1282 GI/2023
(583)
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. 10]
नई दिल् ली, मार्च 5—मार्च 11, 2023, िजनवार/फाल्गुन 14—फाल्गुन 20, 1944
No. 10]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 5—MARCH 11, 2023, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 14—PHALGUNA 20, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूर्नाएं
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 दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2023
का.आ. 318.—भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम श्रेणी III और श्रेणी IV कमचर्ारी (सेवा के जनबंिन और ितों
का संिोिन) जनयमावली, 1985 के जनयम 13 के उप-जनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय
सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, यि जनिाचररत करती िै दक उि उप जनयम के अन्य उपबंिों के अध्यिीन, श्रेणी III और श्रेणी IV के
प्रत्येक कमचर्ारी को जनम्नजलजखत अवजि के बोनस के बिले में भुगतान, उनके वेतन के 15 प्रजतित की िर से दकया
िाएगा:
i) 1 अप्रैल, 2018 से 31 मार्च, 2019 की समाजि तक; और
ii) 1 अप्रैल, 2019 से 31 मार्च, 2020 की समाजि तक; और
iii) 1 अप्रैल, 2020 से 31 मार्च, 2021 की समाजि तक
[ई फा.सं. एम-16014/02/2022-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजर्व
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14032023-244358
CG-DL-W-14032023-244358
584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2023
S.O. 318.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1985, the Central Government hereby determine that, subject to other provisions of the said sub-rule, the
payment in lieu of bonus for the following periods to every Class III and Class IV employee shall be at the rate
of 15 percent of his/ her salary:
i) From 1st day of April, 2018 and ending with 31st day of March, 2019; and
ii) From 1st day of April, 2019 and ending with 31st day of March, 2020; and
iii) From 1st day of April, 2020 and ending with 31st day of March, 2021.
[eF. No. M-16014/02/2022-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
जविेि मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2023
का.आ. 319.— रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारतीय उच्चायोग, ओटावा मैं श्रीमती नीतेि र्ौिरी, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को
मार्च 03, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवचिन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती
िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(09)]
एस.आर.एर्. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2023
S.O. 319.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 Smt. Nitesh
Chaudhary, Assistant Section Officer in the High Commission of India, Ottawa as Assistant Consular Officer to
perform Consular services with effect from March 03, 2023.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(09)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च, 2023
का.आ. 320.—केंर ने सरकार पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, सरकार की अजिसूर्ना में
जनम्नजलजखत संिोिन करती िै भारत के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय में, S.O.67(E) दिनांक 07-01-
2021, भारत के रािपत्र में दिनांक 07-01-2021 को प्रकाजित दकया गया:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
585
उि अजिसूर्ना में, “श्री एम. के. रमेि, जविेष भूजम अजिग्रिण अजिकारी, को कनाचटक सरकार के द्वारा
िासन र्ेरलापल्ली एलपीिी पाइपलाइन (एर्सीपीएल) जबछाने के जलए उि अजिजनयम के तित कनाचटक राज्य में
सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायच करने के जलए M/s जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड ने जनयुि दकया गया था;
अब कनाचटक सरकार उि अजिजनयम के तित M/s जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा िासन
र्ेरलापल्ली एलपीिी पाइपलाइन (एर्सीपीएल) का काम के जलए कनाचटक राज्य में नए सक्षम प्राजिकारी; श्रीमती
मनोिरी को जविेष भूजम अजिग्रिण अजिकारी”, के कायच करने के जलए प्रजतस्ट्थाजपत दकया िाए।
यि अजिसूर्ना िारी िोने की जतजथ से प्रभावी िोगी।
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओ.आर-I/ई-30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजर्व
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2023
S.O. 320.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, S.O.67(E) dated 07-01-2021, published in Gazette of India on 07-01-2021 namely:-
In the said notification, for the words “Shri M. K. Ramesh, Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Government of Karnataka to perform the functions of Competent Authority in the State of Karnataka under the
said Act for laying of Pipelines for Hassan Cherlapalli LPG Pipeline (HCPL) by M/s Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation limited” the words “Smt. Manohari, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Government of Karnataka to
perform the functions of Competent Authority in the State of Karnataka under the said Act for laying of
Pipelines for Hassan Cherlapalli LPG Pipeline (HCPL) by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited” shall
be substituted.
This notification will be effective from the date of Issue.
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023
का.आ. 321.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 26/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/84/2008-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व
586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023
S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/02/2023
[No. L-22012/84/2008 -IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of January, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 26/2008
Between:
The Vice President (Sri K Devaiah)
Godavari Loya Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam (IFTU)
Sreerampur Branch
H.No.D.166, RK-5 Colony P.O., Naspur (M),
Mancherial Dt., Adilabad -504302.
….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Divn.,
Sreerampur – 504303.
Mancherial.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. B.G. Ravindera Reddy & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent :
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/ 84/2008-IR(CM-II) dated
10.11.2008 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to
decide the question:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. S.C.C.L in imposing the penalty of
reduction of one increment vide Office Order No.SRP/PER/13.008/9036 dated
28.12.2006 in respect of Sri P. Lingaiah is legal and justified? To what relief is the
workman concerned entitled?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.26/2008
and issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and
engaged their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that Sri P.Lingaiah was appointed as Badli Filler on 01.04.1986 later he was promoted as
General Mazdoor, known as Helper after lapse of four years. Since then he worked continuously without any
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
587
complaints, to the entire satisfaction of his superior Officers. While so, he had joined the petitioner Union in the
month of January, 2005. He was being harassed on some pretext or the other, there being no fault of him. It is
submitted that the petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 05.05.2005 alleging that he committed theft of
company's property. He submitted explanation dated 12.05.2005 denying the charge. Without considering the
explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted in a mechanical manner. The enquiry officer
conducted enquiry violating principles of natural justice. Basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer,
the respondent passed order imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment, questioning which the present
industrial dispute was raised. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was on duty
and his duty was to carry the material from the store and to place there in the back yard Bhathi. The petitioner
and others were exactly doing their duty. They were asked to shift the material and they were doing the same
that cannot be interpreted as theft. The charge itself is false. The petitioner has not committed any misconduct.
The penalty order is contrary to the standing orders of the company and contrary to the whole facts of the case.
The petitioner has unblemished service record. The enquiry conducted by the management is illegal and
invalid. The punishment order passed by the respondent is wholly unjustified and is accordingly liable to be set
aside. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the office order dated 28.12.2006
and consequently to direct the management to restore the annual increment with all consequential benefits, and
pass such other or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3.
Respondents filed their counter with the averments in brief as follows:
It is submitted that the workman was given punishment i.e. reversion o lower stage by reducing one increment
in the present scale of pay on proved charges of Theft, Fraud etc. after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry
duly following the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the validity of domestic enquiry may be
decided as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that Sri P. Lingaiah, the Petitioner was appointed
in the company as Badli filler on 01-04-1986 and subsequently he was drafted to work as General Mazdoor.
The workman was engaged for casting work on 4.5.2005 at Area Work Shop, Srirampur. As raised by the
Petitioner there is no eye sore to the Management on the workman. Any employee can enroll his union
membership with any Trade union whichever he opts for. The workman was never harassed on any pretext or
the other. It is submitted that basing on the written Complaint dated 04.05.2005 given by Sri Rajendera Singh,
Inspector/ Exe.Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Srirampur unit, Charge Sheet bearing No.
