the above points. The worker also produced evidence
to show that she was paid wages against voucher from 04/2015 to 31.07.2015. She also entered the box and deposed
that she worked with the Management continuously from 2008 to 2015. Hence it can safely be considered that the
worker had discharged her responsibility of proving that she worked for more than 240 days in one year prior to her
date of termination. In such circumstances as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, it is
possible to draw an adverse inference that she worked for more than 240 days in view of the fact that the Management
failed to produce any documents to disprove her claim that she worked continuously for more than 240 days in one
year prior to the date of her termination.
Hence from the facts and law discussed above, it is concluded that the worker had rendered continuous
service of 240 days making her eligible for the benefits U/s 25F of the industrial dispute Act.
14.
The learned Counsel for the Management argued that the worker in the present case is only a casual
employee on daily wages and therefore she is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The learned Counsel for the worker argued that the nature of employment of the worker will not any way affect her
claim for reinstatement and regularization. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in SreekumarK. Vs
ManagingDirector, KTDC Ltd, 2019 1 KHC 225 held that the definition in Sec 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act
includes casual employees also. The Hon'ble High Court held that
“Para 18. From this it is quiet evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2S of the Industrial
Disputes Act includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra) (in the context
governed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in
hand ”
15.
The Management has no case that they followed the procedure prescribed U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act while terminating the worker. In view of the above, it is clear that the Management terminated the services of the
worker in clear violation of the provisions of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1373
16.
Considering all the facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the retrenchment of
the worker from the service of the Management is abinitio void and is in violation of Sec 25F of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
17.
Issue no.4
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the worker was only a casual employee and was paying only
for the days when she worked for the Management. It was also pointed out that she was not working against any
permanent or perennial post in the Management. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, once this Tribunal
found that the termination of the worker was illegal, she is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages.
The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that being a casual employee, the worker is not entitled for
regularization considering the spirit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Uma
Devi (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttarakhand and others Vs Rajkumar, 2019 1 LLJ
513 SC relying on its earlier decisions of BSNLVs Bhurumal, 2014 7 SCC 177 and District DevelopmentOfficer
and another Vs SatishKantilal Amerelia, 2018 12 SCC 298 held that in the circumstances of that case it would be
just and proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the workman in full and final satisfaction
of his claim for reinstatement and other consequential benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on
the subject in BSNL case (Supra) as follows
“Para 33. It is clear from the readings of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in
all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workmen are terminated
illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, of unfair labour practice, etc. However when it
comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because
of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent
in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the
workman should given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in
this direction is obvious.
Para 34. The reasons for denying the relief for reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that
when the termination is found to be illegal because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice
pay as mandatorily required U/s 25F of the ID Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since
such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated he has no right to seek
regularization [see State of Karnataka VsUmaDevi (3)]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he
has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating
such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself in as much as if he is
terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation giving the relief of reinstatement, that too
after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.
Para 35. We would however, like to add a cavate here. There may be cases where termination of daily wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of
the principles of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were
retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under some policy but the
workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied
reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation
instead of reinstatement. In such cases reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases, for the
reasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied ”
The learned Counsel for the worker on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Jasmar Singh Vs +State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the worker is entitled
for reinstatement with full back wages since the order of termination was void abinitio. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the above case relied on the following observation of the court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase Vs KrantiJunior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya,2013 10 SCC 324 to hold that when the termination
is found to be illegal, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.
“ Para 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal
or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have
been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the
passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source
of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all
opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from relatives and
1374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
other aquittance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continued till the competent adjudicatory forum
decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the
employer is ultravires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the
employee to claim full back wages. If the employer was to deny back wages to the employee, or contesting
his entitlement to get consequential benefits then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during
the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The
denial of back wages to an employee who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to
indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation
to pay back wages including the emoluments”.
In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a workman working as a daily
paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Karnal) for more than 240 days.
18.
In the present case it is seen that the worker was engaged as a daily wage employee and she worked
continuously for more than 240 days one year before her termination. Though the worker claimed unfair labour
practice the same is not proved. The Management has no case that the worker was gainfully engaged during the period
of termination. Hence this is a fit case where the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of
Uttarakhand Vs Rajkuamr (Supra) is squarely applicable. It is seen that the worker was engaged on daily wage
basis and she is around 45 years of age. The worker also failed to establish the allegations of unfair labour practice
against the Management. In the circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper and reasonable to award
lumpsum monetary compensation to the worker in full and final satisfaction of her claim of reinstatement and other
consequential benefits. It is seen that the worker was working on a daily average wage of Rs.100/- when her services
were terminated. It is seen from Exbt.W13 that the wages of daily wagers is increased to Rs.300/- w.e.f. 01.08.2012.
If she is reinstated in service with full back wages, she will be entitled for an approximate back wages of
Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only). Taking into account of these facts, it is felt that interest of
justice will be met if the Management is directed to pay a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five lakhs only) to the worker in full and final settlement within one month from the notification of the award.
