5777 GI/2022
(1641)
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. 36]
नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 4— जसतम् बर 10, 2022, िजनवार/ भाद्र 13— भाद्र 19, 1944
No. 36]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4—SEPTEMBER 10, 2022, SATURDAY/BHADRA 13–BHADRA 19, 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)
जिक्षा मंत्राल
(उच् च जिक्षा जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्ट् त, 2022
का.आ. 780.—लोक ृररसर (अनजिकषत कब्िािारर ों को बेि ल करना) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971 का 40) की िारा 3
द्वारा प्रि्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त अजिकारी, िो भारत
सरकार के रािृजत्रत अजिकारी की रैंक के बराबर के अजिकारी िज, को उि अजिजन म के प्र ोिना थ संृिा अजिकारी के प ृ में
जन ुि करती िज, िो उि ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में जवजनर्िथष्ट लोक ृररसर के संबंि में अृने अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानी सीमाओं के
भीतर उि अजिजन म द्वारा अ वा उसके तित संृिा अजिकारर ों को सौृे गए का ो का जन्ृािन करेंगे और प्रि्त िजि ों का
प्र ोग करेंगे:-
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-20092022-238926
CG-DL-W-20092022-238926
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-20092022-238926
CG-DL-W-20092022-238926
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-20092022-238926
CG-DL-W-20092022-238926
1642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ताजलका
अजिकारी का ृिनाम
लोक ृररसरों की श्रेजि ााँ और अजिकार क्षेत्र
की स्ट् ानी सीमाएाँ
(1)
(2)
रजिस्ट्रार,
सरिार वल्लभभाई राष्ट्री प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, सूरत
सरिार वल्लभभाई राष्ट्री प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, सूरत से
सम्बंजित और इसके प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रिािीन समस्ट्त
ृररसर
[फा. सं. 17-2/2022 टीएस. III]
इंद्रिीत कुरी, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(Department of Higher Education)
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022
S.O. 780.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table
below being an officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government of India to be the Estate Officer for the
purposes of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or under the
said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table:-
TABLE
Designation of Officer
Categories of public premises and local limits of
jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Registrar,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,
Surat
All
the
premises
belonging
to
and
under
the
administrative control of the Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat
[F. No. 17-2/2022-TS.III]
INDRAJIT KURI, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;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 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-07-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@9@2008-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 13th July, 2022
S.O. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.07.2022.
[No. L-20012/9/2008-IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1643
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 12/2008
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated : 30.05.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/9/2008-(IR(CM-I)) dated 12.03.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denial to fix proper
pay with benefit of wage protection to S/Shri Yogendra Paswan, Devilal Mahato, Bhagirath Mahato
and Bimal Hembram, Drillers/Dressers, is justified and legal? If not, to what reliefs are the concerned
workmen entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 26/03/2008 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed
but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since
26/03/2008 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No “Claim Award” is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त, 2022
का.आ. 782.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री ज् ोजत कुमार जत्रृा ी को दिनांक 17 अगस्ट्त, 2022 के ृूवाथह्न से 16 अगस्ट्त,
2026 तक 4 वर्षो की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, तक के जलए केंद्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरि-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल न. 1, चंडीगढ़ में ृी ासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जन ुि करते िज।
2.
श्री ज् ोजत कुमार जत्रृा ी की ृी ासीन अजिकारी, केंद्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि सि-श्रम न् ा ाल के ृि
ृर जन ुजि अजिकरि सुिार अजिजन म, 2021 और उसके तित बने जन म ाजन अजिकरि (सेवा की ितें) जन म, 2021
के अनुसार जवजन जमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/02/2022-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
एस आर ि्ता, उृ सजचव
1644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, 18th August, 2022
S.O. 782.—The President is pleased to appoint Shri Jyoti Kumar Tripathi as Presiding Officer of Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh for a period of 4 years with effect from the
forenoon of the 17th August, 2022 up to 16th August, 2026 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
2.
The appointment of Shri Jyoti Kumar Tripathi as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be regulated in
terms of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2021.
[No. A-19011/02/2022-CLS-II(E)]
S. R. DATTA, Dy. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe 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; iksVZ Cys;j ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22011@8@2013-vkbZ ¼lh,e-II)]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2022
S.O. 783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court PORT BLAIR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.08.2022.
[No. L-22011/8/2013-I (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR
ISLANDS, PORT BLAIR.
I.D. CASE NO-10 OF 2013
PRESENT:
SHRI BIJOYESH GHOSAL
JUDGE, LABOUR COURT
A & N ISLANDS, PORT BLAIR
Shri. D. Subramaniam
-1st Party
-Versus-
The Management of Food Corporation of India,
Port Blair
2nd Party
DATE OF DELIVERY OF JUDGEMENT: 04th MAY, 2022
JUDGEMENT
By order No.L-22011/8/2013-I(CM)-II) dated 17.07.2013, Ministry of Labour, Government of India made
reference U/s.10(2A) and U/s.10 (1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute
as mentioned in the following schedule:-
“Whether the services of Shri. D. Subramaniam, the workman needs to the regularized by the management of
Food Corporation of India, Port Blair? And whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1645
India, Port Blair in terminating the services of Shri. Subramaniam, the workman w.e.f May, 2011 is legal
and/or justified? If not, so what relief Shri. Subramaniam is entitled to?”
Vide Award dated 01.02.2019 this Labour Court answered the reference and held that the action of
Management of Food Corporation of India, Port Blair, is legal and justified. It also held that the First Party workman
is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
In this case, the First Party filed a petition on 05.04.2021, informing that the First Party challenged the above
Award before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P No.132/2019 and Hon’ble Court set
aside the Award and remanded the matter back to decide afresh after taking into consideration of Letter dated
21.04.2009. 1st Party filed xerox of certified copy of order dated 12.03.2021 of the Hon’ble Court in WP-132/2019.
