6442 GI/2022
(1899)
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. 40]
नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 2—अक् तूबर 8, 2022, िजनवार/ आज वन 10—आज वन 16, 1944
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 2—OCTOBER 8, 2022, SATURDAY/ASVINA 10—ASVINA 16, 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
भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 919.—बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा
प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, भारती ररिवव बैंक की जसफाररि ृर, एतद्द्वारा, ि घोषणा करती िज
दक उि अजिजन म की िारा 19 की उृ-िारा (2) के उृबंि इंजड न बैंक ृर लागू निीं िोंगे, ििां तक इसका संबंि
एएसआरईसी (इंजड ा) जलजमटेड की चुकता ृूंिी के 30% से अजिक राजि का िे र िाररत करने से िज।
2.
ि छूट 31 माचव, 2023 तक लागू रिेगी।
[फा. सं. 7/11/2022-बीओए-I]
ज्ञानोतोष रा , अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25102022-239857
CG-DL-W-25102022-239857
1900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022
S.O. 919.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare
that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the said Act, shall not apply to Indian Bank, in so far as they
relate to its holding shares of an amount exceeding thirty percent. of the paid-up capital of ASREC (India) Limited.
2.
This exemption shall be in force till 31st March, 2023.
[F. No. 7/11/2022-BOA.I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
जविेि मंत्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 920.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की
िारा 2 के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास ओस्ट्लो में श्री आलोक कुमार िाजण्डल् और
श्री जवजृन आनंि, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारर ो को दिनांक 28 जसतम्बर, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारर ो के तौर
ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2022 (40)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022
S.O. 920.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Alok Kumar
Shandilya and Shri Vipin Anand, both Assistant Section Officers as Assistant Consular Officers in the Embassy of
India, Oslo to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from September 28, 2022.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2022 (40)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 28 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 921.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड
(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास मजनला मेेँ जवक्रम ससंि नेगी, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक
28 जसतम्बर, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2022 (41)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1901
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2022
S.O. 921.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vikram Singh Negi,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Manila to perform the consular
services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from September 28, 2022.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2022 (41)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 30 जसतम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 922.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड
(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास कोृेनिेगन में आनंि ृटेल, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को
दिनांक 30 जसतम्बर, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती
िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2022 (42)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2022
S.O. 922.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anand Patel,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Copenhagen to perform the consular
services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from September 30, 2022.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2022 (42)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
सड़क ृररविन और रािमागव मंत्राल
(सिंिी अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 923.—केंरी सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म 10
के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्री का ावल , भारती राष्ट्री रािमागव प्राजिकरण, मुंबई जिसके 80% से अजिक
कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।
[फा. सं. ई-12012/2/2017-जवजवि/सिंिी]
कमलेि चतुवेिी, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
(Hindi Section)
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2022
S.O. 923.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of
India, Mumbai where of more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-12012/2/2017-Misc./Hindi]
KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.
1902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2022
का. आ. 924.—केंरी सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म 10
के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्री का ावल , भारती राष्ट्री रािमागव प्राजिकरण, नागृुर, जिसके 80% से अजिक
कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।
[फा. सं. ई-12012/2/2017-जवजवि/सिंिी]
कमलेि चतुवेिी, सं ुि सजचव
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2022
S.O. 924.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of
India, Nagpur where of more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-12012/2/2017-Misc./Hindi]
KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.
इस्ट्ृात मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रजल, 2022
का. आ. 925.—सरकारी स्ट् ान (अप्राजिकषत अजिभोजग ों की बेि ली) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971 का 40) की
िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए और भारत के रािृत्र में दिनांक 6 अप्रजल, 2019 को प्रकाजित भारत
सरकार, इस्ट्ृात मंत्राल की दिनांक 26 माचव 2019, की अजिसूचना सं.का.आ. 489 को उन बातों के जसवा अजिक्रजमत
करते हुए, जिन्िें ऐसे अजिक्रमण से ृिले दक ा ग ा िज ा करने का लोृ दक ा ग ा िज, केंर सरकार, नीचे िी गई सारणी के
स्ट्तम्भ (1) में उजल्लज त अजिकारी, िो भारत सरकार के रािृजत्रत अजिकारी के समतुल् श्रेणी के अजिकारी िैं, को उि
अजिजन म के प्र ोिनों के जलए सम्ृिा अजिकारी जन ुि करती िज, िो उि सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ (2) में तत्संबंिी प्रजवजि में
जवजनर्िवि सरकारी स्ट् ानों के संबंि में अृने अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानी सीमाओं में उि अजिजन म के तित ा उसके द्वारा
प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए सम्ृिा अजिकारी को सौंृे गए कतव्य
ों का जन्ृािन करेंगे, अ ावत्:—
सारणी
अजिकारी का ृिनाम
सरकारी स्ट् ानों की श्रेजण ां और अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानी सीमाएं
)
1
(
)
2
(
वररष्ठ प्रबंिक (वजद्युत)
ग्रेड-ई3
जबसरा
स्ट्टोन
लाइम
कंृनी
जलजमटेड
(बीएसएलसी)
मौिा, गौतम नगर में प्लाट सं. 428/3855,
ि िेव नगर, लुईस रोड़ नागेश्वर टांगी भुवनेश्वर-
751002.
मजससव जबसरा स्ट्टोन लाइम कंृनी जलजमटेड द्वारा स्ट्वाजिकषत अ वा ृट्टे
ृर िाररतसभी का ावल , ृररसर,कार ाने, सं ंत्र, अजतज गषि
का विालाएं रेलवे साइसडंगस, प्र ोगिालाएं, एक्सप्लोजसव मजगिीन,
व्यावसाज क प्रजिक्षण केन्र, अस्ट्ृताल एवं औषिाल , ररिा िी
आवास अ वा जनवास स्ट् ान, भूजम िो जनम्नजलज त में से दकसी भी
क्षेत्र में ृड़ते िों:-
(i) बीरजमत्रृुर और राऊरकेला सुंिरगढ जिला, ओजडिा; और
(ii) कोलकाता, जिला-कोलकाता, ृजिम बंगाल.
[फा. सं. 10(14)/2021-बीिीसी)]
नीरि अग्रवाल, जनिेिक
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1903
MINISTRY OF STEEL
New Delhi, the 11th April, 2022
S.O. 925.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971(40 of 1971), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Steel number S.O. 489, dated 26th March 2019, published in the Gazette of India, dated the 6th April,
2019, except as respects things done or omitted in the done before such supersession, 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 Government of India, to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers
conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his
jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the Corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table,
namely:—
TABLE
Designation of Officer
Categories of the public premises and local limits of
jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
Senior Manager (Electrical)
Grade: E3
The Bisra Stone Lime company Limited (BSLC).
Plot No. 428/3855 at Mouza, Goutam Nagar,
Jayadev Nagar, Lewis Road, Nageswar Tangi,
Bhubaneswar-751002.
All offices, premises, factories, plants, guest houses,
workshops,
railway
sidings,
laboratories,
explosive
magazines,
vocational
training
centers,
hospital
or
dispensaries, residential quarters or accommodation, land
owned or held on lease by M/s Bisra Stone Lime Company
Limited, falling in any of the following areas:-
(i)Birmitrapur and Rourkela Sundergarh District, Odisha; and
(ii) Kolkata, District- Kolkata, West Bengal.
[F. No. 10(14)/2021-BGC)]
NEERAJ AGRAWAL, Director
वाजणज् और उद्योग मंत्राल
(उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022
का.आ. 926.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म
10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग के अिीन जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों,
जिनके 80% से अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1.
केन्री लुग्िी और कागि अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, सिारनृुर, उ.प्र. ।
2.
राष्ट्री सीमेंट एवं भवन सामग्री ृररषि्, बल्लभगढ़, िरर ाणा।
3.
राष्ट्री जडिाइन संस्ट् ान, कुप क्षेत्र, िरर ाणा।
4.
भारती रबड़ जवजनमावता अनुसंिान संघ, ाणे, मिाराष्ट्र।
[फा. सं. ई- 11017/3/2022-सिंिी]
रािेि कुमार ससंि, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)
New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022
S.O. 926.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the official language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under administrative control of
1904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade whose more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute (CPPRI), Saharanpur, U.P.
2.
National Council for Cement and Building Materials (NCCBM), Ballabhgarh, Haryana.
3.
National Institute of Design (NID), Kurukshetra, Haryana.
4.
Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IRMRA), Thane, Maharashtra.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi:]
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 927.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म
10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग के अिीन का ावल , जिनके 80% से
अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
राष्ट्री जडिाइन संस्ट् ान (एनआईडी), ृालडी, अिमिाबाि, गुिरात
[फा. सं. ई- 11017/3/2022-सिंिी]
रािेि कुमार ससंि, सं ुि सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022
S.O. 927.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the official language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office under administrative control of Department for
Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade, whose more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
National Institute of Design (NID), Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi]
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्ट् त, 2022
का.आ. 928.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म
10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग के अिीन जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों,
जिनके 80% से अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1.
ृेटेंट का ावल , एस.एम. रोड, एन्टॉृ जिल, मुंबई
2.
ृेटेंट का ावल , बौजिक संृिा भवन, सेक्टर-14, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली
3.
ृेटेंट का ावल , बौजिक संृिा भवन, िी.एस.टी.रोड, सगंडी, चेन्नई
4.
व्याृार जचह्न रजिस्ट्री, बौजिक संृिा भवन, एन्टॉृ जिल, मुंबई
5.
व्याृार जचह्न रजिस्ट्री, बौजिक संृिा भवन, सेक्टर-14, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली
6.
व्याृार जचह्न रजिस्ट्री, बौजिक संृिा भवन, घाटलोदि ा, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात)
7.
रािीव गाेँिी राष्ट्री बौजिक संृिा प्रबंिन संस्ट् ान, जसजवल लाईन्स, नागृुर, मिाराष्ट्र
[फा. सं. ई- 11017/3/2022-सिंिी]
रािेि कुमार ससंि, सं ुि सजचव
New Delhi, 17th August, 2022
S.O. 928.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the official language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under administrative control of
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1905
Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade whose more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai
2.
Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi
3.
Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai
4.
Trade Marks Registry, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai
5.
Trade Marks Registry, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi
6.
Trade Marks Registry, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad
7.
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Intellectual Property Management, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi]
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
को ला मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 7 अिूबर, 2022
का.आ. 929.—केन्री सरकार ने को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20),
(जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात उि अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के
को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना सं् ा का.आ. 2909(अ), तारी 27 िून, 2022 द्वारा िो भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण,
भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 27 िून, 2022 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, उि अजिसूचना से उृाबि अनुसूची में
जवजनर्िवि ृररक्षेत्र में 51.590 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 20.878 िेक्टे र )लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में और ऐसी भूजम में ा
उस ृर के सभी अजिकारों के अिवन करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी;
और, सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने उि अजिजन म की िारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्री सरकार को अृनी ररृोटव िे िी िज;
और, केन्री सरकार का, ृूवोंि ररृोटव ृर जवचार करने के ृिात और ओजडिा सरकार से ृरामिव करने के
ृिात, ि समािान िो ग ा िज दक इससे उृाबि अनुसूची में ा वर्णवत 51.590 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 20.878 िेक्टे र)
लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम और ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िवत दकए िाने चाजिए;
अतः, अब, केन्री सरकार, उि अजिजन म की िारा 9 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते
हुए, ि घोषणा करती िज दक अनुसूची में वर्णवत 51.590 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 20.878 िेक्टे र )लगभग) ा माृ वाली
भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िवत दकए िाते िज ।
इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं् ा एमसीएल/एसए/एसबीओसीृी/िीृी(डब्लल् ू)-
ईएक्सटीएन/9(1)/2022/24,तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022 का जनरीक्षण कलेक्टर, जिला-अंगुल, ओजडिा - 759122 के
का ावल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, को ला जन ंत्रक संस्ट् ान, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001 के का ावल में
ा जनिेिक (कार्मवक), मिानिी कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, डाकघर - िागषजत जविार, बुलाव, जिला संबलृुर- 768020,
ओजडिा के का ावल में दक ा िा सकता िज।
अनुसूची
गोृाल प्रसाि ( ृजिम) कोल ब्ललॉक
(जिला-अंगुल,राज् - ओजडिा)
[रे ांक सं् ा एमसीएल/एसए/एसबीओसीृी/िीृी (डब्लल् ू)-ईएक्सटीएन/9(1)/2022/24, तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022]
सभी अजिकार:
1906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सुभरा ओृन कास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना (प्रजतवषव 25 जमजल न टन) के जलए गोृालप्रसाि (ृजिम) की सीमा वणवन ृूवव अजिसूचना
के बाि प्राप्त दकए िाने वाले प्रस्ट्ताव के जल े जवस्ट्ताररत भूजम का जववरण।
क्रम
सं.
ग्राम
का
नाम
को ला ब्ललॉक का नाम
ग्राम
का
सं् ाक
ाना
तिसील
जिला
अर्िवत क्षेत्र
(एकड़ में)
रटप्ृणी
1.
कांकरेई
गोृालप्रसाि (ृजिम) 174
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
51.590
भाग
कुल क्षेत्र : 51.590
कुल क्षेत्र : 51.590 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 20.878 िेक्टे र (लगभग)
ग्राम कांकरेई में अर्िवत दकए गए प्लॉट सं् ांक:
1. कांकरेई:
1870 (भाग), 1870/2065 (भाग), 1870/2068 (भाग), 1870/2068/2550 (भाग), 1870/2068/2663 (भाग),
1870/2071 (भाग), 1870/2072 (भाग), 1870/2076 (भाग), 1870/2076/2384 (भाग), 1870/2076/2385
(भाग), 1870/2076/2386 (भाग), 1870/2076/2387 (भाग), 1870/2076/2387 (भाग), 1870/2076/2581,
1870/2076/2582,
1870/2077
(भाग),
1870/2080
(भाग),
1870/2081,
1870/2081/2684,
1870/2081/2721,
1870/2082
(भाग),
1870/2082/2664
(भाग),
1870/2093,
1870/2094,
1870/2094/2436,
1870/2094/2616,
1870/2094/2617,
1870/2094/2618,
1870/2094/2684,
1870/2094/2685,
1870/2094/2706,
1870/2094/2707,
1870/2094/2708,
1870/2096
(भाग),
1870/2194, 1870/2196, 1870/2323, 1870/2567 और 1870/2625.
सीमा जववरण:
रे ा क- : प्लॉट सं् ा 2067 ृर जबन्िु ‘क’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और ग्राम कांकरेई के प्लॉट 2065 और 2419 की सीमा
ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।
रे ा -ग: प्लॉट सं् ा 2065 ृर जबन्िु ‘ ’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और ग्राम कांकरेई के प्लॉट सं् ा 2081 की सीमा ृर
जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘ग’ ृर जमलती िज।
रे ा ग- घ: ग्राम कांकरेई और बालीचन्रृुर के सीमा ृर जबन्िु ‘ग’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और कांकरेई और बालीचन्रृुर
ग्राम की सीमा ृर जबन्िु ‘घ’ ृर जमलती िज।
रे ा घ-ङ: ग्राम कांकरेई और बालीचंरृुर सीमा ृर सबंिु ‘घ’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और कांकरेई ग्राम के प्लॉट सं् ा
1870 के ऊृर के प्लॉट सं् ा 2194 और 2196 से िोती हुई और जबन्िु ‘ङ’ ृर जमलती िज।
रे ा ङ -च: प्लॉट सं् ा 1870 ृर जबन्िु ‘ङ’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और ग्राम कांकरेई के (प्लॉट- 1870) सड़क ृर जस्ट् त
जबन्िु ‘च’ ृर जमलती िज।
रे ा- च- क: (प्लॉट-1870) सड़क ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘च’ रे ा से िुप िोती िज और ग्राम कांकरेई के प्लॉट सं् ा 2067 ृर
जबन्िु ‘क’ से जमलती िज ।
[फा. सं. 43015/07/2021-एलएएण्डआईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1907
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 7th October,2022
S.O. 929.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number
S.O. 2909(E), dated the 27th June, 2022, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 27th June 2022, the Central Government
gave notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 51.590 acres (approximately) or 20.878 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the
Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting to the
Government of Odisha is satisfied that the lands measuring 51.590 acres (approximately) or 20.878 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 51.590 acres (approximately) or 20.878 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number MCL/SA/SBOCP/GP(W)-EXTN./9(1)/2022/24, dated the 21st July, 2022 of the
area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Angul, Odisha-759122 or at
the office of the Coal Controller, Coal Controller’s Organisation, Ministry of Coal, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-
700 001 or at the office of the Director (Personnel), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Post Office - Jagruti Vihar,
Burla, District Sambalpur-768020, Odisha.
SCHEDULE
Gopalprasad (West) Coal Block
(District- Angul, State- Odisha)
[Plan bearing number MCL/SA/SBOCP/GP(W)-EXTN./9(1)/2022/24, dated the 21st July, 2022]
All Rights:
Land details of proposed area for extended land beyond earlier notified boundary within block boundary of
Gopalprasad (West) coal block for Subhadra Open Cast Project (25 Million Tonne per year)
Serial
number
Name of
Village
Name of the Coal
Block
Village
number
Thana
Tahasil
District
Area
acquird
(in acres)
Remark
1.
Kankarei
Gopalprasad (West)
174
Nisha
Chhendi-pada
Angul
51.590
Part
Total area: 51.590
Total area: 51.590 acres (approximately) or 20.878 hectares (approximately).
Plot numbers acquired in the village Kankarei:
1870 (P), 1870/2065 (P), 1870/2068 (P), 1870/2068/2550 (P), 1870/2068/2663 (P), 1870/2071 (P), 1870/2072 (P),
1870/2076(P), 1870/2076/2384 (P), 1870/2076/2385 (P), 1870/2076/2386 (P), 1870/2076/2387 (P),
1870/2076/2387 (P), 1870/2076/2581, 1870/2076/2582, 1870/2077 (P), 1870/2080 (P), 1870/2081,
1870/2081/2684, 1870/2081/2721, 1870/2082 (P), 1870/2082/2664 (P), 1870/2093, 1870/2094, 1870/2094/2436,
1870/2094/2616, 1870/2094/2617, 1870/2094/2618, 1870/2094/2684, 1870/2094/2685, 1870/2094/2706,
1870/2094/2707, 1870/2094/2708, 1870/2096 (P), 1870/2194, 1870/2196, 1870/2323, 1870/2567 and 1870/2625.
Boundary Description:
Line A-B: Line starts from point ‘A’ at plot number 2067 and meet at point ‘B’ situated over the boundary of plot
numbers 2065 and 2419 of village Kankarei.
Line B-C: Line starts from point ‘B’ at plot number 2065 and meet at point ‘C’ at plot number 2081 of village
boundary of Kankarei.
Line C-D: Line starts from point ‘C’ of village boundary of Kankarei and Balichandrapur and meet at point ‘D’ at
village boundary of Kankarei and Balichandrapur.
1908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Line D-E: Line starts from point ‘D’ at village boundary of Kankarei and Balichandrapur and running over the plot
numbers 2194 and 2196 up to over the plot number 1870 of village Kankarei and meet at point ‘E’.
Line E-F: Line starts from point ‘E’ at plot number 1870 and meet at point ‘F’ road (1870- plot) of village Kankarei.
Line F-A: Line starts from point ‘F’ situated over the road (1870- plot) and meet at point ‘A’ at plot number 2067 of
village Kankarei.
[F. No. 43015/07/2021-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director
नई दिल्ली, 7 अिूबर, 2022
का.आ. 930.—केन्री सरकार ने को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20),
(जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात उि अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के
को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना सं् ा का.आ. 2921(अ), तारी 28 िून, 2022, िो भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण,
भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 28 िून, 2022 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, द्वारा उि अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में
जवजनर्िवि ृररक्षेत्र में 77.832 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 31.498 (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में और ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के
सभी अजिकारों के अिवन करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी;
और, सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने उि अजिजन म की िारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्री सरकार को अृनी ररृोटव िे िी िज;
और, केन्री सरकार का, ृूवोंि ररृोटव ृर जवचार करने के ृिात और ओजडिा सरकार से ृरामिव करने के
ृिात, ि समािान िो ग ा िज दक इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में ा वर्णवत 77.832 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 31.498 (लगभग)
माृ वाली भूजम और ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िवत दकए िाने चाजिए;
अतः, अब, केन्री सरकार, उि अजिजन म की िारा 9 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते
हुए, ि घोषणा करती िज दक अनुसूची में वर्णवत 77.832 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 31.498 (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में ा
उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िवत दकए िाते िज ।
इस अजिसूचना के अंतगवत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं् ा एमसीएल/एसए/ एसबीओसीृी/ ूए-
एलओ/9(1)/2022/21, तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022 का जनरीक्षण कलेक्टर, जिला-अंगुल, ओजडिा- 759122 के का ावल
में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, को ला जन ंत्रक संस्ट् ान, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001 के का ावल में ा
जनिेिक (कार्मवक), मिानिी कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, डाकघर-िागषजत जविार, बुलाव, जिला संबलृुर- 768020, ओजडिा के
का ावल में दक ा िा सकता िज।
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1909
अनुसूची
उत्कल – ए को ला ब्ललॉक
(जिला अंगुल, राज् – ओजडिा)
[रे ांक सं् ा एमसीएल/एसए/ एसबीओसीृी/ ूए-एलओ/9(1)/2022/21, तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022]
सभी अजिकार:
सुभरा ओृनकास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना (25 जमजल न टन प्रजतबषव) के जलए उत्कल-ए को ला ब्ललॉक के अिीन अजिग्रजित दकए िाने
वाले बचे हुए प्लाटों और प्लॉट क्षेत्र के प्रस्ट्ताजवत क्षेत्र का भूजम जववरण।
क्रम
सं.
ग्राम का नाम
को ला
ब्ललॉक
का
नाम
ग्राम
सं् ा
ाना
तिसील
जिला
अर्िवत
क्षेत्र
(एकड़ में)
रटप्ृणी
1.
गोलागजड ा
उत्कल-ए
171
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
9.037
भाग
2.
छोटाबेरेनी
172
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
35.835
ृूणव
3.
कौन्सीदढृ
173
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
1.65
भाग
4.
राइझरण
170
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
7.03
भाग
5.
कंकराई
174
जनिा
छेंिीृिा
अंगुल
24.28
भाग
कुल क्षेत्र :
77.832
कुल क्षेत्र: 77.832 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 31.498 िेक्टर (लगभग)
अर्िवत ग्राम-वार प्लॉट सं् ांक:
1. गोलागजड ा:
270 (भाग), 270/314 (भाग) और 270/315(भाग).
2. छोटाबेरेनी:
3, 5 (भाग), 5/397 से 5/421, 5/462 से 5/473, 5/475, 5/630, 14 (भाग), 18 (भाग), 18/318 (भाग), 18/320
(भाग), 20/435, 31/432, 34/438, 36/437, 52 (भाग), 52/442, 52/445, 52/484, 56/340, 64 (भाग), 68, 69
(भाग), 70 (भाग), 73/486, 78/490, 84/396 (भाग), 85/509 (भाग), 150/488, 158/424, 169/426, 184
(भाग), 184/376, 184/436, 192 (भाग), 194/422, 194/427, 194/433, 194/444, 196/423, 196/431,
196/441, 198/429, 200, 200/364, 205 (भाग), 206 (भाग), 209 (भाग), 211/439, 211/440 और 327/430.