Hence an award is passed holding that the termination of the worker from the service of the Management
w.e.f. 07.08.2015 is illegal, unjust and abinitio void. She is entitled for a lumpsum monetary compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) in lieu of full back wages and other consequential benefits.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette. Dictated to the
Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 25th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman:-
WW1
-
Smt.Dimple Baby @ Dimple K., dt.21.05.2019
Witness for the Management:-Nil
Exhibits for the Workman:-
W1
-
True copy of the pre-degree mark list dt.14.06.1996 of the worker
W2
-
True copy of the certificate of Computer Diploma dt.07.11.2002 of the worker
W3
-
True copy of the SSLCcertificate dt.30.03.1994 of the worker
W4
-
True copy of Bio-data and application dt.29.04.2015 sent to the Management by the worker
W4(a) -
True copy of Postal receipts of applications (2 in numbers)
& (b)
dt.29.04.2015 sent by the worker to the Management
W5 - Copy of Memorandum of writ petition dt.09.06.2015 filed by the worker and another in W.P.(C)
no.17594/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W6
-
Copy of judgment dt.15.06.2016 of the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
W7
-
Copy of the Memorandum of writ appeal W.A.no.1759/2016 file by the Management before the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W8
-
Copy of I.A. no.13149/2015 dt.11.09.2015 filed by the worker and another in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1375
W9
-
Copy of counter affidavit dt.02.11.2015 filed by the Management in the above W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W10
-
Copy of reply affidavit filed by the worker and another in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
W11
-
Copy of judgment dt.07.03.2017 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala against the
judgment in W.A.no.1759/2016 dt. 10.01.2017
W12
-
Copy of the certain numbers of receipts of wages issued to the (a) to (g) petitioner by the Management
on different dates
W13
-
Software copy of the letter showing the increase in wages dt. 30.08.2012
W14
-
True copy of monthly statistics of daily wagers dt.29.10.2013 sent by 3rdManagement to the superiors
W15(a) -
Copy of statement of daily wages dt.29.03.2014 sent by the 4th Management to the superiors
W15(b) -
Copy of statement of daily wages dt.29.03.2014 sent by the 4th Management to the superiors
W16
-
Copy of statement of daily wages dt.02.05.2015 sent by the 4th Management to the superiors
W17
-
Copy of statement of daily wages dt.01.06.2015 sent by the 4th
Series
Management to the superiors
W18
-
Copy of statement of daily wages dt.02.06.2015 sent by the 4th Management to the superiors
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
-
True copy of the letter of delegation of powers in favour of Manager(L&HPF) executed by the Zonal
Manager, Management
M2
-
True copy of judgment dt.10.01.2017 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in
W.A. no.1759/2016 against the judgment in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015 dt.15.06.2016
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 666.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अरुणकुमार, एनाजकुलम के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , एनाजकुलम ृंचाट (संिभज
सं् ा (03/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Arunkumar, Ernakulam.
[No. Z-16025/04/2022-IR(M)]
D.GUHA, Under Secy.
1376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V .Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Monday the 25th day of April 2022, 5 Vaisakha1944)
ID No.3/2017
Workman/Union :
Sri.Arunkumar P.S.
Pattarumadathil House
Aikaranadu North Village
Kadayiruppu P.O.
Kolencherry
Ernakulam – 682311
By Adv.P. S. Ramachandran Pillai
Managements :
1. The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Yogakshema Jeevan Bheema Marg
Mumbai – 400021
2. The Senior Divisional Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
M.G. Road
Ernakulam – 682011
3. The Senior Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Thripunithura Ernakulam – 682301
4. The Branch Manager
Satellite Branch
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Kolencherry
Ernakulam - 682311
By Adv.R. S. Kalkura
This case coming up for final hearing on 17.01.2020 and 25.02.2021 andthis Industrial Tribunal-cum-
LabourCourt on 25.04.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
Present claim is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Theworkman has been working as a
temporary Assistant on daily wages against permanent perennial post in the Kolencherry Satellite Branch of the
ManagementLife Insurance Corporation continuously from 23.10.2008. Theworkmanhad been put in an uninterrupted
and continuous service under the Management from 23.10.2008 on daily wages and his service comes under the
definition of Continuous Service U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmanrequested the
Management toregularizehis service in the permanent post of sweeper. The Management never responded to the
request. The workmanwas being paid a dailywage of Rs.100/-per day which was later enhanced to Rs.300/- per day.
The workman is fully qualified having been passed B.Com Degree in 2nd Class and undergone computer course. He
isalso within the age limit. The request sent by the workman for regularizing hisservice was not responded bythe
Management. In view of the above,workman filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The
Hon'ble High Court ofKerala directed the workman to exhaust the remediesavailable under Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. During the pendency of the writpetition, the Management retrenched theworkman illegally without complying
the mandates of law w.e.f. 07.08.2015, as a measure of victimization. Since the action of the Management is illegal,
the same is abinitio void. The Management had resorted to unfair labour practice U/s 2(ra) and had committed the
offence under items 5 and 10 of schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for which penalty have to be imposed U/s
25T and Sec 25U ofIndustrial Disputes Act. The illegal retrenchment of theworkmanw.e.f. 07.08.2015is an offence
and it is a victimization fallingunder item 5 of Sec 2(ra) unfair labour practice. The workman is entitled to be
reinstated in service with all back wages and benefits retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issues
of similar workers working in Life Insurance Corporation of India and directed the Corporation to
regularizetheworkers with back wages accrued to them. The workman preferred a dispute before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Kochi. The dispute was taken for conciliation. Same was not settled due to the non co-operation of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1377
the Management. Hence the workman prayed that he may be reinstated with back wages and other benefits and to
regularizehim in the permanent and perennial post which he was working.
2.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. Management is a body corporate
constituted and functioning under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956. Terms and conditionsof
employment in the Management are governed by the Regulations and Instructions having statutory backing. It is well
settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statutory provisions of the Act, Regulations and
Instructions have overriding effect on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,particularlySec 25 of the Act. The
provisionsrelating to retrenchment have been held to be inapplicable to the Management. U/s 23 of the Act,
theCorporation is entitled to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it to discharge
its functions under the Act. By virtue of Sec 48 of the said Act the Central Govt may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act and provides for all or any matterspecified in sub-sec 2 of Sec
48. Sec 49 of the Act provides that Corporation may with the prior approval of the Central Govt make Regulations
which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules made thereunder. In exercise of the powers U/s 49, the Management
had in the year 1960 made regulations known as the Life Insurance Corporationof India (Staff) Regulations, 1960
(hereinafterreferred to as the ‘Staff Regulations’). In the year1981 by the Life Insurance Corporation
(Amendment)Act, 1981, the Act was amended. Consequent to that the power to make rules relating to the terms and
conditions of service of the employees of theCorporation is vested with Life Insurance Corporation
includingthosewho became its employees U/s 11 (1) of the Act. It is stipulated that the provisions of clause (cc) and
sub-sec 2B and any rules made under clause (cc) shall have effect and any such Rule made with retrospective effect
from any date shall also be deemed to have had effect from that date, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any Court,Tribunal or other authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
or any other law or any agreement, settlement, award or other instrument for the time being in force. The scope of