Perused.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vide Order dated 12.03.2021 in W.P No.1332/2019, set aside the above award
on the sole ground of non-consideration of letter dated 21.04.2009 and remanded back to this court for deciding the
same afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the aforesaid letter.
Thus, this court proceeds to pass the judgment afresh in this matter, after granting opportunity to both sides
to lead fresh evidence, however, parties did not lead any further evidence after order of remand back by Hon’ble
Court.
WORKMEN’S CASE
The First Party workman filed its statement of claim on 12.01.2013. It stated that First Party was appointed as
a Daily Rated Driver under the Second Party on 01.12.1998 and since then till the month of April, 2011 the First Party
was working with the Second Party as driver. It stated that all of a sudden from the month of May, 2011 the District
Manager, FCI, Port Blair without giving any notice or any order did not allow the First Party to do any job and
retrenched First Party from the service without following due process of law. It stated that First Party made several
representations to the Second Party for regularization of the service as driver in FCI. But instead of regularization of
the service of First Party was retrenched whereas First Party served with full satisfaction of the Second Party as driver.
He stated that the First Party worked as driver continuously and without any break. It made representation before the
Labour Enforcement Officer to register a case being ID Case No.(01)/2012. However, Second Party denied to
reinstate the First Party in the service.
First Party claimed reinstatement of the First Party, regularization of the service, pay of all the subsequent
benefits with interest and any other or further orders.
MANAGEMENT’S CASE
The Second Party filed W/O on 18.02.2014. The Second Party Management submitted that the First Party
was never appointed by the Second Party nor he worked continuously as required for regularization of workman. It
submitted that the First Party worked on need basis with considerable gap and the payment was made out of
contingent fund and not from regular fund maintained to pay salaries. It stated that First Party was a Daily Rated
Worker on temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual or as casual worker which is not based on any
proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure and the First Party is aware that his appointment is
temporary casual or contractual and cannot legitimately expect for being confirmed without following the proper
procedure for selection.
It stated that Area Manager is not the competent authority for recommendations for the case of any Daily
Rated Worker. It is denied that the recommendation was made keeping in view of the length of service. Second Party
denied for issuance in certificate and stated that the certificate is only with respect to the driving license of First Party .
Second Party Management claimed that the claim of First Party is liable to be rejected.
EVIDENCE
First Party workman examined himself as PW-1D. Subramaniam by filing affidavit in chief on 03.07.2014.
He marked Ext.-1 to Ext.-17. He was cross-examined in full and discharged.
First Party examined PW-2 Ishwar Singh, Manager, Cargo In-charge of Port Management Board, Port Blair. He
proved 14 vehicle entry pass. PW-2 was cross-examined by Second Party in full and discharged.
Second Party examined DW-1 Smt. Neomi, working as Area Manager, FCI and by filing affidavit in chief on
12.10.2018. She was cross-examined in full and discharged. She marked no documents as Exhibits.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
In answering the reference herein before, the following points of determination are framed, only for clarity:-
1.
Whether the First Party workman completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months from the
date of termination/retrenchment?
1646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Whether the termination/retrenchment of the First Party workman is illegal or unjustified?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled for regularization?
4.
To what reliefs the First Party workman are entitled for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
POINT NO.1
In a decision namely Mohd. Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 15 Supreme
Court cases page-641, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the workman was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, since he had not worked for required 240 days in the year preceding his dismissal. It is
observed that workman as a casual labourer appointed in the year 1980 and dismissed from the service in the year
1991. It is observed that the workman worked only for 190 days in the year 1990 and 195 days in the year
immediately preceding his dismissal.
In the above decision it has been held that the workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of
one year if during the period of 12 calendar months before his date of retrenchment has actually worked for not less
than 240 days.
As observed under para 11 of the said decision, it appears that the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
workman argued that the Hon’ble High Court misinterpreted section 25B along with section 25F of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. He further submitted that it is not necessary that a workman has to complete 240 days period
during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding his disengagement. Rather, he argued that in as much
as once the workman completed 240 days of service in any calendar year of his employment then he becomes entitled
for the benefit of the provisions under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased
to refer section 25F and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and dismissed the appeal of the workman holding that the
contention of the workman is not sustainable in the eyes of law since provisions are very clear qua the calculation of
period. Para 14 of the above decision is reproduced here under :-
“14: It is a well-known fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation. The intention behind the
enactment of this Act was to protect the employees from arbitrary retrenchments. For this reason only, in a
case of retrenchment of any employee who has worked for a year or more, Section 25-F provides a safeguard
in the form of giving one month’s prior notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment to the employee and
also provides for wages for the period of notice. Section 25-B of the Act provides that when a person can be
said to have worked for one year and the very reading of the said provisions makes it clear that if a person
has worked for a period of 240 days in the last preceding year, he is deemed to have worked for a year. The
theory of 240 days for continuous service is that a workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a
period of one year, if he, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment has
actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days”
In another decision namely Mohan Lal Vs Bharat Electronics Limited reported in (1981) 3 Supreme Cases
page-225 at para 12 Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the procedure how this 240 days in the last preceding 12
calendar months is to be calculated. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is necessary to determine first the relevant
date i.e. the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained, move
backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and ascertain whether within the period of
12 months, the workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. It is held that if these three facts are
affirmatively answered in favour of the workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause 2(a) it will have to
be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he satisfied the eligibility
qualifications enacted in the section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. For ready reference para 12 of the above
decision is reproduce here under:-
“12. Sub-section (2) incorporates another deeming fiction for an entirely different situation. It comprehends a
situation where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of sub-section (1) for a period of
one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one
year or six months, as the case may be, if the workman during the period of 12 calendar months just
preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under that
employer for not less than 240 days. Sub-section (2) specifically comprehends a situation where a workman
is not in continuous service as per the deeming fiction indicated in sub-section (1) for a period of one year or
six months. In such a case he is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year if he satisfies the
conditions in sub-clause (a) of clause (2). The conditions are that commencing (sic) the date with reference to
which calculation is to be made, in case of retrenchment the date of retrenchment, if in a period of 12
calendar months just preceding such date the workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days, he shall
be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purposes of Chapter V-A. It is not
necessary for the purposes of clause (2)(a) that the workman should be in service for a period of one year. If
he is in service for a period of one year and that if that service is continuous service within the meaning of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1647
clause (1) his case would be governed by clause (1) and his case need not be covered by clause (2). Clause
(2) envisages a situation not governed by clause (1). And clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a
workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered
uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered service for a period of 240 days during the
period of 12 calendar months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of
retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to
determine first the relevant date i.e., the date of termination of service which is complained of as
retrenchment. After that date is ascertained, move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding
the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has
rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favour of
the workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that
the workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility
qualification enacted in Section 25-F. On a pure grammatical construction the contention that even for
invoking clause (2) of Section 25-B the workman must be shown to be in continuous service for a
period of one year would render clause (2) otiose and socially beneficial legislation would receive a set
back by these impermissible assumptions. The contention must first be negative on a pure grammatical
construction of clause (2). And in any event, even if there be any such thing in favour of the
construction, it must be negative on the ground that it would rendered clause (2) otiose. The language
of clause (2) is so clear and unambiguous that no precedent is necessary to justify the interpretation we
have placed on it”.