3. कौन्सीदढृा:
905, 938 (भाग), 1007/1192, 1070/1203(भाग), 1065(भाग) और 793/1179/1320.
4. राइझरण:
1850/2981, 1875(भाग), 1890/1998.
5. कंकराई:
729
(भाग),
731,
1747/2164
(भाग),
1765
(भाग),
1765/2220,
1765/2246,
1765/2262,
1765/2294,1765/2701, 1769(भाग), 1774, 1780(भाग), 1781/2160, 1797 (भाग), 1798 (भाग), 1799
1910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(भाग), 1799/2214, 1810 (भाग), 1818/2242, 1819 (भाग), 1870/2066 (भाग), 1870/2067 (भाग), 1893,
1896 (भाग), 1912 (भाग), 1912/2149 और 1924/2063.
सीमा जववरण:
ििावए गए सभी बचे हुए प्लॉट और प्लॉट क्षेत्र उत्कल-ए ब्ललॉक की ृूवव अजिसूजचत सीमा के भीतर िैं ।
क- : रे ा जबन्िु ‘क’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षणी दििा की ओर ग्राम गोलागजड़ ा की प्लॉट सं् ा 314,315 के सा -सा
चलती िज और छोटोबेरेनी ग्राम की सीमा के ृजिमी दकनारे से िोकर गुिरती िज इसके बाि कौन्सीदढृ और
राईझरण ग्राम के बीच से गुिरती हुई ग्राम राईझरण की प्लॉट सं् ा 1875 ृर जबन्िु ‘ ’ से जमलती िज।
-ग: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और िजक्षणी दििा की ओर बढ़ती हुई ग्राम राईझरन की प्लाट सं् ा 1928 ृर
जबन्िु ‘ग’ से जमलती िज।
ग-घ: ग्राम राईझरन जबन्िु ‘ग’ ृर ृहुचने के बाि रे ा ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 1930 और 2175
िोकर आगे बढ़ती िज त ा ग्राम कंकरेई की प्लॉट सं् ा 2173 ृर जबन्िु ‘घ’ से जमलती िज।
घ-ङ: विी रे ा जबन्िु ‘घ’ से उत्तर दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज, प्लॉट सं् ा 2173 और 2178 ृर िाती हुई ग्राम कंकरेई के
जबन्िु ‘ङ’ ृर जमलती िज।
ङ-च: विी रे ा जबन्िु ‘ड.’ से उत्तर–ृजिम दििा की ओर आगे बढ़ती हुई ग्राम कंकरेई के प्लॉट सं् ा 2181 के मध् से
गुिरती हुई जबन्िु ‘च’ ृर जमलती िज।
च-छ: जबन्िु ‘च’ से उत्तर दििा की ओर ग्राम कंकरेई की प्लॉट सं् ा 1848, 1689और 747 से िोकर गुिरती िज। ि
रे ा ग्राम कंकरेई की ग्राम सीमा से गुिरती हुई कौन्सीदढृ में प्रवेि करती िज और उसी ग्राम की प्लॉट सं् ा 808
और 800 की ओर बढ़ती हुई छोटाबेरेनी ग्राम सीमा में प्रवेि करती िज और उसी ग्राम की प्लॉट सं् ा 193,138
और 338 से िोकर गुिरती हुई जबन्िु ‘छ’ ृर जमलती िज।
छ-ि: रे ा उत्तर–ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा386 के जबन्िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।
ि-झ: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि’ से िजक्षण दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 386 की िजक्षणी सीमा के सा आगे बढ़ती हुई
प्लॉट सं् ा 386 के दकनारे के जबन्िु ‘झ’ ृर जमलती िज।
झ–ञ : रे ा जबन्िु ‘झ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 84 त ा 386 के दकनारे के
जबन्िु ‘ञ’ ृर जमलती िज।
ञ–ट: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और िजक्षण दििा की ओर प्लॉट सं् ा 84 की ृूवी सीमा के सा –सा चलती
हुई जबन्िु ‘ट’ ृर जमलती िज ।
ट– : जबन्िु ृुनः ‘ट’ से आगे बढ़ती िज और ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 353 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुिरती
हुई जबन्िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।
–ड: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 91 की ृूवी सीमा के सा िजक्षणी दििा की ओर मूड़कर के
जबन्िु ‘ड’ ृर ृहुचती िज।
ड–ढ: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ड’ से ृूवव दििा की ओर प्लॉट सं् ा 94 की उत्तरी सीमा से चलती हुई आगे बढ़ती हुई जबन्िु ‘ढ’ ृर
जमलती िज।
ढ-ण-त- -ढ: विी रे ा जबन्िु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लॉट 96 की चारों सीमाओं के सा -सा चलती हुई उसी जबन्िु
‘ढ’ ृर जमलती िज।
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1911
ढ-ि: ृुनः ि रे ा जबन्िु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प्लॉट सं् ा 94 की ृूवी सीमा के सा िजक्षणी दििा की ओर से
मुड़कर के जबन्िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।
ि-न: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ि’ से आगे बढ़ते हुए प्लॉट सं् ा 95 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुिरती हुई जबन्िु ‘न’ ृर जमलती िज।
न-ृ: रे ा जबन्िु ‘न’ से आगे बढ़ती हुई प्लॉट सं् ा 95 की ृूवी सीमा के सा िजक्षणी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और ‘ृ’
ृर जमलती िज िो प्लॉट सं् ा 95 का िजक्षणी-ृूवव दकनारा िज।
ृ-फ: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ृ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ग्राम सड़क के उत्तरी दकनारे की ओर ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और जबन्िु
‘फ’ ृर जमलती िज।
फ-ब: ृुनः विी रे ा जबन्िु ‘फ’ से आगे बढ़ती िज और उत्तर दििा की ओर से मुड़ती िज। प्लॉट सं् ा 97 की ृजिमी सीमा
से िोकर गुिरती िज और जबन्िु ‘ब’ ृर जमलती िज।
ब-भ: रे ा जबन्िु ‘ब’ से आरंभ िोती िज, प्लॉट सं् ा 97 के उत्तरी सीमा के सा आगे बढ़ती िज और उत्तर-ृूवव दििा की
ओर मुड़ती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘भ’ ृर जमलती िज िो ग्राम कंकरेई और छोटाबेरेनी की सजम्मजलत सीमा िज।
भ-म- -र: विी रे ा उत्तर दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और कंकरेई त ा छोटाबेरेनी की सजम्मजलत ग्राम सीमा से गुिरती हुई
जबन्िु ‘म- ’ से आगे बढ़ती हुई उसी ग्राम कंकरेई, छोटाबेरेनी और ि ृुर आरजक्षत वन के जत्र- िंक्िन स्ट्तंभ के
जबन्िु ‘र’ ृर जमलती िज।
र-क: विी रे ा नाला के केन्र और उसी दििा में चलती हुई छोटबेरेनी और गोलगजड़ ा ग्राम सीमा के उत्तरी भाग के
सा जबन्िु त, त1, त2, त3, त4, त5, त6, त7, त8, त9, त10, त11, त12, त13, त14, त15, त16, त17, त18
से िोकर आगे बढ़ती हुई और जबन्िु ‘क’ ृर जमलती िज िंिा से सीमा आरंभ िोती िज।
[फा. सं. 43015/08/2021-एलएएण्डआईआर]
राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th October ,2022
S.O. 930.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number
S.O. 2921(E), dated the 28th June, 2022, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 28th June, 2022, the Central Government
gave notice of its intention to acquire 77.832 acres (approximately) or 31.498 hectares (approximately) lands and
all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the
Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting to the
Government of Odisha is satisfied that the lands measuring 77.832 acres (approximately) or 31.498 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 77.832 acres (approximately) or 31.498 hectares
(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number MCL/SA/SBOCP/UA-LO/9(1)/2022/21, dated the 21st July, 2022 of the area
covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Angul, Odisha - 759122 or at the
office of the Coal Controller, Coal Controller’s Organisation, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001 or at the
office of the Director (Personnel), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Post Office - Jagruti Vihar, Burla, District
Sambalpur-768020, Odisha.
1912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Utkal- A Coal Block
(District- Angul, State- Odisha)
[ Plan bearing number: MCL/SA/SBOCP/UA-LO/9(1)/2022/21, dated the 21st July, 2022]
All Rights:
Land details of proposed area towards left over plots and plot area to be acquired under Utkal-A coal block for
Subhadra Open Cast Project (25 million tonne per year).
Sr.
No. Name of village
Name of
the coal
block
Village
number
Thana
Tahasil
District
Area
acquired
(in acres)
Remark
1.
Golagadia
Utkal- A
171
Nisha
Chhendipada
Angul
9.037
Part
2.
Chhotabereni
172
Nisha
Chhendipada
Angul
35.835
Full
3.
Kaunsidhipa
173
Nisha
Chhendipada
Angul
1.65
Part
4.
Raijharan
170
Nisha
Chhendipada
Angul
7.03
Part
5.
Kankarei
174
Nisha
Chhendipada
Angul
24.28
Part
Total area:
77.832
Total area: 77.832 acres (approximately) or 31.498 hectares (approximately).
Village wise plots acquired:
1. Golagadia:
270 (P), 270/314 (P) and 270/315 (P).
2. Chhotabereni:
3, 5 (P),5/397 to 5/421, 5/462 to 5/473, 5/475, 5/630, 14 (P), 18 (P), 18/318(P), 18/320 (P), 20/435, 31/432, 34/438,
36/437, 52 (P), 52/442, 52/445, 52/484, 56/340, 64 (P), 68, 69 (P), 70 (P), 73/486, 78/490, 84/396 (P), 85/509 (P),
150/488, 158/424, 169/426, 184 (P), 184/376, 184/436, 192 (P), 194/422, 194/427, 194/433, 194/444, 196/423,
196/431, 196/441, 198/429, 200, 200/364, 205 (P), 206 (P), 209 (P), 211/439, 211/440 and 327/430.
3. Kaunsidhipa:
905, 938 (P), 1007/1192, 1070/1203 (P), 1065 (P) and 793/1179/1320.
4. Raijharan:
1850/2981, 1875 (P) and 1890/1998.
5. Kankarei:
729(P), 731, 1747/2164(P), 1765(P), 1765/2220, 1765/2246, 1765/2262, 1765/2294,1765/2701, 1769(P), 1774,
1780(P), 1781/2160, 1797(P), 1798(P), 1799(P), 1799/2214, 1810(P), 1818/2242, 1819(P), 1870/2066(P),
1870/2067(P), 1893, 1896(P), 1912(P), 1912/2149 and 1924/2063.
Boundary Description:
All the left over plots and plot areas of the villages are within the earlier notified boundary of Utkal-A block.
A-B:
The line starts from point ‘A’ proceeds towards south direction through plot numbers 314, 315 of
village Golagadia and crossing west edge of village boundary of Chhotabereni then proceeds through
middle of village Kaunsidhipa with Raijharan and reach at point ‘B’ of plot number 1875 of village
Raijharan.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1913
B-C:
The line start from point ‘B’ and proceeds towards south direction and meet at point ‘C’ over the plot
number 1928 of village Raijharan.
C-D:
After reaching at point ‘C’ of village Raijharan the line turns towards east direction and proceeds
through plot numbers 1930 and 2175 and meet at point ‘D’ at plot number 2173 of village Kankarei.
D-E:
The same line turn towards north direction from the point ‘D’ and proceeds over the plot numbers 2173
and 2178 and meet at point ‘E’ of village Kankarei.
E-F:
The same line proceeds from point ‘E’ towards north-west direction crossing middle of plot number
2181 of village Kankarei and meet at point ‘F’.
F-G:
From point ‘F’ the line proceeds towards north direction through plot numbers 1848, 1689 and 747 of
village Kankarei, the same line passes the village boundary of Kankarei and enter in Kaunsidhipa and
proceeds plot numbers 808 and 800 of same village, the line enter the village boundary of Chhotabereni
and meet at point ‘G’ through plot numbers 193, 138 and 338 of same village.
G-H:
The line turns towards north east direction and meet at point ‘H’ of plot number 386.
H-I:
From point ‘H’ the line turns towards south direction and proceeds through south boundary of plot
number 386 and meet at point ‘I’ at corner point of plot number 386.
I-J:
The line starts from point ‘I’ and turns towards east direction and meet the point ‘J’ through corner
boundary of plot numbers 84 and 386.
J-K:
The line starts from point ‘J’ and proceeds towards south direction through east boundary of plot
number 84 and meet at point ‘K’.
K-L:
Again the line proceeds from point ‘K’ and turn towards east direction and passes through north
boundary of plot number 353 and meet at point ‘L’.
L-M:
The line starts from point ‘L’ and turn towards south direction through east boundary of plot number 91
reach at point ‘M’.
M-N:
The line proceeds from point ‘M’ towards east direction through north boundary of plot number 94 and
meet at point ‘N’.
N-O-P-Q-N: The same line starts from point ‘N’ passes along the four boundaries of plot number 96 and meet at
same point at ‘N’.
N-R:
Again line starts from point ‘N’ and turn towards south direction along the point east boundary of plot
number 94 and meet at point ‘R’.
R-S:
From point ‘R’ the line turn towards east direction to meet point ‘S’ through north boundary of plot
number 95.
S-T:
The line proceeds from point ‘S’ turns south direction along east boundary of plot number 95 and meet
at point ‘T’, which is south east corner point of plot number 95.
T-U:
The line starts from point ‘T’ turns towards east direction along north edge of village road and join at
point ‘U’.
U-V:
Again the same line proceeds from point ‘U’ and turn towards north direction passes through west
boundary plot number 97 and meet at point ‘V’.
V-W:
The line starts from point ‘V’ proceeds along north boundary of plot number 97 and turn towards
direction ‘N’-‘E’ and meet at point ‘W’, which is common boundary of village Kankarei and
Chhotabereni.
W-X-Y-Z:
The same line turn towards north direction and proceeds through common village boundary of Kankarei
and Chhotabereni via ‘X’-‘Y’ and meet at point ‘Z’ at tri junction pillars of same village Kankarei,
Chhotabereni and Jaipur reserve forest.
Z-A:
The same line proceeds along center and same direction of nala and north part of village boundary of
Chhotabereni and Golagadia through point P, P1, P2, P3, P4 ,P5 , P6 , P7 , P8 , P9 , P10 , P11 , P12 , P13, P14 ,
P15 , P16 , P17, P18 and meet at point ‘A’, from which the boundary was starts.
[F. No. 43015/08/2021-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director
1914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 931.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससव श्रीलक्ष्मी इंटरप्राइिेि, जत्रृुजन ुरा, एनावकुलम,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और भारती जनिी िूरसंचार
मििूर संघ (बीएमएस), बीएमएस स्ट्टेट कमेटी, मरज ल लेन, एनावकुलम; केरल स्ट्टेट मोबाइल टावर वकवसव ूजन न (सीटू)
सी. कन्नन स्ट्मारक िॉल, कन्नूर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -
एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 20/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.08.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।
[फा. सं. एल-40011/05/2022- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi the 19th September, 2022
S.O. 931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s.Shreelakshmi Enterprises,Tripunithura, Ernakulam, and Bharatheeya Private Telecom
Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) BMS State Committee, Marayil Lane, Ernakulam; Kerala State Mobile Tower Workers
Union (CITU) C. Kannan Smaraka Hall, Kannur, which was received along with soft copy of the Award by the
Central Government on 8.07.2022.
[F. No. L-40011/05/2022- IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 27th day of April 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)
ID No.20/2022
Workmen/Unions
: 1.
Bharatheeya Private Telecom
Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)
BMS State Committee
Marayil Lane
Ernakulam – 682018
2.
Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers Union (CITU)
C. Kannan Smaraka Hall
Kannur – 670009
Management
: M/s.Shreelakshmi Enterprises
Asset Iris, 1st Floor
North Fort Gate
Tripunithura
Ernakulam – 682301
By Adv. P. Sathisan
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1915
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.
L-40011/05/2022-IR(DU) dated 20.05.2022 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“1. Whether the demands of the Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh and Kerala State Mobile
Tower Workers’ Union working in the establishment of Royal Command Protection Group (RCPG) on the
issue of charter of demands are just? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2. Whether the stand of the Management that the arrears of wage for the period after December 2021 shall
not be paid on the ground that the Union members were not willing to perform jobs as instructed by the
Management even after an agreement was entered between the parties with respect to the wage revision in
December 2021, is justifiable? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to?”
3.
After receipt of the order of reference, notice was issued to the Unions as well as the Managements to appear
on 27.07.2022. On 27.07.2022 the Counsel for the Management entered appearance and submitted a petition
enclosing there with a copy of the settlement between the Unions and the Managements. It is seen that a long term
settlement dt.27.05.2022 was entered into between the Unions and the Management in which the issues involved in
the above references had already been settled. The learned Counsel for the Management therefore pleaded that an
award may be passed taking on record the settlement between the parties and the proceedings may be closed. There is
no representation for the Unions however it is seen from the Annexure 1 to the petition that the issues raised in the
reference had already been settled between the Unions and the Management and no further issues remained for
adjudication.
4.
Hence an award is passed holding that the issues raised in the reference are settled between the Unions and
the Management vide settlement dt.27.05.2022 and no dispute remains to be adjudicated in this industrial dispute.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 932.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मजससव रॉ ल कमांड प्रोटेक्िन ग्रुृ, कोजि,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और भारती जनिी िूरसंचार मििूर संघ
(बीएमएस), बीएमएस स्ट्टेट कमेटी, मरज ल लेन, एनावकुलम; केरल स्ट्टेट मोबाइल टावर वकवसव ूजन न (सीटू) सी. कन्नन
स्ट्मारक िॉल, कन्नूर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम
ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 19/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.08.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-40011/04/2022- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022
S.O. 932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s. Royal Command Protection Group, Kochi, and Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor
Sangh (BMS) BMS State Committee, Marayil Lane, Ernakulam ; Kerala State Mobile Tower Workers Union (CITU)
C. Kannan Smaraka Hall, Kannur, which was received along with soft copy of the Award by the Central Government
on 8.07.2022.
[F. No. L-40011/04/2022- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
1916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 27th day of April 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)
ID No.19/2022
Workmen/Unions :
1.
Bharatheeya Private Telecom
Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)
BMS State Committee
Marayil Lane
Ernakulam – 682018
2.
Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers Union (CITU)
C. Kannan Smaraka Hall
Kannur – 670009
Management
:
M/s.Royal Command Protection Group
Deepa, 34/141B, Chittupadikkara
Arakkakadavu Road
Edappaly
Kochi – 682026
By Adv. P. Sathisan
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order
No. L-40011/04/2022-IR(DU) dated 20.05.2022 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“1. Whether the demands of the Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh and Kerala State Mobile
Tower Workers’ Union working in the establishment of Royal Command Protection Group (RCPG) on the
issue of charter of demands are just? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2. Whether the stand of the Management that the arrears of wage for the period after December 2021 shall
not be paid on the ground that the Union members were not willing to perform jobs as instructed by the
Management even after an agreement was entered between the parties with respect to the wage revision in
December 2021, is justifiable? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to?”
3.
After receipt of the order of reference, notice was issued to the Unions as well as the Managements to appear
on 27.07.2022. On 27.07.2022 the Counsel for the Management entered appearance and submitted a petition
enclosing there with a copy of the settlement between the Unions and the Managements. It is seen that a long term
settlement dt.27.05.2022 was entered into between the Unions and the Management in which the issues involved in
the above references had already been settled. The learned Counsel for the Management therefore pleaded that an
award may be passed taking on record the settlement between the parties and the proceedings may be closed. There is
no representation for the Unions however it is seen from the Annexure 1 to the petition that the issues raised in the
reference had already been settled between the Unions and the Management and no further issues remained for
adjudication.
4. Hence an award is passed holding that the issues raised in the reference are settled between the Unions and the
Management vide settlement dt.27.05.2022 and no dispute remains to be adjudicated in this industrial dispute.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1917
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 933.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससव ूजनटेक एनिी सॉल् ूिंस (इंजड ा) प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ूजनटी आकेड, ऑृ। डेका लॉन, ा कूडम, वा रटला
एनावकुलम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और भारती जनिी िूरसंचार मििूर संघ (बीएमएस), बीएमएस स्ट्टेट कमेटी,
मरज ल लेन, एनावकुलम; केरल स्ट्टेट मोबाइल टावर वकवसव ूजन न (सीटू) सी. कन्नन स्ट्मारक िॉल, कन्नूर, के बीच अनुबंि
में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 21/2022) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.08.2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-40011/06/2022- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022
S.O. 933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s. UNITAC Energy Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd, Unity Arcade, Opp. Decathlon, Thykoodam,
Vyttila Ernakulam, and Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) BMS State Committee, Marayil Lane,
Ernakulam ;Kerala State Mobile Tower Workers Union (CITU) C. Kannan Smaraka Hall, Kannur, which was
received along with soft copy of the Award by the Central Government on 8.07.2022.
[F. No. L-40011/06/2022- IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 27th day of April 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)
ID No.21/2022
Workmen/Unions
: 1. Bharatheeya Private Telecom
Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)
BMS State Committee
Marayil Lane
Ernakulam – 682018
2. Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers Union (CITU)
C. Kannan Smaraka Hall
Kannur – 670009
Management
: M/s.UNITAC Energy Solutions
(India) Pvt Ltd
Unity Arcade, Opp. Decathlon
Thykoodam, Vyttila
Ernakulam – 682019
By Adv. P. Sathisan
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
1918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order
No. L-40011/06/2022-IR(DU) dated 20.05.2022 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“1. Whether the demands of the Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh and Kerala State Mobile
Tower Workers’ Union working in the establishment of Royal Command Protection Group (RCPG) on the
issue of charter of demands are just? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2. Whether the stand of the Management that the arrears of wage for the period after December 2021 shall
not be paid on the ground that the Union members were not willing to perform jobs as instructed by the
Management even after an agreement was entered between the parties with respect to the wage revision in
December 2021, is justifiable? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to?”
3.
After receipt of the order of reference, notice was issued to the Unions as well as the Managements to appear
on 27.07.2022. On 27.07.2022 the Counsel for the Management entered appearance and submitted a petition
enclosing there with a copy of the settlement between the Unions and the Managements. It is seen that a long term
settlement dt.27.05.2022 was entered into between the Unions and the Management in which the issues involved in
the above references had already been settled. The learned Counsel for the Management therefore pleaded that an
award may be passed taking on record the settlement between the parties and the proceedings may be closed. There is
no representation for the Unions however it is seen from the Annexure 1 to the petition that the issues raised in the
reference had already been settled between the Unions and the Management and no further issues remained for
adjudication.
4.
Hence an award is passed holding that the issues raised in the reference are settled between the Union and
the Management vide settlement dt.27.05.2022 and no dispute remains to be adjudicated in this industrial dispute.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 934.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससव िेसाल इंिीजन ररंग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ममंगलम, एनावकुलम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और भारती
जनिी िूरसंचार मििूर संघ (बीएमएस), बीएमएस स्ट्टेट कमेटी, मरज ल लेन, एनावकुलम; केरल स्ट्टेट मोबाइल टावर वकवसव
ूजन न (सीटू) सी. कन्नन स्ट्मारक िॉल, कन्नूर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम
न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 22/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.08.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-40011/07/2022- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022
S.O. 934.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s. Hessal Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mamangalam, Ernakulam, and Bharatheeya Private
Telecom Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) BMS State Committee, Marayil Lane, Ernakulam ;Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers Union (CITU) C. Kannan Smaraka Hall, Kannur, which was received along with soft copy of the Award by
the Central Government on 8.07.2022.