Amendment Act in so far as the application of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 is concerned has been explained by
the Apex Court in A. V. Nachane and another Vs UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1126. Under regulation 8 of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)Regulations 1960, notwithstanding anything contained in the regulations, a
Managing Director, an Executive Director (Personnel), a Zonal Manager or a DivisionalManager may employ staff in
class III and class IV on a temporary basis subject tosuch general or special directions as may be issued by the
Chairman of the ManagementCorporation. Further under sub-section 2 of said regulation no person so appointed on a
temporary basis shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the
ManagementCorporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post which has been highlighted in clause 8(1)
and 8(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India(Staff)Regulations, 1960. The engagement of the workman was
notthrough any recruitment and/or selection process and not covered by the statutory rules. Theworkmanwas engaged
as a causal labourer. The workman was engaged for carrying out jobs of casual nature, sinceOctober 2011. The
workman was not doing any skilledjob of perennial nature. The workman was never appointed under Life Insurance
Corporation of India(Staff) Rules 1960 or Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff
Instructions) 1993 or any other statutory provision. The workman was not in continuous employment as contemplated
U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The engagement of the workman was need based. The workman is not eligible
to claim any regularization as the engagementwas purely on need basis. Theworkman was on daily wage basis and
was at liberty to leave the job at any point of time and there was no bar on him to pursue any other outside
employment. The workman along with another daily wage worker instituted writ petitionas W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala videjudgment dt.15.06.2016 permitted
the writ petitioners to approach the competent authority to ventilate their grievances under Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed that theworkman may be permitted to
continue in the same manner as he was being engaged. It was also directed that incase the Management is considering
any temporary appointment,theworkman shall also be considered, with due preference towards experience and if
necessary, granting relaxation in the upper age limit. The Management filed W.A. no.1759/2016 and the Division
Bench of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala in its judgment dt.10.01.2017 allowed the appeal by deleting thatportion of
the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. A copy of the judgment in W.A. no.1759/2016 is
produced and marked as Exbt.M2. The disengagement of the claimant wasnot to accommodate any other person and
therefore there is absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in disengaging the service of the workman. There is
absolutely no unfair labour practice on the part of the Management and he had not worked continuously to seek any
relief U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The wages were paid for the days for which the workman was
engaged. The question of regularizing the services of the workman or granting any relief does not arise especially in
the absence of any statutory provision and also in the light ofthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India in
State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. No retrenchmentoccurredsince the workman was neither
appointed nor terminated under any statutory rules or instructions. The recruitment of class III and class IVstaff in the
ManagementCorporation is being made as per the provisions of Life Insurance CorporationRecruitment(of class III
and class IV staff)Instructions, 1993 effective from 25.02.1993. The said instructions superseded the Recruitment
Instructions of 1979. These recruitmentrules have been held to be statutory rules having overriding force over the
Industrial Disputes Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Asha Ambedkar,
AIR 1994 SC 2148. Recruitmentrules envisage the normal mode of recruitment by inviting applications through
advertisement in local newspapers and where the appointmentsare temporary, the appointment is done by inviting
1378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
applications through Employment Exchanges. The requisitesof employment, the incidents of service, the process of
selection and the pattern of remuneration are all vastly dissimilar in the case of regular employment and temporary
employment. An engagement on daily wage basis is not envisaged to ripen into a regular employment. The provisions
of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 havebeen overridden by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)Regulations
1960, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)Instructions, 1993 and Life Insurance
Corporation of India(Recruitment of Class III and Class IVStaff)Instructions 1993. The engagement of the workman
was not according to any of the above statutory provisions or instructions. The provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 are not applicable to workman in respect of matters covered by Sec 48(2) (cc) of the LIC Act, 1956. The
workman was not retrenched as provided in Sec 25F of the Industrial DisputesAct as the workman wasnot governed
by Regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 or Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993or any other statutory rules or instructions. Once Sec 2(oo)
of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted, there is no question of application of Sec 25F.
3.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the workman filed an I.A. no.79/2017praying that he may be
reinstated inthe service of the Managementw.e.f. 07.08.2015 with back wages and other benefits. The Management
objected to the above application and therefore it was decided that the issue can be heard along with the industrial
dispute. The Management filedI.A. no.140/2019 pleading that the issue of maintainability may be heard as a
preliminary issue. The prayer of the Management was seriously objected to by the workman. Hence it was decided
that thequestion of maintainability also will be decided as a preliminary issue while disposing of the industrial dispute.
4.
On completion of the pleadings, the workman examined himself as WW1 and marked Exbts.W1 to W18. The
Managementdid not examine any witness, however Exbts.M1 and M2 were marked by consent.
5.
On completion of pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration in the proceedings
1. Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?
2. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement in the service of the Management with back wages and
other relatedbenefits ?
3. Whether theworkman is entitled for regularization in the service of the Management in the permanent
perennial post in which he was working ?
4. Relief and cost ?
6.
Issue no.1
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the ManagementCorporation isestablishedU/s 3 of the LIC
Act, 1956. U/s 23 of the Act, theCorporation is entitled to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the
purpose of enabling it to discharge its functions. As per Sec 48 of the Act, the Central Govt may make rules to carry
out the purpose of the Act. Sec 49 of the Act provides that the Management may with the previous approval of the
Central Govt, make regulations which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules. In exercise of powers U/s 49 of the
Act, theManagement in the year 1960 made Life Insurance Corporationof India (Staff)Regulations 1960. Life
Insurance Corporation Act was amended in the year 1981. It was stipulated that the provisions of clause (cc) and sub-
sec 2B and rules made under clause (cc) shallhave effect and any such rule made with retrospective effect from any
date shall also be deemed to have the effect from that date notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any
Court,Tribunal or authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while defining the scope of the above amendment in A. V. Nachane and another Vs UOI, AIR 1982
SC 1126 held that in respect of matters covered by the rules, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other
law willnot be operative.
7.
According to the learned Counsel for the workman, there is no conflict between the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act and the provisions of LIC Act rules, regulations and instructions. According to him the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act are attracted in this case. He pointed out that even as per the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the question of giving preference to the provisions of LIC Act and regulations will come only when
there is conflict with respect of provisions of Industrial DisputesAct. He further pointed out that application of the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is not completely taken away with regard to the appointments and service
conditions of employees appointed in Life Insurance Corporation.
8.