SRP/AWS/27/2005/777 dated 5.5.2005 was issued to the workman under Company's Standing order No. 25(1)
which reads as follows:-
"25-1 -Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employee business or property." The workman
was trying to steal brass and copper scrap material along with other workman at Area Workshop, Srirampur. He
kept the above said material in a plastic bag and while throwing out of the Compound wall of Area Workshop,
Sreerampur the workman was caught red handed by the Security Personnel of CISF. The Workman has
submitted his explanation dated 12.05.2005 denying charges leveled against him. In this regard to ascertain the
facts and to give fair opportunity to the workman, a detailed domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry
Officer by ensuring all the principles of natural justice. The enquiry notices were served well in advance as per
the procedure of the Company into the alleged mis-conduct. The allegation that the enquiry proceedings were
conducted in a mechanical manner without even considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner and the
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice, are denied. The enquiry
officer has conducted the enquiry as per the procedure by ensuring all the principles of natural justice. After
completion of enquiry, the Workman was issued a show cause notice dated 2.9.2006 enclosing therewith a copy
of the enquiry proceedings and findings of' the enquiry officer advising the petitioner to submit his
representation, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner received the
said notice on 27.11.2006 i.e. the Respondent Company has translated the entire enquiry report in Telugu
Version and Petitioner submitted his representation dated 02.12.2006, which was examined and found to be not
satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority by taking all the material facts into consideration and the
representation submitted by the workman, awarded lesser punishment of reversion to lower stage by reducing
one increment in the present scale of pay by order dated 28.12.2006. It is submitted that the workman was on
duty on 04.05.2005. As per the written complaint given by Sri Rajender Singh, Inspector/Exe. (CISF), the
workman along with other workman was red handedly caught by Sri Siju KK, CISF constable while they were
trying to through out the brass / copper scrap material which was readily kept in a plastic bag with an intention
to steal the material. The material was seized and the employee has confessed his guilty and also given in
writing. The intention of the workman to steal the company material, amounts to mis-conduct under Company's
Standing Order. Since the charges leveled against the workman were proved, the penalty imposed is not
contrary to the Company's Standing Order. The workman was issued a Show Cause Notice No.
SRP/AWS/27/2006/1137, dated 02.09.2006 enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry proceedings and findings
of the enquiry officer therein giving him an opportunity to represent against the same, if any. The workman
588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitted his representation dated 02.12.2006. The Disciplinary Authority, by taking all the material facts into
consideration and in consideration of the representation submitted by the workman awarded lesser punishment
of reversion to lower stage by reducing one increment in the present scale of pay by Order dated 28.12.2006.
The workman has submitted an application to Area Workshop, Srirampur requesting to review the imposed
penalty i.e. reversion to lower stage by reducing one increment in the present scale of pay. The Respondent
Management has given reply vide letter dated 17.02.2007 informing that the restoration of increment deducted
as per Company's Standing Orders is not covered under Grievance Procedure Stage. However, he was
informed that appeal can be filed under Company's Standing Orders Clause No. 29 to the Appellate Authority
i.e. Director (PA&W) within 45 days of the order of Punishment. The workman has submitted an application
dated 19.02.2007 to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal and passed
order dated 11.04.2007 confirming the penalty of reversion to lower stage by reducing one increment in the
present scale of pay w.e.f. 01.12.2006. The said letter was received by the workman on 18.04.2007. Though
there are no extenuating circumstances to award lesser punishment than that of dismissal. A lenient view was
taken and awarded reversion to lower stage by reducing one increment in the present scale of pay. In view of
the above reasons, the claim of the Petitioner Union be dismissed as devoid of merits.
4.
As Petitioner filed memo not pressing the validity of the domestic enquiry, the domestic enquiry is
held as legal and valid by order dated 27.11.2018.
5.
Both the parties have filed written arguments under Section 11 A of the Act. Perused the record.
6.
It is argued by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Enquiry officer without taking into
consideration of the facts, submitted his report in casual manner, stating that the charges are proved and the
respondent basing on the enquiry report, without considering reply filed by the Petitioner, passed impugned
order. It is nothing but unjust, unfair, against principles of natural justice and victimization.
7.
On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the workman was issued charge sheet for
misconduct under company's Standing Orders 25(1) which reads as follows: 25(1): "Theft, fraud or dishonesty
in connection with the employers business or property". The domestic enquiry was conducted duly giving fair
opportunity to the petitioner as per Principles of Natural justice. The petitioner workman participated in the
domestic enquiry. The charges leveled against the workman was proved in the domestic enquiry. Though there
are no extenuating circumstances to award lesser punishment than that of dismissal, a lenient view was taken
and awarded reversion to lower stage by reducing one increment in the present scale of pay. It is submitted by
the counsel for the Respondent that the petitioner did not press the validity of domestic enquiry. The Domestic
Enquiry is held Valid and Legal by this Tribunal. Punishment imposed being only reversion to lower stage by
reducing one increment in the present scale of pay and not dismissal or discharge, the Industrial Tribunal could
not have invoked its power under Section 11-A of the Act and the question of invoking power under Section-
11A to go into the proportionality of the punishment did not arise. In view of the above, this Hon'ble Tribunal
may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner Union as devoid of merits.
8.
In view of the pleadings of both the parties, the points for determination are:-
I.
Whether the action of management of M/S SCCL, in imposing the penalty of reduction of one
increment vide Office Order No. SRP/PER/30/008/9036 dated 20.12.2006 in respect of Sri. P.
Lingaiah is legal and justified?
II.
If yes, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?
9.
Point No.I: The Workman contended that he was appointed as Badli Filler on 01.04.1986. Later on,
he was promoted as General Mazdoor known as Helper. He had joined the Petitioner’s Union in the month of
January 2005, and the same had become an eyesore to the management. For that reason, he was issued with the
chargesheet date 05.05.2005 alleging that he committed the theft of the company’s property. He submitted the
explanation dated 12.05.2005 denying the charge but in a mechanical manner, without even considering the
explanation submitted by Petitioner, a farce of inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural
justice and fair play. Relying upon the report submitted by the inquiry, the respondent inflicted the penalty of
stoppage of one increment. It is also submitted that at relevant point of time, the petitioner was on duty and his
duty was to carry the material from the store to place there in the backyard Bathi. It is also submitted that
petitioner and others were doing their duty, they were asked to shift the material and they were doing the same
and that cannot be interpreted as theft. It is submitted that the Penalty order is contrary to the standing order of
the company and contrary to the whole facts of the cases. The punishment order is wholly unjustified and is
accordingly liable to be set aside.
10.
Perused the record. The workman is not able to point out any illegality in the inquiry proceeding
which could be fatal to inquiry. The validity of domestic inquiry has been held valid vide Court Order dated
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
589
27.11.2018 as the petitioner himself filed the memo for not pressing the question of validity of the domestic
inquiry.
11.
