4757 GI/2022
(1421)
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. 30]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 24— िुलाई 30, 2022, िजनवार/ श्रावण 2— श्रावण 8, 1944
No. 30]
NEW DELHI, JULY 24—JULY 30, 2022, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 2–SRAVANA 8, 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)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 690.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार अध् क्ष
एवं प्रबंि जनिेिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, भारत संचार भवन, िरीि चंर मा ुर लेन, दिल्ली,; मु् मिाप्रबंिक,भारत संचार
जनगम जलजमटेड, गुिरात टेलीकॉम सककल, नवरंगृुरा, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात); मिाप्रबंिक (प्रिासन), ओ/ओ सीिीएमटी, गुिरात
सककल, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, गुिरात टेलीकॉम सर्ककल, नवरंगृुरा, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार जिला,
भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, ेड़ा िूरसंचार जिला, नजड ाि (गुिरात), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और जिला सजचव एवं अंचल
अध् क्ष, (गुिरात) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िकष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -
अिमिाबाि ृंचाट (संिभक सं् ा 33/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 13.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42011/211/2018- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-05082022-237926
CG-DL-W-05082022-237926
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-06082022-237926
CG-DL-W-06082022-237926
1422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th July 2022
S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum
Labour Court - Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra
Mathur Lane, Delhi,; The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Gujarat Telecom Circle,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),; The General Manager (Admn.),O/o CGMT, Gujarat Circle, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Gujarat Telecom Circle, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat),; The General Manager,Telecom
District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kheda Telecom District, Nadiad (Gujarat), and The General Manager,
Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kheda Telecom District, Nadiad (Gujarat), and The District
Secretary, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.07.2022.
[No. L-42011/211/2018- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
Dated 11th May, 2022
Reference (CGITA) No. - 33/2019
1. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, Delhi - 110001
2. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Gujarat Telecom Circle, 7th Floor, Telephone Bhavan,
C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380009
3. The General Manager(Admn.),
O/o CGMT, Gujarat Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Gujarat Telecom Circle, 3rd Floor, Telephone Bhavan,
C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009
4. The General Manager,
Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kheda Telecom District, Pij Road, Vallabh Nagar Society,
Nadiad (Gujarat) – 387002
…First Parties
V/s
The District Secretary and Circle President,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Employees Union,
Kheda Telecom District, Gujarat Circle,
O/o GMTD, Pij Road, Vallabh Nagar,
Nadiad (Gujarat) – 387002
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/211/2018-IR (DU) dated 22.01.2019 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1423
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the District Secretary and Circle President, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Employees union, Nadiad for providing Immunity from transfer to Kum. Geetaben T. Chavla, (Assistant
District Secretary of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Employees Union) from the management of Chief
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ahmedabad and others is just, fair and legal? If yes,
to what relief, Kum. Geetaben T. Chavla, (Assistant District Secretary of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Employees Union) is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 05.02.2019. The Ministry had directed the party raising the
dispute to file the statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2. Notice Exh. 2 issued by the Tribunal to all parties to appear and file statement of claim and written statement
thereof. A period of more than 3 years had been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of
claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. Advocate for first party Shri H.R. Raval submitted an application on 11.05.2022 for disposal of case
mentioning that the applicant Kum. Geetaben T. Chavla had voluntarily retired from service w.e.f.
31.01.2020 afternoon. She had accepted the VRS Order on 04.01.2020. The application is also annexed with
copy of VRS Order dated 31.01.2020.
4. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
5. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
6. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 691.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
एस.ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
– सि
–
Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 95/2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/32/2009. vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022
S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/32/2009 – IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
1424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/95/2009
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Lalmani Sharma,
S/o Sh. Baikunth Prasad Sharma
Qtr.No.PB/10, Railway Colony,
Dhanpuri, Shahdol (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
Sohagpur Area of SECL
PO:Dhanpuri, Shahdol (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 8-6-2022.)
As per letter dated 11-11-2009 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-22012/32/2009-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s SECL in terminating the services of Shri Lalmani Sharma
w.e.f. 1-8-2005 is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled for ? .”
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 working as a Sr. Overman in
Rajendra Coal Mines, Sohagpur Area under the management. He was illegally terminated from service on 1-8-2005
by Management. He was first appointed on 1-1-1970 in Rewa Coal Fields CompanyLimited. His age 20 years was
mentioned in the form-B register maintained by his first employer Rewa Coal Fields Company Limited at the time of
his first joining. The Management of Rewa Coal Fields Company Limited, his first employer was nationalized in the
year 1973 with the present Management. The present management issued a letter through the Manager of Burhar
No.1 Mines where the workman was working on 19-12-1992, to produce Higher secondary school certificate or any
other document showing the correctness of his age 20 years as recorded at the time of first appointment in the Form-B
register. According to the workman, he produced his High Secondary School failed marksheet in original which was
of the year 1967 issued by M.P.Education Board wherein his date of birth was mentioned is 7-8-1949 whereas the
management arbitrarily recorded his date of birth as 7-8-1947, ignoring the High Secondary School certificate and
marksheet and his date of birth 20 years was recorded in the form-B register maintained by his first employer Rewa
Coal Fields Company Limited. When the workman made a representation in this respect, he was issued a charge sheet
alleging violation of para 26.9 and 26.13 of the NCWA for producing false and forged higher secondary school
certificate and marksheet showing his date of birth as 7-8-1949 instead of 7-8-1947 by way of overwriting/erasing in
the marksheet and certificate. The inquiry was conducted in his absence . Rules of natural justice were not followed.
He was not given opportunity to defend himself, hence is illegal. The charges were not proved in the inquiry and
punishment of dismissal was against law because it was on the basis of an illegal inquiry in which charges were not
proved. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated in service treating his
date of birth as 7-8-1949 and be given all consequential benefits.
3.
According to the management, the workman was initially appointed on 1-1-1970 by his first employer and
after nationalization in 1973, he became an employee of present management. In his Form-B register and service
book his date of birth was mentioned as 7-8-1947 on the basis of the information furnished by him. He appeared in
Mines Safety examinations conducted by the Director General Mines Safety and obtained gas tested certificates,
overman certificates under the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 7-8-1947. At
the request of the workman the Management issued a letter on 19-12-1992 in reply to his application dated 10-12-
1992 to produce his high school certificate or any other certificate so that his correct date of birth is entered in the
Form-B register. He produced his marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate 1967 examination wherein
there was a tampering in the last digit of the year of his birth, making the year from 1947 to 1949. On doubt a
messenger was sent by the Management to the office of Secondary Board Examination with a letter of request issued
by the Management seeking genuiness of the certificate and marksheet. The Additional Secretary of the Board sent a
letter in sealed cover through the authorized messanger which was opened in front of witnesses. According to the
report the date of birth of the workman was found 7-8-1947 in the Examination Board records. It was also found that
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1425
in his service book, he had mentioned 11th class pass from M.P.Board in second division which was also false as in
fact he had failed in two subjects in the Board examination. The Management decided to initiate a departmental
action against him treating it to be violation of para 26.9 and 26.13 of the Standing Orders. The workman was issued
a charge sheet on 30-5-2005. He submitted his reply on 10-6-2005. His reply was unsatisfactory, hence the
management decided to conduct departmental inquiry vide order dated 30-6-2005. Shri K.S.Arya the then Personnel
Manager was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Shri N.Philip, Superintendent of Rajendra Mines was appointed
Management representative. The workman informed the inquiry officer that he had filed a civil suit before Civil Court
regarding declaration of his date of birth which is pending and he denied the charges. He did not participate during
the inquiry inspite of service of notice to him. The Inquiry officer collected evidence and held him guilty of charge
vide the Inquiry Report dated 11-7-2005 submitted by him. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice
on 16-7-2005 with a copy of inquiry report to submit representation if any against the inquiry report. The workman
did not submit any satisfactory representation, hence he was dismissed from service vide order of Disciplinary
Authority dated 1-8-2005. Civil Suite No.5A/2007 filed by the workman with reference to declaration of his date of
birth was also dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge , Senior Division. According to the management the
inquiry conducted was legal following the rules and procedures. The workman did not participate in the inquiry
inspite of full knowledge of the inquiry proceedings. The charges are approved from the inquiry and punishment is
also proportion to the charges. Accordingly, the management required that the reference be answered against the
workman.
4.
ON the basis of the pleading the following preliminary issue was framed by my learned Predecessor:-
“ Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman is proper and legal.?”
5.
This issue was decided by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 17-2-2016 holding the inquiry
against law . His this order is part of this Award. Thereafter, the Management was given opportunity to prove the
charges before the Tribunal.
6.
The management examined its witness Shri P.K.Paul Officer Superintendent . He has been cross-examined
by the workman. The Management has filed documents Exhibit M-1 to M-15 as Annexures to the affidavit of
Management witness Nitin Philip and has further filed certificate copy of judgment of Court of Civil Judge in Civil
suit 21/2005 and Civil suit No.5A/2007. The management has further filed certified copy of decree in the Civil Suit
5A/2007, certificate copy of marksheet of the workman with regard to 1968 examination and volume of documents to
be referred to as and when required. The workman has also filed and proved documents to be referred to as and when
required.
7.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel Shri Rajesh Chandra for workman and Shri Ashok Sharma for
management and have perused the record.
8.
Following issues arise in the case in hand as it appears from perusal of record in the light of rival arguments:-
(1)
Whether the Management has successfully proved the charges before this Tribunal?
(2)
If yes, whether the termination of services of the workman by management is justified in law?
9. Issue No. 1:
As it has been mentioned earlier the departmental inquiry conducted has been held against law by my learned
Predecessor, thereafter the management has been given opportunity to prove the charges before this Tribunal. the
Management witness Shri P.K.Paul has stated in his affidavit as his examination in Chief that the workman made a
claim stating his date of birth as 7-8-1949 in place of 7-8-1947 mentioned in the official records. He produced a
marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate in this respect which appeared tampered in the last digit of his year
of birth, hence the Management decided to inquire the matter. The management sent a letter to Secretary of
Secondary Education Board along with an authorization letter issued by the management through a messanger
requesting him to verify the marksheet sent with the letter of the management and send his reply in a sealed cover of
the Management through the special messanger sent in this respect. The Additional Secretary send his report after
verification of the marksheet in a sealed cover through the special messanger which was opened before the witnesses.
According to the report the actual date of birth mentioned in the Board records was 7-8-1947 and not 7-8-1949. The
workman had filed a Civil Suit No.5A/2007 before the Civil Judge Class-I,District Shahdol for correction/declaration
of his date of birth as 7-8-1949 in place of 7-8-1947 which was dismissed after it was held that the marksheet
produced by the workman was not genuine. This witness has been cross-examined by the workman. There is nothing
significant in his cross-examination.
10.