In the present case, the workman was engaged by the Management w.e.f. 23.10.2008 as a temporary
Assistant. This fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Management. It is seen that the Exbt.W16, the
statement of daily wagers (including watchman) prepared bythe Management, Ernakulam Division that the workman
was engaged w.e.f. 23.10.2008. According to the learned Counsel for the workman he continued in the service of the
Management in the same capacity till 07.08.2015. Exbt.W3 is the bank account of the workman in Punjab National
Bank. Exbt.W3 bank statement shows that the Management was releasing payments to the workman every month
from 07.11.2012. The payment upto 18.06.2015 is reflected in Exbt.W3 bank statement of the workman. Exbt.W4 is a
communication issued by the Ernakulam Division of the Management dt.27.08.2012 communicating the revision of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1379
wages of daily wagers to Rs.300/- w.e.f. 01.08.2012. Exbt.W5, W6, W7,W17 and W18 are returns of the Management
with regard to monthly statistics of temporary/badali/daily wagers during various spells which shows that the
Management engaged one Assistant at Kolencherry Satellite branch. Exbt.W15 (a to f)are vouchers given by the
workman to the Management for having received wages during various spells in 2015 upto 31.07.2015. All the above
documents supports the claim of the workman that he continued working withthe Management for the period from
23.10.2008 to 31.07.2015. The workman as WW1 also deposed in the proceedings that he continued to work with the
Management till 07.08.2015. The Management could not discredit the evidence of the workman in this regard.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management the workman is not engaged under any of the rules or
regulations. According tothe learned Counsel for the workman, the Management engaged his services for years
together and therefore they cannot claim that the workman is not entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is true that the Management can appoint persons on temporary basis for limited period. Sec 23 of the LIC Act
provides that the Management may employ such number of persons as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling it to
discharge its functions. Sec 48 deals with powers to make rules including the rules relating to the terms and
conditions of service of employees and agents of the Management. Sec 49 empowers the Management to make
regulations with the previous approval of Central Govt not inconsistent with Act and rules made thereunder to provide
for all matters for the purposes of giving effect tothe provisions of the Act. Regulation 8 deals with temporary staff.
Regulation 8(1) states that notwithstandinganything contain in these regulations the authoritiesmentionedtherein may
employ staff in class III and class IV on a temporary basis subject to such general or special directions as may be
issued by the Chairman from time to time. Sub regulation2 toregulation 8 states that no person appointed under Sub
regulation 1 shall only by reasonof such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service oftheCorporation or claim
preference for recruitment to any post.
9.
Another issue argued by the learned Counsel for the Management is that in view of regulations 8, the
provisions of Industrial DisputesAct are not applicable to the matters covered by Sec 48(2)(cc) of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act. The learned Counsel for the Management relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in A. V.Nachane and another Vs UOI and another, 1982 AIR 1126 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that “ In the instant case Sec 48(2C) read with Sec 48(2)(cc) authorizes the Central Govt to make rules to carry out the
purposes of the Act notwithstanding the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law. This means that in respect of the
matters covered by the rules the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct or any other law will not be operative “.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the issue in an altogether different set of facts and was examining
whether the Amendment Act of 1981 laid down any legislative policy or furnish any guidelines to indicate the nature
and extent of the modifications that the rules will be permitted to make in the existing laws to carry out the purposes
of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 as amended in 1981. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Venugopal Vs Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Machilipatnam, AIR 1994 SC 1343 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendments introduced in Sec
48 of Life Insurance Corporation Act have clearly excluded the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act so far they
are in conflict with the rules framed U/s 48(2)(oo). The Apex Court further held that once Sec 2(oo) is not attracted,
there is no question of application of Sec 25F on the basis of which the termination of the service of the appellant can
be held to be invalid. In the above case also the facts are entirely different.That was a case wherein the probation of
an Officer of the Corporation was not confirmed since he failed to achieve the targets fixed during probation. It is to
be pointed out that in both the above cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the exclusion of the provisions of
Industrial DisputesAct is applicable only in respect of the matters covered by the rules or when there is conflict with
the rules framed U/s 48(2)(cc). In the present case admittedly the workman is not appointed under regulation 8 of Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)Regulations, 1960 and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of
Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 or Life Insurance Corporation of India (Recruitment for Class III and Class IV
Staff)Instructions 1993. Also there is no conflict between the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act,
Regulations and Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the workman relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others, 2015 KHC 4225. This is a case where temporary employees appointed by the Life
Insurance Corporation challenged the validity of regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960. A full bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that regulation 8 is applicable to the
temporary employees and also held that sub clause b of Sec 2(oo) of the Industrial DisputesAct is valid and it does not
run counter to the provisions of Sec 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held that the
applicability of the Industrial DisputesAct is excluded from the field covered by Sec 48(2) of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after examining the history of the legislation and also the legal
authorities on the point, reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras upholding
the award of regularization passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.The Rules, Regulations and
Instructions under LIC Act authorizes the LIC to make temporary appointments, under the circumstances mentioned
therein.But under the quire of exercising such powers, the Management cannot resort to arbitrary and illegal methods
to deny valuable right of the workers which accrued on them by the operation of the provisions of law governing the
filed. In this case, when the worker moved the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015, the Management in
their written statement at paras 5 and 11 has taken a specific contention that “ if the petitioners have got a case that the
Corporation is resorting to any unfair labour practice or violated any provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, then it has
1380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
became necessary to workout their remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and not to invoke the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. Further in Para 5 of the written statement it is stated that “ violation of
various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be considered in a writ petition since the petitioners have
effective alternate remedy against the dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ”. On the basis of
the above contentions the Hon'ble High Court held that “ When the petitioners are raising their claims under the
provisions contained in the ID Act and the respondents also submit that the remedy is under the ID Act, and when
there is a statutory forum to adjudicate their claims under ID Act, there is no meaning in keeping the writ petition
pending before this Court. Petitioners are free to approach the competent authority to ventilate their grievance, as
provided under the ID Act ”. This is not challenged by the Management in W.A.1759/2016. The Management cannot
take a conflicting stand on the question of maintainability before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and before this
Tribunal.
In thelight of the above discussionsand inview of the legal position settled as per the above authorities, I am
of the view that the facts and circumstances involved in this case attracted provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
as there is no conflict between the said Act and Rules and Regulations under the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
1956.
10.
