8236 GI/2022
(3027)
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. 51]
नई दिल् ली, दिसम्बर 18—दिसम्बर 24, 2022, िजनवार/ अग्रिायण 27—पौष 3, 1944
No. 51]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 18—DECEMBER 24, 2022, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 27— PAUSHA 3, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न पष् सं् या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि पष क संकलन के प प में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उप- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 20 दिसम् बर, 2022
का. आ. 1369.—राष्ट्रीय कषजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक (नाबाडड) अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की
िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के ंड (ड.) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा,
जनम्नजलज त अजिकाररयों को अजिसूचना की तारी से तीन वषड की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो
भी पिले िो, राष्ट्रीय कषजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक (नाबाडड) के जनिेिक मण्डल में जनिेिक जनयुि करती िज:-
(i)
सजचव, कषजष, उत्तरा ंड सरकार, िेिरािून
(ii)
अपर मु्य सजचव (कषजष), मध्य प्रिेि सरकार, भोपाल
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-04012023-241654
CG-DL-W-04012023-241654
3028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii)
मु्य आयुि, आरबीके एवं सरकार के जविेष मु्य सजचव, कषजष एवं सिकाररता जवभाग, एपी
सजचवालय, वेलागपुडी, आन्र प्रिेि सरकार
(iv)
प्रिान सजचव (जवत्त, योिना एवं जनवेि) अरुणाचल प्रिेि सरकार, इटानगर
[फा. सं. 7/3/2019-एसी]
चन्रगुप्त िौयड, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2022
S.O. 1369.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central
Government hereby appoints the following officials as Director on the Board of Directors of NABARD from
the date of notification for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier:
(i) Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun
(ii) Additional Chief Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal
(iii) Chief Commissioner, RBKs & Special Chief Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperation
Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
(iv) Principal Secretary (Finance, Planning & Investment), Government of Arunachal Pradesh,
Itanagar
[F. No 7/3/2019-AC]
CHANDRAGUPTA SHAURYA, Under Secy.
जविेि मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 1370.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास बीजिंग मे अिय कुमार गणपजत ोट्टे ोजड, सिायक अनुभाग
अजिकारी को दिनांक 19 दिसम्बर 2022 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडिन के
जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2022 (59)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, उप सजचव (कांसुलर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1370.—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 Ajay
Kumar Ganapathibhat Thottethodi, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of
India, Beijing to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 19 December
2022.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2022 (59)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3029
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1371.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास बीरगंि मेेँ अरुण चौिान और मनोि जमश्रा, सिायक
अनुभाग अजिकाररयो को दिनांक 19 दिसम्बर 2022 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकाररयो के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं
के जनवडिन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2022 (60)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी उप सजचव (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1371.—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 Arun
Chauhan and Shri Manoj Mishra, Assistant Section Officers as Assistant Consular Officers in the Consulate
General of India, Birgunj to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 19
December 2022.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2022 (60)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
इस्ट्पात मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रजल, 2022
का.आ. 1372.—सरकारी स्ट् ान (अप्राजिकषत अजिभोजगयों की बेि ली) अजिजनयम, 1971 (1971 का
40) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के रािपत्र में दिनांक 6 अप्रजल, 2019 को
प्रकाजित भारत सरकार, इस्ट्पात मंत्रालय की दिनांक 26 माचड 2019, की अजिसूचना सं.का. आ. 489 को उन बातों
के जसवाय अजिक्रजमत करते हुए, जिन्िें ऐसे अजिक्रमण से पिले दकया गया िज या करने का लोप दकया गया िज, केंर
सरकार, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ (1) में उजल्लज त अजिकारी, िो भारत सरकार के रािपजत्रत अजिकारी के
समतुल्य श्रेणी के अजिकारी िैं, को उि अजिजनयम के प्रयोिनों के जलए सम्पिा अजिकारी जनयुि करती िज, िो उि
सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ (2) में तत्संबंिी प्रजवजि में जवजनर्िडि सरकारी स्ट् ानों के संबंि में अपने अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानीय
सीमाओं में उि अजिजनयम के तित या उसके द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सम्पिा अजिकारी को सौंपे
गए कतडव्यों का जन्पािन करेंगे, अ ाडत्:-
सारणी
अजिकारी का पिनाम
सरकारी स्ट् ानों की श्रेजणयां और अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानीय
सीमाएं
(1)
(2)
वररष्ठ प्रबंिक (वजद्युत)
ग्रेड-ई 3
जबसरा
स्ट्टोन
लाइम
कंपनी
जलजमटेड
(बीएसएलसी)
मौिा, गौतम नगर में प्लाट सं. 428/3855,
ियिेव नगर, लुईस रोड़ नागेश्वर टांगी
भुवनेश्वर-751002.
मजससड जबसरा स्ट्टोन लाइम कंपनी जलजमटेड द्वारा स्ट्वाजिकषत अ वा
पट्टे पर िाररतसभी कायाडलय, पररसर, कार ाने, संयंत्र,
अजतज गषि
कायडिालाएं
रेलवे
साइजडंगस,
प्रयोगिालाएं,
एक्सप्लोजसव मजगिीन, व्यावसाजयक प्रजिक्षण केन्र, अस्ट्पताल एवं
औषिालय, ररिायिी आवास अ वा जनवास स्ट् ान, भूजम िो
जनम्नजलज त में से दकसी भी क्षेत्र में पड़ते िों:-
(i) बीरजमत्रपुर और राऊरकेला सुंिरगढ जिला, ओजडिा; और
(ii) कोलकाता, जिला-कोलकाता, पजिम बंगाल.
[फा. सं. 10(14)/2021-बीिीसी)
नीरि अग्रवाल, जनिेिक
3030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF STEEL
New Delhi, the 11th April, 2022
S.O. 1372.—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
वाजणज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
(उद्योग संविडन और आंतररक व्यापार जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1373.—केन्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संविडन और आंतररक व्यापार जवभाग के प्रिासजनक
जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त कायाडलयों, जिनके 80% से अजिक कमडचाररयों ने जिंिी का कायडसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर
जलया िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. भारतीय गुणवत्ता पररषि्, बिािुर िाि िफर मागड, नई दिल्ली
2. राष्ट्रीय जडिाइन संस्ट् ान, मध्य प्रिेि
[फा. सं. ई- 11017/3/2022-जिंिी]
रािेि कुमार जसंि, संयुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)
New Delhi, the 16th December, 2022
S.O. 1373.—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 Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade whose more than 80% staff have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi:
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3031
1. Quality council of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
2. National Institute of Design, Madhya Pradesh
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi]
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय
(वाजणज्य जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1374.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाडत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963
का 22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के सा पर त जनयाडत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के
जनयम 12, के उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, डॉ. अजमन कंरोलसड प्राइवेट जलजमटेड,
एचआईिी- 30, िाउजसंगबोडड कोलोनी, मिुबन, पारािीप, िगतजसंिपुर जिला, ओजडिा-754142, (जिसे
एतद्पिात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषड की
अवजि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची
में जनर्िड् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰ का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में
उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िडि समूि-I, अ ातड लौि अयस्ट्क, को जनयाडत से पूवड जनम्नजलज त ितों के
अिीन पारािीप पत्तन, िामरा पत्तन और गोपालपुर पत्तन में उक् त जनि और अयस्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए
एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ाडत् :
(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाडत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण
की पद्धजत की िाेँच करने के जलये जनयाडत जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त नाम जनर्िडि अजिकाररयों को पयाडप्त
सुजविाएं िेगी, और;
(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में य ा जवजनर्िड् ट अपने कायो का जन् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण
और गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयाडत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलज त प प में, दिए गए जनिेिों से
आबद्ध िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/05/2022 - जनयाडत जनरीक्षण]
एम. बालािी, संयुक्त सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 3rd November, 2022
S.O. 1374.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Dr. Amin Controllers Pvt. Ltd.
HIG-30, Housing Board Colony, Madhuban, Paradip, Jagatsinghpur District, Odisha-754142, (hereinafter
referred to as the said agency), as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication
of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group- I, namely – Iron
Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20th December, 1965 and
respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Dhamra Port, and Gopalpur
Port subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection
Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and
Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
3032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by
such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give,
in writing from time to time.
[F. No. K-16014/05/2022 - Export Inspection]
M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 नवम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1375.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाडत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963
(1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के सा पर त जनयाडत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम,
1964 के जनयम 12, के उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मजससड टीसीआरसी इंस्ट्पेक्िन
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड- जविा ापत्तनम ब्ांच, डोर नंबर 24‐1‐4, पिला माला और िूसरा माला, रेरोदफट िाउस,
ोम्प्सोंस स्ट्रीट वन टाउन, पुराण डाकघर, वाडड नबंर 25, ग्राम: जविा ापत्तनम मंडल, जिला:
जविा ापत्तनम, जपन कोड 530001, (जिसे एतद्पिात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के
रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषड की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में
प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िड् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की
अजिसूचना की सं्या का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं्या का.आ. 3978
के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िडि समूि-I, अ ातड लौि अयस्ट्क, और मैंगनीि
अयस्ट्क और (समूि- II), अ ातड बजराइट्स को जनयाडत से पूवड जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन जविा ापत्तनम पत्तन,
गंगावरम पत्तन और कष्णापत्तनम पत्तन में उक् त जनि और अयस्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण
के रुप में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ाडत् :
(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I का जनयाडत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 त ा जनि और
अयस्ट्क समूि-।। का जनयाडत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िाेँच
करने के जलये जनयाडत जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्िडि अजिकाररयों को पयाडप्त सुजविाएं
िेगी, और;
(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में य ा जवजनर्िड् ट अपने कायो का जन् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक
(जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयाडत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलज त प प में, दिए गए
जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/7/2022-जनयाडत जनरीक्षण]
एम. बालािी, संयुि सजचव
New Delhi, the 3rd November, 2022
S.O. 1375.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s TCRC Inspections Private Limited
- Visakhapatnam Branch, Door No : 24‐1‐4, 1st And 2nd Floor , Retrofit House , Thompsons Street One Town
Old Post Office, Ward ‐25, Village Visakhapatnam (U) Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Pin Code ‐ 530001
Andhra Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for a period of three years with effect
from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals &
Ores, (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore and (Group-II), namely, Barytes as specified, in the
Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the
official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, and S.O.3978 , dated the 20th
December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam Port, Gangavaram
Port and Krishnapatnam port subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council
in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores –
Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3033
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in
writing from time to time.
[F. No. K-16014/7/2022-Export Inspection]
M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2022
का.आ. 1376.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार सदस्य सचिव, केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, कपड़ा मंत्ऱालय, सरक़ार भ़ारत, बैंगलोर, ;चिदेशक, केंद्रीय रेशम
बोर्ड, कपड़ा मंत्ऱालय, सरक़ार भ़ारत, ऱांिी झ़ारखंर्, ऱांिी, सह़ायक चिदेशक, केंद्रीय तसर अिुसंध़ाि प्रचशक्षण
संस्थ़ाि, (चवस्त़ार) केंद्र, केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, कोरब़ा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री चवश़ाल द़ास, क़ामग़ार,
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के
पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/115/2004) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो
केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 28.06.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-42012/275/2003- आई.आर (सी.एम-II)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2022
S.O. 1376.—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/115/2004) 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 Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India, Bangalor,;The
Director Central Silk board, Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India, Ranchi Jharkhand, Ranchi,; The Assistant
Director, Central Tasar Research Training Institute, (Extension Centre,Central Silk Board, Korba, and Shri
Vishal Das, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
28/06/2022.
[No. L-42012/275/2003 -IR (CM-II)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/115/2004
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Vishal Das,
S/o Shri Harnam Das,
Village Rampur, Via Katghora
District Korba, Chhattisgarh
….Workman
Versus
The Member Secretary
Central Silk Board
Ministry of ?Textile ,
Govt. of India, CSB Complex
3034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BTM Layour, Medivala
Bangalore-560068.
The Director
Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textile, govt. of India,
Village and PO Piska Nagadi,
District Ranchi, Jarkhand
Ranchi 825303
The Assistant Director,
Central Tasar Research Training Institute,
Extension Centre),Central Silk Board,
Village & PO-Katghora,
District Korba,Chhattisgarh
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 14-6-2022.)
As per letter dated 8-11-2004 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-42012/275/2003-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Central Tasar Research and Training
Institute(under silk Board) in terminating the services of Sh. Vishaldas, S/o Shri
Harnam Das and regularising the services of his juniors overlooking his seniority is
legal and justified?if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? ”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman was working in the
Rampur Farm of Management under O.P.No.3 i.e. The Assistant Director, Central Tasar Research Training
Institute(Extension Centre) Central Silk board since 1984 and engaged in rearing work for so many years. The
non-applicants collected employees provident fund subscriptions from his wages regularly till 2001 but never
supplied the EPF slips. The workman approached the management to regularize his services but the
Management terminated his services instead of regularizing without any notice or compensation which is
against law. The workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central Bilaspur. After
failure of conciliation, the reference was sent by the Central Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.
According to the Workman the action of management in terminating the workman without any notice or
compensation or inquiry is illegal and arbitrary because the workman had completed continuous service of
more than 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his termination. It is violative of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the word’Act’). Accordingly the
workman has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
3.
The case of management in brief is that the Management is a Research Institute engaged in production
of tasar silkworm basic seed, production of seed cocoons by conducting rearing’s of tasar silk worms, raising
and maintenance of eco plantation of tasar food plants; and training of farmers and rearer's. It cannot be said to
be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. It is also the case of the Management that each
season the daily wagers are engaged for conducting seasonal activity generally from 45 to 50 days in one spell.