[F. No. L-40011/07/2022- IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1919
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 27th day of April 2022, 5 Sravana 1944)
ID No.22/2022
Workmen/Unions
: 1.
Bharatheeya Private Telecom
Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)
BMS State Committee
Marayil Lane
Ernakulam – 682018
2. Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers Union (CITU)
C. Kannan Smaraka Hall
Kannur – 670009
Management
: M/s.Hessal Engineering Pvt Ltd
Bldg No.33/334, 2nd Floor
Vilangadan Estate
Mamangalam
Ernakulam – 682025
By Adv. P. Sathisan
This case coming up for final hearing on 27.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order
No. L-40011/07/2022-IR(DU) dated 20.05.2022 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“1. Whether the demands of the Bharatheeya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh and Kerala State Mobile Tower
Workers’ Union working in the establishment of Royal Command Protection Group (RCPG) on the issue of
charter of demands are just? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?
2. Whether the stand of the Management that the arrears of wage for the period after December 2021 shall not
be paid on the ground that the Union members were not willing to perform jobs as instructed by the Management
even after an agreement was entered between the parties with respect to the wage revision in December 2021, is
justifiable ? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to ? ”
3.
After receipt of the order of reference, notice was issued to the Unions as well as the Managements to
appear on 27.07.2022. On 27.07.2022 the Counsel for the Management entered appearance and submitted a petition
enclosing there with a copy of the settlement between the Unions and the Managements. It is seen that a long
term settlement dt.27.05.2022 was entered into between the Unions and the Management in which the issues
involved in the above references had already been settled. The learned Counsel for the Management therefore
pleaded that an award may be passed taking on record the settlement between the parties and the proceedings may
be closed. There is no representation for the Unions however it is seen from the Annexure 1 to the petition that the
issues raised in the reference had already been settled between the Unions and the Management and no further
issues remained for adjudication.
4.
Hence an award is passed holding that the issues raised in the reference are settled between the Union and
the Management vide settlement dt.27.05.2022 and no dispute remains to be adjudicated in this industrial dispute.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
1920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 935.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मिाप्रबंिक भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, कन्नूर, बीएसएनएल भवन, िजक्षण बािार, कन्नूर के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि
जन ोिकों और श्री ज लकराि एम. अध् क्ष, बीएसएनएल वकवसव ूजन न, कन्नूर; श्री प्रकाि के.कन्नूर; श्री कमलक्षण
के.कंिमकोजवल िाउस, वा क्कारा, ृदि ोट्टुचल ृोस्ट्ट-ृय् ान्नूर (वा ा) कन्नूर; श्री टी. वी. कुन्िीरमन, ज वलजप्ृल िाउस,
ृेररं ट्टा, ृोराकुन्नू ृी.ओ. एम एम बािार, कन्नूर ; श्री करुणाकरण के.के.किव कंब्र िाउस, अन्नूर ृीओ, ृय् न्नूर वा ा,
कन्नूर; श्री.ृी.एम.िोसेफ, ृजरा ेृज कल िाउस, े ेनी ृीओ, चेरुृुझाजव ा, कासरगोड; श्री रजव ृी., एरामम
ृी.ओ.ृय् ान्नूर (वा ा), कन्नूर; श्री के. कुमारन कूलरीकरण िाउस ाजवदिसेरी, ृोरक्कुन्नू ृोस्ट्ट, एम.एम.बािार वा ा,
कन्नूर; श्री के. कुन्िीकष्णन, आदि ोिी सिनम, चलक्कोट्टू ृी.ओ. कोरम वा ा, ृय् ान्नूर, कन्नूर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम िुजिृत्र ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 33/2013) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 03.08.2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-40011/46/2013- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2022
S.O. 935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum Award (Ref. No. 33/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the employers in relation to The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,Kannur SSA, BSNL
Bhavan,South Bazar, Kannur and Shri.Thilakaraj M.President, BSNL Workers Union. Kannur; Shri. Prakash K.
Kannur ; Shri. Kamalakshan K.Kandamkovil House,Vayakkara, Padiyottuchal Post-Payyannur (Via) Kannur; Shri.T.
V. Kunhiraman, Thaivalappil House ,Perinthatta, Porakunnu P.O. Via M. M. Bazar Kannur; Shri. Karunakaran K.K.
Kadavath Kambrath House,Annur P.O., Payyannur Via,Kannur; Shri. P.M.Joseph,Parathepathikal House, Theyyeni
P.O., Cherupuzha Via, Kasaragod; Shri.Ravi P.,Eramam P.O. Payyannur(Via),Kannur ; Shri.K. Kumaran
Koolerikaran House Thavidisseri, Porakkunnu Post, M.M.Bazar Via, Kannur; Shri. K. Kunhikrishnan,Adiyodi
Sadanam,Chalakkottu P.O.Koram Via, Payyannur ,Kannur, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the
Corrigendum Award by the Central Government on 8.07.2022.
[F. No. L-40011/46/2013- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Tuesday the 26th day of July 2022, 4 Sravana 1944)
ID No.33/2013
Workmen/Union
:
1.
Sri. Thilakaraj M.
President
BSNL Workers Union
Thachan House, Azhikkal P.O.
Kannur – 670009
By Adv.C. Anilkumar
Impleaded workmen
:
2.
Sri. Prakash K.
Eramam P.O.
Payyannur (Via)
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1921
Kannur – 670307
3.
Sri. Kamalakshan K.
Kandamkovil House
Vayakkara, Padiyottuchal Post
Payyannur (Via)
Kannur – 670307
4.
Sri. T. V. Kunhiraman
Thaivalappil House
Perinthatta, Porakunnu P.O.
Via M. M. Bazar
Kannur – 670306
5.
Sri. Karunakaran K.K.
Kadavath Kambrath House
Annur P.O., Payyannur Via
Kannur – 670307
6.
Shri. P.M. Joseph
Parathepathikal House
Theyyeni P.O., Cherupuzha Via
Kasaragod – 670511
7.
Sri. Ravi P.
Eramam P.O.
Payyannur (Via)
Kannur – 670307
8.
Sri. K. Kumaran
Koolerikaran House
Thavidisseri, Porakkunnu Post
M.M. Bazar Via
Kannur – 670306
9.
Sri.K. Kunhikrishnan
Adiyodi Sadanam
Chalakkottu P.O.
Koram Via, Payyannur
Kannur - 670307
By Adv.Rekha Vasudevan
Management
:
The General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Kannur SSA, BSNL Bhavan
South Bazar, Kannur - 670002
By Adv.Saji Varghese
The IA for correction of name and address of 4th additional workman is heard and this Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court on 26.07.2022 passed the following:
CORRIGENDUM AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-
40011/46/2013-IR(DU) dated 25.06.2013 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Kannur in denying social security measures, equal wages
and regularization to the petty contractors engaged by them mere on the ground that they are contractors and
not workmen is correct? To what relief they are entitled to?"
3.
Award in I.D. no.33/2013 was passed by this Tribunal on 1ST October 2021 and the same was notified in the
Gazette of India vide notification no.S.O.62 dt.11.01.2022. After the notification of the award by Govt of India in
1922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the official Gazette of India, the 4th impleaded party filed an application stating that his name and address is wrongly
mentioned in the award in the cause title. Further it was also pleaded that in the Appendix, Exhibits for Management,
M2, his name is shown as Kunhiraman T.V instead of T. V. Kunhiraman. On verification of the ID file, it is seen
that there is indeed a mistake in two places in the award as mentioned in the cause title as well as in the Appendix
for exhibits. It is an inadvertent mistake that is crept in while finalizing the award. From the records of this
Tribunal, it is clear that it is a mistake that happened in the registry of this Tribunal and therefore no separate notice
is issued to the parties.
4.
Hence in the cause title, the impleaded workman no.4 shall be read as “Sri.T. V. Kunhiraman, Thaivalappil
House, Perinthatta, Porakunnu P.O., Via M. M. Bazar, Kannur - 670306 ” instead of Sri. P. Kunhiraman, Perinthatta
P.O., Perakkunnu, (Via) M. M. Bazar, Kannur – 670306 and in the Appendix, exhibit for Management, M2 may be
read as “True copy of compilation of documents showing the engagement of petty contractor Sri. T. V. Kunhiraman”
instead of Sri. Kunhiraman T. V. The corrections are incorporated in the award. This will form part of the original
award dt.01.10.2021.
The Corrigendum award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 26th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 936.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार ृाटवनर, मजससव रेवती कंस्ट्रक्िन्स, जतरुवज रा, वरट्ट ूरकावु, जत्रवेंरम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री बजिू
टी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के
(संिभव सं् ा 30/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी
के सा 17.08.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42025/07/2022-27-आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Partner, M/s. Revathi Constructions, Thiruvathira, Vattiyoorkavu, Trivandrum, and
Shri.Baiju T, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the Award by the Central Government on
17.08.2022.
[F. No. L-42025/07/2022-27- IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 20th day of July 2022, 29 Asadha 1944)
ID No.30/2021
Workman
: Sri.Baiju T.
26/1353, Panayil Veedu
Panavila Road, GPO P.O.
Trivandrum - 695001
By Adv.Shamem M. S.
Management
: Partner
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1923
M/s.Revathi Constructions
Thiruvathira
VKRA-51/A, Vazhottukonam
Vattiyoorkavu
Trivandrum - 695013
This case coming up for final hearing on 20.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute is filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
The workman was employed under the Management. The workman was working with the Management at
ISRO, Trivandrum as a gardner w.e.f. 03.04.2019. In the month of March 2020, the Management took over the
contract of ISRO with all liabilities including the contract employees such as the workman. Due to Covid-19
pandemic and the consequent restrictions in movement and non availability of public transport, the applicant could
not attend the work and the same was informed to the Management. When the workman started attending the
work of the Management, the workman’s entry pass was withheld. The workman filed an application U/s 12 of
Industrial Disputes Act before Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) for his reinstatement and balance of wages
with all service benefits. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure. In the ordinary circumstances the wage to
an employee is given under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. During Covid restrictions the same was guided by
instructions issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The workman therefore pleaded that the Management
may be directed to release the withheld salary from 04/2020 to -11/2020.
3.
Summons was issued to the parties to the proceedings on 16.02.2021 directing them to appear on
25.03.2021. The summons was acknowledged by the parties concerned. There was no representation for the
workman as well as the Management. The matter was thereafter posted on 11.08.2021, 05.10.2021, 08.10.2021,
05.01.2022, 24.03.2022, and finally on 20.07.2022. There was no representation either on the side of the workman
nor on the side of the Management. No claim statement is also filed.
4.
It is felt that the workman is not interested in pursuing the industrial dispute. There is no point in adjourning
the matter further for appearance of the parties .
5.
Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the workman.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 20th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 937.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार उृ जनिेिक (अनुसंिान), क्षेत्री कॉफी अनुसंिान केंर, चुंडाले, कलृेट्टा, वा नाडी,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों
और सजचव, मालाबार एस्ट्टेट वकवसव ूजन न (आईएन टी ूसी) इंटक का ावल , मेप्ृाडी ृीओ वा नाड;
मिासजचव,वा नाड एस्ट्टेट लेबर ूजन न (सीटू), व्याज री ृीओ वा नाड; मिासजचव, बीएमएस का ावल , क्षेत्री कॉफी
अनुसंिान स्ट्टेिन चुंडाले, कलृेट्टा, वा नाडी, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम
न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 05/2015) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20.09.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42011/131/2014- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
1924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.O. 937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Deputy Director (Research),Regional Coffee Research Station Chundale, Kalpetta,
Wayanad, and The Secretary, Malabar Estate Workers Union(INTUC), INTUC Office, Meppadi P.O. Wayanad ; The
General Secretary,Wayanad Estate Labour Union(CITU),Vythiri P.O. Wayanad;The General Secretary, BMS Office,
Regional Coffee Research Station, Chundale, Kalpetta, Wayanad, which was received along with soft copy of the
Award by the Central Government on 20.09.2022.
[F. No. L-42011/131/2014- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 18th day of May 2022, 28 Vaisakha 1944)
ID No.05/2015
Workman/Unions
:
1.
The Secretary
Malabar Estate Workers Union (INTUC)
INTUC Office, Meppadi P.O.
Wayanad - 673577
2.
The General Secretary
Wayanad Estate Labour Union (CITU)
Vythiri P.O.
Wayanad – 673576
3.
The General Secretary
BMS Office,
Regional Coffee Research Station
Chundale, Kalpetta
Wayanad – 673123
By Adv.C. Anil Kumar
Management
:
The Deputy Director (Research)
Regional Coffee Research Station
Chundale, Kalpetta
Wayanad – 673123
By M/s.Menon & Pai
This case coming up for final hearing on 08.03.2021 and 04.10.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court on 18.05.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order
No. L-42011/131/2014-IR(DU) dated 15.01.2015 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Coffee Research Station, Chundale in treating the
Coffee Board Staff and their plantation workers differently by following both Central and State
Government pattern for the purpose of wages and service conditions, is justified and proper ? If not, what
reliefs the 38 plantation workers are entitled to ? “
3.
Three unions, Malabar Estate Workers Union, Wayanad Estate Labour Union and BMS jointly filed the claim
petition. The employees involved in this dispute are permanent mazdoors working in the Regional Coffee Research
Station, Chundale which is functioning under Coffee Board. The research station started in the year 1977 for the
propose of research. The Management maintains a coffee plantation admeasuring about 100 acres. The purpose of
maintaining the coffee plantation is only for the research purpose for developing and enhancing production and also
to involve packages to control pest and diseases in coffee plants. The workmen involved are having more than 20
years of continuous service under the Management. At present there are 37 mazdoors. By an office order
dt.24.06.1987 the Management regularized the services of 12 casual employees vide an order dt.19.11.1996, 19
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1925
casual employees were regularized. By another order dt.23.03.2005, 8 workers were regularized. The work of the
mazdoors is to assist in various works in connection with the research activities of the Management. 5 of them are
watchmen and one is a maistry and the remaining are mazdoors. The fund allocation for running the research station
is provided by Coffee Board which is functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Govt of India.
Though the mazdoors are regularized, the conditions of service that are applicable to the mazdoors and other
permanent employees of the Management are different. The pay and other service conditions of the mazdoors are
pitiable compared to other permanent employees. It is also bad compared to workmen working in comparable
organizations in the state. The Management is only paying the minimum wages notified by Govt of Kerala for
planation workers in private sector. In private sector plantations, the wages are fixed as per the Planation Labour
Committee settlements. The mazdoors under the Management cannot be compared with the private estates. Even
though the workers involved in this dispute are permanent workers, they are being paid on daily basis. The present
wage that is being paid to the mazdoors under the Management is Rs.82.63 per day as basic pay and Rs.234.66 as DA.
When the permanent employees under the Management are enjoying the rules framed by the Govt of India/Coffee
Board for recruitment, conduct, leave, pension, provident fund etc., and also by Central Civil Service Rules, the only
benefit received by the mazdoors are one earned leave for every 20 days work, 14 sick leave and 8.33% bonus. The
mazdoors are not even given the benefit of weekly off with the wages. The take home pay of a mazdoors, who
worked on all days, in a month will be less than Rs.5000/- per month, after statutory deductions like ESI and EPF.
Since the workmen are servants of Govt of India, denial of wages and service benefits given to other employees of
the same establishment is illegal and arbitrary. The Management is not a plantation industry but only a research
station and therefore the mazdoors employed by the Management cannot be categorized as plantation labourers. The
Management ought to have placed them in a wage scale commensurate with the wage structure applicable to
comparable workers. The wage structure and other service conditions applicable in the comparable organizations
are much better. The farm workers engaged for maintaining the farms by the department like Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry under Govt of Kerala are getting much higher wages. The starting pay of farm workers under
these departments was fixed as Rs.8500/- during 2012. Apart from basic pay, they are also eligible for DA fixed by
Govt from time to time, grade promotions on completion of certain number of years of service, house rent
allowance, uniform allowance and leave benefits similar to Govt employees. Even casual employees get Rs.185/- as
basic wage, for those who completed 15years or more. The casual employees are also eligible for DA as declared by
the Govt. The salary of a permanent labourer working in Regional Agriculture Research Center, Pattambi which is
coming under the Agriculture Department is more than Rs.20,000/- per month. A permanent farm worker employed
in Regional Research Station, Ambalavayal is receiving Rs.780/- per day as wages. Even as casual employee of the
said establishment gets more than Rs.600/- per day. There are 22 office staff working under the Management. Even a
permanent group D employee under the very same Management will get more than Rs.20,000/- a month. At present,
the Management is engaging a driver on daily wage basis on payment of Rs.504/- per day. The retirement age fixed
for all permanent employees other than mazdoors under the Management is 60 years. For the mazdoors the
retirement age is 58 years. An establishment cannot have two retirement age and therefore the mazdoors are also
entitled to retire at the age of 60 years. The office staff of the Management is paid gratuity equivalent to 30 days
wage for every completed year of service. For mazdoors this is only 15 days wages for every completed year. The
gratuity benefit received by the mazdoors shall be equal to that of the other regular staff of the Management. As
the workmen are getting daily wages, they are not getting any weekly off with wages. This is required to be
corrected. Similarly the leave encashment facility is denied to the mazdoors while other employees are having the
leave encashment facility.
4.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The Regional Coffee Research
Station was set up in the year 1977 and got registered with Chief Inspector of Plantations vide registration certificate
no.KPT-132 dt.05.06.1998. It is pre-dominantly a research institute. It’s activities does not qualify the Management
to be classified as an industry under Industrial Disputes Act. It is purely a technical institute which provides the
coffee growers of the region the know how and skill and give advantage to them. It is not functioning with profit
motive. Therefore the Management is not an industry as defined U/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The coffee
estate/farm maintained at Regional Coffee Research Station is registered under the provisions of Planation Labour
Act. The mazdoors working at the said coffee estate were appointed as mazdoors under the Plantation Labour
Act/Minimum Wages Act. They are not part of the regular establishment of Coffee Board. The regular employees of
Coffee Board are governed by rules framed by Govt of India/Coffee Board for recruitment, conduct, leave, pension,
PF etc. and they are also governed by Central Civil Service Rules. Coffee cultivation is a plantation industry. It is
distinct from the pure agricultural activities. The coffee plantation maintained by the Management is for carrying
out research on coffee for the benefit of coffee growers for their commercial coffee cultivation. Therefore the coffee
estate/planation is a planation industry and not a pure agricultural establishment. These coffee farms are not for
commercial production of coffee but stands purely for conducting research. These farms are not profit making
establishment but public service oriented farms. The mazdoors and maistries are appointed as per the Planation Act
and their wages are fixed by the Govt of Kerala in accordance with Planation Labour Act, 1951 and Minimum Wages
Act, 1948. The wages fixed by the Kerala Govt is in accordance with Bipartite/Tripartite agreement between the
Plantation Associations, labour unions and Govt of Kerala. The pay scales of the different cadres of office staff of
1926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Coffee Board appointed as per the recruitment rules comes under the purview of Central Civil Service Rules, is not
applicable to planation workers engaged in the research stations. The plantation workers are given additional
benefits which are not available to the employees of the Coffee Board. The minimum wages of the plantation
workers was revised in 2012 w.e.f. 01.10.2011 based on the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at in the
Plantation Labour Committee on 22.05.2012. Accordingly the minimum wages raised for unskilled labourers was
Rs.234.66 ie., basic of Rs.82.63 + variable DA of Rs.152.03. In addition, Rs.5/-per day is also paid as special
allowance for pure coffee plantation which will not be considered for any fringe benefits. The workmen are getting
a total of Rs.234.66 per day. The then scale fixed for supervisors is Rs.2560-31-2746-36-2962-41-3208-47-3490-54-
3814-61-4180-69-4594+VDA. The VDA was Rs.3965/-. As per the revised Plantation Labour Committee action
report, the minimum wage of the labourers in tea and coffee plantations have been fixed at Rs.301/- per day from
November 2015. Further they are also entitled service weightage as recommended by the Plantation Labour
Committee action report. Govt of Kerala has also proposed the revision of wages of supervisors in plantation sector
as Rs.7950-45-8220-51-8526-57-8868-64-9252-71-9678-79-10152-88-10680. The revised salary is expected before
June 2016 which will be effected from 01.07.2015. In addition, the mazdoors will also get Rs.5/- per day as special
allowance for pure coffee plantations. In addition to the above, the mazdoors/maistries are entitled for
a.
Exgratia at the rate 8.33%, annual leave with wages for 15 days and two way ticket to their native place and back
annually.
b. One each of non-joint field Kamblies and woolen rugs once in an year
c.
Reimbursement of medical expenses to the mazdoors and their dependents without any limit
d. Sick leave wages of 2/3rd wages for 14 days per annum.
e.
EPF contribution as per statutory rates.
In addition to above, the mazdoors are also entitled for overtime allowance, free labour quarters and free
water supply and all other benefits prescribed under Plantation Labour Act are also being extended to the mazdoors.
The Indian Cardamom Research Institute, Spices Board etc., are also following the Plantation Labour Act and
Minimum Wages Act and paying minimum wages fixed by Govt of Kerala. The workers engaged in coffee
plantations cannot claim the wages at par with the wages prevailing in Kerala Research Farms as they are not covered
under the Planation Labour Act and any other scheduled employment. The Planation Labour Act, 1951 applies to any
land used or intended to be used for growing Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Cinchona or Cardamom which admeasures 5
Hectares or more and in which 15 or more persons are employed. In the said provision, there is no distinction
between a plantation for research and for commercial production. The pay scales of different cadres of office staff of
Coffee Board, appointed as per the recruitment rules are coming under the purview of Central Civil Service Rules.
It is not applicable to the plantation workers who are appointed as per the Planation Labour Act, 1951 and Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. The group ‘D’ (MTS) employees are appointed in the regular establishment of the Coffee Board
under the recruitment rules provided by Govt of India /Coffee Board. The farm workers cannot be treated as part of
group ‘D’ staff. The nature of work/duties and responsibilities of group ‘D’ employees of Coffee Board are entirely
different from that of plantation workers and there is absolutely no comparison. The retirement age of mazdoors also
cannot be compared with that of group ‘D’ employees of the Coffee Broad who are governed under CCS rules. In
case of group ‘D’ employees of the Coffee Board appointed as per the recruitment rules there are several factors like
responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate
with the position in the hierarchy, qualification required which are equally relevant. Further in addition to the
several factors like the work program of the department, the nature of contribution expected of them, the extent of
their responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions, the extent nature of
freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties, the extent of powers vested on him,
the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers, and the need to co-ordinate with other
departments etc., are also equally relevant. The mazdoors/maisteries are labourers on par with other labourers
employed by various coffee growers of the Kerala State and they are governed by the Planation Labour Act. The
mazdoors/maisteries/ watchmen cannot be equated with the regular employees of the group ‘D’ on the following
grounds.
1.
The regular group ‘D’ employees are appointed under the C & R Rules of the Board whereas the
mazdoors/maistries are not engaged through a similar process.
2.
The nature of job being carried out by the regular group ‘D’ employees are entirely different from the job
being carried out by the mazdoors/maistries
3.
Group ‘D’ employees are the regular employees of the Board where as the mazdoors/masteries are engaged in
the farms maintained by the Board.
4.
The group ‘D’ employees of the board are governed under CCS rules, whereas the mazdoors/maistries are
governed by Plantation Labour Act and Minimum Wages Act.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1927
5.
The mazdoors/maistries are on par with other labourers employed by the various coffee growers of the Kerala
State and they are governed only by the Plantation Labour Act.