The learned Counsel for the Management also argued that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, in the absence of any statutory provision it is
not possible to regularize the service of the workman. The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) is not applicable to cases coming under the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarified the above position in Maharashtra State Road
Transport and another Vs Casteribe Rajaya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana, 2009 8 SCC 556. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the application of Industrial DisputesAct is not at all considered by the Constitution Bench
and therefore it was held that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is not applicable to cases coming under
Industrial Disputes Act. In Ajaypal Sing Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation,(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases
321 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Uma Devi’s case (Supra) and held that ;
“ 17. In Uma Devi’s case, (3) this Court held that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a
basic feature of our Constitution and since rule of law is a core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be
disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act and powers of the Industrial and Labour Court provided therein were not at all under
consideration in Uma Devi’s case (3). The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for
decision nor was decided in Uma Devi’s case.
The above decision was also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durgapur Casual
Workers Union and others Vs Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786. The Hon’ble Court held
that an undertaking of the Government which comes within the meaning of ‘industry’ or its establishment cannot
justify its illegal action including unfair labour practice nor can ask for different treatment on the ground that public
undertaking is guided by Articles 14 &16 of Constitution of India and the private industries are not guided by 14 &16
of the Constitution. In Umrala Grama Panchayat Vs Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 12 SCC 775
the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the services of the workmen in that case be regularized and made permanent
since they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
Taking into account all the facts and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the
present industrial dispute is maintainable. Hence the issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the
Management.
11.
Issue no.2 & 3
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the workman was engaged on daily wage basis as a casual
labour w.e.f. 23.10.2008 and he was not a temporary Assistant as claimed byhim. Hisservices was not uninterrupted
or continuous as contemplated U/s 25B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The workman was doing the work on need
basis andhis engagement was not through any regular recruitment process. The workman was disengaged when the
Management felt the services of the workman is no more required. The disengagement of the workman was not to
accommodate any other person and therefore there is absolutely no illegality or no arbitress having disengaged the
services of the workman. The learned Counsel also pointed out there is no unfair labour practice on the part of the
Management as defined under schedule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pointed out that he cannot claim
any relief U/s 25F, as he was not having continuous service as defined U/s 25B of the Act.
12.
The learned Counsel for the workman argued that the workman has been working as a temporary Assistant
on daily wages against permanent and perennial post. He was working continuously from 23.10.2008 andhe has
rendered continuous service U/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the Counsel, the services of the
workman was orally terminated w.e.f. 07.08.2015 as a measure of victimization and he approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala for regularization ofhis service with the Management. According to him, the Management resorted to
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1381
unfair labour practice U/s 2(ra) and had committed offence under items 5 and 10 of schedule 5 of the Industrial
DisputesAct, 1947. The unlawful retrenchment of the workmanw.e.f. 07.08.2015 falls under item 5 of Sec 2(ra)
unfair labour practice. According to the learned Counsel, the workman is entitled for reinstatement and regularization
in the service of the Management. From Exbt.W16, it is seen that the workmanwas engaged as an Assistant on daily
wages w.e.f. 23.10.2008. The monthly statistical returns in Exbt.W5, W6,W7,W18 and W19 would show that
oneAssistant is engaged in Kolencherry branch of the Management for the period 2013 to 2015. Exbt.W3, the bank
statement of the workman in Punjab National Bank shows that the workman wasbeing paid on an average of above
Rs.6900/- per month from 07.11.2012 to 08.06.2015. The Exbt.W3 would clearly show that at a salary of Rs.300/- per
day the workman workedcontinuously for 240 days prior to his termination on 07.08.2015. Exbt.W15 Series of
vouchers also will indicate that the workman worked with the Kolencherry branch of the Management and accepted
wages at the rate of Rs.300/- per day during 2015 upto 31.07.2015. According tothe learned Counsel for the
Management this evidence will not satisfy the requirement of continuous service U/s 25B of the Act.
According to Sec 25B;
“1. a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is for that period, in uninterrupted
service including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lockout or cessation of work which is not due to any fault
on the part of the workman.
2.
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause 1 for a period of one year
or 6 months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer for a period of one
year, if the workman during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than
I. ……
II. 240 days in any other case. “Hence to get the benefit of continuous service U/s 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act the workman ought to have worked with the Management for 240 days during a period of
12 calendar months preceding 07.08.2015. The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that the
workman produced all the documents athis possession to substantiate the claim that he worked for
more than 240 days during the preceding 12 months beforehis termination. However the Management
failed to rebuthis claim by producing any documents in their custody. The learned Counsel for the
workman relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director, Fisheries
Terminal Division Vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, 2010 KHC 6126 to argue that once the
workmandischargedhis responsibility by producing the documents athiscommand, the burden shifts to
the Management to prove that he has not worked for more than 240 days as required U/s 25B of the
Act. In the above case the workman was a watchman who was paid daily wages and whose presence
were marked in the Muster Roll. According to the Management, the workman worked from 1986 till
1988 and during this period the workman had worked for 93 days, 145 days and 31 days respectively.
According to them the workman had not worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in R.M. Yellatty Vs Assistant Executive Engineer,
2006 1 SCC 106 held that
“The respondent was a workman hired on daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed out
in the above case, that he would have difficulty in having access to all the above documents, Muster
Roll etc., in connection with his service. He came forwarded and deposed, so in our opinion the burden
of proof shift to the employer/appellant to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuous service “.
13.
In the present case also it is seen that theworkman is examined as WW1 and he stated inhis evidence that he
worked with the Management from 2008 to 2015. In this case theExbt.W3 bank statement of payments of wages made
by the Management supported by the vouchers in Exbt.W15 Series and the returns of temporary employees filed by
the workman would clearly establish the case of the workman that he worked for morethan 240 days with the
Management,one year immediately prior to his date of termination. The learned Counsel for the workman relied on
the decision of Gauri Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 12 SCC 754. In the above case, the workman was
working with the respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f.
01.01.1987 till his services came to be retrenched and he had rendered service of more than 240 days in every
calendar year and has received salary from the respondent department each month. The workman challenged the
retrenchment as bad in law as the same is in violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of the ID Act. The
workman applied for production of the Muster Roll and the management failed to produce the relevant Muster Rolls.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs Muhammed Haji
Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and Murukesam Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 5 LW 759 held that even if
the burden of proof does lie on a party, the Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents
in his possession which can throw light on the facts of issue. The learned Counsel for the workman also relied on the
1382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial EnterprisesLtd Vs Mahak Singh and others, 2007 4
SCC 94, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their initial onus by producing
the documents in their possession it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the claim of the workman that
he did not work for more than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior to his/her termination. In
this case there is no dispute regarding the fact that theworkman was engaged as on daily wages w.e.f. 23.07.2008.