The onus of proving such 240 days service is on the workman as settled by hon’ble Supreme Court. I rely on
decision namely Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Limited Vs. Mohd. Rafi reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 697
where Hon’ble Supreme court held that whether workman worked for continuous period of 240 days in a year, it was
held that burden of proof lies on the workman so as to entitle him to the benefits of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes
Act. In this decision, it reveals that according to the workman he served the Jal Nigam from 29.10.1989 to 01.04.1996.
He further claimed that his services were terminated without complying with provision of Section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The reference made at the instance of the workman was contested by the Jal Nigam. The
Labour Court recorded its finding that the services of the workman had been terminated without complying Section
25F of the Act and therefore, the termination was illegal. Accordingly, the termination was set aside and the Jal
Nigam was directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of service. This Award was
challenged by Jal Nigam in W.P No.40822 of 1999. The Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court set aside the
Award of Labour Court holding the workman had not discharged the initial onus of proving that he had worked for
more than 240 days and therefore, the Award directing workman’s reinstatement was illegal. However, the said
judgement of Hon’ble Single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal which was also allowed by the impugned
judgement. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgement rendered by the Division Bench of
the Karnataka High Court, observing that the same cannot be maintained.
In Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC page 25, Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that “in our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first
determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year
preceding his termination. It was the case of claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the
Appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240
days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement
for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone the award is liable to be set aside.”
In Rajasthan State Ganga Nagar S Mills Ltd., Vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 8 SCC 161 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the
year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in
fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement
which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the
conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects were highlighted in “Range
Forest Officer .Vs. S.T Hadimani”. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 or order or record in that regard was
produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour court to
hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed”.
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195 Hon’ble supreme Court
held that the burden was on the workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one
year prior to his alleged retrenchment.
In R.M. Yellatti Vs Assistant Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC page 106 Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:-
1648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“17. Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms
do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, However, applying general
principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view
that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This
burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the
workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily-
waged earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of
payment. Thus in most cases, the workman ( the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before
the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the
wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter
on the facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving
statements made by the claimant workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by
law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further
lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant
workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.
Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution will not interfere with the Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless
they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon the facts of each case.”
Now, we may proceed to find out whether the workman has proved that it worked for 240 days in the last
preceding 12 calendar months from his date of retrenchment. In the claim petition First Party workman stated that he
was appointed as Daily Rated Driver under Second Party on 01.12.1999 and worked since then till the month of
April, 2011. He stated all of the sudden from the month of May, 2011 the Second Party retrenched his service.
It didn’t state any specific date for such retrenchment.
Perused the affidavit-in-chief of First Party workman-PW-1. He stated in the same way in the affidavit-in-
chief. He further stated that he worked for 14 years to the full satisfaction of the higher authorities of the Second Party
as driver. He didn’t state any specific date of May, 2011 for his retrenchment, in the affidavit- in –chief. Perused his
cross examination he stated nothing about his specific date of retrenchment. From record, as First Party workman
stated that he worked till April, 2011 and he was retrenched in the month of May, 2011, I take that First Party worked
till 30.04.2011 and he was retrenched from 01.05.2011.
The First Party expressly never said either in his affidavit in chief or in his statement of demand that he
worked for 240 days of work in any calendar year atleast in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of retrenchment.
Exhibit 1 (with objection) is certificate of Second Party dated 01.12.2000. It reveals that the First Party
worked as jeep driver with Second Party for the last 2 years. However, this document doesn’t state that First Party
workman worked for 240 days in a year nor it reveals that he was in continuous service as meant U/s.25B of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Exhibit-2 is the money receipt issued by the Second Party for wages from 21.10.2001 to
31.10.2001. Exhibit-3 is the letter of District Manager, Second Party for permission to take back 09 persons, including
the First Party workman to take to Rangat. Exhibit-4 is another certificate by the Second Party dated 11.08.2008
stating that First Party worked with the Second Party as driver through contractor since 02 years. It is noted “his
performance is good, conduct is satisfactory, very obedient and reliable. Any Govt. /Private organization can
utilize his service.” However, it doesn’t reveal that First Party workman worked for 240 days in a year nor it reveals
that he was in continuous service as meant U/s.25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Exhibit-5 is the money receipt
issued by First Party workman for the daily wages for 23 days from 01.12.2004 to 31.12.2004 excluding the holidays
on 04.12.2004, 05.12.2004, 11.12.2004, 12.12.2004, 18.12.2004 and 03 more holidays. Similarly, Exhibit-6 is also a
money receipt by the First Party for his Daily wages for a period from 01.01.2006 to 15.01.2006 for 08 days excluding
the public holidays. In the examination in chief PW-1 marked a log book from 16.04.2007 till 31.12.2007. But these
entries, as admittedly are for the year 2007 and not so relevant for counting 240 days from 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011.