On the other hand the workman has stated in his affidavit as his Examination in Chief that he has got
documents in RTI Act according to which there is an RTI answer issued by the Principal stating that his date of birth
is recorded 7-8-1949 in the student register and his name Lalmani Sharma, S/o Baikunthram Sharma resident of
Salaiya, Tehsil also recorded in the school register and transfer certificate with same date of birth as 7-8-1949 has
been recorded in his High School marksheet of year 1967 having rol1 no.080471. His age 20 years was recorded in
1426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
form-B in the year 1970. This fact also corroborates his date of birth in 1949. There is nothing significant in his cross-
examination. The case mainly rests on documentary evidence.
11.
According to the management witness in the year 1968 Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination
the roll number of the workman was 085241 and his date of birth was recorded as 7-8-1947. His name Lalmani
Sharma S/o Baikunthram Sharma was recorded in this certificate. This document has been filed and proved by the
management. There is letter of Additional Secretary of the Board filed and proved wherein he has informed that in the
certificate of 1964 the roll no. 085241 name of the student was Lalmani Sharma, S/o Baikunthram Tiwari date of
birth 7-8-1947 is mentioned in the Board records. The workman has filed RTI documents regarding his Higher
Secondary School Certificate Examination 1967 Roll No.080471 mentioning his date of birth as 7-8-1949. In both
these certificates the workman has failed. In the Board Examination in 1967 Certificate his name Lalmani Sharma
Tripathi S/o Baikunthram is mentioned . It appears that the workman appeared in the board Examination in the year
1967 and 1968 and he failed in both the years. The judgment of the Civil Judge class-I in Civil Suit 5A/2007 reveals
that the workman had filed both these certificates of 1967 and 1968 but the certificate of 1967 was not found genuine
by the Civil Court because it did not have the signature of the Secretary, whereas the certificate of year 1968 did have
the signatures of the Secretary. This is the finding of fact recorded by the Civil Court on the basis of the evidence.
This finding and judgment of the Civil Court is final and is binding on parties and will operate as res judicata under
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. This finding of the Civil Court supports the case of the Management with
respect to charge and discredits the case of the workman in this respect. Hence on the basis of the above discussion,
the charge as mentioned above is held proved from the evidence on record.]
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
12. Issue No.2:-
The charge is regarding manipulation and tampering of record and preparing forged documents regarding date of
birth. This is a severe misconduct.
13
Before proceeding, the settled preposition of law on the issue requires to be mentioned here, which is as
follows:-
14
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence
relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of invoking the
powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that the Court should
interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the misconduct committed or it is
harsh.
1.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about
the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its
own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider
the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
2.
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High
Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors
including the 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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1427
administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-
making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to
shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording
cogent reasons in support thereof.”
4.
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary
proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
5.
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated
that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the
conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
6.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High
Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or
on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion
suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the
court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or
appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the
nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds,
previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or
establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on
reappraisal of facts.
7.
Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in
the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on
record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the
question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for
interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere with
findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal
acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The
courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or
statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or
based on extraneous considerations.
IN the light of the aforementioned settled preposition of law, the punishment awarded cannot be held
so shockingly disproportionate to warrant interference by this Tribunal Affirming the sentence, Issue
No.2 is answered accordingly.
13. ISSUE NO.3:-
Accordingly on the basis of the findings recorded in Issue No.1 & Issue No.2 the termination of services of
the workman by management is held justified in law and the workman is held entitled to no relief. Issue No.3 is
answered accordingly.
14.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of M/s SECL in terminating the services of Shri Lalmani Sharma w.e.f.
1-8-2005 is held to be legal and justified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
C. Parties to bear their own cost.
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
1428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 692.—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
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky; िबलृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22/2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@99@2015. vkbZ- vkj- ¼सी एम- 2½]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022
S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2016) 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 22.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/99/2015 –IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/22/2016
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Md. Naseem Siddique, Zonal mahamantri
Coal Mines EDngineering Workers Association
Ward No.10, Gudi Papa Chouri
Chhindwara (MP)
…Workman
Versus
The Manager,
WCL, Mohan Colliery, Kanhan Area
P.O.Ambara, Tehsil Junnardev,
Chhindwara
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 9-6-22)
As per letter dated 4/2/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification
No.L-22012/99/2015-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Prabhandak Mohan Colliery Western Coal Fields Limited, Kanhan Area,Post Ambada, Tehsil
Junnardev, Jilla Chhindwara(M.P.) dwara NCWA-11 ke pravdhan 10.4.4 va NCWA-111 ke pravdhan
9.4.4 ke anusar denank 31-3-2011 ko seva nevratt hue purv kamgar Shri Kariya vald Nathu ke ashrit
putra Vinay Kumar ko rozgar na dene nyaysangat hai?Yadi Nahi to kamgar kya anutosy paane ka
adhikari hai? .”
Another corrigendum was sent by the Ministry(I.R.C-2) vide letter dated 24-2-2016 wherein it has been
mentioned that “Anshik Sanshodahan karte hue anusuchi ke tritya pankti mein ullekhit Shri Kariya vald Nathu ke
ashrit putra Vinay Kumar ke sthan par Shri Asharaf Ali ke Ashrit Putra shri Afshan Ali padha jayer tatha anya
bhag yathavat rahenge.”
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 he was first employed with the Management on 27-6-1973 and superannuated on
1-4-2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. According to the National Coal Wage Agreement -I, II and III
para 10.4.4 and 9.4.4 the management was under obligation to offer employment to one dependent of an employee on
his superannuation. The Management did not offer any employment to the dependent of the retiring workman Ashraf
in spite of his representation before the management. The workman raised a dispute through Union before Assistant
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1429
Labour Commissioner Central. The dispute could not be resolved, hence reference was made to this Tribunal for
adjudication. The workman has prayed that Management be asked to comply with the provisions of National Coal
Wage Agreement No.I, II & III hereinafter referred to as the word ‘NCWA’ and offer appointment to the dependent of
the retired workman Ashraf.
3.
The case of the management is mainly that service conditions of the coal mine workers are governed by the
National Coal Wage Agreements executed from time to time . There is a Committee JBCCCI responsible for
implementation of provisions of the NCWA. Till date as many as Nine National Coal Wage Agreements came in
light inforce during different period of time. NCWA-I was inforce from 1-7-1975 to 31-12-1978. The workman
retired on 31-3-2011 and at that time NCWA-IX was inforce and operational for the period 1-7-2006 to 30-7-2011.
NCWA-IX does not provide for employment to one dependent of workman on his retirement. Hence the Management
was justified in not offering appointment to one dependent of the applicant workman on his retirement
4.
The workman did not lead any oral evidence. The Management filed affidavit of its witness Nishant
K.Gulkunde, Deputy Personnel Manager. The workman did not prefer to cross-examine the management witness.
5.
The workman union did not come forward for argument nor did file any written argument. I have heard
arguments of Mr. A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.
6.
Following issue arises for determination in the case in hand on perusal of record in the light of rival claims:-
“Whether the management is justified in refusing the offer of appointment to dependent of the
workman Ashraf on his retirement?”
7.
The facts are almost undisputed in the case in hand . It is not disputed that the workman first joined on
27-6-1973 and superannuated on 1-4-2011. The workman has relied on the provisions of NCWA-I and NCA-III
wherein there is a provisions for offering employment to one dependent of a workman on his retirement. The case of
the management is that on the date of retirement of the workman NCWA-IX was inforce. NCWA-IX inforce within
the period from 1-7-2006 to 30-7-2011 as stated by the management is also not disputed by the workman. The
relevant provisions regarding offer of appointment to dependent of workman in NCVWA-IX (9.3.0, 9.3.2, 9.4.0 and
9.5.0) are being reproduced as follows:-
9.3.0:- Provision of Employment to Dependents:
9.3.2:- Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female
dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be
governed by para 9.5.0.
9.4.0:- Employment to one dependant of worker who id permanently disabled in his place:
(i)
the disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent
nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company
concerned.
(ii)
In case of disablement arising out of general physical disability so certified by the Coal company,
the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefits under this clause if he/she is upt0 the age
of 58 years.
The term general physical disability would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease of
other health reasons leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or
efficiently.
(iii) The dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be unmarried daughter,
son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, brother,
widowed daughter/widowed daughter in law or son in law residing with the employee and almost
wholly dependent on the earning of the employee may be considered.
In son far as female dependents are concerned, their employment would be governed by the
provisions of clause 9.5.0
(iv) The dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for
employment and aged more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of
female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned,
there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.
9.5.0 :- Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent:
Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workmen who dies
while in service and ho are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated
as under:
1430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either
accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4000/- per month or employment irrespective of her
age.
(ii)
In case of death /total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and
medical unfitness under Clause9.4.0, if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she
will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or
employment.
In case the female dependent is above 45years of age she will be entitled only to monetary
compensation and not to employment.
(iii)
In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause
9.4.0 if not employment has been offered and the make dependent of the concerned worker is
12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment
commensurate with his sill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the
period the make dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary
compensation as per rates at paras(i) & (ii) above . This will be effective from 1-1-2000.
(iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable would be paid till the female dependent attains the
age of 60 years.
(v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed
in the Standardization Committee and finalized.
8.
Perusal of these provisions reveals that there is no provision for offering appointment to one dependent of the
employee on his superannuation. Since the NCWA-IX was applicable on the date of the superannuation of the worker
Ashraf which has no such provision as mentioned above. The department of the superannuating workman does not
have any right to employment has a consequence of superannuation of the workman. Accordingly the Management is
held justified in law in not offering employment on compensation ground to the dependent of the workman Ashraf on
his superannuation. The Issue is answered accordingly.
9.
In the light of the above discussion and finding, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management as mentioned in the reference and its corrigendum is held to just
and proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
C.
Parties to bear their own cost.
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
DATE: 9.6.2022
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 142/1996½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@334@95 vkbZ-vkj- ¼dks;yk-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.142/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO 2, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/334/95 – IR (Coal-1)
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1431
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K. Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO 142 1996
PARTIES:
The Secretary,
Dhanbad Colliery Karmchari Sangh ,
Near CMPF Office, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad,
(Jharkhand)
Vs.
The Agent,,
M/s Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works of M/s ECL.,
P.O. Nirsachatti,
Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
Order No. L-20012/334/95-IR (Coal-I) dt. 07.11.1996
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. D. K. Dey. Union Representative.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th March, 2022,
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/334/95-IR (Coal-I) dt. 07.11.1996.
SCHEDULE
Whether the demand by the Union for reinstatement of Md. Mustaque and 10 others (given below) by
the Management of M/s Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works of M/s ECL is legal and justified? If so, to
what reliefs are the concerned workmen entitled? ”
List of the Workmen
Sl. No.