There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 07.08.2015. The
documents discussed above will substantiate the above points. The workman also produced evidence to show that he
was paid wagesw.e.f. 07.11.2012 every month upto 31.07.2015. The other evidences as discussed above confirms his
engagement upto 31.07.2015. He has also entered the box and deposed that he worked with the Management
continuously from 2008 to 2015. Hence it can safely be considered that the workman had discharged his
responsibility of proving that he worked for more than 240 days in one year prior tohis date of termination. In such
circumstances as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, it is possible to draw an inference
that he worked for more than 240 days in view of the fact that the Management failed to produce any documents to
disprovehis claim that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in one year prior to the date ofhis termination.
Hence from the facts and law discussed above, it is concluded that the workman had rendered continuous
service of 240 days makinghim eligible for the benefits U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
14.
The learned Counsel for the Management argued that the workman in the present case is only a casual
employee on daily wages and therefore he is not entitled to claim the benefits U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The learned Counsel for the workman argued that the nature of employment of the workman will not any way
affecthis claim for reinstatement and regularization. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar K. Vs
Managing Director, KTDC Ltd, 2019 1 KHC 225 held that the definition in Sec 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act
includes casual employees also. The Hon'ble High Court held that
“ Para 18. From this it is quiet evident that the definition of the term ‘workman’ U/s 2S of the Industrial
Disputes Act includes a casual employee as well and hence the decision cited (Supra) (in the context
governed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act) is not at all attracted to the case in hand ”
15.
The Management has no case that they followed the procedure prescribed U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act while terminating the workman. In view of the above, it is clear that the Management terminated the services of
the workman in clear violation of the provisions of Sec 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
19.
Considering all the facts, pleadings and evidence in this case, I am inclined to hold that the retrenchment of
the workman from the service of the Management is abinitio void and is in violation of Sec 25F of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
20.
Issue no.4
According tothe learned Counsel for the Management, the workman wasonly a casualemployee and the Management
was paying only for the days when he worked for the Management. Accordingtothe learned Counsel for the
workman, the workman was working against a permanent and perennial post in the Management. According to him,
the illegal retrenchment of the workman from the services of the Management is a case of victimization which under
item number 5 of Sec 2(ra) is an unfair labour practice. He also pointed out that the Management resorted to unfair
labour practice U/s 2(ra) under item number 10 of Schedule 5 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The evidence
discussed above would clearly establish the fact that workman was engaged as a daily wage Assistant w.e.f.
23.10.2008 and he continued as a daily wager till his retrenchment on 07.08.2015. As per Sec 2(ra) “ Unfair labour
practice means any of the practices specified in the 5thSchedule “. Item number 10 in Schedule Vis “To employ
workmen as badalis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them
of the status of permanent workman”. As already pointed out the workman was engaged by the Management for over
a period of 7 years as a casual/temporary employee ignoring his request for regularization in the service of the
Management. Henceit is a clear case of unfair labour practice denying the right of regularization tothe workman by
the Management. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajayapal Sigh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation,
(Supra) held that even while retrenching a casual employee, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted to and the
workmancannot
be
retrenched
without
notice
pay
and
other
benefits
in
terms
of
Sec 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,if the workman worked for 240 days immediately prior to his
retrenchment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
18. We have noticed that Industrial Dispute Act is made for the settlement of industrial disputes and certain other
purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees
as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving them the status and privilege of permanent
employees.
19. Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen. A
workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer
is entitled to benefit under the said provisions if the employer retrenches the workman. Such a workman cannot be
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1383
retrenched until he/she is given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice apart from
compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any
part thereof in excess of 6 months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the
appropriate Govt or such Authority as may be specified by appropriate Govt by notification in the official Gazette. If
any part of the provisions of Sec 25F is violated and the employer there by, resorts to unfair trade practice with the
object to deprive the workman with privilege as provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by
taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India.
(20) - - - - - - - - - - - -
(21) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Para 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of “retrenchment“ on the ground that the initial
appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Article 14 &16 of the Constitution of India or in
accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment for such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted to
and thereby the workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in
terms of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar
year”.
The learned Counsel for the workman relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasmar Singh
Vs State of Haryana and other, 2015 4 SCC 458 and argued that the workman is entitled for reinstatement
with full back wages since the order of termination was void abinitio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above case relied on the following observation of the Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior
Adyapak Mahavidyalaya,2013 10 SCC 324 to hold that when the termination is found to be illegal, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages.
“ Para 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal
or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have
been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the
passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source
of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all
opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from relatives and
other aquittance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continued till the competent adjudicatory forum decides
on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the
employer is ultravires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the
employee to claim full back wages. If the employer was to deny back wages to the employee, or contesting
his entitlement to get consequential benefits then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during
the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The
denial of back wages to an employee who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to
indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation
to pay back wages including the emoluments”.
In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of a workman working as a daily
paid workman in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Karnal) for more than 240 days.
21.
The learned Counsel for the workman pointed out that in view of the fact that the workman worked
continuously for morethan 240 days one year prior to his date of termination and also due to the fact that the
Management adopted unfair labour practice in terminating the service of the workman without following the
prescribed procedure U/s 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, the workman is required to be regularized in the service of
theManagement from the date of his termination. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others, 2015 KHC 4225 to drive home his point that the workman is entitled for
regularization with the Management. Inthe above case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the challenge in respect
of the termination of various categories of temporary badali and part time workers in various Offices, Zones and
Divisions of the Corporation across India. Those workmen were appointed by following the procedure under the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations. The CGIT passed an award dt.18.06.2001 in terms of Justice R.D.