Which shall be counted in the just preceding 12 calendar months from 01st May, 2011. Exhibit-8 (series) are the Xerox
copies of some cheques in the name of M. Surveshwara Rao, Shri.K. Satyanarayana, P. Ravindra Babu Shri A.
Krishna Naik. Thereafter Exhibit-9 and 10 also the Xerox copies of the log book from 27.10.2008 and from
06.01.2009 to 13.12.2009. These log books are also not for the relevant period of 2010-11.
Exhibit-10 shows First Party work for 22 days in the month of December, 2008, 28 days in January, 2009, 22
days in February, 2009, 29 days in March, 2009, 24 days in April, 2009. Ext.-14 reveals the statement and particulars
for the Daily engaged persons from 01.04.2009 to 30.04.2009. Ext.-15/1 is a Xerox of the log book from 01.01.2010
to 11.03.2011 as stated by PW-1 in his examination in chief, however, perusing the log book it reveals that it is till
10.02.2012, log books did not reveal that who was driving the vehicle.
Perused Ext.-15. First Page dated 31.12.2012 is an RTI reply by Second Party stating that First Party
workman worked from 01.01.2010 to 11.03.2011 only on need basis. It also reveals that in July, 2011, Shri. K. P.
Mohd. Rafique, Driver, Head Watchman was given additional duty as Driver by FCI and since then Mr. Rafique is
driving the office vehicle. The copies of the log book was given under the reply of RTI as disclosed under reply to the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1649
RTI by Second Party dated 31.12.2012. Here, Second Party did not name any other driver except the First Party and
Mr. Rafique. Had there been any other driver Second Party should have stated the same on record. In the examination
in chief PW-1 stated that the RTI reply show that he was engaged from 01.01.2010 to 11.03.2011 as driver. Now, if
the days of entries when the vehicle travelled, is counted in the log book, it is found that First Party workman worked
for approximately 175 days from 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011. Thus, he did not complete 240 days of work in the
preceding 12 calendar months from his date of retrenchment i.e., from 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011. Perused the
evidence of PW 2 and documents placed by him. The vehicle entry passes are in the name of the Ist Party Workman.
They are dated 16.12.04, 28.12.07, 29.11, 24.06.07, 29.03, 10.11.05, 27.04, 27.09, 18.03, 18.04.06, 18.08.06,
06.09.06, 08.09.06, 11.09.06, 24.08.05, 18.12 & 02.02.05. They are marked Ext.-18 to Ext.-34. Some other vehicle
entry passes are also placed by the First Party. Perused. They do not show that 1st party workman worked for 240 days
in a given year, much less in the year of 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011. PW-2 also placed on record some certified copies
of the cheques. Ext.-17 is a letter of Second Party dated 07.01.05 for requirement of driver.
Letter dated 21.04.2009 is marked as Ext.-12 by the First Party workman.
Perused Order dated 12.03.2021 in W.P. No.132/2019 by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court at Port Blair. It is
observed:-
“However I find in this case that there is atleast one document which may have important bearing on the
merits of the petitioner’s case. The document is the letter dated April 21, 2009, referred to above. It is not in
dispute that the said letter was made a part of the Labour Court records. However, unfortunately, in the order
of the Labour Court impugned in this writ petition, there is absolutely no reference to the said letter. I am not
for a moment suggesting that the said letter conclusively establishes that the petitioner was in continuous
service with the respondent corporation for ten year. However, the Labour Court, in my opinion, ought to
have referred to and dealt with the said letter and if necessary should have granted opportunity to the parties
to examine the author of the said letter. Since I am of the view that the said letter is a very material document
for the purpose of deciding the issue that was before the Labour Court, I set aside the order impugned on the
sole ground of non-consideration of the said letter and remand the after back to the Labour Court for deciding
the same afresh, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the aforesaid letter.”
Thus, there is direction from the Hon’ble Court to consider the letter dated 21.04.2009. Parties did not lead
fresh evidence on the letter despite sufficient opportunity.
The contents of letter dated 21.04.2009 is reproduced hereunder:-
“Shri. D. Subramaniam, Daily Rated/Van driver of this office has submitted the representation for offer of
appointment for the post of Driver/any job in our corporation. Now he is working in this office as Daily
Rated Driver since more than 10 years service in this office promptly with full satisfactory by the higher
authorities in our corporation.
Therefore, may kindly consider the Daily Rated Driver’s obligations and necessary suitable action in this
regard”.
From the letter it appears that it is written by the Area Manager, FCI to the Executive Director (South), FCI
where requesting to consider First Party’s representation for offer of appointment for the post of driver/any job in FCI
and for necessary suitable actions. In this letter the Area Manager observed “Now, he is working in this office as
Daily Rated Driver since more than 10 years service in this office promptly with full satisfaction by the higher
authorities in our corporation”. This letter is dated 21.04.2009. As directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
preceding decisions namely (2018)15 Supreme Court Cases page-641, First Party workman is required to prove 240
days of work from 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011 and this letter of 21.04.2009 is of no help in that manner. Moreover, for
taking this letter as admission against Second Party it has to be unambiguous, unequivocal and clear. The letter
doesn’t indicate that how the workman worked for 240 days in any year. It appears to a recommendation by the Area
Manager to the superior of FCI to take case of First Party favourably for his long association with FCI. It doesn’t
prove the technical term of continuous service, in as much as, working of 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar
months from 01.05.2010. Perused Written Arguments of both parties.