Name of the Workman
1
Sri Rash Bihari Sharma
2
Sri Satrughan Singh
3
Sri Sadhan Bagti
4
Sri Krishna Singh
5
Sri Laljee Shaw
6
Sri Kala Dhara
7
Sri Ratan Gorain
8
Sri Shankar Gorain
9
Sri Jadu Mahato
10
Sri Kaladhar Garain
2
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/334/95-IR(Coal-I) dt. 07.11.1996 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, record reveals
that this came to be registered on 31.12.1996 with Reference case No. 142 of 1996 with awaiting the parties to file the
written statement of claim against their Employer M/s Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works in connection with
reinstatement of their services by such employer. In pursuant, the written statement of claim filed and the proceeding
of the matter was set in motion.
1432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Despite the statement of the claim filed by the workmen and counter claim/written statement filed by the
Employer, the matter could not be proceeded towards finalization as the workmen side did not represent the matter
from 2006 onwards .Despite several opportunity provided from 2006 onwards and notices for hearing issued to both
workmen side as well as Management side ,the workmen side failed to either appear or represent during the dates of
hearing fixed after 2006 onwards.
4. As the workmen side failed to avail the opportunity provided for hearing the dispute on merit and that the
workmen side failed in their appearance or representation of any nature, this Tribunal is constrained treating that the
workmen are not serious or interested to pursue the matter of the claim. Therefore, the instant referred Industrial
Dispute reached to the stage as if there is no claim to be decided on merit and accordingly “No Relief” is ordered in
the Instant reference Case. No. 142/1996.
Let the copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under I.D. Act for
publication.
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 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;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 193/2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@150@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh- ,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.193/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No 2, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/150/2001 – IR (CM-1)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO 193 OF 2001
PARTIES:
The Vice President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh
Vihar Building, Jharia, Dhanbad
Vs.
The General Manager,
Kustore Area of M/s BCCL
PO:Kustore, Distt:Dhanbad
Order No. L-20012/150/2001-IR(C-I) dt. 10.07.2001
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. K. N. Singh, Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th April, 2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1433
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/150/2001-IR (C-I) dt. 10.07.2001.
SCHEDULE
“Whether action of the management of M/s B.C.C.L. in not regularizing the workman Sri Krishna
Paswan as Store Mate in Clerical Grade- III and, not making payment accordingly is justified, legal
and proper? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date? ’’
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/150/2001-IR(C-I) dated 10.07.2001 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered
as Reference case No. 193 of 2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on 01.04.2002 date fixed and to
file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuant thereto of the said order, notices by the
Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.
2. The brief of the facts of the case as per pleading made in the written statement of claim by the Sponsoring
Union which reads as hereunder:
i)
That workman concerned Sri Krishna Paswan is a permanent workman designated as Store Mate.
ii)
The workman concerned has been regularized to the post of Store Mate in Cat -IV in the scale of pay
Rs. 70.80-2.12.99-98 of 02.12.1998- per day with effect from 01.06.1998 through office order vide
dt.24.06.1998. with classification as Clerical Grade III as per NCWA
iii)
The workman concerned has been regularized as Store Mate through an official order and is entitled for
regularization and payment of wages under Clerical Gr.-III and in Cat.- IV so long as his wage is
concerned.
iv)
The workman concerned has represented several time before the Management for regularizing him in
Clerical Grade-III with proper pay and scale but the matter remained unresolved.
v)
Being aggrieved for not paying heed to his demand by the Management the workman approached the
Union to take up the issue with Asstt. Labour Commissioner( C) ,Dhanbad for conciliation but to no
effect.
vi)
Before the conciliation proceeding the OP/Management admitted that the workman was regularized
through an office order as Store Mate but the proposal of regularization in clerical Grade was not
accepted.
vii) Failure of conciliation to resolve the matter resulted in birth of Reference as Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal referred by the Government of India.
viii) That the Sponsoring Union raised the present Industrial Dispute and demanded regularization of the
workman concerned as a Store Mate in clerical Grade-III on the basis of an office order issued by the
Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Kustore Area for regularization of the workman concerned as a Store
mate in Cat.-IV in the scale of pay Rs. 70.00 per day.
3. Thus the Sponsoring Union raised the present Industrial Dispute to the appropriate government for resolution
of dispute by making reference under Sec. 10(1)(d)of the I.D.Act.,1947 and demanded regularization of the workman
concerned as a Store Mate in clerical Grade III on the basis of an office Order issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager, Kustore Area for regularization of the workman concerned as a Store Mate in category IV in the scale of
pay.
4. Whereas the contra plea of the O.P./Management assailing the claim stated in the Written Statement of Claim
by the Sponsoring Union which is as follows:
i)
That the workman concerned is a permanent employee of M/s BCCL and working at the Regional
Store,Kustore as a General Mazdoor in Category-I
ii)
That there is no any designation as Store –Mate in Job nomenclature of Category-IV employee. The
designation “Store Mate” is put under Clerical Grade III.
iii)
That the clerical post is being filed up only through the Departmental Promotion Committee as per the
Cadre Scheme by giving equal opportunity to similarly situated employee.
1434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iv)
That the Office Order issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager is not operative as the aforesaid
Office Order suffers from irregularities. Moreover, the workman concerned never worked as a Store
Mate.
v)
That there is huge number of surplus Clerical Staff in BCCL. The workman concerned is a General
Mazdoor and working as per his designation. As per Cadre Scheme of the company there is no scope to
promote a General Mazdoor to the post of clerk.
vi)
That as per Cadre Scheme, the Cadre Controlling Authority to promote any workman in a clerical cadre
on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee duly constituted by the Competent
Authority subject to vacancy and sanctioned post.
vii) That the post of clerk is a selection post and only selected candidate can be promoted in clerical cadre.
viii) That the aforesaid office order issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager is in utter violation of the
Cadre Scheme and such office order issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager is non-operative .As
such the aforesaid office order was not given any effect.
ix)
So the workman concerned has got no existing right to claim regularization as a Clerk.
x)
In view of the matter, the demand of the Union is neither legal nor justified
5. The workman filed list of documents showing the grounds to justify his claim are as under:
i)
Reference order of the Central Government dated 10.07.2001
ii)
The Office order dt. 05.01.1998 issued under signature of Depot Officer, Kustore Regional Store
Kustore area in the name of workman
iii)
Office Order dt. 24.06.1998 for regularization of Sri Krishna Paswan on the post of Store Met”
iv)
Joining Report dated 25.06.1998 to the post of Store Met in the light of the office order dt. 24.06.1998
v)
Letter dated 17.12.1999 addressed to the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, P.B. Regional Store in the
name of the concerned workman addressing his regularized designation of “Store Mate”
6. The OP/Management side could not file any document to counter the claim of the workman supported through
documentary evidences, except the written statement and argument claiming that the order issued for the workman as
‘Store Mate’ is not valid and regular as per prescribed provisions and procedure of the organization . Therefore,
the narrative of the Management in the pleading that the said promotion order expedited dated 24.06.1998 issued
under signature of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Kustore Area, of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad regularizing the workman to
the post of Store Mate in Cat. IV after initiation through Note Sheet followed by formal approval of the General
Manager, Kustore Area on 10.06.1998 which was a bone of contention erupting controversy, would not hold water in
the present scenario as OP/Management could not be able to show any action /order or initiative taken to declare the
said impugned order null and void .
7. Further the OP/Management kept on entrusting assignments upon the workman taking into aspect of his post
regularization as Store Mate which cannot be denied as matter of fact. Whereas Management pleading that the said
office order for regularization of the workman to Store Mate is not operative as it suffers from irregularities and with
mere such narrative through statements against the workman will not get any support. The OP/management was all
along silent even though it was imperative upon authorities to handle such issue without any further delay.
8. Sri K.N.Singh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the workman submitted the copy of Order in other identical
case on the similar set of facts having awarded through Reference No. 80/2004 by the CGIT NO.1,Dhanbad
pertaining to regularization as Store Mate in Clerical Grade III by the Management of P.B. Area vide letter dated
13.02.2015 of Shri Jethu Mahato .The workman had been regularized in Clerical Grade III by the Management of
P.B. Area of M/s BCCL which remained unchallenged even after implementation of the said Award by the
Management of M/s BCCL . These two disputes being on the same footing display the same purpose and similar set of
circumstances. So this Tribunal cannot have any other view than the view taken by another CGIT in the similar matter
and already implemented by the same OP/Management Company.
9. What the facts transpired on record that the workman has been regularized to the post of Store Mate from
01.06.1998 in Cat. -IV on promotion as per Exhibited Documents marking as W-1/1 and subsequently he joined to
the promoted post w.e.f 25.06.1998 addressing letter to Dy.CPM, Kustore area of M/s BCCL and even
OP/Management made correspondence for fixation of Pay in respect of of workman concerned after regularization
so there is no denying fact whatever happened in sequence of events in order . The OP/Management did not deny the
fact. Without any speaking order the Higher Authority refused to regularize the workman and pay wages accordingly.
The post of Store Mate and Store Issue Clerk both comes under category of Clerical Gr.III and Gr. II respectively. The
petitioner proved to establish said promotion order dated 24.06.1998 (Ext.W1/1) of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,
Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad. The plea further stated that enough material was placed before the Tribunal to
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1435
substantiate workman’s contention. The workman also accused the OP/management of not being fair to him during
the proceeding of the matter.
10. The onus lies on the part of O.P./Management to prove that Management action as a matter of fact is legal
and justified in not regularizing the workman as Store Mate and paying the wages applicable to the post of Store
Mate even after issuance of order promoting the workman to the post of Store Mate but nothing sort of action
appears to have been initiated to declare the order null and void nor has any corrective measure been taken.Insofar
as non-payment of wages of Clerical Grade III even though the Management’s no objection over subsequent series
of official orders just followed after issuing the Office Order for regularizing the workman as Store Mate plays
significant role in aid to the workman’s claim. The documents tendered by the workman also corroborate such facts
from the evidence on record.
11. Having heard the submission of both side and gone through the materials on record, the Tribunal did not
find any merit in the ground taken by the OP/Management in assailing the order of the Dy.CPM, Kustore Area on
regularization that it suffers from irregularity in itself does not appear plausible in the present set of fact of the matter.
The applicant being successful in proving that proper natural justice was denied to him in withholding the wags of
Clerical Grade III wages while regularizing him to the post of the Store mate in Clerical III .Had the
OP/Management felt the ground as far reaching effect, it was necessary for them to scrap the alleged order by going
into the correctional measures at the earliest, but the Management had failed to do so. The workman has relied upon
the order and continue to work in accordance with said order.
12. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Tribunal holds that the demand of Janta
Mazdoor Union from the Management of Kustore Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad for regularizing Sri Krishna Paswan
as Store Mate in Clerical Gr. III is legal and justified. The workman is entitled for payment of wages accordingly to
the Grade/Category/Scale of wage applicable to the post of Store Mate on regularization in the said post from the
date he formally joined to the post of Store Mate on 25.06.1998.
Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k& Je U;k;ky; uacj 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 174@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 22-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@03@98-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.174/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO 2, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/03/98 – IR (CM-1)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENTU : Dr. S. K. Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO 174 OF 2001.
PARTIES:
Shri Mundrika Bhagat,
Organizing Secretary,
Argada Area, Coalfield Mazdoor Union.
PO: Argada , Distt: Hazaribagh-825301
1436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs.
The Material Manager,
Regional Store,
Giddi “A”, PO: Giddi, Distt: Hazaribagh-825301
Order No. L-20012/03/98-IR(C-I) dt. 24.05.2001
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: Mr. M. Bhagat Ld. Rep.
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th August, 2021
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/03/98-IR(C-I) dt.24.05.2001.
SCHEDULE
Whether the demand of the Coal Field Mazdoor Union from the Management of CCL, Gidi “A” for
regularization and promotion of Sh.S.M.Anis as Clerk Grade-III is justified and proper? If so, to what
relief is the workman concerned entitled and from what date?”
2 On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/03/98-IR(C-I) dt. 24.05.2001 of the reference from the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered as Reference
case No. 174 of 2001 on 30.06.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file
their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuant of the said order, notices by the Registered
Post were sent to the parties concerned.
3. The facts and statement as narrated by Sponsoring Union on behalf of the workman in their written statement of
claim in precise are as follow:
That the workman concerned was originally appointed as Category I Mazdoor but as per direction of the
O.P./Management he was working as Clerk and put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year. The
O.P./management has implemented the settlement with two ways one Wage Board Recommendation and the other as
National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).On being approached by the workman Management acceded to
workman’s request with advice to produce Matriculation or equivalent certificate .Acting on the advice of the
OP/Management the workman submitted Hindi Vidyapith Certificate, Deoghar as proof of Matriculation certificate.
After detection of some discrepancy in the name of the workman which cannot not be acceptable as per the version
of the O.P./Management. Though the OP/management in similarly situated matter workman Junior to him was
regularized as Clerk Grade III but not in the case of the workman. This failure of action on the part of the
Management led to the Industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal for
adjudication. The workman termed the action as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and vindictive in nature and smacks
of anti-labour policy of the management thereby seeking direction to the Management to regularize /promote the
workman concerned as Clerk Grade III with retrospective effect with all area of wages and consequential benefits.
4. The Contra plea of the O.P./Management in its written statement narrated that the petition moved by the
claimant/workman is not maintainable with elaborating that Clerk Grade –III is a selection post with discretion to
employee who have rendered three years of service in the Company and passed the Matriculation .There is no
workman in the name of Syed Mohamad Anis at Regional –I Store. However there is an employee at Regional Store
in the capacity of Mazdoor Cat.I ,whose name is Sri Anis as disclosed by him in the relevant documents at the time
claiming appointment under Para 9.4.3. of NCWA-IV as a sequel to retirement of his father on medical ground. The
conciliation after failure on account of technical ground cannot be taken as a ground to interfere with the proceedings
that calumniated to the present state of affairs.
5 The Management side also affirmed that the workman concerned appeared before Selection Committee but
failed to produce any of paper in support of his education qualification. So the Selection Committee made
recommendation of his name subject to production of original Matriculation Certificate before the management but
even after so much chasing he proved failure and remains silent .Hence the claim is frivolous and stale. As such there
is no merit in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute. So the workman is not entitled for any relief.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1437
6. The workman in course of the adducing evidence filed the list of documents in before the Tribunal with copies
thereof which are in some way
a)
WW-I Office Order dt 30.05.1988
b)
W-2 Office order dt. 23.11.1988
c)
W-3 dt. 07.06.2001 about transfer & posting
d)
W-4 dt. 21.08.2000 about distribution of work amongst the employees
e)
W-5 dt. 19.02.1988 authorizing the workman to sign over certain documents
f) W-6 dt. 27.09.2000 about decantation off Diesel tanker.
g)
W-7 dt. 13.09.2020 endorsement copy of on the issue of unloading and Decantation of Diesel and
Petrol
h)
W-8 Prabishka Praman Patra , of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar(Bihar) dated 03.01.2006
i)
W-9 Service Excerpt of the Central Coal Field Ltd.,
j)
W-10 Certificate about completion of Computer Application Programme dt.03.01.2006 .
7. During the pendency of the proceeding before this Tribunal even after adducing evidences a number of times and
submitting relevant documents in relation to the issue the workman’s approach to the O.P./management does not
appear to be bonafide as he could not be able to produce of the said certificate with cogent and convincing evidence
either before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) or before the Conciliation Officer. However in all the
official communications either with the workman or others name of the workman has been referred as “ Anish “
likewise Exhibited documents Ext.W-1,W-2,W-3W-4,W-5,W-6,W-7 display itself .Notably the certificate produced
by the workman of Hindi Vidyapith,Deoghar which has left behind questionable mark whether it be treated as
equivalent to any recognized Board of the Government of Bihar and the same will be legally acceptable to any
Public Sector Undertaking which bears the name as Syed Mohammand Anis.
8. The workman Sri Anis did not produce his Matriculation Certificate at the time of interview/test before the
Committee as per requirement . Under such condition the committee decided to put on hold issuance of
Appointment/Promotion Order subject to production of Original Matriculation Certificate along with an attested
Photostat copy of the same as per Annexure - E by the workman. It is to be stated that by no stretch of imagination the
action of the Sponsoring Union be stated to constitute a sincere attempt to resolve the issue.
9. It is thus proved that since no illegality has been committed by the Management and the decision taken by
the Management on demand /grievance of the workman is just and does not call for any interference. In the light of
aforesaid discussion, the contention raised by the Union/petitioner is found to be without any merit and consequently
the claim does not qualify for any relief. Accordingly no relief is awarded in the instant Ref. No. 174/2001.
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 696.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिन, गजरीसन इंिीजन सक (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससक उन्नजत इंिीजन सक, उस्ट्मान एन््लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुिीत कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िकष्ट केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभक सं् ा 59/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज
िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-14012/18/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
1438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers (E/M), Lucknow,; The M/s Unnati Engineers Usman Enclave, Lucknow and Shri Sujeet Kumar,
worker,which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2022.
[No. L- 14012/18/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 59/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/18/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018
BETWEEN :
Sh. Sujeet Kumar S/o Sh Devi Shankar
Village – Mehar, Post – MohanlalGanj,
Lucknow - 226301
AND
1.
The Management
Garrison Engineers (E/M)
Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow – 226002
2.
The management
M/s. Unnati Engineers
Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-14012/18/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF GARRISON ENGINEERS (PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER) & THEIR
CONTRACTOR M/S UNNATI ENGINEERS IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH SUJIT KUMAR,
EMPLOYED AS HELPER STATED TO BE SINCE 2006 TILL 08.09.2015, IS FAIR, JUST & LEGAL? IF
NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN ENTITLED TO & TO WHAT EXTENT?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to Sh. Sujeet Kumar S/o Sh Devi Shankar, Village – Mehar, Post –
MohanlalGanj, Lucknowwith direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim along with
relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of
reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the workmanfor filing the statement of claim with list of documents& list of witnesses on
24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019the workman did not turn up; however, the opposite party No. 01 put up
its appearance. Next date 08.01.2020 was fixed for filing of statement of claim. The workman remained absent on
08.01.2020; however, the envelope containing notice to the workman was received back in the office, without any
remark thereon; accordingly, fresh notice was issued to the workman fixing 18.03.2022 for filing of statement of
claim. The workman remained absent on 18.03.2020 and subsequent date i.e. 17.06.2020; and the envelope
containing notice to the workman was received back again in the office, without any remark; accordingly, the service
of notice was sufficiently presumed vide order dated 27.11.2020; however, in the interest of justice, another date was
given for filing of statement of claim. The workman remained absent on 27.11.2020, 22.01.2021, 26.02.2021,
18.05.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. The workmanneither turned up on any of the
aforementioned dates normoved any application or adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More
than two years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case was
reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1439
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of
which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as ifthere is no
grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
07th July, 2022
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 697.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, सिंिुस्ट्तान ए रोनॉटट्स जलजमटेड, अमे ी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, एच.ए.एल.,
मस्ट्टर रोल माली रेड ूजन न, कोरवा मंडल, अमे ी ( ूृी), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िकष्ट केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभक सं् ा 09/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-14011/27/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. ,Amethi and The President, H.A.L., Muster Roll Mali Trade Union,
Korva Division, Amethi (UP), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
18.07.2022.
[No. L- 14011/27/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 09/2018
Ref. No. L-14011/27/2017-IR(DU) dated 21.03.2018
BETWEEN :
President
H.A.L., Muster Roll Mali Trade Union
Korva Division, Village – Korva, Post – Dharmaimafi
Distt. Amethi (UP) – 227405
Vs.
General Manager
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Post-Korva, Distt. – Amethi – 227405
1440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-14011/27/2017-IR(DU) dated 21.03.2018, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE DEMAND OF UNION FOR EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK TO THE CASUAL
WORKERS OF HELICOPTER COMPLEX, AMETHI AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.01.2010 BY
THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD., KORWA IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF
SO, WHAT RELIEF ARE THEY ENTITLED TO AND WHAT DIRECTIONS ARE NECESSARY IN THE
CASE?”
3.
The case of the workmen’s Union, in brief, is that the members of the workmen’s Union are working as
casual worker (Mali) for last 35 years and they have been permitted to work throughout the month except on holidays
and this practice is being adopted to cause artificial break, though the work is available with the management of HAL,
Korva. The workmen’s Union has stated that it entered into two different agreements dated 06.03.1989 and
26.07.1995, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad for giving preference in engaging the land losers in
the Horticulture Department of the HAL and providing job to other casual workers who have completed 240 days in a
calendar year’ and providing job security to the dependants of employees who got retired on medical ground.It is
further stated that the workmen’s Union filed WP No. 10513 of 1990 and 10524 of 1990, seeking regularization and
other consequential benefits before Hon’ble High Court at Lucknow; both the writ petitions were disposed of with
common judgment dated 31.08.1999 with direction to the respondents to absorb the members of the workmen’s Union
as a regular employees; however said judgment dated 31.08.1999 bad been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 with direction that ‘in case there is any violation of the terms of the
settlement on the part of the appellant, the respondents will be entitled to enforce their rights in accordance with law’.
The workmen’s Union approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification of judgment and order dated
27.04.2007; whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.10.2017 observed that the grounds taken in
the application is new cause of action and require to be agitated before appropriate forum; and accordingly, the
conciliation proceedings were resorted to before the RegionalLabour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow.
4.
The workmen’s Union has stated that there was a settlement between the employer and the workmen’s Union
of similarly placed casual workers at Bangalore dated 01.01.2010 for providing wages of semi-skilled casual
labourers, un-skilled casual labourers and skilled casual labourers and casual workers by fixing Basic Pay, Special
Pay, Dearness Allowance, Ex-gratia, Transport Allowance, Canteen Allowance and Washing Allowancew.e.f.