It never extends to 140 days in three spell in a year. After completion of one season, the daily wagers are
discontinued. The are engaged from labour market and paid on daily basis. The workman might also be one of
the daily wager. He has not been appointed against any vacancy following the recruitment procedure. Hence
his dis-engagement does not fall under Section 2(oo) (b) of the Act. The workman is not entitled to be
regularized in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P.& Others
Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma(2007) 1 SCC 575. Accordingly the management has prayed that the reference be
answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated his claim as mentioned in his statement of
claim. The workman filed an application for directing the Management to produce original documents as
mentioned in the application and affidavit which was allowed by my learned Predecessor. It was also
mentioned in the order allowing the application that in case the management fails to produce these documents
summoned, the workman shall be at liberty to prove these documents by way of secondary evidence.
5.
The workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He was cross-examined by learned
counsel for the Management. The workman did not care to prove any photocopy documents. The Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3035
has not examined any witness. During the course of proceedings the workman died and his legal representative
were brought on record.
6.
None appeared from the side of the workman at the time of argument. No written argument was filed.
I have heard arguments of Shri R.C.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Management and have gone through
the record.
7.
The Reference is the issue, for determination in the case in hand.”
8.
The pleadings of the parties have been elaborated earlier. Before entering into merits, the following
provisions (Section 2(j), 2(00)(b), 25B and 25F of the of Industrial Disputes Act,1947) are being referred as
follows:-
Section 2(j) “INDUSTRY” MEANS ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, UNDERTAKING,
MANUFACTURE OR CALLING OF EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ANY
CALLING,
SERVICE,
EMPLOYMENT,
HANDICRAFT,
OR
INDUSTRIAL
OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION OF WORKMEN;
2 [(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a
workman for any any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action, but does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the
workman;
or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract
of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation
in that behalf;
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account
of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-
out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety
days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred
and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during
a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is
to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five
days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for
every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
9.
In the light of the decision of Hon’ble the Apex court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Board
Vs. A.Rajappa and Others, AIR (1978)SC 553, the Management is an industry as defined in the Act and is
held accordingly.
10.
For getting his termination declared against law the workman has to prove firstly his continuous
engagement for 240 days or more in a year atleast in the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement and
secondly that his services were terminated without any notice or compensation.
11.
As regards the point of continuous service, there is on record the self serving statement of workman on
oath. The workman side has not cared to prove the photocopy documents though they were given permission to
3036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
prove it by way of secondary evidence. In his affidavit as his examination in chief, he has reiterated his case as
mentioned above. He has stated that he was first engaged on 13-2-1985 and disengaged on 15-7-1999. In his
cross examination, he admitted that he had worked only for four to five months in a year for which he as paid.
Hence it is held that the workman could not prove his continuous engagement for 240 days in a year as defined
under Section 25B of the Act. The fact that he was dis-engaged without any notice or compensation is not
disputed between the parties. In the light of the above finding, the dis-engagement of the workman is held not
against law. Consequently, the workman is held not entitled to any relief.
12.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management “of Central Tasar Research and Training Institute(under
silk Board) in terminating the services of Sh. Vishaldas, S/o Shri Harnam Das and
regularising the services of his juniors overlooking his seniority is held not against law.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 14-6-2022
नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्ट्त, 2022
का.आ. 1377.— केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 (य ा
संिोजित, 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय के प्रिासकीय
जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त कायाडलयों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमडचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायडसािक ज्ञान
प्राप्त कर जलया िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. राष्ट्रीय कररयर सर्वडस संस्ट् ान (एनआईसीएस), नोएडा
[सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी]
जनकोलस ल ो, उप जनिेिक (रा.भा.)
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2022
S.O. 1377.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official
purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following
offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff
whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-
1. National Institute for Career Service, Noida
[No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]
NICHOLAS XALXO, Dy. Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1378.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj िजक्षण पूवड मध्य रेलवे izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 94/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41012/32/2001- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
,- ds- ;kno] अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022
S.O. 1378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 94/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Cetnral
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41012/32/2001– IR(B-1)]
A. K. YADAV, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3037
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2013
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Abhay Kumar Jha
C/oArun Kumar,
Railway Quarter No.1414,
Railway Colony,Station Ward
Bharatpara,District Baloda Bazar(CG)
…Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
SEC Railway
DRM Complex,
Raipur(CG)
2.Sr.Section Engineer(P.Way)
South East Central Railway
Bhatapara,District Baloda Bazar(CG)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 11-11-2022.)
As per letter dated 25/10/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-41012/32/201-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the DRM Sec. Railway Raipur with regard to imposition
of penalty viz. stoppage of one year annual increment for the year 2012-13 with
non cumulative effect on Shri Abhay Kumar Jha and 14 other trackmen, namely
S/Shri Nilesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Sharad Kumar Sende, Om Prakash
Ghanelia, shanty L.Dan, Anwar Hussain, Nikesh Kumar Dhruv, Jitendra
Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Umesh Kumar Rai, Lekhram, Balram, Dasrath &
Lakhanlal is legal and justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The workman
never appeared . They did not file any statement of claim.
2.
The Management filed its written statement of defense, wherein it was stated that the applicant
workmen are 15 in number and working as Trackman under Senior Section Engineer(P.Way)Bhatapara. They
were charged with minor penalty Charge sheet (SF-11) with an allegation that during conducting footplate
inspection on 10/11-2-2012 in Train No.12833 Down Ahmedabad Express by the Dy. Chief
Engineer/HQ/Bilaspur the workmen were not found on night patrolling duty in the track which is gross
violation of the safety measures . They filed reply to the charge sheet but being dis-satisfied and not convinced
with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order of punishment on 12-5-2012 imposing
stoppage of one year annual increment with non-cumulative effect. They preferred an appeal which was
dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14-11-2012. A mercy petition against this order was also filed.
Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
3.
No evidence was produced from the side of the workman and Management also attested true copy of
inquiry papers. No other evidence was also filed by the Management.
4.
None appeared from the side of the applicant workman at the stage of arguments, hence argument of
learned counsel for the Management Shri R.K.Soni were heard and record has been produced by me.
5.
The Reference is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
6.
The initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman in which they have miserably failed by not
adducing any evidence, hence holding the action of Management gal and proper, the reference deserves to be
answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
7.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
3038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A. The action of the DRM Sec. Railway Raipur with regard to imposition of penalty
viz. stoppage of one year annual increment for the year 2012-13 with non
cumulative effect on Shri Abhay Kumar Jha and 14 other trackmen, namely S/Shri
Nilesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Sharad Kumar Sende, Om Prakash Ghanelia,
shanty L.Dan, Anwar Hussain, Nikesh Kumar Dhruv, Jitendra Kumar, Ajay
Kumar, Umesh Kumar Rai, Lekhram, Balram, Dasrath & Lakhanlal is held to be
just and proper.
B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.
8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 11-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1379.—औद्योजगकfookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगकfookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगकvf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 124/2017) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41011/45/2016- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2022
S.O. 1379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.124/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/45/2016- IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/124/2017
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Arvind & other’s
C/o The Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad (PRKP),
Western Railway, Ratlam Division,
Ratlam (M.P.) – 457001.
….Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Ratlam Division,
Ratlam (M.P.) – 457001…
..Management
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3039
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of October-2022)
1. As per letter dated 10/08/2017 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-14011/45/2016-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action management of General Manager, Western Railway H.Q,
Mumbai in denying the benefit of counting of past service of Rly. Consumer Co-
operative Society for pension purposes to Mr.Arvind Gopal, Mr.Balwant Singh,
Mr.B.D Vajpai, Mr.Suresh Dubey, Mr.Devi Singh, Smt. Mangla Dubey,
Mr.Sudhir Kant Dubey and Mr.Monohar Lal (Total 8 persons), who got absorbed
in Rly.service, is justified and legal? If not to what relief they are entitled."
2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties on addresses’
mention in the reference. Management represented through there learned counsel Shri R.K.Soni, Adv. None
appeared for Workman inspite of service of speed post. Many dates were given for filling of Statement of
Claim. No Statement of Claim was filed. The opposite parties also did not file any Written Statement of
Defence.
3. Since the initial burden to prove its case is on the workman side in which he has failed. Hence the
reference deserves to be answered against him and is answered accordingly.
4. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 13-10-2022
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1380.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky;, नंबर 1, िनबाि ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 88/2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS, tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/99/2014- आई.आर(सी.एम- I)
मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.88/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court,No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.11.2022
[No. L- 20012/99/2014 – IR (CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 88/2014
Employer in relation to the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer.
3040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For Employer :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For workman :- Sri K.N. Singh, Representative.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 27/09/2022
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/99/2014- (IR(CM-I)) dated 30.09.2014, the Central Government in the
Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this
Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of
M/s BCCL in not providing employment to Sri Shiv Prasad Bais, dependant
son of Late Chhotelal Bais under the provisions of NCWA is fair and justified?
To what relief the dependent son of deceased employee is entitled to?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The Secretary, U.C.W. Union has filed his
written statement of claim on 12/05/2015 and the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL
has filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 26/08/2015.
The Secretary, U.C.W. Union has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management on
13/10/2015.
3. The claim of the sponsoring union as per its statement of claim, in brief, is as follows:-
That Late Chhotelal Bias was a permanent employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery designated as H.C.W.
bearing his personal no. 100255 and he died on 29/02/1989 while in service. After death of Late Chhotelal
Bias his dependent son namely Shiv Prasad Bias applied for compassionate appointment under NCWA but
the management did not take care into the matter and failed to provide employment to him. Thereafter the
dependent son of the deceased employee submitted an application for going on “Amaran Ansan” w.e.f.
18/12/2012 and subsequently the management in order to gain time falsely assured the dependent son but
lastly on 09/01/2013 regretted his claim vide letter dated 2/3.1.2013. Thereafter the dependent son of the
deceased took up the matter before the union and subsequently an industrial dispute was raised before the
Labour Commissioner but after long discussion the matter could not settle and a failure report was submitted
by the Conciliation Officer on 06/08/2014 resulting the present reference case. The action of the
management in not providing employment to the dependent of the deceased employee is illegal and against
the principle of natural justice.
A prayer has been made to pass an award in favour of the dependent son of the deceased employee.
4.
On the other hand the case of the management as per written statement cum rejoinder, in brief, is as
follows:-
That the present reference is not maintainable either in law or in facts and no employer-employee
relationship exists between Shiv Prasad Bias the applicant and the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery
under Sijua Area. The Late Chhotelal Bais was a permanent employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery and he
died on 29/03/1989 and after death of the deceased employee, the dependent of the deceased employee has
not submitted proper application for his employment. The management had examined the application of the
employment of the applicant (the dependent son of deceased employee) and found lot of discrepancies in his
application. The management had issued several letters to the dependent of the deceased employee to rectify
the discrepancies in the application but he failed to do so and employment was regretted. The sponsoring
union has raised the issue after 25 years and demanded employment of the dependent son of the deceased
employee which cannot be granted after the lapse of such a long period. The dependent son of deceased
employee had not rectified the discrepancies pointed out by the management within the stipulated period, so
this is a stale dispute and the applicant is not entitled for employment.
The management by way of rejoinder has stated that the statement made in Para-1 of the written
statement of the union is a matter of record, the statement made in Para-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the written
statement of the union are not correct, the statement made in Para-7, 9 and 10 of the written statement of the
union are not relevant.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3041
5.
The sponsoring union has also filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management and has
stated that the statement made in Para-1 of the written statement of the management requires no comment,
the statement made in Para 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the written statement of management are misleading and
denied, the statement made in Para 5 of the written statement of management is matter of record, the
statement made in Para-7, 11 and 12 of the written statement of management are evasive and the statement
made in Para 10 of the written statement of management is incorrect.
6.
The sponsoring union has examined only one witness. He is Shiv Prasad Bias.
The WW-1 Shiv Prasad Bias has deposed that his father Late Chhotelal Bias was a permanent
employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery having his personal no. 100255 and CMPF A/C No. D 386815,
designated as H.C.M. and he died on 29/02/1989 while in service and after his death he had applied for
compassionate employment under NCWA but the management did not provide him employment. He has
also stated that he had submitted an application before the management for going on Amaran Dharna w.e.f.
18/12/2012 but the management in order to gain time, falsely assured him but subsequently regretted vide
letter no. 1448/12, dated 2/3.1.13. He has also stated that he had represented before the management several
time for the employment but the management kept mum over it whereas he is entitled for getting relief under
Para 9.3.3 of NCWA. He has further deposed that the action of the management is not providing him job is
not legal and justified.
In the cross-examination he has deposed that at present he is about 46 years old. He has denied the
suggestion that he had applied after much delay.
7.
The sponsoring union has proved the following documents in support of its case which are marked
as:-
Exhibit W-1- Original Copy of Death Certificate of Chhotelal Bias.
Exhibit W-2- Original Copy of Death Certificate of Gudabli Devi.
Exhibit W-3- Original Copy of Letter No. 32/1187 dated 21/09/1990 of Sendra Bansjora Colliery
addressed to Shiv Prasad Bias, son of Late Chhotelal Bias.
Exhibit W-4- Original Copy of Letter No. 35/942, dated 21/25.10.93 of Dy. Personnel Manager,
Sendra Bansjora Colliery addressed to Shiv Prasad Bias, son of Late Chhotelal Bias.
Exhibit W-5- Original Copy of Certificate of Family Members Details of Late Chhotelal Bias.
Exhibit W-6- Original Copy of Letter No. 21/1448, dated 02/03-01-2013 of Project Officer, Sendra
Bansjora colliery addressed to Shiv Prasad Bias, son of Late Chhotelal Bias regarding
Hunger Strike.
Exhibit W-7- Original copy of Letter no. 15/1454, dated 7/8-01-2013 of Project Officer, Sendra
Bansjora colliery addressed to Shiv Prasad Bias, son of Late Chhotelal Bias regarding
employment.
8.
On the other hand the management has also examined only one witness. He is MW-1, Nilesh Kumar.
The MW-1, Nilesh Kumar has deposed before the Tribunal that Chhotelal Bias was permanent
employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery, who died on 29/03/1989 and the application submitted by the
claimant was not found proper as there was lot of discrepancies, so he was directed to remove the defects. He
has further stated that the applicant had not rectified discrepancies in spite of several letters issued by the
management, so the application of employment was regretted long ago. He has further stated that the
dependent of the deceased employee has not rectified the discrepancies pointed out by the management
within period, so he is not entitled for employment in BCCL. He has also stated that the sponsoring union
had raised the dispute after the expiry of 25 years which is not justified.