5.
The unions filed rejoinder denying the claims of the Management. The Management is a research station.
The land allotted to the Management is only for research purposes. They cannot convert it into plantation by
registering as a plantation with State Govt authorities. Most of the workers in this dispute are working with the
Management from its inception. The contention of the Management is that it is not an industry is against the facts
and in contradiction to their own contentions. The mazdoors working with the Management were not appointed
under the Plantation Labour Act and Minimum Wages Act. The claim of the Management that they registered the
plantation under the Plantation Labour Act w.e.f. 05.06.1998 would prove that the fallacy of their case. Any
registration taken in 1998 can only be considered to defeat the claim of the mazdoors. Neither the Plantation Labour
Act, 1951 or Minimum Wages Act, 1948 make any provision for appointment under the said enactments. The
Management was never a plantation and party to the settlements entered between the Planters Association, Labour
Union and Govt of Kerala. The minimum wages notification is not applicable to research station like the
Management establishment. The Management has not provided the leave benefits as claimed by them. The
workmen are not paid with weekly off with wages. The Management is not giving any overtime wages or over time
allowance to the workmen. The facility provided to the workers are common to all employees working under the
Management and the mazdoors are denied majority of the benefits. Most of the farms/ plantations under the State and
Central Govt are paid much higher pay and better conditions to their workmen doing similar or same nature of work.
The Management has paying capacity to give living wages to their employees. An employee present and working for
all the days in a month received Rs.7826/- only. The difference in the retirement age is also a detriment to the
mazdoors.
6.
After completion of the pleadings, the unions examined WW1 and marked Exbts.W1 to W9. The
Management examined MW1 and marked Exbts.M1to M7.
7.
The issues to be adjudicated are;
1.
Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable?
2.
Whether the action of the Management in treating the regular staff and their plantation workers
differently is justified ?
3.
Relief and cost ?
8.
Issue No. 1
The learned Counsel for the Management raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of
the industrial dispute. According to him, the Management is predominantly a research institute and its activities
cannot be treated as an industry as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further pointed out that, it is
purely technical institute which provides the coffee growers of the region the knowhow and the skill. According to
him, the Management is not an industry as defined U/s 2(j) of the ID Act. The learned Counsel for the Unions
submitted that the Management is delivering goods and services to general public and therefore the Management
will come within the definition of industry U/s 2(j) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ahmedabad
Textile Industries Research Association Vs State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 484 examined whether the research
organizations such as the present Management will come within the definition of industry under the ID Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the research association will come within the definition of industry because it was
providing material services to a part of the community, was carried on with the help of employees, was organized in
a manner similar to that in a trade or business and there was co-operation between the employees and employers. In
this case also the Management is delivering material services to the community of coffee planters and was carried
on with the help of employees and there was co-operation between the employers and employees. The Management
witness MW1 also stated in evidence that they are also involved in commercial activity in a limited way by selling the
seeds corns etc to the general public. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board
Vs A. Rajappa, 1978 LAB IC 467(SC) laid down the test to be applied in such cases.
Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the
Management will come within the definition of industry U/s 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9.
Issue No. 2
According to the learned Counsel for the Unions, the mazdoors working in Regional Coffee Research
Station are given minimum wages as per Plantation Labour Act, 1951 on daily wage basis. The Plantation Labour
Act, 1951 and the Minimum Wages Act are applicable to private sector plantations and the wages are fixed as per the
Plantation Labour Committee Settlements. The Management is a research station where the Plantation Labour Act
and Minimum Wages Act are not applicable. The wages paid to the mazdoors are vary pathetic compared to the
regular employees of the Management. The wages paid to similarly placed employees in other research stations in
the State of Kerala are much better than that of the mazdoors working in the Management and therefore they are
1928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
entitled the benefits on par with the group ‘D’ employees of the Management or a fair wage compared to the
similarly placed employees in other farm stations in the State. According to the learned Counsel for the
Management, the Unions cannot claim parity for its employees with that of the Management staff as the duties and
responsibilities of group ‘D’ employees of the Management are entirely different from that of plantation workers and
there is no comparison between the plantation workers and group ‘D’ employees of the Management in respect of
duties and responsibilities and also the facilities provided to the plantation workers. According to him, as per the
Plantation Labour Act, 1961 any land used or intend to be used for growing Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Cinchona or
Cardamom which admeasures 5 hectares or more and in which 15 or more persons are employed will come within the
definition of plantation. He further stated that it makes no difference whether the plantations are involved in
commercial production or research purpose.
10.
It is seen that, in the reference order, the issue referred is whether treating the Coffee Board staff and their
plantation workers differently by following both Central and State Govt patterns for the purpose of wages and service
conditions is proper. However the learned Counsel for the Unions pointed out that atleast fair wages may be made
applicable to the mazdoors working with the Management in their plantations. The workmen involved in the
reference are not appointed following the recruitment rules of the Management and the work of a group ‘D’
employee of the Management is entirely different from that of a mazdoor working in the plantation of the
Management. The learned Counsel for the Unions disputed the claim of the Management that the mazdoors are
appointed under Plantation Labour Act as there is no provision under the said Act for appointments. Further he also
pointed out that all these mazdoors are appointed on casual basis and they were subsequently regularized as per
Exbt.W1 to W4 orders. He further pointed out that Exbt.W1 dt.24.06.1987 regularizing the service of 12 mazdoors
and Exbt.W2 dt.19.11.1996 regularizing the service of 19 mazdoors and Exbt.W3 dt.23.03.2005 regularizing the
service of 8 mazdoors do not refer to the Plantation Labour Act or the Minimum Wages Act as a condition for
appointment. However in Exbt.W4 dt.22.06.2012, the Management for the 1st time used the Plantation Labour Act
and Rules while regularizing the service of 10 mazdoors. According to the learned Counsel, it is an afterthought by
the Management to bring the regular mazdoors of the Management into a different class of employees. He also
pointed out that the Regional Coffee Research Station started in the year 1977 and they thought of registering the
plantation under Plantation Labour Act only in June 1998. The Management witness MW1 could not clarify the
reason for such a delayed registration of the research plantation under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, during her
cross examination. The learned Counsel for the Unions therefore summarized arguing that the workers of the
Unions working in the Management research station cannot be treated as employees under the Plantation Labour
Act, 1951.
11.
As is evident from the documents discussed above, the mazdoors were initially appointed as casual
mazdoors and later they were regularized in the service of the Management as regular mazdoors. Though there is no
provisions for appointment under the Plantation Labour Act, the Management claimed that the appointment order is
clear that they will be governed by the Plantation Labour Act and Rules thereunder. However as rightly pointed out by
the learned Counsel for the Unions, that procedure started only from 2012 as per Exbt.W4 and the earlier
appointments were only as regularizing the services of the casual mazdoors as permanent mazdoors of the
Management research station.
12.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the Unions cannot claim any parity with wage scales
applicable to group ‘D’ employees. According to the learned Counsel, the nature of work, duties and responsibilities
of group ‘D’ employees are entirely different from that of the mazdoors and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
cannot be invoked in this case. He further pointed out that the mazdoors are estate workers under the purview of
Plantation Labour Act whereas the group ‘D’ employees are recruited as per the Coffee Board (Cadre and
Recruitment) Rules, 2014 Exbt.M7. The group ‘D’ employees are working in the laboratory as well as in the office
assisting the office work, whereas the mazdoors are working in the plantation. He further pointed out that MW1, the
Management witness clarified that the responsibilities, experience, confidentiality involved and functional need and
requirement of group ‘D’ staff are entirely different from that of the mazdoors working in the plantation. The learned
Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Official Liquidator Vs Dayanand and
others, 2009 (1) SCC (L & S) 963 to argue that the creation and abolition of posts, formation and
structure/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualification and criteria of
selection etc., are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The above decision may not be
relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the claim
of grant of permanent status of Central Govt employees to the temporaries working in the office of the Official
Liquidator in the above said case. The present case comes within the industrial adjudication which is to be decided
in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Counsel for the Management further relied on various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to argue that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be made
applicable in the present case. In State of Haryana and others Vs Charanjit Sing and others, AIR 2006 SC 161
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no mechanical application in
every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and
grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for a
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1929
classification for the purpose of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration “. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held that the Courts will have to examine all the above factors before deciding the question whether parity
of wages can be allowed in a case. The learned Counsel further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others Vs Manju Mathur and others, 2011 (1) SLR
609 SC, Govt of West Bengal Vs Tharun K. Roy and others, 2004 (1) SCC 347 and S. C. Chandra and
others Vs State of Jharkhand, AIR 2007 SC 3021 to drive home his point that equal pay for equal work is a
concept which requires for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between the group of employees
claiming the identical pay scales and other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. There is
no evidence available on record to decide whether the group ‘D’ staff in the office of the Management and the
regular mazdoors are doing the same or similar kind of work and having the same kind of responsibilities, to apply the
equal pay for equal work concept. Therefore the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be applied to the
facts of the present case.
In view of the above the Management is justified in treating the Coffee Board staff and their plantation
workers differently by following the Central and State Govt patterns for the purpose of wages and service conditions.
13.
Issue No. 3
The learned Counsel for the Unions pointed out that even if the mazdoors are not entitled for equal pay as that of the
group ‘D’ staff of the Coffee Board they are entitled for a fair wage in comparison with the wages and service
conditions of similarly placed farm workers in the State Govt. The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out
that the mazdoors are being paid on the basis of the Plantation Labours Act and Minimum Wages Act as per their
entitlement. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Kerala Non Banking Finance
Companies Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala and others, 2019 (5) KHC 934, the learned Counsel for
the Unions argued that “ The Minimum Wages Act confers the power to prescribe the minimum living wage for an
employee, taking into consideration a standard family and the attendant expenses, which any normal human being,
who lives with dignity, has to bear in his life at a given point of time. It cannot take into account or reckon the various
situations that may arise in employment, which are necessarily in the nature of an incidence of service. Every
incidence of service whether it be as a benefit, like a higher pay scale on stagnation or a rigour, as in the case of
transfer, is regulated by the contract of employment varied only by bilateral settlements. The second clause under
‘service weightage’ seeks to mitigate stagnation, is not permissible under Minimum Wages Act”. It is seen from
Exbt.W5 series of wage slips issued to the mazdoors, the gross wages payable during December 2012 was around
Rs.3895/- per month. During October 2014, it has been enhanced to Rs.5958/- and as on February 2017, the same is
further enhanced to Rs.6764/-. This is further confirmed by the evidence of MW1 in her proof affidavit. MW1
further stated that from July 2019, the wages of the mazdoors are enhanced to Rs.393.62/- per day. Even if we take
the enhanced minimum wages, the salary of a mazdoor who has already been put in more than 20 years with the
Management will be around Rs.10,000/- per month including the special allowance Rs.5/-, DA of Rs.81.71/-, interim
relief of Rs.50/- and service weightage of Rs.0.70/-. MW1 in her cross examination stated that the salary of a group
‘D’ employee in the service of the Management is around Rs.40,000/- per month. Though differential wages cannot
be a ground for interference, it is felt that the mazdoors working with the Management for such a long period is
entitled for a better package. The learned Counsel for the Unions relied on Exbt.W6, W7 and W8 to show that the
regular farm workers working in State Research Stations are getting a better package than that of the mazdoors in the
Management establishment. Exbt.W6 is an order dt.27.06.2012 issued by Govt of Kerala fixing the wages and
also the service conditions in respect of the regular farm workers working in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
department. Exbt.W7 is an information collected through Right To Information Act from Chingery Extention
scheme with regard to the daily wages being paid to causal employees working in the said scheme of Govt of Kerala.
Exbt.W8 is an information furnished by the Management with regard to the daily wages being paid to a driver.
According to the learned Counsel for the Union, all these employees are getting a better package than the
mazdoors working with the Management. The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that the above
data/information may not be relevant to the present case, as the mazdoors working with the Management are being
paid minimum wages on the basis of Plantation Labour Act and none of the above workers are coming under the
Plantation Labour Act. The learned Counsel for the Unions relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Hindustan Hosiery Industries Vs F. H. Lala and another, 1974 AIR (SC)526 to drive home his point
that the minimum wages is something that an establishment is required to pay for engaging the employees in that
category. It does not mean that the establishments cannot pay more than the minimum wages or a fair wages to its
employees to meet their normal livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case pointed out that
“ To cope with these differences certain principles on which wages are fixed have been stated from time to
time by this Court. Broadly speaking the 1st principle is that there is minimum wage which, in any event,
must be paid, irrespective of the extent of profits, the financial condition of the establishment or the
availability of workmen on lower wages. This minimum wage is independent of the kind of industry and
applies to all alike big or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all
humanity. The 2nd principle is that wages must be fair, that is to say, sufficiently high to provide a
standard family with food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education of children appropriate to the
1930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman but not at a rate exceeding his wage earning capacity in the class of establishment to which he
belongs. A fair wage is thus related to the earning capacity and the work load. It must, however, be
realized that ‘fair wage’ is not ‘living wage’ by which is meant a wage which is sufficient to provide not only
the essentials above mentioned but a fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide for old age and
evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage, which must be paid in any event, and the living wage,
which is the goal”.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd and another Vs The UOI and
others, AIR 1958 SC 578 elaborately considered the concept of minimum wage, fair wage and living wage and held
that a minimum wage must provide for the sustenance of life and for preservation of the efficiency of the worker.
In Greaves Cotton Company and others Vs Their Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 689 and Unichem Laborataries
Ltd Vs The workmen, AIR 1972 SC 2332 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that one of the principles to be
adopted in fixing wages and DA is that the Tribunal should take into account the wage scale and DA prevailing in
comparable concerns carrying on the same industry in the region. In the present case, it is felt that the work of the
farm workers working under the Agriculture and Animal Husbandry department of the Govt of Kerala can be
compared with that of the mazdoors working in the planation of the Management Research Station. Both the
category of employees are doing the maintenance of farm in Research Stations though the farm workers working in
the research farms of the Agriculture department will not come within the purview of the Plantation Labour Act.
When the regular farm workers are entitled for a pay scale which is also linked with service weightage, there is no
reason why the same benefits cannot be extended to the mazdoors working with the Management. It is pointed out
that the casual workers are given a separate package by the State Govt which is definitely better than the present
wages available and paid to the mazdoors working in the plantation of the Research Station of the Management . It is
seen from Exbt.W6 that the farm workers are entitled for 5 scales of pay and the same is revised w.e.f. 27.06.2012.
The above pay structure is decided by the Govt after a proper study and the report of the committee and it will
appropriate to follow the same in view of the fact that no separate study was conducted in respect of the eligibility
of farm workers working in the planation of the Management Research Station. As per the Exbt.W6 order, the
following 5 scales are being paid to the farm workers in their stations which also takes into account the service
weightage depending on the length of service of an employee. Hence the mazdoors working in the plantation of the
Management Research Station are entitled for the following scale of pay.
1. The scale of pay:
- 8500-230-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13210
2. 1st time bound higher grade after 8 years
- 8730-730-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540
3. 2nd time bound higher grade after 15 years - 8960-230-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-
360-14260
4. 3rd time bound higher grade after 22 years - 9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-360-14980
400-15780
5. 4th time bound higher grade after 27 years - 9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-360-14980-400-16580
Apart from the above, the mazdoors are also entitled to the DA allowed to the State Govt employees from time to
time. They are also entitled for the other service benefits available to them as on date. The date of retirement will be
retained as 58 as on today. It is also seen from Exbt.M7, Coffee Board (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2014 that the
permanent mazdoors working in research farms of the Coffee Board are eligible for relaxation of upper age limit to the
extent of the period of service rendered by them as permanent mazdoors in Coffee Board subject to a maximum of
upper age limit of 40 years in case of appointment to group ‘C’ posts. The same provision for promotion to group C
post shall be continue.
14.
Hence an award is passed holding that the mazdoors represented by the Unions are entitled for the pay
scales with the service weightage as follows.
1. The scale of pay:
- 8500-230-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13210
2. 1st time bound higher grade after 8 years
- 8730-730-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540
3. 2nd time bound higher grade after 15 years - 8960-230-9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-
360-14260
4. 3rd time bound higher grade after 22 years - 9190-250-9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-360-14980
400-15780
5. 4th time bound higher grade after 27 years - 9940-270-11020-300-12220-330-13540-360-14980-400-16580
The mazdoors are also entitled for all other existing service benefits. The retirement age will be fixed as 58.
The permanent mazdoors shall be considered for promotion to group C post as provided in Exbt.M7 Recruitment
Rules of the Management.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1931
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 18th day of May, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman:-
WW1
-
Sri.K. Kumaran, dt.14.03.2019
Witness for the Management:-
MW1
-
Smt.Dr.C. K. Vijayalakshmi, dt.04.02.2020
Exhibits for the Workman:-
W1
-
Copy of the office memo dt.24.06.1987 issued by the Coffe Board, Research Department
W2
-
Copy of the office order dt.19.11.1996 issued by the Coffee Board, Regional Coffee Research Station,
Chundale
W3
-
Copy of the office order dt.23.03.2005 issued by the Regional Coffee Research Station, Chundale
W4
-
Copy of the office order dt.22.06.2012 issued by the Coffee Board, Regional Coffee Research
Station, Chundale
W5
-
Wage slips issued to 1) K. Kumaran for December series 2012, T. Sarojini for October 2014,
T. Sarojini for January 2015 and K. Kumaran for February 2017 (4 nos)
W6
-
Copy of the G.O. dt.27.06.2012 issued by the Govt of Kerala
W7
-
Information dt.24.12.2016 received RTI Act from the Sr. Agricultural Officer, Chingeri Extension
Scheme, Ambalavayal
W8
-
Information dt.27.04.2015 received under RTI Act from the Management
W9
-
Copy of the statement submitted by the Unions before the Conciliation Officer
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
-
Certificate of registration under the Plantation Labour Act
M2
-
Plantation Labour Committee settlement vide Govt. order dt.17.05.2016
M3
-
Appointment order issued to Sri.Dal Bahadur, mazdoor/watchman
M4
-
Appointment order issued to Smt.Saraswathy N., Plantation Labourer
M5
-
Appointment order issued to Sri.M. Ramachandran, Maistry/supervisor
M6
-
Appointment order issued to Smt.Sumathy, Junior Stenographer, permanent staff of the
Management
M7
-
Recruitment Rules of the permanent employees of the Management vide notification
dt.14.03.2014 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Govt of India
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 938.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, मेससव एचएमटी मिीन टूल्स जलजमटेड, कलामास्ट्सेरी, एनावकुलम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और
मिासजचव, एचएमटी कमवचारी संघ, कलामास्ट्सेरी, एनावकुलम, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 04/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20.09.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42011/78/2012- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager, M/s. HMT Machine Tools Ltd, Kalamassery, Ernakulam, and The
1932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
General Secretary, HMT Employees Union, Kalamassery, Ernakulam, which was received along with soft copy of the
Award by the Central Government on 20.09.2022.
[F. No. L-42011/78/2012- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Friday the 27th day of May 2022, 6 Jyaistha 1944)
ID No.4/2013
Workman/Union
:
The General Secretary
HMT Employees Union
H.M.T Colony P.O.
Kalamassery
Ernakulam - 683503
By Adv.K. Balachandran
Management
:
The General Manager
M/s.HMT Machine Tools Ltd
Kalamassery
Ernakulam – 683503
By Adv.Saji Varghese
This case coming up for final hearing on 23.07.2021 and 21.12.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court on 27.05.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.
L-42011/78/2012-IR(DU) dated 04.12.2012 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the Management of HMT in denying bonus for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 to the
trainees is justified ? If not, to what relief the trainees are entitled?”
3.
The Union filed the claim statement on behalf of the workmen. According to the claim statement, in the
Management company there are permanent, temporary, badali and casual workmen employed. Some workmen are
called trainees. Though they are called trainees, they are not being given any training. They are persons who are
already trained or were working under contractors in the Management. The so called trainees worked with other
permanent employees of the company. They are being paid monthly stipend. The Management used to pay bonus to
similar category of workmen in the past. The Union raised a dispute with the Management for payment of bonus to
these workmen for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Management refused. The minimum bonus is a statutory
right of the workmen under Payment of Bonus Act. The 64 so called trainees named in the claim statement are
entitled for bonus. The Management paid bonus to such trainees earlier. Hence it is unfair and unjust to
discriminate the above workers. Even though the designation given to the workmen taken in 2008 and 2009 are as
trainees, they are well trained, many of them with the Management. Many of the workmen worked in the
Management as causal workers and gained long experience even before the induction as trainees. Even though
designated as trainees, they were doing the very same work as any other worker in the company. The Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Labour suggested that the training period for the junior employees who were also
experienced shall be done away with by the Management. The Management is already having apprentice training
also. They are newcomers and therefore require training. The workmen who are engaged as trainees involved in
this industrial dispute, cannot be treated on par with these apprenticeship trainees. What is material is not the
designation but the actual work. These trainees are entitled for all the statutory benefits being extended to the
regular staff.
4.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. A trainee is not an employee
under the Payment of Bonus Act and therefore trainees are not entitled to payment of bonus. The Management is a
company incorporated under the Companies Act and is fully owned by the Central Govt. It is a sick industrial
company as defined under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. The Management is facing acute
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1933
financial crisis. The Management company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of machine
tools and printing presses. The manufacturing process involves highly complex skill and expertise. A person with
technical qualification cannot execute the work of such complex nature. The 61 persons involved in this dispute are
trainees and not employees. On successful completion of training, they are appointed to the post of Junior Operators.
The duties of the Junior Operator involves manufacturing of machine parts, assembling of machine, repair and
maintenance. Mere qualification is not sufficient to discharge the duties and function of a Junior Operator. As per
practice prevailing for the last 50 years, the Management is taking trainees and is giving sufficient training before
appointment as Junior Operator. Earlier the training period was 3 years which has been reduced to 2 years from 1992.
The trainees are given induction training for one year and on the job training for another year. While they are
undergoing training, their performance is assessed. Only on successful completion of training they will be absorbed
in the service of the company. Otherwise their training period will be extended. The training period of one of the
persons was extended since he did not complete the training satisfactorily. Once they are absorbed, they will be on
probation for one year and on successful completion of probation they will be confirmed in service. In the
advertisement calling for the training program, it will be specifically mentioned that the selection is to the post of
trainees. In the order of engagement of trainees, the terms and conditions are specifically mentioned. They are
leaners and are paid only stipend and not wages or other benefits during the period of training. There is no contract of
employment for these trainees with the Management. Hence they cannot claim any bonus. The claim of the Union
that no training is imparted and they were working along with the regular employees is not correct. It is also not
correct to say that bonus was paid to the trainees on earlier occasions. Once by mistake performance allowance
was paid to some of the trainees which must have been recovered from them. The Union cannot base their claim on
a mistake committed by the Management once. The claim of the Union that these workmen had already worked with
the Management and gained sufficient experience is not correct. It appears that some of them had worked under
the contractors who are awarded the work by the Management company. Having applied for the post of trainees and
having accepted the terms of appointment order as trainees and had undergone training, the workmen cannot turn
around and say that they are not trainees but employees. When the Management recruits trainees, there is no
mandatory condition that they shall be experienced. Any person who is having the qualification can apply to the
post. Conferment of any benefit mentioned in Para 5 of the claim petition will not elevate the trainees to the status
of employee. Uniforms were not given to the trainees during the 1st year of training.
5.
The Union filed rejoinder denying the claim of the Management in the written statement. Even though
designated as trainees, the workmen concerned in this dispute were actually working like any other workman. The
Management has conveniently ignored disclosing of the financial details of the company situated at Kalamassery
where the workmen concerned herein, works. The financial position of the Management at Kalamassery is good.