01.01.2010; accordingly, the workmen’s Union in view of above settlementdated 01.01.2010 preferred an application
dated 17.03.2017 for grant of same pay scale to the members of the applicant union as made available to the casual
workers of HAL, Bangalore. It has been further submitted by the workmen’s Union that its members are working as
casual worker (Mali) for last 35 years for all working days, except holidays and getting only 10,993/- per month in
total; whereas the other similarly situated casual workers/miser all employees of HAL, Bangalore who have same
nature of duties, responsibilities, qualification and source of recruitment, are getting Rs. 32000/- per month plus
twelve other facilities. It is also stated by the workmen’s Union that the employers also entered into a settlement with
the Hyderabad HAL casual workers’ Union and they are also getting regular pay scale along with other facilities,
though no posts are available.The workmen’s Union has also submitted that non-payment of salary and other facilities
as available to Bangalore and Hyderabad to the members of workmen’s Union is voilative of Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution as HAL is an undertaking of Central Government under the Ministry of Defence and therefore, keeping
in view of long services rendered by the members of applicant’s Union, the members of applicant’s union are entitled
for same salary and other benefits at par with casual workers of HAL, Bangalore and Hyderabad as all units of HAL
are same and governed by same set Rules.
5.
The management has disputed the claim of the workman by filling its written statement; wherein it has
contended that it is complying in totality the settlement dated 06.03.1989, irrespective of the fact that Land losers and
non-land losers, all the 47 Horticulture casuals are being engaged on all working days. It has also stated that in
settlement dated 26.07.1995, it was stated that the dependants of employees having been retired on medical grounds
shall be considered sympathetically for appointment against available vacancies as per Rules of the Company and as
per company circular dated 15.07.1997 due to dwindling order book/work load position and the surplus manpower a
ban was imposed on recruitment since 1987. Further, it was also decided not to continue the provisions of
compassionate appointment from the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the Company, therefore, in view of above, no
compassionate appointment on the ground of death cases, medical termination cases and cases of land acquisition can
be made in the company/division after imposition of ban. The management of HAL has further stated that the
settlement dated 01.01.2010 between the workman represented by HAEL and the management of HAL, Bangalore
itself mentions that the settlement is made and binding only on the above mentioned parties. It is very pertinent to
note that HAL, Korwa is not party to the settlement hence, the same is not applicable on Avionics Division, Korwa. It
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1441
has further been submitted that there is no similarity of circumstances between the casuals working in Bangalore HAL
and casuals working in Korwa because Ministry of Labour & Employment has also categorized Area ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’
for the purpose of minimum wages; and Korwa, Amethi comes under the category Area ‘C’ whereas Bangalore comes
with Area ‘A’, therefore, there cannot be any parity between the causals working in Bangalore and casuals working in
Korwa. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the present claim of the workmen’s Union is liable to be
rejected out rightly being devoid of any merit.
6.
The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein apart from reiterating the facts already stated in the statement of
claim has stated that the workmen’s Union is not claiming the minimum wages, but equality in respect of
wages/allowances and other facilities made available to the employees of Bangalore and Hyderabad units of
Horticulturedepartment. It has also been stated that entire units including unit of Korwa, Bangalore and Hyderabad
are under the unit of opposite party no.1.
7.
The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. The workman has
examined Shri Pandohi Lal, President of the workmen’s Union and in rebuttal the management has examined Shri
S.K. Pattanaik, Sr. Manger (HR). The parties cross-examined witnesses of each other and availed opportunity to
submit oral as well as written submissions in support of their pleadings
8.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused material available on record.
9.
The learned counsel for the workman has submitted that the members of the workmen’s Union have been
working with the opposite party for last 35 years and are getting marginal pay of Rs. 10,993/- per month; whereas
contrary to this other similarly situated casual workers at HAL unit of Bangalore and Hyderabad who have same
nature of duties, responsibilities, qualification and source of recruitment, are getting Rs. 32000/- per month plus
twelve other facilities. The counsel for the Union has vehemently submitted that the HAL at its different units,
located at different locations in the country, is a Government of India undertaking and work under control of the
Ministry of Defence and there is no discrimination or difference with respect to service conditions of the workmen
working in different units, therefore, the conduct of the management of Korwa unit in not grant granting equal pay and
allowance and other facilities at par with Bangalore and Hyderabad unit is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to unfair
labour practice. The learned counsel for the workman has pointed out that the management witness during its cross-
examination has stated that “all twenty one units including HAL, Korwa of HAL are under control of Head Office at
Bangalore” hehas also stated that “I do not accept that all units of HAL are separate identities”. The learned counsel
has submitted that since all the units are same with their Head Office at Bangalore, therefore, the workman, working
in Horticulture department of HAL, working at different units, are entitled for same wages & allowances and other
facilities as admissible to the workmen of the Horticulture department of HAL Bangalore.
10.
In rebuttal, the learned counsel for HAL has submitted that the members of the workmen’s Union are not
entitled for same wages as the workmen of HALBangalore since all the units of HAL are different and they are
categorized in different category by the Central Government for payment of minimum wages. He has submitted that
Bangalore comes in Class ‘A’ category whereas Korwa falls in Class ‘C’ category, therefore the claim for same wages
and allowances are not admissible; moreover, the members of applicant Union were not a party to the settlement dated
01.01.2010. The learned counsel has further submitted that HAL Korwa is separate entity, having separate
registration un UP Factories Act and being separate entity casual or any employee working in one unit cannot claim
parity of wages with the employees of other units. He has relied upon:
(i)
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s Super CassettesIndustries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. & others
[2020 (166) FLR 52].
(ii)
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat vs The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. & others 1979
(38) FLR 38.
(iii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Iqbal Ahmad Kamaruddin vs P.L. Majumdar& another 1992 (64) FLR
827.
(iv) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in R.K. Chaturvedi vs Secretary, BHEL & others 1997 (77) FLR 364.
(v)
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Management of Tisco (Tube Division) Jamshedpur vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Patna & others [2013 (136) FLR 928.
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned entire evidence
available on record in light thereto.
12.
It has been contended on behalf of the workmen side that management witness, Shri S.K. Pattanaik,
Sr. Manger (HR), has failed to clarify the procedure adopted by the Hal management in the matter of maintain parity
with regard to the wage structure of the workmen engaged in different units of HAL. It has been vehemently
contended that HAL has its Corporate Head Quarter at Bangalore and all the units of HAL should have same wage
structure with regard to the wages of the casual employees. The submissions on behalf of the workmen are
unacceptable on the following grounds:
1442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
It has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal that different units of HAL are governed by separate
Certified Standing Orders.
(ii)
A witness may fail to clarify the point in controversy between the parties; but the Tribunal is supposed
to take judicial notice of the notifications issued by the Government in the matter of wage structure of
different units, paper No. 11/50 to 11/52.
(iii) It is matter of common experience that prices of commodities at different places in India vary for
several reasons. Same wage structure for all the casual labourers of one business organization
functioning under one corporate management is inconceivable and unsustainable in Indian scenario.
Though it is painful to note that some workers have worked for thirty five years as casual workers in
HAL unit, the same cannot be a legally sustainable ground to direct HAL management to pay wages to
the casual workers as paid to workmen of HAL, Hyderabad and HAL, Bangalore unit.
13.
In view of the discussions stated above, the claim of the workmen for same wages as given to the casual
labourers engaged in Bangalore HAL unit is impermissible in the eye of law.
14.
The reference is answered against the workmen’s Union. The above award shall not stand as a bar for HAL
management to extend additional benefits to the casual workers if their work is found to be adding contribution to the
growth of HAL.
15.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
07thJuly, 2022
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 698.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिन,गजरीसन इंिीजन सक (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससक उन्नजत इंिीजन सक, उस्ट्मान एन््लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री चंरिे र, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िकष्ट केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] िबलृुर के ृंचाट (संिभक सं् ा 52/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं.एल-14012/24/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers (E/M), Lucknow,; The M/s Unnati Engineers Usman Enclave, Lucknow and Shri
Chandrashekhar, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
18.07.2022.
[No. L- 14012/24/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1443
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 52/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/24/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018
BETWEEN :
Sh. Chandrashekhar S/o Sh. Sant Lal
144, Badi Lal Kurti, Lucknow - 226002
AND
1.
The Management
Garrison Engineers (E/M)
Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow – 226002
2.
The management
M/s Unnati Engineers
Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-14012/24/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29.10.2018 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF GARRISON ENGINEERS (PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER) & THEIR
CONTRACTOR
M/S
UNNATI
ENGINEERS
IN
TERMINATING
THE
SERVICES
OF
SH
CHANDRASHEKHAR, EMPLOYED AS HELPER STATED TO BE SINCE 2006 TILL 08.09.2015, IS FAIR,
JUST & LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN ENTITLED TO & TO WHAT
EXTENT?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to Sh. Chandrashekhar S/o Sh. Sant Lal, 144, Badi Lal Kurti, Lucknow
with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a
copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial
Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents& list of witnesses on
22.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 22.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the workman; however, the opposite party
No. 01 put up its appearance. Next date 08.01.2020was fixed for filing of statement of claim. The workman remained
absent on 08.01.2020. Fresh notice was issued to the workman fixing 18.03.2020 to file statement of claim but
workman remained absent on 18.03.2020 and subsequent date i.e. 17.06.2020; and from the track record of the notice
sent to the workman, it was evident that the notice issued to the workman hand been delivered to him. Accordingly,
the service of notice was sufficiently presumed vide order dated 27.11.2020; however, in the interest of justice,
another date was given for filing of statement of claim. The workman remained absent on 27.11.2020, 22.01.2021,
26.02.2021, 18.05.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. The work man neither turned up on
any of the aforementioned dates normoved any application or adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim.
More than two years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case was
reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of
which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as ifthere is no
grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
07th July, 2022.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
1444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2022
—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार प्रबंिन,
गजरीसन इंिीजन सक (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससक उन्नजत इंिीजन सक, उस्ट्मान एन््लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री घनश् ाम, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िकष्ट केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ृंचाट
(संिभक सं् ा 51/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
18.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[la- ,y-14012@23@2017-vkbZvkj&¼Mh;w½]
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Garrison Engineers (E/M), Lucknow,;The M/s Unnati Engineers Usman Enclave, Lucknow and Shri Ghanshyam,
worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18/07/2022.
[No. L-14012/23/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 51/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/23/2017-IR(DU) dated: 03.10.2018
BETWEEN :
Sh. Ghanshyam s/o Naumi Lal
Village – Ahmedpur, Post – Jagrauli
Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow – 226301
AND
1.
The Management
Garrison Engineers (E/M)
Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow – 226002
2.