From the perusal of the record of domestic inquiry, it delineates that the workman was given full
opportunity at every stage of proceedings which he availed and he never raised any objection complaining
causing of any prejudice of any nature to him before inquiry officer. Further, it also reveals that he received all
the papers/documents filed and relied upon by the respondent in support of charge sheet and he filed a reply,
cross-examined the employees, witnesses and examined his witnesses in defence. Moreover, the inquiry officer
has appreciated the evidence adduced by both the parties and submitted his reasoned report holding the
workman guilty of charge. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no case is made out to hold that the domestic
inquiry suffers from any procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice,
thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of workman. As regards the submission of workman that the penalty
order is contrary to the standing order of the company, the respondent would submit that conduct and act of
workman of stealing company property from the premises of area workshop while on duty amounts to
misconduct under Company’s standing order 25(1) which reads as follows:-
25(1): “Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employer’s business or property.”
Therefore, in view of the standing order 25(1) of the Company, the workman was found guilty of committing
theft of the property of Employer after due inquiry and punishment was inflicted upon him. Hence, the
contention of the workman in this regard is not tenable.
12.
Now let us see, whether the punishment imposed on the workman of reduction of one increment is
legal and justified or the punishment inflicted upon the workman is disproportionate to the gravity of charge. In
view of the above discussion, the charge of stealing the property of the Employer against the workman was
made and the workman was held guilty in domestic inquiry. The validity of the domestic inquiry has been held
legal and valid. As regards the infliction of the punishment of reduction of one increment of the workman.
Apex Court in Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal No. 5762-5763 of 2009 decided
on 24.08.2001, have held:
“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable
employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected
to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances
and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”
In view of the laws laid down by Apex Court, in the present matter, the workman was found guilty of
committing theft of the property of the respondent employer and such charge of theft without doubt is of grave
and serious nature which may also attract the penal provision and in the similar nature of conduct of workman,
definitely, a reasonable employer is expected to take any stern action/punishment which would fall in the
category of major punishment. In the present matter, the respondent employer taking a lenient view in regard
to the conduct of the workman, has inflicted the simple punishment of reduction of one increment in the
present scale of pay by the impugned order. Hence, in view of the above it cannot be said that the punishment
inflicted upon the workman in the present matter is not legal and just or in other words, is disproportionate.
Nothing is pointed out in the present matter that the action of reduction of one increment of the workman was
done by the respondent for victimization or unfair labour practices.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court upholds the order of punishment of reduction of one
increment of workman and the workman is not entitled for declaration of setting aside the office order dated
28.12.2006 passed by the Respondent.
Thus, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
14.
Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No. I, the petitioner workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In the result, petition is unfounded and liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this
27th day of January, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023
का.आ. 322.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 3/2009) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22013/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023
S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/02/2023
[No. L-22012/01/2023 -IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of January, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 3/2009
Between:
Sri K. Rajender,
S/o Rajam,
R/o C/o S.Venkateshwar Rao,
Advocate, H.No. 5-11-1193,
Pochammakunta,
Hanamkonda -500 009.
Warangal. .
….Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
591
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bhupalpally. Warangal District.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. S. Venkateshwar Rao & M.Govind, Advocates
For the Respondent:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri K. Rajender who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni
Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 10/20.2.2006 issued by Respondent as
illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into
service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other
attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler in Respondent's the organization on 12.9.1994 and was posted at
VK-7 Incline at Kothagudem and thereafter he was transferred to this unit of Bhupalpalli in April, 2001.
Petitioner submits that during his service he has discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of one and all of
his superiors till be was i1legally dismissed from the service by the respondent vide his proceeding dated
10/20.2.2006 which is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. While he was
working at K7 5 Incline as Coal Filler, the Respondent issued the Charge Sheet dated 7.6.2003 alleging
unauthorized absenteeism, absence without sufficient cause and without sanctioned leave on the dates
mentioned in the charge sheet from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 under the Company's Standing Orders No.25.25
and 25.31 which can be read as under:
C.S.O.No. 25.25: "Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.
C.S.O.No.25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond
sanctioned leave.”
The Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charges explaining the circumstances and his
health condition, that kept him absence from his duties which was not taken into account by the Respondent.
Petitioner submitted that due to change in work place from Kothagudem to Bhupalpalli, he suffered knee pains
and back pain etc., ortho problems, for which he took treatment at company’s hospital at Godavrikhani. He has
submitted sick certificates also to the Respondent. He could not perform his duties as the work is very hard in
nature, under these compelling circumstances only Petitioner was forced to get absented from duty, which is
not intentional. As such the misconduct attributed in C.S.0.No.25.25 and 25.31 is not correct. The respondent
proceeded with the enquiry duly appointing the enquiry officer into the alleged misconduct wherein the
petitioner was denied the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer did not act independently but acted as
a Management representative and he totally recorded the matter in order to suitable to them and simply obtained
the signature of the Petitioner. On perusal of the proceedings of the enquiry it is crystal clear that the enquiry
conducted by the enquiry officer is stage managed and it is to be vitiated. The findings of the Enquiry Officer
are also perverse, one sided and biased. Later he was issued with a show cause notice basing on the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show Cause notice. Satisfied with the
explanation and medical certificates he was taken into service. But again dismissed from the service on the
earlier misconduct or charge sheet vide proceeding dated 10/20.2.2006 which is illegal and liable to be set
aside. The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate in the instant
case. Ever since the date of dismissal from service the petitioner remained unemployed and could not get any
alternate employment. The petitioner submits that due to his illegal dismissal from service he along with his
family is at the verge of starvation and facing untold economic problems. It is therefore prayed pass an award
setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 10/ 20.2.2006 passed by the respondent and direct the
respondent to rein state the petitioner into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other
consequential benefits including the attendant benefits.
592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments
in brief which runs as follows:
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner who is an unauthorized absentee praying this Tribunal to
declare the proceedings No. BHP PER/20-D/630 dated 20.2.2006 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary
and set aside the same. The petitioner by his conduct had accepted the misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism
and as can be seen from the records he was dismissed vide Order dated 20.02.2006 and he has chosen to file the
present case during June, 2009 i.e. after a lapse of 3 years 5 months. Hence the petition is barred by delay and
latches on which ground alone it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from
service on proved charges of absenteeism after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the
principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not appointed as Coal Filler directly in the
Respondent Company but appointed as Badli Filler in the Respondent Company on 12.09.1994 and regularized
as Coal Filler w.e.f. 01-03- 2000. The petitioner was issued Charge Sheet No. BHP/KTK.6/A8/884, dated
07.06.2003 for his absence from duty on various dates during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 without
any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause under Company's Standing Order Nos. 25.25 And 25.31 which reads as
under.
25.25: “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause.
25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause for over staying beyond
sanctioned leave."
The petitioner acknowledged receipt of the charge sheet on 19.06. 2003 and the petitioner has not submitted his
explanation for the said charge sheet. As such ordered for domestic enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer.
Accordingly an Enquiry Notice bearing No. BHP/KTK.6/R-10/1461, dated 04.09.2003 was issued advising the
Petitioner to appear for the Enquiry. The petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the notice of enquiry and
participated in the enquiry proceedings conducted on 11.09.2003 at 9.00 AM at the office of Colliery Manager,
KTK.6 Incline. The Petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to conduct his defence. In his statement
during the course of enquiry, the petitioner accepted that he remained absent from duty without getting leave
sanctioned and without reporting sick in any Colliery Hospital, on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet. He
added that he remained absent as he suffered with health problems since his transfer from Kothagudem. During
the year 2002 he suffered with severe back pain which forced him to remain absent for his duties. However, he
has not submitted any documentary proof of his averment. He further stated that now his health is improved and
wish to work regularly. As per the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the charges leveled against the petitioner
were proved. The petitioner was supplied copies of enquiry report and proceedings vide second show cause
notice No. BHP/KTK.6/R-17/2066, dated 29.11.2003 advising the petitioner to submit his representation, if any.