This is achieved by hard work put in by the workmen including the so called trainees. Earlier the workmen
similarly placed as trainees were given bonus, the denial of such benefits is part of victimization.
6.
After completion of evidence, the Union examined WW1 and WW2 and marked Exbts.W1 to W3 through
WW2. The Management examined MW1 and marked Exbts.M1 to M2.
7.
The following issues are framed for adjudication
1. Whether the trainees engaged by the Management are entitled for bonus for the years 2009-10 and 2010-
11?
2. Relief and cost?
8.
Issue No. 1
The Management is engaging trainees in the Management company. According to the learned Counsel
for the Union, most of the so called trainees are already trained as apprentices under Apprentices Act, 1961 and
some of the so called trainees had also worked under contractors in the Management company and therefore the
designation ‘trainees’ given to the workmen was only to deny the statutory benefits to them. According to the
learned Counsel for the Management, only employees are entitled for bonus in accordance with the provisions of
the Payment of Bonus Act and trainees are not employees. Therefore the workmen are not entitled for bonus. The
learned Counsel for the Management also pointed out that the Management company is involved in the
manufacturing and marketing of machine tools and printing presses wherein they used very sophisticated and
complex machines and employees cannot be inducted without imparting proper training. Hence advertisements are
issued calling for application for trainees with specific qualification and with age limit. It is not mandatory that the
applicant shall have earlier work experience. Thereafter the selected trainees are given theoretical and on the job
training for 2 years and after completion of the training, they are put under probation for 1 year. On successful
completion of probation only, they will be absorbed in the service of the Management company. The learned
Counsel for the Union argued that most of the trainees who were inducted in 2009 had already undergone the
apprentices training in the Management company and some of them had already worked under contractors in the
Management company. Hence a further training for 2 years is only to deny statutory benefits to these workmen.
They infact worked along with the regular staff and they are also doing the work of regular employees. The Union
1934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
examined WW1 to substantiate their contentions. According to WW1, he joined the service of the Management
company on 20.09.1992 and he had undergone training for 2 years. He also stated that prior to his training, he
worked in the Management company as an apprentice for 3 years. He also stated that the trainees are deputed as
service technician abroad to service the installations of the Management company. He also stated that there is no
separate training imparted during the training period. However the training center allocates assessment sheets to the
trainees. The Union also examined WW2 who is also an employee of the Management company. He also stated in
evidence that he had undergone apprentice training for 3 years from 02.02.2001-31.03.2004 with the Management
company. Exbt.W1 is the certificate to that effect issued by the Management company to WW2. Thereafter he is
taken as a company trainee on 04.04.2009. A copy of the appointment order as company trainee is produced and
marked as Exbt.W2. Exbt.W2 states that WW2 as a company trainee will be paid stipend of Rs.5800/- in the 1st
year and Rs.6000/- in the 2nd year of training. It also states that WW2 will be required to undertake multiple
operations in his work area as may be assigned to him from time to time. It further states that after successful
completion of training, he will be put on probation for a further period of 1 year. Exbt.W3 is the order of
confirmation issued by the Management company confirming the service of WW2 as Junior Operator ‘B’ w.e.f.
01.05.2012. From the above evidence, it is clear that a person who is appointed as an apprentice under the
Apprentices Act, 1961 undergoes training for 3 years and thereafter he is taken as a company trainee for 2 years
and thereafter he is put on probation for 1 year before his services are confirmed by the Management company.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, all the company trainees had not undergone the
apprentices training in the Management company. The two witnesses who were examined by the Union clearly
stated and produced evidence to show that they have undergone these process before they were regularized in the
service of the Management company. The burden of proof to show that all the so called company trainees have not
undergone the apprentices training for 3 years or with the contractors of the Management company is on the
Management. They failed to convincingly prove that all the 64 trainees had not undergone the apprentice training or
gained the experience with the Management company with the contractors engaged by the Management. The only
evidence produced by the Management is Exbt.M1 which is alleged to be a notification for appointing company
trainees in workmen cadre. The learned Counsel for the Union pointed out that this document is created for the
purpose of this industrial dispute and is not the original notification issued by the Management company. Further,
the Management also produced Exbt.M2 which is an assessment sheet for company trainees to show that the
performance of the company trainees are evaluated by the training centre. Though Management examined MW1,
he could not discredit the evidence provided by the Union.
9.
As per the definition of workman U/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, ‘workmen’ means any persons
including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical
or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied. Hence an
apprentice is also a workman under the ID Act as held by the Hon'ble High Court of UP in Uttarapradesh
Avas Evam Vikas Parishat Vs Labour Court II, 2004 LLR 432. As per Sec 2(13) of Payment of Bonus Act,
1965
“ Employee means any person other than apprentice employed on a salary or wage not exceeding 3500 per
mensum in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative,
technical or clerical work of hire or reward, whether the terms of employment being express or implied”.
Further as per Sec 2(21) of the Payment of Bonus Act
“Salary or wage” means all remuneration (other than remuneration in respect of overtime work ) capable of
being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment express or implied, were
fulfilled, be payable to an employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and
includes DA (ie., to say all cash payments, by whatever name called, paid to an employee on account of rise
in cost of living) but does not include ….”
From the above definitions it is clear that, apprentices are excluded from the definition of an employee under
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and any remuneration paid to an employee capable of being expressed in terms of
money would come within the definition of salary or wages. Now the question is whether the so called company
trainees can be treated as an “apprentice” under the Payment of Wages Act, 1965. An apprentice is not defined in
Payment of Wages Act. The learned Counsel for the Union relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Kerala in Indian Rare Earths Ltd Vs K. S. John and others, 2013 KHC 673. The above case is under Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Hon'ble High Court examined the definition of ‘Apprentice’ U/s 2(e) of Apprentices Act,
1961 and held that the exclusion is available to apprentices undergoing apprenticeship training in a designated
training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship will only come under the definition of apprentice. A person
undergoing training after appointment under an employer will not fall within the excluded category U/s 2(e) of the
Apprentices Act. After discussing the above provisions the Hon'ble High Court concluded that
“Para 10. Conclusion of the above discussion is that the exclusion of apprentices from the definition of
employee U/s 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act will be applicable only with respect to apprentice
appointed on the basis of a contract of apprenticeship, with a dominant object and intend to impart learning
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1935
in any training under certain agreed terms of contract of apprenticeship but it will not exclude any period in
service training undergone by an employee on the basis of appointment made to any particular post”.
The learned Counsel for the Management relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Small Industries Corporation Ltd Vs V. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2007 (1) SCC 214. In the above case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was examining whether in view of Sec 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 the respondent who had been
appointed as an apprentice by the Management was a workman within the meaning of Sec 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while an apprentice is also treated to be a workman for
the purpose of the ID Act by virtue of Sec 18 of the Apprentices Act, it has been provided that apprentices are not
workers and the provisions of any law in respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentices. As
already pointed out, the above case pertains to interpretation of Sec 18 of Apprentices Act and the definition of
apprentices in the said Act. In this particular case, the Management company is having apprentice trainees who are
engaged under the Apprentices Act and the Union has no claim that these apprentices are entitled for the benefit of
bonus when they worked with the Management company for 3 years. It is not fair on the part of the Management to
argue that a person who is trained as an apprentice under the Apprentices Act for 3 years requires a further training of
2 years before they can be extended the statutory benefits such as bonus. Both the Union witnesses in their evidence
categorically stated that there is no training imparted to them during this period and they worked along with the
regular employees within the Management company. The only evidence that is produced by the Management is that
there is an evaluation sheet for these trainees. The Management could not discredit the evidence of the Union that
they worked along with the regular employees doing the same kind of work. Hence it can be safely concluded that
the exclusion available U/s 2(13) is only for those apprentices who are engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961.
Hence the company trainees engaged by the Management company are entitled for bonus for the years 2009-
10 and 2010-11.
10.
Issue No. 2
In view of the finding in issue no.1, the workmen involved in this industrial dispute are entitled for bonus
for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
11.
Hence an award is passed holding that the action of the Management in denying bonus for the years 2009-
10 and 2010-11 to company trainees is not justified. They are entitled for bonus for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of May, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman:-
WW1
-
Sri.P. Krishnadas, dt.15.07.2016
WW2
-
Sri.Dal D. Kariyatty, dt.11.10.2019
Witness for the Management:-
MW1
-
Sri.N. Rajappan Asari, dt.12.03.2020
Exhibits for the Workman:-
W1
-
Copy of certificate of appraenticeship training dt.07.06.2004 issued by the Management in favour of
WW2
W2
-
Copy of correspondence dt.04.04.2009issued by the Management in favour of WW2
W3
-
Copy of correspondence dt.02.05.2012 issued by the Management in favour of WW2
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
-
True copy of the advertisement published in the web site inviting applications for trainees
M2
-
the assessment sheet of one of the trainees Sri. Rinoy Antony for the period from April 2009
to March 2011
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 939.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार क्षेत्री जनिेिक, राष्ट्री मुि जवद्याल ी संस्ट् ान, भोृाल (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री नीलेि
बघेल, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार
िबलृुर ृंचाट के
1936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(संिभव सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/15/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 14/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42012/137/2018- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/15/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Regional Director, National Institute of Open Schooli,Bhopal (M.P.) and Shri Nilesh Baghel, worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14/09/2022.
[F. No. L-42012/137/2018- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2019
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S. (Retd.)
Shri Nilesh Baghel
S/o shri Awdhesh Singh Baghel
Village Chobhra Vinayak Singh
PO-Baghad Sidhi (M.P.)-486776
Workman
Versus
The Regional Director,
National Institute of Open Schooling
Regional Cent Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills,
Bhopal (M.P.)462002
Management
AWARD
(Passed on 26-8-2022.)
As per letter dated 10/01/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
42012/137/2018-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Director, National Institute of Open Schooling Regional
Centre, Bhopal in terminating the services of workman Shri Nilesh Baghel w.e.f. 29-9-2017 is just and proper?
if not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have
filed their statement of claim/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was initially appointed on the post of
Executive Assistant by the Management on 17-10-2005 on contract with fix monthly salary of Rs.5200/- for 89 days
only, thereafter he was appointed as Executive officer on fixed salary of Rs.9500/- per month w.e.f. 9-7-2008 after
approval of Competent authority. He worked till 30-9-2017 continuously with the Management and when he came to
office on 3-10-2017 he was informed that his services was not extended from 29-9-2019. According to the workman
though his initial appointment was only for 89 days but he continuously worked from 17-10-2005 up to 29-9-2017
and had completed 240 days and more in every year, thus has acquired the status of a permanent employee. His
services could not be terminated without following procedure as per law by giving him prior notice and compensation.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1937
Accordingly termination of his services is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, hereby
referred to by the word Act.. No prior permission of the appropriate Government has been taken. Principle of first
come and last go has also not been followed, hence the action of the management is in further violation of Section
25B, 25G, 25F, 25M, 25N and 25O and is arbitrary unjust and unreasonable. According to the workman he was
appointed against a permanent vacancy. He is not gainfully employed anywhere after his termination. Accordingly,
he has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with full back wages and benefits.
3.
Inspite of service of notice of Management, none appeared from the side of the Management, hence the
reference proceeded ex-parte against the Management vide order dated 28-2-2021. The workman examined himself
on oath as witness. He was not examined by management. He filed and proved documents Exhibit W-1 to W-28 to be
referred to as and when required.
4.
I have heard arguments of Mr. Arun Patel, learned counsel for the workman. None appeared from the side of
the management.
5.
Before proceeding, certain provision of the Act Section 25B., section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H, Section
25M, Section 25N and Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947requires to be mentioned here which are as
follows:—
Section 25 B:—
Definition of continuous service.— For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised
leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due
to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the
meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman
employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a
period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that
employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons
for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such
notice, wages for the period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every
completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the
prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf,
the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that
category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer
proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-
employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have
preference over other persons
[25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—(1) No workman employed in any
industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less
than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until,— (a) the workman has
been given three months’ 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; and (b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred
1938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to as the specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf. (2) An
application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed
manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment and a copy of such application shall
also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner. (3) Where an
application for permission under sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate Government or the
specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity
of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the persons interested in such
retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the
employer, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be
communicated to the employer and the workmen. (4) Where an application for permission has been
made under sub-section (1) and the appropriate Government or the specified authority does not
communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of
sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed
to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. (5) An order of the appropriate
Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant permission shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (6), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and shall remain in force
for one year from the date of such order. 1. Sub-section (6) re-numbered as sub-section (10) by Act 49
of 1984, s. 4 (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 2. Subs. by s. 5, ibid., for section 25N (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 33 (6) The
appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the application
made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission
under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal
for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-section,
it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference. (7) Where no
application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any
retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which
the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the
benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him. (8)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate
Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the
establishment or death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct, that the
provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply in relation to such establishment for such period as may be
specified in the order. (9) Where permission for retrenchment has been granted under sub-section (3)
or where permission for retrenchment is deemed to be granted under sub-section (4), every workman
who is employed in that establishment immediately before the date of application for permission under
this section shall be entitled to receive, 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.]
25M. Prohibition of lay-off.—(1) No workman (other than a badli workman or a casual
workman)whose name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter
applies shall be laid-off by his employer except 1[with the prior permission of the appropriate
Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official
Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified authority), obtained on an application
made in this behalf, unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or to natural calamity, and in the
case of a mine, such lay-off is due also to fire, flood, excess of inflammable gas or explosion].
2[(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the
prescribed mannerstating clearly the reasons for the intended lay-off and a copy of such application
shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner.
(3) Where the workman (other than badli workmen or casual workmen) of an industrial establishment,
being a mine, have been laid-off under sub-section (1) for reasons of fire, flood or excess of
inflammable gas or explosion, the employer, in relation to such establishment, shall, within a period of
thirty days from the date of commencement of such lay-off, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the
appropriate Government or the specified authority for permission to continue the lay-off.
(4) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been made, the
appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after
giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the
persons interested in such lay-off, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons
for such lay-off, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to
be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be
communicated to the employer and the workmen.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1939
(5) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been made and the
appropriate Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or
refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such
application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration
of the said period of sixty days.
(6) An order of the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant
permission shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (7), be final and binding on all the parties
concerned and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order.
(7) The appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the
application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant
permission under sub-section (4) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred, to a
Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this
sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference.
(8) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where no application for
permission under sub-section (3) is made within the period specified therein, or where the permission
for any lay-off has been refused, such lay-off shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the
workmen had been laid-off and the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the
time being in force as if they had not been laid-off.
(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate
Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the
establishment or death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that the
provisions of sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (3) shall not apply in relation to such
establishment for such period as may be specified in the order.]
1[(10)] The provisions of section 25C (other than the second proviso thereto) shall apply to cases of lay-
off referred to in this section.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a workman shall not be deemed to be laid-off by an
employer if such employer offers any alternative employment (which in the opinion of the employer
does not call for any special skill or previous experience and can be done by the workman) in the same
establishment from which he has been laid-off or in any other establishment belonging to the same
employer, situate in the same town or village, or situate within such distance from the establishment to
which he belongs that the transfer will not involve undue hardship to the workman having regard to
the facts and circumstances of his case, provided that the wages which would normally have been paid
to the workman are offered for the alternative appointment also.
1[25-O. Procedure for closing down an undertaking.—(1) An employer who intends to close down an
undertaking of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall, in the prescribed
manner, apply, for prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure
is to become effective, to the appropriate Government, stating clearly the reasons for the intended
closure of the undertaking and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the
representatives of the workmen in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this sub-section
shall apply to an undertaking set up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or
for other construction work.
(2) Where an application for permission has been made under sub-section (1), the appropriate
Government, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the employer, the workmen and the persons interested in such closure may, having
regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the
general public and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant
or refused to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer
and the workmen.
(3) Where an application has been made under sub-section (1) and the appropriate Government does
not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of
sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed
to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days.
(4) An order of the appropriate Government granting or refusing to grant permission shall, subject to
the provisions of sub-section (5), be final and binding on all the parties and shall remain in force for
one year from the date of such order.
1940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(5) The appropriate Government may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the
employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section
(2) or refer the matter to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made
to a Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date
of such reference.
(6) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made within the period specified
therein, or where the permission for closure has been refused, the closure of the undertaking shall be
deemed to be illegal from the date of closure and the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under
any law for the time being in force as if the undertaking had not been closed down.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate
Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the
undertaking or death of the employer or the like it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that the
provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in relation to such undertaking for such period as may be
specified in the order.
(8) Where an undertaking is permitted to be closed down under sub-section (2) or where permission
for closure is deemed to be granted under sub-section (3), every workman who is employed in that
undertaking immediately before the date of application for permission under this section, shall be
entitled to receive 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.]
6.
The action of the Management is to be seen in the light of the aforesaid provisions. Case of the workman as
pleaded by him has been detailed earlier. The workman has corroborated his case in his affidavit as his examination in
chief which is uncontroverted. He has filed RTI documents. RTI application Exhibit W-1, RTI letter of Regional
Director (Exhibit W-2), (Exhibit W-3) is the attendance sheet of the workman given to him in RTI and his salary
details for the period from 2005 to 2017, Exhibit W-4 is the certificate regarding participation in Hindi Pakhwara in
2017, Exhibit W-5 is the certificate issued by Regional Director on 18-4-2011. Exhibit W-6 to W-24 are different
orders issued by management which goes to support that he worked with the Management for the period as stated by
him. Exhibit W-25 is the statement of Account of his bank account and pass book, Exhibit W-26 to W-28 which goes
to show that he received emoluments at different rates till 2017 September.
7.
As there is nothing on record to rebut these evidences, the application of the workman that he continuously
worked for 240 days in every year till 2005 till 29-9-2017 is held proved. Since there is nothing on record also to
rebut the case of the workman that he was not paid any compensation and was not given any prior notice, is
retrenchment and is held in violation of Section 25 of the Act.
8.
In the light of the findings recorded, the question which comes for consideration is to which relief the
workman is entitled to? According to the workman, he was posted against a permanent vacancy and had worked for
twelve years. Learned counsel has relied on case of Devendra Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011)4 MPLJ 62
and has submitted that keeping in view the fact that the workman is not gainfully employed and has invested his prime
period of twelve years with the institution, his reinstatement with back wages will serve the ends of justice.
9.
IN the light of the facts discussed above, I find no occasion to differ with the argument of learned counsel
except his prayer regarding back wages.
10.
Accordingly, holding the termination of the services of the workman by Management against law, he is held
entitled to be reinstated but with 25% of back wages. The reference is answered accordingly.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:—
A. The action of the management of Regional Director, National Institute of Open Schooling Regional
Centre, Bhopal in terminating the services of workman Shri Nilesh Baghel w.e.f. 29-9-2017 is held to be
unjustified.
B. The workman is held entitled to be reinstated but with 25% of the back wages.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 940.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रभारी जनिेिक, भारत िेवी इलेजक्रकल्स जलजमटेड, भोृाल (म.प्र.); का वािक अध् क्ष, ेका मििूर संघ, भोृाल
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1941
(म.प्र.)के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, भेल कमवचारी एवं अनुबंिश्रजमक सं ुि मोचाव, बाघमुघजल ा, भोृाल
(म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव
सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/29/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 14/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42011/9/2021- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/29/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Incharge Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited , Bhopal (M.P.); The Officiating Chairman, Theka
Mazdoor Sangh, Bhopal (M.P.) and The Chairman,BHEL Employees Even Contract Shramik Sanyukt Morcha,
Baghmughaliya, Bhopal (M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
14/09/2022.
[F. No. L-42011/9/2021- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2021
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S. (Retd)
The Chairman
BHEL Employees Even Contract
Shramik Sanyukt Morcha
129, Shikshak Congress (Vidhya Nagar) Colony
Baghmughaliya, Bhopal (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Incharge Director
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Bhopal (M.P.)
2. Officiating Chairman
Theka Mazdoor Sangh
LIG,27/3, C-Saket Nagar,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on 29-8-2022.)
As per letter dated 13/7/2021by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, O/o the, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-42011/9/2021-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Prabhandan (BHEL), Bhopal dwara uske sthapana mein neyojit society thekedar ke marfat teka
shramikon ke nyunetam mazdoori mein prastavet 1600 rupey prati maah prati theka karmi ke katoti mah
farvari 2021 ke vetan se karna nyayuchhit hain? yadi nahi to v ekes anutosh ko paane ke haqdar hain?”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The workman never appeared inspite of service of notice on him and nor has filed any written statement of
claim.
1942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The Management has also not filed any statement of defence.
4.
Inpsite of giving opportunities to both the parties, none of the parties have filed the written arguments.
5.
The initial burden to prove their claim lies on the workman. He has not filed any statement of claim nor has
he filed any documents or evidence in his support. The workman has miserably failed to prove his case. Hence this
tribunal is constrained to decide the reference against the workmen.
6.
Accordingly the award in favour of the Management is passed. 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
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 941.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार मेससव स्ट्काईलाकव इंफ्रा इंिीजन ररंग प्रा जलजमटेड, िुगव, छत्तीसगढ़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और मिासजचव,
ेका मििूर संघ, िुगव, छत्तीसगढ़, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
िबलृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा CGIT/LC/R/28/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज
िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 14/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।
[फा. सं. एल-42011/5/2021- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/28/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Durg, Chhattisgarh and The Genernal Secretary, Theka Mazdoor Sangh,
Durge, Chhattisgarh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
14/09/2022.
[F. No. L-42011/5/2021- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2021
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S. (Retd.)
The Genernal Secretary
Theka Mazdoor Sangh,
Akashganga,Rainbasera Supela,
Bhilai-District Durge
Chhattisgarh-490023
Workman
Versus
M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd
Durg Bypass (NH-53), Tol Plaza,
Near Dhamdha Naka
Durg, Chhattisgarh
Management
AWARD
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1943
(Passed 29-8-2022)
As per letter dated 17/2/2021 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-42011/5/2021-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Contractor engaged at Durg Bypass
under NHAI, Raipur by transferring 10 workers (list attached) and non-payment of wages due to non-joining
of duty at new site by these 10 workers represented through Theka Mazdoor Sangh, Bhilai are entitled to?
What other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The workman never appeared inspite of service of notice on him and nor has filed any written statement of
claim.
3.
The Management has also not filed any statement of defence. the Mangement has been represented by its
counsel shri J.P. Dhimole, Advocate.
4.
Inpsite of giving opportunities to both the parties, none of the parties have filed the written arguments.
5.
The initial burden to prove their claim lies on the workman. He has not filed any statement of claim nor has
he filed any documents or evidence in his support. The workman has miserably failed to prove his case. Hence this
tribunal is constrained to decide the reference against the workmen.
6.
Accordingly the award in favour of the Management is passed. 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
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 942.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिन, गजरीसन इंिीजन सव (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससव उन्नजत इंिीजन सव ,उस्ट्मान एन्क्लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबि जन ोिकों और श्री सु ाई, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 54/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/08/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-14012/17/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2019) 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 Sukhai,
worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/08/2022.
[F. No. L-14012/17/2017-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. 54/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/17/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29/10/2018
1944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN
Sh. Sukhai S/o Sh Ram Avatar
Village – Udwatkheda, Post – 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-14012/17/2017-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 SUKHAI,
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. Sukhai S/o Sh Ram Avatar, Village – Udwatkheda, Post –
Mohanlal Ganj, 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
24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019 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 on 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 had been delivered to him.