Therefore, First Party workman could not prove that he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar
months or the continuous service with the Second Party.
POINT NO.2
Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is reproduced hereunder:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
1650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
a.
The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice;
b.
The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days’ average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
c.
Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [for such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
It is settled position of law by several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that to be entitled for the
protection and benefit of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has to prove that it worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 calendar months, immediately before and from the date of his retrenchment. As held in Point
No.1, the workman could not prove his 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months from his retrenchment,
the First Party workman in this case is not entitled for the benefits U/s.25F of Industrial Disputes Act. I rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely Krishna Bagya Jal Nigam Limited Vs. Mohammed Rafique reported as
(2006) 9 SCC page-697. I also rely the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely Mohd. Ali vs. state of Himachal
Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 15 SCC page 641, where Hon’ble supreme Court held that the workmen are not
entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act since he had not worked for required 240 days in the
year preceding his dismissal.
POINT NO.3
Any regularization can be done against a permanent post. Creation of permanent post is in the domain of
the appropriate government. It is not disputed by the First Party workman that it was working as casual worker on
daily wages- called Daily Rated Driver. Therefore, the First Party workman was not working against any permanent
post. Moreover, it is not on record that the First Party workman was appointed after following the procedure, by
giving public notice of vacancy inviting the applicants from the citizens of India. Therefore, the First Party workman
is not entitled for regularization of his work.
POINT NO.4
First Party workman is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement, regularization & back wages.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the ID Case No.10/2013 is dismissed on contest without costs. The retrenchment of the First Party
workman by the Second Party Department is not hit by Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. Such retrenchment is
not unjustified or illegal. The First Party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement, regularization and back wages.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Assistant Secretary (Labour) for information.
Dictated and corrected by me.
BIJOYESH GHOSAL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 141/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@28@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1651
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2022
S.O. 784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/28/2001-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 141/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri N. Nath, O.S. Legal
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07./2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/28/2001-(C-I) dated 18/24.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda Area, in dismissing Sh. Ratan Saw
from service w.e.f. 6.3.99 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 20/06/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal
within fifteen days of received of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However
after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal but
management had appeared on 02/12/2020, 04/01/2020 and 02/06/2022. Now Case is pending since 20/06/2001 and
workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter.
Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 240/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@377@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
1652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2022
S.O. 785.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 240/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/377/2001 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 240/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Bhora (S) OCP of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27.07./2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/377/2001-IR (C-I) dated 07.11.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the stand of the management of Bhora (S) OCP of BCCL’s in not providing employment to
Sri Ajan Manjhi, dependent of Late Sukurmani Majhian is justified? If not, to what relief is the said
workman entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 27/11/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Assistant Secretary, J.S.S. Katras, Dhanbad
had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal within fifteen days of
receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However, after receipt of the
reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently workman/union left
appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter, again regd. notices were issued to both the parties but the notice dated
15/01/2021 issued to workman/union returned with endorsement “Addressee not found”. Now this case is pending
since 27/11/2001 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that workman/union has lost its
interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@450@2000-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1653
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2022
S.O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/450/2000 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 50/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : Sri Sadhu Sharan Pd, Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/450/2000-(C-I) dated 19.02.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s BCCL in not allowing the workman to resume duty
and in not making the payment of wages or subsistence allowance, pending enquiry, is justified and
legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 08/03/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Joint General Secretary, Jharkhand Janta
Mazdoor Union, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the
Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal.
However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and workman/union appeared for certain dates but
the management did not appear before the Tribunal. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Representative of
Sponsoring Union Sri Sadhu Sharan Prasad has informed that neither concerned workman nor any family member is
interested to contest the case. In view of such it is felt that the workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence
“No Claim” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 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;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 143/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@31@2001-vkbZ-vkj- lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
1654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/31/2001 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 143/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27.07./2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/31/2001-(C-I) dated 18/24.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL in superannuating Sh. Oli Mohammad from service
w.e.f. 5.2.93 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 20/06/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Organising Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the
Tribunal within fifteen days of received of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal.
However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management
appeared before the Tribunal. Now case is pending since 20/06/2001 and workman/union as well as management is
not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim”
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 134/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@95@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1655
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/95/2001 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 134/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Basantimata Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/95/2001-(C-I) dated 22.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“क् ा भारत कोककंग कोल जलजम., बसंतीमता कोजल॰ के प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा श्री ििर लाल को ब ाथस्ट्त दक ा िाना न् ा ोजचत,
जवजिवत एवं सिी िज? दि निीं तो कमथकार दकस राित के ृात्र िैं?”
2. The reference is received on 20/06/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Bihar Pradesh Colliery
Mazdoor Congress, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the
Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal.
However, after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but
subsequently workman/union left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter, again two regd. notices were issued to
both the parties but the notice dated 30/09/2020 issued to union returned with endorsement “Addressee not found”.
Now this case is pending since 20/06/2001 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 187/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@287@2000-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
1656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 187/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/287/2000 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 187/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27.07 .2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/287/2000-IR (C-I) dated 29.08.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“क् ा भारत कोककंग कोल जलजमटेड कुसुंडा क्षेत्र के प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा श्री उमार जम ां के आजश्रत ृुत्र को अनुकंृा आिार ृर
एन सी डबल् ू ए के ृजरा 9.4.3 के अंतगथत जन ुजि न दि ा िाना उजचत एवं न् ा संगत िज? दि निीं तो उि कमथकार के
आजश्रत ृुत्र दकस लाभ के ृात्र िैं?”
2. This reference is received on 21/09/2001 by this Tribunal in which the President, National Colliery Workers
Congress, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal
within fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However
after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared
before the Tribunal. Now case is pending since 21/09/2001 and workman/union as well as management is not
appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim”
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1657
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-
lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@2001½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@63@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/63/2001 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 119/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : Sri N.G. Arun, Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/63/2001-(C-I) dated 22.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Bararee Colliery in dismissing Sh. Bidan manjhi
from service w.e.f. 16.10.97 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 20/05/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Organizing Secretary, RCMS, Dhanbad had
been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal within fifteen days of
receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the
reference, both parties were noticed but neither the workman/union nor the management appeared before the Tribunal.