Though received, petitioner did not submit any representation. The Petitioner has submitted a mercy petition
dated 06.10.2005 requesting not to dismiss him and that he will improve his performance. The said application
was also considered by the Respondent in order to give him an opportunity to improve himself. His
performance was kept under observation for three months after being counseled on 15.10.2005. Even then the
Petitioner failed to improve his performance and the following month-wise musters during observation period.
November, 2005
….10 Musters
December, 2005
…. 08 Musters
January, 2006
…. 03 Musters
The Petitioner did not keep up his promise and assurance and continued to remain absent for his duties
unauthorizedly without leave or permission. The Petitioner was a Coal Filler and should have attended duties
more regularly and should have put in a minimum musters of 190 per year. The petitioner had put in the
following attendances from the year 1999 to 2005:
Year
Actual Musters
1999
106 days
2000
080 days
2001
023 days
2002
025 days
2003
015 days
2004
005 days
2005(upto Aug)
Nil
It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority carefully considered all the material on record and as the charges
leveled and proved against the petitioner are being grave and serious in nature and there are no extenuating
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
593
circumstances to take a lenient view had taken a decision to dismiss the petitioner from Company's service and
accordingly the petitioner was dismissed vide Office Order No. BHP/PER/20-D/630 dated 20.02.2006. w.e.f.
20.02.2006. It is submitted that the Respondents' Company employs about 69,895 persons, which includes
workmen, executives and supervisors and production results will depend upon the over all attendance and
performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one
remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets affected. Such
unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at time is very difficult to fill-up, and there will be no proper
planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why the
Respondents' Company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. In the instant
case, the Petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee Petitioner was issued charge sheet for absenteeism during
the year 2002 and charges were proved against him. As such, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the
Petitioner for unauthorized absenteeism w.e.f. 20.02.2006 vide Office Order No. BHP/PERVZ0- D/630, dated:
20.02.2006. In view of above, it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition as
devoid of merits.
4.
The perusal of the record reveals that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents in this case
is held as legal and valid vide order dated 21.1.2011.
5.
The respondent has submitted written arguments u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but
despite the sufficient opportunity granted to the petitioner, he did not adduce either oral or written argument.
6.
On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points
emerge for determination:-
I.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration to set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated
20.02.2006 passed by the respondent?
II.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement of service with continuity of service, full
back wages and other consequential benefits, including attendant benefits?
III.
To what relief is the petitioner entitled?
7.
Point No.I:
In his claim statement, petitioner averred that he petitioner was appointed as Coal
Filler in the respondent organization on 12.09.1994. He has discharged duties to the utmost satisfaction of all
the superiors till he was illegally dismissed from the service by the respondent vide proceedings dated
10/20.02.2006, which is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice. Further
he state he had submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges and explaining the circumstance of his
health conditions which forced him to keep away or be absent from his duties as he was unable to perform his
duties and also send the sick certificate and gives intimation to the office, but such explanation was not taken
into account, and the respondent stated that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation for the best reason
known to them. It is also contended that due to the change of workplace, he developed knee and back pains and
also other ortho problems for which he took treatment at the Company’s hospital at Godvaari Khani and
submitted Sick certificate. The absence of the petitioner from the duty was due to his ill health, and he could not
perform his duty as the work is of a very hard nature.
8.
On the other hand, the respondent has denied the averment made by the workman and submitted that
the petitioner, by his conduct, had accepted the misconduct of unauthorized absentees as can be seen from the
record, he was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2006, and he has chosen to file the present case in June 2009,
after a lapse of 3 years 5 months. Hence, the petition is barred by delay and latches on which ground alone it is
liable to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner was issued a chargesheet
date 07.06.2006 for his absence from duty without sufficient cause on various dates during the period from
01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 without any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause.
Company’s Standing Order No. 25.25 and 25.31 reads as under:-
“25.25:
Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause.
25.32:
Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause for over staying beyond
sanctioned leave.”
594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, the respondent has submitted the details of the number of days for which the petitioner workman was
absent from duty unauthorisedly without leave or permission.
9.
The perusal of the record shows that the workman was charge sheeted on 06.06.2003 for habitual
absence from duty without sufficient cause or without leave or permission. The total number of absent days
from 01.01.2002 up to 31.12.2002 amount to 278 days whereas he has put in only 25 attendance during the year
2002 which amounts to misconduct under the Company’s Standing Order No. 25.25 and 25.31, whereas, as per
the provisions of the law, a workman is required to put in 190 days of attendance in a calendar year. Moreover,
the petitioner has conceded the fact alleged in the chargesheet that he was absent from duty during the said
period, but he claims that due to his illness, he could not perform his duty. The perusal of Inquiry proceedings
reveals that although he has stated the ground of absence is due to his illness, but despite being provided
sufficient opportunity to file the evidence of illness or certificate from authorized medical hospital, he did not
produce any documentary evidence to corroborate his averment. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer, did not consider
reason stated by him for absence in the want of reliable evidence or medical certificate from competent sources.
The Department Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner considering his absence as unauthorized absence
without intimation or permission continuously during the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002, and during that
period he has put up only 25 musters throughout the year 2002. The inquiry proceedings reveal that the Inquiry
Officer submitted his report on 26.10.2003 and on that report, the disciplinary authority issued the show cause
notice dated 29.11.2003 to the delinquent workman for extending an opportunity to him within 7 days from the
date of receipt of this letter. It is also noteworthy to mention that the said show cause notice was received by
the petitioner on 01.01.2003, but he did not prefer to submit his explanation within the stipulated time, i.e., 7
days. It is also noteworthy, from the perusal of the inquiry proceedings that the disciplinary authority passed the
order of dismissal on 10.02.2006 against the petitioner after a gap of about three years. Thus, he waited for his
reply during that period but despite the pause, petitioner did not submit any explanation. It goes to show that
the petitioner has no sufficient explanation for his unauthorized absence of 278 days in the year 2002.
Therefore, the respondent authority on consideration of material before it and keeping the conduct of workman
and habitual of being absentee from duty proceeded to pass the Dismissal order on 15.02.2006. It is also
noteworthy that the petitioner preferred the Appeal against the impugned order to the Appellate Authority and
the same was rejected and the order of penalty of dismissal from the service was confirmed. Therefore, the
submission of the petitioner that he was not given the opportunity of hearing during the Inquiry proceedings is
not tenable.
10.
Further, it is also noteworthy that since the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on
26.10.2003 and on that inquiry, the show cause notice was issued on 29.11.2003 by the Authority, but the action
of dismissal was taken by the Disciplinary authority on 20.02.2006. During the period from 20.11.2003 to
20.02.2006, i.e., the date of dismissal, Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity to workman of improving
the performance of attendance but the petitioner failed to improve his performance regarding attendance as the
respondent has given the details of muster of the petitioner workman in his counter.
11.