The Management
M/s. Unnati Engineers
Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-14012/23/2017-IR(DU) dated: 03.10.2018 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF GARRISON ENGINEERS (PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER) & THEIR
CONTRACTOR M/S UNNATI ENGINEERS IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH GHANSHYAM,
EMPLOYED AS HELPER STATED TO BE SINCE 2006 TILL 08.09.2015, IS FAIR, JUST & LEGAL? IF
NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN ENTITLED TO & TO WHAT EXTENT?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to Sh. Ghanshyam s/o Naumi Lal, Village – Ahmedpur, Post – Jagrauli,
MohanlalGanj, Lucknowwith direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim along with
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1445
relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of
reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the work man for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on
22.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 22.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the workman; however, the opposite party
No. 01 put up its appearance. Next date 08.01.2020 was fixed for filing of statement of claim. The workman
remained absent on 08.01.2020. Fresh notice was issued to the workman fixing 18.03.2020 to file statement of claim
but workman remained absent on 18.03.2020 and subsequent date i.e. 17.06.2020; and from the track record of the
notice sent to the workman, it was evident that the notice issued to the workman hand been delivered to him.
Accordingly, the service of notice was sufficiently presumed vide order dated 27.11.2020; however, in the interest of
justice, another date was given for filing of statement of claim. The workman remained absent on 27.11.2020,
22.01.2021, 26.02.2021, 18.05.2021, 14.07.2021, 30.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. The workmanneither
turned up on any of the aforementioned dates normoved any application or adjournment seeking time to file the
statement of claim. More than two years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file its statement of claim,
therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of
which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there is no
grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
07th July, 2022
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48/2016) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@19@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2022
S.O. 700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/19/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/2016
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The Secretary,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Sohagpur Area of SECL,
District Shahdol (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Director
South Eastern Coal Fields Limited
Bilaspur (C.G.)
…Management
1446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on 12/7/2022)
As per letter dated 10/5/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
22012/19/2016-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Mohd. Saaluddin, Sahayak Suraksha, Upnereshak, Sohagpur Shetra SECL ke dwara varsh 1987 se he
bar bar avedan patra ke madhyam se anurodh kiye jaane tatha unke shaishanke dastawejon mein janam
thithi 9-2-1964 hone ke bawujud Prabhandan dwara Mohd. Salauddin ke janm tithi ko sudhar kar
2-5-1957 ke sthan par 9-2-1964 na kiya jaana kya nyaysangat hai?Yadi Nahi to karmkar Mohd Saluddin
kya anutosh paane ka haqdar hai?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he has been working as Assistant Security
Sub Inspector in Sohagpur Area of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to by the word
management). His date of birth is 9-2-1964 but it was wrongly recorded as 2-5-1957 in his service record by the
management. The workman has been continuously requesting the management for change of his date of birth in his
service records since 16-8-1987. The workman is a matriculate and he had produced his mark sheets and certificates
for verification at the time of his appointment and selection process. His representation dated 16-8-1987 was
followed by repeated reminders dated 7-11-1987, 3-10-1993, 16-1-2014, 2-5-2014, 3-9-2014, 3-2-2015, 9.2.15 and
16-2-2015 but the Management did not listen to his requests. In the meantime his original documents were lost in the
year 2012 in a theft committed in is house. He made a police complaint and got a duplicate matriculation certificate
and school leaving certificate as well as mark sheets. According to the workman, he had completed his matriculation
from Bihar State Madarsa Board Education which is equivalent to State Education Board. According to the workman
he also filed a writ petition No.12021/2014 before Hon. High Court which was disposed by Hon’ble High Court vide
order dated 3-9-2014 directing the Management to take immediate action and if the workman felt aggrieved by the
said decision , he can approach the Tribunal. According to the workman, the Management is proposing to retire him as
per the wrong date of birth mentioned in the Management records which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed that holding the refusal by the Management correct, his date of birth as 9-2-
1964 is unjustified in law. The workmen be held entitled to all consequential benefits on the basis of his corrected
date of birth.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that the workman was initially appointed as a security guard in Raj
Nagar OCM of Hasdeo Area on June-1985. He did not produce any documents in support of his educational
qualification and his date of birth at the time of his initial appointment. He sought correction of his date of birth as
9-2-1964 based on his Fauquani Exam Bihar State Madarsa Board Education and Madarsa Leaving Certificate at the
fag end of his service in the year 2014 which is not permissible in law. His date of birth 2-5-1957 was recorded in all
the statutory records namely Form-B, Service Register, PF Form and Last Pay Certificates issued from time to time by
the Managements on the basis of information and declaration given by him in this respect. He made a representation
in the year 2013 which was considered by Managements and was rejected as there was no discrepancy regarding his
date of birth in his service record. Accordingly, Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the
workman. The workman has examined himself as witness. He has been cross-examined by the Management. He has
filed and proved documents. His interview letter issued by Management on 27-8-1984, appointment letter dated 27-5-
1985 for post of security guard. His first application raising dispute regarding his date of birth with request to correct
it and his photocopy of Bihar State Madarsa Board Education Certificate of Fauquani Education which is equivalent
to matriculation is mark sheet regarding this exam. His endorsement regarding disputed date of birth and seeking
correction on the copy of his service extracts issued by the Management to him on 3-10-1993 inviting any objections
regarding any of the entries. Eight reminders were sent to Management by him regarding correction of his date of
birth. Copy of letter issued by Bihar State Madarsa Board Education and sent to management verifying the certificate
regarding his High School Education which are Exhibits W1 to Exhibits W3.
4.
The Management has examined Sanjeev Singh, Manager Personnel as its witness and has been cross-
examined by workman . The management has proved single page photocopy of Form-B regarding first appointment,
two other photocopy of form-B in Johilla and Raj Nagar OC. Nine last page certified copy of CMPF declaration form
and copies of form PS-3 and PS-4 as Exhibits M1 to M15.
5.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel Mr. R.S. Chand for workman and Mr. A.K. Shashi for
Management and have gone through the record.
6.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1447
7.
The respective claims of the parties have been detailed earlier. In brief the case of the workman is that he did
produce all his education documents and certificates mentioning his date of birth as 9-2-1964 at the time of his
interview and at the time of his first appointment. Further that he raised dispute regarding his date of birth, first time
in the year 1987 and has been consistently agitating against this and also that the action of Management is not
correcting his date of birth on the basis of High School Examination Certificates is unjustified in law. Whereas the
case of management is that he never produced his high school certificates as claimed by him at the time of his first
appointment nor at any time thereafter and his date of birth was recorded in his service records on the basis of
declaration to this effect made by him in this respect and also that he raised dispute at the fag end of service i.e. in the
year 2013, hence his claim is barred by latches.
8.
The workman and the Management witness both have reiterated their case in their statement of oath. The
workman has stated in his cross-examination that the minimum education qualification required for security guard was
matriculation. The Management does not dispute this preposition. His this statement is further corroborated by the
interview letter and appointment letter (Both copies original also in record as Exhibit W1 and Exhibit W2). In para
four of the interview letter, he was required to bring with him certificates regarding his education qualification. IN
para eight of the appointment letter, he was required by Management to bring with him and produce before the
management as many as five documents, one of them as certificate regarding matriculation or its equivalent to prove
his exact date of birth. He was required to file one attested copy of these documents and produce the original at the
time of joining. As mentioned earlier, the Management did not dispute that the matriculation or equivalent is the
qualification for appointment on the post of security guard on which the workman was first appointed. This is also
established that the management specifically demanded original and one attested copy of certificate/documents as
mentioned in his appointment letter Exhibit W-2. One of them was matriculation or equivalent pass certificate.
Inference can be drawn that the workman has fulfilled the minimum education qualification i.e. High School
Equivalent pass and only then he was allowed to appear in the selection process and interview and also appointed as
security guard. So in these circumstances, the case of the management and the statement of the Management witness
that the workman did not produce any documents regarding is minimum qualification which is high school or
equivalent at the time of his first appointment or joining had he not produced at the time of joining/first appointment,
he would not have been permitted to be appointed for the post of security guard.
9.
This is also established from the evidence of Management that the Management did not dispute the genuiness
of the matriculation or equivalent certificate claimed and produced by the workman, issued by the Bihar State
Madarsa Board Education. There is on record, exhibit W2, letter issued by the Controller of Examination of the
Madarsa Board to the Mines Manager i.e. Management certifying the genuiness of the certificates. This letter has
been issued in response to letter No.1709 dated 20-9-2014 sent by the Management to the Controller of Examination.
This fact also certifies the genuiness of the certificate. Furthermore, the workman has stated his statement on oath that
he did make several representation regarding his disputed date of birth recorded by Management in his service record
which requires to be corrected. He has filed and proved photocopies of these applications, details mentioned earlier.
They are Exhibits W3, W9, W10, W11, W`12, W14, W15,W16, W17,W18. Document Exhibit W-8 is a notice issued
by management to the workman on 3-10-1993 for providing details of his service records and inviting objections in
any of these endorsements. There is an endorsement by workman stating that his date of birth mentioned in his service
records is 2-5-1957 which is wrong. He has filed his matriculation certificate and mark sheets and requested to correct
his date of birth as 9-2-1964 mentioned in his matriculation certificate. ON this point, the Management witness states
that if the workman had filed any representation in this respect, there will be an entry in the dispatch register. The
Management has not produced the dispatch register. This fact goes against the claim of the management that the
workman raised dispute for the first time only in the year 2013.
10.
From the above discussion, the date of birth of the workman is held proved as 9-2-1964 as mentioned in his
matriculation certificate. Secondly the claim of the workman that he has been raising dispute in this respect and
requesting for correction of his date of birth since 1987 is also held proved and the case of the Management on this
point is held not proved. The Management further claims that since there was no in-consistency in his date of birth
recorded in documents maintained by Management and provision of Implementation Instructions (I.I.No.76) do not
apply. Learned Counsel for the workman has assailed this argument of learned counsel for the Management with a
submission that when it is established that firstly the qualification for the appointment to the post of security guard
was matriculation, naturally the workman would have been appointed by the Management after being satisfied that
the workman possessed this minimum qualification . IN this process it cannot be said that the workman had not
produced his educational qualification certificate which is matriculation pass certificate, during his selection process
i.e. Interview and at the time of joining as is required by Management in the appointment offer Exhibit W-2. This
argument of learned counsel for the workman deserves to be accepted, after all it cannot be believed that in the case
on workman that the Management appointed him inspite of the fact that he did not possess minimum qualification
which is high school or equivalent pass examination . IN this factual scenario, the claim of the management that the
workman never produced his documents regarding his date of birth before Management cannot be believed and it is
held that the workman did not produce all the documents required by Management to be produced by him as per the
offer of appointment Exhibit W-2, Matriculation pass certificate was one of these documents. Consequently it is also
held that the action of Management in recording his date of birth as 2-5-1957 in the service records of the workman
1448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was without basis. The Management cannot escape this liability on the ground that it was recorded on the basis of a
declaration by the workman since the date of birth mentioned in the first document prepared by management which is
Form-B was replicated in various documents prepared thereafter on the basis of this first documents. Certainly there
will be consistency in this respect in the documents prepared by Management and mentioned by Management witness
in his statement oath Exhibit M1 to M15. Since the date of birth was mentioned without any basis in the first
document, it is held that the date of birth replicated in documents thereafter was also wrong.