In the cross-examination he has deposed that as the applicant could not file documents in time and on
being direction he could not comply, his case was not forwarded to headquarter for action. He has denied the
suggestion that the applicant had filed everything.
9.
The management has not proved any documents in support of its case.
10.
The representative of the sponsoring union has submitted before the Tribunal that father of the
claimant Late Chhotelal Bias was a permanent employee of Sendra Bansjora colliery under Sijua Area of
M/s. BCCL being appointed on 03/12/1964 as H.C.M. and he was declared medically unfit on 27/03/1989
who died on 29/03/1989 while in service. He has also submitted that as per rules of the company and
according to the provisions of the NCWA dependent is entitled for employment in place of his father service
and accordingly the claimant had applied for his own employment before the management just after
3042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
declaration of medical unfitness of his father on 27/03/1989 in the prescribed format. He has also submitted
that the management after getting all the requirements fulfilled had forwarded the application of the claimant
to the C.P.M. Sijua Area for necessary action through letter no. H.P./PD/90/32 1961 dated 22/28.8.1996
which was regretted by the headquarter vide letter no. dated 23/24.02.2000 but the same was not served to
the claimant. He has also argued that after waiting for long period for the action of the management the
claimant had submitted an application for going on Amaran Ansan but the management in order of taking
time falsely assured the claimant but lastly regretted the employment vide letter dated 2/3.1.2013. He has
also argued that the management has failed to establish their grounds in refusal to provide employment to the
concerned claimant who was entitled for. He has made prayer for the compassionate appointment of the
claimant is justified and proper.
11.
The learned lawyer of the management has submitted that there is no employer-employee
relationship between the Shiv Prasad Bias and the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery under Sijua
Area. He has also argued that Late Chhotelal Bias was an employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s.
BCCL who died on 29/03/1989 and after his death no one had applied for employment immediately but after
the lapse of more than two years one Shiv Prasad Bais alleged to be son and the dependant of the deceased
employee submitted application for employment which was not properly filled up. He has also submitted that
on examination of the application of the employment by the management, lot of discrepancies had been
found in the application and several letters were sent to the dependent of the deceased employee to rectify
the discrepancies but he failed to do so. He has also submitted that after expiry of 25 years from the date of
death of deceased employee and after expiry of 14 years from the date of refusal of employment by the
management, the sponsoring union has raised the present industrial dispute and demanded employment
which is not maintainable.
He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in SCLJ 2001 (720) (Nedungadi
Bank Limited vs. R.K. Madhavankutty) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold
that A dispute which is stale could not be subject matter of reference u/s 10. He has also relied on the
decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as reported in WP (L)No. 5498 of 2016 in which the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court has pleased to hold that the decision of the Government of India whereby dispute
regarding termination of the petitioner has been considered as not fit for adjudication on the ground of delay
is legal and further be pleased to hold that the dispute is hopelessly and not maintainable.
He has also argued that the claimant had not rectified the discrepancies pointed out by the management
within stipulated period and he was unable to show the original I.D. Card, so his case is doubtful. He has
relied on the decision passed in (i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana (reported in SCLJ 1998
page 232) (ii) Chhata Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (reported in 2012(4) JLJR 349) (iii) CCL vs
Binod Kumar Tirky (in LPA No. 9 of 2017).
12.
Now, the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of the management in
denying employment to claimant Shiv Prasad Bias son of Late Chhotelal Bais is fair and justified? If not
what relief he is entitled to?
FINDINGS
13.
At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that Late Chhotelal Bias was a permanent
employee of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL and he died on 29/02/1989.
14.
Now, the question of arises whether Shiv Prasad Bias son of deceased wokman Late Chhotelal Bias
is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground?
15.
In this regard, the most competent witness is WW-1, Shiv Prasad Bias who is the son of Late
Chhotelal Bias. He has deposed before the Tribunal that after death of his father he had applied for
compassionate appointment under NCWA but the management did not provide him employment. He has
also stated that he had been falsely assured by the management but subsequently vide letter no. 1448/12
dated 2/3.1.12 management regretted. He has also deposed that he had represented several time before the
management.
On the other hand the management had examined MW-1, Nilesh Kumar who has deposed that Late
Chhotelal Bias died on 29/03/1989 and the application submitted by the claimant was not found proper as
there was lot of discrepancies, so he was directed to remove the defects. He has also deposed that the
applicant had not rectified the discrepancies in spite of several letters, so the application for employment was
regretted.
16.
Now, coming to the documentary evidence of the concerned workman it appears that the Exhibit W-
1 is the original copy of Death Certificate of Late Chhotelal Bias, Exhibit W-2 is the original copy of Death
Certificate of Gudabli Devi, Exhibit W-3 is the original copy of letter dated 21/09/1990 addressed to Shiv
Prasad Bias by Sendra Bansjora Colliery for making rectification in his application, Exhibit W-4 is the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3043
original copy of letter of Dy. Personnel Manager, Sendra Bansjora Colliery making request to Shiv Prasad
Bias to submit the family list issued by Gazetted Officer, Exhibit W-5 is the original copy of family list of
Late Chhotelal Bias, Exhibit W-6 is the letter of Project Officer, Sendra Bansjora Colliery addressed to Shiv
Prasad Bias asking him to appear before manager with all documents, Exhibit W-7 is the letter of Project
Officer, Sendra Bansjora Colliery dated 7/8-01-2013 informing that his request for appointment has already
been regretted vide letter dated 02/04/1991.
17.
Now after analyzing the documentary evidence, it appears that in this case the applicant, Shiv
Prasad Bias had submitted his application for compassionate appointment within time before the
management and it appears that he had also submitted all the required documents and same had been sent to
regional office but his request was regretted vide letter dated 02/04/1991 as per letter dated 7/8.01.2013
(Exhibit W-7).
18.
Further it appears peculiar that the Dy. Manager Personnel vide letter dated 21/10/1993 (Exhibit W-
6) had asked for family list of Late Chhotelal Bias with a direction to submit within 15 days but letter dated
07/08-01-2013 shows that the request for appointment of Shiv Prasad Bias had been regretted vide letter
dated 02/04/1991. Moreover the applicant Shiv Prasad Bias had been called vide letter dated 02/03.01.2013
with all the documents by the Project Officer, Sendra Bansjora Colliery but his request was regretted.
19.
Now, after analysing all the oral and documentary evidence in this case it is quite apparent that the
applicant Shiv Prasad Bias had complied all the direction of the management regarding removing of
discrepancies to his request for appointment on compassionate ground but his case was not considered by the
management within time.
20.
The learned lawyer of the management has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
reported in SCLJ 2001 Page 720 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as “A
dispute which is stale could not be subject matter of reference u/s 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be
said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
21.
Here in this case the reference has already been received to this Tribunal on 15/10/2014 and the
matter was of the year 1989-1990.
In this regard it is required to mention here that the learned lawyer of management has not raised
that this dispute is stale at the earliest stage but he has raised this issue after the conclusion of the proceeding
and hearing of the of this case, so it is not maintainable at this stage. Moreover in this matter reference has
already been made u/s 10 of I.D. Act.
22.
The learned lawyer of management has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as
reported in WP(L) No. 5498 of 2016 in which the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as “it can
comfortably be inferred that reference has rightly not been made because of belated claim. Although there was
no limitation prescribed under the Act for making reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
the policy of industrial disputes clarifies that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed
unless there is satisfactory explanations for the delay. Since no plausible reason has been given or explained or
brought on record, this Court is fully satisfied that the reference itself was bad in law.”
23.
Here in this case reference has already been made by the Central Government with regard to the
industrial dispute u/s 10 of I.D. Act, so the facts of this case is different from the facts on which the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to hold its finding, so decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi is not applicable in this case.
24.
The learned lawyer of management has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in
SCLJ 1998 Page 232 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as “ The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not
to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the
public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if
it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is
to be offered to the eligible member of the family.”
Here in this case the applicant Shiv Prasad Bias in his evidence has deposed that he had given an
application before the management for appointment that he was going on Amaran Ansan for his appointment.
Moreover the applicant Shiv Prasad Bias vide letter dated 18/12/2012 has stated that he is working as a Labour
in brick kiln and he had not been providing employment after death of his father, so it appears that he has been
in urgent need of employment after death of his father.
3044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25.
The learned lawyer of management has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as
passed in LPA No.9 of 2017 in which the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to hold as “ Thus,
time limit to prefer compassionate appointment is only one year from the date of death of the father of the
respondent (Original Petitioner). These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned
Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and hence, wrongly the period of limitation has been calculated as
one and half year.”
Here in this case the dependent son of the deceased has regularly been knocking the door of the
management for providing employment to him but the management had not considered his request and regretted
his appointment vide letter dated 02/04/1991.
Moreover the management has not produced any documents to show the reasons of rejection of request
of claimant for appointment on compassionate ground is delay in submission of application.
Further the son of the deceased namely Shiv Prasad Bias in his letter dated 18/12/2012 has mentioned
that he has working as Labour in Brick Kiln, so still he suffering the hardship after death of his father. This is a
classical example of callousness of the management toward the claim of son of deceased employee.
26. It is relevant to mention here that it is not the case of management that the claimant had submitted the
application of employed at belated stage. Further after going through the documentary evidence of the workman
it is quite apparent that it was the management which had made delay in processing the matter of appointment
of the claimant, so it is not a stale dispute.
27.
After considered all the facts and circumstances, the action of the management in not providing
employment to Sri Shiv Prasad Bias, dependent son of Late Chhotelal Bias under the provision of NCWA is not
fair and justified.
Hence, Shiv Prasad Bias, dependent son of deceased workman is entitled for job.
28.
The management is, hereby, directed to provide employment to the Shiv Prasad Bias, dependent son of
deceased workman within one month after publication of the Award in the Official Gazette.
This is the Award of this Tribunal.
Dictated and Corrected by me
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1381.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksas 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;] नंबर 1, िनबाि ds iapkV ds
(lanHkZ la- 62/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/11/2005- आई.आर(lh-I)]
मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2022.
[No. L-20012/11/2005 -IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 62/2005
Employer in relation to the management of Barka Sayal Area of M/s. CCL.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3045
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30/06/2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/11/2005-IR(C-I) dated 19.07.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this
Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Urimari Underground
Project, Barka-Sayal Area, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, P.O.-
Sayal, Distt- Hazaribag in terminating Shri Dasrath Munda, Piece
Rated (Underground) Loader from the service w.e.f. 3.2.2003 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 22/08/2005 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Rashtriya
Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, CCL, Ranchi had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant
document within fifteen days but the concerned union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However
after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management
appeared before the Tribunal and the notice of the workman/union returned unserved. Now Case is pending
since 22/08/2005 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1382.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky;, नंबर 1, िनबाि ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ
la- 79/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS, tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/581/2000-vkbZ-vkj(lh-I)]
मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.79/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2022.
[No. L- 20012/581/2000 – IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 79/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND.
3046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Their workman.
Present: Shri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30/06 /2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/581/2000- (C-I) dated 16.03.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this
Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery of M/s
BCCL in dismissing Sri Nathu Bouri, UG Miner/Loader from the service of the
company w.e.f. 1.11.97 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 03/04/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within
fifteen days but the concerned union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However, after receipt of the
reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently
workman/union left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter, again regd. notices were issued to both the
parties but the notice issued to the concerned union returned unserved with endorsement that addressee left.
Now this case is pending since 03/04/2001 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that
workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ.1383.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.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;, नंबर 1, िनबाि ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ
la- 22/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS, tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/140/2005-vkbZ-vkj(lh-I)]
मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.11.2022.
[No. L- 20012/140/2005 – IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN N, Dy Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 22/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3047
Their workman.
Present: Shri DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30/06 /2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/140/2005-IR(C-I) dated 09.12.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this
Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of
Basuriya Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL for regularizing Sri Bablu
Bouri personnel No. 02905982 Miner/Loader as Trammer is justified? If so, to what
relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 02/01/2006 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document
within fifteen days but the concerned union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after
receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management
appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since 02/01/2006 and workman/union as well as
management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this
matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1384.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मह़ाप्रबंधक, हहंदुस्त़ाि एयरोिॉटटक्स चलचमटेर्, अमेठी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
मह़ासचिव, हहंदुस्त़ाि एयरोिॉटटक्स कमडि़ारी संघ, अमेठी, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] क़ािपुर के पंचाट के (संिभड सं. 151 का 2019) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा
गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 08.12.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-42011/93/2019- आईआर(डीयू)
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Amethi and The General Secretary,
Hindustan Aeronautics Karmchari Sangh, Amethi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 08.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/93/2019-IR(DU)]
D.K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
3048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D. No. 151 of 2019
L-42011/93/2019-IR(DU) dated 25.07.2019
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Hindustan Aeronautics Karmchari Sangh,
HAL, Korwa, Distt-Amethi
Amethi- 227412
AND
The General Manager,
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Po-Korwa, Distt- Amethi,
Amethi-227412
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-42011/93/2019-IR(DU) dated 25.07.2019
SCHEDULE
‘Whether the action taken by management of HAL Korwa by changing duty
timing and the time of intervening rest (Annexure-A) without any suitable
compensation or consent of the Union is legal and justified, If not, to what
relief the workmen is entitled to and to what extent?’
On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 11th September 2019 fixing
27.09.2019 for filing of statement of claim. Representative of the Union was absent on date fixed though O.P
management Authorized representative appeared and filed authority letter. Afterwards several dates were fixed
for filing of statement of claim by the workers’s Union (The Hindustan Aeronautics Karamchari Sangh) or the
workman.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the statement of
claim, none appeared on behalf of the claimant Union before this Tribunal. Despite ample opportunities to the
Union and the claimant workman for submitting statement of claim; the Union failed to present the case before
the Tribunal. On 03.11.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-appearance of the claimant Union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the Union is not interested in prosecuting the
case further before this Tribunal.
Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.
Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1385.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार मह़ाप्रबंधक, हहंदुस्त़ाि एयरोिॉटटक्स चलचमटेर् चवम़ाि प्रभ़ाग, िकेरी, क़ािपुर (यूपी); म़ाचलक,
मेसर्स कुश़ांग चसक्योटरटी एंर् ह़ाउस कीहपंग सर्वडसेज प्ऱा. चलचमटेर्, वऱ्ाल़ा (ई), मुंबई के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोिकों और श्री चवजय कुम़ार मौयड, क़ामग़ार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] क़ािपुर के पंचाट के (संिभड सं. 91 का 2014) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को
प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 19.12.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-42012/85/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022
S.O. 1385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3049
relation to The General Manager, Hindustan aeronautics Ltd. Aircraft Division, Chakeri, Kanpur(U.P);The
Proprietor, M/s Kushang Security & House Keeping Services Pvt. Ltd, ,Wadala(E), MUMBAI and Shri Vijay
Kumar Maurya, worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
19.12.2022.
[No. L- 42012/85/2014-IR(DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (RETD.)
I.D. No. 91 of 2014
No. L-42012/85/2014-IR(DU) dated 05/08/2014
BETWEEN
Shri Vijay Kumar Maurya
S/o Sh Shiv Nandan Maurya,
H.No. 274-B, Shiv Katra, Thana
Chakeri, Kanpur(U.P)-208007
AND
1.
The General Manager,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Aircraft Division,
Chakeri, Kanpur(U.P)-208007
2.
The Proprietor, M/s Kushang Security & House
Keeping Services Pvt. Ltd, Head Office,
760, Ambi Wadi, Saltpan Road, Wadala(E)
MUMBAI- 400037
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India vide notification no. 42012/85/2014-IR(DU) dated
05.08.2014
SCHEDULE
1. ‘WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN
AERONAUTICS LTD. M/S KAUSHANG SECURITY AND PROTECTION
SERVICE IN TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR
MAURYA S/O SHRI SHIV NANDAN MAURYA WORKMAN WITH EFFECT
FROM 3/06/2013 IS JUST FAIR AND LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF
THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?’
The averments of the claimant workman in the statement of claim may be concisely stated as follows:-
Claimant Vijay Kumar Maurya commenced his job on the designation of Technician in Dornier
workshop of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. from 01.09.2010 and worked continuously till 18.08.2011. Claimant
workman worked overtime for extra 2 hours daily from April 2011 to July 2011 for O.P management HAL.
Even on weekend holidays officers took work of construction and assembling of airplanes from claimant
workman. Claimant workman fulfilled all technical and non-technical terms and conditions issued by Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited vide letter no. HAL/P&A/27(30)/97/187/27 dated 19 april 2001. Claimant workman
worked for O.P management HAL for more than 240 days continuously from May 2012 to 03.06.2013. O.P
management never slammed claimant workman with any charge sheet and no departmental enquiry was done
before terminating the claimant workman. Claimant workman was not even provided with any compensation.
O.P management took the work from claimant workman which should be performed by permanent employees.
The act of O.P management Hindustan Aeronautics Limited terminating the service of claimant workman was
unjust, unlawful and violation of section 25B and 25F of ID Act, 1947.
Stating as above claimant workman has prayed for a direction to reinstate him in job with continuity of
services from the date of termination and also for disbursement for backwages and regularization of his job.
3050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On behalf of O.P management written statement has been submitted with averments which may be
summarized as stated below:-
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, TAD Kanpur(here-in-after stated in short as HAL, TAD) is registered
under the Contractor Labour Regulation and Abolition Act,1970 and contractors engaged their workers. The
contractors make payment to their workers and control them and supervise the workers. It has been specifically
averred that the claimant was not a workman O.P HAL, TAD M/s Kushang Security and House Keeping
Services Pvt Ltd. was the real employer of the claimant. There was no employer employee relationship between
HAL, TAD and the claimant. Recruitment to the post of HAL, TAD is done as per the rules after publication of
advertisement. It is stated that names of eligible candidates are also received from employment exchange. After
written and oral test and interview the candidates are appointed on probation. After successful completion of
probation the appointees are absorbed as regular and permanent employees. At no point of time O.P no. 1 HAL,
TAD ever appointed the claimant in HAL, TAD or ever offered him job. M/s Kushang Security and Protection
Services was assigned a contract under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolishion) Act 1970. The
claimant was employee of M/s Kushang Security and Protection Services (O.P No.2). The service of claimant
was terminated by O.P no.2. On behalf of O.P no.2 no written statement has been submitted. In the rejoinder the
claimant has claimed that he was the workman of HAL, Kanpur. It is further averred by claimant that from the
written statement of O.P no.1 it is manifestly clear that he was doing regular job assigned to a post in the HAL,
TAD. In substance, in the rejoinder the claimant has reiterated his claim for reinstatement with back wages and
for regularization in job in the HAL, TAD in regular post.
The points to be answered for adjudication of this industrial dispute are as follows:-
1. Whether there was employer employee relationship between HAL, TAD, Kanpur and claimant
workman Vijay Kumar Maurya?
2. Whether claimant workman is legally entitled for regularization of job in the HAL?
3. To what relief the claimant workman is entitled?
For convenience Point No. 1 and Point No. 2 are taken together for discussion:-
It stands almost undisputed that claimant workman Vijay Kumar Maurya had worked as security
guard/watchman in the HAL and he had worked from 01.09.2010 upto 18.08.2011 and again for the period
from 05.05.2012 upto 03.06.2013 pursuant to a settlement effected on 04.05.2012. It is vehemently contended
on behalf claimant workman that the Kushang Security O.P NO.2 was not his employer, rather HAL was his
master employer.In support of his stand claimant workman has heavily relied on the token issued to him bearing
signature of security officer. He has pointed out that no agreement nor any paper has been filed on behalf of the
O.P No. 1 (HAL) showing employer employee relationship between O.P NO.2 and the claimant workman and
for non-filing of document by O.P No.1 conclusion is to be made that he was employed by O.P No. 1 (HAL)
and O.P NO.1 should be taken as employer of claimant workman. He is to be deemed to have been employed
by O.P No.1. In support of such stand the claimant workman has referred to documents marked papers 26/15
upto 26/18 showing engagement of Vijay Kumar Maurya in the shift in respect of Dornier aircraft. It is further
submitted that contradictory evidence has been deposed by O.P witness Sanjeev Kumar Singh. It is further
contended that in view of contradictory averments made by witness Sanjeev Kumar Singh at para 26 and para 6
of his deposition the claimant workman should be deemed to have been in direct employment of HAL. It is
further contended by claimant that he was receiving cash as monthly salary from the officers of HAL who were
not issuing any salary slip. It is further submitted that his re-engagement in the HAL pursuant to a settlement
dated 04.05.2012 (marked W.Ext. NO.1 ) bolsters up his stand that there was employer employee relationship
between himself and O.P NO. 1(HAL). The stand of the claimant workman that there was employer employee
relationship between HAL and the workman appears to be illusory. Even to cross examination the workman has
failed to prove any genuine appointment letter issued to him after undergoing any fair selection process
conducted by HAL. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the claimant that the recruitment rules dated
26.10.1967 paper no. 16/8 subsequently amended in the year 1998 are silent as to in what manner the
employees are to be absorbed. The argument on behalf of claimant workman is found to be nothing but feeble
attempt to get absorption in the employment of HAL by some kind of back door entry which is impermissible in
eye of law. At this point it appears pertinent to state that HAL is a Government of India undertaking in which
recruitment is made by following strict guidelines and not by whimsical casual orders. Even if claimant
workman might have worked exceeding 240 days for the period from 01.09.2010 upto 18.08.2011 he is not
legally entitled for absorption in the employment of HAL contrary to the rigid rules of recruitment. It is also
pertinent to state that when termination of a workman is effected without issuance of notice or payment of
notice pay and compensation enshrined in section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act such a workman cannot be
automatically absorbed in HAL with consequential regularization. It is vehemently urged that as per the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolistion) Act 1970 and Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Rules,
1971 his engagement in HAL is to be read as outcome of a camouflage sham contract and he is to be deemed as
employee of HAL. Law in this regard has been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement Appeal
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3051
(civil) 6009-6010 of 2001 Steel Authority of India v/s National Water Front Workers’ Union and in 1992
LAB.I.C 75 (SUPREME COURT) (From: Punjab and Haryana) K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ Civil Appeals No.2 2355 of 1991 with (C.A Nos 2356-66/91, 2366A-69/91, S.L.P
(C) Nos. 9755/91, 9830/91 and 10235-43 of 1981), D/-22-11-1991, Dena Nath and others, Appellant v National
Fertilizers Ltd and others, Respondents. From cumulative reading from aforesaid case laws it is clear that
contract labour has not been totally prohibited. There appears no legally strong ground for reading the contract
between O.P No.1 and O.P No.2 as mere camouflage in view of the stand of the claimant workman that there
was employer employee relationship between HAL and himself. By referring to some papers issued by some
subordinate officials without proving duly issued appointment letter after proper selection process it cannot be
logically concluded that there was employer employee relationship between HAL and claimant workman. Such
a conclusion of employer employee relationship cannot be based on casual surmise.
On behalf of the workman genuineness of the documents annexure-4, annexure-5 and annexure-6 has
been vehemently raised. It is submitted that in those documents anomalies with respect to names of their fathers
have been manifestly noticed and as such those documents relied by O.P management are not to be accepted as
genuine documents. It is submitted that though name of indrajeet is found in annexure-4 the same is not found
in annexure-5, likewise the names of Surrendra Rawat and Arvind are not found in annexure-5. Pointing to
aforesaid anomalies it is submitted that the said annexure may be treated as forged documents. It is vehemently
submitted on behalf of claimant that Vijay Kumar Maurya was not contract worker. He was engaged as a
regular unskilled worker in lawful manner. It is further submitted that on previous occasion contract labourers
have been absorbed in regular posts as found in the order dated 28.07.2006 issued by HAL management.
Countering the above submission on behalf of the workman it is submitted on behalf of O.P management that
annexure-5 and annexure-6 are computer generated papers. It is further submitted on behalf of O.P that
corresponding insurance numbers are issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. It is further
submitted that the office of PF Commissioner issues the PF Id in respect of employees which are found
mentioned in annexure-6 and O.P management has no scope to manipulate the said number. The above
submission on behalf of O.P management have not been shattered by the claimant side and as such the
annexure-4, annexure-5 and annexure-6 can be safely accepted as genuine documents. Though it is submitted
on behalf of claimant workman that he was engaged an unskilled labour at para 2 of his statement of claim he
has described his status as skilled technician which runs counter to the oral submission during arguments made
before this Tribunal. At this point it appears pertinent to examine veracity of claimant workman with regard to
his claim that exhibit-1 is his letter of appointment. On referring to contents of Wexhibit-1 on which claimant
heavily relies it is manifestly clear that the said document Wexhibit-1 is outcome of one settlement before
Assistant Labour Commissioner Central in which claimant has been described as casual worker on daily wages
and it was resolved that he would be re-engaged on casual basis. By no stretch of imagination exhibit-1 WExt-1
can be read as a letter of appointment. It is further submitted on behalf of O.P that in HAL its regularly
appointed employees are allowed scaled wages and not daily wages. At this point it appears pertinent to state
that claimant side had failed to prove any advertisement, written or oral test or any letter of appointment issued
in favour of the claimant. In such scenario it can be safely concluded that there was no direct employer
employee relationship between the O.P, HAL and the claimant. The circular issued by HAL may be silent with
regard to mode of selection of its workers but for absence of mode of selection it cannot be construed that
engagement of workers likely to get wages from the management can be done in arbitrary manner. Previously
some workers might have been absorbed in regular post but the same cannot confer any legal right on the
claimant for absorption in any regular post, contrary to the spirit of the case law reported in 2006(109)FLR 204
Civil appeal no. 1270 of 2006 BRANCH MANAGER, M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. and another and S.C PANDEY and Civil appeal no. 1272 of 2011 State of Orissa and
another appellants v/s Mamta Mohanty. Concept of negative equality cannot sustain before this Tribunal. There
appears no logic to accept claim of the claimant for absorption in HAL as regular employee when initially there
was no employer employee relationship between O.P HAL and the claimant. Even the rules 18 and rule 3 of
certified standing orders on which the claimant relied will not bolster up his claim for regularization in view of
scenario stated above.
Rule 73 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 only prescribes that in
presence of the representative of the principal employer the contract labour shall be paid wages. Rules 73 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules,1971 cannot be read to create the right of contract
labour to get permanent absorption on the job roll of principal employer.
It is true that no letter of termination was issued by HAL. Since claimant has failed to establish
employer employee relationship with O.P HAL the question of issuance of letter of termination by HAL cannot
be legally accepted as a strong ground for automatic absorption. Wexhibit-2 does not bear seal of any competent
authority as admitted by claimant and as such cannot be read to confer the status of regularly appointed
workman upon the claimant.
3052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
From the cumulative reading of the averments made in statement of claim and rejoinder filed by
claimant it is seen that the claimant has somehow concealed his engagement by O.P No. 2 Kushang Security.
From the evidence on record it cannot be concluded that the O.P No.2 was not the contractor under O.P HAL.
It may be true that the papers show changes of Kushang Security to Kushang House Maintenance but the said
anomaly will not confer any extra ordinary advantage on the claimant to claim for regularization. The answer to
points no.1 and no.2 go against the claimant workman.