The respondent has also submitted that the petitioner received the show cause notice on 01.12.2003
and did not submit any representation although he submitted a mercy petition date 06.10.2005 requesting not to
dismiss him from service he assured that he would improve his performance. The said application was also
considered by the respondent in order to give him an opportunity to improve himself, and the performance of
workman was kept under observation for 3 months after being counselled, but the petitioner did not improve his
performance, and during the observation month, the month wise muster was below the standard, i.e. November
2005 10 muster, December 2005 8 musters, and January 2006, 3 musters. Therefore, it goes to show that the
petitioner was a habitual absentee from the duty and his conduct was in gross contravention of the Company’s
Standing Orders. Respondent has also given the details of attendance of the workman from the year 1999 to
2005 which depicts as follows:-
Year
Actual Musters
1999
106 days
2000
080 days
2001
023 days
2002
025 days
2003
015 days
2004
005 days
2005(upto Aug)
Nil
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
595
Therefore, it delineates from the above chart of muster of Petitioner during seven years petitioner is a habitual
absentee from his duties and sufficient opportunity has been provided to Petitioner to improve his conduct but
he did not pay heed to it. The respondent counsel has cited the decision of Apex Court in State of U.P. V.
Ahok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, wherein the Apex Court had held:- “Having notices the fact that
the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions, we are unable to
appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge.
Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the
punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when
the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the
punishment is made out.”
12.
In the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006
wherein, the Apex Court had held:- “Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a
minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public
utility services. For running the buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet
of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities
to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent
for a period of more than three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained
unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct
committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly.
13.
In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held: "11.
Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,
more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no
negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the
Standing Orders shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement
of prior permission. Only exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-
observance of which renders the absence unauthorised."
14.
Yet recently in State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], it was
opined that the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High
Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum
of punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled
that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be
shocking to one's conscience."
15.
By virtue of the show cause notice dated 29.10.2003, the opportunity of representing against the
findings of inquiry report or proceedings has been granted to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, but the
petitioner did not avail of it. As far as the petitioner’s contention is concerned that the dismissal order dated
20.02.2006 is arbitrary, unreasonable, vindicatory and illegal and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
since his absence of duty was due to his illness for which the bed rest was compulsory. Before Inquiry, he did
not submit any medical certificate or any documentary evidence to prove his contention regarding the illness
during the relevant period. Although, the petitioner submitted a photocopy of the certificate issued by Sri Sita
Rama Nursing Home dated 04.04.2003 wherein he was advised to continue his duty from 14.04.2003 but no
medical prescription of his illness from 01.01.2002 to 09.08.2002 has been submitted by him. Moreover, the
said Certificate has not been proved by evidence and no reference is filed by the workman from the Company’s
Hospital Doctor. Petitioner has not explained the reason why he did not inform about his illness during the one
year period of absence to employer and what prevented him not to inform or send a leave application to
employer Respondent. Thus, the argument of illness of Petitioner is not acceptable.
16.
Now let us see whether the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed against the petitioner by
virtue of order dated 20.02.2006, is disproportionate to the conduct proved against the petitioner. As it can be
seen from the pleading of the petitioner he averred that his absence from duty was beyond his control that was
due to his illness even though sufficient opportunity has been given by the inquiry officer to produce relevant
evidence to prove his contention but, the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove his contentions.
Thus, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not acceptable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided on
24.08.2009 laid down the test of proportionality of punishment and held:- “One of the test to be applied
while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such
punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration
596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant
matters before imposing punishment.”
17.
When the prescribed test is applied to the facts of the present case, it withstood the said test in the
circumstances of the present case, any employer would reasonably come to such conclusion of dismissal of the
employee who has committed the grave misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty without leave or
permission which hampered with the work in the employer’s company. Furthermore, the petitioner was also
provided with the opportunity to improve his muster on duty during the period of submission of the inquiry
report i.e. October 2005 to February 2006, but during that period also he did not improve his muster and
remained habitually absent from his duty which can be culled out from the records. Therefore, the leverage of
improving his conduct was given to the petitioner but to no avail, and he continued to conduct himself in like
manner. Thus, the disciplinary authority was left with no option except to pass the order of dismissal of the
petitioner from employment. It cannot be said that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is vindictive in
nature since no instance of any kind has been cited by the petitioner in this regard.
18.
In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the
2022 LLR page 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held: once the enquiry finding is held to be fair and
proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment
unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of conduct” But here, in the present case the
conduct of the Petitioner was so grave and serious. That too due to his conduct of being habitual absentee the
work of Respondent company suffered a lot and the Respondent was left with no option except ot pass the
dismissal order of the workman. Therefore, in these circumstances, the punishment of dismissal of the
Petitioner/workman is commensurate to the conduct of the Petitioner.
19.
In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraph, it can be held that the impugned order need not
be interfered with. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought for.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
20.
Point No.II & III: In view of the discussion of the material on record and the finding arrived at while
deciding Point No. I, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought for and he is also not entitled to
reinstatement into service, back wages, or continuity of service.
Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.
ORDER
In that result, the petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the
31st day of January, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
597
नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023
का.आ. 323.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सीएल. 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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 80/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल- 22013/01/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023
S.O. 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/02/2023
[No. L-22013/01/2023 -IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 80/2008
Between:
Sri Mary Rayalingu,
S/o Venkaty,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad .
…Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Yellandu Area, Yellandu, Khammam District.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
21 Incline, Yellandu Area,
Yellandu, Khammam District. ….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
Sri Mary Rayalingu who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries
598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Company Ltd.. seeking or declaring the proceeding No. YLD/Per/22/1837 dated 26.7.2008 issued by
Respondent No.l and consequential proceedings No.YLD/ 21 Inc/NR /2923 dated 26.7.2007 (2008) issued by
the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,
back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed in the 1 Respondent’s company on 9.3.1982 and later
he was converted and confirmed as General Mazdoor with effect from 1.1.1986, till 26.7.2008. While so. he
was issued with a charge sheet dated 17.4.2007 alleging that, he has falsely declared himself as Mary
Rayalingu, S/o Venkaty and got employment in the 1st Respondent company and it was also alleged that the
Petitioner did not disclose the actual facts to the Employment Exchange authorities while getting registered his
name. The Petitioner Thereafter. an submitted his explanation to the charge sheet denying the charges. Enquiry
was conducted, wherein no witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer, except recording the statement of
the Presenting Officer and statement of the Petitioner. Though the management relied upon documents like
Ex.MI to Ex.Ml6, none of the documents were either furnished or shown to the Petitioner either before or
during the course of enquiry. During the enquiry, the Petitioner categorically pleaded that, he was given in
adoption to Sri Mary Venkati, when he was 8 years old, consequently his name was changed and he was known
as Mary Rayalingu. He got registered his name in the Employment Exchange on the same name i.e., Mary
Rayalingu. He has also produced the identity cards issued to him and his wife Smt. Mary Savitramma, the
secondary school certificates of his son and daughter, the decree passed in OS No.658 of 2007 to show that his
name is Mary Rayalingu. The whole enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a
predetermined intention to put the Petitioner to extreme hardship of removal from service. The procedure of
enquiry was not explained to the Petitioner and he was not offered the assistance of any defence assistant. Had
the procedure of enquiry was explained, he could have participated in the enquiry more effectively. As a result
of the improper conduct of enquiry, Petitioner is put to great prejudice. No opportunity was given to the
Petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf. The enquiry was conducted in the language not known to the
Petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, in so far as the documents produced by the
Presenting Officer, and non-contradiction on the part of the Petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that
Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation on the enquiry report dated 3.3.2008. Petitioner has submitted
his reply on 16.3.2008/18.3.2008. Without considering the submissions made by the Petitioner, impugned
proceeding dated 26.7.2008 was issued removing the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 27.7.2008. Relying upon
the removal order, the 2nd Respondent issued consequential proceeding dated 26.7.2008 removing the name of
the Petitioner from the rolls of the company. It is submitted that Petitioner is known as Mary Rayalingu from
his childhood, he was considered for appointment consequent upon his name being sent by the employment
exchange. Much prior to referring to his name to the company, the Petitioner’s name was registered in the
employment exchange. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner in his family,
consisting of wife and children. Due to his removal from service, his whole family rendered without livelihood.