Accordingly, the service of notice was presumed sufficient 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 workman neither
turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved 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 his 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 his claim on the basis of
which the present industrial dispute has been raised; 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.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 943.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिन, गजरीसन इंिीजन सव (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससव उन्नजत इंिीजन सव ,उस्ट्मान एन्क्लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबि जन ोिकों और श्री संतोष कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1945
Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 60/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज
िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 23/08/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-14012/19/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 943.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2019) 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 Santosh
Kumar, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23/08/2022.
[F. No. L-14012/19/2017-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. 60/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/19/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29/10/2018
BETWEEN
Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh Banwari Lal
Village – Gaura, Post – Mohanlal Ganj
Lucknow – 226302
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-14012/19/2017-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 SANTOSH
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. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh Banwari Lal Village – Gaura, Post –
Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim along with
1946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019 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 on 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 had been delivered to him.
Accordingly, the service of notice was presumed sufficient 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 workman neither
turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application or adjournment seeking time to file the
statement of claim. More than two years’ have passed and the workman has failed to file his 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 his claim on the basis of
which the present industrial dispute has been raised; therefore, the present reference 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.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 944.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रबंिन, गजरीसन इंिीजन सव (ई/एम), ल नऊ,; मजससव उन्नजत इंिीजन सव ,उस्ट्मान एन्क्लेव, ल नऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबि जन ोिकों और श्री लवकुि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] िबलृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 53/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/08/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-14012/28/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2019) 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 Lavkush,
worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/08/2022.
[F. No. L-14012/28/2017- 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. 53/2019
Ref. No. L-14012/28/2017-IR(DU) dated: 15/11/2018
BETWEEN
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1947
Sh. Lavkush S/o Sh. Ramkishan
Udwatkheda, Post – 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-14012/28/2017-IR(DU) dated: 15/11/2018 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 LAVKUSH,
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. Lavkush S/o Sh. Ramkishan, Village – Udwatkheda, Post –
Mohanlal Ganj, 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
24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019 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 on 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 had been delivered to him.
Accordingly, the service of notice was presumed sufficient 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 workman neither
turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved 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 his 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 his claim on the basis of
which the present industrial dispute has been raised; 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.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 945.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री
सरकार प्रोृराइटर, मजससव स्ट्टार जिसृंग कंृनी, वेसलंगडन आइलैंड ,कोजि,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और मिासजचव,
स्ट्वातंत्र कंटेनर लॉरी ोजझलाली ूजन न (आईएनटी ूसी) कोजि, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
1948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - एनावकुलम ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 07/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.08.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[फा. सं. एल-42025/07/2022-26-आईआर-(डी ू)]
डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 21st September, 2022
S.O. 945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Proprietor, M/s. Star Shipping Company, Wellingdon Island Kochi, and The General
Secretary, Swathanthra Container Lorry Thozhilali Union (INTUC) ,Kochi, which was received along with soft copy
of the Award by the Central Government on 10.08.2022.
[F. No. L-42025/07/2022-26- IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 20th day of April 2022, 30 Caitra 1944)
ID No.07/2016
Workman/Union :
The General Secretary
Swathanthra Container Lorry Thozhilali Union (INTUC)
Kizhakke Ayyamveliparambu
KMP Nagar, Palluruthy
Kochi – 682006
By Adv.C. Anilkumar
Management
:
The Proprietor
M/s.Star Shipping Company
DLB Building, Indira Gandhi Road
Wellingdon Island
Kochi – 682003
By Adv.P. Radhakrishnan
This case coming up for final hearing on 12.10.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on
20.04.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry ofLabourby its order No. L-
16014/1/2016-IR(B-II) dated 03.02.2016 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the Management of Star Shipping Company in denying monthly wages, daily batha
and allowances and termination of services of Sri.Shibu C. J. is justifiable ? If not, what relief he is entitled
to get ?”
3.
The Union filed a claim statement stating that the workman was a driver in the Management company
from 02.02.2014 and since then his services were continuous and uninterrupted. The Management was not paying
any wages to the workman but was paid only allowances. Since the allowance was also not paid in time, there was
some dispute between the Management and drivers including the workman. Despite adverse service conditions the
workman continued to work with allowance alone. However when the Management stopped paying allowances also
in September and October 2014, the workman demanded payment of wages and allowances due to him. Thereupon
on 18.10.2014 the Management denied employment to the workman. At the time of denial of employment, no
notice, notice pay or compensation were paid to the workman. The allowances due for the last 4 trips are also
withheld by the Management. Many of the drivers junior to the workman are still working with the Management.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1949
No allegations of misconduct were raised against the workman. The action of the Management in denying
employment to the workman is vitiated by malafides.
4.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The Union or the disputing
workman have no actionable claim against the Management. As per the records, the workman joined the
Management as driver on 27.02.2014. The workman was never regular in his duties and remained unauthorisedly
absent. During his employment with the Management from 27.02.2014 to 03.10.2014 the workman had taken 65
trips for which he was paid wages, bata and allowances. Inspite of repeated requests, the workman refused to attend
the work. In addition to remaining absent, the workman entrusted the container truck of the Management to other
persons without authorization. When the same was questioned, the workman raised unnecessary allegations against
the Management. Since the workman was unauthorizedly absent, the Management had to appoint a driver for the
truck on temporary basis. The workman came with another person and protested thereby forcing the Management to
cancel the trip at the loss of Rs.15000/-. Only after interference by the Police, the obstruction created by the
workman was removed. When the Management scrutinized the details of the trip, it came to the notice of the
Management that the workman had misappropriated huge amounts from the Management. On questioning the
workman regarding the misappropriation, the workman took the truck owned by the Management away from the
premises of the company and parked somewhere without the authorization of the respondent. The Management was
compelled to file criminal complaint no. CC 857/2014 before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Majistrate Court,
Kochi and the same is pending for consideration. This case is filed as a retaliation to the criminal complaint filed by
the Management against the workman.
5.
The workman filed a rejoinder denying the allegations in the written statement.
6.
On 21.09.2021 the learned Counsel for the Union submitted that there is a possibility of out of Court
settlement in this matter. Thereafter the matter was posted on various dates to file the settlement if any, between the
Union and the Management. However neither the Union nor the Management was keen to pursue the industrial
dispute. Though the matter was posted for evidence of the Union, the Union did not come forward to give evidence.
The Management also remained absent. Hence it is felt that neither the Management nor the Union is interested in
pursuing the industrial dispute.
7.
Hence a no dispute award is passed.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 20th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 946.—औद्योजगक 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; िबलृुर ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ la[;k
61/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[फा. सं. एल-22012@67@2018&vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-2)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2022
S.O. 946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2018) 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 29/09/2022
[F. No. L-22012/67/2018 – IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2018
1950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S. ( Retd.)
Shri Lingraj Nayak,
Area Secretary
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC)
Chirmiri Area PO-West Chirmiri
Korea (Chhattisgarh)-497335
Workman
Versus
The Sub Area manager,
SECL Kurasia Group of Chirmiri Area
PO-Kurasia Colliery
District Korea (Chhattisgarh)-497335
Management
AWARD
(Passed on 8-8-2022.)
As per letter dated 13/1/208 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-22012/67/2018-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Sub-Area Manager SECL.Kurasia Gropup, Kurasia
Colliery of Chirmiri Area for taking action against Shri Babu S/o Khalia for dismissing him from service
without scrupulously following the Section 3391) of the ID Act is appropriate and justified?If not, what
relief the workman Shri Babu S/O ShriKhalia is entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Inspite of service of
notice, no statement of claim was filed from the side of the workman.
2.
The Management filed its written statement of defence. According to the management, the workman Babu,
son of Khalia was initially appointed as casual labour. As per his service records his permanent address was Village
and post Sahapur, Police Station Purushottampur, District Ganjam(Orissa). The Management received a complaint on
7-4-2017 from Satyapoojan Mishra alleging that the workman has got employment fraudulently by producing false
documents. This complaint was sent by management to Superintendent of Police, District Ganjam(Orissa) for
verification. The Superintendent of Police District Ganjam(Orissa) informed the management after inquiry that the
person whose photographs was annexed/affixed with the letter of Management is in fact of Shri Babu Pradhan S/o
late Shri Dandashi Pradahan. No person of the name Babu Son of Khalia has ever been residing at Village Sahapur.
In fact Khaliya is father-in-law of Babu Pradhan. The management decided to conduct a departmental inquiry. A
charge sheet dated 23-8-2017 was issued alleging charge under Article 26.9 and 26.22 of Certified Standing orders.
The workman denied the charges, hence the management decided to conduct an inquiry. Shri Avinash Kumar was
appointed the Inquiry Officer and Shri Sanjay Shirodh was appointed Management representative. The workman
participated in the inquiry and cross-examined the witnesses, examined the witness in his support and also filed
documentary evidence. The Inquiry Officer held the charges proved against the workman in his Inquiry Report dated
20-10-2017. The Disciplinary Authority sent a copy of Inquiry Report asking the workman to have his say on it. The
workman filed written representation against the Inquiry report on 11-1-2017. The Disciplinary Authority after
considering the inquiry report and the representation against it, concurred with the view of the Inquiry Officer and
passed the punishment order on 27-11-2017 awarding the sentence of dismissal of the workman from service.
3.
Since none appeared from the side of the workman, the reference proceeded ex-parte against the workman.
4.
The Management filed affidavit of its witness who was the Presenting Officer during the inquiry and also
proved documents Exhibit M-1 to M-10, which are inquiry papers.
5.
I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the Management and have gone through the record.
Following three points come up for consideration in the case in hand:-
(1) Whether the inquiry held is legal and proper?
(2) Whether the punishment is proportionate to the Charge?
(3) Relief to which the workman is entitled?”
6.
For the sake of convenience all these points are being taken together.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1951
7.
The initial burden to prove the first point regarding legality of the inquiry is on the workman and in absence
of any evidence from his side or pleadings, the workman is held to have failed in discharging the burden. From the
perusal of the inquiry proceedings, it comes out that the workman has participated in the inquiry. He has cross-
examined management witness and produced his oral and documentary evidence, hence the departmental inquiry
conducted against the workman is held legal and proper.
8.
As regards the second point the settled preposition of law regarding proof of charge in departmental inquiry
is that the charges need not be proved beyond doubt like criminal trial. Keeping this yardstick in view, I find no
occasion to disagree with the finding of the inquiry officer that the charges are proved.
9.
The charges proved are of impersonation and getting employment by furnishing false/fake information
which are of serious nature and invites major punishment, hence the punishment also cannot be said to be excessive.
10.
In the light of above discussion, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and he is
entitled to no relief.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:—
A. The action of the management of Sub-Area Manager SECL. Kurasia Gropup, Kurasia Colliery of
Chirmiri Area for taking action against Shri Babu S/o Khalia for dismissing him from service without
scrupulously following the Section 33(1) of the ID Act is held to be just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 947.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ la0 52/2019) izdkf'kr
djrh gSA
[फा. सं. एल-12011/30/2019-आई आर;बी.-II]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2022
S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.52/2019 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.
[F. No. L-12011/30/2019 -IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
Reference No. L-12011/30/2019-IR (B-II) Dated: 10.09.2019
egklfpo] vf[ky jktLFkku cSad lQkbZ deZpkjh la?k] edku ua- 40] pkWofj;k ekxZ] ukgjx< fdys ds uhps] t;iqj]
¼jktLFkku½
-------izkFkhZ
1952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1- mi egkizca/kd] ;wdks cSad] tksuy vkWfQl] vkWjfoV eky] nwljh eafty] vtesj jksM+ t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 10-09-2019 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh
/kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn
U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
CGIT-52/2019
“Whether the claim of Akhil Rajasthan Bank Safai Karmachari Congress, Jaipur against the management of
UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Jaipur for not giving promotion to Sh. Gopal Lal Chawariya, Housekeeper cum
Peon to the post of daftary/ clerk whereas his juniors were promoted to the post of Clerk from 2014 & 2016,
is legal & justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to? ’’
2- Je ea=ky; }kjk ;g fookn fnukad 10-09-2019 dks iathd`r Mkd }kjk bl vf/kdj.k ds lkFk lkFk
fookn ds i{kdkjksa ;Fkk izkFkhZ laxBu o foi{khx.k dks Hkh izsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g fookn fnukad
23-10-2019 dks bl vf/kdj.k esa izkIr gqvk&rFkk i{kdkjksa dh milatkfr o vfHkopuksa dh izrh{kk esa vc
rd yafcr jgk gSA vkt fnukad 06-05-2022 rd Hkh bl lanfHkZr fookn ds vxzlj.k gsrq izkFkhZ us vius
nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA Je ea=ky; }kjk lanfHkZr fookn ds laca/k esa fookn izLrqr djus
okys i{kdkj ¼izkFkhZ½ dks ;g funsZ’k fn;k x;k gS fd og mDr vkns’k dh izkfIr ds 15 fnu dh vof/k esa
vius nkos dk vfHkdFku bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr djsA pwfda izkFkhZ dks ;g vkns’k iathd`r Mkd ds
ek/;e ls izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS] ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tkuk furkar U;k;ksfpr gS fd& ftl izdkj bl
vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr vkns’k 23-10-2019 dks izkIr gks pqdk gS& izkFkhZ dks Hkh ;g vkns’k izkIr gks pqdk
gksxkA
3- bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa bl vf/kdj.k dk ;g lqfopkfjr vf/ker gS fd izkFkhZ o foi{khx.k ds e/;
lanfHkZr fookn ds vxzlj.k gsrq izkFkhZ&i{k vfuPNqd o mnklhu gSA blfy, nkos ds vfHkdFku ds vHkko
esa izkFkhZ lanfHkZr fookn esa dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4- lanfHkZr fookn dk fuLrkj.k blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
5- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk’kukFkZ
izsf"kr dh tkosaA
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 948.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vksfj;UVy cSad vkQ dkelZ ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ la0
13/2012) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1953
[फा. सं. एल-12012@65@2011&vkbZ vkj(ch--II)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2022
S.O. 948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.13/2012 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their
workmen.
[F. No. L-12012/65/2011 -IR(B-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
अनुबंि
jsQjsUl ua--L-12012/65/2011–IR(B-II) fnukad 21/12/2011
Jh ckcqyky iq= Jh osukjke th es?koky tfj;s dk;kZy; vf[ky Hkkjrh; Vs~M ;qfu;u ¼,Vd½ ftyk
ifj"kn ckMesj jk.kth ?kkaph fcYMhax guqear Hkou ds lkeus ckyksrjk & 344022
--- izkFkhZ
cuke
1- tujy eSustj] vksfj;UVy cSad vkQ dkelZ] izFke ry vkUun Hkou] lalkj pUnz jksM+] t;iqj
2- 'kk[kk izca/kd] vksfj;UVy cSad vkQ dkelZ] guqear Hkou ds ikl ckyksrjk& 344022
---------vizkFkhZx.k
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh dq.kky jkor &vf/koDrk
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ugha] ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad % 05&05&2022
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 21/12/2011 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947
¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ Mh o 2 , ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa
fuEukafdr fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k
“Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Balotara in terminating the
services of Shri Babulal S/o. Veneramji Meghwal w.e.f. 28.05.2010 is legal and justified ? What relief
the concerned workman is entitled to ?”
2-
fnukad 16-5-2012 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd foi{kh la[;k 2
}kjk vDVwcj 2000 esa izkFkhZ dks prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa HkrhZ fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ls cSad ds fofHkUu dk;Z
izkr 10 ls 'kke 8 cts rd djok;s tkrs FksA fnukad 27-5-2010 rd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu lsok dhA fnukad
28-5-2010 dks foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks vdkj.k lsokeqDr dj fn;kA lsokeqDr djus ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25
¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj ugha fn;k
x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqfDr ds mijkar u;s Jfedksa dh HkrhZ dh xbZ ,oa mUgas fu;fer dj fn;k x;kA foi{kh us dksbZ
1954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ofj"Brk lwph Hkh ugha cukbZA izkFkhZ lsoklekfIr ds mijkar csjkstxkj jgk gSA vr% lsoklekfIr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr
djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru&ifjykHkksa lfgr cgky fd;k tkosaA
3-
foi{khx.k }kjk okn dk fojks/k djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k fd izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk esa vius lk/ku ls
ty forj.k dk dk;Z djrk FkkA ty forj.k ds mijkar izkFkhZ vU; fdlh Hkh LFkku ij dk;Z djus ds fy;s Lora=
Fkk blfy;s mHk;i{k ds e/; Jfed ,oa fu;ksDrk dk laca/k ugha FkkA izkFkhZ us _.k ysus ds fy;s o"kZ 2006 esa ,d
'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k FkkA ftlesa ;g dFku Fkk fd og Loa; ;k mlds ifjokj dk dksbZ lnL; jktdh; ;k
v)Z&jktdh; lsok esa ugha gSA izkFkhZ us vius O;olk; gsrq _.k ekaxk FkkA izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us dHkh fu;qDr ugha
fd;k vkSj lsokeqDr Hkh ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dks ty forj.k dk;Z ds fy;s vkSlru 550 :i;s dk Hkqxrku okmpj ds
ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us LosPN;k ty forj.k can djds ;g feF;k okn izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh us
vf/kfu;e ds fdlh izo/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA blfy;s okn
fujLr fd;k tkosaA
4-
izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= fn- 1-4-2014 ij vf/kdj.k }kjk fn- 28-4-16 dks ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k fd foi{kh]
;kfpr vfHkys[kksa ds lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr ;fn dksbZ vfHkys[k gks] rks mldh izfr izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk l{ke
vf/kdkjh dk 'kiFk&i= vuqiyC/krk ds dkj.k lfgr izLrqr djsA bl vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa foi{kh }kjk fn- 27-6-
2016 ,oa 8-9-2016 dks lwph lfgr izys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s ,oa Jh jktho esgrk ofj"B izca/kd dk 'kiFk i= Hkh
izLrqr fd;k x;kA
5-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; ckcwyky dks ijhf{kr fd;k fdarq dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha djok;kA izkFkhZ us
vius 'kiFk i= ds pj.k la- 19 esa izn'kZ MCY;w&1 ls MCY;w rd izys[k izLrqr djus dk dFku vo'; fd;k gS
fdarq izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdZ ds nkSjku dksbZ Hkh izys[k iznf'kZr u fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;kA izkFkhZ ds bl
'kiFk i= ij fn- 11-11-2019 ls foi{kh dks izfrijh{kk dk volj fn;k x;kA fdarq 26-8-2021 rd Hkh izkFkhZ ls
dksbZ izfrijh{kk foi{kh }kjk ugha dh xbZ] blfy;s fn- 26-8-2021 dks foi{kh ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dk
vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s izfrijh{kk dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA
6-
fn- 25-4-2022 dks eSusa vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ ds ,di{kh; rdZ lqus vkSj lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA izkFkhZ dk
;g rdZ gS fd foi{kh us u rks izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr djrs le; dksbZ fyf[kr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k vkSj u gh lsok
lekfIr dk fyf[kr vkns'k fn;kA foi{kh us oknksRrj esa ;g rks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og izkFkhZ ls ty forj.k dk
dk;Z djokrk Fkk fdarq fu;qfDr nsuk fQj Hkh vLohdkj fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us tks nLrkost foi{kh ls ryc djok;s
mlesa foi{kh us ;g mRrj fn;k gS fd 10 o"kZ ds nLrkost gtkjksa dh la[;k esa gS ftUgsa yk;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA
blls ;gh vFkZ fudyrk gS fd nLrkost rks foi{kh ds ikl miyC/k gSa] ysfdu og mUgsa izLrqr ugha djuk pkgrkA
blfy;s foi{kh ds izfr izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh tkosaA izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk i= dk dksbZ fo[kaMu foi{kh }kjk ugha fd;k
x;k gSa blfy;s izkFkhZ ds dFku Lohdkj fd;s tkosaA
7-
eSusa izkFkhZ ds rdksZa ,oa lk{; ij /;kuiwoZd fopkj fd;kA rnqijkar fopkj.kh; fcanqvksa ij foosfpr
fofu'p; bl izdkj gS %&
8-
izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr frfFk vDVwcj 2000 esa gS vkSj mlus fn- 27-5-
2010 rd foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k gSA fadarq rdZ ds nkSjku vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd foi{kh
}kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k ,oa lsoklekfIr vkns'k fyf[kr esa tkjh ugha fd;s x;sA vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh
Lohdkj fd;k dh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugah dh xbZ gS] fadarq mudk ;g vk{ksi gS fd
foi{kh us muds }kjk izLrqr djok;s tkus okys nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;s] tks izkFkhZ ds i{k dk leFkZu dj ldrs
FksA bl lanHkZ esa eSusa vknsf'kdk fn- 28-4-2016] 27-6-2016 ,oa 8-9-2016 dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k gSA foi{kh
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1955
us vf/kdj.k ds vkns'kkkuqlkj fn- 27-6-2016 dks mifLFkfr jftLVj] osru Hkqxrku jftLVj vkSj okVj lIykbZ ds
Hkqxrku okmpj ftuds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] dh izfr;ka izLrqr dh gSaA bu izys[kksa dh vof/k o"kZ
2008 ls 2010 rd gSA rnqijkar fn- 8-9-2016 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr _.k izkFkZuk i=] vuqca/k ,oa
okmpj dh QksVksizfr;ka Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gSaA ;s izys[k pwafd izkFkhZ }kjk gh izLrqr djok;s x;s gSa]A blfy;s lk{;
esa iznf'kZr u gksus ds ckotwn budk voyksdu vfof/kiw.kZ ugha gSA vf/kdj.k ds vkns'kkuqlkj foi{kh ds ofj"B
izca/kd Jh jktho esgrk us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh fjdkMZ vizkFkhZ cSad
esa miyC/k ugha gSA fQj Hkh voyksdu gsrq vafre 3 o"kZ] 2008 ls 2010 ds gkftjh jftLVj Hkqxrku jftLVj o
okmplZ dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh tk jgh gSA
9-
bu izys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd o"kZ 2008 ls 2010 rd foi{kh cSad esa la/kkfjr
mifLFkfr iaftdk vkSj osru Hkqxrku jftLVj esa izkFkhZ dk uke dgha ij Hkh vafdr ugha gSA rdZ ds nkSjku Hkh izkFkhZ
ds vfHkHkk"kd us bu izys[kksa esa izkFkhZ dk ukeksYys[k u gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa ;)fi
foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk i= ij dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh xbZ gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ ds 'kiFk i= esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa
dks] foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds vkosnu ij izLrqr fd;s x;s mifLFkfr jftLVj ,oa osru Hkqxrku jftLVj ds ifj'khyu
ls dksbZ leFkZu ugha feyk gSA ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu fdlh Hkh in ij fu;qDr ugha
fd;k x;kA blfy;s izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds e/; fu;ksDrk ,oa deZdkj ds laca/k LFkkfir gksuk izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k
gSA
10-
pwafd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; fu;ksDrk vkSj deZdkj ds laca/k izekf.kr ugha gks ik;s gSa blfy;s foi{kh ls
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr lsoklekfIr ds iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru
,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dh fof/kd vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku laHkkO;
izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad esa vius lk/ku ls ty forj.k ek= djrk Fkk ftldk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk
foi{kh }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s okmpj dh izfr;ksa ls izekf.kr gksrk gS] ftudh iq'r ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj gksuk
n'kkZ;k x;k gSA
11-
bl foospu ds mijkar pwafd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ijLij deZdkj vkSj fu;ksDrk gksuk izekf.kr ugha gq;s gS
blfy;s fn- 28-5-2010 dks foi{kh }kjk dfFkr :i ls dh xbZ lsoklekfIr Hkh izekf.kr ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA
vr% ;g fopkj.kh; fcanq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA
12-
Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fookn dk mRrj
mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
13-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 949.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम 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;] कानृुर ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
133/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[फा. सं. एल-22011@3@2019&vkbZ vkj(lh-,e--II)]
1956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2022
S.O. 949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 133/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Kanpur 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 30/09/2022
[F. No. L-22011/3/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
PRESENT
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA
HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 133/2019
Ref. No. L-22011/3/2019-IR(CM-II) dated: 26.03.2019
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of India Shramik Union
2715, 2nd floor, Gali No. 7, Chuna Mandi,
Near Sangatrashan, Police Chowki, Pahargunj,
New Delhi - 110055
AND
1. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Blue Star Building, 14/79, Civil Lines, Kanpur (U.P.) – 208001.
2. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226001.
AWARD
This award is delivered in respect of the Industrial Dispute communicated to this Tribunal in letter no.
L-22011/3/2019 – IR (CM-II) dated 26/03/2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The
reference is stated as here under:
“Whether the actions of the management of Food Corporation of India, Lucknow/ Kanpur in not revising the
piece rate of wages payable to the workers working under “No work no pay” system at FCI, FSD Etawah,
from the date it become due, is just and fair? IF not, to what relief the workers concerned are entitled?”
After the reference was received the Industrial Dispute 133 of 2019 was registered and on 13/05/2019, on
28/06/2019 and on 08/08/2019 workmen side appeared before the Tribunal but no claim statement has been filed by
the workmen. The proceeding was fixed to 30/10/2019, 09/01/2020, 14/02/2020, 07/05/2020, 23/09/2020,
18/12/2020, 24/02/2021, 06/04/2021, 12/05/2021, 16/07/2021, 21/09/2021, 12/10/2021, 09/12/2021, 27/01/2022 and
07/04/2022.
On the aforesaid dates no one appeared on behalf of the workmen side and no claim statement has been filed.
On the other hand one memo has been filed on behalf of the O.P. management side that Food Storage Depot Etawah
has already effected revision of piece rate wages. This memo of the management side has not been controverted on
record. It is presumable that the workmen are not willing to pursue the Industrial Dispute stated in the reference as
communicated to this Tribunal.
Hence the reference is answered with ‘nil’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1957
नई दिल्ली, 3 vDrwcj, 2022
का.आ. 950.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ए र इंजड ा चाटवसव जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vDrwcj vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k - सि - Je U;k;ky; एनावकुलम कोचीन ds
iapkV ds (lanHkZ la[;k 11/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2022 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[फा. सं. एल-11012@50@2014&vkbZ vkj(lh-,e--I)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2022
S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.11/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Ernakulam Cochin as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Air India
Charters Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/09/2022
[F. No. L-11012/50/2014 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 20th day of April 2022, 30 Caitra 1944)
ID No.11/2015
Workman/Union
:
The Regional Secretary
Aviation Industry Employees Guild
Kerala Region, Air India
International Airport-II
Trivandrum – 24
By Adv.Ashok B. Shenoy
Management
:
The Chief Executive Officer
M/s. Air India Charters Ltd
Corp. Head Quarters
Gandhi Square, D. H. Road
Kochi – 682016
By M/s. Menon & Pai
This case coming up for final hearing on 02.09.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on
20.04.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-
11012/50/2014-IR(CM-I) dated 12.02.2015 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the Management of Air India Charters Ltd in denying the flying allowance as notified
for AAICS in their circular dt.16.03.2011 to those Airline Attendants assigned with the duties of Airline
Attendant in charge is fair and justifiable? To what relief they are entitled to?”
3.
According to the claim statement filed by the Union, the workmen are employed by the Management in
their services as Airline Attendants attending the duties and works of rendering in-flight services in aircrafts during
the flying hours. The flying attendants are paid fixed monthly emoluments and emoluments based on their flying
1958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hours, apart from that they are also paid various allowances depending on the nature of duties and functions
assigned and discharged by them. The emoluments and allowances are payable to the workman in terms of Circular-
Staff Notice no.AICL/AA/18-5/250 dt.16.03.2011 issued by the Management. One of the allowances payable is
flying allowance which is payable based on flying hours at the rate fixed for each flying hour. As per the Staff
Notice dt.16.3.2011 flying allowance payable for the discharge of duties of Airline Attendants is fixed at the rate of
Rs.200/-per flying hour, for higher level duties of Senior Airline Attendant, the allowance is Rs.300/- per flying
hour and for discharging of the still higher level duties of Airline attendant in Charge, it is fixed at the rate of
Rs.400/- per flying hour. The Management while operating their aircrafts and flights, nominates the higher duties of
Airline Attendant in Charge to one of the Airline Attendants deployed in that particular flight. Such assignments of
higher duties and responsibilities of Airline Attendant in Charge is quite distinct and higher from that of a mere
Airline Attendant. Airline Attendants are made to work against and discharge higher duties and functions of Airline
Attendant in Charge without actually promoting them. Despite discharge of higher duties of Airline Attendant in
Charge, Management does not pay them the flying allowance payable to Airline Attendant in Charge, at higher rate
of Rs.400/- per flying hour. They are being paid at a lower rate of Rs.200/- per flying hour for discharge of higher
functions of Airline Attendant in Charge. The action of the Management in denying and not paying flying
allowance at the higher rate payable to Airline Attendant in Charge to Airline Attendant for discharge of the higher
functions and duties of Airline Attendant in Charge is illegal, unfair and unjust. The workmen are entitled for
arrears of flying hours at higher rate for the period from 01.04.2011.
4.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. Subsequent to filing of this dispute
vide Staff Notice no.AICL,/AA/18-5/250 the Management implement new career progression and enhanced
emoluments including flying allowance at per hour basis w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Accordingly the Airline Attendants are
paid fixed monthly emoluments based on their flying hours. They are also entitled for various other allowances
depending upon the nature of duties assigned and performed by them including flying allowance which is paid to
them based on the flying hours discharged by them. In view of the above, the issue regarding flying allowance has
been resolved and redressed and accordingly the industrial dispute has become infructuous. As per the new career
progression policy, Airline Attendants who has completed 5 years of continuous service will be given a career
progress as Senior Airline Attendant and a Senior Airline Attendant who has completed 5 years of continuous
service will be given a career progression as Airline Attendant in Charge and Airline Attendant who has completed
5 years of continuous service will be given career progression as Check in Airline Attendant. This career progression
procedure will be considered based on the performance and seniority in the previous grade. In April 2016, on
completion of 5 years of service, 50 Airline Attendants were eligible to be promoted as Airline Attendant in Charge.
5.
The Union filed a replication denying the averments in the written statement. Introduction or implementation
of the new career progression and enhanced emoluments w.e.f. 01.04.2015 vide Staff Notice no.AICL/AA/18-5/250
dt.29.04.2015 in no way redressed the industrial dispute raised with reference to Staff Notice dt.16.03.2011. This is
all the more so, when the claims in the subject relates to the period for 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015.
6.
From 12.07.2019 onwards the matter was posted for evidence of Union. On 17.09.2019, the learned Counsel
for the Union submitted that he has no instructions from the Union. Hence the matter was posted for the evidence of
the Management. After few postings, the Management also came forward and submitted that since the Union is not
proposing any evidence, they are also not proposing any oral evidence.
7.
The denial of flying allowance as per circular dt.16.03.2011 to Airline Attendants assigned with the duties
of Airline Attendant in Charge is the subject dispute referred by the Govt. The learned Counsel for the
Management submitted that the Management introduced a new career progression and enhanced emoluments
including flying allowance from 01.04.2015 and therefore the claim of the Union has become infructuous. Though
the Union in their rejoinder submitted that their claim in the subject dispute related from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015
and the new scheme is introduced from 01.04.2015 and therefore it is not correct to claim that the industrial dispute
raised by them is resolved or redressed , they did not come forward to give any evidence either oral or documentary.
Since the Union failed to give any evidence, the Management also did not adduce any evidence on their side. Since
the Union failed to prosecute the matter by producing the required evidence, I am of the considered view that there is
no illegality in denying the flying allowance notifying as per Circular dt.16.03.2011.
8.
Hence an award is passed holding that there is no illegality in denying the flying allowance notified as per
Circular dt.16.03.2011 to those Airline Attendants assigned with duties of Airline Attendant in Charge.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 20th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1959
नई दिल्ली, 3 vDrwcj, 2022
का.आ. 951.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम 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; एनावकुलम कोचीन ds iapkV ds
(lanHkZ la[;k 43/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2022 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[फा. सं. एल-20013@01@2022&vkbZ vkj(lh-,e--I)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2022
S.O. 951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.43/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Ernakulam Cochin 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 30/09/2022
[F. No. L-20013/01/2022 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Monday the 11th day of April 2022, 21 Caitra 1944)
ID No.43/2014
Workman/Union
:
1.
Late Smt.T. Pushpa
Parapoyil House
Post Eravannur
Via Narikunni
Kozhikode – 673585
Impleaded workmen
:
2.
Sri.Karunan P.
Parapoyil House
Post Eravannur
Via Narikunni
Kozhikode – 673585
3.
Smt.Ajithakumari P.
Ulinkunnumal (H)
Vattoli Bazar
Balussery
Kozhikode
4.
Smt.Preetha P.
Vayalkuniyil (H)
Eravannur P.O.
Narikunni
Kozhikode – 673585
5.
Smt.Bindhu P.
Sasipuram (H)
Thekkearattupoyil
Makada P.O.
1960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Kakkodi
Kozhikode
6.
Sri.Binu P.
Pannyamvelly (H)
Parannur P.O.
Narikunni
Kozhikode
Adv. Rekha R.
Managements
:
1.
District Manager
Food Corporation of India
West Hill
Kozhikode – 673005
2.
The General Manager
Food Corporation of India
Regional Office
Trivandrum – 695001
By Adv.Manju Rajan
This case coming up for final hearing on 02.02.2021 and 01.11.2021 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court on 11.04.2022 passed the following:
AWARD
1.
This is an industrial dispute filed U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
As per the claim statement, the worker joined the Management in the year 1978. She worked as a casual
labourer till 2011. She worked from 10 AM to 5 PM during all these years on every working day. During
February 2011 the worker was diagnosed cancer. The worker submitted the details of her treatment in Medical
College Hospital to the Management authorities. The worker came out of treatment and recouped her health during
January 2012 and with the fitness certificate issued by the Doctor, she approached the Management on 09.01.2012
for joining the duty. She was not allowed to join the duty and was informed that they would issue an order. She
continued for reporting for duty but she was not allowed to sign the attendance register. Later when enquired through
Union, it was informed that her name had been removed from the rolls and she was terminated from service. The
worker sent a request letter to the then Member of Parliament on 15.01.2013. The Member of Parliament requested
the Management vide his letter dt.15.01.2013 for immediate intervention. However the reply of the Management
was in negative. The worker had continuous and uninterrupted service from the time of joining the service since the
year 1978. The superannuation age applicable to the employees of the Management is 60 years of age. The
Management is also liable to pay medical expenses for the treatment incurred by her. Now the worker is out of the
employment and is having no source of income. On 12.06.2013 the worker filed a complaint before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner(Central), Ernakulam. The conciliation ended up in failure as the Management failed to
co-operate.
3.
The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. There is no industrial dispute in
this case as defined U/s 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no relationship of employer and employee in
this case. The industrial dispute is barred by limitation. After filing of this industrial dispute, the worker expired on
09.10.2014. Hence the question of reinstatement and back wages does not arise. After the death of the worker, two
impleading petitions were filed by the husband and 4 children of the worker. No Legal Heirship Certificate was
produced by them to show that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The present industrial dispute is raised
on an experimental basis. The claim of the worker that she was an employee of the Management company from
1978 is not correct. The worker was working under different contractors under the labour contract societies since
1978. The worker was never directly employed by the Management. The payments made to the worker was only
through the contractor who engaged them for work. Though the worker applied for leave from 26.03.2011 along
with medical certificate stating that she was suffering from Cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation
from 30.04.2011, the Management could not accept the application as the worker was not a direct employee. The
Management introduced “No Work No Pay” System (NWNP System) in Food Storage Depot (FSD), West Hill,
Kozhikode w.e.f. 01.12.2011. As per NWNP System, only those workers who had been paid wages for atleast 9
months during the last 12 months were to be considered for employment. The worker was absent for 8 months out of
past one year prior to introduction of NWNP System in January 2012. Hence she was not allowed to work under
NWNP System. The worker approached the Management in January 2012 with a Fitness Certificate issued by a
Doctor and requested for rejoining the duty. By that time NWNP System was already introduced. Since the worker
was not eligible she was not enrolled into the scheme. Since the worker was never an employee of the Management,
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1961
she is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by her for treatment. The Management was
considering the induction of the worker due to the vacancy which arose on the retirement of another labourer. In the
meanwhile the worker expired on 09.10.2014, before a final decision was taken. The privilege available to the legal
heirs are not applicable to the worker because she had never been an employee under the Management.
4.
The worker filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the written statement filed by the Management. The
worker was employed, paid, controlled and supervised by the Management and therefore the industrial dispute is
maintainable. The worker raised the dispute over the issue of her denial of employment. Such a dispute is
maintainable U/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The worker was denied employment in 2012 and the dispute
is raised in 2014 and therefore the industrial dispute is well within the period of limitation. The worker died during
the pendency of these proceedings. The legal heirs are entitled for wages from the date of denial of employment till
her death and one among the legal heirs is also eligible to get compassionate employment. The Legal Heirship
Certificate will be produced during the course of this proceedings. As a worker who spent 34 years working for the
Management has approached this Court with clean hands. The worker joined the service of the Management in the
year 1978. She continued in the service of the Management till 2011 when she applied for leave on medical grounds.
The worker was not aware of the contractors under whom she was stated to have worked. There is no immediate
employer in between the worker and the Management. If at all there is a contractor, such contract is without the
knowledge of the worker and is a sham arrangement to deprive the legal claims of the worker. If the veil is lifted it
can be seen that the worker was an employee of the Management. The deceased worker was employed by the
Management and hence the Management is bound to accept the medical leave application. However the Management
has not rejected the same. The “No Work No Pay” system and engagement of workers who worked 9 months during
the 12 months are totally different. Since the worker was undergoing treatment for cancer, there was no justification
for the Management to deny employment only on the ground that she was absent because of her disease. It is pointed
out that, though the Management is contenting that the worker was working under different contractors, they are not
disclosing the names and details of the contractors which would show the lack of bonafides in the contention of the
Management. When the worker reported for duty in January 2012, she was denied employment on the ground that
she was absent for 8 months undergoing treatment. The nature has made the life of the deceased miserable, but the
Management had made it more miserable by denying employment to her. The worker is eligible to continue in
service of the Management till she attained the age of 60 and the worker is eligible to get reimbursement of medical
expenses which was denied to her without any justification. The averment that the worker was employed through a
contractor is made for the first time only to deprive the legal rights of the deceased. The averment that the
Management considered the claim of the worker for permanency on the retirement of another regular worker itself
shows that the worker had a right for employment under the Management and it will pass on to the eligible legal
heirs on the death of the worker. The claim of the worker will not become infructuous on account of her death.
The claim will not abate on account of the death of the worker and her legal heirs can continue the dispute in view of
Sec 10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The worker had a very clear cause of action to raise the dispute the
moment she was denied employment by the Management and the same will pass on to the legal heirs on her death.
Since the legal heirs are already impleaded, they are eligible to get the back wages and other benefits as if she
continued in service till her death.
5.
During the pendency of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the worker filed two IAs as IA no.210/2014
and IA no.87/2015. According to IA no.210/2014, the worker in this industrial dispute died on 09.10.2014
and further pleaded that her husband Sri.Karunan may be impleaded as a party in this industrial dispute. The Counsel
produced the Death Certificate of the worker and also a certificate from the Village Officer, Madavoor confirming
that Sri.Karunan is the husband of the worker. As per IA no.87/2015 filed by the learned Counsel for the worker,
it was pleaded that the children of the worker may also be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. A copy of the
Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer, Madavoor was also produced along with the IA. Later the
Counsel also produced the Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of Late.T. Pushpa issued by the Tahsildar, Calicut
showing the applicants in the IA as legal heirs of the deceased worker. This Tribunal after hearing the parties
allowed both the IAs vide order dt.08.04.2016 and directed Sri.Karunan, the husband of the deceased worker to be
impleaded as the 2nd additional workman and the children as additional workmen 3 to 6.
6.
On completion of pleadings, Smt.Preetha P the 4th impleaded worker was examined as WW1 and marked
Exbts.W1 to W11 through her. The Management examined MW1 and marked Exbt.M1 to M3.
7.
The following issues are required to be adjudicated in this dispute;
1.
Whether the worker was the direct employee of the Management ?
2.
Whether the worker and consequent her death the legal heirs are eligible to get the monitory and
other benefits of the deceased worker ?
3.
Relief and cost?
1962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Issue No. 1
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the worker was not an employee of the
Management, Food Corporation of India. She was working under different contractors under the labour contract
societies since 1978. All the payments to the worker were made through the contractors who engaged her for the
work. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the worker worked directly under the control and
supervision of the Management and therefore the Management is liable to regularize her service and also pay her
all the monitory benefits consequent her death on 09.10.2014. According to the learned Counsel for the worker,
the worker worked for 34 years with the Management and it is not fair on the part of the Management to take a
contention that she worked under various contractors during all these years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Hussainbhai Vs Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, 1978 KHC 625 considered the question of contract workers
as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the above case, 29 workmen were denied employment which
led to the reference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
“ Para 5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers
labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is
, infact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued
employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually, laid off. The presence of
intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is
of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment,
we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is
the Management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form
depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the life, may
be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38,
39, 42, 43 and 43A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid mischief and achieve the
purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances.
Para 6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and
services for the benefits and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence
of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap
the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off
“.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the issue in Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sang Ltd
Vs Vinod Kumar Sharma, 2011 KHC 4769. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances observed
that
“Para 2. In order to avoid their liability under various labour statutes, employers are very often resorting to
subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are, infact, the employees of a contractor. It is high time
that this subterfuge must come to an end.
Para 3. Labour statues were meant to protect the employees/ workmen because it was realize that the
employers and employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was
required so that they may not be exploited. However, this new technic of subterfuge has been adopted by
some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statues by
showing that the concerned workmen are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a
contractor, or that they are merely daily wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they are doing
the work of regular employees.
Para 4. This Court cannot countenance such practices anymore. Globalization/liberalization in the name of
growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers “.
In this particular case, the case of the worker is that she was working with the Management from 1978 to
2011. During February 2011 the worker was affected the breast cancer and she was under going treatment in Govt
Hospital, Kozhikode. The Management was informed of her decease and consequent treatment. When she reported
for duty on 09.01.2012 along with a fitness certificate she was informed that she was removed from the rolls of the
Management. She tried to get back her employment through the Union as well as through the local Member of
Parliament. According to the learned Counsel for the Management, she could not be reinstated as the Management
introduced “ No Work No Pay (NWNP) System”. As per the NWNP System, only those workers who and been
paid wages for at least 9 months during the last 12 months prior to 01.12.2011 were considered for employment
under the system. Since the worker was absent for 8 months prior to introduction of NWNP System, her case was
not considered, though the worker submitted her leave application on medical grounds from 26.03.2011 onwards.
The Management witness MW1 in his evidence also admitted the fact that the worker was working with the
Management from 1978. He further admitted the fact that the provident fund contribution in respect of the worker
was being paid by the Management. Of course he clarified that the contribution paid by the Management is deducted
from the contract amount paid to the contractors.
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1963
9.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the worker was employed by the Management
through different contractors. However the Management failed to produce any evidence such as proof of contract
or adduced any evidence on the side of the contractor to substantiate their claim that the worker was working under
the contractor. The learned Counsel for the worker relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in H.M.M. Coaches Ltd now M/s.HMM Infra Ltd and others Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Ambala and another, 2016 2 LLJ 26 (P&H) to argue that it is the responsibility of the Management to adduce
evidence to support their case that the worker was engaged through a contractor. In the above case the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the burden of proof is on the Management to establish the
fact that the workmen involved in that case were the workers of contractors. After examining the evidence on record
the Hon'ble High Court held that
“The only possible way for the Management to have come out of its predicament was to have summoned the
contractor as its own witness for them to face cross examination by the workers so that the truth would be
revealed. I have no doubt in my mind that the attempt to introduce the contractors into the picture was clearly
an afterthought which was not even the case stated in the claim statement of the petitioner”.
The Hon'ble High Court concluded that “when there is not even an iota of unimpeachable evidence on record
to come to any other conclusion than the one taken by the Labour Court then there is no gainsaying that the evidence
produced leaned in favour of the worker to conclude that there was indeed a direct relationship between
the workmen and the Management ”. The learned Counsel for the Management relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh K. K. and another Vs Food Corporation of India and others, 2018 KHC
4363 to argue that the contract employees cannot claim the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act against the
principal employer. In the above case, the workmen failed to adduce any evidence to establish their relationship
with the Management and on the other hand the Management produced evidence to show that the workmen were in
fact the workers of a contractor. In view of the evidence adduced by the Management, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the worker can claim the reliefs if any, only from the society and not from the principal employer. In this
case as already pointed out, the Management failed to produce any document or evidence to support their case that
the worker was engaged through contractors for 34 years of her service with the Management.
10.
The law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts regarding the test to be applied
when there is a claim of an intermediary contractor by the Managements, goes in favour of the worker as there is no
evidence from the side of the Management to establish the claim of an intermediary contractor.
Hence the issue whether the worker was an employee of the Management is decided in favour of the
worker and against the Management.
11.
Issue No. 2
According to the learned Counsel for the worker, the worker worked with the Management as Sweeper from
1978. The Management also admitted the fact that the worker worked with the Management from 1978, though
the Management claimed that the worker worked under different contractors. The Management witness MW1 also
admitted the fact that the worker worked with the Management from 1978 onwards. Exbts.W4 dt.06.07.2012 and
Exbt.W7 dt.25.01.2012 are letters sent by the Area Manager of Food Corporation of India to the General Manager,
Food Corporation of India recommending to consider the case of the worker against any of the four retiring Ancillary
Labourer. In these letters the Area Manager had recommended regularization of the service of the worker after she
reported for duty along with a fitness certificate after treatment for breast cancer. Exbt.W9 dt.05.04.2013 also
recommended for induction of the worker in the service of the Management. However before a final decision is
taken in this matter, the worker died on 09.10.2014. The worker also produced the Attendance Register from
01/2011 to 03/2013 to show that the worker was on a monthly salary and was working continuously with the
Management. Exbt.M3 is a statutory return in Form 3A under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 which also
shows the worker was on a monthly wage and the provident fund contribution was being remitted by the
Management. The learned Counsel for the worker relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division Vs Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, 2010 KHC 6126 to argue that once
the worker discharged her responsibility by producing the documents at her command, the burden shifts to the
Management to prove that she has not worked for more than 240 days as required U/s 25B of the Act. In the above
case the workman was a watchman who was paid daily wages and whose presence were marked in the Muster
Roll. According to the Management, the workman worked from 1986 till 1988 and during this period the
workman had worked for 93 days, 145 days and 31 days respectively. According to them the workman had not
worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in R. M.