Point No.3
From reading of the statement of claim and the evidence deposed by the claimant workman it is crystal
clear that he has all along claimed that he was employee of the HAL and as such he has claimed for
regularization on the job role of HAL. In view of his failure to establish employer-employee relationship with
HAL as concluded in the foregoing paragraphs there appears no legality of his claim for regularization in HAL
employment. In such scenario claimant Vijay Kumar Maurya is not entitled to get any monetary compensation.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
In view of the discussions stated above the whole reference is answered against the claims of claimant
Vijay Kumar Maurya. In view of peculiar circumstances parties are left to bear their cost.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1386.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ la- 191/2013)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41011/88/2013- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2022
S.O. 1386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.191/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L- 41011/88/2013– IR(B-1)]
A.K. YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 29.11.2022
Reference: (CGITA) No- 191/2013
The Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway,
Divisional Office,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,
78/9-C, National Highway,
Gandhidham(Kutch)
… Second Party
Adv. for the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3053
Adv. for the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011 /88 /2013–IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal -cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Western Railway Kamdar Sangh asking grant of extra
ordinary leave and regularization of sick period along with payment for
Shri B. O. Vasisth is legal and justified? To what relief Shri B. O. Vasisth is
entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 30.10.2013. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 and
copy of the documents vide list Ex.3 (M. 3/1 to 3/7) on 01.09.2014. First party submitted its written statement
Ex.9 along with documents (R-1 to R-4) and the second party submitted counter reply to Written statement
Ex.10 on 17.03.2017. Perusal of the record shows that the legal heirs of the workman submitted an application
Ex.12 for substitution of legal heirs on 01.09.2017 which was allowed on 12.12.2018. Legal heirs were taken on
record but the second party, despite giving number of opportunities to lead evidence, has failed to lead
evidence. Thus it appears that the legal heirs of the second party or the second party workman, if alive, are not
willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the
observation as under: “the demand of Western Railway Kamdar Sangh asking grant of extra ordinary leave and
regularization of sick period along with payment for Shri B. O. Vasisth is neither legal nor justified”.
3.
Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for
publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1387.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj cMksnk ;q ih xkzeh.k cSad izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ
la- 147/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-12011/17/2019- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2022
S.O. 1387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 147/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda U.P. Gramin
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L- 12011/17/2019– IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
ID 147 of 2019
Ref. No. L-12011/17/2019-IR(B-I) dated 01.07.2019
BETWEEN
3054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Secretary,
Bhartiaya Poorva Sainik Bank Karmachari Sangh,
555-Indira Nagar,
UNNAO(UP)-209001
AND
1. The Regional Manager,
Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank, Regional Office,
117-N/26, Kakadeo,
Kanpur(U.P)-208025
2. The Chairman,
Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank, Head Office,
A-1, Civil Lines,
RaeBareli(Distt.)-229001
AWARD
By order NO. L-12011/17/2019-IR(B-I) dated 01.07.2019, The Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of
Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
The reference under adjudication is :-
“Whether action of the management of Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank in not
considering the request of Shri Chandra Shekhar Awasthi, office Assistant
regarding his transfer to any of the four branches of his choice at kanpur viz. Mall
Road, Tiwaripur, Rama Devi or Yashoda Nagar, although considering the request
of his juniors in violation of Transfer Policy, is just, fair and legal? if not, to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled ?”
The submissions of the claimant may be summarized as follows:-
Claimant workman is an ex-service man working for the O.P management. At present he is
General Secretary of the Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Karamchari Sangh which raises the Industrial
Dispute to ensure various interests of the employees as provided by the Government of India.
The claimant workman as General Secretary of the Union had to come regularly to Kanpur in respect of various
issues which causes loss of time and affects the service provided by claimant workman to the Bank customers
and claimant’s works as General Secretary of the union.To ensure the proper, amicable and timely enforcement
of various policies of the government, Officials of the union must be posted only in cities having administrative
offices of the Bank. So that issues raised could be resolved expeditely.
Claimant workman raised the issue before the management of the Bank to avoid the aforementioned
problem by posting him in Kanpur. O.P assured him that he would be posted in the next transfer cycle.
But O.P Bank with malicious intention had shown reluctance towards claimant’s request. Even, O.P
Bank violated the transfer policy of the Bank by transferring few workmen to cities who have not
even completed one year in their branch.
Keeping in mind the possibilities of Industrial unrest and to ensure the proper protection of the
employees, the claimant workman prayed before this Tribunal for justice.
Stating as above claimant has prayed for posting in any of the branches such as Mall Road, Tiwaripur,
Rama Devi or Yashoda Nagar.
On behalf of the O.P it is submitted that claimant Shri Chandra Shekhar Awasthi has already been
posted at Mall Road Branch of the Employer bank after his promotion to the level of head cashier.
The averments of the claimant with regard to discriminatory game of the management have not been
proved with evidence. Hence it cannot be concluded that the O.P management has done the violation of transfer
policy. However, since the claimant has already been posted in the Mall Road Branch of the Employer Bank
there survived no actual dispute.
The reference stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3055
नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1388.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ
la- 1100/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS 1
[सं. एल-41011/11/98- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2022
S.O. 1388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1100/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L- 41011/11/98– IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR-COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 29.11.2022
Reference: (CGITA) No- 1100/2004
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Bhavnagar Division,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)-364001
….First Party
V
The General Secretary,
Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,
T.B.Z.-17, Gurunagar,
Gandhidham-370 201
…Second Party
Adv. for the First Party : Shri D. C. Khuva
Adv. for the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/11/98/IR(B-I) dated 23.02.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham
against the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Bhavnagar Para,
for regularization of the 11 Loaders, in the list enclosed, engaged in the work
of loading and unloading of goods and parcels at the stations shown against
each, which is of a routine and regular nature, just, valid and legal? If so to
what benefit the workmen are entitled for and what directions are necessary
in the matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 23.02.1999. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, the second
party submitted the statement of claim dated-01.03.2004 vide Ex.6. Perusal of the record shows that the first
party did not prefer to submit its written statement despite service of notice and giving several opportunities.
3056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 12.12.2018. Since then the second party has not been
leading evidence despite giving several opportunities.
2. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the
observation as under: “the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham against the Divisional
Railway Manager, Western Railway, Bhavnagar Para, for regularization of the 11 Loaders, in the list enclosed,
engaged in the work of loading and unloading of goods and parcels at the stations shown against each, which is
of a routine and regular nature is not just, valid and legal”
3. Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for
publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1389.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ds
(lanHkZ la- 166/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-41011/70/2013-vkbZ vkj (ch-1)]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2022
S.O. 1389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 166/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L- 41011/70/2013– IR(B-1)]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 29.11.2022
Reference: (CGITA) No- 166/2013
The Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway,
Divisional Office,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V
The General Secretary,
Western Railway Kamdar Sangh,
78/9-C, National Highway,
Gandhidham(Kutch)
….Second Party
Adv. for the First Party : Shri Rajesh Singh
Adv. for the Second Party : None
AWARD
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3057
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-41011/70/2013-IR(B-I) dated 23.09.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal -
cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Western Railway, Divisional Railway Manager,
Divisional Office, Ahmedabad by not granting financial assistant from relief fund to
Shri B. O. Vashistha, Pointsman is justified? To what relief Shri B. O. Vashistha is
entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 23.09.2013. In response to the notice Ex.2 issued by the tribunal, the
second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 and copy of the documents vide list Ex.6 (M. 6/A to 6/G)
on 23.02.2015. The first party submitted its written statement Ex.8 on 24.04.2019. Perusal of the record shows
that the legal heirs of the workman submitted an application Ex.9 for substitution of legal heirs on 01.09.2017
which was allowed. Legal heirs were taken on record but the second party despite giving various opportunities
to lead evidence, has failed to lead evidence.
2.
Therefore, it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the
observation as under: “the action of the Western Railway, Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office,
Ahmedabad by not granting financial assistant from relief fund to Shri B. O. Vasistha, Pointsman is justified”.
4. Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for
publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1390.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj एजक्सस बैंक izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k fnYyh- 2 ds iapkV ds (lanHkZ la-
70/2020) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS !
[सं. एल-12025/01/2022- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½-13]
,- ds- ;kno, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Delhi-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Axis Bank Ltd. and
their workmen.
[No. L- 12025/01/2022– IR(B-1) -13]
A.K YADAV, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID.NO.70/2020
Shri Rameshwar Singh, S/o Shri Ram Singh,
Through, Rashtriya Rajdhani Shramik Sangh,
House No.-258 , Pole No. 58, Village & Post Office-Kair,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
…. Workman
Versus
3058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd.
D-15 Basement 24 to 28, South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi-110049.
2. The Manager,
Nisha Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd.
House No. 144, Sector-31, Gurgoan -122003
…. Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide file no. ND.
96(38)2019-ID-FOC-DY-CLC dated 17.02.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Nisha Industrial Services Pvt.
Ltd. in terminating the service of the workman Shri Rameshwar Singh, w.e.f
26.07.2017 is just, fair and legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date ?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice,
claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is
clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’
award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1391.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार दूरसंि़ार चजल़ा प्रबंधक, भ़ारत संि़ार चिगम चलचमटेर्, गुि़ा (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और श्री घिश्य़ाम, क़ामग़ार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
जबलपुर के पंचाट के (संिभड सं्या CGIT/LC/R/9/2012 Merged with R/15/2012) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में
कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 12.12.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-40012/89/2011-आईआर-(र्ीयू))
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1391.—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/9/2012 Merged with R/15/2012) 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 Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Guna
(M.P.) and Shri Ghanshyam, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 12.12.2022.
[No. L- 40012/89/2011– IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3059
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/9/2012
Merged with R/15/2012
Present: P.K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ghanshyam
S/o Shri Mangilal Mali
Opp.Railway Sation
Chanchowda, Guna(M.P.)
….Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Guna(M.P.)
….Management
AWARD
(Passed on 7-11-2022.)
As per letter dated 29/12/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. Both the references is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40012/89/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, guna(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam
S/o Shri Mangilal Mali w.e.f. 9/9/2009, is legal and justified? What relief the
workman is entitled to?.”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman Ghanshyam was
employed as Group’D’ worker by the Management w.e.f 1-4-1993 and worked continuously with the
Management without any break till 9-9-2009. He was appointed against regular vacancy and was paid wages
on monthly basis. He had completed 240 days continuously in every year from the date of his initial
appointment till date of his termination. He was terminated without any notice or compensation on 9-9-2009.
Hence his termination is in violation of Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H and Section 25N of the
Industrial disputes Act,1947. The work is still available with the Management. Accordingly, it has been
prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that the workman Ghanshyam was never employed by them as
claimed by him on daily basis or casual basis, hence there is no question of termination of his services.
Accordingly Management has claimed what the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the
Management. The workman has filed and proved copy of his petition raising dispute before Assistant Labour
Commissioner(Central), attendance sheet for the month of September-1993. He has examined himself as a
witness and has been cross-examined by Management. The Management has examined its witness Shri Vinay
Kirti Jain, Assistant General Manager. He has been cross-examined from the side of the workman.
5.
The management has filed affidavit of witness Shri Vinay Kirti Jain, Assistant General manager.
6.
I have heard arguments of Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the workman and Shri P.S.Shankaran,
learned counsel for the Management and have gone though the record.
7.
The reference itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
8.
The workman has corroborated his case in his affidavit filed as his Examination-in-chief. In his cross-
examination, he admits that he was not issued a formal appointment letter. He further states that he worked in
Chanchoda, Guna and Raghogarh etc. He was engaged in maintenance and wire pulling. There is nothing in
his statement to discredit him .
3060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
On the other hand the Management witness has stated that the workman was never engaged in any
capacity. He never worked for 240 days continuously in any year. In his cross-examination this witness has
stated that the facts stated in his affidavit as his Examination-in-Chief is on the basis of information received
orally from the Officers posted at these places. He further stated that no document relating to the workman is
available and that he does not know that a daily wager was appointed during the period 1993 to 1999 and that
records of that period i.e. the muster roll etc. has been weeded out.
10.
As it is established, no documentary record is available with the Management because the records have
been weeded out as stated by Management witness. Hence, this case is to be decided on the basis of oral
evidences. The management witness was not posted at the places and during the time the workman claims to
have been working with the Management, hence, the statement of workman on oath appears more reliable .
11.
Accordingly, it is held that the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240
days in every year since 1-4-1993 to 9-9-2009. Since there is nothing to indicate that he was issued any notice
or paid any compensation, his termination is held in violation of Section 25 F & Section 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947.
12.
In the light of the finding recorded above, another issue arises as to what relief the workman is entitled
to. There is nothing on record to show that his appointment was against any vacant and sanctioned post ,
following recruitment procedure, hence reinstatement of his services will not be a just relief in the case in hand
but keeping in view his long tenure from 1993 to 2009 a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two
lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims will meet the ends of Justice to which the
workman is held entitled.
13.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
“The action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, guna(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam S/o Shri Mangilal
Mali w.e.f. 9/9/2009, is held not legal and justified.
B.The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees
two lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims within 30 days from the
date of publication of award in official gazette failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of notification till receipt of the Award.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 7-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1392.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार दूरसंि़ार चजल़ा प्रबंधक, भ़ारत संि़ार चिगम चलचमटेर्, गुि़ा (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और श्री गज़ािंद म़ाली, क़ामग़ार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/11/2012 Merged with R/17/2012) को जैस़ा कक
अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 12.12.2022 को
प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-40012/86/2011- vkbZ vkj-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी. के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1392.—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/11/2012 Merged with R/17/2012) 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 Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Guna
(M.P.) and Shri Gajanand Mali, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 12.12.2022.
[No. L- 40012/86/2011- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3061
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2012
Merged with R/17/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Gajanand Mali
S/o Shri Jamna Lal Mali
Behin Jilla Sahkari Bank,
Tabal Ki Badi, Chachouda(Guna)
….Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Guna(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 7-11-2022.)
As per letter dated 29/12/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40012/86/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Guna(MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Gajanand S/o Shri Jamunalal Mali w.e.f. 10/5/2009 is legal and
justified? What relief the workman is entitled to? .”
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman Gajanand was
employed as Group’D’ worker by the Management w.e.f 1-2-1993 and worked continuously with the
Management without any break till 10-5-2009. He was appointed against regular vacancy and was paid wages
on monthly basis. He had completed 240 days continuously in every year from the date of his initial
appointment till date of his termination. He was terminated without any notice or compensation 10-5-2009.