Further in course of hearing of the case, the Representative of Sponsoring Union Sri N.G. Arun appeared but neither
filed any written statement nor pressed this case. In view of such it is felt that the workman/union has lost its interest
in this matter. Hence “No Claim” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
1658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67/2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@15@2005-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/15/2005 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 67/2005
Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27.07.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/15/2005-IR (C-I) dated 26.07.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of BCCL Bastacolla
Area that Sh. Jagdish Rewani may be regularized as Prop Mistry with all consequential benefits is just
and fair? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”
2. This reference is received on 22/08/2005 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal within
fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after
receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before
the Tribunal. Now case is pending since 22/08/2005 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing
before Tribunal, so it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is
passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1659
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 150/2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@497@1999-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2022
S.O. 792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/497/1999 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 150/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Gopalichak Colliery under P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri Anant Mohan Sinha, Advocate
For the workman. : Sri Sadhu Sharan Pd., Representative
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/497/1999- IR (C-I) dated 02.03.2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management in dismissing Sri Jaya Bauri from the service is justified and
proper? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2.
This reference is received on 13/03/2000 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, JJMU, Dhanbad
had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal within fifteen days of
received of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the
reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates. Further in course of hearing of the
case, the Representative of Sponsoring Union Sri Sadhu Sharan Prasad has informed that neither the concerned
workman nor his family member is interested in contesting the case. In view of such it is felt that the workman/union
has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” award is passed. communicate.
D. K. SING, Presiding Officer
1660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 flrEcj] 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;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40/2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@137@2004-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-II½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, 6th September, 2022
S.O. 793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2005) 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 23.08.2022.
[No. L-22012/137/2004 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2005
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)
Branch Sohagpur, Area of SECL
Near GM Office Dhanpuri,
Shahdol (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General manager,
Sohargpur Area of SECL,
P.O.Dhanpuri,
Shahdol (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 21-7-2022)
As per letter dated 24/5/2005 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
22012/137/2004-IR(CM-II).The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Chief General manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL in not promoting Shri Iban
Khan, Clerk, CAT.II to Clerk Cat.III(General Clerical Cadre) and superseding him by promoting
Shri Ikram Ali & Surendra Kumar Mishra is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he joined services as general mazdoor in
General Category in 1982 on establishment of second party. That Shri Ikram Ali joined services in 1981 and Surendra
Kumar Mishra joined services in 1989. He was regularized as Clerk Grade-III in 1989. First party workman was
improperly regularized as Tripman Grade-III in 1995. Ikram Ali was regularized in 1994 and Surendra Kumar
Mishra was regularized in 1993. It is further submitted by workman that he was required to be regularized in Clerk
Grade because he was working in the office of the Executive Engineer (EXCV) Dhanpuri. That because of improper
and delayed regularization, he was deprived of permanent benefits. He submits copy of the order of regularization
dated 13-8-1995. That Shri Ikram Ali and Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra were promoted in Clerical Grade-III. That
workman was recommended for regularization in July 1992. However those papers were not traceable. Therefore
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1661
again his name was recommended in clerical grade with retrospective right. It is alleged that because of clerical grade
with retrospective right. It is alleged that because of such mistake he has been deprived of promotion to clerk Grade-
III, Grade-II on such ground, workman prays that second party be directed to regularize him in clerical Grade from
1992 and consequential benefits be granted to him from the date Shri IkraM Ali and Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra was
promoted.
3.
Second party field written statement at part 8/1 to 8/4. The claim of the first party workman is opposed. It is
submitted that Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra are not impleaded in the reference, that adverse allegation are
made against Shri Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra cannot be decided without any notice to them therefore
relief prayed by workman is not tenable. It is further contended that the workman has already been promoted to the
post of trip man/clerk Grade-III. That after recommendations of DPC, he was re-designated as Trip man Grade-III to
General Clerk Grade-III. That workman Iban Khan was initially appointed in 1983 as general mazdoor category-1
and posted at Dhanpuri, Sohagpur Area. That on recommendation of DPC workman along with 17 others were
considered for re-designation. Second party has given details of service of first party workman and Ikram Ali and
Surendra Kumar Mishra. First party workman initially appointed on 6-7-1983, next promotion on 14-8-1985 General
Mazdoor Category-II from 21-10-89, EPGH GR-E from 14-8-95 Tripman Clerk Gr-III. That Shri Ikram Ali was
appointed on 1-9-80 promoted on 1-1-94 clerk Grade-III. Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra was initially appointed on 20-
1-89 promoted as Clerk Grade-III from 2-5-93 Clerk Grade-II from 1-6-01. Second Party submits that the promotions
were given as per recommendations of DPC, the first party cannot compare with Shri Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar
Mishra, Second Party prayed for rejection of the relief prayed by workman.
4.