Yellatty Vs Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 (1) SCC 106 held that
“The respondent was a workman hired on daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed out in
the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the above documents, Muster Roll
etc., in connection with his service. He came forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof
1964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
shift to the employer/appellant to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period
to constitute continuous service “.
12.
In the present case also it is seen that the 4th impleaded worker was examined as WW1 and she stated in
her evidence that the worker worked with the Management from 1978 to 2011. However she could only produce
supporting documents for the year 2007-2011. The learned Counsel for the worker relied on the decision of Gauri
Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 (12) SCC 754. In the above case, the workman was working with the
respondent and his case was that he was appointed against a permanent and sanctioned post w.e.f. 01/1990 till his
services came to be retrenched and he had rendered service of more than 240 days in every calendar year and has
received salary from the respondent department each month. The workman challenged the retrenchment as bad in law
as the same is in violation of Sec 25F, 25G, 25H, 25T and 25U of the ID Act. The workman applied for production
of the Muster Roll and the management failed to produce the relevant Muster Rolls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
relying on its earlier decisions in Gopal Krishna G Ketker Vs Muhammed Haji Latheef, AIR 1968 SC 1413 and
Murukesam Pillai Vs Manikyavasaka Pandara, 1917 (5) LW 759 held that even if the burden of proof does lie on
a party, the Court can draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can
throw light on the facts of issue. The learned Counsel for the worker also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs Mahak Singh and others, 2007 (4) SCC 94, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the workman discharged their initial onus by producing the documents in
their possession, it is the responsibility of the management to disprove the claim of the workman that he did not work
for more than 240 days with the management one year immediately prior to his/her termination. In this case there is
no dispute regarding the fact that the worker was working with the Management w.e.f. 1978. There is no dispute
regarding the fact that the worker was not allowed to join the service when she reported for duty after availing
medical leave for treatment of cancer from 02/2011 to 01/2012. The evidence discussed above will substantiate the
case. There is also evidence that the Management was paying monthly salary to the worker and her provident fund
contribution was paid by the Management. WW1, the 4th additional worker, the daughter of the deceased worker
also entered the box and deposed that her mother worked with the Management till March 2011. Hence it can be
safely be concluded that the legal heirs of the worker had discharged their responsibility of proving that the worker
worked for more than 240 days in one year prior to her termination. In such circumstances, as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, it is possible to draw an adverse inference that the worker worked for
more than 240 days in view of the fact that the Management failed to produce any documents to disprove the claim
that she worked continuously for more than 240 days in one year prior to her termination.
13.
According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the prayer in the claim petition is for reinstatement
with back wages. Since the worker expired on 09.10.2014, the reliefs claimed by the worker cannot be granted in
this industrial dispute. According to the learned Counsel for the worker, it is an admitted fact that the worker
worked with the Management from 1978 to February 2011. Since the worker is diagnosed with cancer, she could
not report for work from March 2011. When she reported for duty on 09.01.2012 along with a fitness certificate, she
was not allowed to join duty and on enquiry, it is confirmed that her services were terminated by the Management.
The worker therefore raised this industrial dispute. During the pendency of the industrial dispute, the worker died on
09.10.2014. This Tribunal allowed the application of the legal heirs to be impleaded in the proceedings. As per Sec
10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
“ No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an industrial
dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman, and
such Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and submit its award to
the appropriate Govt”.
Hence the legal heirs of the worker continued to adjudicate the claim filed by the late worker and they are
entitled for the monitory benefits if any, accrued to the worker during her service with the Management.
Hence the worker has rendered continuous service of 240 days with the Management one year prior to her
termination and the legal heirs are entitled for the monitory benefits accrued to the worker during her service with the
Management.
14.
Issue No .3
It is already found in the earlier paragraphs that the worker was working directly under the Management
and after her death, the legal heirs are entitled for all the benefits. According to the learned Counsel for the
Management, the Management introduced “No Work No Pay” System in Food Storage Depot, West Hill,
Kozhikode w.e.f. 01.12.2011. As per the above scheme, those workers who had been paid wages atleast for 9
months during the last 12 months were to be considered for employment. Since the worker was absent for 8 months
out of past one year prior to introduction of NWNP system, she was not allowed to work under the scheme. It was
also admitted by the Management that the leave application submitted by the worker on 26.03.2011 along with
medical certificate was not considered since she was not a regular employee under the Management and working
under different contractors. It was also admitted that the worker approached the Management with a fitness
certificate to rejoin duty. By that time the Management had already introduced NWNP system in which the
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1965
payments are made directly by the Management. Due to her ineligibility she was not enrolled into the system. As
already found, the worker was a direct employee of the Management during the relevant point of time and it is not
correct on the part of the Management to deny her the benefit of the new system only due to the fact that she was on
medical leave due to cancer. It is fairly admitted by the Management in para 14 of the written statement that they
work considering induction of the worker into the new system due to the vacancy which arose on retirement of
another labourer. However she could not be extended the benefits due to her unfortunate death on 09.10.2014.
Hence the denial of benefits under NWNP scheme w.e.f. 01.12.2011 is illegal and therefore she is entitled for the
benefits w.e.f. 01.12.2011 from the date the new system is introduced by the Management.
15.
There is no dispute regarding the fact that the worker was employed by the Management with effect from
1978. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that she continued to work with the Management till March 2011.
Later she approached the Management in January 2012 along with a fitness certificate however she was denied
employment on the ground that the Management had already introduced NWNP system and the worker was not
eligible to be considered under the system for employment. From Exbt.M3, it is seen that the wage paid to the
worker for March 2011 was Rs.3460/-. She worked with the Management for almost 33 years. The worker expired
on 09.10.2014 when she was fighting for her employment and when the Management was considering her induction
into the Management service under the new scheme. The learned Counsel for the worker relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adayapak Mahavidyalaya , 2013 10
SCC 324 and argued that when the termination of the worker is found to be illegal she is entitled for reinstatement
with back wages. In this case since the worker is no more, there is no question of reinstatement. However the
legal heirs of the worker are entitled to claim the monitory benefits that accrued to the worker consequent on the
finding that her termination was illegal. As already pointed out, the worker was working with the Management for
more than 33 years, when her services were terminated. She is also entitled for back wages from the date of her
termination till her death on 09.10.2014 and the statutory benefits U/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Taking
into account all the above facts and the monthly salary reflected in Exbt.M3, interest of justice will be met if the
Management is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of full and final settlement of all the
monetary claims. Though the learned Counsel for the worker argued that one of the legal heirs is also entitled for a
compassionate appointment as per the scheme prevailing in the Management, no such evidence regarding the scheme
is produced in this industrial dispute. However as already found, since the Management was considering the
induction of the worker as per the NWNP system and the scheme of compassionate appointment, if any, available in
the Management for the NWNP system, the Management may consider the compassionate appointment of one of the
eligible legal heirs in the system.
16.
Hence an award is passed holding that the action of the Management in denying employment to the worker
is not correct and justified. The legal heirs of the worker are entitled for a lumpsum monitory compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of full and final settlement of all the monitory claims.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 11th day of April, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman:-
WW1
-
Smt.Preetha, dt.31.10.2019
Witness for the Management:-
MW1
-
Sri.Sunny George, dt.23.01.2020
Exhibits for the Workman:-
W1
-
True copy of Relationship Certificate
W2
-
True copy of Death Certificate of Late Smt. T. Pushpa
W3
-
True copy of letter dt.04.04.2014 of Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam
W4
-
True copy of the letter dt.06.07.2012 of the Area Manager to the General Manager, FCI
W5
-
True copy of Certificate showing the period of rest advised to the worker issued by Medical College
Hospital, Kozhikode
W6
-
True copy of the Fitness Certificate issued by the Medical Officer Dr.Hamza Palakkal
W7
-
True copy of the letter dt.25.01.2012 of the Area Manager, FCI
W8
-
True copy of the letter dt.15.01.2013 of the M.P. Sri.M. K. Raghavan
1966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
W9
-
True copy of the letter dt.05.04.2013 of the Area Manager, FCI
W10
-
True copy of the Legal Heirship Certificate
W11
-
True copy of the Muster Roll for January 2011 to March, 2011
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
- True copy of the letter dt.05.07.2011 of Director, Ministry of CAFPD, Dept. of Food & Public
Distribution, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
M2
-
True copy of the letter dt.04.08.2011 of Dy. Gen. Manager (IR-L), FCI, HQ, New Delhi
M3
-
True copy of the EPF account statement No. KR/KKD/00003602/000/0000405
dt.05.10.2012 of Late Smt.T. Pushpa
नई दिल्ली, 3 vDrwcj, 2022
का.आ. 952.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बडव वल्डवाइड फ्लाइट सर्ववस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड 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; एनावकुलम कोचीन
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40/2021) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2022 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[फा. सं. एल-11012@6&7@2021&vkbZ vkj(lh-,e--I)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2022
S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Ernakulam Cochin as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Bird
Worildwide Flight Service Pvt Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/09/2022
[F. No. L-11012/6&7/2021 – IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Wednesday the 13th day of July 2022, 22 Asadha 1944)
ID No.40/2021
Workmen/Unions
:
1.
The President
Kerala Civil Aviation workers’ Congress (INTUC)
INTUC Office, Market Road
Aluva
Ernakulam – 683101
2.
The President
Bharathiya Masdoor Sangh (BMS)
CIAL Airport Unit
Nedumbassery
Ernakulam – 683111
Managements
:
1.
Managing Director
M/s. Bird Worldwide Flight
Services Pvt Ltd
E09, Cannaught House
Cannaught Palace
New Delhi – 110001
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1967
2.
The General Manager (Operation) & Station Head
M/s.Bird Worldwide Flight Services Pvt Ltd
Airline Office Building Cochin International Airpor
Nedumbassery
Kochi Airport P.O.
Ernakulam – 683111
By Adv.N. K. Karnis
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.07.2022 and the same day this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court passed the following:
AWARD
1.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.
L-11012/6 & 7/2021-IR(CM-1) dated 10.06.2021 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s.Bird Worldwide Flight Services Pvt Ltd in terminating the
services of Sri.Anish Chandran and 546 others (as per the list enclosed) (without complying with the
provisions of sec 25(F) (A) & 25 (F) (B) and other provisions is fair and justifiable? If not, what relief they
are entitled to?”
3.
After receipt of the order of reference from Govt, summons was issued to the parties to appear and file
claim on 08.09.2021. There was no representation for the Unions. The Management entered appearance. The
matter thereafter was posted on 01.11.2021, 30.12.2021, 23.03.2022 and finally on 30.07.2022. There was no
representation for the Unions and also the Management. No claim is filed on the side of the Unions. Hence it is felt
that the parties are not interested in pursuing the industrial dispute.
4.
Hence a ‘no dispute award’ is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the Unions.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 13th day of July, 2022.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 vDrwcj, 2022
का.आ. 953.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री सरकार
एग्िीक् ूरटव डाइरेक्टर, मेससव गेल(इंजड ा) जलजमटेड, औरज ा उ.प्र.; मजनेसिंग डाइरेक्टर मेससव ूृीएसकेएनएल, िेिरािून
के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और श्री रामानंिए जडजस्ट्रक्ट- औरज ा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि औद्योजगक जववाि में
केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर ृंचाट के (संिभव सं् ा 38/2012) प्रकाजित करती िज।
[फा. सं. एल-30012@22@2012&vkbZvkj(M)]
आिीष कुमार ािव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2022
S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (38/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The Executive Director, M/s GAIL (India) Ltd., Auraiya-U.P.; The Managing Director, M/s
UPSKNL, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun and Shri Ramanand, Dist. Auraiya.
[F. No. L-30012/22/2012-IR(M)]
ASHISH KUMAR YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
PRESENT
1968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA
HJS (Retd.)
ID Case No. 38/2012
Ref. No. L-30012/22/2012-IR(M) dated: 08.05.2012
BETWEEN
Shri Ramanand,
Vill & Post Bhadaripur, Dist. Auraiya.
AND
1. The Executive Director,
M/s GAIL (India) Ltd.,
Pata Dist. Auraiya-U.P.
2. The Managing Director,
M/s UPSKNL, Garhi Cantt,
Dehradun- 248001
AWARD
This award arises out of the reference communicated to this Tribunal in notification no. L-30012/22/2012-
IR(M) dated 18/05/2012 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment.
The schedule containing as the Industrial Disputes is stated as here under:
1.
Whether the action of the Management of M/s Uttrakhand Purva Sainki Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun in
terminating the services of Ramanand S/o Shri Sant Kumar Chaturvedi w.e.f. 19/08/2011 is legal and justified?
2.
Whether management of GAIL (India) Limited, Pata can be held responsible for termination of services of
the applicant by his contractors, if so, what will be the quantum of relief to the applicant?
The claimant has filed statement of claim application with averments which may be summarized as follows:
Previously the name of the employer was M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd. UPPC, Pata which has been
changed to M/s GAIL (India) Limited. Pata, District Auraiya (here after referred as ‘GAIL’).
The Company had to provide secretarial assistants/PA to their officers but GAIL had not appointed
secretarial assistants / PA resulting in shortfall of a number of posts in secretarial services in its various offices.
The applicant had applied for one of the posts vide application dated 19/07/1999. After proper interview the
applicant was selected and was appointed as Data Entry Operator and was attached with Head of Department (Fire &
Safety) on 29.07.1999 on the vacant post of P.A. to Head of Department (F&S). (Head of Department is herein after
referred as HOD).
The employer M/s GAIL India Ltd. did not pay his salary on due dates, therefore, he requested the employer
again and again to pay the same. After about 2 months, the employer, for exploitation and unfair labour practice,
directed a contractor to enroll his name with the Contractor and forced me to accept salary from the so called
Contractor. It is evident from the letter of the labour supplier Contractor that after selection and appointment of the
applicant by GAIL on 29.07.1999 the labour supplier was forced to enroll his name with him. It is clear in this regard
that the papers regarding contract are camouflage and sham and the employer is M/s GAIL India Limited. The
payment of salary is made through transfer into the Bank Account of the applicant directly.
The workman being poor unemployed person during hard days of high prices was forced to accept the
payment through the so - called contractor while neither GAIL ( India ) Limited was registered under the Contract
Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act, 1970 nor the contractor had the proper license for the said job. The contractor
and the contract papers are fabricated , camouflage, sham and mechanically arranged . But due to poor economic
conditions and livelihood, the applicant was compelled to receive the salary after two months as was directed by
GAIL ( India ) Limited. Otherwise the applicant was threatened with removal from employment.
As per definition of Contract Labour as defined in clause ( b ) of section - 2 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Contract Labour ( R
& A ) Act , 1970 - the applicant did not fall in the definition of contract labour because the applicant was selected by
M / s GAIL ( India ) Ltd. but was imposed on the contractor without knowledge of the contractor.
The work done by the claimant was of secretarial nature like office management , assisting the Head Of
Department in general administration , typing letters , drafting of proposals , scheduling of appointments , organizing
meetings and all the jobs which was done by a PA to HOD .
All his work was supervised and controlled by the officer of M / S GAIL (India) Ltd. i.e Head Of
Department to whom he was attached. As it is self explanatory the job of PA / Secretarial Assistant to Head Of
Department can only be supervised and controlled by the officer to whom the workman was attached. He was fully
under the control of the officers of the company and he discharged the duties under the supervision and control of the
officer of the company and there was no role whatsoever of the so called contractor as regards the work being
discharged by the claimant workman.
The attendance and sanction of leave of the claimant were done by the officers of M / s GAIL (India) Ltd..
On behalf of the O.P. GAIL written statement has been submitted with averments which may be concisely
stated as follows:
[भागII— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 8, 2022/आज वन 16, 1944
1969
GAIL, Pata has out sourced certain activities / services like providing Secretarial, Para - medical and other
peripheral services on Contract basis within the ambit of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) , 1970.
Accordingly, contracts for such services are awarded to the eligible contractors by following Contract and
Procurement Policy (C & P Policy) of GAIL. It is submitted that the contract labour in the above activities are
engaged because it is neither practicable nor necessary for GAIL to engage regular workmen in the above mentioned
works, processes and / or operations .
It is submitted that GAIL Pata obtained Registration as required under Section 7 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 ( the Act ) for engagement of contract labour for performing various works as
detailed therein within the ambit of the Act . A copy of certificate of registration dated 05.04.1988 is filed herewith.
It is submitted that the outsourcing of Secretarial, Para - medical & other peripheral services was done by
GAIL by engaging the contract services of M / s U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPSKNL) , and Gail
Karmachari Vetan Boghi Shahakari Samiti ( GKVBSS ) who in turn engaged workmen for providing Secretarial , &
Para - medical & other peripheral services.
It is submitted that the above contract was thereafter awarded to M / s Global S.S. Construction Pvt . Ltd. ,
Mumbai vide Work Order No.GAIL / Pata / C & P / 20011942 / 5300007624 dt.19.05.07 for a period of two years
from 5th May , 2007 to 5th July , 2009. The copy of the Work Order dated 19.05 .07 and the Labour License no K -
46 ( L - 60 ) / 2007 / E3 dated 03.05.2007 of M / s Global S.S. Construction Pvt. Ltd. is filed herewith.
It is averred that claimant Ramanand was not direct employee of GAIL, Pata. It is further averred that
claimant Ramanand was engaged by contractor UPSKNL to work as contract worker for GAIL. Ramanand was
appointed by M/s UPSKNL which was the contractor of GAIL, Pata. It is further averred that from 29/07/1999 up to
17/08/2011 claimant was working with UPSKNL. It is further stated that UPSKNL was taking the attendance of the
claimant and was paying the wages. GAIL had no employer-employee relationship with the claimant. Claimant was
never selected by GAIL management.
In the rejoinder claimant has virtually reiterated his stand taken in the claim application. It has been asserted
by the claimant that the so called contractor referred by M/s GAIL to engage contract labour was sham and
camouflage.
The points to be answered in this proceeding are as follows:
1.
Whether in the factual background of this case M/s GAIL India Ltd. can be held as the employer of the
claimant and whether there was employer-employee relationship between M/s GAIL India Ltd. And the claimant.
2.
Whether the claimant is legally entitled to be reinstated in job in M/s GAIL India Ltd. with continuity of
circumstances.
3.
Whether the claimant is legally entitled to get full back wages for the period of disengagement.
In the statement of claim it has been averred by the claimant that he was selected by M/s GAIL India Ltd.
but imposed on the contractor without the knowledge of the contractor and that workman was doing secretarial job
and that the officer of the M/s GAIL India Ltd. supervised his work. Though such claim has been made by the
claimant there is no tangible evidence before the Tribunal that the claimant was actually selected by M/s GAIL India
Ltd. to be appointed against any sanctioned post. It may be true that the claimant had worked inside the premises of
M/s GAIL India Ltd. doing secretarial job but the same cannot be construed that M/s GAIL India Ltd. was the actual
employer of the claimant. It may be true that the work done by the claimant was of great assistance to the officials of
M/s GAIL India Ltd. and the sometimes leave and work were controlled by the GAIL officials but the same cannot
be accepted to confer permanent job status on the claimant when he has not been appointed by the M/s GAIL India
Ltd. management. It is doubtful if the claimant had actually under gone any selection process conducted by the
M/s GAIL India Ltd. authority by way of inviting application for conducting open recruitment process. At this point it
appears pertinent to mention that contract labour has not been totally abolished by the Contract Labour Regulation
and Abolition Act as enunciated in the Case Law Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union of water front worker.
[2001 (91) FLR 182]
On behalf of the workman side the Case Law Devinder Singh Vs. Municiapal Council, Sanaur reported in
[2011 (130) FLR 337] (Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2011) has been relied. The aforesaid case law has not been rendered
in respect of contract labour. The factual aspects dealt in the said case law are totally dissimilar from the Industrial
Dispute raised by the workman Ramanand. The aforesaid case law does not bolster up the claims of workman
Ramanand. On the other hand the stand of O.P. No. 1 strengthened by the spirit of the Case Law Steel Authority of
India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs.
Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and others [2019 LLR 515]
Though in the Claim application it is stated by the claimant that M/s GAIL India Ltd. was not issued any
license to engage contract labour the said stand appears to be fallacious as there is ample evidence that M/s GAIL
India Ltd. was issued license to employ contract labour.
Even in the letter of appointment dated 18/08/2009 paper no. 19/22 Ramanand has been given appointment
by M/s UPNL which is not actually GAIL. In the said letter Ramanand has been given contractual appointment to
work at M/s GAIL India Ltd. for 11 months from the date of issuance of the letter. In such scenario the claim of
Ramanand that he was selected by M/s GAIL India Ltd. authority and was directly appointed by M/s GAIL India Ltd.
is found to be thoroughly untrue.
1970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 8, 2022/ASVINA 16, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A person who has not been appointed by the M/s GAIL India Ltd. authority after proper selection procedure
cannot legally claim to be employee under the M/s GAIL India Ltd.
Though it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the claimant side that the secretarial job done by the
claimant (Rama Nand) was perennial in nature for smooth functioning of the M/s GAIL the contention on behalf of
the claimant cannot be accepted as a strong ground for the claimant for absorption in any permanent post when it is
prima facie found that he was appointed through contractor. Besides M/s GAIL has been legally permitted to engage
contractors. O.P. witness Vinay Kerketa has deposed that the appointment letter at Page 17/21 was issued by a
contractor in favour of Rama Nand. Though the said witness has deposed his ignorance about presence of any
representative of M/s GAIL Pata at the time of payment of wages by the contractor to Ramanand for such failure it
cannot be concluded that the M/s GAIL adopted unfair labour practice though the representative of M/s GAIL should
over-see payment of wages to labourers engaged through contractors. The Labour Enforcement officer Central,
Kanpur has reported that there are no position of Office Clerk, Stenographer, Data Entry Operator in GAIL Pata and
nature of job of contract worker was indispensable for smooth functioning of GAIL and that some contract workers
were working for GAIL for several years on wages above the minimum wages. The report of the Labour Enforcement
Officer cannot be read as strong evidence since in the said report the Labour Enforcement Officer has also suggested
that the detailed enquiry with regard to the allegation of violation of Rule 25 of the Contract Labour R and A Rules,
1971 is needed. In Steel Authority of India Versus National Union of Waterfront Workers it has been authoritatively
pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following words: (Para 117 -3)
Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary
implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labourer on issuing a notification by appropriate
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labourer, in any process
operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order
absorption of the contract labourer working in the concerned establishment.
In view aforesaid authoritative view pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court contract labour cannot be
automatically absorbed In the establishment for which his engagement has been sought only when the contract is
found to be camouflage the so called contract labourers have to be treated as employees of the principal employer. In
the case in hand the contract on the strength of which Ramanand was engaged in GAIL cannot be treated as sham or
camouflage as the GAIL has been permitted to engage contract labourers in non core activities. Though there is no
well spelled distinction between core activities and non core activities by common knowledge it can be said here that
GAIL is an engineering organization and non engineering activities can be treated as non core activities though the
importance of non core activities cannot be completely winked at. In view of the discussion stated above the claim of
claimant Ramanand for absorption in GAIL is not permissible on facts and law. After all, regular appointments in
public sector undertakings are to be made after following the guidelines of public appointment which include strict
observance of reservation and other basic qualifications.
The point is answered against the claimant.
Ramanand has not raised any claim against UPSKNL or any other contractor, he has only prayed for the
reliefs of declaring GAIL India Ltd. as his employer and has prayed for the reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of
service and for direction of full back wages. In the foregoing discussions it has been concluded that GAIL had no
direct employer-employee relationship with Ramananad. In view of the prayer of the workman no order is made
against UPSKNL.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Kanpur.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, 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: 2022.10.25 16:04:57 +05'30'