Hence his termination is in violation of Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H and Section 25N of the
Industrial disputes Act,1947. The work is still available with the Management. Accordingly, it has been
prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
3. The case of the Management is mainly that the workman Gajanand was never employed by them as
claimed by him on daily basis or casual basis, hence there is no question of termination of his services.
Accordingly Management has claimed what the reference be answered against the workman.
4. The workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the
Management. The workman has filed and proved copy GAIL India Gate passes which are Exhibit W-1 to
Exhibit W-5 for different period. He has examined himself as a witness and has been cross-examined by
Management. The Management has examined its witness Shri Vinay Kirti Jain, Assistant General Manager.
He has been cross-examined from the side of the workman.
5. The management has filed affidavit of witness Shri Vinay Kirti Jain, Assistant General manager.
6. I have heard arguments of Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the workman and Shri P.S.Shankaran,
learned counsel for the Management and have gone though the record.
7. The reference itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
8. The workman has corroborated his case in his affidavit filed as his Examination-in-chief. In his cross-
examination, he admits that he was not issued a formal appointment letter. He further states that he worked in
Chanchoda, Guna etc. There is nothing in his statement to discredit him .
9. On the other hand the Management witness has stated that the workman was never engaged in any
capacity. He never worked for 240 days continuously in any year. In his cross-examination this witness has
stated that the facts stated in his affidavit as his Examination-in-Chief is on the basis of information received
orally from the Officers posted at these places. He further stated that no document relating to the workman is
3062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
available and that he does not know that a daily wager was appointed during the period 1993 to 2009 and that
records of that period i.e. the muster roll etc. has been weeded out.
10. As it is established, no documentary record is available with the Management because the records have
been weeded out as stated by Management witness. Hence, this case is to be decided on the basis of oral
evidences. The management witness was not posted at the places and during the time the workman claims to
have been working with the Management, hence, the statement of workman on oath appears more reliable .
11. Accordingly, it is held that the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240
days in every year since 1-2-1993 to 10-5-2009. Since there is nothing to indicate that he was issued any notice
or paid any compensation, his termination is held in violation of Section 25 F & Section 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
12. In the light of the finding recorded above, another issue arises as to what relief the workman is entitled
to. There is nothing on record to show that his appointment was against any vacant and sanctioned post ,
following recruitment procedure, hence reinstatement of his services will not be a just relief in the case in hand
but keeping in view his long tenure from 1993 to 2009 a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two
lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims will meet the ends of Justice to which the
workman is held entitled.
13. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
“The action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Guna(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Gajanand S/o Shri Jamunalal
Mali w.e.f. 10/5/2009, is held not legal and justified.
B.The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees
two lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims within 30 days from the
date of publication of award in official gazette failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of notification till receipt of the Award.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 7-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1393.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार दूरसंि़ार चजल़ा प्रबंधक, भ़ारत संि़ार चिगम चलचमटेर्, गुि़ा (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और श्री ओम प्रक़ाश द्व़ाऱा श्रीमती अमर ब़ाई, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/13/12, merged with R/19/2012) को जैस़ा कक
अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 12.12.2022 को
प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-40012/85/2011- आईआर-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1393.—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/13/12, merged with R/19/2012) 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 Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Guna
(M.P.) and Shri Om Prakash Represented by Smt.Amar Bai, which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 12.12.2022.
[No. L- 40012/85/2011– IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3063
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/12
merged with R/19/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Om Prakash (Dead)
Represented by Widow wife
Smt.Amar Bai
Village Goriyakheda
PO:Kumbhraj,
Thesil: Kumbhraj
Guna(M.P.)
….Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Guna(M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 7th day of November-2022
As per letter dated 29/12/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40012/85/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Amanager, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Guna(M.P.) in terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri
Babulal Ojha w.e.f. 10/10/2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defense.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman Omprakash was
employed as Group’D’ worker by the Management w.e.f 1-2-1994 and worked continuously with the
Management without any break till 10-10-2009. He was appointed against regular vacancy and was paid wages
on monthly basis. He had completed 240 days continuously in every year from the date of his initial
appointment till date of his termination without any notice or compensation on 10-10-2009. Hence his
termination is in violation of Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H and Section 25N of the Industrial disputes
Act,1947. The work is still available with the Management. Accordingly, it has been prayed that setting aside
his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
3.
The case of the Management is mainly that the workman Omprakash was never employed by them as
claimed by him on daily basis of casual basis, hence there is no question of termination of his services.
Accordingly Management has claimed what the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the
Management.
5.
The workman also filed affidavit of his co-workman Ghanshyam who has been cross-examined by
Management.
6.
The management has filed affidavit of witness Shri Vinay Kirti Jain, Assistant General manager.
7.
I have heard arguments of Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel for the workman and Shri R.S.Khare,
learned counsel for the Management and have gone though the record.
8.
The reference itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.
9.
The workman has reiterated his case as mentioned above in his affidavit, filed as his examination in
chief. He has been cross-examined by Management. He has stated in his cross-examination that he did not
3064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
receive any formal appointment letter. He denied that he never worked continuously for 240 days in any year.
The workman witness Ghanshyam as corroborated the case of the workman. He has stated that he was also
employed and worked as Group’D’ worker with the Management since 1-4-1993. The workman Omprakash
was his co-workman. They both worked together. This witness has been cross-examined by Management.
There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit this witness. He has mentioned details as to where he had
worked with the workman Omprakash. ON the other hand, the Management witness has denied the claim of the
workman in his affidavit. He admits that he was never posted during the time and the place where the workman
was said to be posted.
10.
It also comes out from perusal that Management was issued directions to file some documents
regarding attendance and payment of the work but did not file any document, hence adverse inference be drawn
against the Management on this point.
11.
On the basis of the above discussion of evidences, the case of the workman that he worked
continuously for 240 days in every year, since the date of his first appointment as a casual labour on 1-2-1994
till date of termination of his services on 10-10-2009 is held proved, since there is nothing on record to show
that any notice or compensation was given to the workman , his dis-engagement is held in violation of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
12.
In the light of the finding recorded above, another issue arises as to what relief the workman is entitled
to. It comes out from the perusal of record that the workman died during the pendency of the reference and his
legal representative has been brought on record. There is nothing on record to show that his appointment was
against any vacant and sanctioned post , following recruitment procedure, hence reinstatement of his services
will not be a just relief in the case in hand but keeping in view his long tenure from 1994 to 2009 a lump sum
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims will
meet the ends of Justice to which the workman is held entitled.
13.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Guna(M.P.) in terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Babulal
Ojha w.e.f. 10/10/2009 is held not legal and justified.
B. The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two
lakh only) in lieu of full and final settlement of all his claims within 30 days from the
date of publication of award in official gazette failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of notification till receipt of the Award.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 7-11-2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1394.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक, भ़ारतीय ऱाष्ट्रीय सहक़ारी उपभोक्त़ा संघ, जोि-II भोप़ाल (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री क़ांत प्रक़ाश हसंह, क़ामग़ार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/113/2018) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में
कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 12.12.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-42012/139/2018- आईआर-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1394.—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/113/2018) 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 manager,National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India, Zone-II, Bhopal (M.P.)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3065
and Shri Kant Prakash Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 12/12/2022.
[No. L- 42012/139/2018- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/113/2018
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kant Prakash Singh
R/O G-47/1,New Shabri nagar,
Sukhlia,Indore (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Regional manager,
National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India
12-A, Dayal Complex, M.P.Nagar
Zone-II Near FCI Office, Bhopal (M.P.)
….Management
AWARD
(Passed on 20-9-2022.)
As per letter dated 22/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-42012/139/2018(IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of National Cooperative Consumer’s
Federatin of India Ltd. In down grading pay of Shri Kant Prakash Singh from
Rs.2400/- to Rs.1900/- is justified?If not to what relief the workman is entitled
for ? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
2.
The workman appeared and has filed his written statement of claim.
3.
The Management was also served with the notice but no one appeared from the side of the
Management and nor did they file their statement of defense.
4.
Inspite of many opportunities to both the parties, neither of them appeared and produced the oral or
file the written arguments. Hence on 30-9-2021 the cases proceeded ex-parte against the Management.
5.
Though the statement of claim was filed by the workman but he was never present at the time of
arguments nor was he represented to defend his case. The initial burden to prove his claim lies on the
workman. He has not 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 an ex-parte 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
DATE: 20-9-2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1395.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरकार कुलसजचव, डॉ. िरर जसंि गौर जवश्वजवद्यालय, सागर, (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
अध्यक्ष, डॉ. िरर जसंि गौर (मध्य.) जवज वद्यालय कमडचारी संघ, सागर, (म.प्र.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय
3066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/73/2018) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा
26.11.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42011/89/2018- आईआर-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1395.—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/73/2018) 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 Registrar , Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar,( M.P.) and The President, Dr. Hari Singh
Gour(Cent.) University Employ Union, Sagar,(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 26.11.2022.
[No. L- 42011/89/2018- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2018
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Sandeep Balmiki
President
Dr. Hari Singh Gour(Cent.)
University Employ Union
Resident of Purvyau Touri,,
Sagar, M.P. – 470001
…..Workman
Versus
The Registrar
Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University
Sagar, M.P. – 470003.
(Passed on this 20th day of October-2022)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-42011/89/2018-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“क्य़ा प्रबंधि रचजस्ऱार र्ॉ हरीहसंह गौर चवश्वचवद्य़ालय (केन्द्द्रीय चवद्य़ालय) स़ागर म प्र) के
द्व़ाऱा श्री सोिू बोहत दैचिक वेति भोगी ऱ्ाट़ा प्रचवचि आपरेट/ सह़ायक येडि को कदि़ांक
16.09.2013 से चियोजि में रखिे पश्च़ात स्थ़ाई कमडि़ारी के तौर पर ऱ्ाट़ा प्रचवचि आपरेटर/
सह़ायक ग्रेर्-3 के पद पर वगीकरण ि करते हुए उिके व़ास्तचवक पद क़ा वेतिम़ाि प्रद़ाि ि
करि़ा एवं कदि़ांक 25.10.2017 से उिकी सेव़ाएं सम़ाप्त ककये ज़ािे की क़ायडव़ाही न्द्य़ायोचित
है यकद िहीं, तो संबंचधत कमडि़ारी ककस अिुतोष क़ा हकद़ार है ?”
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 Union, as put up in their statement of claim, is that is an Association of
persons working for the protection of the interest of employees working for the University. It has authority to
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3067
raise a dispute and contest the case on behalf of the workman who has is a member of the Union. The workman
was initially appointed as Computer Operator/Lower Division Clerk and continued as daily wager/muster roll
employee, grade-III post since his initial appointment in the year 2013 . He approached the Hon’ble High Court
of M.P,. when there was reduction of pay by way of a writ petition. Hon’ble High court directed the University
to give benefit of minimum pay scale notified to the post . The University was declared a Central University
vide Central University Act 2009. Before that, it was a State University as per provisions of M.P.
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973. The workman was initially appointed as a Computer/Lower Division Clerk
on 16-9-2013 and started discharging his duties Computer/Lower Division Clerk. The said appointment was
with the prior approval after creation of the post. The said workman has been continuously working since the
date of his first appointment on 16-9-2013 till 25-10-2017 when his services were terminated without
preparation of any seniority list, without following the principles of last come first go and also without any
notice or compensation. According to the applicant workman, the said post are still available with the second
party University and is of permanent nature. Further, since the applicant workman possessed the necessary
qualification for the post of Computer operator/lower division clerk, he is therefore, entitled for classification on
the aforesaid post with grade pay of 1900/- per month with effect from 16-9-2013. He is also further entitled to
be reinstated with full back wages and benefits setting aside his retrenchment as inspite of his best efforts he
could not get suitable job for him till now.
3.
According to the workman Union, the duties which were discharged by the applicant workman is of
Class-III post in the University. When the University was a State University a resolution was passed by the
Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 1-5-2008 by exercising powers under Section 24 of
the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam,1973. It was resolved that all the daily wagers/muster roll employees,
employed will be entitled to minimum of pay and scale and allowances which is applicable to the Grades in
which they were discharging their duties. The Executive council further adopted the recommendation of other
pay recommendations of Teachers/Officers and employees vide its resolution dated 22-8-2009. The University
was declared a Central University with the passage of notification of Central Universities Act,2009. Section 4D
of this Act provided that every person earlier employed by the University shall hold his office on same
remuneration and terms and conditions and rules and privileges unless it is altered in consequence with the
statutory rights. The Applicant Workman and the other similarly situated employees who were required to
discharge duties equivalent to Class-III employees were illegally downgraded to Class-IV employees. It is
further the case of the workman Union that the university has not recruited regular employees in Class-III and
Class-IV for the last several years and this work is being discharged by muster roll employees even today also.
Hence, the action of the University denying standard classification pay scale of Grade-III to employees and
making payment to all at the same rate of pay irrespective of work discharged by them is illegal and arbitrary.
It is in this back drop that Hon’ble High Court of M.P. directed the University to pay the applicant workman
and similarly situated petitioners minimum pay in the scale of pay notified for the post against which they are
discharging their duties vide its order dated 26-9-2011 passed in W.P.No.4520/2010. This order has been
affirmed by Hon’ble the High Court vide its order dated 26-7-2013 passed in S.L.P.No.18342-43/2013.
Further, it has been stated that in order to circumvent the order of Hon’ble High Court and Hon. Supreme Court,
the University has not carried proper classification and fitment . Since the applicant workman has not been
given proper classification and fitment and deprived them of all the benefits which is violation of standing order
applicable over the University. Accordingly, it has been prayed that holding the termination of the workman
against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits and also be held entitled for
permanent classification in Grade-III for the post of Computer Operator, Grade-III with Grade Pay Scale of
Rs.1900/- per month w.e.f. completion of six months from the date of completion of six months of his
application or since 16-9-2013 with arrears and interest.
4.