Hence, it is prayed to declare the impugned order dated 26.7.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent and
consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same. The
Respondents be directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all other consequential benefits such as back
wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying_the averments_made in the petition, with the averments
in brief which runs as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent company and subsequently absorbed as General Mazdoor. The
Petitioner was issued with a charge sheet under company's Standing Order Nos. 25.10 and 25.10a which reads
as follows:
“25.10
-Giving of false information regarding one's name and father's name, qualification etc., in
connection with his employment.
25.10
a-
Impersonation."
The enquiry was conducted on different dates and finally completed on 30.12.2007. The Petitioner has not
availed the opportunity of defence assistant in the enquiry. The Petitioner fully participated in the enquiry
proceedings. As per his request, the Enquiry Officer explained all the stages of the enquiry proceedings in
Telugu language and the Petitioner made no objection in recording enquiry proceedings in English language.
The Presenting Officer has given his statement and marked 16 documents, copies of which were given to the
Petitioner, and he acknowledged the receipt of all the exhibits. The Petitioner cross examined the Presenting
Officer and the Presenting Officer has also cross examined the Petitioner during the course of enquiry. During
cross examination the Petitioner admitted that his parents are Singanaboine Lalaiah and Yesamma. The
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
599
Petitioner stated that he himself does not know the adoption and did not follow the legal procedure and the
certificate which was taken by him is in the year 2007 i.e., at time of his appointment. The statement of the
Petitioner reflects that he has not informed his original name either to the Employment Exchange or to the
management at the time of appointment. The Petitioner also admitted that the adoption certificate was taken on
a white paper for the purpose of the suit and entered into compromise before the Principal Judicial Magistrate,
Kothagudem. The original certificates issued by Gram Sarpanch reveal that his name is Singanaboine
Venkatanaryana. Sri Ramachandru his brother-in-Law also stated that he married the sister of Sri Singanaboine
Venakatanarayana who secured the employment as Mare Rayalingu. On 22.2.2006 the MRO on the letters of
vigilance Department confirmed that the photograph of Sri Mare Rayalingu pasted for verification is as
Singanaboine Venkatanarayana. The Petitioner has seen the audio and video cassette telecasted before him. The
Petitioner was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case. He has not produced any witness
on his behalf. The Petitioner has affixed his signature on the proceedings after having been satisfied himself that
the proceedings were recorded properly. Hence, it is clear that the enquiry has been conducted fairly and the
same is legal and valid. As such, basing on the enquiry report, his services were terminated w.e.f. 27.7.2008.
It is submitted that that one of the terms of appointment is that during his service in the company if it is found
that he has furnished wrong information with regard to his name, surname, father’s name, caste etc., his services
will be terminated automatically form the Respondent company. In fact, the name of the Petitioner is
Singanaboine Venaktanarayana, S/o Pedda Lalaiah, R/o Samshabad, H/o Govindapur, Nallabelli Mandal,
Warangal District. The Petitioner fraudulently managed the employment exchange Authorities and got
recruitment through employment exchange authorities and got employment on the name of Mari Rayalingu. In
view of the above, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated
21.4.2017.
5.
Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
in support of their claim. Heard. Perused the record.
6.
In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:
I.
Whether the Petitioner/ workman was legally adopted by Sri Mary Venkati as he averred in his claim
statement ?
II.
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service to
Sri Mary Rayalingu, S/o Venkati is legal and justified?
III.
If not, to what other relief he is entitled?
7.
Point No.I: As per the claim petition, the case of the Petitioner is that, he was adopted by Sri Mary
Venkati at the age of 8 years. He is known as Mary Rayalingu since long time. The burden of proof to prove
the averment of the claim statement that he has been validly adopted by Sri Mary Venkati and he is known as
Mary Rayalingu since the age of 8 years, is upon the claimant. But the Petitioner /workman has not produced
any order of adoption obtained from any competent authority or court of law.
8.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed written arguments, wherein he
has contended that the workman/claimant has obtained the employment in Respondent company by mis-
representation and fraudulent means. His actual name is Singanaboina Venkatanarayana, but he
misrepresented himself as Mary Rayalingu, S/o Mary Venkaty. It is further contended that Respondent got
verification Mandal Revenue Officer and it is clear from the report that the workman’s real name is
Singanaboina Venkatanarayana, but not Mary Rayalinghu. Thus, he has misrepresented and personified himself
to be as Mary Rayalingu. It is also an offence under the criminal/penal law.
9.
The Respondent has conducted the enquiry against the claimant/workman and in the enquiry he was
given the hearing opportunity and the Enquiry Officer following the procedure and principles of natural justice
have come to the conclusion that the workman is found to be guilty for obtaining the employment by fraudulent
means and mis-representation. The domestic enquiry has been held valid and legal vide order dated 21.4.2017.
Further, it is argued that the show cause notice was issued to the delinquent workman after conclusion of the
enquiry and he was given the hearing opportunity. Keeping in view of the reasons and gravity of misconduct
by the workman, the Disciplinary Authority opted to impose the major punishment of termination of workman
Sri Mary Rayalingu from the employment. Hence, punishment imposed is justified and legal.
10.
Perused the impugned order by which the workman has been terminated from employment. The
Disciplinary Authority in his order has mentioned that show cause notice was issued to the workman and
hearing opportunity was also given to the workman and thereafter passed the order.
600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Chairman and Managing Director, Coal Indian Limited and
another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5762-5763 of 2009, decided on 24.8.2009
has held, “One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be:
would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable
employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other
relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”
12.
In Indian Oil corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora dated 5.2.1997, the Apex
Court have held, “the Enquiry Officer on appraisal of the materials before him held that the Respondent was
actively involved and a brain behind procuring false medical certificates and medical bills not only for himself
but for other employees and on the basis of which the reimbursement claims were made by the Respondent
and other employees. The corporation sanctioned these reimbursement claims of the various employees which
had resulted into monetary loss to the corporation. Before the Enquiry Officer except the Respondent other
employees of the corporation admitted the charges and consequently a minor penalty was awarded to them.
The Respondent contested the charges leveled against him and denied that he was instrumental in cheating or
committing forgery of the medical bills. On consideration of report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view in respect of other employees. Having regard to the involvement of
the Respondent in the entire episode, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the penalty dismissal from
service. The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the Respondent was also affirmed
by the Appellate Authority.”
13.