The workman Ikram Khan has examined himself and has been cross-examined by management. The
Management has examined its witness S.P.Patnaik Personnel Manager on oath. It comes out from perusal of record
that the Award has been passed in this case by my learned predecessor on 2-8-2013 holding the action of management
in not promoting the workman from General Mazdoor Category-II to Clerk Gr-III and superseding him by promoting
his co-workman Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra as illegal and also directed the Management to give benefit of
consequential benefits from 20-5-1993 and Grade-II from 1-6-2001. This Award was challenged by Management in
W.P.No.13772/2014 which was decided by a Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. vide order dated 11-8-
2006. Hon’ble Court observed that two issues one with respect to non-joinder of co-workers Ikram Ali and Surendra
Kumar Mishra and regarding the dispute being barred by delays and latches on the part of the workman in raising the
present dispute was not decided by my learned Predecessor. Further it was observed by Hon. High court that the
workman admitted that applications were invited for the purposes of promotion, test was conducted and after
selection by Promotion Committee, promotion order was issued. But the impact of non-filing of application by the
applicant for promotion was not examined by the learned Predecessor. Also that my learned Predecessor travelled
beyond the scope of reference in issuing directions for issuance of promotion on Grade-I, instead of directing the
Management to consider the applicant workman for promotion as per rules which was in violation of law laid down in
the case of Management of Brook bond India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Workman AIR 1966 SC 668, Hon. Court after setting
aside the Award remanded back the case before this Tribunal to frame necessary issues and decide the reference
afresh in accordance with the law by taking into Account the observations made in the judgment. In compliance of
aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble High Court two issues were framed separately:-
(1) Whether the reference is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties ?
(2) Whether the claim of the workman is barred by latches?”
5.
Needless to mention here that these two issues were framed by my Learned Predecessor along with other
issues vide his order dated 18-1-2017 but no finding was recorded by him on these two issues.
6.
Notices were issued to the co-workers Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra. Shri S.K.Mishra appeared but
did not contest the reference. Ikram Ali was reported to be dead and his legal representation did not prefer to get
themselves substituted in his place.
7.
I have heard arguments of Shri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the workman and Shri A.K.Shashi,
learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record. The following issues are framed in the case in
hand:-
(1)
Whether the claim of first party is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties?
(2)
Whether the dispute is barred due to latches.?
(3)
Whether the action of management in not promoting the workman from clerk grade-III to Clerk
Grade-II and promoting Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra is legal?
(4)
If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
ISSUE NO.1:-
Co-workman Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra, though not impleaded in the reference were impleaded
as opposite party in the statement of claim probably due to over sight no notice were sent to them earlier. It is in
compliance of directions of Hon. High Court referred to above in Writ petition notices were sent to them. Ikram Ali
was reported to be dead and his legal representative did not prefer to be substituted in his place. Shri S.K.Mishra was
served but he preferred not to contest the claim. These two co-workman are necessary parties because if the Award
goes in favour of the workman, their interest was to be effected but since this anomaly has been cured now the
reference is held not bad due to non-joinder of these co-workman as necessary parties. Issue No.1 is decided
accordingly.
9.
ISSUE NO.2 7 ISSUE NO.3:-
For the sake of convenience, these issues are being taken together. Issue No.3 is taken earlier. The case of
the parties with respect to this issue has been detailed earlier. It is the case of the applicant workman that he had his
co-workman Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra all were appointed in General Mazdoor category. The applicant
workman was appointed in 1982 Ikram Ali in the year 1981 and and Surendra Kumar Mishra in 1989. It is also not
disputed that Ikram Ali was appointed clerk Grade-III in the year 1994 and Shri S.K.Mishra in the year 1993.
Admittedly the applicant workman was appointed as a Trip Man Clerical Grade-III in 1995 which was converted and
reduced into the General Category-III vide order of Management dated 1998. The main grievance of applicant
workman appears that according to him he was eligible to be appointed Clerk Grade-III in 1992 itself. His case was
considered and he was recommended accordingly in the year 1992 but his file went missing then he was
recommended for this post on 3-5-1994. Report of Senior Executive Engineer Operation Second and Executive
Engineer Operation Second dated 2-5-1994 has been referred to by learned counsel for workman in this respect which
goes to show that his case for regularization in the clerical cadre was initially forwarded in July-1992 but file was not
traceable. Now he is being again recommended for regularization as clerk Grade-III with retrospective effect. It has
been submitted by learned counsel for workman that had the Management approved this recommendation, he would
have been promoted since 1992 as Clerk Grade-III. The learned counsel for the Management has submitted that only
recommendation is not sufficient till it is approved by the Competent Authority. Learned Counsel has referred to
Judgment of Hon. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.C.Mandal AIR (2010) SC 3455 wherein in
Hon. The Apex Court held “that the note presented has no legal value till it is accepted/approved by the Competent
Authority and the order is passed by the Competent Authority in this respect”. In the case in hand also there is
nothing to indicate that this recommendation note of 2-5-1994 as mentioned above was accepted/approved by
Competent Authority. Now the question arises whether the Competent Authority was bound to approve this note. A
reference of Cadre Scheme of Ministerial Staff General Clerical Cadre requires to be made here according to this
Cadre Scheme mode of promotion to the Clerical Cadre Clerical Grade-III is selection/test and Clerk Grade-III is the
basic post of clerical cadre. When there is a selection, test has to be conducted for appointment on the post of clerk
Grade-III as per the cadre scheme in absence of any material to show that this recommendation note was sent on the
basis of selection/test process conducted for appointment of clerk grade-III, this recommendation note does not carry
any value and the Competent Authority was fully justified under Rules in not approving it.
10.
Hon. The High Court has made an observation that it was issued by the workman in his statement that
application were invited in the year 1992 for appointment in clerical Grade-III and a test was conducted and thereafter
the Committee was to make recommendation for Clerk Grade-III. The workman further admitted that he had not filed
any application nor did he appear in any test or selection, the impact of this factual scenario also requires to be
considered by this Tribunal. When it is established that Clerk Grade-III is not a post for promotion/rather channel for
appointment on this post is through selection/test and the workman admits that though the application were invited but
he did not submit any application nor did he appear in any selection/test in 1992 naturally he was not be considered
for Clerk Grade-III in the year 1992. Thus the action of the Management in this respect cannot be said to be against
law. It is also established that Ikram Ali was appointed as Clerk Grade-III on 1-1-1994 and Surendra Kumar Mishra
was appointed as Clerk Grade-III on 2-5-1993 and the workman was appointed as Trip Man which was equivalent to
Clerk Grade-III on August-1995 before that all the three were general mazdoor. Hence naturally Ikram Ali and
Surendra Kumar Mishra would senior to the applicant workman because they were earlier appointed as clerk Grade-
III, hence granting promotion to Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar Mishra and post them as Clerk Grade-II earlier than
the applicant workman cannot be said to be arbitrary because as per Cadre Scheme promotion from Clerk Grade-III to
Clerk Grade-II was to be done on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee in which the essential
qualifications were three years’ experience as Clerk Grade-III which the co-workman Ikram Ali and Surendra Kumar
Mishra got earlier than the applicant workman, hence in the light of these facts and circumstances the action of the
management cannot be said to be arbitrary and against law. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
11.