11.
Implementation Instruction No.76 relates to dispute regarding date of birth of employees during employment
and at the time of first appointment which is as follows:-
“(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.
(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate
issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of
Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid
Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/
Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.
(i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the
Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.
Provided that where both documents mentioned in (1(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date
of birth recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic.
(ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very
glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management
after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through
Determination Committee/Medical Board.
(C) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the
Management. IN the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance
with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the
records of the company, namely Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards
(untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, the age recorded
in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination
Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age”.
12.
A perusal of these provisions reveals that when there is High School or equivalent certificate with respect to
date of birth it will be given precedence. IN the case in hand again in the circumstances mentioned above, particularly
when matriculation qualification or the basis of high school or equivalent pass examination the date of birth
mentioned in the matriculation certificate which have been given precedence by the Management and the
Management was under legal obligation to correct it.
13.
Learned counsel for workman has referred to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. dated 3-3-2020 in
W.P.No.16049/2012 (Mannu Kumar Singh Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Others) which supports the
finding and the facts of the case referred are almost identical to the case in hand. The learned Counsel for
Management has referred to decision of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh firstly in W.P.No.6207/2010 (Gorelal
Vs. SECL & Others) and secondly in W.P.No.1317/2015 (Subhashis Sinha Vs. SECL & Others) but these cases
will not be applicable because of different facts. In the first case referred the workman could not produce any
documents mentioned in I.I.No.76 regarding his date of birth. He produced his primary school certificate which is not
provided in I.I.No.76 and in the second record the case that the workman deliberately concealed his education
qualification because the post was meant for illiterate persons as held by Hon. Court, hence the Management was held
justified by Hon’ble High Court in not refusing his age dispute under I.I,N.76.
14.
On the basis of above discussion, the reference is answered as follows:-
A.
The action of the management of SECL in not correcting the date of birth of workman to
9-2-1964 from 2-5-1957 is held unjustified in law.
B.
The workman is held entitled to be deemed to be in continuous service of management till the
date of his superannuation of the basis of his date of birth 9-2-1964 and is entitled to all in service
and post retiral benefits, accordingly.
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
DATE: 12.7.2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1449
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28/2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@10@2018-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-,e-- II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2022
S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2018) 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 26.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/10/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Mahamantri,
Rashtiriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh
(INTUC)
Chandamuta, District,
Chhindwara (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Manager
Western Coal Fields Ltd.
Ambara Calree, Kanhan Area
Palachaurai District
Chhindwara (M.P.)
… Management
AWARD
(Passed on 18-7-2022)
As per letter dated 24/5/2018 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
22012/10/2018-IR(CM-II).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Prabhandak Vekoli Ambada Colliery, Kanhan shetra, Palachourai Jilla (Chhindwara) M.P. dwara
Kamgar Shri Narayan Singh, token Incharge ko padounnati Pashchat apne aadesh denank 14/7/2017
dwara Sthanantaran ananyantra keya jaana company mein prachalit sthai Adesh ked hara 21.1 ke
anusar uchhit hai?Yadi nahi to kamgar kya anutosh paane ka adhikari hai? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The workman never
appeared inspite of service of notice. He did not even file statement of claim.
2.
The Management has filed its written statement of defence. The case proceeded ex-parte against the
workman vide order dated 23-2-2022. The Management filed affidavit of its witness corroborating its case. Heard ex-
parte argument of Management learned Counsel Shri A.K.Shashi and perused the record as well.
3.
The reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
4.
According to the Management, the workman was working as Senior clerk , Special Grade at Ambara
Colliery. He was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 15-6-2017 and posted at manager Office.
Arvind Kumar Sr. Clerk Grade was also given promotion on the same date and he was also posted in the same office.
Later on the workman was transferred to another unit in the same area. According, to the management, the transfer
was done in the light of exigencies of service and has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
1450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. IN absence of any evidence or even statement of
claim by workman, he is held to have failed to discharge his burden. ON the other hand, the Management has
corroborated its case by the affidavit of its witness. In the light of these circumstances, holding that the workman has
failed to prove his claim, the reference deserves to be answered against him and is answered accordingly.
6.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper
B.
The workman is 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
DATE: 19.7.2022
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76/2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@50@2015-vkbZ- vkj-¼lh- II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2022
S.O. 702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2015) 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 26.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/50/2015 – IR (C-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/76-2015
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary
Joint Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),
Camp Near Maan Petrol Pump, Parasia,
Chhindwara-480441
…Workman
Versus
The Deputy Regional Manager
WCL, Tansi Sub Area, Kanhan Area,
PO Rampur Bhatta Via Damua, Reh Junnardev,
Chindwara -480555
…Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1451
AWARD
(Passed on 20-7-22 )
As per letter dated 7/9/2015 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-
22012/50/2015-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya upshetriya Prabhandak Khadan , Western Coal Fields Ltd. Kanhan Shetra Junnardev, Jilla
Chhindwara dwara Kaamgaar Shri Rajeev Sanmani, Electric Fitter Category-5 ko Vebhagiya Padunnati
samite dwara trend test ke aadhar par unse kanisht kamgaar ko padounnit kiya jana uchhit hai? Yadi
Nahi to kamgaar kya anutosh paane ks adhikari hai? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Bothe 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 first appointed by Management as
Category-II worker on 24-11-1995. He was promoted to Category-III on 24-4-2002, to Category—IV from Category-
III on 1-1-2003. Category-V from Category-IV on 15-10-2007 and to Category-VI from Category-V on 4-8-2012.
His co-workman who was junior to him was also promoted from Category-V to Category-VI and was placed above
the workman in seniority in Category-VI which is against law. The workman has prayed for that this anomaly be
rectified.
3.
The case of the Management is that there is a Cadre Scheme for electrical and mechanical discipline in
promotion from one category to other is made on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee
Constituted under the Cadre Scheme. The required criteria for promotion to Category-VI from Category-V is three
years experience in Category-V and the mode of promotion is Departmental Promotion Committee/Grade Test. The
Management has specifically denied that any junior to the applicant/workman was promoted against Rules.
4.
The workman has filed and proved Exhibit W1- offer of appoint of the workman on Category-II, Exhibit W-
2 order granting promotion to Category-III, Exhibit W-3 Office order Exhibit W-4 granting promotion to Category-V,
Exhibit W-5 order granting promotion to Category-VI. The Management has filed copy of recommendation of
departmental promotion committee with regard to promotion of the applicant work and his co-workman Komal
Thakre from Category-V to Category-VI and copy of Cadre Scheme which are Exhibit M1 and M2 respectively. The
workman has examined himself on oath and has been cross-examined. The Management has not examined any
witness.
5.
I have heard arguments of Union Representative Shri Mahendra Chatterjee and Shri A.K.shashi, learned
counsel for the Management and have perused the records.
6.
The reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
7.
The workman has stated in his cross-examination that he and the co-workman Thakre were considered by
the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Category-VI from Category-V and both appeared in
written and Trade Test. Thakre got more numbers in the test. He also got more numbers in confidential reports also.
There was only one vacancy when Thakre was recommended for promotion. Later on the applicant workman was also
recommended for promotion when the vacancy came out. The Cadre Scheme shows that the criteria for promotion to
Category-VI is firstly three years’ experience in Category-V and mode of promotion is Departmental Promotion
Committee/Trade Test. The Management has filed the report of Departmental Promotion Committee admitted by the
workman side which goes to show that the co-workman Thakre got more marks in test and confidential records
annually recorded . In these facts and circumstances, the action of management cannot be held to be arbitrary and is
held not against law. Secondly holding the action of the Management justified in law, the reference deserves to be
answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
8.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be justified in law.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
9.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 20.7.2022
1452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 101/2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@40@2008-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2022
S.O. 703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court JABALPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/40/2008 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/101/2008
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The President,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)
J & K Area, PO Jamuna,
Annuppur (MP).
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL,
PO-Jamuna, Annuppur (MP)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 12-7-2022)
As per letter dated 13/8/2008 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-
22012/40/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s SECL in not giving SLU in Category VI to Shri Ramdas
Rathore is legal and justified? To What relief is the workman concerned 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/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed by Management on 9-
1-1979. He was promoted as Tyndal Jamadar Category-V on 12-6-2000 and further he was promoted to the post of
Tyndal Jamadar Category-VI on 31-3-2007 on the basis of recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee
constituted by the Management. Before his promotion to Category-V, he was granted SLU(Service Link
Upgradation) to Category-IV on 1-7-1994. Shri Vijay Singh who was junior to the workman also held substantive
post in Category –V was granted SLU Category-VI who is receiving wages at the rate of Rs.361.68 per day whereas
the workman has been paid wages at the rate of Rs.346.67 w.e.f. 1-6-2006 and presently receiving wages @ of
Rs.354.20 per day from 1-1-2007. Shri Vijay Singh has not been promoted to substantive post in Category-VI and
SLU Category-V was granted to him on 1-1-2003. Similarly, Mewalal another co-workman who also holds
substantive post of Category-V w.e.f. from 1-1-2005 and has been granted SLU Category-VI, is receiving wages at
the rate of Rs.361.68 per day w.e.f. 1-1-2007. Another co-workman Babulal who also holds substantive post in
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1453
Category-V and granted SLU in Category-VI is being paid wages @ Rs.361.68 per day w.e.f. 1-5-2007. These co-
workman are junior to the applicant workman but are receiving wages higher than the workman which is arbitrary on
the part of the Management. According to the workman, he raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner after failure of conciliation, the reference was made by Central Government to this Tribunal. It is the
case of the workman that since his juniors are being paid wages more than what he is getting and this discrepancy has
not been done away by Management inspite of various representation, the action of Management is arbitrary and
illegal and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the workman has prayed that he be
granted the relief of wages w.e.f. 1-7-1994 as has been granted to his juniors with all the arrears and interest and
further that his pay be fixed accordingly.
3.