Petitioner contended that Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority proceeded with pre-conceived
notion, biased. As if the Petitioner accepted the charge alleged against him which is actually incorrect. Neither
the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority considered the submission made by the Petitioner before
arriving at a conclusion. It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer relied upon the evidence of Presenting
Officer who has no personal knowledge of the charge lodged against the Petitioner. Though the Enquiry
Officer relied upon several documents, none of the witnesses connected with those documents were examined.
It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the documents
filed by the claimant and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The enquiry officer grossly erred in
considering the statements obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry to decide the guilt of the
petitioner. It is to submit that, the statements obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry would become
redundant, once a decision is taken to hold the regular enquiry. Therefore, unless the relevant witnesses are
examined in the regular enquiry, providing due opportunity of cross examination, the statements obtained
during the preliminary enquiry, cannot be relied upon. Secondly, the workman has submitted that the petitioner
is the sole breadwinner in his family, consisting of wife and children. As a result of petitioner's removal from
service, his whole family rendered without any livelihood. With great respect and humility petitioner humbly
submits that, petitioner has not obtained employment by falsely declaring him as Mary Rayalingu. Petitioner is
not gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of dismissal to till date. Petitioner and his family members have
become burden to one and all, on account of his removal from service. Assuming without admitting that charge
alleged against the petitioner was rightly held proved, even then, the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon'ble
Court to modify the punishment of removal, to that of any other lesser penalty, so as to survive himself and to
look after his family.
14.
The Petitioner could not indicate or pointed out any single instance that Enquiry Officer was perceived
notion bias to him or prejudice. Further, the Petitioner himself has admitted the fact that his real name is
Singanaboine Venaktanarayana, S/o Pedda Lalaiah, R/o Samshabad, H/o Govindapur, Nallabelli Mandal,
Warangal District. Hence, the evidence of Presenting Officer was found sufficient to prove charge against him.
Further, the Petitioner himself has put the fact of his adoption by Sri Mary Venkaty. Therefore, he has to prove
his averment of adoption as this fact is matter of special knowledge of him.
15.
Perused the report of Disciplinary Authority i.e., removal order wherein it is mentioned as under:
“8. You have received the above letter and submitted your representation vide your letter 3 cited above and the
same has been examined and found to be not satisfactory.
9. The Report of the Enquiry Officer and all connected papers have been carefully considered and I concur with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding you guilty of misconduct under Company's Standing orders 25.10 &
25.10 (A).
10. I have gone through your past record and found no extenuating circumstances to take lenient view in the
matter.”
16.
The workman in his claim petition has averred that he was adopted by Shri Mary Venkaty at
the age of 8 years and he is known as Mary Rayalingu for a long time. As per law, the burden of proof to prove
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
601
the fact that he was legally adopted by Mary Venkaty is on the claimant to prove his averment of adoption.
Even during the inquiry, the petitioner categorically pleaded that he was given in adoption to Shri Mary
Venkaty when he was 11 years old and consequent upon his adoption, the adopting father changed his name to
Mary Rayalingu. Since childhood, he is known as Mare Rayalingu. Further, it is contended that the petitioner
registered his name in the employment exchange and he was invited to participate in the process of selection in
the First Respondent Company for appointment to the post of Badli Filler. In support of his case, the petitioner
also produced the identity card issued to him and his wife, Smt. Mary Savitramma. He has also produced the
secondary school certificate of his son and his daughter. Apart from various other documents he has produced
copy of decree passed in OS No. 658 of 2007 to show that his name is Mary Rayalingu. Petitioner submitted
that without considering any of the submissions made by the Petitioner, the Inquiry Officer concluded his
proceedings and submitted his report. It is also contended that no witness could be produced on behalf of
Presiding Officer to substantiate the charge alleged the petitioner deposed before the Inquiry Officer and
categorically pleaded that his name is Mary Rayalingu and he was adopted by Sri Mary Ventaky during the
year 1960. It is also contended by the petitioner that the onus of proof is on the person who alleges but not on
the charge sheeted employee. The findings of the Inquiry Officer is liable to be treated as perverse in nature,
and the impugned order of removal issued by Discipline Authority based on such perverse finding is liable to be
set aside. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced a number of citations: i) GM SCCL Ltd.
Kalyankhani, Adilabad v. Mohd. Farid 2011 ALD 442 ii) Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Ludbud Singh
AIR 1972 SC 1031 In both cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the allegation of misconduct is
levelled against a person. It is the primary duty of the person making those allegations to establish the same and
not for an accused to adduce negative evidence to the effect that he is not guilty. Similarly, other citations have
also been produced. The law regarding burden of proof has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
17.
In the present matter the petitioner Mary Rayalingu who was a workman of the respondent company
was issued charge sheet dated 17.04.2007 with the charge of misconduct as follows:- “a) You have falsely
declared yourself as “Mary Rayalingu S/o Sri Venkaty, R/o Babu Camp, Kothagudem, Khammam District and
got employment in Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., without disclosing the facts to Employment Exchange
Authorities in getting employment card on the name of Sri Mary Rayalingu S/o Sri Venkaty, through which you
have got recruitment in the year 1982 as “Badli Coal Filler”. b) In fact your name is “Singanaboina Venkata
Narayana S/o Peda Lalaiah R/o Shamshabad, H.O. Govindapur, Nallabelly Mandal of Warangal (District). In
order to get employment in SCCL., you have managed Employment Exchange Authorities and got recruitment
through employment exchange in the name of Sri Mary Rayalingu, S/o Sri Venkaty.”
18.
In response to the alleged charge, the petitioner by filing his explanation has admitted the fact that his
name was Singanaboina Venkata Narayana S/o Peda Lalaiah R/o Shamshabad, H.O. Govindapur, Nallabelly
Mandal of Warangal (District), but he has put averment that he was adopted by Sri Venkaty in his childhood at
the age of 8 years and since then he is known as Mary Rayalingu S/o Venkaty. During the inquiry, when the
workman examined himself as a witness deposed in examination and cross-examination that he was adopted by
Sri Venkaty R/o Babu Camp, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Thus the fact as alleged in the charge sheet
against the petitioner that his name was Singanaboina Venkata Narayana S/o Peda Lalaiah, but he obtained the
employment in the respondent company in the name of Mary Rayalingu S/o Sri Venkaty is found to be proved
in view of admission made by Petitioner. This fact that he had been adopted by Sri Venkaty as his son in his
childhood is within the knowledge of the petitioner and as per law, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to
prove the factum of his adoption by Sri Venkaty. Because the fact of his adoption and change of his name as
well as of his father’s name is within the special knowledge of Petitioner and burden to prove the fact lies on
Petitioner u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
19.
As far as condition for valid adoption is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghasilal v.
Dhopu Bai Civil Appeal No. 6373-6374/2 of 2002 decided on dated 12.01.2011, have held:- “25. In support
of his claim that he had been adopted by Gopalji, Ghisalal appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined
PW-2 Omkar Lal, PW-3 Devram and PW-4 Ramniwas. He produced copy of the deed of adoption (Exhibit P-1),
the plaint (Exhibit P-21) of Suit No.76A of 1964 filed by Pannalal in which he and Gopalji were impleaded as
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and copies of the written statements (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) filed in that suit. He also
examined PW-5 Gumbhir Singh, PW-6 Hiralal, PW-7 Ramchander Sharma, PW-8 Imdad Ali, PW-9
Moolchand, PW-10 Soorajmal and PW-11 Dhoolchand to prove these documents. According to Ghisalal, he
was taken in adoption at the age of 5-6 years. He gave description of the adoption ceremonies by stating that
his natural father, Kishanlal had made him to sit in the lap of Gopalji and the latter accepted him as the
adopted son. In paragraph 3 of his statement, Ghisalal gave out that the adoption ceremonies were performed
in village Jeeran on the road in front of the house of Gopalji and about 25 to 30 persons including PW-2 Omkar
Lal, PW-3 Devram were present. Dhapubai categorically stated that Gopalji had not obtained her consent for
the adoption of Ghisalal and that she had not gone to tehsil for the purpose of registry.