Issue No.2:-
As regards Issue No.2 regarding delays and latches on the part of the applicant workman in raising the dispute , the
present dispute was raised after a lapse of 6 to 7 years. Learned Counsel for the management has referred to
Judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of A.J.Ferandis Vs. Divisional Manager, Central Railway(2001)(1)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1663
SCC 240 para-14” where delay of 4 years in dispensing promotion of co-workman was held barred by latches”. In the
case in hand also, the claim is held barred by latches because it was raised after delay of more than six years . Issue
No.2 is answered accordingly.
12.
Issue No.4:- In the light of the finding recorded earlier, applicant workman is held entitled to no relief. Issue
No.4 is answered accordingly.
13.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the Chief General manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL in not promoting Shri Iban
Khan, Clerk, CAT.II to Clerk Cat.III(General Clerical Cadre) and superseding him by
promoting Shri Ikram Ali & Surendra Kumar Mishra is held to be legal and justified.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
14.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
DATE: 21.7.2022
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkdk'k dksd baMLVªht ¼ih½ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
145/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@78@2001-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2022
S.O. 794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Akash Coke Industries (P) Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/78/2001 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 145/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Akash Coke Industries (P) Ltd., Dayoli, Govindpur
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27.07.2022
1664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/78/2001-(C-I) dated 18/24.05.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Akash Coke Industries (P) Ltd. in dismissing
Sh. Sunil Mandal, Munshi from the services of the Company w.e.f. 22.2.99 is just, fair and legal? If
not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 20/06/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Joint General Secretary, Dalit Mazdoor
Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the Tribunal
within fifteen days of the receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However
after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared
before the Tribunal. Now case is pending since 20/06/2001 and workman/union as well as management is not
appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim”
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43/2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@502@2000-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh-I½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2022
S.O. 795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2022.
[No. L-20012/502/2000 – IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 43/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Western Jharia Area. Moonidih of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.07.2022
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 10, 2022/भाद्र 19, 1944
1665
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/502/2000-(C-I) dated 12.02.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in terminating the services of the workman
Shri Pashupati Mahato, T.No. 5822 P.R.M. of Moonidih Project w.e.f. 6.1.99 is justified, legal and
proper? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. This reference is received on 08/03/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Joint Secretary, Zonal Committee, BCCL
Zone, Hirapur, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document before the
Tribunal within fifteen days of received of reference but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal.
However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but union/workman did not appear before the
Tribunal but management had appeared on 31/12/2021. Thereafter management failed to appear before the Tribunal.
Now Case is pending since 08/03/2001 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 7 flrEcj] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-
lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 2] /kuckjn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22/2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 7th September, 2022
S.O. 796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2019) 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 10.08.2022.
[No. L-20013/01/2022 – IR (CM-I)
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 22 OF 2019
PARTIES:
The Jt. Gen. Secretary,
Bahujan Mazdoor Union,
Mines Rescue Station, Dhansar, Dhanbad,
Vs.
The. General Manager,
Katras Area of M/s BCCL,
PO: Sijua, Distt: Dhanbad
Dy. CLC,Dhnbad Order No..2/(46)/2019/B-I dt . 8.08.2019
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None
On behalf of the Management
: Management Representative
State
:
Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd March, 2022
1666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPETEMBER 10, 2022/BHADRA 19, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
Dy.CLC,Dhnbad Order No.2/(46)/2019/B-I dt. 8.08.2019.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management Munidih Colliery under Katras Area of M/s BCCL is
fair and justified? If not, non-inclusion of proper SPRA in the basic pay and wrong fitment of
basic pay I/R of Shri Om Prakash Yadav, Doozer Operator? If not, what relief the disputant is
entitled ? ”
1. Having been registered by Ref Case as 22-2019 prompt notices were issued to both the sides of the litigants,
i.e., the workman as well as Respondent/Management The notices under issuance were understood to have been
delivered at its destinations as not a single turned undelivered. As part of natural justice ample opportunities by way
notices dt.17.08.2021 and 07.12.2021 were served to the parties for hearing .Even after such opportunities given the
workman did not file the written statement of claim nor did take initiative for appearance .The gesture and conduct of
the workman spelt out the dispute under reference does not exist at all by and between the parties .
2. Management Representative in course of hearing admitted to have resolved the dispute by filing a petition to
this effect dated 17.01.22 enclosing thereby a petition of the workman under his signature thereon to the effect. The
OP/Management also referred the fact that the matter of dispute was also raised on the same footing from two
different sources , by the ministry as well as the Dy.CLC ( C ) , Dhanbad and so both cannot run concurrently and
so one reference has become redundant.
3. Since the workman has neither approached directly nor filed any claim even after providing ample
opportunities and lastly came out to avert that the dispute does not exist .Under the present status particularly when
the issue does not exist as stated by the Management and on behalf of the workman the Tribunal finds no jurisdiction
to exercise when the workman himself opted for no-adjudication in the matter . Tribunal finds it constrained to
declare that the present Reference no longer exists as no claim is expected to be made out by the workman and this
Tribunal is left with no scope except to pass a “No Claim Award”. Accordingly “No Claim Award” is passed in the
instant reference ID No. 22/2019.
3.
Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under the Act for publication.
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054
ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2022.09.20 16:15:46 +05'30'