The Management has contested the claim with a case that wage contract and other conditions of service
including grant of benefits are covered under the recommendations of National Wage Board for the Coal Mining
Industries as accepted by the Government of India which is applicable from 15-8-1967 settled by way of Wage
Agreement generally known as National Coal Wage Agreement(in short NCWA). This NCWA also deals with the
wage structure and promotion policy of the employees in Coal Mining Industries. The Scheme formulated under
NCWA is known as cadre Scheme for different cadre. The promotion is given in accordance with the cadre scheme
only. The workman was appointed as a general mazdoor in Category-I on 9-1-1979 and was posted in Bhadra
Colliery of Jamuna & Kotma Area. He was promoted as a Tyndal Jamadar Category-V on 12-6-2000 at Bhadra Sub
Area. The workman submitted an application for granting second SLU on 1-1-2002. The Management informed him
vide its communication dated 13-2-2002 that he was not eligible for grant of second SLU because he had not put in
required period in service in one scale. The Management has further stated that the co-workman Vijay Singh was
earlier posted in Kotma West Colliery and he was transferred to Jamuna OCM from Kotma West Colliery. He was
further granted SLU because he had completed 10 years of service in Category-IV, thus SLU of Category –V was
granted to him w.e.f. 1-7-1994. He was granted benefit of second SLU Category-VI after completion of eight years
of service as per NCWA-VII. Similarly Shri Babulal and other co-workers mentioned by the workman were granted
SLU’s after completing the required number of years in one category. According to the Management, the workman
and other employees mentioned by him were transferred to Jamuna OCM and before their transfer to Jamuna OCM,
they were working in different units and got promotion as per sanctioned man power budget with respect of respective
units. The employees working in different units are given promotion based on different seniority list maintained at
unit level. Further as stated by the Management, the Co-worker Vijay Singh is still not promoted in Tyndal Category-
VI and is continuing with second SLU granted while in Category-V w.e.f. 1-1-2003. Thus, according to the
Management there is no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of Management or committed by Management in fixing
the wages. Accordingly, the Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has filed and proved documents, office order dated 31-3-2007, office order dated 12-6-2000,
Service extracts of the workman, office order dated17-3-2007, copy of Appeal Proforma filed and proved. The
workman has also examined himself as witness and has been cross-examined by Management. The workman has
further filed documents obtained by him in RTI which are exhibits W-6 to W-9. He has also filed copies of various
office communication Exhibits W-10 to W-13. He has filed copies of various NCWA’s and Implement Instructions
which are Exhibits W-14 to Exhibits W-53. The Management has examined its witness on oath and has proved office
order dated 27-8-2002, office order dated12-6-2000 and office order dated27-3-2002. I have heard arguments of Shri
R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the workman and Shri A.K.Shashi , learned counsel for the Management and have
gone through the record as well.
5.
The reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.
6.
The grant of service linked upgradation in Cadre Scheme has been mentioned in Implementation Instruction
No.11 para 2.11.1 as follows:-
2.11.1:- Daily rated and monthly rated employees who have remained in the same category/grade for a
period of 10 years or more would be upgraded in the next higher category/grade and such upgradation
will take effect from 1st July,1994 and thereafter on 1-7-1995. Monthly rated employees in T & S Gr.A
and Daily rated employees in Excavation Special who have remained in the same grade/category for a
period of 10 years or more will be paid an amount equivalent to one increment in lieu of upgradation
with effect from 1st July,1994 and thereafter w.e.f. 1-7-1995.
7.
The amended Para 12.3 of Implementation Instruction No.1 is also being reproduced as follows:-
“Upgradation does not mean fixation in the higher grade with an increment as in the case of normal
promotion. Upgradation means fixation only in the nearest stage in the higher category/grade and
there will be no change of designation after upgradation i.e. the employees upgraded under this clause
will carry their won designation and in addition will include SLU i.e.(Service Linked Upgradation) in
order to identify such upgraded employees in the company. When such employees get regular
promotion, normal incremental benefit will be given and the word SLU will be omitted and they will
carry the designation as per normal promotional channel.”
1454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Further more Cadre Scheme No.7 for Electrical and Mechanical Employees , Para 3.0 particularly 3.2 and
3.3 are also being reproduced as follows:-
“3.2:- Selection for the posts upto Category-V shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and from
Category-V to VI on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Selection to Supervisory Gr.C shall be on the
basis on selection on merit from employees in Category-VI. Similar promotion from Gr-C to B and
Fro Gr.B to A shall be on the basis of Skill/Merit-cum-seniority.”
“3.3:-the promotional zone for filling the vacancy in Category-! To Category-VI will be Unit/Project as
regards Technical and Supervisory Grade-C to A, promotional zone would be area, unless otherwise
specifically provided in the Scheme itself.”
9.
Perusal of these rules, makes it clear that promotional zone for vacancy in Category-1 to Category-VI
would be unit/project wise and thereafter it will be area or zone wise. It is not disputed that before promotion, the
applicant workman and the co-workman were working in different units. The applicant workman was working at
Bhadra Colliery whereas the Co-workman Vijay Singh was working at Kotma West Colliery and after promotion in
different units on the basis of vacancy they were transferred at one place which is Jamuna OCM. Since promotional
zone for the posts which they were promoted was unit/project wise and they were promoted while they were in
different projects at different point of time , they were granted SLU also in different projects at different point of time
subject to availability in those projects. The applicant workman cannot claim parity regarding previous promotions
and benefits done before as he and his co-workers were transferred to third project i.e. Jamuna OCM. The workman
has filed documents relating to correction of anomalies of one clerk Ramchandra Singh viz a viz his co-worker
K.K.Prasad, but these documents do not show that Ramchandra Singh and Co-worker K.K.Prasad were working in
different projects at the time of his transfer.
10.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of M/s SECL in not giving SLU in Category VI to Shri Ramdas
Rathore is held to be legal and justified
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
11.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 12.7.2022
ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ 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 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 86/2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@63@2014 vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2022
S.O. 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2014) 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 26.07.2022.
[No. L-22012/63/2014 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 30, 2022/श्रावण 8, 1944
1455
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/86/2014
Present: P .K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Joint Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC)
Near Maan Petrol,
Parasia Chhindwarha (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Depot Manager,
C.M.Store, WCL, Pench Area
Tehsil Parasia,
Chhindwarha (M.P.)
… Management
AWARD
(Passed on 13-7-22)
As per letter dated 7/11/2014 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-
22012/63/2014-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Mahaprabhandak, Western Coal Fields Limited, Pench Area parasia , District Chhindwarha Shri
Yunus Khan, Cleaner, Conducter C.M.Store, Pench Shetra, Western Coal Fields Limited Parasiya Tehsil
Parasia, District Chhindwarha ko Year 2005 ka Labh Dete Hue Category-4 mein padounnati dekar varsh
2013 mein aadesh kramank –Vakoli/pench/pe.re.SLP/B.H/366/13. Dated 20-3-2013 dwara SLP ka labh
pradah karte hue Category-3 prastavet Padavanti karna nyaysangat hai?Yadi Nahi to karmkar kya
anutosh paane ka adhikari hai? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was transferred from Sethia O/C
Mines to Chandamatta CME Store vide order of Management dated 4-6-1985 as General Mazdoor. He was promoted
to General Mazdoor Category-II as Cleaner General Mazdoor in the year 1986. He was authorized by Depo Officer to
work as Crane Helper in the year 2002. He was promoted to General Mazdoor Category-IV from Category-III SLU
vide order of Management dated 21-2-2005 w.e.f. 1-1-2005. He was further reverted to General Mazdoor Category-
III by Depo Officer CME Store Chandamata vide his order dated 20-3-2013 which is arbitrary and against norms.
The workman has therefore prayed that, holding the action of Management against law, his promotion be reinstated to
Category-IV as mentioned above.
3.
According to the Management, the workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor. He was
transferred from Sethia OC Mines to Chandamatta vide order of Management dated 6-6-1985. Thereafter he was
promoted to Clearner Category-II and was posted at CM Store Chandamatta. He was authorized to help as Crane
Helper in the year 2002 which is equivalent to Cleaner Category-II and carries the same pay scale. He was given
benefit of SLU Category –III in the year 1997 and was further given SLU Category-IV in the year 2005 after
completing eight years in SLU Category-III. As per Service Link Promotion Scheme. He was further given SLP after
completion of eight years w.e.f 1-1-2013. According to the Management, he was never promoted before March-2013
from Category-II to Category-III rather he was given service linked up gradation/service linked pay in different
categories as mentioned above after being in continuous service in one category for number of years as required for
SLU/SLP. Hence as claimed by Management there is no illegality in the action of Management and the reference
needs to be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has examined himself on oath and has been cross-examined. The workman has further filed
office order dated 461985, office order dated 31-12-1986, Office order dated 21-2-2005 and office order dated 20-3-
2013 all issued by management and marked W1 to W4 respectively.
5.
The Management has examined Shri K.S.Katti Mani , Depo Officer as witness. He has been cross-examined
by the workman.
6.
I have heard arguments of Shri Mahendra Chatterjee, Union Representative and Shri A.K.Shashi, learned
counsel for the management. I have also gone through the record.
7.
The reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
1456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2022/SRAVANA 8, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Both the side witnesses have reiterated their claims in their statement on oath. The Management has referred
to Circular No.329 dated 1-12-2011 issued by JBCCI with regard to I.I.No.24 which is as follows:-
APPLICABILITY:- Under this scheme, on promotional increment @3% of the existing basic in the
grade/category will be allowed to the employees who remain in the same category/grade for a period of
7/8 years(Underground/Surface non-executive employees respectively) and will be promoted in the
next higher category/grade. However, such employee will continue to do their existing jobs as per their
designation.”
9.
The Management has further referred to another circular No.604 dated 19-6-2013 issued by the JBCCI with
respect of I.I.No.24 of NCWA-VIII. The relevant portion is being reproduced as follows:-
(a)
The designation of the employee shall not be changed, only those who have been extended SLP,
their existing designation would be by putting right side word SLP of the existing designation.
For example, if any employee has designation of Sr. Clerk, his/her designation would be
Sr.Clerk(SLP) after extending SLP.
(b)
Such employee who has been extended SLP, he/she will also get annual increment in the same
year, i.e. if an employee got benefit of SLP on 1-1-2007 and his/her annual increment falls due to
1st February,2008, the same should be extended to him/her.
10.
It is established from these circulars that after getting benefit of SLU/SLP, the designation of the employee
will not be changed. His existing designation would be mentioned by putting on the right side of the word SLP/SLU.
The workman has himself admitted in his statement that he was promoted to Category-II in the year 1986. He states
that he was promoted to Category-IV Cleaner. The Union Representative has referred to Exhibit W-3 and office order
dated 21-2-2005 in this respect. I have perused these documents. The name of the workman finds place at serial
no.16. It is mentioned that he is being granted SLU Category-IV from SLU Category-III. Change of SLU/SLP is not
promotional with regard to post, in the light of circular mentioned above. Hence the workman would still be in the
category-II inspite of the fact that he got SLU/SLP for Category-III and Category-IV. In the back drop of these facts,
the promotion order of the workman which he has questioned and which is Exhibit W-4 bringing the workman from
Category-II to Category-III cannot be said to be a demotion order from Category-IV to Category-III. In the light of
the above discussion, the action of the management cannot be held unjustified in law and 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 as mentioned in the reference is held to be justified.
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
DATE: 13.7.2022
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054 ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2022.08.06 10:18:17 +05'30'