Tulpuli and Justice Jamdar giving directions to the Life Insurance Corporation for their absorption in theirrespective
posts. The above said award wasset aside by the SingleBench and DivisionBench of the Hon'ble High Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the application of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (Supra) and also the facts of the case held that the award passed by the
1384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CGIT for absorption of the above temporary employees is in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also
held that
“ Para 28. The learned Amicuscuriae rightly placed reliance upon entry item number 10 of schedule V of the
Act in employingthe concerned workmen as temporary, badali and part time employees against permanent
post doing perennial nature of work and continuing them as such for number of years. This is a clear case of
unfair labour practice as defined U/s 2(ra) of the Act which is statutorily prohibited U/s 25T of the Act and
the said action of the Corporation amounts to penalty U/s 25U of the Act. For this reason also the findings
and reasons recorded in the award of the CGIT in answering the points of dispute referred to it by Central
Govt in favour of the concerned workmen is legal and valid “
In the present case as already pointed out, the workman is a graduate having completed his B.Com Degree
and also Computerised Financial Accounting from LBS Centre for Science& Technology. He was engaged by the
Management w.e.f. 23.10.2008 to 07.08.2015 as a temporary Assistant. Though the Management claimed that he is
not appointed under Regulation 8 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) regulation, 1960,he continued to be
engaged for almost 7 years without absorption or regularization in the service of the Management. Further hisservices
were terminated in violation of Sec 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence I am of the considered view that the
workman is entitled to be reinstated and regularized in the service of the Management w.e.f. 07.08.2015 with 50%
back wages and other consequential benefits and continuity of service.
Hence an award is passed holding that in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the case attracted
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The retrenchment of the workman from the services of the
Management w.e.f. 07.08.2015 is in violation of Sec 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the workman is entitled to
be reinstated with 50% back wages and regularized in the service of the Management with all consequential benefits
and continuity of service w.e.f. 07.08.2015.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 25th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman:-
WW1
- Sri. Arun Kumar P. S., dt.21.05.2019
Witness for the Management:-Nil
Exhibits for the Workman:-
W1
-
True copy of the degree certificate dt.05.10.2007of the workman
W2
-
True copy of the certificate of computerised Financial Accounting of the workman
W3
-
True copy of the Pass Book dt. 26.08.2011 held by the workman in the Punjab National Bank
W4
-
True software copy of order of increase in wages of daily Wagers dt.30.08.2012
W5
-
True software copy of statement of temporary employees dt.01.10.2013 sent by 4th Management
to superior officers
W6
-
True software copy of criteria for the selection of daily wagers in BO/SOdt.12.09.2013 sent by
4th Management to superior officers
W7
-
True software copy of monthly statistics of temporary Class III Employees dt.29.10.2013 for the
month of September, 2013
W8
-
Copy of W.P.(C) no.17594/2015 filed by the workman and another before the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala
W9
-
Copy of I.A. no.13149/2015 dt.11.09.2015 filed by the workman and another in W.P.(C)
no.17594/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W10
-
Copy of judgment dt.15.06.2016 of the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015
W11
-
Copy of the Memorandum of writ appeal W.A. no. 1759/2016 filed by the Management before
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W12
-
Copy of counter affidavit filed by the Management in the above W.P.(C) no.17594/2015 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
W13
-
Copy of reply affidavit dt.05.01.2016 filed by the workman and another in W.P.(C)
no.17594/2015
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1385
W14
-
Copy of judgment dt.07.03.2017 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
against the judgment in W.A.no.1759/2016 dt. 10.01.2017
W15
-
Receipts (6 in numbers) for having received wages by Series workman on different dates [P10(a)
to P10(f)]
W16
-
True software copy of monthly statistics of daily wagers sent by the3rd Management to the
superiors
W17(a)
-
True software copy of Class III Employees dt.01.06.2015 for the month of May 2015
W17(b)
-
True software copy of Class IV Employees dt.01.06.2015 for the month of May 2015
W18
-
True software copy of Class III Employees dt.03.05.2014 for the month of April 2014
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
-
True copy of the letter of delegation of powers in favour of Manager(L&HPF) executed by the
Zonal Manager, Management
M2
-
True copy of judgment dt.10.01.2017 of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
in W.A. No.1759/2016 against the judgment in W.P.(C) no.17594/2015 dt.15.06.2016
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 667.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार िनरल मजनेिर, सिंिुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एल. के.
असीिा, िनरल सेक्रेटरी, सिंिुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म एम्प्लाइि ूजन न, दिल्ली के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 97/2013) को प्रकाजित
करती िज।
[सं. एल-30011/19/2013-IR(M)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 97/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi and Shri L.K. Asija, General Secretary, Hindustan
Petroleum Employees Union, Delhi.
[No. L-30011/19/2013-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-L, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt.Parnita Mohanty
ID. No. 97/2013
Shri L.K.Asija, General Secretary,
Hindustan Petroleum Employees Union,
203, Pocket D-14,Sector-8,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
. …Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
HPCL, North Zone Office at
Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
…. Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-30011/19/2013-IR(M) dated 23.05.2013 under clause (d) of sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
1386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether non-consideration of request of transfer of Shri Shiv Kumar from GM DNZ to Delhi
Coordination Office, Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi on Seniority basis by the management of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to’’?
2. The claimant had moved an application with requested to withdraw the case as do not have any demands against
the management. Now ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award passed. 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
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 668.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार मेससज िगिीि रेसडंग कंृनी, कार ाना प्रबंिक, मेससज अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड जवक्रम सीमेंट वक्सज ोरे, नीमच,
(एम.ृी.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री दकिन एंड अन् , अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड जवक्रम सीमेंट वकजसज ोरे,
नीमच, (एम.ृी.) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल ,
िबलृुर ृंचाट (संिभज सं् ा 91/2019) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. एल-29012/6/2019-IR(M)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Jagdish Trading Company, Kharkhana Prabhandak, M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited and
Shri Kishen and Others, Ultratech Cement Limited, Vikram Cement Workers, Neemuch (M.P.).
[F. No. L-29012/6/2019-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/91/2019
Present : P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kishen and Others
Ultratech Cement Limited
Vikram Cement workers Khore, Neemuch
M.P.-458470
…Workman
Versus
M/s. Jagdish Trading Company
8, Shashti Nagar, Khore, Neemuch
M.P.
Kharkhana Prabhandak
M.s Ultratech Cement Ltd.
Vikram Cement Works,
Khore Neemuch
Madhya Pradesh
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1387
AWARD
(Passed on 17-6-2022)
As per letter dated 16/12/2019 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-L-29012/6/2019-
IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya shri Kishen singh even anya sharmiko(soochi salangn) ke patra ke anusar Shri Kishen Singh Evam
Anya Shramikon ko ultratech cement limited Khore Neemuch ke sthapana mein neyokta
M/s Jagdeesh Trading Company, Neemuch dwara paryapt duty na diye jaana even kuch shramikon ko
kaam se nekala haana kanooni roop se uchhit hain?yadi nahi , to kya ukt kamgar anutosh paane ka
adhikari hai aur yadi haan , ukt kamgaar ke anutosh and adhikari hai?Yadi avashak ho to mamle mein
anya nerdish kya hai?” .”