IN the written statement of defence by the University, it has been pleaded that the allegation of the
workman that he is discharging his duties on vacant and sanctioned post is incorrect. To obtain the status of a
permanent employee a person must be employed in terms of statutory rules. The applicant workman was simply
a daily wager/temporary employee on outsourcing basis through a contractor,who cannot hold the post unless he
is appointment in terms of the Act and rules framed there under. An appointment may in violation of mandatory
provisions of a statute is nullity. A persons appointed in such a manner cannot claim any benefit and rights
regarding regularization and permanency in service in the light of Principle laid down in the case of State of
Karnataka & Another Vs. Uma Devi and Others(2006) 4 SCC 1. As regards the order of Hon’ble High
Court and Hon’ble the Apex Court directing minimum pay in the scale , it is the case of the Management that
the this order has been complied with by the management of University. The Competent Authority in the
University has constituted a Committee to examine the case of daily wagers/muster roll employees discharging
the duties of Class-III and on the basis of the records available the daily wage and muster roll employees have
been given pay entitled to Class-III employees and Dearness Allowance. Accordingly the management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman Union. It is further the case of the management
that the applicant workman was disengaged following the rules. The Management has thus prayed that the
reference be answered against the applicant workman.
3068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The workman Union has filed a rejoinder wherein it has denied the case of management and has
further reiterated its case.
6.
The workman has filed vide list 26 documents and has proved as Exhibit W-1 to W-25, to be referred
to as and when required. The workman Union has further filed and proved photocopy of marksheets and
educational qualification documents of the workman Sonu bohat which are collectively marked Exhibit W-26 to
be referred to as and when required.
7.
The workman Union has filed affidavit as his examination in chief . Opportunity of cross-
examination of this witness was given to management . They did not avail this opportunity, hence opportunity
of cross-examination of this witness is closed.
8.
The management has not examined any witness, rather it has filed two photocopy office orders dated
5-5-2014 and 2-11-2016 both admitted by workman Union, marked as Exhibit M1 to M2 respectively.
9.
I have heard arguments of Mr. Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the workman Union. The
management did not appear at the time of arguments. The workman Union has filed written arguments also
which is part of the record. No written arguments has been filed by the Management. I have gone through the
record as well.
10.
On perusal of record in the light of arguments, the following points/issues come up for determination :-
1) Whether the University Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University is an industry as defined
under Section 2(J) and the applicant workman is a workman as defined in Section
2(s) of the of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947?
2. Whether the applicant workman was recruited as a Computer Operator/Lower
Division Clerk against sanctioned vacancy, following recruitment procedure and also
whether he had the requisite qualification for the job he was recruited?
3. Whether the applicant workman was initially recruited through contractor as a
contractor worker on outsourcing?
4. Whether the workman has been in continuous service of the management from the
date of his first appointment till date and whether his termination is against law?
5. Whether the applicant workman is entitled to be classified as Category-III/Class-III
employee for the post of Computer Operator/Lower Division Clerk , if yes from
which date?
11.
ISSUE NO.1:-
Before proceeding it is necessary to enumerate Section 2(J) and Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 as below:-
Section 2(S)-
“workman” means any person (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 express or implied, and for the purposes of any
proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has
been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that
dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),
or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six
hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the
office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
2(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of
employers andincludes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial
occupation or avocation of workmen;
12.
In the case of Rajkumar Vs. Director Education Civil appeal No.1020/2011 Hon’ble the Apex
Court has held that educational institution is industry as defined under Section 2(J) of the Act. As regards the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3069
University, Hon’ble the Apex court has referred to the Judgment of Seven Judges Bench in the case of
Bangalore Water Suppy & Sewarage Board Vs. R.Rajappa and Others , (1978) Scr (3) 207, the relevant
portion is being reproduced as follows:-
“The issue whether educational institution is an ‘industry’, and its employees are ‘workmen’ for 4
(1997) 5 SCC 737 ,the purpose of the ID Act has been answered by a Seven-judge Bench of this Court
way back in the year 1978 in the case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra). It was held that educational
institution is an industry in terms of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, though not all of its employees are
workmen. It was held as under: “The premises relied on is that the bulk of the employees in the
university is the teaching community. Teachers are not workmen and cannot raise disputes under the
Act. The subordinate staff being only a minor category of insignificant numbers, the institution must be
excluded, going by the predominant character test. It is one thing to say that an institution is not an
industry. It is altogether another thinking to say that a large number of its employees are not 'workmen'
and cannot therefore avail of the benefits of the Act so the institution ceases to be an industry. The test
is not the predominant number of employees entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The true test is the
predominant nature of the activity. In the case of the university or an educational institution, the nature
of the activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the university is an
industry. The error has crept in, if we may so say with great respect, in mixing up the numerical
strength of the personnel with the nature of the activity. Secondly there are a number of other activities
of the University Administration, demonstrably industrial which are severable although ancillary to the
main cultural enterprise. For instance, a university may have a large printing press as a separate but
considerable establishment. It may have a large fleet of transport buses with an army of running staff.
It may have a tremendous administrative strength of officers and clerical cadres. It may have
karamcharis of various hues. As the Corporation of Nagpur has effectively ruled, these operations,
viewed in severalty or collectively, may be treated as industry. It would be strange, indeed, if a
university has 50 transport buses, hiring drivers, conductors, cleaners and workshop technicians. How
are they to be denied the benefits of the Act, especially when their work is separable from academic
teaching, merely because the buses are owned by the same corporate personality? We find, with all
defence, little force in this process of nullification of the industrial character of the University's multi-
form operations.” (emphasis laid by this Court)
Hence, in the light of aforesaid judgment, the Dr.Hari Singh Gaur University non teaching staff is held to be
workmen as defined under Section 2(S) and 2(J) and for this purpose, the University is held to be an Industry
as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. ISSUE NO.2 & 3:-
Since these issues are inter related, they are being taken together.
According to the workman Union, the applicant workman was initially appointed on 17-6-2013 on the post of
Computer operator which was a duly sanction and vacant post. He had the requisite qualification for the post he
was a Bachelor in Arts in short hand and typing certificate in Hindi and English also Post Graduate Diploma in
Computer Operations. It is in the evidence of the workman that University had a duly constituted Selection
committee headed by then Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and other Professors were the Members of the
Committee who after initial scrutiny, of his application and documents filed by him in response to vacancy
notification interviewed him personally and thereafter his name figured in the list of selected candidates. The
workman witness further stated that the case of the management that the workman was an outsourced employee
is against fact. He further states in his evidence that inspite of artificial breaks of one day after every 59 days he
had completed 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his termination. He also states
that the Management did not prepare any seniority list and did not follow the principle of first come and last go,
also did not pay any compensation or notice. He also states that when he had raised a dispute with the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, the Management illegally terminated his services in violation of section 33 of Industrial
Disputes Act,1947. This statement of workman which is on oath is uncross-examined. Exhibit W-26 which is
copy of his educational qualifications goes to show that he is a graduate having required diploma in shorthand
and typing in Hindi and English and also had computer diploma at the time when he was first appointed.
The case of Management is mainly that the workman was never engaged by the University. He was an
outsourced employee. The Management does not disclose the name of the contractor through which the
workman was outsourced in its pleadings nor has lead any evidence oral or documentary as to who was the
contractor though which the services of the workman was outsourced.
Secondly, the RTI documents mentioned above show that the payment to the workman was done by
the University itself and not through any contractor. Also that the provident fund of this workman was also
deposited by the Management itself, the RTI documents regarding the attendance of the workman corroborate
3070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
his case that he has worked continuously for 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of his
termination.
As pleaded by Workman Union, the management neither prepared any seniority list nor has followed
the principle of first come last go also that no notice or compensation was given to the workman on his
retrenchment. The workman witness has corroborated this allegation in his affidavit as his Examination in
Chief. Management has not filed any document or evidence in rebuttal, hence, this allegation of the workman
Union also stands proved.
Section 25B, 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Rules 76 and
77 of Industrial Disputes Central les,1957 are being reproduced as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
Definition of continuous service.-
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised
leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due
to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the
meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually
worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman
employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a
period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred
and twenty days, in any other case.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given
one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice: 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for
every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months;
and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.]
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.
76. Notice of retrenchment.—If any employer desires to retrench any workman
employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service The
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for not less than one year under him
(hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’ in this rule and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give
notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the
Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government,
the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following
manner:— (a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be
sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b) where
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3071
no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month’s wages in lieu thereof,
notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such
wages are paid; and (c) where retrenchment is carried out under an agreement which
specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be sent so as
to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned,
at least one month before such date: Provided that if the date of termination of service
agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent
to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant
Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the
agreement.
77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen.—The employer shall prepare a list of all
workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged
according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be
pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial
establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
From the aforesaid discussion, following facts are held proved:-
A. There was a vacancy with the management at the time when the workman was given
appointment.
B. The workman had requisite qualification for the post.
C. The case of the Management that the workman was outsourced employee could not
be proved.
D. The case of the workman that he was appointed following recruitment procedure
prevalent at the time stands proved. He worked under the direct control, supervision
and direction of Management, in the Office of management and his wages were paid to
him by Management only and not through any contractor.
E. The workman has successfully proved his continuous employment of more than 240
days in every year inspite of break of one day after every 59 days with the Management.
F. Mandatory Rules of prior notice and compensation as well preparation of
seniority list of daily wager/muster roll employee were not prepared and principle of
first come and last has not been followed.
IN the light of the above findings, Issue No.2 & 3 are answered accordingly.
15.
ISSUE NO.4:-
From the aforesaid discussion, the fact that there a vacancy for the post on which the applicant workman is
working and that the applicant workman as requisite qualification of the post as well as that he has been
recruited following the procedure established as mentioned above. Learned Counsel for the workman has
referred to an Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,1946, Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Central Act 1946 which deals with the classification of the workman referred to by learned
counsel for the workman Union is being reproduced as follows:-
THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
This Act is to require employers in industrial establishments to formally define
conditions of employment under them and submit draft standing orders to certifying
Authority for its Certification. It applies to every industrial establishment wherein 100
(reduced to 50 by the Central Government in respect of the establishments for which it
is the Appropriate Government) or more workmen are employed. And the Central
Government is the appropriate Government in respect of establishments under the
control of Central Government or a Railway Administration or in a major port, mine or
oil field. Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, all RLCs(C)
have been declared Certifying Officers to certify the standing orders in respect of the
establishments falling in the Central Sphere. CLC(C) and all Dy.CLCs(C) have been
declared Appellate Authorities under the Act.
16. In the case of M.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Heeralal and Chhedalal &
Others(Manu/MP 0138/1974) decided by the 5 Judges Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., it has been
held that in case of any discrepancy in the Standing Orders and Rules made by the Industrial
3072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Establishment, the former shall prevail. Hon’ble High Court has referred to another decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Hari Shankar Jain & another (1997) SC 65 which
has laid down the same prepositions, hence so far as the case of the applicant workman is concerned his
rights will be governed by the standard Clause 2(b) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central
Act 1946 mentioned as above. This is also established on record documentary/statement of applicant
workman for he has been discharging duties similarly to that done by the regular staff.
17. Reference of Section 25(T) and Scheduled V of the Unfair Labour Practice of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 which deal with prohibition of unfair labour practice requires to be mentioned here which are
being reproduced as follows:-
[CHAPTER VC
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union,
whether registered under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit
any unfair labour practice.
Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 deals with unfair labour practices adopted by employer, is being
reproduced as follows:-
FIFTH SCHEDULE : Unfair Labour Practices
[Section 2(ra)]
I. ON THE PART OF EMPLOYERS AND TRADE UNIONS OF EMPLOYERS
(1) To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to
organize, form, join or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to
say.-
(a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organized;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organization,
with a view to undermining the efforts of the trade union at organization.
(2) To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any
trade union, that is to say,
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organizing a trade union of his
workmen; and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favor to one of several trade unions
attempting to organize his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is
not a recognized trade union.
(3) To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.
(4) To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating
against any workman, that is to say,
(a) discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join
or organize a trade union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being a
strike which is deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating or workmen because of trade union activities;
(d) refusing to promote workmen of higher posts on account of their trade union
activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating
discord amongst other workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade
union;
(f) discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of
their trade union activities.
(5) To discharge or dismiss workmen-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3073
(a) by way of victimization;
(b) not in good faith, but in the colorable exercise of the employer’s rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on
concocted evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic
enquiry or with undue haste;
(g) for misconduct of a minor technical character, without having any regard to the
nature of the particular misconduct or the past record or service of the
workman, thereby leading to a disproportionate punishment.
(6) To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such
work to contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.
(7) To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of
following management policy.
(8) To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct
bond, as a precondition to allowing them to resume work.
(9) To show favoritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
(10) To employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as
such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of
permanent workmen.
(11) To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying
against an employer in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.
(12) To recruit workman during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
(13) Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
(14) To indulge in acts of force or violence.
(15) To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognized trade unions.
(16) Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
18. It is now established that giving artificial break of one or two days at certain time establishes the fact that
the management of University has adopted un fair labour practice keeping in view the fact that the same work
continued after break and the same persons was engaged for that break even after breaks. Reference of case law
Secretary State of Karnataka and Uma Devi & Others 2006 AIR SCW 1991 has been taken by
Management in its written statement of defence but since in the case in hand it has been proved that the
applicant workman was not appointed through a back door entry rather he entered in the service after
undergoing the recruitment procedure prevalent at that time, hence, the law laid down in that case does not
apply to the case in hand. Judgement of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pooranchand
Pandey Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2000 and Harinandan Prasad Vs,.Food Corporation of India & Ors. Appeal
(civil) 3765 of 2000 require to be mentioned in this respect. Accordingly, the termination of applicant workman
is held against law. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
19. ISSUE NO.5:-
Learned Counsel for workman has referred to decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jeetu
Bha Khan Sanghji Jadega Vs. Kuch District panchayat, Civil Appeal No.6890/2022/SLP Civil
No.8393/2022.