602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2023/ PHALGUNA 20, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
In Civil Appeal No.8814 OF 2010, M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla Devi (Dead), the Apex Court held,
“A plain reading of the above provisions would make it clear that compliance of the conditions in Chapter I of
the Act of 1956 is mandatory for an adoption to be treated as valid. The two important conditions as mentioned
in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof
of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. The Appellant admitted in her evidence that she does
not have the proof of the ceremony of giving and taking of her in adoption. Admittedly, there is no pleading in
the plaint regarding the adoption being in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That apart, the
Respondent who is the adoptive [10] mother has categorically stated in her evidence that the Appellant was
never adopted though she was merely brought up by her and her husband. Even the grand- mother of the
Appellant who appeared before the Court as PW-3 deposed that the Appellant who lost her parents in her
childhood was given to the Respondent and her husband to be brought up. PW 3 also stated in her evidence that
the Appellant was not adopted by the Respondent and her husband. Therefore, the Appellant had failed to prove
that she has been adopted by the Respondent and her husband Narasimhulu Naidu.”
21.
However, in the present matter, the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding his lawful
adoption by Sri Venkaty and he did not aver in his claim statement regarding his adoption by Sri Venkaty,
Therefore, Petitioner failed to prove his claim by producing any evidence that there was a ceremony of giving
and accepting the child in adoption, was held and the consent of the mother was obtained as per provision of
Section 7 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Therefore, for in the want of legal evidence of adoption
the Inquiry Officer rightly held that the Petitioner managed the Employment Exchange Authorities and got
recruitment through Employment Exchange in the name of Sri Mary Rayalingu S/o Sri Venkaty and the same
amounts to misconduct as per Company’s Standing Order No. 25(10) and 25(10)(a) which reads as follows:-
“25(10) Giving of false information regarding ones name, age, father’s name, qualification, etc. in
connection with his employment. 25(10)(a) Impersonation.” Thus, the aforesaid conduct as alleged in the
charge sheet amounts to misconduct as per Company’s Standing Order No. 25(10) and 25(10)(a) and the same
is proved during the Inquiry and consequently the punishment of removal was awarded to the workman for his
misconduct.
22. The petitioner contended that he had produced various other documents in support of his claim before the
Inquiry such as a decree passed in OS No. 658 of 2007 to show that his name is Mary Rayalingu, but without
considering any of the submissions made by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer concluded the proceedings and
submitted his report. From the perusal of the claimed statement, it reveals that the petitioner was initially
appointed in the first respondent company on 09.03.1982 and later he was converted and confirmed as General
Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.01.1986, but from the perusal of the document decree, it appears that it was a compromise
decree between Mary Rayalingu’s adopted son of Late Mary Venkaty (Plaintiff) and Mekala Mallesh S/o Late.
Mekala Komallu. A Civil Case No. OS 658/2007 was filed by workman against Mekala Mallesh on 04.10.2007
in the Court of Principal Jr. Civil Division at Kothagudem and it got decided on 09.10.2007 within the short
span of five days. It seems that this case was filed by the petitioner collusively against the defendant Mekala
Mallesh in order to create the evidence of his adoption in collusion of the defendant and the same got decided
between the plaintiff and the defendant as per the terms of compromise filed by both parties. In this case also,
no evidence of lawful adoption was given by the workman, and no declaration of his lawful adoption was made
by the court in the said OS No.658/2007 as per the provisions of law and principle laid down by the Apex
Court in Khasilal v. Dogu Bai. Therefore, the copy of the compromise decree passed in OS No. 658/2007
does not support/prove the case of the petitioner that he was legally adopted son of Sri Mary Venkaty.
Thus, this Point No.I is decided negatively against the workman.
23.
Point No. II: This point pertains to the question whether the action of the management of M/s
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Mary Rayalingu
S/o Venkaty is legal and justified. In this regard, peruse the record, the validity of the domestic inquiry had
been held as valid by the Court by order dated 21.04.2017 which remains unchallenged. From the perusal of the
record, it reveals that the petitioner was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceeding which he availed
and he never raised any objection complaining causing of any kind of prejudice to him. Moreover, he received
all the paper/documents filed and relied upon by the respondent in support of the charge sheet. The petitioner
also filed his reply and cross-examined the employer’s witnesses and also examined his witness in defence.
Further, it reveals that Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence recorded during the inquiry, and after careful
scrutiny of the evidence, he has submitted his reasoned report holding the Petitioner guilty of charges levelled
against him. Thus, in the opinion of this court, no case is made out to hold that domestic inquiry suffers from
any procedure lapses or was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the charge levelled
against the workman was held proved in the domestic inquiry. Now, let us see whether the punishment inflicted
upon the petitioner by passing the order of removal from the service is legal and just or disproportionate. In this
regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 11, 2023/ फाल्गुन 20, 1944
603
Civil Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided on 24.08.2009 have held:- “One of the test to be applied while
dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such
punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration
measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant
matters before imposing punishment.”
24.
In the present matter, the petitioner got recruitment through Employment Exchange in the name of
Mary Rayalingu S/o Sri Venkaty by falsely declaring himself as Mary Rayalingu without disclosing the fact of
his real name or fact of legal adoption to the Employment Exchange and to the respondent Employers.
Therefore, he committed misconduct as per Company’s Standing Order No. 25(10) 25(10)(a) by impersonation
and giving false information regarding his name, age, father’s name and qualification in connection with
employment. The conduct of the petitioner is not only misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders but
also constitutes a criminal offence under the penal law. It is a matter of trust and therefore, when the
Disciplinary Authority/employer loses the confidence and trust in such an employee who obtained the
employment by concealing his real name and parentage, the dismissal order of such employee cannot be
interfered by Appellate Authority. In like circumstances, a reasonable employer would take a harsh decision
and stern action by the termination of the services of such an employee. Similarly, in the present matter, the
respondent company’s action in issuing the order of removal of the petitioner Sri Mary Rayalingu from the job
on the basis of proven charge after conducting the fair inquiry, is just and fair. In the case of OM Kumar Vs.
Union of India (2001) SCC 386 Hon’ble Apex Court have held: “As per the settled position of Law, unless
there is a procedural irregularity in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and/or the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, then and then only interference with order of
punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority can be done.”
Thus, Point No. II is decided accordingly.
25. Point No. III: In view of the discussion and findings given in Point Nos. I & II, it is clear that claim
petition of the petitioner is unfounded and the petitioner is not entitled for declaration relief of setting aside the
removal order. Hence, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for.
Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment
of dismissal from service to Sri Mary Rayalingu, S/o Venkaty is held legal and justified and hence confirmed.
The workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 30th
day of January, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
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: 2023.03.14 15:10:40 +05'30'