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
1.
Inspite of the service of notice to the workmen, have not appeared. They have not filed any statement of
claim.
2.
The Management has also not filed any statement of defence, though much time was given to the
Management.
3.
It appears that the parties are not interested to pursue their claim/defense.
4.
The reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
5.
Since the initial burden to put up and prove their claim is on the workmen in which they have miserably
failed, Hence this tribunal is constrained to decide the reference against the workmen
6.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management is held to be justified in law and fact.
B.
The workmen are held entitled to no relief.
7.
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, 12 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 669.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री
सरकार ूरेजन म कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा जलजमटेड, ििुगोडा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमजकार के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , के िनबाि ृंचाट (संिभज
सं् ा 18/2019) को प्रकाजित करती िज।
[सं. एल-43011/2/2019-आईआर(एम)]
डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2022
S.O. 669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jadugoda and Their Workman.
[No. L-43011/2/2019-IR(M)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
1388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 18/2019
Employer in relation to the management of Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jadugoda.
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri P.R. Rakshit, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Uranium
Dated : 31.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-43011/2/2019-IR(M) dated 22.03.2019 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 death of Late Shri Tapas Ranjan Maity, Ex-Tradesman-D (Welder) is due to ‘Injury on Work’
(IOW) under the management of Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., Jadugora, East Singbhum,
Jharkhand? If yes, what directions and reliefs, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
2. The reference is received on 02/04/2019 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, Uranium Mazdoor Sangh,
Jadugora 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.
Thereafter again two regd. notices were issued to workman/union but even then the workman/union failed to appear
before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 02/04/2019 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@81@2008-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2008) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/81/2008 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1389
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. 54/2008
Employer in relation to the management of Lodna 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 : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/81/2008-(IR(CM-I)) dated 04.11.2008 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
“i) Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying promotion to
S/Shri Amal Kumar Roy and Lachhman Dusadh as Chainmen-F is justified and legal? ii) To what reliefs
are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 17/11/2008 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, Colliery 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 had appeared on certain dates but
union/workman had failed to appear before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 17/11/2008 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@125@2005-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2006) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/125/2005 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
1390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 35/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 30.05 .2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/125/2005-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:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Mukundo
Manjhi vide letter dt. 13.2.04 from service is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman
entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 13/02/2006 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, Rashtriya 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 union/workman had appeared on 02/06/2006 and 27/07/2006, but subsequently left appearing before the
Tribunal. However, the management had appeared on certain dates. Now 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15/2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@11@2008-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2008) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/11/2008 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1391
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. 15/2008
Employer in relation to the management of Lodna 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 : 30/05/2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/11/2008-(IR(CM-I)) dated 14/19.03.2008 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 Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularising the
services of Sh. Din Dayal Mishra, as Banksman in Cat.-IV is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is
the concerned workman entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 02/04/2008 by this Tribunal in which the Working President, Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda
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 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 02/04/2008
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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25/2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@43@2008-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2008) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/43/2008 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
1392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 25/2008
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 : 31.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/43/2008-(IR(CM-I)) dated 28.03.2008 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
“i) Whether the action of the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sh.Mangal
Bhuia, W/Loader from the services of the company w.e.f. 13.5.2002 is legal and justified? (ii) To what
relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 02/06/2008 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 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 02/06/2008 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07/2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@145@2007-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2008) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/145/2007 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1393
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 07/2008
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 : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/145/2007-(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 Dhansar Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying regularization as
Cap Lamp Incharge Grade-C to Shri Santosh Kumar Dutta, Assistant Cap Lamp Room Incharge 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 Vice President, Dhanbad Colliery
Karamchari 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 union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However management had appeared
on 29/06/2020 but thereafter failed to appear before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since 12/03/2008 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] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 218/2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@52@2000-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 218/2000) 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 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/52/2000 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
1394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 218/2000
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. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/52/2000- (C-I) dated 24.07.2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union to provide employment to Smt. Tula Devi wife OF Late Sh.
Sarbeshwar Mahto on compassionate grounds is proper and justified? If so, to what relief the said
dependent of deceased employee is entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 07/08/2000 by this Tribunal in which the Area President, Rashtriya Colliery 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, but subsequently workman/union left appearing before this
Tribunal. Thereafter, again regd. notices were issued to both the parties but the notice issued to union returned
unserved. Now this case is pending since 07/08/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt
that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 61/2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@9@2005-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2022
S.O. 676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2005) 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 13.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/9/2005 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 16, 2022/आषाढ़ 25, 1944
1395
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. 61/2005
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No. III of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri Ganesh Pd. Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/9/2005-IR(C-I) dated 19.07.2005 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 action of the management of South Govindpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL to dismiss
Sh. Ainul Ansari from service w.e.f. 19.8.2004 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 22/08/2005 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Rashtriya Colliery 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 had appeared on 27/09/2005, but subsequently left appearing before the Tribunal.
However, the management had appeared on certain dates. Now 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] 14 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14/2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@58@2018-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2022
S.O. 677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2018) 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 13.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/58/2018 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
1396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 16, 2022/ASADHA 25, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 14/2018
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/58/2018- (IR(CM-I)) dated 04.09.2018 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 Bansdeopur Colliery of M/s BCCL in denying promotion to
Shri Binay Kumar Ram (P.No-01435515), Shri Acheylal (P. No-03039781), Shri Shankar Kumar Bhuia
(P.No-03038544), Shri Arjun Gosai (P.No-01443290), Shri Arjun Bouri (P. No-0144330p8) and Md.
Rafique (P.No-01421890) all fitter/helper of Bansdeopur Colliery of M/s. BCCL from Category-II to CAT-
III is fair, proper and justified?
ii)
If not, what relief they are entitled to and from which date?
iii) And what other directions are necessary in this regard?”
2. The reference is received on 13/09/2018 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
but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since
13/09/2018 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
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Digitally signed by SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Date: 2022.07.25 15:55:39 +05'30'