Hence, in the light of the above, discussion and finding, the claim of the applicant workman is held proved and
he is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date of award
and is also held entitled for permanent classification in Class-III for the post of Computer Operator/ Assistant
Gr-III with Grade Pay admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his initial
appointment and is also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of Management for all service benefits
except back wages. Issue No.5 is answered accordingly.
20. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
3074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A The action of Management in terminating the services of Shri Sonu Bohat after his
appointment with the Management on 16-9-2013 and not classifying his services as
Computer operator/Assistant Gr-III,is held to be unjustified in law and fact.
B. The workman is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages from the date of
his retrenchment till the date of award and is also held entitled for permanent
classification in Class-III for the post of Computer Operator/ Assistant Gr-III with
Grade Pay admissible to him from the completion of six months from the date of his
initial appointment and is also held entitled to be treated in continuous service of
Management for all service benefits except back wages.
21. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 19/10/2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1396.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947(1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार मुख्य मह़ाप्रबंधक, टेलीकॉम फैक्री, ऱाइट ट़ाउि, जबलपुर (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों
और सचिव, अचखल भ़ारतीय ऱ्ाक एवं त़ार, औद्योचगक श्रचमक संघ, टेलीकॉम फैक्री, ऱाइट ट़ाउि, जबलपुर, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट के (संिभड
सं. CGIT/LC/R/176-96) को जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ 12/12/2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-40011/1/95- आईआर-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी.के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1396.—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/176-96) 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 Chief General Manager,Telecom Factory, Wright Town, Jabalpur (M.P.) and The Secretary, All
India Post & Telegraph, Industrial workers Union,Telecom Factory, Wright Towan, Jabalpur, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12/12/2022.
[No. L- 40011/1/95- IR (DU)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/176-96
Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ram Ratan Paras,
Secretary
All India Post & Telegraph
Industrial workers Union,
Telecom Factory,
Wright Towan, Jabalpur
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
Telecom Factory,Wright Town
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3075
Jabalpur (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 31-8-22.)
As per letter dated 30-8-1996 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40011/1/95-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Prabhandtantra, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur(M.P.) ke prabhandako dwara All
India Post And Telegraph Industrial Workers Union ke sadsya Padhadhikari sarv
Shri D.K.PalEvam Shri Lalsingh ke virudh sangh ke gatividhiyon par nillamban
aaroop patran dene evam Karan BAtao Suchana patra dekar prastavet
sewabarkhastagge ka dand aadi karyawahi aoodyogek vevad adhiniyam ke Panch
Shedule(Anuchet Shram Neerti) ke Kandeka 2(b),4(a),(b)(f),5(f),(b)(g) ke antargat
anuchet sharam neeti apnaye jaane ke karyawahi hai. Yadi nahi to sambndhit
karmkargan kes anutosh ke haqdar hain? .”
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/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in their statement of claim was that there was a self generated
agitation of Trade Union of workers of Tower Section of the Management Factory on 4-2-1991 and 5-2-1991
against the wrongful suspension of three Chargeman namely P.D.Jha, Shri Mohd. Sidiqui and Shri Thomas in
which all the workers of Tower Section including the applicant workman Lal Singh, D.K.Pal and
R.D.Khamparia who were the Union Leaders had actively participated in the strike. The management of the
Telecom Factory instituted a departmental inquiry against these three union leaders out of prejudice and as a
means of revenge in order to victimize the Union Leaders . It is further the case of the workman Union that
hundreds of workman also participated in the strike but their office bearers were left out and Management
instituted a Departmental Inquiry as a means of hostile discrimination against the applicant workman Union.
The Inquiry was conducted against the principle of law and Natural justice. The charges were wrongly held
proved by the Inquiry Officer and the workman were awarded maximum punishment of termination on the
charge of participating in the strike, leaving out several hundred workers who have also participated in the
strike. During the inquiry, the charge of igniting the workers for stopping work and leading the agitation was
found not proved against the applicant workman, Lal Singh, D.K.Pal and Shri R.D.Khamparia. The only charge
which was held proved by the Inquiry Officer was their participation in the agitation like hundreds of other
workers. The workman Union, the applicant workman preferred departmental appeal against the punishment
order. The Appellate Authority set aside the punishment of dismissal and reduced the punishment of reduction
on the minimum pay scale for indefinite period treating eight years of suspension period of workman Shri
D.K.Pal, as non-duty, which is unfarir labour practice adopted by the management. According, to the workman
Union, the Management acted arbitrarily in awarding punishment only because the applicant workman were
Office Bearers of the Workman Union , to which the Management was hostile. Accordingly, it has been prayed
that setting aside the punishment order, appropriate action against management be taken for adopting unfair
labour practice.
3.
According to the management, the workman R.D.Khamparia, D.K.Pal and Lal Singh instigated the
workers of the shop to go on strike and took law and order in their own hand by not allowing the Officers to
enter the shop, making them standing outside and gheroing them and physically pushing them backward and
even physically holding the hand of SE(MWT) by Shri R.D.Khamparia along with Other Officers in his Office
Chambers for more than four and a half hours. They wrongly confined the Officers of the management, shouted
filthy abuses on officers which is grave misconduct as per Certified Standing Orders. They were placed under
suspension for the charges w.e.f. from 6-2-1992 and were served major charge sheet. The Inquiry Officer and
the Presenting Officer were appointed and inquiry was conducted as per Rules. The inquiry against Workman
R.D.Khamparia was concluded with Inquiry Report dated 12-6-2000, holding the aforesaid charges proved. He
was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f 18-10-2000. IN the case of workman D.K.Pal, the
inquiry completed holding the charges proved after issuing a show cause notice on proposed penalty, he was
awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Taking a lenient view, the Appellate Authority converted the
punishment of dismissal into reduction of his pay from Rs.922/- to Rs.800/- in the pay scale of Rs.800/- to
Rs.1150 vide order dated 5-3-1999. In case of Lal Singh he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service
vide order dated 12-7-1994, on the basis of inquiry report holding the aforesaid charges proved against him.
This order was also converted by Appellate Authority into reduction of his pay from Rs.1125 to Rs.950/- in the
pay scale of Rs.950-1150-EB-25-1500. According to the Management, the punishment is not disproportionate.
4.
Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings by my learned Predecessor vide his
order dated 23-4-2007:-
3076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the Departmental inquiry conducted by Management is legal and proper.”
5.
The workman Union filed affidavit of workman D.K.Pal on preliminary issue. He never appeared for
cross-examination. The Management filed affidavit of Jaswant Singh. He also never appeared for cross-
examination. Thereafter Management filed affidavit of its witness Raju Sapre and Rakesh Sahu, they also have
not appeared for cross-examination. The Management filed Inquiry Papers which were admitted by workman
union and marked as Exhibit M1 to M20.
6.
Preliminary Issue No.1 was decided vide order dated 16-6-2022, holding the departmental inquiry
legal and proper. This order is part of this Award.
7.
Vide his order dated 23-4-2007, two other issues were framed which are as follows:-
(1) Whether the Management is entitled to prove the misconduct of the workman?
(2) To what relief, if any, are the workman entitled?”
8. Parties were directed to lead evidence on the remaining two issues. No evidence was adduced by any of the
parties. None of the parties appeared at the time of argument and no written argument was filed by any of the
parties. I have perused the record.
9. ISSUE NO.2:-
In the light of the findings recorded in Issue No.1 as preliminary issue, this order is decided against the
management. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
10. ISSUE NO.3:-
Issue No.3 requires following points to be considered:-
(A)Whether the charges are proved from the inquiry papers?
(B)Whether the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges?
11. POINT-A:-
The charges against the applicant workman are that on 4-2-1991 and 5-2-1991 they instigated the
workman in the Telecom Factory to go on strike and also they illegally detained the Officers of the
Management in their chambers shouting slogans against the Officers. They committed misconduct as
punishable under Section 31(c) IJ of Certified Standing Orders. The charges which are held proved according to
the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report are that the applicant workman participated in the strike along with
other workers of Tower Section and restrained them from working. The charge that they instigated the workman
to go on strike and stope work was found not proved as it is clear from the perusal of the inquiry report. The
charge that the applicant workman illegally confined the Officers of the Management for around four hours and
shouted slogans against them was also found proved. I have gone through the inquiry papers filed by the
Management and admitted by the workman Union. The Officers of the management who were detained by the
applicant workman have supported the charge. The other witness have also supported the charges proved, hence
the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding proof of the charges as stated above cannot be held without basis.
Accordingly the charges as mentioned above in the Inquiry Report are held proved.
12 .POINT NO-B:-
As it comes out from perusal of the inquiry papers that these three workers were punished with
dismissal from service with respect to the charges by the Disciplinary Authority. This punishment was
modified by Appellate Authority which has been detailed earlier.
It is admitted proposition of law that the Court cannot sit in appeal or it cannot re-appreciate the evidence
relied before Inquiry Officer; in as much as it cannot alter the order or punishment; however, the scope of
invoking the powers given under Section 11 A of the Act, by the Labour Court is confined to the condition that
the Court should interfere with the order of punishment when it is disproportionate with respect to the
misconduct committed or it is harsh.
1. Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about
the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3077
2. In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High
Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant
factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,
the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an
discipline required to be maintained, and the department /establishment which the delinquent
person concerned works.”
3. In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a
long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law
summarized the legal position in the following words:
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety
or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the
correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its
decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
4. In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the
same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
5. In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court
stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking
to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M.
Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that :
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High
Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,
and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such
discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the
conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the
disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of
misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal
would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material
on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence,
the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds
for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere
with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on
no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a
tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on
record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of
3078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,
capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.
13. On perusal of the punishment order passed by the Appellate Authority in the Appeal goes to show that
the punishment order of dismissal passed with respect to workman R.D.Khamparia was converted into that of
compulsory retirement by the Appellate Authority and the punishment order of dismissal passed with respect to
the workman D.K.Pal and Lal Singh was converted into reduction of increments from Rs.1125/- to Rs.950/-
with respect to Lal Singh and From Rs.922 to Rs.800/- with respect to D.K.Pal. the inquiry report further goes
to show that the charges proved against these workman are one and same for different for which two sets of
punishment have been awarded to these workman i.e. compulsory retirement to one and reduction of increment
with cumulative effect to the other workman. This is also established from the inquiry proceedings that along
with these three workman the other workman mentioned in the inquiry report were also found involved in the
stoppage of work and gheroing the officers of the Management. The Management is silent as to what
punishment was imposed to those workman, mainly Shivcharan, Nasuruddin, Holmes and Others as mentioned
in the inquiry papers dated 4-11-1993. Thus the picture which emerges is that some workers Shivnarayan etc.
who were found participating in the strike/stoppage of work were let out without any punishment and only
three workman who are applicant workman in this case were selected for punishment. Since it is disputed by
Management that these applicant workman were Union Representative, hence, the Management decided to
impose punishment on the applicant workman because they were Union Representatives involved in the Union
activity with an intention that this action of Management will have chilling effect on Union activities and in
future those Union representatives who might raise the grievances of workman would be deferred from raising
the grievance. Hence in these circumstances, the action of Management in punishing the applicant workmen is
nothing but arbitrary and discriminatory and is with a view to deter them in participating in Union activities in
future. But since they have been held guilty for participating in strike/stoppage of work and gheroing officers
of Management along with other workers who have been allowed to go free without being punished, they
require to be punished but not with the punishment awarded in the case in hand. Keeping in view all the facts
and circumstances as stated above, stoppage of two increments to all the three workman for a period of three
years for both the charges will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly holding the punishment awarded to the
workman as excessive, they are held liable to be punished for stoppage of two increments for three years and
Point No.B is answered accordingly.
14. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A. The action of the management in awarding punishment of stoppage of increments with
cumulative effect to D.K.Pal, Lal Singh is held to be excessive and unjustified in law.
B. The workmen are held liable for punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-
cumulative effect for three years. Rest of the conditions of punishment will remain the
same as passed by the Appellate Authority in their case.
C. Parties to bear their own cost.
15. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 31-8-2022
नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2022
का.आ. 1397.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्रीय सरक़ार मुख्य मह़ाप्रबंधक, दूरसंि़ार, भ़ारत संि़ार चिगम चलचमटेर्, भोप़ाल, (म.प्र.); एम/एस एस कुम़ार,
भोप़ाल (एमपी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रचवक़ांत पंत, क़ामग़ार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्रीय
सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट के (संिभड सं. CGIT/LC/R/16/2015) को
जैस़ा कक अिुलग्नक में कदख़ाय़ा गय़ा है, को प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्द्रीय सरक़ार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स़ाथ
12.12.2022 को प्ऱाप्त हुआ थ़ा l
[सं. एल-40012/04/2015- आईआर-(र्ीयू)]
र्ी. के. चहम़ांशु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2022/पौष 3, 1944
3079
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022
S.O. 1397.—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/16/2015) 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 Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bhopal, (M.P.); M/s S.Kumar,
Bhopal(MP) and Shri Ravi Kant Pant, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 12/12/2022.
[No. L-40012/04/2015- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/16/2015
Present: P.K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ravi Kant Pant,
Vijay Nagar,
Near Milan Bungalow
Lalghati, Bhopal(M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
BSNL, Bhawan,
M. P. Circle Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
2. M/s S.Kumar
F-1 Lotus Villa,
Shalimar Garden
Kolar road, Bhopal (MP)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 12-9-2022.)
As per letter dated 17/2/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-40012/04/2015-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecom,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Ravikant
Pant w.e.f. 9-11-2013 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?””
1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
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 filed its written statement of defence wherein it was denied that the workman
was even engaged by the management. The ex-parte affidavit filed by the Management is taken on record.
Since no one appeared from the side of the workman on the dates fixed the reference proceeded ex-parte
against the workman.
4. The Ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for the Management Shri R.S.Khare were heard. I have
gone through the record as well.
3080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2022/ PAUSHA 3, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 of continuous engagement with the Management. Hence this tribunal is constrained to decide the reference
against the workman.
6. Accordingly an ex-parte 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
DATE: 12-9-2022
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Date: 2023.01.04 11:13:14 +05'30'